Estimating Dad Wedding because the a function of Relationship Churning

Design 1, the brand new unadjusted model, shows that compared to dating churners, new stably together dating malaysian were expected to declaration contact (b = 1

Next, and additionally into the Table 2, i present descriptive statistics from variables that explain the association ranging from matchmaking churning (counted within baseline and you may five-seasons surveys) and you can dad wedding (measured on nine-seasons questionnaire): relationship top quality (from the 9-season questionnaire), repartnering (on nine-seasons questionnaire), and you may childbearing with a brand new mate (involving the one to- and nine-seasons surveys, considering the nontemporary character regarding father or mother-child relationship). These types of activities are like patterns away from dad engagement revealed before. First, dating churners, compared with the brand new stably along with her, said lower dating high quality. Nevertheless they claimed even more repartnering and a lot more childbearing with a new companion. Second, matchmaking churners got degrees of matchmaking top quality, repartnering, and childbirth with a new mate that have been exactly like people of stably split up. Third, dating churners stated higher relationship top quality, faster repartnering, and less childbearing with a new spouse compared to repartnered. Look for Figs. S1–S3 when you look at the Online Financing step 1 having an exemplory case of these designs over the years.

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).