Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jul 30.
Published in final edited form as: J Sex Res. 2012 Mar 28;50(5):480–488. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.652264

Table 2. Joint Associations of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity with Outcome Variables, Adjusted for Sociodemographic Factorsa.

Outcome Variable and Effective
Sample Size
Sensation Seeking
Estimate of exp[b1], (95% CI), p
Impulsivity
Estimate of exp[b2], (95% CI), p
Interaction
Estimate of exp[b3], (95% CI), p
Partners in last year (n=2,347) 1.22, (1.15–1.31), p<.0001 1.21, (1.12–1.32), p<.0001 0.98, (0.90–1.06), p=.6409
Partners in lifetime (n=2,327) 1.21, (1.13–1.30), p<.0001 1.24, (1.14–1.35), p<.0001 0.92, (0.84–1.00), p=.0596
Unprotected acts in last 30 days
 (n=1,901)
1.06, (0.94–1.20), p=.3168 1.28, (1.10–1.48), p=.0013 0.95, (0.82–1.09), p=.4400
Acts using alcohol in last 3
 months (n=2,379)
5 vs. 1: 3.08, (1.82–5.22) 5 vs. 1: 1.62, (0.73–3.62) 5 vs. 1: 0.71, (0.33–1.55)
4 vs. 1: 2.84, (2.04–3.95) 4 vs. 1: 3.95, (2.33–6.70) 4 vs. 1: 0.53, (0.31–0.91)
3 vs. 1: 1.65, (1.31–2.07) 3 vs. 1: 2.09, (1.61–2.71) 3 vs. 1: 0.93, (0.70–1.25)
2 vs. 1: 1.29, (1.00–1.66), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 1.16, (0.89–1.52), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 0.83, (0.61–1.13), p=.1597
Acts using drugs in last 3
 months (n=2,380)
5 vs. 1: 3.29, (1.56–6.96) 5 vs. 1: 1.54, (0.48–4.89) 5 vs. 1: 0.83, (0.29–2.37)
4 vs. 1: 1.80, (1.27–2.55) 4 vs. 1: 4.93, (2.63–9.26) 4 vs. 1: 0.28, (0.15–0.53)
3 vs. 1: 1.62, (1.30–2.03) 3 vs. 1: 2.41, (1.72–3.37) 3 vs. 1: 0.71, (0.51–1.01)
2 vs. 1: 1.51, (1.15–1.98), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 1.60, (1.10–2.33), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 0.73, (0.49–1.08), p=.0015
Acts with partner who had an
 STD in last 3 months
 (n=2,374)
4 vs. 1: 1.01, (0.58–1.78) 4 vs. 1: 1.57, (0.78–3.19) 4 vs. 1: 0.38, (0.16–0.91)
3 vs. 1: 0.83, (0.50–1.38) 3 vs. 1: 2.22, (1.15–4.27) 3 vs. 1: 0.63, (0.29–1.39)
2 vs. 1: 1.59, (1.30–1.94), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 1.29, (0.99–1.68), p=.0223 2 vs. 1: 1.01, (0.77–1.31), p=.1129
Acts with partner who injected
 drugs in last 3 months
 (n=2,374)
4 vs. 1: 2.34, (0.72–7.54) 4 vs. 1: 1.40, (0.24–8.01) 4 vs. 1: 1.57, (0.40–6.13)
3 vs. 1: 1.42, (0.55–3.69) 3 vs. 1: 1.37, (0.37–5.03) 3 vs. 1: 1.79, (0.70–4.62)
2 vs. 1: 1.11, (0.83–1.49), p=.4053 2 vs. 1: 2.02, (1.32–3.11), p=.0138 2 vs. 1: 0.83, (0.54–1.27), p=.4315
Acts with non-monogamous
 partner in last 3 months
 (n=2,374)
4 vs. 1: 1.82, (1.33–2.48) 4 vs. 1: 1.28, (0.85–1.93) 4 vs. 1: 0.92, (0.61–1.38)
3 vs. 1: 1.63, (1.30–2.06) 3 vs. 1: 1.52, (1.12–2.07) 3 vs. 1: 0.89, (0.65–1.22)
2 vs. 1: 1.61, (1.27–2.04), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 1.48, (1.08–2.03), p=.0100 2 vs. 1: 0.88, (0.64–1.22), p=.8155
Acts with partner who has sex
 with both men and women in
 last 3 months (n=2,374)
4 vs. 1: 1.58, (1.07–2.31) 4 vs. 1: 1.68, (0.93–3.05) 4 vs. 1: 1.02, (0.60–1.73)
3 vs. 1: 2.00, (1.34–3.00) 3 vs. 1: 1.05, (0.58–1.91) 3 vs. 1: 1.13, (0.67–1.93)
2 vs. 1: 1.00, (0.75–1.34), p=.0014 2 vs. 1: 1.83, (1.22–2.73), p=.0122 2 vs. 1: 0.73, (0.47–1.12), p=.4740
Acts with partner using alcohol
 in last 3 months (n=2,307)
4 vs. 1: 2.15, (1.55–2.98) 4 vs. 1: 4.35, (2.60–7.27) 4 vs. 1: 0.45, (0.27–0.76)
3 vs. 1: 1.60, (1.28–2.00) 3 vs. 1: 1.75, (1.35–2.27) 3 vs. 1: 0.86, (0.65–1.13)
2 vs. 1: 1.10, (0.86–1.41), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 1.17, (0.89–1.53), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 0.65, (0.48–0.87), p=.0023
Acts with partner using drugs
 in last 3 months (n=2,352)
4 vs. 1: 1.62, (1.15–2.30) 4 vs. 1: 3.98, (2.22–7.11) 4 vs. 1: 0.39, (0.21–0.71)
3 vs. 1: 1.36, (1.08–1.70) 3 vs. 1: 2.28, (1.66–3.14) 3 vs. 1: 0.71, (0.51–0.99)
2 vs. 1: 1.39, (1.08–1.79), p=.0013 2 vs. 1: 1.50, (1.08–2.09), p<.0001 2 vs. 1: 0.88, (0.63–1.23), p=.0080

Note. exp[b1], exp[b2], and exp[b3] are defined in the Data Analysis section of the article.

CI = confidence interval; STD = sexually transmitted disease.

a

The estimated regression coefficients in this table have essentially the same interpretations as those in Table 1, except that now the following covariates are controlled for: gender, race (White or non-White), ethnicity (Latino or non-Latino), age, and highest grade completed.