Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 7.
Published in final edited form as: Criminology. 2018 Jun 25;56(3):574–607. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12181

Table 5.

Second Stage Results Predicting Theoretical Mechanisms

Mechanism 1:
Women’s resources
Mechanism 2:
Family formation
Mechanism 3:
Partner’s resources
Mechanism 4:
Attitudes
Literate Employed Occupa-
tional
prestigea
Married as
teen
1st birth as teen Years of
schooling
Occupa-
tional
prestigeb
IPV is OKd

Estimated years of education .01 *** .01 .38 *** −.05 *** −.05 *** .34 *** .30 *** −.01 **
(.00) *** (.01) (.04) (.01) (.01) (.04) (.03) (.00)
Constant .83 0.71 *** .48 1.03 *** .99 *** 6.33 *** 1.04 ** .17 ***
(.04) (0.06) (.43) (.06) (.06) (.38) (.34) (.03)
N 14,825 14,835 7,586 14,836 14,836 14,743 10,336 14,592

Note: All models adjust for ethnolinguistic background, childhood location; number of siblings, history of family violence, and state of residence.

Robust standard errors in parentheses, clustered by survey cluster

***

p<0.001,

**

p<0.01,

*

p<0.05,

p<0.1

a

Occupational prestige is calculated among employed respondents only.

b

Partner’s occupational prestige is calculated among ever-married and currently partnered respondents only. Observations in 2012 and between August and December 2010 are not included in this measure (information was not collected at these times).

c

Difference in occupational prestige is calculated among ever-married and currently partnered respondents where both the respondent and her partner were listed as having an occupation and where information on each of their occupations was available.

d

Attitudinal questions toward IPV were only asked in Peru starting in 2005. Only observations from 2005 onward are included in this measure.