Brandeis University Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies

Brandeis University Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies Millennial Children of Intermarriage: Touchpoints and Trajectories of Jewish Engagement Technical Appendices Theodore Sasson Leonard Saxe Fern Chertok Michelle Shain Shahar Hecht Graham Wright October 2015

Table of Contents Appendix A: Methodology... 1 Appendix B: Identifying Children of Intermarriage and Children of Inmarriage... 8 Appendix C: Analysis Paradigm... 11 Appendix D: Tables... 14 Appendix E: Survey Instrument... 31 Appendix F: Interview Protocol... 92

1 Appendix A: Methodology This appendix describes the methodology and data collection procedures underlying the results of Children of Intermarriage: Touchpoints and Trajectories. Sampling The sample frame for this study is comprised of eligible applicants to Birthright Israel between summer 2009 and winter 2013-14, including both those who went on the trip (hereafter, participants ) and those who applied but did not go (hereafter, nonparticipants ). For individuals who applied to Birthright Israel multiple times during this period, only the most recent eligible application was considered. During this period, 189,129 individuals applied to Birthright Israel: 131,959 were participants and 57,170 were nonparticipants. The frame was stratified by Birthright Israel participation status and (estimated) parental marriage type (children of intermarriage vs. children of inmarriage). Parental marriage type was computed using data collected during Birthright Israel registration. Eight thousand nine hundred and twenty-one individuals were missing one or more of the variables required to compute parental marriage type and 1,554 individuals had a parental marriage type which could not be classified into either intermarriage or inmarriage. These two groups were both excluded from the sampling frame, leaving a frame of 178,654, which was divided into four strata. The classification of individuals as either children of inmarriage or children of intermarriage on the basis of data collected during Birthright Israel registration was done purely for sampling purposes. This classification was necessary in order to facilitate an oversample of individuals who were more likely to be children of intermarriage. All analyses in the published report that divide respondents into children of intermarriage or children of inmarriage do so on the basis of data collected in the survey itself (the manner by which this was done is discussed in Appendix B). It is likely that the 5.5 percent of Birthright Israel applicants (N=10,475) who were excluded from the sample frame because their parental marriage type could not be determined from registration data would have been disproportionately categorized as children of intermarriage had they completed the survey. Three separate and mutually exclusive stratified random samples were drawn from this frame. The first sample of 240 individuals was used for a pilot study to test the instrument and contact procedures and provide estimates of potential response rates. Responses to the pilot study were not used in any reported analyses. The second sample of 12,200 was contacted only by email. The third sample of 606 individuals was contacted by both email and telephone, but only completed the survey online (see below for details of survey administration). Respondents to both of these samples were considered together in reported analyses. The higher response rate for the calling sample allowed for an in-depth analysis of potential nonresponse bias in the larger email-only sample (see below).

2 All three samples were stratified to oversample children of intermarriage and nonparticipants, to ensure that sufficient numbers of both groups would respond to the survey. The precise number of individuals sampled from each strata was determined by a series of calculations that considered the target achieved sample size in each strata, estimated response rate for that strata and CMJS calling capacity. Table 1 below shows the number of individuals sampled in each strata and the total number of individuals in each strata. Table 1. Sample by Strata Strata Pilot Main Study Population Study Email-only Sample Calling Sample Participants- Children of Intermarriage 50 2,000 132 31,987 Participants- Children of Inmarriage 50 2,500 128 93,161 Nonparticipants - Children of Intermarriage 70 3,500 174 17,251 Nonparticipants -Children of Inmarriage 70 4,200 172 36,255 Total 240 12,200 606 178,684 Survey Administration Both surveys were conducted online, using web instruments created in LimeSurvey. The initial email invitations and phone numbers used to contact respondents were collected as part of the Birthright Israel registration process. Although members of the calling sample were contacted over the phone, callers did not actually administer the survey to respondents. In all cases respondents completed the survey independently, online. The median time for survey completion was around 13 minutes. All respondents were informed that upon completion of the full survey they would receive a $20 Amazon.com gift certificate. Upon completion of the survey respondents were asked to provide an email address to which the gift code could be sent. Respondents were given the opportunity to opt-out of receiving a gift card; 10 respondents did so. Contact procedures - Email-only Sample The initial email invitation was sent to all 12,200 members of the email only sample on January 21, 2015. Follow-up email reminders were sent on January 29, February 5, and February 12. Contact procedures - Calling Sample The initial email invitation was sent to all 606 members of the calling sample on January 21, 2015. Follow-up email reminders were sent on January 28 and February 2. On February 4, callers began to contact sample members who had not yet completed the survey. Calling was conducted by experienced callers, primarily Brandeis University students. Callers received special training on interacting with respondents and using CMJS survey management system. All individuals in this sample were called once and were encouraged by callers to complete the survey. Callers left voice messages if they could not

3 reach individuals directly. All individuals were sent an email with a link to the survey following the phone call. Calling operations concluded on February 8. After calling operations were completed, a final email reminder was sent to all population members who had not yet completed the survey on February 12. The survey was closed for both samples on February 17, 2015. Dispositions and Response Rates During the course of the study 14 individuals who completed the survey were found to be ineligible for the study by virtue of their responses: 13 of these individuals were from the email-only sample and one was from the calling sample. These 14 individuals were omitted from all analyses and their respective samples, leaving only 12,187 eligible individuals in the email-only sample and 605 individuals in the calling sample. The tables below report final dispositions and response rates by strata, separately for each sample. Individuals who had at least completed the family background section of the survey were considered partials if they did not complete the remainder of the survey. Individuals who dropped out of the survey prior to the family background section were considered break-offs. Table 2. Email-only sample Participants Children of Intermarriage Participants Children of Inmarriage Nonparticipants Children of Intermarriage Nonparticipants Children of Inmarriage Complete 519 602 693 759 2,573 Partial 9 16 18 38 81 Break-off 30 32 64 64 190 Refusal 82 86 120 161 449 Not Complete 1,359 1,764 2,599 3,172 8,894 Total Eligible 1,999 2,500 3,494 4,194 12,187 Sample AAPOR Response Rate 2 26.4% 24.7% 20.3% 19.0% 21.8% Total

4 Table 3. Calling sample Participants Children of Intermarriage Participants Children of Inmarriage Nonparticipants Children of Intermarriage Nonparticipants Children of Inmarriage Complete 48 53 44 47 192 Partial 1 0 2 1 4 Break-off 6 1 2 3 12 Refusal 5 6 7 8 26 Not Complete 72 68 119 112 371 Total Eligible 132 128 174 171 605 Sample AAPOR Response Rate 2 37.1% 41.4% 26.4% 28.1% 32% Total Nonresponse Analysis Because substantial demographic data from the Birthright Israel registration system exists for all sample members (including nonrespondents), the level of nonresponse bias with respect to these variables can be determined exactly. Because the stratification schemes for the email and calling samples were slightly different the two samples cannot be directly compared to one another. However, by comparing respondents to nonrespondents in each sample separately, it can be determined whether the lower response rate for the larger sample contributed to a significant increase in nonresponse bias on these demographic items. A lower level of nonresponse bias on these demographic items would suggest a lower likelihood of significant nonresponse bias with respect to the survey variables discussed in this report. Within each sample, respondents were compared to nonrespondents with respect to gender, age, current Jewish denomination, and the Birthright Israel round the individual had applied to. Although data on age, gender, and current Jewish denomination were collected in the survey instrument, the values given in the Birthright Israel registration system (which might differ from those provided in the survey for some respondents) were used for nonresponse analysis, since they existed for both respondents and nonrespondents. Because the variables discussed are drawn from administrative data available for the entire sample, reported values have no confidence intervals or sampling error, and it is not appropriate to employ statistical tests to determine whether respondents and nonrespondents are significantly different. The question is rather whether any differences that do exist are large enough to substantively affect analyses.

5 Table 4: Non-Response Analysis: Calling Sample Results Non- Respondents Total Sample Respondents % Female 55% 55% 55% % Reform 39% 37% 38% % Conservative 12% 15% 13% % Orthodox 4% 4% 4% % Reconstructionist 1% 2% 1% % Just Jewish 38% 33% 37% % Other 4% 6% 4% % Sephardic 2% 4% 3% % Round 20 12% 4% 9% % Round 21 6% 6% 6% % Round 22 14% 5% 11% % Round 23 6% 11% 8% % Round 24 11% 14% 12% % Round 25 6% 9% 7% % Round 26 15% 17% 16% % Round 27 8% 12% 9% % Round 28 14% 12% 13% % Round 29 8% 11% 9% Mean Age 26.05 25.67 25.92 As shown in Table 4, there are no substantive differences between respondents and nonrespondents to the calling sample with respect to gender, age, and Jewish denomination. However, there is noticeable bias with respect to round of application, with applicants to more recent rounds more likely to respond. These results echo previous CMJS findings with respect to nonresponse bias in surveys of Birthright Israel applicants.

6 Table 5: Non-Response Analysis: Email-Only Sample Results Non- Respondents Respondents Sample % Female 54% 58% 55% % Reform 37% 36% 37% % Conservative 14% 13% 14% % Orthodox 4% 3% 4% % Reconstructionist 1% 2% 1% % Just Jewish 36% 38% 37% % Other 5% 7% 6% % Sephardic 2% 2% 2% % Round 20 11% 6% 10% % Round 21 5% 5% 5% % Round 22 12% 10% 11% % Round 23 7% 7% 7% % Round 24 13% 11% 12% % Round 25 6% 7% 7% % Round 26 15% 15% 15% % Round 27 8% 11% 9% % Round 28 14% 18% 15% % Round 29 8% 11% 9% Mean Age 25.99 25.99 25.99 Despite its lower response rate, the email-only sample exhibits a similar level of nonresponse bias to the calling sample with respect to the variables discussed. As is often the case in survey research, females were relatively more likely to respond to the email-only sample than males, but the absolute level of bias with respect to gender is small. Nonresponse bias with respect to age and Jewish denomination is low or negligible. As with the calling sample, respondents to earlier rounds were less likely to respond. Weighting It is common for surveys that use disproportionate stratified sampling, like this one, to apply sampling weights to correct for biases in probabilities of selection due to over- or undersampling of respondents in different strata. However, the data reported here are not weighted. Consequently, the analyses reported here do not make use of Stata s svy suite of commands for dealing with weighted survey data. This is because the respondents to this survey are not being used to represent the population from which they were drawn (namely, eligible applicants to Birthright Israel between summer 2009 and winter 2013-14). Rather, they are being used to help explore the relationships between various religious

7 and ethnic measures among young adult American Jews more generally. Because applicants to Birthright Israel are not themselves a random sample of young adults American Jews, correcting for sampling bias alone would not make point estimates estimated by this dataset any more accurate with respect to the overall population of young adult American Jews. For this reason, this report focuses not on point estimates, but on relationships between variables, which are more robust in the face of sample bias. Although weights were not applied, care has been taken to ensure that none of the results reported here were affected by the oversampling of Birthright Israel nonparticipants and children of intermarriage. The regression models that produce the probabilities reported in Figures 16-27 include both parental intermarriage and Birthright Israel participation as independent variables, and thus control for the disproportionate sampling of those two groups. Consequently, frequencies or cross tabulations are only reported for variables that occur prior to Birthright Israel participation, such as childhood engagement, since in these cases the oversampling of Birthright Israel nonparticipants does not significantly impact results, and are reported separately for children of inmarriage and children of intermarriage.

8 Appendix B Identifying Children of Intermarriage and Children of Inmarriage Throughout this report respondents are categorized as either children of intermarriage or children of inmarriage. This categorization was the result of an analysis of the religious identity and upbringing of respondents parents. The analysis had four distinct stages: 1. Identifying parents 2. Determining Jewish status of parents 3. Classifying respondents as children of intermarriage or children of inmarriage 4. Manual coding of complex or ambiguous cases The first stage of analysis involved identifying the parents of each respondent. In 99% of cases the respondent lived with a mother and a father during childhood, although in 21% of cases the parents separated at some point before the respondent left home. The other 1% of cases included single parents (N=23) and other situations such as guardianship (N=9). The second stage of analysis involved determining the Jewish status of each parent. First, a variable was created measuring the Jewish upbringing of each parent, with the following categories: Unambiguously Jewish = 2 Jewish parents, raised Jewish or atheist/agnostic/nothing Child of intermarriage raised Jewish = 1 Jewish parent, raised Jewish Child of intermarriage raised atheist/agnostic/nothing = 1 Jewish parent, raised atheist/agnostic/nothing Child of intermarriage raised other religion = 1 Jewish parent, raised other religion (usually Christian) Unambiguously not Jewish = 2 non-jewish parents, raised atheist/agnostic/nothing or other religion (usually Christian) UNKNOWN = response to question about parents was It s complicated, or raised Jewish and another religion, or raised Jewish by 2 non-jews, or raised other religion by 2 Jews Second, a variable was created measuring the current Jewish status of each parent, with the following categories: JBR (Jewish by religion) = religion is Jewish JNR (Jew of no religion) = religion is atheist/agnostic/nothing, but Jewish or partially Jewish aside from religion Atheist/agnostic/nothing = religion is atheist/agnostic/nothing, not Jewish or partially Jewish aside from religion Other religion = religion is other religion (usually Christian), not Jewish or partially Jewish aside from religion UNKNOWN = religion is other religion (usually Christian) and Jewish or partially Jewish aside from religion, or religion is Jewish and another religion

9 Third, a new variable was created for each parent by the intersection of these two variables, with the following categories Not Jewish Jewish Jewish AFTER respondent age 13 UNKNOWN This was done in the following manner: Raised Unambiguously Jewish Child of intermarriage raised Jewish Child of intermarriage raised atheist/ agnostic/ nothing Child of intermarriage raised other religion Unambiguously not Jewish Current JBR JNR Atheist/ agnostic/ nothing Other religion UNKNOWN Jewish Jewish Jewish UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Jewish Jewish Jewish UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Jewish Jewish UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN IF formal conversion by resp. age 13, then Jewish; IF formal conversion AFTER resp. age 13, then Jewish AFTER resp. age 13; else UNKNOWN IF formal conversion by resp. age 13, then Jewish; IF formal conversion AFTER resp. age 13, then Jewish AFTER resp. age 13; else UNKNOWN Not Jewish Not Jewish UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN The third stage of analysis involved classifying respondents as children of intermarriage or children of inmarriage. For the 99% of cases where the respondent lived with two parents during childhood, this classification was done using the following schema:

10 Father Not Jewish Jewish Jewish AFTER resp. age 13 UNKNOWN Mother Not Jewish Jewish Jewish AFTER resp. age 13 UNKNOWN Intermarried UNKNOWN (N=0) (N=448) (N=0) Intermarried Inmarried Intermarried (N=524) (N=1,341) (N=4) UNKNOWN Intermarried UNKNOWN (N=1) UNKNOWN (N=51) (N=7) UNKNOWN (N=144) (N=0) UNKNOWN (N=1) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN (N=33) UNKNOWN (N=121) UNKNOWN (N=0) UNKNOWN (N=13) Cases of single parents were classified as inmarried if the parent was Jewish, UNKNOWN otherwise, and cases of guardianship and other situations were also classified as UNKNOWN. In addition: There were 158 respondents where either (1) one parent was Jewish and the other parent was raised unambiguously not Jewish and currently identifies as atheist/agnostic/nothing or other religion (usually Christian) and hadn t formally converted to Judaism, but considered him/herself Jewish or partially Jewish aside from religion OR (2) one parent was Jewish and the other parent was raised unambiguously not Jewish and currently identified as Jewish by religion but hadn t formally converted to Judaism. These respondents were classified as intermarried. There were 3 respondents where one parent was Jewish and the other parent was a child of intermarriage raised atheist/agnostic/nothing and currently atheist/agnostic/nothing. These respondents were classified as inmarried. The fourth stage of analysis involved manual coding of complex or ambiguous cases. There were 223 respondents who had been classified as unknown in the analysis above. Three different CMJS researchers independently examined each of the 223 cases, classifying them as either Inmarried, Intermarried or Neither based on an examination of all available data, including open-ended responses. For 100 of these cases 2 or 3 coders were in agreement, and the case was assigned accordingly. All other cases were deemed Neither. One coder then examined 76 cases where data was missing for one or more relevant questions and was able to assign 65 of them to one of the three categories. Finally, all 28 cases where one parent died during the respondent s childhood were reassessed for consistency of coding, and 3 of those cases were moved. After all of these analyses were completed, the resulting variable describing respondents parents was distributed as follows: N Percent Inmarried 1,434 50.5% Intermarried 1,229 43.3% Neither 139 4.9% Missing 36 1.3% Total 2,838 100% This is the variable used in all reported analyses.

11 Appendix C: Analysis Paradigm The findings discussed in Part Two and Part Three of the report are based on a series of regression models, which are presented in Appendix D. Regression models estimate the statistical relationship between a given outcome measure and multiple predictors. These models are then used to calculate predictions that is, the probability of a given outcome is calculated based on different sets of predictors. Regression models The table below describes the independent variables included in these models. Note that the two interaction terms are only included in models where they were found to be significant. Background / Upbringing Variable name Type Description intmarpar Nominal, entered in Parental marriage type: model as two dummy 0=Inmarried variables 1=Intermarried (omitted category) 10=Neither 1 chjewritual_new Interval scale Mokken scale of childhood Jewish ritual practice. Six rituals celebrating Hanukkah, attending a Passover seder, attending religious service monthly, lighting Shabbat candles, having a special meal on Shabbat and keeping kosher were ordered in terms of prevalence and combined into a single Mokken scale with values ranging from 0 to intjewed Nominal, entered in model as two dummy variables 6 (α=0.78). Most intense form of Jewish education 1=None 2=Part-time only (omitted category) 3=Full-time jsocial Interval scale Index of childhood Jewish social opportunities. Four items years of day camp, years of overnight camp, high school youth group membership and most/all close friends Jewish in high school were combined into a single scale with values ranging from -2 to 10 by adding the standard scores (z-scores) of each item (Loevinger s H = 0.60). chbackground Interval scale Index of childhood Christian experiences. Six items celebrating Christmas, attending Christian religious services, having a special Easter meal or giving up an activity or food 1 See Appendix B for details on how these categorizations were established.

12 College taglit Nominal, entered in model as two dummy variables for Lent, receiving formal Christian religious education, celebrating a Christine milestone event (e.g., first communion) and being raised primarily Christian were combined into a single additive scale with values ranging from 0 to 6 (Loevinger s H = 0.68). Birthright Israel participation 1=Nonparticipant 2=Participant < age 22 (omitted category) 3=Participant age 22+ ugradactjew2 Binary At all active in Jewish Groups on campus during college (e.g., Hillel, Chabad) anyjcourse Binary Took a course on Israel, Jewish studies or Hebrew during college intmarpar#taglit* intmarpar#ugrada ctjew2** Interaction between intmarpar and taglit Interaction between intmarpar and ugradactjew2 * Included only in models for celebrating Purim, Jewish peoplehood, connection to Israel, importance of raising children Jewish, and Jewish status of partner. ** Included only in models for Shabbat meals. Linear (ordinary least squares) regression models were used to analyze the Israel favorability and Jewish peoplehood indices. Binary logistic regression models were used to analyze celebration of Rosh Hashanah, Passover, and Purim. Ordered logistic regression models were used to analyze connection to Israel, importance of marrying a Jew and importance of raising Jewish children. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze religious service attendance, proportion of close friends who are Jewish, Hebrew comprehension, having a special meal on Shabbat, religion of partner, and current Jewish identity. Predictions The regression models used in this report estimate the independent effect of a one-unit increase in each predictor on the outcome, holding all other predictors in the model constant. However, the resulting coefficients can be difficult to interpret and may over or underestimate the impact of a given variable in practice when other predictors are generally not constant. To better understand the association between college Jewish experiences and Jewish outcomes later in life for Jewish young adults from different backgrounds, we use these models to generate predictions called predictive margins. Predictive margins are calculated by holding each of the predictors in a model at a specific value and then using the model to estimate the probability that an individual with these characteristics would have a specific outcome. By calculating several such predictive margins, we can estimate how the probability of a certain outcome (such as celebrating Rosh Hashanah) might change if some predictors (such as Jewish background) were held constant, but others (such as Jewish college experience) were changed.

13 Childhood Predictors The predictive margins in this report generally hold the childhood predictors at one of two possible set of values, to reflect the upbringing of a typical child of intermarriage (denoted Taylor in the report), and a typical child of inmarriage (denoted Jordan ). Taylor and Jordan do not represent any specific respondents in the dataset, but rather are statistical constructions of hypothetical individuals with specific background characteristics. Estimates for Taylor hold the background variables at their mean level for children of intermarriage in this dataset, and estimates for Jordan hold the background variables at the mean level for children of inmarriage in this dataset. The table below summarizes what values background variables are held at for Taylor and Jordan. Background variable Value for Taylor Value for Jordan Parental marriage type 1=Intermarried 0=Inmarried Mokken scale of childhood Jewish ritual practice Average for children of intermarriage Average for children of inmarriage Most intense form of Jewish 1=None 2=Part-time only education Index of childhood Jewish social opportunities Average for children of intermarriage Average for children of inmarriage Index of childhood Christian experiences Average for children of intermarriage Average for children of inmarriage College Predictors The three college predictors Birthright Israel participation, being active in Jewish groups on campus, and taking a Jewish studies or Israel-themed undergraduate course are held at different values to estimate outcomes for Taylor or Jordan if either participated in zero, one or all three of those activities. Because there is substantial correlation between participation in different college Jewish experiences, analyses that estimate the impact of an individual who participated in only one activity likely underestimate the full impact of that activity. For example, those who participate in Birthright Israel during college are more likely to be involved with Jewish groups on campus and to take courses in Jewish subjects than those who did not participate in Birthright Israel during college. A predictive margin estimating the experience of going on Birthright Israel but subsequently not engaging in campus Jewish activities is likely an underestimate, as a significant portion of Birthright Israel s impact may manifest itself as an increased desire to participate in campus Jewish groups, which then produces additional impacts.

14 Appendix D: Tables The regression models and analyses that support the results discussed in the report are presented below. The variables appearing in these models are described in the first table in Technical Appendix C. Table 1: Logistic regression morel of participation in Birthright Israel on parental intermarriage and childhood Jewish experiences Logistic regression Number of obs = 2,616 LR chi2(7) = 54.01 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1773.3259 Pseudo R2 = 0.0150 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- participant_update Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried'.1465316.1082759 1.35 0.176 -.0656852.3587484 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.6203155.2454071-2.53 0.011-1.101305 -.1393264 chjewritual_new.0133263.0251314 0.53 0.596 -.0359304.0625829 intjewed None -.1549412.1075814-1.44 0.150 -.3657968.0559144 Full-time -.4523379.1196329-3.78 0.000 -.6868141 -.2178616 jsocial -.0211252.018321-1.15 0.249 -.0570336.0147833 chbackground -.1140412.0356948-3.19 0.001 -.1840017 -.0440807 _cons.001588.1127698 0.01 0.989 -.2194368.2226128 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2: Logistic regression model of participation in college Jewish groups on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and Birthright Israel participation during college Logistic regression Number of obs = 2,423 LR chi2(8) = 347.83 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1505.1616 Pseudo R2 = 0.1036 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ugradactjew2 Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.1940805.1167804-1.66 0.097 -.4229658.0348048 Neither 'inmarried'.. -.7042285.2674657-2.63 0.008-1.228452 -.1800053 chjewritual_new.1408868.0271819 5.18 0.000.0876113.1941622 intjewed None -.4099952.1164103-3.52 0.000 -.6381552 -.1818352 Full-time -.1472102.1310407-1.12 0.261 -.4040453.1096249 jsocial.134845.0209417 6.44 0.000.0938001.17589 chbackground -.0132318.0390423-0.34 0.735 -.0897533.0632896 taglitcol.782043.1102152 7.10 0.000.5660251.9980609 _cons -.3147714.1233004-2.55 0.011 -.5564359 -.073107 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 Table 3: Logistic regression model of taking an undergraduate course on Israel, Jewish studies or Hebrew on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and Birthright Israel participation during college. Logistic regression Number of obs = 2,517 LR chi2(8) = 107.04 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1510.8884 Pseudo R2 = 0.0342 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- anyjcourse Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.0664875.1207313-0.55 0.582 -.3031165.1701415 Neither 'inmarried'.. -.1486265.2624465-0.57 0.571 -.6630122.3657593 chjewritual_new.0826228.0274165 3.01 0.003.0288874.1363581 intjewed None -.2312192.1230191-1.88 0.060 -.4723322.0098937 Full-time.1473651.1242198 1.19 0.235 -.0961011.3908314 jsocial.0885844.0193512 4.58 0.000.0506568.126512 chbackground.0654282.0400725 1.63 0.103 -.0131126.1439689 taglitcol.3298842.1055103 3.13 0.002.1230877.5366806 _cons -1.134679.1287954-8.81 0.000-1.387113 -.8822444 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4: Logistic regression models of Passover celebration on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Logistic regression Number of obs = 2,351 LR chi2(11) = 302.31 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1045.5193 Pseudo R2 = 0.1263 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- holpass Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.0749531.1466277-0.51 0.609 -.362338.2124319 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.4790504.2659298-1.80 0.072-1.000263.0421625 chjewritual_new.298579.0381547 7.83 0.000.2237972.3733607 intjewed None -.3187662.1453043-2.19 0.028 -.6035574 -.033975 Full-time -.328866.1838056-1.79 0.074 -.6891184.0313864 jsocial.0416186.0299561 1.39 0.165 -.0170943.1003316 chbackground -.0128916.0437692-0.29 0.768 -.0986777.0728944 taglit NP -.3944409.1621848-2.43 0.015 -.7123172 -.0765646 P 22+ -.2941046.1800715-1.63 0.102 -.6470383.0588291 ugradactjew2.7817091.1244303 6.28 0.000.5378303 1.025588 anyjcourse.1115285.1283513 0.87 0.385 -.1400354.3630925 _cons.8071539.2115604 3.82 0.000.3925032 1.221805 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 Table 5: Logistic regression models of Rosh Hashanah celebration on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Logistic regression Number of obs = 2,328 LR chi2(11) = 472.33 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1143.4349 Pseudo R2 = 0.1712 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- holrh Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.3084179.135723-2.27 0.023 -.5744301 -.0424058 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.7327384.2644129-2.77 0.006-1.250978 -.2144987 chjewritual_new.2154905.0336734 6.40 0.000.1494919.2814892 intjewed None -.4825164.1326943-3.64 0.000 -.7425924 -.2224405 Full-time -.1881701.1750222-1.08 0.282 -.5312073.154867 jsocial.0941727.0284295 3.31 0.001.0384519.1498935 chbackground -.0299848.0421008-0.71 0.476 -.1125009.0525313 taglit NP -.6525175.1514479-4.31 0.000 -.9493499 -.3556851 P 22+ -.3318046.1692444-1.96 0.050 -.6635175 -.0000916 ugradactjew2.8118788.1127231 7.20 0.000.5909456 1.032812 anyjcourse.3737099.1209167 3.09 0.002.1367175.6107023 _cons.8666344.197337 4.39 0.000.4798609 1.253408 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 Table 6: Logistic regression models of Purim celebration on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Logistic regression Number of obs = 2,266 LR chi2(15) = 376.48 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1075.4705 Pseudo R2 = 0.1490 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- holpur Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried'.0626757.2415101 0.26 0.795 -.4106755.5360268 Neither 'inmarried' nor...6944912.7652479 0.91 0.364 -.8053672 2.19435 taglit NP -.0427529.1583262-0.27 0.787 -.3530666.2675608 P 22+ -.1701759.1975279-0.86 0.389 -.5573234.2169717 intmarpar#taglit 'Intermarried'#NP -.5676157.2833712-2.00 0.045-1.123013 -.0122184 'Intermarried'#P 22+ -.1337158.3234031-0.41 0.679 -.7675741.5001426 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # NP -.5317249.8222702-0.65 0.518-2.143345 1.079895 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # P 22+.0509309 1.029627 0.05 0.961-1.967101 2.068963 chjewritual_new.2691427.0327423 8.22 0.000.204969.3333164 intjewed None -.0117084.1576794-0.07 0.941 -.3207543.2973375 Full-time.6480631.1399767 4.63 0.000.3737139.9224123 jsocial.0694268.0225515 3.08 0.002.0252266.1136269 chbackground -.0370807.0537533-0.69 0.490 -.1424352.0682738 ugradactjew2.608387.1167352 5.21 0.000.3795901.8371838 anyjcourse.2169785.1139384 1.90 0.057 -.0063366.4402936 _cons -2.430224.2074885-11.71 0.000-2.836894-2.023554 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 Table 7: Multinomial logistic regression model of attendance at Jewish religious services on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 2,361 LR chi2(22) = 764.13 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1708.0236 Pseudo R2 = 0.1828 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- relservjew3 Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never intmarpar 'Intermarried'.2137714.13631 1.57 0.117 -.0533913.480934 Neither 'inmarried' nor...3284324.2654439 1.24 0.216 -.1918281.8486928 chjewritual_new -.2090574.0338438-6.18 0.000 -.2753901 -.1427246 intjewed None.672024.1337256 5.03 0.000.4099267.9341213 Full-time.3146593.1750856 1.80 0.072 -.0285022.6578208 jsocial -.0767929.0283676-2.71 0.007 -.1323924 -.0211933 chbackground -.0115324.0422035-0.27 0.785 -.0942497.071185 taglit NP.8401454.1547092 5.43 0.000.5369209 1.14337 P 22+.4076279.1721702 2.37 0.018.0701805.7450752 ugradactjew2 -.992363.1130656-8.78 0.000-1.213967 -.7707585 anyjcourse -.3784469.1212337-3.12 0.002 -.6160606 -.1408332 _cons -.7238621.1987446-3.64 0.000-1.113394 -.33433 ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- A_few_times_a_year (base outcome) ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_a_month_or_more intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.0185338.2343382-0.08 0.937 -.4778282.4407606 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.0225938.657815-0.03 0.973-1.311888 1.2667 chjewritual_new.2970644.0510921 5.81 0.000.1969257.3972032 intjewed None.6060019.2499744 2.42 0.015.116061 1.095943 Full-time.8403386.1845034 4.55 0.000.4787186 1.201959 jsocial.0897414.0298139 3.01 0.003.0313072.1481756 chbackground -.1477774.0912028-1.62 0.105 -.3265316.0309768 taglit NP -.2461439.1761795-1.40 0.162 -.5914495.0991616 P 22+ -.549958.2340689-2.35 0.019-1.008725 -.0911913 ugradactjew2.7567346.1846826 4.10 0.000.3947633 1.118706 anyjcourse.0656761.1609701 0.41 0.683 -.2498195.3811717 _cons -3.678439.3157267-11.65 0.000-4.297251-3.059626 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19 Table 8: Multinomial logistic regression model of having a special meal on Shabbat on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 2,366 LR chi2(26) = 765.18 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1879.2968 Pseudo R2 = 0.1691 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- shabmeal3 Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never (base outcome) ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.178872.1566932-1.14 0.254 -.4859851.128241 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.0158185.3099728-0.05 0.959 -.623354.591717 ugradactjew2 1. Yes.5608451.1382429 4.06 0.000.289894.8317962 intmarpar#ugradactjew2 'Intermarried'#1. Yes.4701862.1965668 2.39 0.017.0849223.8554501 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # 1. Yes 2.104703.6935408 3.03 0.002.745388 3.464018 chjewritual_new.328162.0309065 10.62 0.000.2675864.3887376 intjewed None.2822937.1285477 2.20 0.028.0303449.5342426 Full-time -.0290159.1554113-0.19 0.852 -.3336164.2755847 jsocial.0544881.0235323 2.32 0.021.0083656.1006106 chbackground -.0561679.0418714-1.34 0.180 -.1382344.0258987 taglit NP -.654954.1271418-5.15 0.000 -.9041473 -.4057607 P 22+ -.256657.1431809-1.79 0.073 -.5372864.0239723 anyjcourse.0996185.1065883 0.93 0.350 -.1092907.3085278 _cons -.84179.1795702-4.69 0.000-1.193741 -.489839 ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Usually_always intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.5723699.3685947-1.55 0.120-1.294802.1500624 Neither 'inmarried' nor...6650604.6051987 1.10 0.272 -.5211073 1.851228 ugradactjew2 1. Yes.7917889.2185995 3.62 0.000.3633417 1.220236 intmarpar#ugradactjew2 'Intermarried'#1. Yes.534538.4126372 1.30 0.195 -.2742161 1.343292 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # 1. Yes.9544815 1.086354 0.88 0.380-1.174733 3.083696 chjewritual_new.5878738.0539621 10.89 0.000.4821101.6936376 intjewed None 1.230086.253297 4.86 0.000.7336328 1.726539 Full-time 1.235299.2099097 5.88 0.000.8238831 1.646714 jsocial.1401943.0339726 4.13 0.000.0736093.2067794 chbackground -.2138068.0920896-2.32 0.020 -.3942992 -.0333144 taglit

20 NP -.6960808.1994491-3.49 0.000-1.086994 -.3051677 P 22+ -.6868172.2535488-2.71 0.007-1.183764 -.1898707 anyjcourse.6667758.1731166 3.85 0.000.3274735 1.006078 _cons -4.112137.3406356-12.07 0.000-4.779771-3.444504 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 9: Ordered logistic regression model of connection to Israel on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Ordered logistic regression Number of obs = 2,350 LR chi2(15) = 660.77 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -2861.104 Pseudo R2 = 0.1035 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- conisrn Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried'.2097912.1828998 1.15 0.251 -.1486859.5682683 Neither 'inmarried' nor...7852813.6381798 1.23 0.219 -.4655281 2.036091 taglit NP -.9823618.1296341-7.58 0.000-1.23644 -.7282837 P 22+ -.0327914.154755-0.21 0.832 -.3361057.2705228 intmarpar#taglit 'Intermarried'#NP -.8680934.2066991-4.20 0.000-1.273216 -.4629706 'Intermarried'#P 22+ -.1703574.2341587-0.73 0.467 -.6292999.2885851 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # NP -.8955145.6692859-1.34 0.181-2.207291.4162617 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # P 22+ -.2782047.7868679-0.35 0.724-1.820437 1.264028 chjewritual_new.1441329.024469 5.89 0.000.0961746.1920913 intjewed None.2932153.1048651 2.80 0.005.0876834.4987472 Full-time.7840569.118494 6.62 0.000.551813 1.016301 jsocial.1049297.0182967 5.73 0.000.0690688.1407905 chbackground.0077526.0345082 0.22 0.822 -.0598821.0753874 ugradactjew2.4182131.0834531 5.01 0.000.254648.5817783 anyjcourse.4056423.0852281 4.76 0.000.2385982.5726864 ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1-1.568486.1556273-1.87351-1.263462 /cut2.3733251.1510247.0773221.6693281 /cut3 1.809453.155575 1.504532 2.114375 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 Table 10: Linear regression model of the Israel favorability index on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Source SS df MS Number of obs = 2,305 -------------+---------------------------------- F(11, 2293) = 39.22 Model 374.192218 11 34.0174744 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual 1988.92618 2,293.867390395 R-squared = 0.1583 -------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.1543 Total 2363.11839 2,304 1.02565902 Root MSE =.93134 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- isrindex Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.2399625.0527266-4.55 0.000 -.3433593 -.1365657 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.0862103.1098654-0.78 0.433 -.3016563.1292356 chjewritual_new.0479752.0123321 3.89 0.000.0237918.0721585 intjewed None.141383.053197 2.66 0.008.0370638.2457022 Full-time.3683759.0580125 6.35 0.000.2546135.4821383 jsocial.0593417.0091221 6.51 0.000.0414532.0772302 chbackground.0123235.0172313 0.72 0.475 -.021467.046114 taglit NP -.2745647.0507674-5.41 0.000 -.3741194 -.17501 P 22+ -.049443.0586239-0.84 0.399 -.1644044.0655184 ugradactjew2.2749034.0422835 6.50 0.000.1919856.3578213 anyjcourse.0310509.0430885 0.72 0.471 -.0534455.1155474 _cons 2.883394.0715681 40.29 0.000 2.743049 3.023739 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 11: Multinomial logistic regression model of Hebrew comprehension on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 2,367 LR chi2(22) = 1760.72 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1545.4007 Pseudo R2 = 0.3629 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hebrew3 Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Don_t_know_letters intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.1662351.1712221-0.97 0.332 -.5018243.1693541 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.5381411.3649484-1.47 0.140-1.253427.1771447 chjewritual_new -.3116117.0399386-7.80 0.000 -.3898899 -.2333336 intjewed None 3.259085.1639672 19.88 0.000 2.937715 3.580455 Full-time.9803076.1978693 4.95 0.000.5924909 1.368124 jsocial -.0447735.032843-1.36 0.173 -.1091446.0195976 chbackground.0978491.0569496 1.72 0.086 -.01377.2094682 taglit NP.4425817.1764446 2.51 0.012.0967567.7884068

22 P 22+.3562053.1983612 1.80 0.073 -.0325755.744986 ugradactjew2 -.4705069.1366955-3.44 0.001 -.7384252 -.2025887 anyjcourse -.2187772.1465478-1.49 0.135 -.5060055.0684512 _cons -.9023692.2270825-3.97 0.000-1.347443 -.4572956 ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Letters_only (base outcome) ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Some_comprehension intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.0799164.1885638-0.42 0.672 -.4494948.2896619 Neither 'inmarried' nor...0355929.4921029 0.07 0.942 -.928911 1.000097 chjewritual_new.1970456.0407171 4.84 0.000.1172415.2768497 intjewed None 1.341154.2291803 5.85 0.000.8919692 1.790339 Full-time 1.665267.1525428 10.92 0.000 1.366288 1.964245 jsocial.0876931.0263733 3.33 0.001.0360024.1393839 chbackground -.1565887.0754451-2.08 0.038 -.3044584 -.0087189 taglit NP.0628966.1596881 0.39 0.694 -.2500864.3758795 P 22+.1104556.1920329 0.58 0.565 -.265922.4868333 ugradactjew2.1840982.1436207 1.28 0.200 -.0973932.4655896 anyjcourse.5478183.1368593 4.00 0.000.279579.8160576 _cons -2.750686.2480308-11.09 0.000-3.236818-2.264555 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23 Table 12: Linear regression model of the Jewish peoplehood index on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Source SS df MS Number of obs = 2,357 -------------+---------------------------------- F(15, 2341) = 47.16 Model 816.467153 15 54.4311435 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual 2701.70914 2,341 1.15408336 R-squared = 0.2321 -------------+---------------------------------- Adj R-squared = 0.2272 Total 3518.17629 2,356 1.49328366 Root MSE = 1.0743 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- peoplehood Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- intmarpar 'Intermarried'.0682882.10676 0.64 0.522 -.1410659.2776422 Neither 'inmarried' nor...140848.3512062 0.40 0.688 -.5478595.8295555 taglit NP -.198185.074775-2.65 0.008 -.3448171 -.0515529 P 22+ -.0634986.0907069-0.70 0.484 -.2413728.1143755 intmarpar#taglit 'Intermarried'#NP -.3961939.1193764-3.32 0.001 -.6302884 -.1620995 'Intermarried'#P 22+.0062805.1363464 0.05 0.963 -.2610916.2736527 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # NP -.495231.3679643-1.35 0.178-1.216801.2263389 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # P 22+.4811054.4377619 1.10 0.272 -.3773359 1.339547 chjewritual_new.0925.0140888 6.57 0.000.0648722.1201278 intjewed None -.0508605.0607975-0.84 0.403 -.170083.068362 Full-time.0978982.0666688 1.47 0.142 -.0328379.2286343 jsocial.0638088.0104365 6.11 0.000.0433431.0842745 chbackground -.0172877.0196874-0.88 0.380 -.0558942.0213189 ugradactjew2.4737312.0483946 9.79 0.000.3788305.5686318 anyjcourse.1960881.0493683 3.97 0.000.0992779.2928984 _cons 2.735585.0879459 31.11 0.000 2.563125 2.908045 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 Table 13: Multinomial logistic regression model of proportion of close friends Jewish on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 2,368 LR chi2(22) = 577.93 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -1918.5901 Pseudo R2 = 0.1309 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- friendsjew3b Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- None_a_few (base outcome) ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- About_half intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.4467394.1363515-3.28 0.001 -.7139834 -.1794953 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.2079552.2781521-0.75 0.455 -.7531232.3372128 chjewritual_new -.070245.0323145-2.17 0.030 -.1335801 -.0069098 intjewed None -.053185.1409149-0.38 0.706 -.3293733.2230032 Full-time.4529243.1544906 2.93 0.003.1501282.7557203 jsocial.1698481.0251167 6.76 0.000.1206203.2190759 chbackground.0767972.0444434 1.73 0.084 -.0103102.1639046 taglit NP -.1127709.1319009-0.85 0.393 -.3712919.1457502 P 22+ -.1105832.1514644-0.73 0.465 -.4074479.1862815 ugradactjew2.4102586.1092423 3.76 0.000.1961477.6243696 anyjcourse.1053135.1121536 0.94 0.348 -.1145035.3251305 _cons -.7288895.1835944-3.97 0.000-1.088728 -.3690511 ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Most_all intmarpar 'Intermarried' -.7696284.2037904-3.78 0.000-1.16905 -.3702066 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.4211698.4909678-0.86 0.391-1.383449.5411094 chjewritual_new -.0514369.0426565-1.21 0.228 -.1350421.0321682 intjewed None.6484423.2069257 3.13 0.002.2428754 1.054009 Full-time 1.125226.1741355 6.46 0.000.7839269 1.466525 jsocial.3490426.0296153 11.79 0.000.2909977.4070875 chbackground -.2354883.0802424-2.93 0.003 -.3927606 -.078216 taglit NP -.1191236.1669938-0.71 0.476 -.4464254.2081782 P 22+ -.2110723.2035106-1.04 0.300 -.6099457.1878011 ugradactjew2.6268296.1502745 4.17 0.000.3322971.9213622 anyjcourse.4194669.1442432 2.91 0.004.1367554.7021784 _cons -1.74598.2456373-7.11 0.000-2.227421-1.26454 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25 Table 14: Multinomial logistic regression model of Jewish partner on parental intermarriage, childhood Jewish experiences and college Jewish experiences Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 2,344 LR chi2(30) = 191.10 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -2345.4545 Pseudo R2 = 0.0391 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- partner3 Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- No_partner (base outcome) ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Jewish_partner intmarpar 'Intermarried'.1385388.2918813 0.47 0.635 -.4335381.7106157 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.5093558 1.112147-0.46 0.647-2.689124 1.670413 taglit NP.8074347.1873986 4.31 0.000.4401402 1.174729 P 22+.6367416.229338 2.78 0.005.1872474 1.086236 intmarpar#taglit 'Intermarried'#NP -.6555599.3264807-2.01 0.045-1.29545 -.0156696 'Intermarried'#P 22+.0728723.3663042 0.20 0.842 -.6450708.7908153 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # NP -.5981978 1.178308-0.51 0.612-2.90764 1.711244 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # P 22+ 1.129259 1.349719 0.84 0.403-1.516142 3.77466 chjewritual_new -.0597281.0371658-1.61 0.108 -.1325717.0131155 intjewed None.0440485.1648715 0.27 0.789 -.2790936.3671907 Full-time.045209.1642539 0.28 0.783 -.2767228.3671408 jsocial.0599855.0254403 2.36 0.018.0101233.1098476 chbackground -.009172.0567255-0.16 0.872 -.1203521.102008 ugradactjew2.1768401.1275214 1.39 0.166 -.0730973.4267775 anyjcourse.4509256.1248544 3.61 0.000.2062154.6956357 _cons -1.457499.2308238-6.31 0.000-1.909906-1.005093 ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Non_Jewish_partner intmarpar 'Intermarried'.4862258.2269317 2.14 0.032.0414479.9310038 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. -.1241378.7400905-0.17 0.867-1.574689 1.326413 taglit NP.7099286.1694761 4.19 0.000.3777616 1.042096 P 22+.6604503.2005288 3.29 0.001.2674211 1.05348 intmarpar#taglit 'Intermarried'#NP -.4438571.253144-1.75 0.080 -.9400103.0522961 'Intermarried'#P 22+ -.0879134.2901349-0.30 0.762 -.6565674.4807406 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # NP -.2090861.7695384-0.27 0.786-1.717354 1.299182 Neither 'inmarried' nor.. # P 22+.7851578.9557218 0.82 0.411-1.088023 2.658338 chjewritual_new -.0339245.0297272-1.14 0.254 -.0921887.0243397 intjewed None -.2175942.1272686-1.71 0.087 -.467036.0318476 Full-time -.1990081.1470902-1.35 0.176 -.4872997.0892834