Skip to main content
. 2016 May 17;93(3):493–510. doi: 10.1007/s11524-016-0047-8

Table 2.

Associations between unprotected sex and each measure of potential coercion

Unprotected sex (%)
Wave 1 (n = 715) Wave 2 (n = 607) Wave 3 (n = 605) Avg. diff.
Predictor No Yes p g No Yes p g No Yes p g
Live with boyfriend (ages 15–17) 36.1 78.6 ** 0.4 30.1 80.0 *** 0.4 22.3 54.5 * 0.4 41.5
Live with boyfriend 41.9 77.2 **** 0.4 34.9 68.3 **** 0.5 29.5 64.6 **** 0.6 34.6
Boyfriend who physically abuses 47.9 66.0 * 0.3 38.7 73.3 *** 0.4 35.1 52.1 ** 0.3 23.2
Boyfriend primary source of spending money 40.4 58.4 **** 0.3 34.8 49.6 ** 0.4 31.6 43.3 * 0.3 14.8
Boyfriend who emotionally abuses 45.9 64.8 ** 0.3 39.4 53.7 * 0.2 35.9 43.3 0.1 13.5
Boyfriend with job 36.7 51.0 **** 0.3 31.6 43.5 ** 0.4 27.7 39.6 ** 0.4 12.7
Boyfriend with car 41.1 49.8 * 0.2 34.0 44.8 ** 0.4 31.0 38.8 * 0.3 9.1
Boyfriend who makes more money 39.0 51.2 *** 0.3 35.0 42.4 + 0.3 30.7 38.5 * 0.3 9.1
Age difference >4 years 44.6 45.0 0.3 42.6 32.3 ** 0.2 36.9 30.9 0.1 −5.3

The average raw difference summarizes the difference for each factor and is defined as the average difference in the unprotected sex percentages across the three waves between those with and without the factor. The results are sorted in order of the average raw difference (avg. diff.). Hedges’ g ≤ 0.2 is negligible, 0.2–0.5 small effect size, 0.5–0.8 medium effect size, ≥0.8 large. Emotional and physical abuse is limited to respondents over 18 due to mandatory reporting requirements: n = 385, 368, and 419 at waves 1, 2, and 3. The p value is from t test.

+p ≤ 0.1; *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001