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

Table 4

Hierarchical regression analyses of social support and social network variables regressed onto romantic loneliness.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Intercept	0.75	−0.78	−0.60
Social support
Emo/Info	0.03 [−0.41, 0.48]	0.13 [−0.25, 0.50]	0.12 [−0.27, 0.51]
Pos. interaction	−0.14 [−0.53, 0.24]	0.06 [−0.26, 0.39]	0.09 [−0.28, 0.45]
Affectionate	0.70 [0.33,	0.33 [−0.01, 0.66]	0.36 [−0.02, 0.73]
Tangible	0.18 [−0.19, 0.53]	0.05 [−0.25, 0.36]	0.07 [−0.24, 0.38]
Network variables
Intimate partner
Importance		5.85 [4.05,	5.76 [3.53,
Satisfaction		0.26 [0.10,	0.28 [0.11,
Service provider(s)
Importance			0.67 [−0.15, 2.87]
Satisfaction			−0.08 [−0.29, 0.14]
Current friend importance			−0.80 [−3.55, 1.96]
Old friend importance			0.08 [−2.51, 2.67]
Pet ownership			−0.28 [−1.10, 0.53]
Model statistics
Adjusted R^2	0.24	0.30	0.43

^∗Confidence interval does not include zero.