Fatter attraction: anthropometric and socioeconomic matching ... - Ivie
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Table 22: SUR Regressions of Husb<strong>and</strong>’s Characteristics on Wife’s Characteristics.<br />
Obese couples.<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 />
−0.324**<br />
(0.150)<br />
0.045***<br />
(0.016)<br />
Wife’s BMI 0.086*<br />
(0.050)<br />
Husb<strong>and</strong>’s Age −0.007<br />
(0.037)<br />
−0.021***<br />
(0.004)<br />
0.017***<br />
(0.003)<br />
R 2 0.23 0.33<br />
Sample size 525<br />
B. MRS = ratio of coefficients<br />
Wife’s Education<br />
Wife’s BMI<br />
−3.78<br />
−2.20**<br />
(3.06)<br />
(0.99)<br />
Equality of ratios test Chi 2 (1) = 0.27<br />
(p-value = 0.6026)<br />
Note: We consider obese couples, BMI ≥30. Wife’s age is in the range [20, 50]. St<strong>and</strong>ard<br />
errors are reported in parentheses. Bootstrapped st<strong>and</strong>ard errors (1,000 replications based on<br />
263 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 />
46