added child-related task differentiation as a predictor in the second model (R2 = .320, F
(1, 129) = 30.391, p < .001), resulting in an R2 change of .042. This final model explained
32% of the variance in wives' violated expectations scores. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 present
the results of the stepwise regression analysis and the model's coefficients.
Table 4-5. Wives' Violated Expectations Stepwise Regression Model Summary
Step Variable R R2 R2adi R2hg F chg P dI df
1 RLDS-I .527 .278 .272 .278 50.060 < .001 1 130
2 TD (C)-I .566 .320 .310 .042 8.020 < .001 1 129
Table 4-6. Wives' Violated Expectations Model Coefficients
Model B P t Significance
1 Constant 1.404 5.315 < .001
RLDS-I -.397 -.527 -7.075 < .001
2 Constant 1.807 6.145 < .001
RLDS-I -.296 -.393 -4.535 < .001
TD (C)-I -.020 -.245 -2.832 .005
There were also two steps in the stepwise regression analysis predicting husbands'
violated expectations. The first step in the analysis identified individual well-being as a
significant predictor variable (P = .225, t = 2.630, p = .010). The individual well-being
variable had an R2 of .051 and was a significant predictor in the initial model
(F (1, 130) = 6.918, p = .010). Husbands' individual score on the volatility scale of the
couple conflict type measure was added as a predictor in the second model, resulting in
an R2 of .091,and an R2 change of .041 over the first model. This final model was
significant (F (1, 129) = 6.466, p = .002); however, it only accounted for 9.1% of the
variance in husbands' violated expectations. The results of the stepwise regression
analysis are presented in Table 4-7 and the model's coefficients are found in Table 4-8.
Table 4-7. Husbands' Violated Expectations Stepwise Regression Model Summary
Step Variable R R2 R2ad R2chg F chg P dI d2
1 WLB-I .225 .051 .043 .051 6.918 .010 1 130
2 VOL-I .302 .091 .077 .041 5.761 .002 1 129