Table 3.

The association between extradyadic sex (EDS) and the hazard of union dissolution (log-odds) for young women in opposite-sex cohabiting and marital unions (N = 4692).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	b	b	b
	se	se	se
Extradyadic Sex (EDS), ref = No known EDS
Respondent’s EDS	0.06p 0.22	0.09 0.62	0.21p 0.20
Partner’s EDS	0.82***rm 0.17	1.09** 0.37	1.02***rm 0.17
Mutual EDS	0.08p 0.18	0.01 0.51	0.30p 0.19
Wave IV Focal Union Type (Current or most recent if dissolved), ref = Married
Cohabiting	2.65*** 0.15	2.70*** 0.20	2.53*** 0.17
EDS × Wave IV Focal Union Type
Respondent’s EDS × Cohabiting		−0.04 0.67
Partner’s ED × Cohabiting		−0.32 0.40
Mutual EDS × Cohabiting		0.07 0.52
Respondent Characteristics
Wave III Age			−0.36*** 0.06
Children in Household, 1 = yes			−0.24 0.18
Race/Ethnicity, ref = White
Black			0.11 0.19
Hispanic			−0.52 0.27
Other			−0.07 0.26
No High School Degree at Wave III			−0.13 0.16
Personal Income at Wave III			−0.01 0.01
Unemployed at Wave III			−0.01 0.16
Did Not Live with Both Parents during Adolescence (Wave I, II or Both)			−0.08 0.13
Alcohol Use at Wave III			−0.13* 0.06
Drug Use at Wave III			0.03 0.09
Religiosity at Wave III			0.11 0.07
# of Sexual Partners during Adolescence/Young Adulhtood (by Wave III)			0.03* 0.01
Wave III Report that Fidelty is Important for Successful Relationships			−0.05 0.05
# of Marriages Prior to Wave IV Focal Union			−0.01 0.17
# of Cohabiting Unions Prior to Wave IV Focal Union			0.11 0.08
Age when Wave IV Focal Union Began			0.41*** 0.05

Source; National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Notes:

^***p<,001;

^**p < 0.01;

^*p < 0.05.

^rSignificantly different from coefficient for respondent’s EDS.

^pSignificantly different from coefficient for partner’s EDS.

^mSignificantly different from coefficient for mutual EDS.