Table 2.

Sex Ratio Imbalance and Union Formation: Currently in a Romantic Relationship, Odds Ratios

		Females (n=456)				Males (n=415)
	Model 1A	Model 2A	Model 3A	Model 4A	Model 1B	Model 2B	Model 3B	Model 4B
Intercept	3.000***	2.941***	4.659***	5.339***	1.641***	1.591***	1.502	1.651
Market Characteristics
Sex ratioa,b	1.004	1.004	1.006	1.011	1.013†	1.012	1.010	1.005
Sex ratio squaredc		1.000	—	—		1.000	—	—
Neighborhood disadvantage			—	1.036*			—	1.039*
Individual Characteristics
Demographics
Ageb			1.164*	1.153†			1.179*	1.181*
Black			.959	.663			2.480*	1.949*
Hispanic			1.075	.900			2.586†	2.306
Other race			1.200	1.079			.595	.546
Has child			.206	.768			3.220*	3.057*
Employment status
Working			.510†	.555†			1.008	1.059
School			.609	.663			.945	.995
Family Structure
One biological parent			1.189	1.069			.978	.912
Stepparent			1.361	1.257			2.225*	2.192*
Other family structure			1.503	1.346			.322	.286†
Family Socioeconomic Statusd
Mother < HS education			.737	.663			.575	.526
Mother > HS education			1.100	1.119			.613†	.617†
Attitude Scales
Religiosityb			.971	.974			.986	.986
Sexual Impulsivity			.346*	.358*			.451*	430*
Cheating Propensity			1.132	1.123			1.000	1.023
Log Likelihood	–256.29	–256.24	–241.63	–239.55	–274.33	–274.20	–242.55	–239.85

Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS), Wave 4

Notes

^†P < 0.10;

^*p < 0.05;

^**p < 0.01;

^***p < 0.001, two-tailed significance tests adjusted for clustering within census tracts

^aFor males, we use an inverse of the traditional sex ratio so that the measure is directionally consistent across genders, with high scores reflecting greater partner availability for both groups.

^bIndicates variable is mean-centered.

^cCoefficient for sex ratio squared is only shown in models where it contributed significantly to the explanatory power of the model

^dModel also controls for missing mother’s education.