Model step 1, the newest unadjusted model, means that in contrast to relationships churners, the fresh new stably together was in fact likely to report get in touch with (b = step 1

2nd https://hookupranking.com/women-seeking-women/, along with from inside the Dining table dos, we establish detailed statistics out of details which can explain the connection between dating churning (measured between your baseline and you may five-year studies) and you can father wedding (counted from the nine-seasons survey): dating top quality (from the 9-season questionnaire), repartnering (within 9-season questionnaire), and you can childbirth with a new spouse (amongst the you to definitely- and nine-seasons surveys, considering the nontemporary character out of moms and dad-son relationship). These types of patterns are similar to activities from dad engagement explained prior to. Basic, matchmaking churners, in contrast to the stably together, stated down relationships high quality. They also reported alot more repartnering plus childbirth with a brand new spouse. 2nd, matchmaking churners had levels of relationships top quality, repartnering, and you will childbearing with a new mate that have been similar to people of your stably separated. 3rd, dating churners stated highest relationship high quality, less repartnering, much less childbearing with a brand new lover versus repartnered. Select Figs. S1–S3 inside On the internet Capital step 1 to own an exemplory case of these types of 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).