Table 3.
Logistic Regressions on Respondent Perpetration (N=956)b
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | b | exp(b) | s.e. | b | exp(b) | s.e. |
| Relationship Qualities/Dynamics | ||||||
| Problematic Features | ||||||
| Verbal conflict | 1.07*** | 2.91 | .10 | .95*** | 2.60 | .11 |
| Partner jealous of teen | .44*** | 1.56 | .08 | .39*** | 1.47 | .08 |
| Teen jealous of partner | .37*** | 1.44 | .07 | .37*** | 1.45 | .08 |
| Teen cheated on partner | .33*** | 1.38 | .08 | .16 | 1.18 | .09 |
| Partner cheated on teen | .35*** | 1.42 | .35 | .27** | 1.30 | .09 |
| Lack of identity support | .46*** | 1.58 | .10 | .42*** | 1.52 | .11 |
| Intrinsic Rewards | ||||||
| Intimate self-disclosure | .09 | 1.10 | .09 | .09 | 1.09 | .10 |
| Passionate love | .13 | 1.14 | .10 | .12 | 1.13 | .11 |
| Partner cares | .05 | 1.05 | .10 | −.03 | .97 | .11 |
| Instrumental support from partner | .43*** | 1.53 | .08 | .39*** | 1.48 | .10 |
| Instrumental support from teen | .25** | 1.28 | .08 | .23* | 1.25 | .23 |
| Patterns of Influence and Interaction | ||||||
| Relationship duration | .22*** | 1.25 | .04 | .19*** | 1.21 | .05 |
| Time spent with partner | .20*** | 1.22 | .05 | .19*** | 1.21 | .06 |
| Time spent with friends | −.05 | .95 | .09 | .02 | 1.02 | .10 |
| Had sex with partner | 1.13*** | 3.10 | .18 | .93*** | 2.53 | .22 |
| Partner-on-teen influence | .22 | 1.25 | .21 | .36 | 1.43 | .36 |
| Teen power in relationship | −.03* | .97 | .15 | −.49** | .61 | .16 |
b
Model 1 represents bivariate results. Model 2 includes controls for sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, mother's education, race/ethnicity, family structure), traditional violence predictors (parental monitoring, parental arguing, parent-to-teen violence, friends' violence, gpa), and whether/not the relationship is current.
*
p < .05
**
p < .01
***
p < .001
Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study