Table III.

Mixed regression models predicting times had condomless vaginal sex within non-main partnerships.

	Bivariate Models		Multivariate Modela
	β	F	β	F
Participant level variables
Demographics:
Housing Statusb	.004	.0004	-	-
Incomec	−.20	.70	-	-
Employmentd	−.13	.27	-	-
Age	.03	5.64*	.01	1.9
Theory of Planned Behavior:
Condom Attitudese	−1.07	25.45***	−.79	11.79***
Peer Normse	−.82	20.31***	−.31	2.23
Self-Efficacy to Use Condomse	−.50	6.70*	.02	.01
Population-Specific Variables:
African American Woman Pridee	−.55	5.64*	−.02	.01
Self Esteeme	−.77	14.30***	−.19	.58
Partnership level variables
Theory of Gender and Power:
Age Differencef	.003	.32	-	-
Length of Relationshipg	.07	2.11	-	-
Condom Negotiation Behaviorse	−.21	17.14***	−.14	7.27**
Decision-Making Powere	−.51	45.86***	−.45	26.64***
Abusive partnerh	.31	5.72*	−.23	2.95+
Partner resistance to condomsh	.31	12.27***	.35	13.73***
Partner Risk Perceptions:
Partner had sex with other womenh	.30	6.62*	−.001	.0001
Partner had sex with menh	.38	13.86***	.10	.97
Partner injected drugsh	.20	2.48	-	-
Partner incarcerated in last yearh	.63	19.48***	.10	.34

Note: 329 partnerships from 202 participants

⁺p < .10,

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001

^aAll variables entered into one multivariate model simultaneously

^bIn own house or apartment compared to: In a friend or family member’s house or apartment; In someone else’s house or apartment; In a rooming house, boarding house, half-way house, or shelter; and On the street(s) (abandoned building, park, vacant lot, etc.)

^cUnder $500/month compared to over $500/month

^dWork full- or part-time compared to Homemaker, Out of work/unemployed, and On disability or unable to work

^eHigher numbers indicate more endorsement of construct

^fScored such that negative numbers on age difference variable indicate participant is older.

^g1 = less than 1 month, 2 = 1–6 months, 3 = 7–12 months, 4 = more than a year

^hParticipant answered yes compared to no