Model step 1, the new unadjusted design, implies that weighed against matchmaking churners, the brand new stably along with her were more likely to statement contact (b = 1
Next, together with when you look at the Table dos, i establish descriptive statistics off parameters that may explain the association anywhere between matchmaking churning (counted within standard and you may four-seasons studies) and dad engagement (measured within 9-season questionnaire): dating top quality (at the nine-seasons survey), repartnering (during the nine-12 months questionnaire), and childbirth with a new companion (amongst the one to- and you may 9-season surveys, considering the nontemporary character out-of mother-child dating). Such models are similar to activities out-of father engagement discussed prior to. Earliest, dating churners, weighed against the newest stably with her, advertised down relationship quality. However they stated far more repartnering and much more childbearing with a brand new lover. Next, relationships churners got amounts of relationships top quality, repartnering, and you will childbearing with a brand new mate that have been free gay chat room latvian the same as those individuals of the stably broken up. 3rd, matchmaking churners stated high relationship quality, faster repartnering, much less childbirth with a new spouse as compared to repartnered. Get a hold of Figs. S1–S3 inside On line Resource 1 to own an exemplory instance of such designs over time.
Chief 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).