Table 5.

Sex Ratio Imbalance and Union Stability: Relationship Volatility (Number of Times Broken Up With Romantic Partner), Negative Binomial Regression Coefficients¹

		Females (n=456)				Males (n=415)
	Model 1A	Model 2A	Model 3A	Model 4A	Model 1B	Model 2B	Model 3B	Model 4B
Intercept	−.016	−.070	−.104	−.107	.008	−.008	−.658**	−.728***
Market Characteristics
Sex ratioa,b	−.010*	−.009*	−.004	−.004	−.004	−.005	−.008*	−.007
Sex ratio squaredc		.0003*	−.000	−.000		.000	—	—
Neighborhood disadvantage			—	−.001			—	−.018*
Individual Characteristics
Demographics
Ageb			.002	.002			−.009	−.014
Black			.505**	.511**			.261	.417*
Hispanic			.271	.273			.004	.038
Other race			−.104	−.102			.332	.421
Has child			.101	.102			.270	.301†
Employment status
Working			.028	.027			.261	.224
School			−.209	−.210			.236	.199
Family Structure
One biological parent			.198	.201			.154	.188
Stepparent			.195	.196			.286	.320†
Other family structure			−.122	−.120			.480	.515†
Family Socioeconomic Statusd
Mother < HS education			.130	.132			.114	.172
Mother > HS education			−.264†	−.264†			.247†	.254†
Attitude and Relationship Scales
Religiosity			−.001	−.001			.026†	.027†
Sexual Impulsivity			.102	.102			.530***	.561***
Cheating Propensity			.111	.110			−.082	−.094
Relationship Commitment			–.012	–.011			.122	.131
Log Likelihood	−413.77	−412.77	−392.19	−392.19	−385.82	−385.74	−361.08	−359.70

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.