Table 4.
Ordered logit models predicting relationship quality in Wave I for heterosexual & same-sex cohabiting couples, in log-odds.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Same-sex couple (=1) | 0.120 | 0.034 | −0.068 | 0.081 |
| (0.186) | (0.190) | (0.192) | (0.208) | |
|
Equal earnings (=1 if earnings are equal, =0 if unequal) |
0.174 | 0.026 | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| (0.144) | (0.159) | (0.160) | (0.161) | |
| Same-sex couple * Equal earnings | 0.780* | 0.795* | 0.751+ | |
| (0.385) | (0.387) | (0.390) | ||
| Respondent years of education | 0.058** | 0.046* | ||
| (0.020) | (0.021) | |||
| Respondent employment status | 0.079 | 0.089 | ||
| (= 1 if not working) | (0.124) | (0.126) | ||
| Respondent race (ref=White) | ||||
| Black | −0.377* | −0.349+ | ||
| (0.184) | (0.185) | |||
| Hispanic | −0.037 | −0.015 | ||
| (0.146) | (0.147) | |||
| Other | −0.223 | −0.217 | ||
| (0.175) | (0.176) | |||
| Respondent religion (ref=Christian) | ||||
| Non-Christian | −0.261 | −0.224 | ||
| (0.205) | (0.207) | |||
| Not Religious | −0.253* | −0.250+ | ||
| (0.128) | (0.129) | |||
| Respondent age | −0.074** | −0.085** | ||
| (0.025) | (0.027) | |||
| Married/DP/CU(=1) | 0.466*** | |||
| (0.128) | ||||
| Length of relationship (years) | −0.003 | |||
| (0.006) | ||||
| Household income (in $10k) | 0.011 | |||
| (0.012) | ||||
| Children in household (yes=1) | −0.268* | |||
| (0.105) | ||||
| Model chi-square | 36.03 | 40.40 | 59.46 | 79.42 |
| df | 9 | 10 | 17 | 21 |
| Pseudo R-squared | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| N (couples) | 2058 | 2058 | 2058 | 2058 |
Source: HCMST, Wave I (2009–2013).
Note: Standard errors in parentheses;
***
p<0.001,
**
p<0.01,
*
p<0.05,
+
p<0.10.
DP = Domestic partnership; CU = Civil Union.
Sample size in this table differs from previous tables because this cross-sectional analysis uses only Wave I data, and does not require follow-up surveys to be completed.
Cohabiting couples include both married and unmarried partnerships.