Table 4.
Exploratory logistic and multinomial regression predicting membership in one of 5 clusters (vs. non-membership/other clusters) and significant differences between cluster groups
| Variables | “Wife Friend”1 OR (95% CI) | “Extreme Disconnection”2 OR (95% CI) | “Shared Friends”3 OR (95% CI) | “Family”4 OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Couple demographics | ||||
| Husband age | 1.00 (0.95, 1.04) | 1.0S (1.01,1.09)**3,4 | .95 (0.88,1.01)2 | .98 (0.94,1.02)2 |
| Wife age | 1.02 (0.97,1.07) | 1.03 (0.98, 1.07) | .96 (0.89,1.02) | .98 (0.93,1.02) |
| Husband education level | .81 (0.57,1.13)3 | 1.04 (0.77,1.41)3 | 2.91 (1.83, 4.90)***1,3,4 | .69 (0.51, 0.93)**3 |
| Wife education level | .78 (0.S4, 1.10)3 | .98 (0.72, 1.3S)3 | 2.13 (1.3S, 3.48)***1,2,4 | .86 (0.64,1.16)3 |
| Race/Ethnicity (Latino reference group) | ||||
| Black: Latino | 1.49 (0.71, 3.13) | .87 (0.41,1.81) | .51 (0.14, 1.S9) | 1.02 (0.53,1.97) |
| White: Latino | 1.10 (0.23, 3.99) | .23 (0.01, 1.24)3 | 8.70 (2.48, 31.97)***2,4 | .28 (0.04,1.10)3 |
| Other: Latino | .54 (0.17,1.46) | 2.58 (1.19, 5.67)**4 | 1.10 (0.33, 3.26) | .52 (0.22,1.17)2 |
| Couple relationship characteristics | ||||
| Husband relationship satisfaction | .98 (0.95, 1.03) | .98 (0.95, 1.02) | 1.03 (0.97,1.10) | 1.02 (0.98,1.06) |
| Wife relationship satisfaction | .99 (0.95, 1.03) | .99 (0.96, 1.02) | 1.03 (0.98,1.10) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.04) |
| Relationship satisfaction couple score | .98 (0.94, 1.03) | .98 (0.94, 1.02) | 1.03 (0.97,1.12) | 1.02 (0.98, 1.07) |
| Relationship length | .94 (0.85, 1.02) | 1.03 (0.97, 1.10) | 1.02 (0.93,1.11) | .99 (0.93, 1.06) |
| Duocentered constraint | ||||
| Husband constraint | 1.02 (0.95,1.09)4 | 1.03 (0.97,1.10)4 | 1.06 (0.98,1.14)4 | .90 (0.82,0.97)**1,2,3 |
| Wife constraint | .96 (0.88,1.02)2 | 1.11 (1.04,1.19)***1,4 | .99 (0.90,1.05) | .93 (0.85, 0.99)**2 |
| Duocentered relationship quality | ||||
| †Proportion know very well | 1.00 (0.98,1.02)4 | .97 (0.96, 0.99)***4 | .99 (0.97,1.01)4 | 1.04 (1.02,1.05)***1,2,3 |
| Proportion good relationship | .99 (0.97,1.01) | .98 (0.96,1.00)**4 | 1.02 (0.99,1.05) | 1.02 (1.00,1.04)**2 |
| Proportion tangible support received | 1.00 (0.98,1.02)2 | .96 (0.94, 0.99)***1,3,4 | 1.02 (1.00,1.04)2 | 1.02 (1.00,1.03)*2 |
| Proportion emotional support received | 1.00 (0.98,1.02)3 | .98 (0.96,1.00)**3 | 1.03 (1.01,1.05)***1,2,4 | 1.00 (0.98,1.02)3 |
| Proportion approve of marriage | 1.00 (0.98,1.02) | .97 (0.96, 0.99)***3,4 | 1.03 (1.00,1.08)*2 | 1.02 (1.00,1.04)**2 |
| Days face-to-face contact | 1.00 (0.99,1.01) | 1.00 (0.99,1.00) | .99 (0.98,1.00)*4 | 1.01 (1.00,1.01)*3 |
| Days virtual contact | 1.00 (1.00,1.01) | .99 (0.98,1.00)* | 1.00 (0.99,1.01) | 1.00 (1.00,1.01) |
*
Bivariate logistical regression p-value ≤.10.
**
Bivariate logistical regression p-value ≤.05.
***
Bivariate logistical regression p-value ≤.01.
1
Multinomial model significant with “Wife Friend” as the reference group.
2
Multinomial model significant with “Extreme Disconnection” as the reference group.
3
Multinomial model significant with “Shared Friend” as the reference group.
4
Multinomial model significant with “Family” as the reference group.
†
Proportions converted to proportion deciles by multiplying by 10 to make results more interpretable.