Table 1.

Summary of linear mixed-effects model for selected variables predicting the receipt of verbal aggression from a partner for women (n = 213) and men (n = 132)

Selected variables	Women	Men
Individual level:	B (SE)	B (SE)
Age	−.12 (.09)	−.50 (.11)***
Personal income	.27 (.20)	−.02 (.09)
Education	.11 (.10)	−.19 (.13)
Race	.28 (.18)	1.60 (.61)**
Receipt of welfare	−.36 (.28)	.20 (.56)
Work status	–	1.33 (.47)**
Whether respondent stays home or not	−.95 (.29)**	–
Perceived self-attractiveness	–	.36 (.21)
Depression	.22 (.08)**	–
Self-esteem	−.52 (.09)***	–
Loneliness	−.38 (.09)***	–
Life satisfaction	–	−.43 (.20)*
Perceived alternative for potential mates	−.27 (.08)***	–
Relationship level:
Perceived social support	−.14 (.09)	−.12 (.12)
Whether partner’s race is the same as respondent’s	−.79 (.28)**	−1.27 (.34)***
Happy with partner’s earning	–	.35 (.23)
Importance of relationship	–	−.31 (.11)**
Contextual indicators:
Perceived neighborhood cohesion	−.14 (.09)	−.43 (.10)***
Perceived neighborhood crime	−.33 (.11)**	.53 (.16)**
Perceived neighborhood unemployment	.43 (.09)***	–
City-level percentage of people below poverty	–	−.61 (.17)***
City-level average sex ratio	.26 (.16)	.47 (.19)*
Interactions by race:
Race × city-level average sex ratio	−.59 (.19)**	–
Race × income	−.54 (.20)**	–
Race × social support	.79 (.18)***	–
Race × perceived neighborhood crime	.50 (.15)***	–
Race × life satisfaction	–	.69 (.25)**
Race × happy with partner’s earning	–	−.57 (.26)*
Race × work status	–	−1.86 (.65)**
Race × perceived self-attractiveness	–	−.93 (.30)**
Intercept	.81 (.16)***	−.15 (.46)
Df	35	25
P	<.0001	.74

^*p<.05;

^**p<.01;

^***p<.001