Table 5.
Logistic Regressions Predicting Divorce
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | p | OR | B | p | OR | B | p | OR | |
| Constant | −2.25 | <.001 | .11 | .79 | .634 | 2.19 | .53 | .807 | 1.70 |
| Premarital parenthood | .81 | .010 | 2.25 | .87 | .024 | 2.38 | .87 | .038 | 2.38 |
| Caucasian | −.44 | .560 | 0.65 | −.55 | .479 | 0.58 | |||
| Hispanic | −.96 | .062 | 0.38 | −.87 | .116 | 0.42 | |||
| Husband age | −.03 | .577 | .97 | −.04 | .448 | .96 | |||
| Wife age | −.07 | .241 | .93 | −.05 | .398 | .95 | |||
| Husband education | −.42 | .034 | .65 | −.40 | .060 | .67 | |||
| Wife education | .25 | .247 | 1.28 | .30 | .194 | 1.34 | |||
| Household income | .01 | .406 | 1.00 | .01 | .362 | 1.00 | |||
| Husband work status | −.11 | .542 | .90 | −.09 | .637 | .92 | |||
| Wife work status | .03 | .882 | 1.03 | .04 | .839 | 1.04 | |||
| Relationship length | −.01 | .902 | .99 | −.01 | .919 | .99 | |||
| Premarital cohabitation | −.01 | .858 | 1.00 | .01 | .938 | 1.01 | |||
| Husbands’ positivity | .01 | .982 | 1.01 | ||||||
| Wives’ positivity | .11 | .784 | 1.12 | ||||||
| Husbands’ negativity | −.27 | .435 | .76 | ||||||
| Wives’ negativity | .21 | .528 | 1.24 | ||||||
| Husbands’ effectiveness | −.02 | .931 | .98 | ||||||
| Wives’ effectiveness | −.11 | .664 | .90 | ||||||
Note. Significant effects (p < .05) are shown in bold. Variables were block entered in each model, such that Model 1 included premarital parenthood, Model 2 included premarital parenthood and all demographic variables entered simultaneously, and Model 3 included premarital parenthood, all demographic variables, and all communication variables entered simultaneously.