I watched Senator Lieberman on Fox News Sunday. Am I off-base here, or is he the reincarnation of Droopy the Dog?

Are women catching up to men at being unfaithful?

According to this Huffington Post columnist, women are smarter than men at infidelity, and they are catching up to men in prevelance.

The GSS asked respondents if they ever strayed. I divided answers into two periods: 1991-1998 and 2000-2010. In the first period, 23.0 perent of men and 13.1 percent of women cheated (sample size = 8,103). The difference is statistically significant.

In the second period, the figures are 23.4 and 14.5 percent (sample size = 9,304). Again, men are significantly more likely to be unfaithful than women, but the latter estimates for both sexes are not significantly higher than their respective numbers from period 1. The GSS does not support the view that women are catching up with men. And I don't have any data concerning the cleverness of female cheating.

Are stay-at-home moms unhappy?

This Time columnist thinks that homemakers are so unhappy (and angry), social change is called for. What does the GSS say about their level of unhappiness?

I included mothers since the 2000 survey to maximize sample size. Respondents were asked how happy they are these days. Answers range from "very happy" (1) to "pretty happy" (2) to "not too happy" (3). I calculated means for mothers of all work statuses. Higher means indicate more sadness (sample size = 5,286).


Mean sadness score

Full-time 1.82
Part-time 1.78
Temporarily not working 1.90
Laid off 2.05*
Retired 1.82
School 1.83
Keeping house 1.83

*significantly sadder than full-timers


According to GSS data, there is no difference in mean level of happiness between mothers working full-time and homemakers.

People prefer male politicians with lower voices

Here's a new study from Evolution and Human Behavior:

It may be adaptive for voters to recognize good leadership qualities among politicians. Men with lower-pitched voices are found to be more dominant and attractive than are men with higher-pitched voices. Candidate attractiveness and vocal quality relate to voting behavior, but no study has tested the influence of voice pitch on voting-related perceptions. We tested whether voice pitch influenced perceptions of politicians and how these perceptions related to voting behavior. In Study 1, we manipulated voice pitch of recordings of US presidents and asked participants to attribute personality traits to the voices and to choose the voice they preferred to vote for. We found that lower-pitched voices were associated with favorable personality traits more often than were higher-pitched voices and that people preferred to vote for politicians with lower-pitched rather than higher-pitched voices. Furthermore, lower voice pitch was more strongly associated with physical prowess than with integrity in a wartime voting scenario. Thus, sensitivity to vocal cues to dominance was heightened during wartime. In Study 2, we found that participants preferred to vote for the candidate with the lower-pitched voice when given the choice between two unfamiliar men's voices speaking a neutral sentence. Taken together, our results suggest that candidates' voice pitch has an important influence on voting behavior and that men with lower-pitched voices may have an advantage in political elections.

I remember being annoyed in 2008 with McCain's Bruce Dern-like voice. Romney and Cain had the best voices during the recent primaries. Romney might have a slight advantage over Obama. Cain and Obama are definitely better singers.

The voting behavior of housewives

How do housewives vote?  According to the GSS, 63 percent voted for Obama (sample size = 131). Among married women (sample size = 73), 49 percent voted for him. One hundred percent of never-married stay-at-home women went for Obama (sample size = 19). Sixty percent of homemakers say they are political moderates. How large is the demographic? They are 16 percent of voting women.

Lesbianism among Jewish women

The question came up over at Steve Sailer's blog if Jewish women are more likely than other women to be lesbian. It wouldn't surprise me since data reported on this blog indicate that lesbians tend to be smarter than average, and they are more likely to come from wealthy homes. According to GSS data, here are the percentages of women by religion who say they are lesbian (sample size = 10,981):


Percent lesbian

Protestant 1.8*
Catholic 1.6*
Jewish 1.4
No religion 4.0

*significantly less than the no religion group


No evidence here for more Jewish lesbians.

From what I hear, straight Jewish women are plenty good at denying men sex.

The link between intelligence and cooperativeness

In a sample of almost 4,500 men, a positive correlation (.23) was observed between general intelligence and the general factor of personality (GFP). GFP captures one's ability to work well with others. According to the authors, general intelligence evolved to generate more resources while GFP evolved to secure a larger share of group resources.

The positive correlation suggests four types of people, two of which are more common and two of which are less uncommon. The more frequent types are smart-cooperative and dull-uncooperative people. Less common are smart-uncooperative and dull-cooperative folks.   

Disliking races might be a personality trait

The GSS asked respondents how warmly they feel about: 1) whites, 2) blacks, 3) Hispanics, and 4) Asians. Answers ranged from very cool to very warm. I correlated answers for whites. The mean correlation is .63. While there is substantial range--from .45 for white-white to .81 for Asian-Hispanic--the main story here is that if a person dislikes one group, he tends to have comparatively cool feelings for all groups, even his own. I found the same basic results when I limited the analysis to the black sample or a sample of those of some other race.

We can construct a typology here for all races. Roughly half feel warmly toward all races. Thirty percent or so are neutral toward everyone. Fifteen percent like their group but dislike everyone else, and five percent can't stand anybody. The consistent attitude for various groups leads me to think one's disposition toward groups is a personality trait. It's probably related to one's attitude toward people in general: trusting and warm versus suspicious and hostile.

Father's social class and homosexuality

Using GSS data, I calculated the mean father's socioeconomic index for women who are straight, bisexual, and lesbian (sample size = 8,551).


Mean Father's Socioeconomic Index

Straight 47.3
Bisexual 50.4
Lesbian 52.7*

*significantly higher than straight women


Compared to straight women, lesbians come from significantly higher status families. And for men (sample size = 7,867):


Mean Father's Socioeconomic Index

Straight 48.2
Bisexual 50.1
Gay 49.3

Gay men do not come from significantly higher status homes than straight men.

I'm not sure how to explain the pattern. Women from higher class homes might be more willing to admit lesbianism or might be more willing to adopt a lesbian orientation. There is evidence that lesbianism is more environmentally influenced than homosexuality. One might suggest that higher status fathers are more masculine (at least in some ways) and more likely to have masculine daughters.

Predictors of anti-Semitism

GSS respondents were asked to give a number between 0 and 100 that describes their feelings toward Jews. They were told that 0 to 50 indicates not being favorable to and not caring for Jews, while 50 to 100 indicates feeling favorable and warm. Among a sample of  4,487, 12.1% gave a number under 50. Multiple regression reveals which factors predict liking Jews:

Standardized OLS Regression Coefficients

Age .098
Sex .069
Race .059
Size of place -.037
South -.021
Education .071
Income .057
Church attendance .144
Political conservatism -.009


All predictors are significantly related to liking Jews with the two exceptions of conservatism and living in the South. Focusing on the negative, here are the characteristics of people more likely to dislike Jews: young, male, non-white, urban, uneducated, poor, and irreligious.  The strongest predictor is religiosity. Age and education are also important. It surprises me that people who are young and urban are more likely to be anti-Semitic.

I didn't include IQ as a predictor since it is collinear with education, but if it takes the place of educational level, it is a comparatively strong predictor of liking Jews (the coefficient is .177).

Interracial murder

The Trayvon Martin case is an opportunity to remind people of the reality of interracial crime in the United States.

For the purposes of this analysis, I'll use the term "whites" to refer to whites plus Hispanics since they get lumped together in the data. According to FBI data for 2010,  218 blacks were murdered by whites. Blacks murdered 447 whites. But this is comparing apples and oranges since whites are 6.4 times the size of the black population. If we calculate murders per 10 million in the race-specific population (interracial murder is rare), the rate is 8.82 for whites and 114.89 for blacks. So blacks kill whites at a rate 13 times higher than that of whites killing blacks.

Another way to look at it is multiply the black population by 6.4 to make it as large as whites. If it were as large, 2861 whites would have been murdered compared to the 218 blacks killed by whites.

Predictors of racism

As a follow-up to the last post, let's do multiple regression to see which factors predict feeling cool toward blacks (sample size = 958 whites):

Coolness toward blacks (standardized OLS coefficients)

Age .088*
Sex -.096*
Size of place -.036
South .025
Education -.011*
Income -.027
Church attendance -.105*
Political conservatism .082*

*p < .05, two-tailed

So cooler feelings are associated with being: older, male, less educated, less religious, and more conservative. Population size, income, and being from the South do not matter.

And here is the model for blacks feeling cool toward whites (sample size = 117):


Coolness toward whites (standardized OLS coefficients)

Age -.003
Sex .013
Size of place .239*
South .109
Education -.134
Income .077
Church attendance .106
Political conservatism .114

*p < .05, two-tailed


Living in a more populated area is the only significant predictor of coolness among blacks. The sample size is small, so if we ignore significance and focus on the size of the cooefficients, it looks like the following are associated with not liking whites: living in the South, less education, more income, more church attendance, and more political conservatism. Age and sex don't seem to matter. It's interesting that church seems to discourage racism among whites but encourage it among blacks.

What percent of whites don't like blacks?

I have a white friend who is married to a black woman. "Converts make the best zealots" certainly applies to this guy. He rants constantly that George Zimmerman proves that white racism is still alive and well. After reminding him that Zimmerman is Hispanic and that anecdote is the weakest form of  evidence, I bring out the big guns: the General Social Survey.

Respondents were asked in 2002 how warmly or cooly do they feel towards blacks as a group. Answers ranged from "very warm" (1) to very cool (9). Among whites (sample size = 2162), only 11.4% percent gave a cool answer (answers 6-9). Only 2.3% said "very cool." (Blacks were asked the same question, and 5.9% gave a cool answer for fellow blacks.)

Next, I calculated median education and income for whites giving cool answers. It is 12.0 years of school and the income range between $25,000 and $29,999. So whites that don't like blacks are, on average, uneducated, and they have low status jobs. They don't run anything and so are in no position to deny blacks jobs, etc.

While we're at it, 15.6% of blacks (sample size = 405) feel cool toward whites. Four percent answered "very cool." And the share of whites who are cool toward whites: 4.7%.

A black-white difference in cortisol level

A new study from Homones and Behavior reveals a black-white difference among children in cortisol levels throughout the day. A flatter diurnal slope is associated with more chronic stress and health problems.

As shown in the graph, whites wake up with a significantly higher level which then falls more quickly throughout the day. The different slope remains even when the following factors are controlled: age, gender, non-steroid medication usage, sleep, wake time, socioeconomic risk, psychosocial risk, perceived discrimination, harsh parenting, and parental monitoring.

Compared to blacks, the slope for Hispanics is more similar to whites, although Hispanics do have lower cortisol levels than whites by evening time.

The authors suggest that since morning levels of cortisol are known to be influenced by genes, the racial difference might be due, in part, to genetic differences.

IQ is more important than social class

This is a structural equation model of a cohort of Swedish men. It shows that IQ is an important determinant of income and especially occupational position.  Much of its influence is indirect: it is a strong predictor of educational level which, in turn, is a powerful determinant of both income and especially occupational position. Parent's social class, by contrast, is comparatively less important. It has little to no direct influence on income or job position, and predicts educational level only moderately.

A whole academic field--sociology--developed on the view that social class is of critical importance. If disciplines emerged as a result of empirical support, students could major in IQiology.

Why do wealthy white conservative women have more children?

In the recent post on the fertility of wealthy white women, a reader raised the question of why conservative women have more children. He suggested it was greater religiosity and less involvement in the workplace.

We can use OLS regression analysis to help answer the question. I included white women ages 40-59 in households earning at least $100k in 1986 dollars. First, I regressed the number of offspring onto political orientation. The unstandardized coefficient is .161 (p < .05) which indicates that conservative women have significantly more babies. If we include church attendance, the coefficient drops to .120. If, instead, we include hours worked last week, the political coefficent drops to .132. If, instead, we include years of schooling completed, the political slope falls to .131. (The correlation between education and conservatism among wealthy white women is -.16--liberals tend to be more educated.) If all three controls are included in the model, the results look like this:


Number of offspring (sample size = 231)

Conservatism .081
Church attendance .098*
Hours of work -.007
Education -.081*

*p < .05, two-tail


With the three controls included, the link between poltical views and number of offspring falls to non-significance. In this full model, number of hours worked also has no significant effect on fertility.  To put it in plain English, the data indicate that wealthy white conservative women have more children because they are more religious and less educated than liberal women.

One caution: education's effect is not the influence of IQ. Among this demographic, IQ is unrelated to fertility. The correlation between IQ and number of kids is .02--basically zero. Education's influence appears to be cultural.

Sexual selection and small female feet

This new study in Evolution and Human Behavior provides evidence that the smaller female foot length to body length ratio is due to intersexual selection. Evidently, men perceive small feet to be more attractive since they are associated with youth and thus greater potential fertility.

Fertility among wealthy white liberal and conservative women

The issue of fertility among wealthy conservative and liberal white women was raised at Steve Sailer's blog. I calculated the mean number of children for the two groups (ages 40-59, households making at least 100k in 1986 dollars):


Mean number of offspring

Wealthy liberal women (n = 35) 1.60
Wealthy conservative women (n = 43) 2.49

The difference is statistically significant. Wealthy white conservative women average 55 percent more kids than their liberal counterparts.

Are moderates smart?

The media gives the impression that only moderate Republicans are intelligent. The truth is that the dumbest spot on the political continuum is the center.

Using data on the GSS vocabulary test, I created an IQ score for all respondents. I've listed the mean IQ for those who voted for McCain, Obama, and those who describe themselves as moderates (sample size = 944).


Mean IQ

McCain 102.28
Obama 100.06
Moderates 97.72

The difference between people who voted for McCain and self-described moderates is statistically significant.

Catholics are NOT social conservatives

I scratch my head every time pundits refer to Catholics as social conservatives. As a group, they simply are not. Exit polls show that in the Michigan primary a plurality of Catholics voted for Romney, not Santorum. The church has little influence over parishioners.