Thanks for this! Table 7 matches up with the models. This is all beginning to make sense for me, sorry I am so slow on the uptake. I notice the OR for non-coerced for boys is not bold face, indicating it was not significant. But a .49 odds ratio means boys who were not coerced were only half as likely to react positively as boys who were coerced, right? Significant or not, this still strikes me as one of the more intriguing results of Rind's analysis, and one on which he does not comment. (In fact he says coercion "significantly dampened rates of positive reactions in all groups," a generalization seemingly contradicted by this particular result.) hugzu ;-p |