Table 4.

Heterogeneous variance estimates with hostile behavior predicting spouses’ cardiometabolic similarity

	Glucose			Carbohydrate Oxidation			Fat Oxidation			SBP			DBP
Univariate	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p
Hostility	0.0048	0.0050	0.338	0.012	0.0049	0.018	0.0059	0.0044	0.181	0.0074	0.0063	0.239	0.0036	0.0062	0.564
	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p
Model fit	1090.7	1.0	0.317	−75.4	6.4	0.011	−70.1	1.9	0.168	1320.4	1.4	0.237	1139	0.30	0.584
Adjusted	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p	Est.	SE	p
Hostility	0.0029	0.0056	0.604	0.014	0.0054	0.009	0.012	0.0051	0.017	0.0044	0.0072	0.539	0.0039	0.010	0.513
Activity Concordance	0.203	0.065	0.002	0.141	0.073	0.054	−0.0091	0.062	0.884	0.061	0.080	0.444	0.014	0.076	0.858
Diet Concordance	−0.036	0.024	0.122	0.055	0.022	0.011	0.064	0.023	0.005	−0.019	0.025	0.449	0.012	0.025	0.622
Sleep Concordance	−0.237	0.212	0.265	0.0073	0.238	0.976	−0.292	0.243	0.231	0.251	0.202	0.213	0.390	0.160	0.015
	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p	−2 LL	Χ2	p
Model fit	1026.2	64.5	<.0001	−77.2	1.8	0.180	−69.8	0.3	0.960	1257	63.4	<.0001	1074.9	64.1	<.0001

Note. All results presented in the table are variance estimates. All models included the fixed effects of the individual’s age, abdominal fat, sex, and study visit, but these effects are not depicted. Couple hostile behavior was examined as a predictor of within-couple variance in each cardiometabolic outcome—first in a univariate model, and next in a model including activity, diet, and sleep concordance. In univariate models, log likelihood ratio tests (df=1) evaluated whether the inclusion of hostile behavior significantly improved model fit. Fully adjusted models examined whether the effects of hostile behavior held controlling for health behavior concordance. Log likelihood ratio tests (df=3) investigated whether the class of health behavior concordance variables improved model fit, above and beyond hostile behavior.