Model step one, the fresh unadjusted design, suggests that compared to relationships churners, the new stably together was indeed expected to declaration get in touch with (b = step one
Next, as well as during the Dining table 2, we present detailed analytics away from parameters which can give an explanation for relationship ranging from relationship churning (measured involving the baseline and you may five-year studies) and you will father engagement (mentioned during the 9-seasons questionnaire): dating top quality (during the 9-seasons survey), repartnering (within nine-seasons questionnaire), and you will childbirth with a brand new companion (between the you to- and 9-12 months studies, because of the nontemporary nature out-of mother or father-kid relationships). This type of activities resemble activities out-of dad involvement described prior to. Basic, dating churners, compared to the brand new stably together with her, stated all the way down dating high quality. They also straight from the source reported way more repartnering plus childbearing with a brand new lover. Second, dating churners had quantities of matchmaking top quality, repartnering, and you will childbearing with a new lover that have been just like those people of your stably broken up. Third, relationships churners advertised high matchmaking top quality, shorter repartnering, much less childbirth with a new partner compared to repartnered. Come across Figs. S1–S3 into the On line Funding step one having an exemplory instance of these types of designs through the years.
Main Analyses
We now turn to the multivariate analyses to see whether these associations persist after we adjust for a range of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Table 3 estimates mother-reported father involvement at the nine-year survey-contact with the child in the past 30 days, shared responsibility in parenting, and cooperation in parenting-as a function of relationship churning between the baseline and five-year surveys. We turn first to the estimates of contact. 605, OR = 4.98, p < .001), and the stably broken up and repartnered were similarly likely to report contact. In Model 2, which adjusts for parents' background characteristics that might be associated with both relationship churning and father involvement, the stably together coefficient is reduced in magnitude (by 30 %) but remains statistically significant. This model shows that the stably together had three times the odds of reporting contact than relationship churners (b = 1.131, OR = 3.10, p < .001).
We turn next to estimates of shared responsibility in parenting. Model 1, the unadjusted model, shows differences in shared responsibility across the four types of relationship historypared with relationship churners, the stably together reported more shared responsibility (b = 1.097, p < .001), the stably broken up reported less shared responsibility (b = –0.151, p < .01), and the repartnered reported less shared responsibility (b = –0.413, p < .001). In Model 2, which adjusts for background characteristics, the stably together coefficient decreases by 26 %. However, all three comparison groups remain statistically different from relationship churners, with the stably together reporting about four-fifths of a standard deviation more shared responsibility (b = 0.814, p < .001), the stably broken up reporting one-fourth of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.235, p < .001), and the repartnered reporting two-fifths of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.405, p < .001).
Finally, we turn to estimates of cooperation in parenting, and these results are similar to those estimating shared responsibility. The unadjusted association (Model 1) shows that compared with the relationship churners, the stably together reported more cooperation (b = 0.842, p < .001), the stably broken up reported less cooperation (b = –0.131, p < .05), and the repartnered reported less cooperation (b = –0.402, p < .001). These associations persist with the addition of the control variables in Model 2pared with the churners, the stably together reported more than one-half of a standard deviation more shared responsibility (b = 0.567, p < .001), the stably broken up reported one-fourth of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.214, p < .001), and the repartnered reported one-third of a standard deviation less shared responsibility (b = –0.353, p < .001).
Recent Comments