Table 2.

OLS Regression of Intimate Partner Violence on Asymmetries and Control Variables (n=828)

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4a
Demographic Asymmetries
Education (Educational homogamy)
Male more educated	−0.02	0.02	0.03	−0.01
Female more educated	−0.01	−0.06	−0.06	−0.10
Employment (Both partners employed)
Male employed, female unemployed	0.28 ***	0.29 ***	0.27 ***	0.17 *
Both partners unemployed	0.59 ***	0.53 ***	0.49 ***	0.32 **
Female employed, male unemployed	0.46 ***	0.35 ***	0.33 ***	0.20 *
Race (Same-race) Interracial	0.29 ***	0.24 ***	0.24 **	0.20 **
Age (Age homogamy)
Male older	0.12	0.10	0.11	0.13 *
Female older	−0.03	−0.10	−0.11	−0.07
Relational Asymmetries
Investment (Investment homogamy)
Male more invested		−0.13	−0.13	−0.24 *
Female more invested  Power (Influence homogamy)		0.24 ***	0.20 **	0.13
Male more influence than female		0.51 ***	0.43 ***	0.28 **
Female more influence than male		0.24 **	0.22 **	0.19 **
Success (Success homogamy)
Male more successful		0.00	0.03	0.03
Female more successful		0.23 ***	0.17 **	0.13 *
Risk Asymmetries
Antisocial Behavior (Neither partner antisocial)
Male, but not female, antisocial			0.43 ***	0.40 ***
Both partners antisocial			0.57 ***	0.51 ***
Female, but not male, antisocial			0.14	0.18

Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

Note:

^*p<.05

^**p<.01

^***p<.001

^aModel 4 included all control variables, but due to spacing, the control variables are not presented in the table.