Robin Hanson responded to a Washington Post article (possibly inspired by Spotted Toad) on the increasing percentage of males 18-29 who report not having sex in the past year with some speculation on whether that was attributed to women of that age group (who reported a smaller increase in celibacy) shifting toward older men or to that subset of 18-29 year old men with more partners. It struck me that since the source of this data was the General Social Survey, which asks respondents their age as well as the number of partners, it should be answerable directly rather than guesses from respondents to a twitter poll. My initial attempt to do so was stymied by a newer GSS interface which generated errors when I tried to construct variables, but an anonymous commenter elsewhere pointed me toward the old interface which was still working. The parameters I used were as follows:
Row: PARTNERS
Column: AGE(r:18-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59)
Control(s): YEAR
Selection filter(s): SEX(1), YEAR(2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018), NUMMEN(0), PARTNERS(0-8)
Variables | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Role | Name | Label | Range | MD | Dataset |
Row | PARTNERS | How many sex partner’s R had in last year | 0-9 | -1,98,99 | 1 |
Column | AGE(Recoded) | Age of respondent | 1-4 | 1 | |
Control | YEAR | GSS year for this respondent | 1972-2018 | 1 | |
Weight | COMPWT | Composite weight = WTSSALL * OVERSAMP * FORMWT | .1912-11.1196 | 1 | |
Filter | SEX(1) | Respondents sex(=MALE) | 1-2 | 0 | 1 |
Filter | YEAR(2008,
2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018) |
GSS year for this respondent | 1972-2018 | 1 | |
Filter | NUMMEN(0) | Number of male sex partner’s since 18 | 0-997 | -1,998,999 | 1 |
Filter | PARTNERS(0-8) | How many sex partner’s R had in last year | 0-9 | -1,98,99 | 1 |
Statistics for YEAR = 2008 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 13.1 20.8 |
7.5 10.3 |
13.1 19.0 |
10.5 15.3 |
11.2 65.3 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 48.6 76.8 |
78.3 107.2 |
71.2 103.4 |
83.6 121.5 |
69.8 408.9 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 14.8 23.4 |
6.5 8.9 |
6.9 10.0 |
2.7 3.9 |
7.9 46.2 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 4.7 7.4 |
2.2 3.1 |
3.4 5.0 |
1.2 1.8 |
2.9 17.3 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 3.6 5.6 |
4.2 5.8 |
2.1 3.0 |
.9 1.3 |
2.7 15.7 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 7.2 11.5 |
1.3 1.8 |
3.3 4.8 |
.7 1.1 |
3.3 19.0 |
|
6: 11-20 PARTNERS | 4.1 6.6 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.3 .4 |
1.2 7.0 |
|
7: 21-100 PARTNERS | 2.8 4.4 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.7 4.4 |
|
8: MORE THAN 100 PARTNERS | 1.1 1.8 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.3 1.8 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 158.2 |
100.0 136.9 |
100.0 145.2 |
100.0 145.3 |
100.0 585.6 |
|
Means | 1.96 | 1.21 | 1.20 | 1.02 | 1.36 | |
Std Devs | 1.90 | .88 | 1.01 | .68 | 1.29 | |
Unweighted N | 133 | 128 | 146 | 135 | 542 |
Summary Statistics for YEAR = 2008 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .29 | Gamma = | -.30 | Rao-Scott-P: F(24,3696) = | 4.61 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.26 | Tau-b = | -.18 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(24,3696) = | 4.61 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.15 | Tau-c = | -.15 | Chisq-P(24) = | 78.79 | |||
Chisq-LR(24) = | 78.75 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Statistics for YEAR = 2010 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 11.9 19.4 |
5.9 8.0 |
5.9 8.2 |
13.6 18.0 |
9.4 53.7 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 52.0 84.9 |
75.8 103.2 |
82.6 116.2 |
77.3 102.2 |
71.0 406.6 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 10.3 16.8 |
4.6 6.3 |
6.1 8.6 |
6.3 8.4 |
7.0 40.1 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 15.6 25.5 |
3.6 4.9 |
2.8 4.0 |
1.7 2.3 |
6.4 36.7 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 7.4 12.1 |
2.3 3.2 |
2.2 3.2 |
.3 .5 |
3.3 18.9 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 2.3 3.7 |
6.8 9.2 |
.3 .5 |
.7 .9 |
2.5 14.3 |
|
6: 11-20 PARTNERS | .6 .9 |
1.0 1.4 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.4 2.3 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 163.4 |
100.0 136.2 |
100.0 140.7 |
100.0 132.3 |
100.0 572.5 |
|
Means | 1.64 | 1.45 | 1.14 | 1.00 | 1.32 | |
Std Devs | 1.27 | 1.27 | .69 | .64 | 1.06 | |
Unweighted N | 134 | 125 | 137 | 132 | 528 |
Summary Statistics for YEAR = 2010 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .24 | Gamma = | -.31 | Rao-Scott-P: F(18,2772) = | 5.07 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.24 | Tau-b = | -.19 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(18,2772) = | 4.91 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.15 | Tau-c = | -.15 | Chisq-P(18) = | 76.73 | |||
Chisq-LR(18) = | 74.26 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Statistics for YEAR = 2012 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 20.4 32.3 |
12.4 18.7 |
5.6 6.7 |
16.1 20.1 |
14.1 77.8 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 47.6 75.4 |
70.8 106.5 |
83.6 99.0 |
77.4 96.8 |
68.4 377.6 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 12.4 19.6 |
8.3 12.6 |
4.6 5.5 |
4.4 5.6 |
7.8 43.2 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 7.0 11.1 |
4.0 6.0 |
2.1 2.5 |
.7 .8 |
3.7 20.4 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 6.3 9.9 |
.8 1.2 |
3.3 3.9 |
1.4 1.7 |
3.0 16.8 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 5.2 8.3 |
2.2 3.3 |
.3 .4 |
.0 .0 |
2.2 12.0 |
|
6: 11-20 PARTNERS | .6 .9 |
.3 .4 |
.3 .4 |
.0 .0 |
.3 1.7 |
|
7: 21-100 PARTNERS | .5 .8 |
1.2 1.7 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.5 2.6 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 158.2 |
100.0 150.3 |
100.0 118.4 |
100.0 125.0 |
100.0 551.9 |
|
Means | 1.52 | 1.23 | 1.16 | .94 | 1.23 | |
Std Devs | 1.44 | 1.11 | .78 | .59 | 1.09 | |
Unweighted N | 133 | 148 | 111 | 114 | 506 |
Summary Statistics for YEAR = 2012 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .19 | Gamma = | -.19 | Rao-Scott-P: F(21,3234) = | 3.49 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.19 | Tau-b = | -.12 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(21,3234) = | 3.78 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.10 | Tau-c = | -.09 | Chisq-P(21) = | 61.20 | |||
Chisq-LR(21) = | 66.34 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Statistics for YEAR = 2014 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 18.5 36.9 |
7.4 12.5 |
6.0 8.3 |
11.4 22.1 |
11.4 79.8 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 54.8 109.0 |
76.3 128.7 |
83.2 115.5 |
80.4 156.0 |
72.7 509.1 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 9.8 19.6 |
5.6 9.5 |
3.6 5.0 |
4.3 8.3 |
6.1 42.4 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 6.8 13.6 |
4.3 7.2 |
3.4 4.8 |
2.8 5.4 |
4.4 31.0 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 5.0 10.0 |
2.9 4.9 |
.8 1.1 |
.2 .4 |
2.4 16.5 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 3.4 6.8 |
1.8 3.0 |
3.0 4.1 |
.9 1.8 |
2.2 15.7 |
|
6: 11-20 PARTNERS | 1.6 3.1 |
1.2 2.1 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.7 5.2 |
|
7: 21-100 PARTNERS | .0 .0 |
.4 .7 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.1 .7 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 199.1 |
100.0 168.5 |
100.0 138.7 |
100.0 194.0 |
100.0 700.4 |
|
Means | 1.42 | 1.31 | 1.19 | 1.03 | 1.24 | |
Std Devs | 1.34 | 1.10 | .87 | .66 | 1.04 | |
Unweighted N | 162 | 165 | 147 | 187 | 661 |
Summary Statistics for YEAR = 2014 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .15 | Gamma = | -.14 | Rao-Scott-P: F(21,3234) = | 3.23 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.14 | Tau-b = | -.08 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(21,3234) = | 3.39 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.06 | Tau-c = | -.06 | Chisq-P(21) = | 57.03 | |||
Chisq-LR(21) = | 59.96 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Statistics for YEAR = 2016 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 23.2 37.3 |
10.9 15.0 |
14.5 16.8 |
13.3 15.2 |
16.0 84.2 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 37.4 60.2 |
72.6 99.5 |
76.7 88.6 |
75.7 86.6 |
63.4 334.8 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 17.7 28.4 |
9.1 12.5 |
7.6 8.7 |
4.9 5.6 |
10.5 55.2 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 4.8 7.7 |
1.4 1.9 |
.8 1.0 |
2.9 3.3 |
2.6 13.9 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 7.5 12.0 |
1.8 2.5 |
.4 .5 |
1.3 1.4 |
3.1 16.5 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 6.8 11.0 |
3.1 4.3 |
.0 .0 |
1.5 1.7 |
3.2 17.0 |
|
6: 11-20 PARTNERS | 2.7 4.3 |
1.0 1.4 |
.0 .0 |
.4 .5 |
1.2 6.2 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 160.9 |
100.0 137.1 |
100.0 115.5 |
100.0 114.4 |
100.0 527.9 |
|
Means | 1.67 | 1.24 | .96 | 1.09 | 1.28 | |
Std Devs | 1.61 | 1.07 | .54 | .87 | 1.18 | |
Unweighted N | 140 | 134 | 108 | 117 | 499 |
Summary Statistics for YEAR = 2016 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .24 | Gamma = | -.19 | Rao-Scott-P: F(18,2772) = | 4.59 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.20 | Tau-b = | -.13 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(18,2772) = | 4.84 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.11 | Tau-c = | -.11 | Chisq-P(18) = | 76.97 | |||
Chisq-LR(18) = | 81.11 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Statistics for YEAR = 2018 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 28.5 43.1 |
8.8 9.2 |
5.9 5.7 |
12.8 12.0 |
15.7 70.0 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 39.9 60.3 |
71.6 74.9 |
82.9 79.0 |
79.6 74.5 |
64.9 288.7 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 11.4 17.2 |
7.2 7.5 |
6.2 5.9 |
3.5 3.3 |
7.6 33.9 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 10.9 16.5 |
2.5 2.6 |
2.0 1.9 |
3.0 2.8 |
5.4 23.8 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 5.0 7.5 |
2.3 2.4 |
2.0 1.9 |
.5 .5 |
2.8 12.3 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 4.0 6.1 |
7.7 8.0 |
1.0 .9 |
.5 .5 |
3.5 15.6 |
|
7: 21-100 PARTNERS | .3 .5 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.1 .5 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 151.3 |
100.0 104.6 |
100.0 95.2 |
100.0 93.5 |
100.0 444.7 |
|
Means | 1.38 | 1.41 | 1.14 | 1.00 | 1.25 | |
Std Devs | 1.38 | 1.24 | .72 | .64 | 1.11 | |
Unweighted N | 113 | 103 | 82 | 93 | 391 |
Summary Statistics for YEAR = 2018 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .15 | Gamma = | -.07 | Rao-Scott-P: F(18,2772) = | 4.74 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.14 | Tau-b = | -.05 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(18,2772) = | 4.84 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.04 | Tau-c = | -.04 | Chisq-P(18) = | 72.01 | |||
Chisq-LR(18) = | 73.55 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Statistics for all valid cases | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cells contain: –Column percent -Weighted N |
AGE | |||||
1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
||
PARTNERS | 0: NO PARTNERS | 19.1 189.8 |
8.8 73.6 |
8.6 64.7 |
12.8 102.7 |
12.7 430.8 |
1: 1 PARTNER | 47.1 466.7 |
74.4 619.9 |
79.8 601.6 |
79.3 637.6 |
68.7 2,325.7 |
|
2: 2 PARTNERS | 12.6 125.0 |
6.9 57.3 |
5.8 43.7 |
4.4 35.0 |
7.7 261.1 |
|
3: 3 PARTNERS | 8.2 81.8 |
3.1 25.7 |
2.5 19.1 |
2.0 16.5 |
4.2 143.0 |
|
4: 4 PARTNERS | 5.8 57.2 |
2.4 20.0 |
1.8 13.6 |
.7 5.8 |
2.9 96.6 |
|
5: 5-10 PARTNERS | 4.8 47.4 |
3.5 29.5 |
1.4 10.7 |
.7 6.0 |
2.8 93.6 |
|
6: 11-20 PARTNERS | 1.6 15.8 |
.6 5.3 |
.1 .4 |
.1 .9 |
.7 22.4 |
|
7: 21-100 PARTNERS | .6 5.7 |
.3 2.4 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.2 8.1 |
|
8: MORE THAN 100 PARTNERS | .2 1.8 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.0 .0 |
.1 1.8 |
|
COL TOTAL | 100.0 991.1 |
100.0 833.7 |
100.0 753.8 |
100.0 804.5 |
100.0 3,383.0 |
|
Means | 1.59 | 1.30 | 1.14 | 1.01 | 1.28 | |
Std Devs | 1.51 | 1.11 | .79 | .68 | 1.13 | |
Unweighted N | 815 | 803 | 731 | 778 | 3,127 |
Summary Statistics for all valid cases | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eta* = | .20 | Gamma = | -.20 | Rao-Scott-P: F(24,3696) = | 15.19 | (p= 0.00) | ||
R = | -.19 | Tau-b = | -.12 | Rao-Scott-LR: F(24,3696) = | 15.35 | (p= 0.00) | ||
Somers’ d* = | -.10 | Tau-c = | -.10 | Chisq-P(24) = | 336.58 | |||
Chisq-LR(24) = | 340.18 | |||||||
*Row variable treated as the dependent variable. |
Tracking the standard deviations for the first age group (18-29) by survey year we have
Year | Standard deviations | |
---|---|---|
2008 | 1.90 | |
2010 | 1.27 | |
2012 | 1.44 | |
2014 | 1.34 | |
2016 | 1.61 | |
2018 | 1.38 | |
All Years | 1.51 |
2008 actually had the highest standard deviation, and while 2010 had the lowest there wasn’t anything like a consistent pattern of increase, as 2018 had the second lowest. Now let’s mean at the means for all age groups per year:
Year | 1 18-29 |
2 30-39 |
3 40-49 |
4 50-59 |
ROW TOTAL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2008 | 1.96 | 1.21 | 1.20 | 1.02 | 1.36 |
2010 | 1.64 | 1.45 | 1.14 | 1.00 | 1.32 |
2012 | 1.52 | 1.23 | 1.16 | 0.94 | 1.23 |
2014 | 1.42 | 1.31 | 1.19 | 1.03 | 1.24 |
2016 | 1.67 | 1.24 | 0.96 | 1.09 | 1.28 |
2018 | 1.38 | 1.41 | 1.14 | 1.00 | 1.25 |
All Years | 1.59 | 1.30 | 1.14 | 1.01 | 1.28 |
The overall mean trends downward, but the 50-59 group actually had their mean increase. The 18-29 group had a significant downward trend, even with the blip upward in 2016. 2016 is also responsible for most of the difference between the first & last half of the years in the 40-49 group. Between the two explanations, I would thus conclude that a shift toward older men relative to the 18-29 group fits better than an increase in variance within 18-29. A major caveat: the PARTNERS variable already comes in buckets starting with 5, so you can’t really measure aggregates in terms of actual numbers of partners. I kept those as still preserving rank ordering and contributing to shifts in means & variance, even if it wouldn’t do justice to a hypothetical where those men are taking up a large fraction of all partnerings. Also, the more important an individual man might be, the bigger an issue the sample size presents.
April 10, 2019 at 5:27 pm
[…] Added 10Apr: TGGP reviews data & concludes: […]
April 10, 2019 at 5:28 pm
I added a little to my post linking to and quoting from this.