When More Satisfying and Supportive Relationships Increase Loneliness: The Social Worlds of People with Lived Experience of Homelessness

Table 2

Hierarchical regression analyses of homelessness status, social support, and social network variables regressed onto family loneliness.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Intercept	3.32	2.16	1.20	0.65
Homeless status	0.64 [0.089–	0.27 [−0.29, 0.84]	0.11 [−0.70, 0.60]	0.16 [−0.34, 0.67]
Social support
Emo/Info		0.27 [−0.47, 0.58]	0.26 [−0.01, 0.52]	0.21 [−0.06, 0.47]
Pos. interaction		0.05 [−0.22, 0.31]	0.09 [−0.14, 0.32]	0.08 [−0.15, 0.31]
Affectionate		0.19[−0.07, 0.46]	0.01[−0.23, 0.24]	0.06 [−0.20, 0.32]
Tangible		−0.08 [−0.33, 0.17]	−0.06 [−0.28, 0.15]	−0.11 [−0.33, 0.11]
Network variables
Family
Importance			2.36 [−0.10, 2.84]	1.33 [−0.84, 5.51]
Satisfaction			0.33 [0.19,	0.26 [0.12,
Intimate partner importance				−0.52 [−1.45, 3.59]
Satisfaction				0.14 [0.07,
Current friend satisfaction				0.04 [−0.14, 0.22]
Old friend satisfaction				−0.03 [−0.13, 0.13]
Pet(s) ownership				0.06 [−0.51, 0.63]
Model statistics	F(1, 123) = 5.30	F (5, 119) = 3.85,	F (7, 117) = 10.4,	F (12, 112) = 6.57
Adjusted R^2	0.03	0.01	0.35	0.35

Confidence interval does not include zero.