Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 24.
Published in final edited form as: Comput Human Behav. 2017 Nov 14;80:303–313. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.019

Table 3.

Study 1 Unstandardized Estimates for the Multilevel Model of Predictors of Technoference

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.