Between Altruism and Moral Obligation : The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Family Transfer in Indonesia

Between Altruism and Moral Obligation : The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Family Transfer in Indonesia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Between Altruism and Moral Obligation : The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Family Transfer in Indonesia Aditya Fathurrahman Abdillah, Turro Selrits Wongkaren This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9036422/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study addresses the uncertainty of future parental support caused by the absence of formal contracts and the limitation of pure altruism. It examines how religiosity, via cultural transmission, transforms intergenerational transfers into impure altruism through the utility of warm glow. Utilizing Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) wave five data, the research applies Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (GSEM). The primary unit of analysis consists of Muslim children aged 25 to 50 who live apart from their parents. The empirical results demonstrate that religiosity effectively generates warm glow utility rooted in the fulfillment of moral obligations. However, the impact reveals a sharp gender asymmetry in family support. Religiosity serves as a robust internal commitment device for mothers but remains statistically insignificant for fathers. Consequently, religiosity functions as a reliable family contract enforcement for mothers while remaining fragile for fathers. Social security policies must adopt gender specific approaches to mitigate the risk of crowding out informal family support. Intergenerational Transfer Impure Altruism Warm Glow Religiosity GSEM 1. Introduction Indonesia is currently undergoing a demographic transition toward an aging population, characterized by an increasing old-age dependency ratio that has reached 16.09% (BPS, 2022). This phenomenon poses a significant challenge to the national economy, as formal social protection systems have yet to sufficiently support the growing elderly demographic. Due to limitations in state infrastructure, the family unit remains the primary safety net. Intergenerational transfers serve as the predominant funding source for elderly consumption, particularly for those aged 70 and above (Ananta et al., 2021 ). Beyond the financial strain, the scarcity of affordable long-term care facilities compels the majority of biological children to shoulder the burden of physical caregiving (ADB, 2021). Consequently, identifying the mechanisms that sustain children's commitment to resource allocation is vital. Any failure within the family support system will inevitably jeopardize the future well-being of the elderly. The dynamics of family support are frequently analyzed through the paradigm of pure altruism, which conceptualizes the family as a unitary decision-making entity. This model posits that parents act as altruistic agents who internalize the welfare of all family members into their own private utility functions via an income pooling mechanism (Becker, 1993 ). Within this framework, an altruistic parent can orchestrate economic incentives that compel even egoistic members to act cooperatively, a phenomenon articulated in the Rotten Kid Theorem (Becker, 1993 ). However, this theoretical construct is fraught with fundamental vulnerabilities concerning the risk of long-term commitment failure, primarily due to the absence of formal contracts. Parental altruism may inadvertently incentivize exploitative behavior among other family members, leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation known as the Samaritan’s Dilemma (Bernheim & Stark, 1988 ). In the absence of binding contractual obligations, family protection schemes remain susceptible to collapse precisely when parents lose their economic leverage and require intensive support in their later years (Lindbeck & Weibull, 1988 ). To mitigate commitment failures, parents act strategically by investing in the transmission of guilt and moral obligations. These values serve as essential intergenerational binding instruments (Becker et al., 2016 ). Parents actively socialize these principles to align their children’s preferences with future support expectations, a process that occurs through a mechanism known as imperfect empathy (Bisin & Verdier, 2001 ). This transmission aims to establish identity assets, where a child’s utility is derived from both material consumption and adherence to specific behavioral prescriptions (Akerlof & Kranton, 2000 ). In Muslim societies, this identity is manifested through the principle of Birr al-Walidayn , which carries strong theological sanctions. Violating this norm creates disutility, such as moral burdens and psychological anxiety. As a consequence, resource transfers from children represent a strategic effort to maintain self-identity coherence and avoid the psychological costs of violating religious prescriptions (Chai, 2001 ). The shift in motivation toward religious identity redefines family support as a form of impure altruism, where individuals experience inner satisfaction by complying with religious prescriptions through the warm glow effect (Andreoni, 1989 ). Consequently, transfer actions no longer depend solely on the recipient’s welfare status, as religiosity functions as an identity asset and a commitment device that maintains the stability of family transfers against exploitative tendencies or public assistance programs. However, the resilience of this spiritual safety net is heavily determined by value transmission patterns that operate through three primary channels: vertical interaction between parents and children, institutional exposure in religious schools, and oblique normative pressure from the social environment. Existing literature has not fully explored how transfer preferences are endogenously formed through religious value transmission mechanisms while the role of cultural prescriptions in family transfers has been identified. Previous studies have highlighted identity salience within the family (Wongkaren, 2013 ). Yet a significant analytical gap remains regarding the process by which transmitted religiosity transforms into warm glow utility. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether religiosity as a commitment device applies symmetrically to both parents. Given that the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine provides different hierarchical theological emphases for mothers and fathers, there is a potential for gender asymmetry in transfer decisions (al-Uthaymin, 2017 ). Religiosity may function as an effective contract enforcer for mothers, but it might not hold the same influence for fathers; consequently, neglecting these theological and gender nuances risks producing a biased understanding of family safety net resilience in Indonesia. Based on that urgency, this research aims to bridge the empirical gap by examining the role of religiosity as an identity asset that reshapes child transfer motivations. The study provides an in-depth analysis of how religious value transmission generates warm glow utility, which secures a child's commitment within an impure altruism framework. The focus shifts to testing whether this religious binding mechanism functions symmetrically or asymmetrically toward fathers and mothers who live separately. Furthermore, this research explores the effectiveness of various value transmission channels in shaping these transfer preferences. Such insights are vital for formulating social protection policies in Indonesia, ensuring that state interventions operate alongside the resilience of informal family protection. Ultimately, public policy should be designed to be complementary, avoiding any distortion of existing intergenerational solidarity. 2. Theoretical Framework Conventional economic analysis of household behavior has long been dominated by neoclassical approaches, which often struggle to explain compliance with social prescriptions. This paradigm conceptualizes individuals as Homo Economicus , whose decisions are driven exclusively by the maximization of material utility. However, such models typically fail to accommodate non-material motivations, such as religious adherence that may overlook financial efficiency (Davis, 2003 ). To address this gap, Akerlof and Kranton ( 2000 ) introduced identity economics, a framework that integrates social identity into the individual utility function. An individual’s satisfaction (U j ) is determined not only by the consumption of goods but also by the consistency of their actions with their adopted self-identity (I j ), as formulated in the following function: U j = U j (a j , a − j , I j ) The implications of this equation suggest that individuals achieve a utility gain when their behavior aligns with their identity prescriptions. Conversely, any violation of these standards triggers disutility in the form of psychological anxiety or a diminished sense of self. In religious societies, this framework underpins the dimension of orthopraxy, where religiosity is conceptualized as the integration of internal belief systems and daily moral conduct (El-Menouar, 2014 ). The identity economics framework aligns with the concept of impure altruism as a primary motive behind intergenerational transfers (Andreoni, 1989 , 1990 ). By reconstructing the individual utility function, this approach introduces the variable g i , or warm glow, which represents the intrinsic satisfaction derived directly from the act of giving. Warm glow can be viewed as a manifestation of the utility gain that occurs when an individual adheres to their internalized identity prescriptions. Within this framework, the impure altruism utility function is defined as: U i = U(x i , G, g i ) The act of giving (g i ) is no longer perceived merely as a tool for income redistribution for the recipient (G). Instead, it functions as an instrument for the donor to validate their self-identity. Compliance with identity prescriptions produces a sense of moral warmth for religious individuals. The child's behavior becomes inelastic and is not easily replaced by state aid because these transfers are viewed as a psychological necessity to maintain identity coherence. Consequently, the reliance on such identity-driven motivations significantly minimizes the risk of the crowding out effect. The presence of warm glow prompts an inquiry into the origins of such preferences within a child. Cultural transmission literature characterizes individual preferences as the result of social engineering and strategic parental investments. Bisin and Verdier ( 2001 ) elucidate this phenomenon through the concept of imperfect empathy whereby parents endeavor to synchronize their children’s worldviews with their own value standards to ensure future well-being. Mathematically, the probability of successful value transmission (P ii ) is a function of parental socialization efforts (d i ) and environmental influence (q i ), formulated as follows : P ii = d i + (1-d i )q i This equation confirms that child preferences are shaped entirely by dominant environmental values (q i ) in the absence of active parental socialization (d i = 0). Given that no formal contracts exist to guarantee old-age support, parents rationally invest in instilling guilt and moral obligations through the internalization of religious values (Becker et al., 2016 ). This transmission process operates through three primary channels: vertical transmission within the family, institutional transmission via schools, and oblique transmission through the social environment. External transmission channels, through both educational institutions and communities, play a vital role in reinforcing the internalization of values by providing an environment that supports identity coherence. Religious schools act as identity producers that actively mitigate value erosion caused by exposure to contradictory external cultures (Akerlof & Kranton, 2002 ; Cohen-Zada, 2006 ). Simultaneously, religious communities function as providers of club goods, implementing high participation standards and social sanctions to screen their members (Iannaccone, 1992 ; Carvalho, 2016 ). These mechanisms establish a homogeneous social ecosystem that exerts pressure on children to remain aligned with the collective identity. Intensive interaction within this ecosystem facilitates the accumulation of religious human capital whereby the utility of religious practices increases alongside the intensity of social engagement (Iannaccone, 1990 ). This accumulation creates path dependence that significantly raises the psychological costs for individuals who deviate from their religious identity. The process of accumulating religious human capital is directly applicable to a Muslim child’s adherence to the Birr al-Walidayn prescription. This theological mandate serves as a powerful internal commitment device because it places filial piety at the highest level of the theological hierarchy, directly aligning it with the fundamental obligation of tawhid (Al-Uthaymin, 2017 ). Strong internalization of this doctrine ensures that any violation triggers significant spiritual disutility and a heavy moral burden. Consequently, it functions as a highly effective informal contract enforcement mechanism within the family. The transfer of both financial and time resources represents an active effort to maximize identity utility and mitigate potential guilt for religious children. Ultimately, this psychological transformation converts a formal moral obligation into a source of warm glow utility. 3. Data & Methodology This research adopts a quantitative approach by utilizing secondary data from the fifth wave of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS-5). This data selection is justified by the comprehensive modules covering demographics, economic status, and intergenerational dynamics in Indonesia (Strauss et al., 2016). To accurately capture the accumulation of religious human capital, this study integrates historical data from IFLS waves 3 and 4. Such cross-wave data integration allows for the chronological tracking of respondents' educational histories to measure the intensity of past exposure to religious institutions. Information from all three survey waves is synthesized into exogenous variables that reflect the intensity of institutional socialization from elementary through high school. This integration of historical data is crucial for validating the long-term impact of religious education on the formation of religiosity in adulthood. The unit of analysis in this study is concentrated on Muslim individuals aged 25 to 50 who do not reside in the same household as their parents. This restriction is implemented to isolate inter-household resource flows from the dynamics of shared consumption. Given the potential for gender role asymmetry in family sociology literature, the sample is categorized into three parental living arrangements (Bengston et al., 2013 ). These categories include non-coresidence children whose parents live together (parent-child sample), non-coresidence children with a mother living separately from the father (father-child sample), and non-coresidence children with a father living separately from the mother (mother-child sample). This stratification aims to test whether religiosity functions as a symmetrical contract-binding mechanism or exhibits a bias toward a specific parental gender. Such an approach facilitates a more granular analysis in detecting the theological influence of Birr al-Walidayn , which may operate differently for maternal and paternal figures. To comprehensively analyze transfer behavior, the endogenous variables in this model are bifurcated into two forms of support: financial transfers and time-based transfers provided within the last 12 months. This distinction aims to differentiate material aid motives, often associated with pure altruism, from time-based assistance, which carries a high opportunity cost and is more sensitive to social norms. As the primary mediating variable, religiosity is measured through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) based on the "Big Four" conceptual framework by Saroglou ( 2011 ). Religiosity is constructed as a latent variable (Religiosity i ) derived from four observable indicators: prayer intensity (the Bonding dimension), religious community participation (the Belonging dimension), social exclusivity toward other places of worship (the Behaving dimension), and identity-based political preferences (the Believing dimension). Utilizing a latent variable approach is intended to capture the complex psychological construct of religiosity as an identity asset while minimizing the measurement bias often inherent in single-indicator models. This construction allows the analysis to treat religiosity as a comprehensive value system representing the identity integrity of a Muslim individual. Furthermore, in predicting the formation of the latent religiosity variable, this study identifies a series of value transmission predictors along with relevant control variables. Institutional transmission is operationalized through the cumulative duration of religious schooling, whereas oblique transmission is measured by the availability of organized religious activities in the child's residential neighborhood. Additionally, the frequency of face-to-face interactions with parents serves as a proxy for vertical transmission, capturing the affective closeness necessary for effective value internalization (Bengston et al., 2013 ). The model also controls socio-demographic and economic factors, such as the child's income, the number of siblings, and the parents' health status and long-term care requirements. Controlling these variables is essential to isolate the pure effect of religious motivation (warm glow) from strategic exchange motives or reactive responses to parental economic and health shocks. This rigorous control strategy ensures that the detected influence of religiosity is not biased by these confounding factors. All variables are integrated into an empirical estimation strategy using Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (GSEM) to accommodate the complexity of relationships between variables with varying data scales. The selection of GSEM is justified by its capacity to synergize the formation of a continuous latent variable (religiosity) with the regression analysis of binary variables (transfer decisions) within a simultaneous framework (Ramlall, 2016 ). The analytical framework commences by operationalizing theoretical hypotheses into a system of mathematical specifications within a structural model. The first structural model, which examines the relationship between value transmission and religiosity, is formulated as a linear regression: Religiosity i = β 0 + X’ 1i β + ε i In this equation, Religiosity i represents the latent level of religiosity, while X’ 1i constitutes a vector of exogenous predictors, comprising religious school exposure, communal religious activities, parental contact frequency, residential location, and age, parameterized by the coefficient vector β. This specification allows for a rigorous assessment of how various socialization channels contribute to the accumulation of religious human capital. Institutional religious transmission is operationalized through the relig_school_exposure variable synthesized from three longitudinal waves of the Indonesia Family Life Survey. By aggregating data from IFLS 3, 4, and 5, this measure categorizes exposure into levels 0, 1, and 2 to reflect the finished, chronological accumulation of an individual’s religious schooling history. The variable assumes that higher stages of religious education indicate more intense institutional socialization. Following the identity-formation theories of Akerlof & Kranton ( 2002 ) and Cohen-Zada ( 2006 ), this construction treats religious schooling as a deliberate parental investment that establishes the normative framework for filial obligations. The study utilizes historical education data to effectively illustrate how institutionalized moral stocks influence later intergenerational behaviors. Affective and environmental channels are captured through parent-child contact and community activity variables. Vertical transmission is measured via direct_contact and indirect_contact for both parents, where ordinal scales from IFLS 5 Section BA categorize physical and telephonic interactions, ranging from no contact to frequent weekly engagements. ini metrics reflect the emotional channels required for value internalization (Bengston et al., 2013 ). The study also employs env_relig_activity as a binary proxy for oblique transmission, by recording the presence of organized religious programs within the respondent's community as documented in the IFLS 5 Section PM. Environmental support reinforces the child's moral socialization. The final structural specification investigates the predictive power of religiosity on child support outcomes using a logit-based recursive system: ln( P(Support i = 1)/ 1-P(Support i = 1)) = γ Religiosity i + X’ 2i δ Within this framework, γ represents the pivotal parameter measuring the influence of latent religiosity on the probability of support, while X’ 2i denotes the vector of contributions from the control variables. The implementation of GSEM produces more precise and consistent parameter estimates than conventional stepwise regression methods, as it effectively accounts for measurement errors within latent constructs. Endogenous variables encompass two distinct dimensions of upstream transfer. Financial transfers, operationalized through variables such as parents_econ_support , mother_econ_support , and father_econ_support , reflect the monetary flows recorded in IFLS question ba20. Time transfers measure physical caregiving and domestic assistance. Dimensions like parents_time_support and its gender-specific counterparts ( mother_time_support & father_time_support ) quantify the allocation of child resources toward household chores or caring for ill parents to evaluate how religious prescriptions translate into tangible labor. Research suggests that high levels of religious devotion serve as a powerful catalyst for informal care because spiritual identity reinforces social norms regarding filial piety (Kirchmaier et al., 2018). These metrics provide a holistic view of filial obligation. This research utilizes a mediation structure to estimate two distinct path coefficients from separate structural models. The first coefficient β delineates the pathway from value transmission to religiosity, while the second coefficient γ represents the influence of religiosity on the various forms of support. This indirect mediation effect is defined as follows: IndirectEffect = β. γ The significance of this indirect effect is tested using an approach based on non-linear combinations of parameters via the nlcom command in Stata (Acock, 2013 ). This method facilitates the calculation of the product of two regression coefficients from the structural models, while simultaneously incorporating the standard errors and confidence intervals derived through the delta method. Such an approach is specifically recommended for structural models when mediation effects are not tested simultaneously within a unified model framework. By employing this technique, the research ensures that the estimation of the indirect influence of religiosity remains statistically robust and accounts for the underlying variability in the coefficient products. In addressing the challenge of missing observations, this research adopts a MICE-based multiple imputation framework to strengthen the estimation strategy. Operating under the Missing at Random (MAR) assumption, this technique leverages observed data patterns to predict missing values (Schafer & Olsen, 1998 ) thereby minimizing selection bias. This study constructs a robust distribution of imputed values that captures the underlying uncertainty of the data by performing 20 iterations (Graham et al., 2007 ). The final parameters were aggregated via Rubin’s Rules to ensuring that the resulting standard errors are adjusted for the variance across imputed sets. By utilizing this rigorous methodological safeguard, the research validates the role of religiosity in intergenerational dynamics and effectively mitigates the risks of erroneous conclusions often yielded by traditional listwise deletion methods. 4. Results 4.1. Validating Religiosity as a Latent Variable The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) validates religiosity as a multidimensional latent construct. This model integrates ritual, social, and ideological aspects into a coherent framework and demonstrates that all four observed indicators possess positive and statistically significant loading factors across all sample groups. These results strongly support the "Big Four" conceptual framework. The findings confirm that religiosity is a complex synthesis of bonding, belonging, behaving, and believing as proposed by Saroglou ( 2011 ). Strong convergent validity further solidifies the model's reliability. Through this robust representation of religious identity assets, the study establishes an accurate latent variable to effectively mitigate measurement error in the structural analysis. Further empirical findings highlight the prevalence of ideological dimensions and in-group favoritism, are detailed in Table 4.1 .. These elements exert a greater influence than purely ritualistic practices because indicators of religious political preferences (relig_pol_pref) and group-based exclusivity (intolerant) exhibit substantially higher factor loadings compared to basic prayer intensity. This shift signals that religious identity has moved past the private domain. Through the significant weights of the behaving and believing dimensions, the study reveals that Indonesian Muslim religiosity centers on dogmatic compliance and group loyalty. Religiosity thus operates as an ideological commitment to effectively regulate personal worldviews and social boundaries. [Insert Table 4.1 . here] Table 4.1 CFA Results for the Religiosity Latent Construct Indicator Loading Factor (λ n ) CI 95% p-value Parents-Child Sample prayer_intensity 1.000 (fixed) relig_event_intensity .612 .480 − .744 0.000 intolerant .731 .415–1.046 0.000 relig_pol_pref .861 .482–1.241 0.000 Mother-Child Sample prayer_intensity 1.000 (fixed) relig_event_intensity .480 .359 − .601 0.000 intolerant 1.123 .669–1.577 0.000 relig_pol_pref 1.122 .687–1.557 0.000 Father-Child Sample prayer_intensity 1.000 (fixed) relig_event_intensity .471 .293 − .649 0.000 intolerant .699 .038–1.359 0.038 relig_pol_pref .957 .043–1.871 0.040 These measurement model results validate the relevance of orthopraxy within the Indonesian Islamic context. This concept asserts that religiosity extends beyond internal conviction and must manifest as daily behavioral compliance to represent a complete form of worship (El-Menouar, 2014 ). The model successfully captures this dimension to reinforce religiosity as a strategic identity asset within individual utility functions. This framework adherence to religious norms generates intrinsic satisfaction and effectively prevents psychological disutility by maintaining consistency with behavioral prescriptions. 4.2. Mechanisms of Religious Value Transmission and the Formation of Religiosity The results of the first structural model analysis, illustrating the relationship between various transmission channels and the accumulation of religiosity, are presented in Table 4.2 . The structural model analysis reveals that adult child religiosity is predominantly shaped by external value transmission mechanisms. The institutional pathway through formal religious education yields a positive and statistically significant impact across all sample groups and confirms the efficacy of external socialization. These results validate the strategic role of schools in religious preservation. Via religious schools, the institution reinforces and protects a child's religious identity to effectively resist contradictory external influences and ensure identity consistency. The most important finding concerns the dominance of oblique transmission through religious group activities. This pathway exerts a much stronger influence than formal education and indicates the community serves as a highly efficient agent for enforcing religious norms. Social pressures from religious group facilitate the internalization of religious values. Through this mechanism local social dynamics encourage individuals to align with group standards to effectively maintain collective identity integrity. Spatial and demographic contexts consistently moderate these religiosity levels. The findings show that urban residential locations correlate negatively with religiosity because modernization and urban heterogeneity tend to weaken traditional norm enforcement. [Insert Table 4.2 . here] Table 4.2 Structural Model 1 Results : Relationship between Value Transmission Channels and Religiosity Exogenous → Mediator Parents-Child Sample Mother-Child Sample Father-Child Sample Religiosity (β) p-value (β) p-value (β) p-value ← relig_school_exposure .254*** (.055) 0.000 .339*** (.057) 0.000 .223** (.092) 0.016 ← env_relig_activity .819*** (.070) 0.000 .796*** (.110) 0.000 .836*** (.102) 0.000 ← direct_contact_father .203* (.121) 0.087 .058 (.052) 0.259 ← direct_contact_mother .022 (.124) 0.859 .279*** (.056) 0.000 ← indirect_contact_father .052 (.064) 0.419 .013 (.047) 0.784 ← indirect_contact_mother .133* (.067) 0.050 .161*** (.042) 0.000 ← urban_location − .118*** (.044) 0.008 − .211*** (.059) 0.000 − .123* (.069) 0.074 ← child_age .050*** (.007) 0.000 .047*** (.006) 0.000 .045*** (.012) 0.000 Vertical transmission effectiveness displays an asymmetrical pattern based on family structure and parental gender. While interaction intensity shows no significant influence on religiosity for children in two-parent households, this dynamic shifts drastically for non-coresidence children with mothers where frequent interaction significantly correlates with religious formation. These findings highlight the mother's role as the primary affective channel for value transmission during paternal absence. Mothers possess a much stronger bond in instilling long-term obedience to effectively ensure the child's religious human capital investment. Maternal influence thus remains the primary determinant of intergenerational value transmission. 4.3. Determinants of Upstream Financial Transfers The second structural model results for the factors influencing upstream financial transfers across the various sample groups are presented in Table 4.3 .. Upstream financial transfers in the parent-child sample function as transactional obligations reinforced by religiosity. While the dominance of exchange contracts is evident through the strong coefficient for time support received from parents (0.485; p < 0.01), the significant role of religiosity (0.200, p < 0.01) indicates that these transfers are not purely material as they generate a 23.4% increase in transfer probability (exp(0.200) = 1.234). These findings suggest the presence of warm glow utility. The combination of transactional motives and religious devotion creates a secure domestic safety net where financial support becomes a moral necessity triggered by parental economic vulnerability. Religious identity secures intergenerational contracts to effectively transform economic duties into spiritual commitments. Sibling interaction patterns confirm the presence of impure altruism within the parent-child sample. Unlike pure altruism models that predict free-riding behavior, the statistically significant positive coefficient of 0.049 (p < 0.01) shows that each additional sibling increases the probability of financial transfer by 5.4% (exp(0.048) = 1.054) to reject the substitution hypothesis. This validates the complementary hypothesis regarding sibling participation (Gonzalez & Lopes, 2020 ). Children strive for personal spiritual utility and image motivation to avoid appearing inferior before their siblings while fulfilling moral obligations (Benabou & Tirole, 2006). Family structures utilize collective standards to effectively maintain individual participation in parental support. [Insert Table 4.3 . here] Table 4.3 Structural Model 2 Results: The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Financial Transfers Mediator → Endogenous Parents-Child Sample Mother-Child Sample Father-Child Sample econ_support (γ) OR p-value (γ) OR p-value (γ) OR p-value ← Religiosity .200*** (.052) 1.234 0.000 .251*** (.060) 1.299 0.000 .238 (.162) 1.250 0.141 ← parents_quasi _reside − .095 (.069) .907 0.168 ←- time_from_ parents .485*** (.105) 1.610 0.000 ← mother_not_ working .305*** (.068) 1.345 0.000 .401*** (.083) 1.489 0.000 ← mother_w_ daughter .323*** (.119) 1.384 0.000 ← mother_alone .313*** (.145) 1.378 0.009 ← mother_quasi _reside .079 (.084) 1.093 0.340 ← time_from_ mother .363** (.145) 1.420 0.013 ← father_not_ working .274*** (.078) 1.313 0.000 .709*** (.117) 2.136 0.000 ← father_w_ daughter .039 (.116) 1.055 0.286 ← father_alone .172 (.162) 1.178 0.286 ← father_quaasi _reside .278** (.111) 1.305 0.012 ← child_num_ siblings .049*** (.016)) 1.054 0.002 .029 (.017) 1.025 0.101 ,025 (.022) 1.021 0.256 ← ln_child_ income .338*** (.042) 1.432 0.000 .271*** (.047) 1.325 0.000 .183*** (.064) 1.142 0.005 ← child_sex − .048 (.072) .931 0.508 − .039 (.088) .952 0.652 − .063 (.115) .982 0.585 ← has_child_u10 − .097 (.067) .918 0.145 .111 (.081) 1.113 0.171 − .134 (.105) .872 0.199 No obs 4530 3032 1619 df 29 28 27 MI 20 20 20 Log-Likelihood -18399.78 -12272.91 -6723.89 AIC 36857.57 24601.83 13501.78 BIC 37043.71 24770.3 13647.3 Maternal financial transfers demonstrate an accelerated manifestation of impure altruism compared to the combined sample. The dominance of warm glow utility is reflected in a higher religiosity coefficient of 0.251 (p < 0.01) which leads to a 29.9% increase in transfer probability while also responding sharply to economic deprivation such as the mother being unemployed (exp(0.401) = 1.489) or living alone (exp(0.313) = 1.378). This synergy reflects the theological hierarchy of Birr al-Walidayn. Religiosity functions as a contract enforcement mechanism where receiving maternal time increases the likelihood of sending money by 42% (exp(0.363) = 1.420) because children view the repayment of maternal care as a spiritual necessity rather than a market-based calculation. Spiritual incentives de-commodify the mother-child bond to effectively guarantee domestic resilience through identity-based support. Religiosity loses its influence as a driver for financial transfers in the father-child sample. A p-value of 0.141 suggests that supporting a father does not generate sufficient warm glow utility to trigger transfers which forces children to rely on purely rational and functional economic logic. Paternal support is dominated by pure altruism motives. Financial assistance surges by 113.6% (exp(0.709) = 2.136) only when fathers face immediate economic shocks such as unemployment to confirm that help is strictly reactive to objective needs. Children view paternal welfare as a matter of crisis mitigation to effectively limit transfers to periods of visible economic distress. 4.4. Determinants of Upstream Time Transfers The estimation results for the factors influencing upstream time transfers across the various sample groups are summarized in Table 4.4 .. Religiosity acts as the driver for time transfers in the parent-child sample through the mechanism of warm glow utility. The structural model reveals a path coefficient of 0.139 (p < 0.05) which translates to a 14.9% increase in the probability of caregiving for every unit increase in religious score (exp(0.137) = 1.149). This finding reinforces the concept of Islamic orthopraxy. By maintaining religious identity coherence through tangible actions children derive intrinsic psychological satisfaction from providing time to their parents because the act fulfills a sacred duty. Via this psychological mechanism, religious identity activates moral obligations to effectively translate belief into physical caregiving within the domestic sphere. The impact of religiosity on time transfers remains lower than its influence on financial transfer. While financial aid increases by 23.4% the magnitude for time transfers is only 14.7% because the high opportunity cost of market labor restricts physical caregiving as evidenced by the 9.5% reduction in transfer probability (exp(-0.145) = 0.905) associated with increased child income. This finding supports the shadow price of time theory (Cox & Rank, 1992 ). High-income earners face expensive trade-offs that lead to a substitution effect between financial contributions and physical time allocation while religious motives may remain dormant until a crisis occurs. [Insert Table 4.4 . here] Table 4.4 Structural Model 2 Results: The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Time Transfers Mediator → Endogenous Parents-Child Sample Mother-Child Sample Father-Child Sample econ_support (γ) OR p-value (γ) OR p-value (γ) OR p-value ← Religiosity .139** (.061) 1.149 0.022 .165** (.071) 1.184 0.020 .283 (.184) 1.321 0.123 ← parents_quasi _reside .653*** (.080) 1.955 0.000 ←- econ_from_ parents .453*** (.078) 1.591 0.000 ← mother_health − .047 (.071) .954 0.506 − .232*** (.077) .791 0.003 ← mother_ltc_ demand .254 (.214) 1.293 0.236 .729*** (.181) 2.071 0.000 ← mother_w_ daughter .083 (.108) 1.085 0.443 ← mother_alone .262 (.140) 1.297 0.061 ← mother_quasi _reside .664*** (.104) 1.943 0.000 ← econ_from_ father − .237 (.145) .783 0.103 ← father_health .019 (.066) 1.021 0.764 1.108*** (.292) 3.041 0.000 ← father_ltc_ demand .515*** (.178) 1.679 0.004 .069 (.211) 1.048 0.744 ← father_w_ daughter .434 (.280) 1.517 0.121 ← father_alone 1.047*** (.192) 2.716 0.000 ← father_quaasi _reside .692*** (.198) 1.941 0.000 ← child_num_ siblings − .025 (.019) .979 0.177 .013 (.021) 1.012 .516 .002 (.044) .993 0.969 ← ln_child_ income − .145*** (.046) ,905 0.002 − .051 (.062) .947 0.410 − .108 (.218) .794 0.370 ← child_sex − .062 (.083) .910 0.457 − .298*** (.108) .743 0.006 .258 (.218) 1.427 0.237 ← has_child_u10 -0.55 (.076) .944 0.470 − .032 (.099) .968 0.747 .291 (.196) 1.337 0.139 No obs 4530 3032 1619 df 31 28 29 MI 20 20 20 Log-Likelihood -17867.76 -11771.03 -6070.758 AIC 35797.53 23598.06 12199.52 BIC 35996.5 23766.54 12355.81 Maternal time transfers operate as a sacred value that resists conventional economic calculations. Religiosity increases the probability of caring for a mother by 18.4% (exp(0.165) = 1.184) while the child’s income remains statistically insignificant despite a massive 107.1% surge in response to long-term care needs (exp(0.729) = 2.071). This insignificance suggests that maternal support is no longer an economic commodity. Religious prescriptions transform physical presence into a moral duty that remains immune to market wage fluctuations because the child views maternal care as an end in itself. Religious belief extracts the mother-child relationship from the market domain to effectively prioritize physical care as a moral obligation. Paternal time transfers rely on a logic of strategic exchange and reciprocal mechanisms. History of financial support from the father increases the probability of receiving care by 94.1% (exp(0.691) = 1.941) which confirms that children view caregiving as a form of debt repayment for past parental investments rather than a sacred duty. Functional urgency and geographical proximity further dictate these outcomes. Long-term care needs surge the likelihood of transfer by 204.1% (exp(1.108) = 3.041) while residential closeness increases the probability by 171.6% (exp(1.047) = 2.761). Children tend to provide time only when compelled by medical necessity or minimized transaction costs. The finding identifies that paternal welfare depends on reciprocal logic and physical proximity to effectively mitigate the risks of neglect during old age. 4.5. The Indirect Effect of Religious Value Transmission on Upstream Transfers The results of the mediation analysis, which examine the indirect effects of religious value transmission on both upstream transfers, are summarized in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 .. Institutional exposure to religious schooling effectively drives intergenerational financial support. This pathway strengthens the moral foundation of the child to trigger warm glow utility resulting in a positive effect of 0.053 (p < 0.01) for parents-child sample and a significantly higher 0.088 (p < 0.01) for mothers-child sample. Time transfers rely on the formation of religious orthopraxy. The impact on time allocation remains complex because significant results appear exclusively in the Mother-Child sample (0.057; p < 0.05) while general samples show only moderate significance. Under this mediation framework, religious education functions as a strategic social investment to effectively mobilize resources for mothers who lack alternative structural protections. [Insert Table 4.5 . here] Table 4.5 Mediation Analysis: Indirect Effects of Value Transmission on Upstream Financial Transfer Indirect Effect Exogenous → Endogenous Parent-Child Sample Mother-Child Sample Father-Child Sample econ_support (β. γ) p-value (β. γ) p-value (β. γ) p-value ← Religiosity ←relig_ school_ exposure .053*** (.016) 0.001 .088*** (.023) 0.000 .048 (.031) 0.118 ← Religiosity ←env_relig_activity .171*** (.044) 0.000 .208*** (.052) 0.000 .187 (.126) 0.137 ← Religiosity ←direct_ contact_father .039 (.027) 0.135 .021 (.026) 0.414 ← Religiosity ←indirect_ contact_father .019 (.013) 0.125 .011 (.015) 0.503 ← Religiosity ←direct_ contact_mother .007 (.026) 0.782 .084*** (.027) 0.002 ← Religiosity ←indirect_ contact_mother .016 (.010) 0.111 .051*** (.016) 0.002 ← Religiosity ←urban_ location − .020** (.010) 0.041 − .052*** (.018) 0.004 0.026 (.020) 0.203 Direct contact within the family unit reveals an asymmetrical role in religious value transmission. For mother-child samples, the mediation effect is robust with direct contact reaching 0.084 (p < 0.01) and indirect contact at 0.051 (p < 0.01) because affective closeness successfully activates the child's warm glow utility. Intact families show no such significance. Vertical socialization for time transfers exhibit lower sensitivity yet telephone-based interaction with mothers remains significant at 0.030 (p < 0.01) to confirm that intensive maternal engagement is the key to driving moral obedience. The absence of a father figure triggers the mother's role as a value mediator to effectively convert emotional bonds into tangible upstream transfers. Oblique transmission from the religious social environment is the most dominant driver for upstream transfer via religiosity. This pathway acts as a club goods provider that reinforces collective norms through significant positive coefficients of 0.171 (p < 0.01) for general samples and a substantial 0.208 (p < 0.01) for mothers which far exceeds the impact of institutional or vertical transmission. Environmental pressure ensures the deep internalization of the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine. These social settings instill orthopraxy values that trigger physical caregiving behavior as evidenced by significant indirect effects of 0.113 (p < 0.05) in general households and 0.134 (p < 0.05) specifically for maternal support. Community interactions braze religious prescriptions to effectively translate religious identity into consistent financial and physical devotion. [Insert Table 4.6 . here] Table 4.6 Mediation Analysis: Indirect Effects of Value Transmission on Upstream Time Transfer Indirect Effect Exogenous → Endogenous Parent-Child Sample Mother-Child Sample Father-Child Sample time_support (β. γ) p-value (β. γ) p-value (β. γ) p-value ← Religiosity ←relig_ school_ exposure .036 (.018) 0.051 .057 (.026) 0.028 .067 (.052) 0.204 ← Religiosity ←env_relig_activity .113 (.049) 0.021 .134 (.056) 0.018 .235 (.157) 0.135 ← Religiosity ←direct_ contact_father .029 (.022) 0.185 .019 (0.023) 0.404 ← Religiosity ←indirect_ contact_father .010 (.009) 0.233 0.010 (.017) 0.557 ← Religiosity ←direct_ contact_mother .003 (.017) 0.851 .052 (.027) 0.053 ← Religiosity ←indirect_ contact_mother .012 (.008) 0.127 .030 (.014) 0.031 ← Religiosity ←urban_ location − .016 (.009) 0.067 − .035 (.017) 0.042 − .034 (.029) 0.234 Urban residency serves as a restrictive proxy for oblique transmission. Living in cities correlates with the erosion of religious values due to modernization and weakened norm enforcement as evidenced by the significant negative indirect effects found in general financial transfers (-0.020; p < 0.05) and maternal support (-0.052; p < 0.01). Modernization reduces the probability of upstream transfers mediated by warm glow utility. Systematic erosion extends to time-based support because urban environments consistently undermine religious moral commitments such as Birr al-Walidayn through the fragmentation of traditional social structures. Urban living fragments the social ecosystem to effectively reduce the frequency of spiritual and material care for the elderly. Religious schooling serves as a significant but complementary institutional force. Indirect effect coefficients from formal religious education exposure remain consistently lower than those of oblique transmission through the religious community activities. It is because collective value exposure dominates the formation of religiosity as a mediator. The community acts as a more intensive norm enforcer. Warm glow utility is primarily triggered by value internalization supported by social pressure rather than institutional instruction alone. Religious institutions require active community reinforcement to effectively transform spiritual lessons into tangible upstream transfers. 5. Discussion Findings validate that upstream transfer in Indonesia is driven by identity-based rationality. The evidence rejects pure altruism because religiosity creates a support system based on impure altruism where children derive spiritual benefits from their actions. These individuals extract warm glow utility from upstream transfer (Andreoni, 1989 ). Since following religious prescriptions provides inner satisfaction the decision to provide support depends on the need for psychological consistency. Given these psychological drivers, transfers in religious societies operate as a validation of self-identity that persists regardless of objective parental needs to effectively satisfy internal moral expectations. Religiosity serves as a crucial internal commitment device for stabilizing moral obligations. The internalization of religious values forces individuals to follow the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine to prevent identity loss and the resulting decline in psychological utility (Akerlof & Kranton, 2000 ; Chai, 2001 ). Intergenerational support functions as an inelastic necessity. Every transfer validates the identity of religious individuals in both private and public spaces because it proves their dedication to sacred principles. Religiosity resolves the issue of commitment failure. By providing a stable structure for informal family contracts, this internal mechanism functions to effectively secure long-term parental support. Estimation results for children who non-coresidence with two-parent households validate the central role of religiosity in shaping warm glow utility. Higher religiosity levels significantly enhance the intensity of financial transfers as these spiritual motives operate independently of material requirements. Sibling behavioral patterns reject the neoclassical free-riding hypothesis. The positive sibling coefficient confirms the complementary moral standard hypothesis where one child’s participation sets a benchmark for others (Gonzalez & Lopes, 2020 ). These findings align with image motivation concepts (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006 ). Via this social dynamic, children maintain their self-image as devoted individuals before their siblings to effectively ensure that parental support remains a non-delegable spiritual responsibility. Then, evidence suggests that religiosity is not the primary determinant of caregiving in a parent-child sample. The significance of the child's income proves that economic logic remains the dominant force because the high shadow price of time discourages individuals from allocating physical energy to domestic care (Cox & Rank, 1992 ). High-income children consistently limit their time-based transfers. This result highlights the sensitivity of physical labor to wage fluctuations regardless of the child's underlying religious commitment. Market-driven opportunity costs neutralize the power of religious norms to effectively sustain domestic care for parents. Research findings highlight a sharp asymmetry in the application of Birr al-Walidayn principles. Religiosity exerts a significantly stronger influence on transfers to mothers because theological priorities grant maternal figures a higher degree of devotion which strengthens warm glow motives and guilt-based psychological control (Al-Uthaymin, 2017 ). Maternal reproductive and caregiving roles establish deep moral legitimacy. This status shifts caregiving from the market domain to the sacred domain where children view material calculations as an unethical taboo trade-off (Bénabou & Tirole, 2011 ). Religiosity further mitigates commitment failure by shifting the perception of maternal debt into a pursuit of spiritual utility where theological incentives and warm glow motives protect informal family contracts. Via this theological framework, this research identifies a resilient social safety net that utilizes religious identity to effectively ensure long-term maternal welfare. Estimation results for the Father-Child sample show that religiosity has no significant role in triggering transfers. This finding indicates a low intensity of inner satisfaction or warm glow in devotion to fathers because the lack of religious influence causes support to lose its moral foundation. Situational factors override doctrinal obedience in this relationship. The data reflects a sharp asymmetry in the application of Birr al-Walidayn principles where the psychological burden of neglecting a father is perceived as less severe than neglecting a mother. Transfers to fathers rely entirely on strategic exchange motives. Financial aid remains highly sensitive to the father's unemployment status which validates that assistance is merely an emergency response to mitigate economic shocks. Time transfers operate as a reciprocal mechanism. Given this transactional logic, the findings demonstrate that the father figure occupies a vulnerable position that requires material triggers to effectively activate filial support. Social transmission mechanisms establish different expectations for maternal and paternal care. Community and school environments act as powerful enforcers of the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine because they reward children who provide sacred devotion to their mothers. These social settings ensure that the internal experience of warm glow is strongly tied to maternal caregiving because the religious community collectively monitors and sanctifies the mother-child bond. Given these divergent social pressures, religious internalization creates a specialized domestic safety net that relies on community norms to effectively prioritize the mother's long-term welfare. Religious institutions provide essential club goods that regulate individual behavior. By utilizing controlled social spaces these organizations reinforce group identity to ensure that children remain compliant with collective norms regarding parental care and financial support. Community expectations create a targeted moral mandate for maternal protection. The Birr al-Walidayn doctrine provides the necessary theological weight to shield mothers from neglect while paternal support remains vulnerable to social indifference and emotional distance. Faith represents a manifestation of community-enforced behavior (El-Menouar, 2014 ; Carvalho, 2016 ). Under this collective framework, social monitoring and formal religious education interact to effectively transform religious identity into a reliable commitment enforcement mechanism for upstream transfers. 6. Conclusion This study validates the transformation of upstream transfers into spiritual requirements driven by impure altruism. Faith-based values serve as powerful commitment devices that ensure stable financial and physical assistance through the generation of psychological warm glow benefits for the donor. Oblique transmission pathways outweigh vertical transmission roles. Family safety nets in Indonesia rely on religious orthopraxy because the long-term continuity of ini support systems requires social institutions to successfully frame filial piety as an essential component of group identity (Iannaccone, 1995; Carvalho, 2016 ). Religious institutions leverage social monitoring to effectively preserve intergenerational duty as a core pillar of Indonesian family life. Religiosity serves as a commitment tool with a distinct gender bias. While faith-based values successfully elevate maternal care to a sacred status, it does not provide the same level of moral insulation for fathers against market-driven calculations. Paternal support follows a conventional economic framework. Decisions to help a father depend on his immediate consumption needs or function as a strategic response to past financial aid. Fathers remain vulnerable to social exclusion. Paternal figures face much higher risks of economic neglect than mothers because their support system lacks a transcendental foundation. Findings on motivational asymmetry require a shift toward gender-sensitive social security design. Since children derive personal utility from maternal support through impure altruism mechanisms, government aid through cash transfers or direct services will not cause a total withdrawal of financial and physical time (Andreoni, 1989 ). State policies for mothers experience only partial crowding out. Formal care services provided by the government will not substitute the child's visitation time because physical presence is viewed as a mandatory religious ritual that must be fulfilled. Direct subsidies and health services act as efficient policies. Cash and health interventions policy to effectively augment family resources without diminishing the child's spiritual commitment. Policies for fathers demand extreme caution due to the high risk of policy neutrality (Andreoni, 1989 ). Child transfers to fathers are dominated by pure altruism motives which remain highly reactive to the father's immediate welfare and the presence of alternative support sources. Children react immediately to any unit of government aid. Every unit of government cash or formal service leads to a reduction in the child's own transfer because the child seeks to balance the overall utility of the family unit. Full crowding out makes direct government aid wasteful. Under this substitution framework, policymakers should utilize in-kind transfers such as health insurance to effectively force specific service consumption without replacing direct filial support. State policies must facilitate bottom-up mechanisms to preserve Birr al-Walidayn as a core preference. This prescription functions as spiritual capital that requires intentional transmission within the family unit to effectively guide the behavioral norms of future generations (Franceschelli & O’Brien, 2024). Governments should empower religious communities. These institutions act as primary socialization agents that provide the social structures necessary for validating and reinforcing parental care values (Timol, 2020 ). Via this communal strategy, the state supports decentralized networks to effectively institutionalize filial piety within the domestic sphere. Empowerment programs should integrate devotional rituals with social ethics. Just as prayer serves the purpose of self-purification and moral identity formation grassroots, religious forums should frame filial piety as a spiritual discipline equivalent to formal worship (Alsuhaymi & Atallah, 2025 ). These platforms ensure that caring for the elderly remains a core pillar of the individual's religious identity by treating social responsibilities as transcendental acts. Religious curricula utilize grassroots engagement to effectively equate parental care with formal spiritual devotion. Religious institutions should serve as primary social support hubs for families. Mosques can expand their social functions to include daily elderly care programs and educational family visits while providing conflict mediation based on Islamic kinship principles (Abdullah, 2016 ). Local ecosystems ensure sustainable care transfers. Strengthening these networks at the community level allows child-to-parent support to remain consistent without relying solely on material incentives. Faith-based centers represent essential social anchors. Through this community-based model, religious centers provide the necessary infrastructure to effectively sustain intergenerational bonds outside the economic domain. Declarations Author Contribution A.F.A. contributed to the study conceptualization, methodology, formal data analysis using GSEM, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. T.S.W. supervised the research, validated the theoretical framework, and contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data Availability The study analyzes secondary data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS). The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the RAND Corporation repository at https://www.rand.org/well-being/social-and-behavioral-policy/data/FLS/IFLS/download.html Funding Declaration The authors did not receive any specific grant for the research, authorship, or publication of this submitted work. References Abdullah, S. (2016). Kinship care and older persons: An Islamic perspective. International Social Work, 59(3), 381-392. Acock, A. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press Books. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715-753. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2002). Identity and schooling: Some lessons for the economics of education. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(4), 1167-1201. Alsuhaymi, A. O., & Atallah, F. A. (2025). The Role of Ritual Prayer (Ṣalāh) in Self-Purification and Identity Formation: An Islamic Educational Perspective. Religions, 16(11), 1347. al-Uthaymin. (2017). Pertaining Being Dutiful to the Parents and Upholding the Ties of Kinship. Maktabatuliirshad.com. Ananta, A., Arifin, E. N., & Moeis, A. I. A. (2021). Perceived financial adequacy in old age: A case study in Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 58(2), 199-216. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477. Asian Development Bank. (2021). Country Diagnostic Study on Long-Term Care in Indonesia. Jakarta: ADB. Becker, G. S. (1993). A treatise on the family: Enlarged edition. Harvard University Press. Becker, G. S., Murphy, K. M., & Spenkuch, J. L. (2016). The manipulation of children’s preferences, old-age support, and investment in children’s human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(S2), S3-S30. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652-1678. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2011). Identity, morals, and taboos: Beliefs as assets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 805-855. Bengston, V., Putney, N.M., & Harris, S. (2013). Families and Faith: How Religion is Passed Down Across Generations. Oxford University Press. Bernheim, B. D., & Stark, O. (1988). Altruism within the family reconsidered: Do nice guys finish last?. The American Economic Review, 1034-1045. Bisin, A., & Verdier, T. (2001). The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 97(2), 298-319. Carvalho, J. P. (2016). Identity-based organizations. American Economic Review, 106(5), 410-414. Chai, S. K. (2001). Choosing an identity: A general model of preference and belief formation. University of Michigan Press. Cohen-Zada, D. (2006). Preserving religious identity through education: Economic analysis and evidence from the US. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(3), 372-398. Cox, D., & Rank, M. R. (1992). Inter-vivos transfers and intergenerational exchange. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 305-314. Davis, J. B. (2003). The theory of the individual in economics: Identity and value. Routledge. El-Menouar, Y. (2014). The five dimensions of Muslim religiosity. Results of an empirical study. Methods, Data, Analyses, 8(1), 26. Franceschelli, M., & O’Brien, M. (2014). ‘Islamic capital’ and family life: The role of Islam in parenting. Sociology, 48(6), 1190-1206. Gonzalez, L. J., & Lopes, C. (2020). The sibling crowd-in effect of time and cash assistance to elderly parents. Journal of Economic Studies, 47(1), 51-63. Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206-213. Iannaccone, L. R. (1990). Religious practice: A human capital approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 297-314. Iannaccone, L. R. (1992). Religious markets and the economics of religion. Social Compass, 39(1), 123-131. Lindbeck, A., & Weibull, J. W. (1988). Altruism and time consistency: The economics of fait accompli. Journal of Political Economy, 96(6), 1165-1182. Ramlall, I. (2016). Applied structural equation modelling for researchers and practitioners: Using R and Stata for behavioural research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Saroglou, V. (2011). Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four religious dimensions and cultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(8), 1320-1340. Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(4), 545-571. Timol, R. (2020). Ethno-religious socialisation, national culture and the social construction of British Muslim identity. Contemporary Islam, 14(3), 331-360. Wongkaren, T. S. (2013). Cultural model as an alternative approach to analyze familial transfers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 13 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 10 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 05 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9036422","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":608208013,"identity":"185226aa-c38f-4be2-9047-1103760bbc7b","order_by":0,"name":"Aditya Fathurrahman Abdillah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aditya","middleName":"Fathurrahman","lastName":"Abdillah","suffix":""},{"id":608208014,"identity":"e09c8013-7130-43ef-ae68-b666f254838b","order_by":1,"name":"Turro Selrits Wongkaren","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Turro","middleName":"Selrits","lastName":"Wongkaren","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-05 06:08:29","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9036422/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9036422/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105035631,"identity":"3d088b42-e428-471d-834b-774dd3fd5768","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:26:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1368200,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9036422/v1/ce5949f8-c14b-4f5a-ae8b-e6bba0b7865f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Between Altruism and Moral Obligation : The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Family Transfer in Indonesia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndonesia is currently undergoing a demographic transition toward an aging population, characterized by an increasing old-age dependency ratio that has reached 16.09% (BPS, 2022). This phenomenon poses a significant challenge to the national economy, as formal social protection systems have yet to sufficiently support the growing elderly demographic. Due to limitations in state infrastructure, the family unit remains the primary safety net. Intergenerational transfers serve as the predominant funding source for elderly consumption, particularly for those aged 70 and above (Ananta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond the financial strain, the scarcity of affordable long-term care facilities compels the majority of biological children to shoulder the burden of physical caregiving (ADB, 2021). Consequently, identifying the mechanisms that sustain children's commitment to resource allocation is vital. Any failure within the family support system will inevitably jeopardize the future well-being of the elderly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dynamics of family support are frequently analyzed through the paradigm of pure altruism, which conceptualizes the family as a unitary decision-making entity. This model posits that parents act as altruistic agents who internalize the welfare of all family members into their own private utility functions via an income pooling mechanism (Becker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, an altruistic parent can orchestrate economic incentives that compel even egoistic members to act cooperatively, a phenomenon articulated in the Rotten Kid Theorem (Becker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). However, this theoretical construct is fraught with fundamental vulnerabilities concerning the risk of long-term commitment failure, primarily due to the absence of formal contracts. Parental altruism may inadvertently incentivize exploitative behavior among other family members, leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation known as the Samaritan\u0026rsquo;s Dilemma (Bernheim \u0026amp; Stark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). In the absence of binding contractual obligations, family protection schemes remain susceptible to collapse precisely when parents lose their economic leverage and require intensive support in their later years (Lindbeck \u0026amp; Weibull, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo mitigate commitment failures, parents act strategically by investing in the transmission of guilt and moral obligations. These values serve as essential intergenerational binding instruments (Becker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Parents actively socialize these principles to align their children\u0026rsquo;s preferences with future support expectations, a process that occurs through a mechanism known as imperfect empathy (Bisin \u0026amp; Verdier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). This transmission aims to establish identity assets, where a child\u0026rsquo;s utility is derived from both material consumption and adherence to specific behavioral prescriptions (Akerlof \u0026amp; Kranton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In Muslim societies, this identity is manifested through the principle of \u003cem\u003eBirr al-Walidayn\u003c/em\u003e, which carries strong theological sanctions. Violating this norm creates disutility, such as moral burdens and psychological anxiety. As a consequence, resource transfers from children represent a strategic effort to maintain self-identity coherence and avoid the psychological costs of violating religious prescriptions (Chai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe shift in motivation toward religious identity redefines family support as a form of impure altruism, where individuals experience inner satisfaction by complying with religious prescriptions through the warm glow effect (Andreoni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, transfer actions no longer depend solely on the recipient\u0026rsquo;s welfare status, as religiosity functions as an identity asset and a commitment device that maintains the stability of family transfers against exploitative tendencies or public assistance programs. However, the resilience of this spiritual safety net is heavily determined by value transmission patterns that operate through three primary channels: vertical interaction between parents and children, institutional exposure in religious schools, and oblique normative pressure from the social environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting literature has not fully explored how transfer preferences are endogenously formed through religious value transmission mechanisms while the role of cultural prescriptions in family transfers has been identified. Previous studies have highlighted identity salience within the family (Wongkaren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Yet a significant analytical gap remains regarding the process by which transmitted religiosity transforms into warm glow utility. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether religiosity as a commitment device applies symmetrically to both parents. Given that the \u003cem\u003eBirr al-Walidayn\u003c/em\u003e doctrine provides different hierarchical theological emphases for mothers and fathers, there is a potential for gender asymmetry in transfer decisions (al-Uthaymin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Religiosity may function as an effective contract enforcer for mothers, but it might not hold the same influence for fathers; consequently, neglecting these theological and gender nuances risks producing a biased understanding of family safety net resilience in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on that urgency, this research aims to bridge the empirical gap by examining the role of religiosity as an identity asset that reshapes child transfer motivations. The study provides an in-depth analysis of how religious value transmission generates warm glow utility, which secures a child's commitment within an impure altruism framework. The focus shifts to testing whether this religious binding mechanism functions symmetrically or asymmetrically toward fathers and mothers who live separately. Furthermore, this research explores the effectiveness of various value transmission channels in shaping these transfer preferences. Such insights are vital for formulating social protection policies in Indonesia, ensuring that state interventions operate alongside the resilience of informal family protection. Ultimately, public policy should be designed to be complementary, avoiding any distortion of existing intergenerational solidarity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical Framework","content":"\u003cp\u003eConventional economic analysis of household behavior has long been dominated by neoclassical approaches, which often struggle to explain compliance with social prescriptions. This paradigm conceptualizes individuals as \u003cem\u003eHomo Economicus\u003c/em\u003e, whose decisions are driven exclusively by the maximization of material utility. However, such models typically fail to accommodate non-material motivations, such as religious adherence that may overlook financial efficiency (Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). To address this gap, Akerlof and Kranton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) introduced identity economics, a framework that integrates social identity into the individual utility function. An individual\u0026rsquo;s satisfaction (U\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e) is determined not only by the consumption of goods but also by the consistency of their actions with their adopted self-identity (I\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e), as formulated in the following function:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eU\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e = U\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e(a\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e, a\u003csub\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;j\u003c/sub\u003e, I\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implications of this equation suggest that individuals achieve a utility gain when their behavior aligns with their identity prescriptions. Conversely, any violation of these standards triggers disutility in the form of psychological anxiety or a diminished sense of self. In religious societies, this framework underpins the dimension of orthopraxy, where religiosity is conceptualized as the integration of internal belief systems and daily moral conduct (El-Menouar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe identity economics framework aligns with the concept of impure altruism as a primary motive behind intergenerational transfers (Andreoni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). By reconstructing the individual utility function, this approach introduces the variable g\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e, or warm glow, which represents the intrinsic satisfaction derived directly from the act of giving. Warm glow can be viewed as a manifestation of the utility gain that occurs when an individual adheres to their internalized identity prescriptions. Within this framework, the impure altruism utility function is defined as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eU\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e = U(x\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e, G, g\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe act of giving (g\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e) is no longer perceived merely as a tool for income redistribution for the recipient (G). Instead, it functions as an instrument for the donor to validate their self-identity. Compliance with identity prescriptions produces a sense of moral warmth for religious individuals. The child's behavior becomes inelastic and is not easily replaced by state aid because these transfers are viewed as a psychological necessity to maintain identity coherence. Consequently, the reliance on such identity-driven motivations significantly minimizes the risk of the crowding out effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe presence of warm glow prompts an inquiry into the origins of such preferences within a child. Cultural transmission literature characterizes individual preferences as the result of social engineering and strategic parental investments. Bisin and Verdier (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) elucidate this phenomenon through the concept of imperfect empathy whereby parents endeavor to synchronize their children\u0026rsquo;s worldviews with their own value standards to ensure future well-being. Mathematically, the probability of successful value transmission (P\u003csup\u003eii\u003c/sup\u003e) is a function of parental socialization efforts (d\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e) and environmental influence (q\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e), formulated as follows :\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csup\u003eii\u003c/sup\u003e = d\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e + (1-d\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e)q\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis equation confirms that child preferences are shaped entirely by dominant environmental values (q\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e) in the absence of active parental socialization (d\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e = 0). Given that no formal contracts exist to guarantee old-age support, parents rationally invest in instilling guilt and moral obligations through the internalization of religious values (Becker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This transmission process operates through three primary channels: vertical transmission within the family, institutional transmission via schools, and oblique transmission through the social environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExternal transmission channels, through both educational institutions and communities, play a vital role in reinforcing the internalization of values by providing an environment that supports identity coherence. Religious schools act as identity producers that actively mitigate value erosion caused by exposure to contradictory external cultures (Akerlof \u0026amp; Kranton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Cohen-Zada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Simultaneously, religious communities function as providers of club goods, implementing high participation standards and social sanctions to screen their members (Iannaccone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Carvalho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These mechanisms establish a homogeneous social ecosystem that exerts pressure on children to remain aligned with the collective identity. Intensive interaction within this ecosystem facilitates the accumulation of religious human capital whereby the utility of religious practices increases alongside the intensity of social engagement (Iannaccone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). This accumulation creates path dependence that significantly raises the psychological costs for individuals who deviate from their religious identity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe process of accumulating religious human capital is directly applicable to a Muslim child\u0026rsquo;s adherence to the \u003cem\u003eBirr al-Walidayn\u003c/em\u003e prescription. This theological mandate serves as a powerful internal commitment device because it places filial piety at the highest level of the theological hierarchy, directly aligning it with the fundamental obligation of \u003cem\u003etawhid\u003c/em\u003e (Al-Uthaymin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Strong internalization of this doctrine ensures that any violation triggers significant spiritual disutility and a heavy moral burden. Consequently, it functions as a highly effective informal contract enforcement mechanism within the family. The transfer of both financial and time resources represents an active effort to maximize identity utility and mitigate potential guilt for religious children. Ultimately, this psychological transformation converts a formal moral obligation into a source of warm glow utility.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Data \u0026 Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research adopts a quantitative approach by utilizing secondary data from the fifth wave of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS-5). This data selection is justified by the comprehensive modules covering demographics, economic status, and intergenerational dynamics in Indonesia (Strauss et al., 2016). To accurately capture the accumulation of religious human capital, this study integrates historical data from IFLS waves 3 and 4. Such cross-wave data integration allows for the chronological tracking of respondents' educational histories to measure the intensity of past exposure to religious institutions. Information from all three survey waves is synthesized into exogenous variables that reflect the intensity of institutional socialization from elementary through high school. This integration of historical data is crucial for validating the long-term impact of religious education on the formation of religiosity in adulthood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe unit of analysis in this study is concentrated on Muslim individuals aged 25 to 50 who do not reside in the same household as their parents. This restriction is implemented to isolate inter-household resource flows from the dynamics of shared consumption. Given the potential for gender role asymmetry in family sociology literature, the sample is categorized into three parental living arrangements (Bengston et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). These categories include non-coresidence children whose parents live together (parent-child sample), non-coresidence children with a mother living separately from the father (father-child sample), and non-coresidence children with a father living separately from the mother (mother-child sample). This stratification aims to test whether religiosity functions as a symmetrical contract-binding mechanism or exhibits a bias toward a specific parental gender. Such an approach facilitates a more granular analysis in detecting the theological influence of \u003cem\u003eBirr al-Walidayn\u003c/em\u003e, which may operate differently for maternal and paternal figures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo comprehensively analyze transfer behavior, the endogenous variables in this model are bifurcated into two forms of support: financial transfers and time-based transfers provided within the last 12 months. This distinction aims to differentiate material aid motives, often associated with pure altruism, from time-based assistance, which carries a high opportunity cost and is more sensitive to social norms. As the primary mediating variable, religiosity is measured through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) based on the \"Big Four\" conceptual framework by Saroglou (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Religiosity is constructed as a latent variable (Religiosity\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e) derived from four observable indicators: prayer intensity (the Bonding dimension), religious community participation (the Belonging dimension), social exclusivity toward other places of worship (the Behaving dimension), and identity-based political preferences (the Believing dimension). Utilizing a latent variable approach is intended to capture the complex psychological construct of religiosity as an identity asset while minimizing the measurement bias often inherent in single-indicator models. This construction allows the analysis to treat religiosity as a comprehensive value system representing the identity integrity of a Muslim individual.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, in predicting the formation of the latent religiosity variable, this study identifies a series of value transmission predictors along with relevant control variables. Institutional transmission is operationalized through the cumulative duration of religious schooling, whereas oblique transmission is measured by the availability of organized religious activities in the child's residential neighborhood. Additionally, the frequency of face-to-face interactions with parents serves as a proxy for vertical transmission, capturing the affective closeness necessary for effective value internalization (Bengston et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The model also controls socio-demographic and economic factors, such as the child's income, the number of siblings, and the parents' health status and long-term care requirements. Controlling these variables is essential to isolate the pure effect of religious motivation (warm glow) from strategic exchange motives or reactive responses to parental economic and health shocks. This rigorous control strategy ensures that the detected influence of religiosity is not biased by these confounding factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll variables are integrated into an empirical estimation strategy using Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (GSEM) to accommodate the complexity of relationships between variables with varying data scales. The selection of GSEM is justified by its capacity to synergize the formation of a continuous latent variable (religiosity) with the regression analysis of binary variables (transfer decisions) within a simultaneous framework (Ramlall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analytical framework commences by operationalizing theoretical hypotheses into a system of mathematical specifications within a structural model. The first structural model, which examines the relationship between value transmission and religiosity, is formulated as a linear regression:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligiosity\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;X\u0026rsquo;\u003csub\u003e1i\u003c/sub\u003e β\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ε\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this equation, Religiosity\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e represents the latent level of religiosity, while X\u0026rsquo;\u003csub\u003e1i\u003c/sub\u003e constitutes a vector of exogenous predictors, comprising religious school exposure, communal religious activities, parental contact frequency, residential location, and age, parameterized by the coefficient vector β. This specification allows for a rigorous assessment of how various socialization channels contribute to the accumulation of religious human capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional religious transmission is operationalized through the \u003cem\u003erelig_school_exposure\u003c/em\u003e variable synthesized from three longitudinal waves of the Indonesia Family Life Survey. By aggregating data from IFLS 3, 4, and 5, this measure categorizes exposure into levels 0, 1, and 2 to reflect the finished, chronological accumulation of an individual\u0026rsquo;s religious schooling history. The variable assumes that higher stages of religious education indicate more intense institutional socialization. Following the identity-formation theories of Akerlof \u0026amp; Kranton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) and Cohen-Zada (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), this construction treats religious schooling as a deliberate parental investment that establishes the normative framework for filial obligations. The study utilizes historical education data to effectively illustrate how institutionalized moral stocks influence later intergenerational behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective and environmental channels are captured through parent-child contact and community activity variables. Vertical transmission is measured via \u003cem\u003edirect_contact\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eindirect_contact\u003c/em\u003e for both parents, where ordinal scales from IFLS 5 Section BA categorize physical and telephonic interactions, ranging from no contact to frequent weekly engagements. ini metrics reflect the emotional channels required for value internalization (Bengston et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The study also employs \u003cem\u003eenv_relig_activity\u003c/em\u003e as a binary proxy for oblique transmission, by recording the presence of organized religious programs within the respondent's community as documented in the IFLS 5 Section PM. Environmental support reinforces the child's moral socialization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final structural specification investigates the predictive power of religiosity on child support outcomes using a logit-based recursive system:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eln( P(Support\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e = 1)/ 1-P(Support\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e = 1)) = γ Religiosity\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e + X\u0026rsquo;\u003csub\u003e2i\u003c/sub\u003e δ\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this framework, γ represents the pivotal parameter measuring the influence of latent religiosity on the probability of support, while X\u0026rsquo;\u003csub\u003e2i\u003c/sub\u003e denotes the vector of contributions from the control variables. The implementation of GSEM produces more precise and consistent parameter estimates than conventional stepwise regression methods, as it effectively accounts for measurement errors within latent constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndogenous variables encompass two distinct dimensions of upstream transfer. Financial transfers, operationalized through variables such as \u003cem\u003eparents_econ_support\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emother_econ_support\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003efather_econ_support\u003c/em\u003e, reflect the monetary flows recorded in IFLS question ba20. Time transfers measure physical caregiving and domestic assistance. Dimensions like \u003cem\u003eparents_time_support\u003c/em\u003e and its gender-specific counterparts (\u003cem\u003emother_time_support\u003c/em\u003e \u0026amp; \u003cem\u003efather_time_support\u003c/em\u003e) quantify the allocation of child resources toward household chores or caring for ill parents to evaluate how religious prescriptions translate into tangible labor. Research suggests that high levels of religious devotion serve as a powerful catalyst for informal care because spiritual identity reinforces social norms regarding filial piety (Kirchmaier et al., 2018). These metrics provide a holistic view of filial obligation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research utilizes a mediation structure to estimate two distinct path coefficients from separate structural models. The first coefficient β delineates the pathway from value transmission to religiosity, while the second coefficient γ represents the influence of religiosity on the various forms of support. This indirect mediation effect is defined as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirectEffect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;β. γ\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significance of this indirect effect is tested using an approach based on non-linear combinations of parameters via the nlcom command in Stata (Acock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This method facilitates the calculation of the product of two regression coefficients from the structural models, while simultaneously incorporating the standard errors and confidence intervals derived through the delta method. Such an approach is specifically recommended for structural models when mediation effects are not tested simultaneously within a unified model framework. By employing this technique, the research ensures that the estimation of the indirect influence of religiosity remains statistically robust and accounts for the underlying variability in the coefficient products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addressing the challenge of missing observations, this research adopts a MICE-based multiple imputation framework to strengthen the estimation strategy. Operating under the Missing at Random (MAR) assumption, this technique leverages observed data patterns to predict missing values (Schafer \u0026amp; Olsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) thereby minimizing selection bias. This study constructs a robust distribution of imputed values that captures the underlying uncertainty of the data by performing 20 iterations (Graham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The final parameters were aggregated via Rubin\u0026rsquo;s Rules to ensuring that the resulting standard errors are adjusted for the variance across imputed sets. By utilizing this rigorous methodological safeguard, the research validates the role of religiosity in intergenerational dynamics and effectively mitigates the risks of erroneous conclusions often yielded by traditional listwise deletion methods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Validating Religiosity as a Latent Variable\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) validates religiosity as a multidimensional latent construct. This model integrates ritual, social, and ideological aspects into a coherent framework and demonstrates that all four observed indicators possess positive and statistically significant loading factors across all sample groups. These results strongly support the \u0026quot;Big Four\u0026quot; conceptual framework. The findings confirm that religiosity is a complex synthesis of bonding, belonging, behaving, and believing as proposed by Saroglou (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Strong convergent validity further solidifies the model\u0026apos;s reliability. Through this robust representation of religious identity assets, the study establishes an accurate latent variable to effectively mitigate measurement error in the structural analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFurther empirical findings highlight the prevalence of ideological dimensions and in-group favoritism, are detailed in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.1\u003c/span\u003e.. These elements exert a greater influence than purely ritualistic practices because indicators of religious political preferences (relig_pol_pref) and group-based exclusivity (intolerant) exhibit substantially higher factor loadings compared to basic prayer intensity. This shift signals that religious identity has moved past the private domain. Through the significant weights of the behaving and believing dimensions, the study reveals that Indonesian Muslim religiosity centers on dogmatic compliance and group loyalty. Religiosity thus operates as an ideological commitment to effectively regulate personal worldviews and social boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[Insert Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.1\u003c/span\u003e. here]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA Results for the Religiosity Latent Construct\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoading Factor\u003c/em\u003e (\u0026lambda;\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e )\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCI 95%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eprayer_intensity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000 (fixed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erelig_event_intensity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.612\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.480 \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.744\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eintolerant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.731\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.415\u0026ndash;1.046\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erelig_pol_pref\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.482\u0026ndash;1.241\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMother-Child Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eprayer_intensity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000 (fixed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erelig_event_intensity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.480\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.359 \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.601\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eintolerant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.669\u0026ndash;1.577\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erelig_pol_pref\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.687\u0026ndash;1.557\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFather-Child Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eprayer_intensity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000 (fixed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erelig_event_intensity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.471\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.293 \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.649\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eintolerant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.699\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.038\u0026ndash;1.359\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erelig_pol_pref\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.957\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.043\u0026ndash;1.871\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese measurement model results validate the relevance of orthopraxy within the Indonesian Islamic context. This concept asserts that religiosity extends beyond internal conviction and must manifest as daily behavioral compliance to represent a complete form of worship (El-Menouar, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The model successfully captures this dimension to reinforce religiosity as a strategic identity asset within individual utility functions. This framework adherence to religious norms generates intrinsic satisfaction and effectively prevents psychological disutility by maintaining consistency with behavioral prescriptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Mechanisms of Religious Value Transmission and the Formation of Religiosity\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results of the first structural model analysis, illustrating the relationship between various transmission channels and the accumulation of religiosity, are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.2\u003c/span\u003e. The structural model analysis reveals that adult child religiosity is predominantly shaped by external value transmission mechanisms. The institutional pathway through formal religious education yields a positive and statistically significant impact across all sample groups and confirms the efficacy of external socialization. These results validate the strategic role of schools in religious preservation. Via religious schools, the institution reinforces and protects a child\u0026apos;s religious identity to effectively resist contradictory external influences and ensure identity consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe most important finding concerns the dominance of oblique transmission through religious group activities. This pathway exerts a much stronger influence than formal education and indicates the community serves as a highly efficient agent for enforcing religious norms. Social pressures from religious group facilitate the internalization of religious values. Through this mechanism local social dynamics encourage individuals to align with group standards to effectively maintain collective identity integrity. Spatial and demographic contexts consistently moderate these religiosity levels. The findings show that urban residential locations correlate negatively with religiosity because modernization and urban heterogeneity tend to weaken traditional norm enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[Insert Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.2\u003c/span\u003e. here]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructural Model 1 Results : Relationship between Value Transmission Channels and Religiosity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExogenous \u0026rarr; Mediator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMother-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFather-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligiosity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; \u0026nbsp;relig_school_exposure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.254***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.055)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.339***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.057)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.223**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.092)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; env_relig_activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.819***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.070)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.796***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.110)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.836***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.102)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; direct_contact_father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.203*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.121)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.052)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.259\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; direct_contact_mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.124)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.279***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.056)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; indirect_contact_father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.064)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.419\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.047)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.784\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; indirect_contact_mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.133*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.067)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.050\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.161***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.042)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; urban_location\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.118***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.044)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.211***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.059)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.123*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.069)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; child_age\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.050***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.007)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.047***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.006)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.045***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.012)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVertical transmission effectiveness displays an asymmetrical pattern based on family structure and parental gender. While interaction intensity shows no significant influence on religiosity for children in two-parent households, this dynamic shifts drastically for non-coresidence children with mothers where frequent interaction significantly correlates with religious formation. These findings highlight the mother\u0026apos;s role as the primary affective channel for value transmission during paternal absence. Mothers possess a much stronger bond in instilling long-term obedience to effectively ensure the child\u0026apos;s religious human capital investment. Maternal influence thus remains the primary determinant of intergenerational value transmission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Determinants of Upstream Financial Transfers\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe second structural model results for the factors influencing upstream financial transfers across the various sample groups are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.3\u003c/span\u003e.. Upstream financial transfers in the parent-child sample function as transactional obligations reinforced by religiosity. While the dominance of exchange contracts is evident through the strong coefficient for time support received from parents (0.485; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), the significant role of religiosity (0.200, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) indicates that these transfers are not purely material as they generate a 23.4% increase in transfer probability (exp(0.200)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.234). These findings suggest the presence of warm glow utility. The combination of transactional motives and religious devotion creates a secure domestic safety net where financial support becomes a moral necessity triggered by parental economic vulnerability. Religious identity secures intergenerational contracts to effectively transform economic duties into spiritual commitments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSibling interaction patterns confirm the presence of impure altruism within the parent-child sample. Unlike pure altruism models that predict free-riding behavior, the statistically significant positive coefficient of 0.049 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) shows that each additional sibling increases the probability of financial transfer by 5.4% (exp(0.048)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.054) to reject the substitution hypothesis. This validates the complementary hypothesis regarding sibling participation (Gonzalez \u0026amp; Lopes, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Children strive for personal spiritual utility and image motivation to avoid appearing inferior before their siblings while fulfilling moral obligations (Benabou \u0026amp; Tirole, 2006). Family structures utilize collective standards to effectively maintain individual participation in parental support.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[Insert Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.3\u003c/span\u003e. here]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructural Model 2 Results: The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Financial Transfers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediator \u0026rarr; Endogenous\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMother-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFather-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eecon_support\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; \u003cem\u003eReligiosity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.200***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.052)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.234\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.251***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.060)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.299\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.238\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.162)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.141\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; parents_quasi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e_reside\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.069)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.907\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.168\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr;- time_from_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eparents\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.485***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.105)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_not_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eworking\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.305***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.068)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.345\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.401***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.083)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.489\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_w_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edaughter\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.323***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.119)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_alone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.313***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.145)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.378\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_quasi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e_reside\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.084)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.340\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; time_from_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003emother\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.363**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.145)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.420\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_not_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eworking\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.274***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.078)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.313\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.709***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.117)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_w_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edaughter\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.116)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_alone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.162)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.178\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_quaasi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e_reside\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.278**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.111)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.305\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; child_num_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esiblings\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.049***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.016))\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.054\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e,025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; ln_child_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eincome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.338***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.042)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.432\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.271***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.047)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.325\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.183***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.064)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.142\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; child_sex\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.072)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.931\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.508\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.088)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.952\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.652\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.115)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.982\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.585\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; has_child_u10\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.097\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.067)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.918\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.081)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.105)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.872\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.199\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo obs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4530\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1619\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLog-Likelihood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-18399.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-12272.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6723.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36857.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24601.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13501.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37043.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24770.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13647.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaternal financial transfers demonstrate an accelerated manifestation of impure altruism compared to the combined sample. The dominance of warm glow utility is reflected in a higher religiosity coefficient of 0.251 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) which leads to a 29.9% increase in transfer probability while also responding sharply to economic deprivation such as the mother being unemployed (exp(0.401)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.489) or living alone (exp(0.313)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.378). This synergy reflects the theological hierarchy of Birr al-Walidayn. Religiosity functions as a contract enforcement mechanism where receiving maternal time increases the likelihood of sending money by 42% (exp(0.363)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.420) because children view the repayment of maternal care as a spiritual necessity rather than a market-based calculation. Spiritual incentives de-commodify the mother-child bond to effectively guarantee domestic resilience through identity-based support.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligiosity loses its influence as a driver for financial transfers in the father-child sample. A p-value of 0.141 suggests that supporting a father does not generate sufficient warm glow utility to trigger transfers which forces children to rely on purely rational and functional economic logic. Paternal support is dominated by pure altruism motives. Financial assistance surges by 113.6% (exp(0.709)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.136) only when fathers face immediate economic shocks such as unemployment to confirm that help is strictly reactive to objective needs. Children view paternal welfare as a matter of crisis mitigation to effectively limit transfers to periods of visible economic distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Determinants of Upstream Time Transfers\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe estimation results for the factors influencing upstream time transfers across the various sample groups are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.4\u003c/span\u003e.. Religiosity acts as the driver for time transfers in the parent-child sample through the mechanism of warm glow utility. The structural model reveals a path coefficient of 0.139 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) which translates to a 14.9% increase in the probability of caregiving for every unit increase in religious score (exp(0.137)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.149). This finding reinforces the concept of Islamic orthopraxy. By maintaining religious identity coherence through tangible actions children derive intrinsic psychological satisfaction from providing time to their parents because the act fulfills a sacred duty. Via this psychological mechanism, religious identity activates moral obligations to effectively translate belief into physical caregiving within the domestic sphere.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe impact of religiosity on time transfers remains lower than its influence on financial transfer. While financial aid increases by 23.4% the magnitude for time transfers is only 14.7% because the high opportunity cost of market labor restricts physical caregiving as evidenced by the 9.5% reduction in transfer probability (exp(-0.145)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.905) associated with increased child income. This finding supports the shadow price of time theory (Cox \u0026amp; Rank, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). High-income earners face expensive trade-offs that lead to a substitution effect between financial contributions and physical time allocation while religious motives may remain dormant until a crisis occurs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[Insert Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.4\u003c/span\u003e. here]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructural Model 2 Results: The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Time Transfers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediator \u0026rarr; Endogenous\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMother-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFather-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eecon_support\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; \u003cem\u003eReligiosity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.139**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.061)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.149\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.165**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.071)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.283\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.184)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.321\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; parents_quasi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e_reside\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.653***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.080)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.955\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr;- econ_from_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eparents\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.453***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.078)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.591\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_health\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.071)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.954\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.506\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.232***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.077)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.791\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_ltc_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edemand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.214)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.293\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.236\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.729***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.181)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_w_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edaughter\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.108)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.443\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_alone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.262\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.140)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.297\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; mother_quasi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e_reside\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.664***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.104)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.943\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; econ_from_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003efather\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.237\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.145)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.783\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_health\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.066)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.764\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.108***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.292)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_ltc_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edemand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.515***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.178)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.679\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.069\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.211)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.744\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_w_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edaughter\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.434\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.280)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.517\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_alone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.047***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.192)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.716\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; father_quaasi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e_reside\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.692***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.198)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.941\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; child_num_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esiblings\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.019)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.979\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.177\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.021)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.516\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.044)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.993\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.969\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; ln_child_\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eincome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.145***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.046)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e,905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.062)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.947\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.410\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.218)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.794\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.370\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; child_sex\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.083)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.457\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.298***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.108)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.743\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.258\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.218)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.427\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.237\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026larr; has_child_u10\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.076)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.944\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.470\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.099)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.968\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.747\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.291\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.196)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.337\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.139\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo obs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4530\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1619\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLog-Likelihood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-17867.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-11771.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6070.758\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35797.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23598.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12199.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35996.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23766.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12355.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaternal time transfers operate as a sacred value that resists conventional economic calculations. Religiosity increases the probability of caring for a mother by 18.4% (exp(0.165)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.184) while the child\u0026rsquo;s income remains statistically insignificant despite a massive 107.1% surge in response to long-term care needs (exp(0.729)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.071). This insignificance suggests that maternal support is no longer an economic commodity. Religious prescriptions transform physical presence into a moral duty that remains immune to market wage fluctuations because the child views maternal care as an end in itself. Religious belief extracts the mother-child relationship from the market domain to effectively prioritize physical care as a moral obligation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePaternal time transfers rely on a logic of strategic exchange and reciprocal mechanisms. History of financial support from the father increases the probability of receiving care by 94.1% (exp(0.691)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.941) which confirms that children view caregiving as a form of debt repayment for past parental investments rather than a sacred duty. Functional urgency and geographical proximity further dictate these outcomes. Long-term care needs surge the likelihood of transfer by 204.1% (exp(1.108)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.041) while residential closeness increases the probability by 171.6% (exp(1.047)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.761). Children tend to provide time only when compelled by medical necessity or minimized transaction costs. The finding identifies that paternal welfare depends on reciprocal logic and physical proximity to effectively mitigate the risks of neglect during old age.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.5. The Indirect Effect of Religious Value Transmission on Upstream Transfers\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results of the mediation analysis, which examine the indirect effects of religious value transmission on both upstream transfers, are summarized in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.5\u003c/span\u003e and Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.6\u003c/span\u003e.. Institutional exposure to religious schooling effectively drives intergenerational financial support. This pathway strengthens the moral foundation of the child to trigger warm glow utility resulting in a positive effect of 0.053 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) for parents-child sample and a significantly higher 0.088 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) for mothers-child sample. Time transfers rely on the formation of religious orthopraxy. The impact on time allocation remains complex because significant results appear exclusively in the Mother-Child sample (0.057; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) while general samples show only moderate significance. Under this mediation framework, religious education functions as a strategic social investment to effectively mobilize resources for mothers who lack alternative structural protections.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[Insert Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.5\u003c/span\u003e. here]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediation Analysis: Indirect Effects of Value Transmission on Upstream Financial Transfer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Effect Exogenous \u0026rarr; Endogenous\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParent-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMother-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFather-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eecon_support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;. \u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;. \u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;. \u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;relig_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eschool_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eexposure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.053***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.016)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.088***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.031)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;env_relig_activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.171***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.044)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.208***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.052)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.187\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.126)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.137\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;direct_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.027)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.026)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.414\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;indirect_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.013)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.125\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.015)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.503\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;direct_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.026)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.782\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.084***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.027)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;indirect_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.010)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.051***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.016)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;urban_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.020**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.010)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.052***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.020)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect contact within the family unit reveals an asymmetrical role in religious value transmission. For mother-child samples, the mediation effect is robust with direct contact reaching 0.084 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and indirect contact at 0.051 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) because affective closeness successfully activates the child\u0026apos;s warm glow utility. Intact families show no such significance. Vertical socialization for time transfers exhibit lower sensitivity yet telephone-based interaction with mothers remains significant at 0.030 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) to confirm that intensive maternal engagement is the key to driving moral obedience. The absence of a father figure triggers the mother\u0026apos;s role as a value mediator to effectively convert emotional bonds into tangible upstream transfers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOblique transmission from the religious social environment is the most dominant driver for upstream transfer via religiosity. This pathway acts as a club goods provider that reinforces collective norms through significant positive coefficients of 0.171 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) for general samples and a substantial 0.208 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) for mothers which far exceeds the impact of institutional or vertical transmission. Environmental pressure ensures the deep internalization of the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine. These social settings instill orthopraxy values that trigger physical caregiving behavior as evidenced by significant indirect effects of 0.113 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in general households and 0.134 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) specifically for maternal support. Community interactions braze religious prescriptions to effectively translate religious identity into consistent financial and physical devotion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[Insert Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.6\u003c/span\u003e. here]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4.6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediation Analysis: Indirect Effects of Value Transmission on Upstream Time Transfer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Effect Exogenous \u0026rarr; Endogenous\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParent-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMother-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFather-Child Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003etime_support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;. \u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;. \u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026beta;. \u0026gamma;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;relig_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eschool_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eexposure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.026)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.067\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.052)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;env_relig_activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.049)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.056)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.235\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.157)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;direct_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.404\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;indirect_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.009)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.557\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;direct_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.851\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.027)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;indirect_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtact_mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.008)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.014)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr; Religiosity \u0026larr;urban_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.009)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.029)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.234\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrban residency serves as a restrictive proxy for oblique transmission. Living in cities correlates with the erosion of religious values due to modernization and weakened norm enforcement as evidenced by the significant negative indirect effects found in general financial transfers (-0.020; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and maternal support (-0.052; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Modernization reduces the probability of upstream transfers mediated by warm glow utility. Systematic erosion extends to time-based support because urban environments consistently undermine religious moral commitments such as \u003cem\u003eBirr al-Walidayn\u003c/em\u003e through the fragmentation of traditional social structures. Urban living fragments the social ecosystem to effectively reduce the frequency of spiritual and material care for the elderly.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligious schooling serves as a significant but complementary institutional force. Indirect effect coefficients from formal religious education exposure remain consistently lower than those of oblique transmission through the religious community activities. It is because collective value exposure dominates the formation of religiosity as a mediator. The community acts as a more intensive norm enforcer. Warm glow utility is primarily triggered by value internalization supported by social pressure rather than institutional instruction alone. Religious institutions require active community reinforcement to effectively transform spiritual lessons into tangible upstream transfers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFindings validate that upstream transfer in Indonesia is driven by identity-based rationality. The evidence rejects pure altruism because religiosity creates a support system based on impure altruism where children derive spiritual benefits from their actions. These individuals extract warm glow utility from upstream transfer (Andreoni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Since following religious prescriptions provides inner satisfaction the decision to provide support depends on the need for psychological consistency. Given these psychological drivers, transfers in religious societies operate as a validation of self-identity that persists regardless of objective parental needs to effectively satisfy internal moral expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligiosity serves as a crucial internal commitment device for stabilizing moral obligations. The internalization of religious values forces individuals to follow the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine to prevent identity loss and the resulting decline in psychological utility (Akerlof \u0026amp; Kranton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Chai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Intergenerational support functions as an inelastic necessity. Every transfer validates the identity of religious individuals in both private and public spaces because it proves their dedication to sacred principles. Religiosity resolves the issue of commitment failure. By providing a stable structure for informal family contracts, this internal mechanism functions to effectively secure long-term parental support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimation results for children who non-coresidence with two-parent households validate the central role of religiosity in shaping warm glow utility. Higher religiosity levels significantly enhance the intensity of financial transfers as these spiritual motives operate independently of material requirements. Sibling behavioral patterns reject the neoclassical free-riding hypothesis. The positive sibling coefficient confirms the complementary moral standard hypothesis where one child\u0026rsquo;s participation sets a benchmark for others (Gonzalez \u0026amp; Lopes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These findings align with image motivation concepts (B\u0026eacute;nabou \u0026amp; Tirole, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Via this social dynamic, children maintain their self-image as devoted individuals before their siblings to effectively ensure that parental support remains a non-delegable spiritual responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThen, evidence suggests that religiosity is not the primary determinant of caregiving in a parent-child sample. The significance of the child's income proves that economic logic remains the dominant force because the high shadow price of time discourages individuals from allocating physical energy to domestic care (Cox \u0026amp; Rank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). High-income children consistently limit their time-based transfers. This result highlights the sensitivity of physical labor to wage fluctuations regardless of the child's underlying religious commitment. Market-driven opportunity costs neutralize the power of religious norms to effectively sustain domestic care for parents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch findings highlight a sharp asymmetry in the application of Birr al-Walidayn principles. Religiosity exerts a significantly stronger influence on transfers to mothers because theological priorities grant maternal figures a higher degree of devotion which strengthens warm glow motives and guilt-based psychological control (Al-Uthaymin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Maternal reproductive and caregiving roles establish deep moral legitimacy. This status shifts caregiving from the market domain to the sacred domain where children view material calculations as an unethical taboo trade-off (B\u0026eacute;nabou \u0026amp; Tirole, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Religiosity further mitigates commitment failure by shifting the perception of maternal debt into a pursuit of spiritual utility where theological incentives and warm glow motives protect informal family contracts. Via this theological framework, this research identifies a resilient social safety net that utilizes religious identity to effectively ensure long-term maternal welfare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimation results for the Father-Child sample show that religiosity has no significant role in triggering transfers. This finding indicates a low intensity of inner satisfaction or warm glow in devotion to fathers because the lack of religious influence causes support to lose its moral foundation. Situational factors override doctrinal obedience in this relationship. The data reflects a sharp asymmetry in the application of Birr al-Walidayn principles where the psychological burden of neglecting a father is perceived as less severe than neglecting a mother. Transfers to fathers rely entirely on strategic exchange motives. Financial aid remains highly sensitive to the father's unemployment status which validates that assistance is merely an emergency response to mitigate economic shocks. Time transfers operate as a reciprocal mechanism. Given this transactional logic, the findings demonstrate that the father figure occupies a vulnerable position that requires material triggers to effectively activate filial support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial transmission mechanisms establish different expectations for maternal and paternal care. Community and school environments act as powerful enforcers of the Birr al-Walidayn doctrine because they reward children who provide sacred devotion to their mothers. These social settings ensure that the internal experience of warm glow is strongly tied to maternal caregiving because the religious community collectively monitors and sanctifies the mother-child bond. Given these divergent social pressures, religious internalization creates a specialized domestic safety net that relies on community norms to effectively prioritize the mother's long-term welfare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligious institutions provide essential club goods that regulate individual behavior. By utilizing controlled social spaces these organizations reinforce group identity to ensure that children remain compliant with collective norms regarding parental care and financial support. Community expectations create a targeted moral mandate for maternal protection. The Birr al-Walidayn doctrine provides the necessary theological weight to shield mothers from neglect while paternal support remains vulnerable to social indifference and emotional distance. Faith represents a manifestation of community-enforced behavior (El-Menouar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Carvalho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Under this collective framework, social monitoring and formal religious education interact to effectively transform religious identity into a reliable commitment enforcement mechanism for upstream transfers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study validates the transformation of upstream transfers into spiritual requirements driven by impure altruism. Faith-based values serve as powerful commitment devices that ensure stable financial and physical assistance through the generation of psychological warm glow benefits for the donor. Oblique transmission pathways outweigh vertical transmission roles. Family safety nets in Indonesia rely on religious orthopraxy because the long-term continuity of ini support systems requires social institutions to successfully frame filial piety as an essential component of group identity (Iannaccone, 1995; Carvalho, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Religious institutions leverage social monitoring to effectively preserve intergenerational duty as a core pillar of Indonesian family life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligiosity serves as a commitment tool with a distinct gender bias. While faith-based values successfully elevate maternal care to a sacred status, it does not provide the same level of moral insulation for fathers against market-driven calculations. Paternal support follows a conventional economic framework. Decisions to help a father depend on his immediate consumption needs or function as a strategic response to past financial aid. Fathers remain vulnerable to social exclusion. Paternal figures face much higher risks of economic neglect than mothers because their support system lacks a transcendental foundation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings on motivational asymmetry require a shift toward gender-sensitive social security design. Since children derive personal utility from maternal support through impure altruism mechanisms, government aid through cash transfers or direct services will not cause a total withdrawal of financial and physical time (Andreoni, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). State policies for mothers experience only partial crowding out. Formal care services provided by the government will not substitute the child's visitation time because physical presence is viewed as a mandatory religious ritual that must be fulfilled. Direct subsidies and health services act as efficient policies. Cash and health interventions policy to effectively augment family resources without diminishing the child's spiritual commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicies for fathers demand extreme caution due to the high risk of policy neutrality (Andreoni, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Child transfers to fathers are dominated by pure altruism motives which remain highly reactive to the father's immediate welfare and the presence of alternative support sources. Children react immediately to any unit of government aid. Every unit of government cash or formal service leads to a reduction in the child's own transfer because the child seeks to balance the overall utility of the family unit. Full crowding out makes direct government aid wasteful. Under this substitution framework, policymakers should utilize in-kind transfers such as health insurance to effectively force specific service consumption without replacing direct filial support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eState policies must facilitate bottom-up mechanisms to preserve Birr al-Walidayn as a core preference. This prescription functions as spiritual capital that requires intentional transmission within the family unit to effectively guide the behavioral norms of future generations (Franceschelli \u0026amp; O’Brien, 2024). Governments should empower religious communities. These institutions act as primary socialization agents that provide the social structures necessary for validating and reinforcing parental care values (Timol, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Via this communal strategy, the state supports decentralized networks to effectively institutionalize filial piety within the domestic sphere.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpowerment programs should integrate devotional rituals with social ethics. Just as prayer serves the purpose of self-purification and moral identity formation grassroots, religious forums should frame filial piety as a spiritual discipline equivalent to formal worship (Alsuhaymi \u0026amp; Atallah, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These platforms ensure that caring for the elderly remains a core pillar of the individual's religious identity by treating social responsibilities as transcendental acts. Religious curricula utilize grassroots engagement to effectively equate parental care with formal spiritual devotion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligious institutions should serve as primary social support hubs for families. Mosques can expand their social functions to include daily elderly care programs and educational family visits while providing conflict mediation based on Islamic kinship principles (Abdullah, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Local ecosystems ensure sustainable care transfers. Strengthening these networks at the community level allows child-to-parent support to remain consistent without relying solely on material incentives. Faith-based centers represent essential social anchors. Through this community-based model, religious centers provide the necessary infrastructure to effectively sustain intergenerational bonds outside the economic domain.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA.F.A. contributed to the study conceptualization, methodology, formal data analysis using GSEM, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. T.S.W. supervised the research, validated the theoretical framework, and contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study analyzes secondary data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS). The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the RAND Corporation repository at https://www.rand.org/well-being/social-and-behavioral-policy/data/FLS/IFLS/download.html\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors did not receive any specific grant for the research, authorship, or publication of this submitted work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdullah, S. (2016). Kinship care and older persons: An Islamic perspective. International Social Work, 59(3), 381-392.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcock, A. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkerlof, G. A., \u0026amp; Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715-753.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkerlof, G. A., \u0026amp; Kranton, R. E. (2002). Identity and schooling: Some lessons for the economics of education. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(4), 1167-1201.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlsuhaymi, A. O., \u0026amp; Atallah, F. A. (2025). The Role of Ritual Prayer (Ṣalāh) in Self-Purification and Identity Formation: An Islamic Educational Perspective. Religions, 16(11), 1347.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eal-Uthaymin. (2017). Pertaining Being Dutiful to the Parents and Upholding the Ties of Kinship. Maktabatuliirshad.com.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnanta, A., Arifin, E. N., \u0026amp; Moeis, A. I. A. (2021). Perceived financial adequacy in old age: A case study in Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 58(2), 199-216.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsian Development Bank. (2021). Country Diagnostic Study on Long-Term Care in Indonesia. Jakarta: ADB.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecker, G. S. (1993). A treatise on the family: Enlarged edition. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecker, G. S., Murphy, K. M., \u0026amp; Spenkuch, J. L. (2016). The manipulation of children\u0026rsquo;s preferences, old-age support, and investment in children\u0026rsquo;s human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(S2), S3-S30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026eacute;nabou, R., \u0026amp; Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652-1678.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026eacute;nabou, R., \u0026amp; Tirole, J. (2011). Identity, morals, and taboos: Beliefs as assets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 805-855.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBengston, V., Putney, N.M., \u0026amp; Harris, S. (2013). Families and Faith: How Religion is Passed Down Across Generations. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernheim, B. D., \u0026amp; Stark, O. (1988). Altruism within the family reconsidered: Do nice guys finish last?. The American Economic Review, 1034-1045.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBisin, A., \u0026amp; Verdier, T. (2001). The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 97(2), 298-319.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarvalho, J. P. (2016). Identity-based organizations. American Economic Review, 106(5), 410-414.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChai, S. K. (2001). Choosing an identity: A general model of preference and belief formation. University of Michigan Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen-Zada, D. (2006). Preserving religious identity through education: Economic analysis and evidence from the US. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(3), 372-398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCox, D., \u0026amp; Rank, M. R. (1992). Inter-vivos transfers and intergenerational exchange. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 305-314.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, J. B. (2003). The theory of the individual in economics: Identity and value. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEl-Menouar, Y. (2014). The five dimensions of Muslim religiosity. Results of an empirical study. Methods, Data, Analyses, 8(1), 26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranceschelli, M., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Brien, M. (2014). \u0026lsquo;Islamic capital\u0026rsquo; and family life: The role of Islam in parenting. Sociology, 48(6), 1190-1206.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonzalez, L. J., \u0026amp; Lopes, C. (2020). The sibling crowd-in effect of time and cash assistance to elderly parents. Journal of Economic Studies, 47(1), 51-63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., \u0026amp; Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206-213.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIannaccone, L. R. (1990). Religious practice: A human capital approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 297-314.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIannaccone, L. R. (1992). Religious markets and the economics of religion. Social Compass, 39(1), 123-131.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindbeck, A., \u0026amp; Weibull, J. W. (1988). Altruism and time consistency: The economics of fait accompli. Journal of Political Economy, 96(6), 1165-1182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamlall, I. (2016). Applied structural equation modelling for researchers and practitioners: Using R and Stata for behavioural research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaroglou, V. (2011). Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four religious dimensions and cultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(8), 1320-1340.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchafer, J. L., \u0026amp; Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst\u0026apos;s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(4), 545-571.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimol, R. (2020). Ethno-religious socialisation, national culture and the social construction of British Muslim identity. Contemporary Islam, 14(3), 331-360.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWongkaren, T. S. (2013). Cultural model as an alternative approach to analyze familial transfers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai\u0026apos;i at Manoa. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-review-of-economics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"irec","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Review of Economics](http://link.springer.com/journal/12231)","snPcode":"12232","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12232/3","title":"International Review of Economics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Intergenerational Transfer, Impure Altruism, Warm Glow, Religiosity, GSEM","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9036422/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9036422/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses the uncertainty of future parental support caused by the absence of formal contracts and the limitation of pure altruism. It examines how religiosity, via cultural transmission, transforms intergenerational transfers into impure altruism through the utility of warm glow. Utilizing Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) wave five data, the research applies Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (GSEM). The primary unit of analysis consists of Muslim children aged 25 to 50 who live apart from their parents. The empirical results demonstrate that religiosity effectively generates warm glow utility rooted in the fulfillment of moral obligations. However, the impact reveals a sharp gender asymmetry in family support. Religiosity serves as a robust internal commitment device for mothers but remains statistically insignificant for fathers. Consequently, religiosity functions as a reliable family contract enforcement for mothers while remaining fragile for fathers. Social security policies must adopt gender specific approaches to mitigate the risk of crowding out informal family support.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Between Altruism and Moral Obligation : The Role of Religiosity in Upstream Family Transfer in Indonesia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-19 15:16:43","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9036422/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11270110300851199651373453612353812832","date":"2026-05-13T08:10:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"283192936000160065999463012662276239987","date":"2026-03-18T11:04:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-16T10:03:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-10T16:07:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-09T12:36:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"International Review of Economics","date":"2026-03-05T05:53:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-review-of-economics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"irec","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Review of Economics](http://link.springer.com/journal/12231)","snPcode":"12232","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12232/3","title":"International Review of Economics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"446314fc-b757-4eae-ba20-e6caa6816c19","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11270110300851199651373453612353812832","date":"2026-05-13T08:10:28+00:00","index":17,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-19T15:16:43+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-19 15:16:43","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9036422","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9036422","identity":"rs-9036422","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}