Table 4.
Survey reported sexual arrangements as predictors of dyadic communication and HIV transmission risk behaviors
| Monogamous (n = 28) | Monogamish (n = 12) | Open (n = 25) | Discrepant (n = 5) | Wald χ 2 (3) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SE | M | SE | M | SE | M | SE | ||
| Constructive Communication | 21.11a | (0.46) | 20.54a | (0.98) | 21.87a | (0.63) | 17.42b | (1.23) | 10.70* |
| Avoidant Communication | 28.47 | (1.58) | 30.99 | (2.67) | 24.80 | (1.75) | 34.62 | (3.93) | 7.15 |
| Sexual Communication | 60.58 | (1.44) | 64.54 | (2.38) | 62.91 | (1.92) | 60.00 | (2.87) | 6.33 |
| % | SE | % | SE | % | SE | % | SE | Wald χ 2 (2) | |
| ≥ 1 CP | 11.00a | (1.22) | 77.00b | (2.22) | 64.00b | (2.94) | † | 17.42** | |
| ≥ 1 CAS with a CP | 2.00a | (0.35) | 38.00b | (3.89) | 32.00b | (3.60) | † | 13.97* | |
Notes. All analyses controlled for race, HIV status, age, and relationship length; Superscripts note mean differences across rows at p < .05
†
Zero cases of casual partners