Table 3.
Estimate | Standard Error | |
---|---|---|
Intercept | 2.61*** | (.10) |
Parent age | −.005 | (.02) |
Family income | −.002 | (.002) |
Ethnicity | .18 | (.24) |
Education | −.30 | (.17) |
Marital status | .21 | (.31) |
Relationship length | .03 | (.02) |
Gender | −.74*** | (.14) |
Attachment anxiety | .26*** | (.07) |
Attachment avoidance | .07 | (.08) |
Agreeableness | −.004 | (.01) |
Neuroticism | −.005 | (.01) |
Depression | −.005 | (.01) |
Problematic phone use | .08 | (.06) |
Partner problematic phone use | .46*** | (.08) |
Gender X Partner prob. phone use | −.22* | (.11) |
General media use | .08 | (.06) |
Partner general media use | .13* | (.06) |
Note.
p < .05
p < .01
p < .001.
Gender is coded 0 = female and 1 = male; for interactions, the main effect is for women, and the interaction is the value to add to the main effect in order to get the effect for men. Non-significant interactions were trimmed from the model. Variables were coded as follows: Gender (1 = male, 0 = female), Ethnicity (0 = Caucasian, 1 = other race), Education (1 = college grad., 0 = less education than college grad.), and Marital status (1 = living together, not married, 0 = married). Except for the above mentioned variables, all other variables were grand mean centered. Family income was in $1,000 units.