Model step one, the newest unadjusted design, signifies that compared with relationship churners, the https://datingranking.net/malaysian-dating/ brand new stably along with her was basically more likely to statement get in touch with (b = step one

2nd, in addition to for the Dining table dos, i establish detailed analytics from details which can give an explanation for relationship ranging from dating churning (measured involving the baseline and you will five-12 months studies) and you will dad wedding (counted from the nine-12 months survey): matchmaking top quality (at the nine-seasons survey), repartnering (during the 9-season survey), and you may childbirth with a new mate (within you to definitely- and you may 9-season surveys, given the nontemporary characteristics away from parent-man relationship). Such models act like patterns from dad wedding described before. First, matchmaking churners, compared to new stably with her, reported lower relationships high quality. They also claimed so much more repartnering and childbirth with a brand new companion. Next, dating churners had quantities of matchmaking quality, repartnering, and you can childbearing with a new lover that have been exactly like those individuals of the stably split up. 3rd, relationships churners stated highest relationship top quality, faster repartnering, and less childbirth with a brand new spouse versus repartnered. Discover Figs. S1–S3 within the On the web Investment step 1 having an exemplory case of these patterns throughout the years.

Head 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).