Fatter attraction: anthropometric and socioeconomic matching ... - Ivie
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Table 10: SUR Regressions of Husb<strong>and</strong>’s Characteristics on Wife’s Characteristics.<br />
Full sample.<br />
Husb<strong>and</strong>’s BMI Husb<strong>and</strong>’s Log Wage<br />
A. Index’s coefficients on<br />
Wife’s Education<br />
−0.095***<br />
(0.029)<br />
0.073***<br />
(0.007)<br />
Wife’s BMI 0.051***<br />
(0.019)<br />
Husb<strong>and</strong>’s Age 0.023***<br />
(0.006)<br />
−0.018***<br />
(0.004)<br />
0.017***<br />
(0.001)<br />
R 2 0.04 0.20<br />
Sample size 4,251<br />
B. MRS = ratio of coefficients<br />
Wife’s Education<br />
Wife’s BMI<br />
−1.86**<br />
−4.09***<br />
(0.933)<br />
(1.13)<br />
Equality of ratios test Chi 2 (1) = 2.17<br />
(p-value = 0.1411)<br />
Note: We consider individuals who are in the normal-overweight range, BMI [18.5, 30).<br />
Wife’s age is in the range [20, 50]. Bootstrapped st<strong>and</strong>ard errors (1,000 replications based on<br />
1,749 clusters in household head id) are reported in parentheses. All regressions include state<br />
<strong>and</strong> year fixed effects.<br />
*** p-value < 0.01, ** p-value < 0.05, * p-value < 0.1<br />
34
Change language