現顯著負相關，且父執輩省出生性比例對兒子亡存比的影響比其對女兒亡存比的 影響大，而年輕樣本雖然三項結果均為負，卻只有女兒亡存比的係數是顯著的，
且其係數絕對值較年長樣本之相同變數大。至於亡存比兒女差方面，年長樣本此 項結果顯著為負，但年輕樣本此項結果已不顯著。而家庭暴力、情緒暴力、丈夫 掌控欲等三項夫妻關係變數的分割樣本結果也有明顯世代差異，年長樣本三個項 目的省出生性比例係數都很小且不顯著，但年輕樣本的三項係數卻均顯著為負。
歸納所有迴歸結果可得，不論是代表客觀條件的子女狀況變數或代表主觀價 值的夫妻關係變數，均受省出生性比例的高低不同影響；出生性比例扭曲的世代 進入適婚年齡後造成的婚姻市場失衡，確實影響了女性在婚姻中的地位，婦女在 家庭中的議價能力確實會隨著女性的稀少性而增加。
參考文獻
Almond, D., Edlund, L. and Milligan, K. (2009), "Son Preference and the Persistence of Culture: Evidence from Asian Immigrants to Canada." NBER Working Paper No. 15391.
Ananat, E. O., Gruber, J., Levine, P. B. and Staiger, D. (2009), "Abortion and selection." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 124–136.
Angrist, J. (2002), "How do Sex Ratios Affect Marriage and Labor Markets?
Evidence from America’s Second Generation." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3): 997-1038.
Arnold, F., Kishor, S. and Roy, T.K. (2002), "SexSelective Abortions in India."
Population and Development Review, 28(4): 759785.
Barcellos, S. H., Carvalho, L. and LlerasMuney, A. (2010), "Child Gender and Parental Investment in India: Are Boys and Girls Treated Differently?" Working paper.
Basu, K. (2006), "Gender and Say: A Model of Household Behaviour with Endogenously Determined Balance of Power." The Economic Journal, 116(511):
558-580.
Becker, G. S. (1973), "A Theory of Marriage: Part I." Journal of Political Economy, 81(4): 813-846.
Becker, G. S. (1974), "A Theory of Marriage: Part II." Journal of Political Economy, 82(2): S11-S26.
Becker, G. S. (1991), "A Treatise on the Family." Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Press.
Beegle, K., Frankenberg, E., and Thomas, D. (2001), "Bargaining Power within Couples and Use of Prenatal and Delivery Care in Indonesia." Studies in Family Planning, 32(2): 130-146.
BenPorath, Y. and Welch, F. (1976), "Do Sex Preferences Really Matter?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(2): 285307.
Bhalotra, S. and Cochrane, T. (2010), "Where Have All the Young Girls Gone?
Identification of Sex Selection in India." IZA Discussion Paper No. 5381.
Blau, D. M. and Robins, P. K. (1988), "Child-Care Costs and Family Labor Supply."
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3): 374-381.
Chandramouli, C. (2011), "Provisional Population Totals." Census of India 2011, Office of the Registrar General & Censes Commissioner, India.
Chiappori, P., Fortin, B. and Lacroix, G. (2002), "Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation, and Household Labor Supply." Journal of Political Economy, 110(1):
37-72.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1989), "Review Lecture: Mammalian Mating Systems."
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 236(1285): 339-372.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Parker, G. A. (1992), "Potential Reproductive Rates and the Operation of Sexual Selection." The Quarterly Review of Biology, 67(4):
437-456.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Vincent, A. C. J. (1991), "Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females." Nature, 351: 58-60.
Craig, L. (2006), "Does Father Care Mean Fathers Share? A Comparison of How Mothers and Fathers in Intact Families Spend Time with Children." Gender and
Society, 20(2): 259-281.
Das Gupta, M. (1987), "Selective discrimination against female children in Punjab, India." Population Development Review 13(1): 77-100.
Das Gupta, M. (2005), "Explaining Asia’s Missing Women: A New look at the Data."
Population and Development Review, 31(3): 529-35.
Das Gupta, M. (2006), "Cultural versus Biological Factors in Explaining Asia’s
“Missing Women”: Response to Oster." Population and Development Review, 32(2): 328-32.
Das Gupta, M. (2009), "Family Systems, Political systems, and Asia’s ‘Missing Girls’The Construction of Son Preference and Its Unraveling." Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank.
Das Gupta, M. and Mari Bhat, P. N. (1997), "Fertility Decline and the Increased Manifestation of Sex Bias in India." Population Studies, 51(3): 307315.
Donohue, J. J. and Levitt, S. (2001), "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2): 379420.
Dubuc, S. and Coleman, D. (2007), "An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to IndiaBorn Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for SexSelective Abortion." Population and Development Review, 33(2): 383400.
Duflo, E. (2000), "Child health and household resources in South Africa: Evidence from the Old Age Pension program." American Economic Review, 90(2):
393-398.
Duflo, E. (2003), "Grandmothers and granddaughters: Old-age pensions and intrahousehold allocation in South Africa." World Bank Economic Review, 17(1):
1-25.
Duggal, R. (2004), "The Political Economy of Abortion in India: Cost and Expenditure Patterns." Reproductive Health Matters 12(24): 130137.
Duggal, R. and Vimala, R. (2004), "The Abortion Assessment Project – India: Key Findings and Recommendations." Reproductive Health Matters, 12: 122129.
Dyson, T. and Moore, M. (1983), "On Kinship Structure, Female Autonomy, and Demographic Behavior in India." Population and Development Review, 9(1):
3560.
George, S. M. (2002), "Sex Selection/Determination in India: Contemporary Developments." Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19): 190192.
Goodkind, D. (1996), "On Substituting Sex Preference Strategies in East Asia: Does Prenatal Sex Selection Reduces Postnatal Discrimination?" Population and Development Review, 22(1): 111125.
Guilmoto, C. Z. (2007), "characteristics of sex-ratio imbalance in India, and future scenarios." 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights, UNFPA.
Hirve, S. S. (2004), "Abortion Law, Policy, and Services in India: a Critical Review."
Reproductive Health Matters, 12(24): 114121.
Hu, L. and Schlosser, A. (2011), "Prenatal Sex Selection and Girls’ WellBeing:
Evidence from India." Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International (2007),
"National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India." Mumbai: IIPS.
Jayachandran, S. and Kuziemko, I. (2010), "Why Do Mothers Breastfeed Girls Less than Boys? Evidence and Implications for Child Health in India." NBER Working Paper No. 15041.
Johnston, H. B. (2002), "Abortion practice in India: A review of literature." Abortion Assessment Project – India, Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes.
Kimmel, J. (1998), "Child Care Costs as a Barrier to Employment for Single and Married Mothers." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(2): 287-299.
Kishor, S. (1993), "May God Give Sons to All: Gender and Child Mortality in India."
American Sociological Review, 58(2): 247265.
Kishor, S., and Gupta, K. (2009), "Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in India." National Family Health Survey (NFHS3), India, 200506. Mumbai:
International Institute for Population Sciences; Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF Macro.
Lin, Ming-Jen and Ming-Ching Luoh (2008), "Can Hepatitis B Mothers Account for the Number of Missing Women? Evidence from Three Million Newborns in Taiwan." American Economic Review, 98(5), 2259-2273.
Lin, MingJen, Liu, JinTan and Qian, N. (2010), "More Missing Women, Fewer Girls Dying: The Impact of Abortion on Sex Ratios at Birth and Excess Female Mortality in Taiwan." NBER Working Paper w14541 and CEPR Discussion paper No. DP6667.
Lundberg, S. and Pollak, R. A. (1993), "Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market." Journal of Political Economy, 101(6): 988-1010.
Lundberg, S. and Pollak, R. A. (1994), "Noncooperative Bargaining Models of Marriage." American Economic Review, 84(2): 132-137.
Lundberg, S. and Pollak, R. A. (1996), "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage."
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4): 139-158.
Lundberg, S., Pollak, R. A. and Wales, T. (1997), "Do Husbands and Wives Pool
Their Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit." Journal of Human Resources, 32(3): 463-480.
Manser, M. and Brown, M. (1980), "Marriage and household decision-making: A Bargaining Analysis." International Economic Review, 21(1): 31-44.
Nicodemo, C. and Waldmann, R. (2009), "Child-Care and Participation in the Labor Market for Married Women in Mediterranean Countries." IZA Discussion Paper No. 3983.
Oster, E. (2005), "Hepatitis B and the Case of the Missing Women." Journal of Political Economy, 113(6): 1163-1216.
Oster, E. (2006), "Explaining Asia’s Missing Women: A New Look at the Data -Comments." Population and Development Review, 32(2): 323-327.
Pollak, R. (1994), "For Better or Worse: The Roles of Power in Models of Distribution within Marriage." American Economic Review, 84(2): 148-152.
Porter, M. (2007), "Imbalance in China’s Marriage Market and Its Effect on Bargaining within the Household." Manuscript, University of Chicago, July 2007.
Qian, N. (2008), "Missing Women and the Price of Tea in China: The Effect of Sex-Specific Earnings on Sex Imbalance." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(3): 1251-1285.
Rainer, H. (2008), "Gender Discrimination and Efficiency in Marriage: The Bargaining Family under Scrutiny." Journal of Population Economics, 21(2):
305-329.
Rosenzweig, M. R. and Schultz, T. P. (1982), "Market Opportunities, Genetic Endowments, and Intrafamily Resource Distribution: Child Survival in Rural India." The American Economic Review, 72(4): 803815.
Seiz, J. A. (1995), "Bargaining Models, Feminism, and Institutionalism." Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2): 609-618.
Sen, A. (1990), "More than 100 million Women are Missing." New York Review of Books (December 20).
Sen, A. (1992), "Missing Women." BMJ, 304: 586587.
Sen, A. (2003), "Missing Women – Revisited." BMJ, 327: 12971299.
Thomas, D. (1990), "Intra-Household Resource Allocation: An Inferential Approach." Journal of Human Resources, 25(4): 635-664.
Thomas, D. (1994), "Like Father, Like Son; Like Mother, Like Daughter: Parental Resources and Child Height." Journal of Human Resources, 29(4): 950-988.
Trivers, R. L. and Willard, D. E. (1973), "Natural Selection of Parental Ability to Vary the Sex Ratio of Offspring." Science, 179(4068): 90-92.
UNFPA (2010), "Guidance Note on Prenatal Sex Selection." UNFPA.
Wax, A. L. (1998), "Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market: Is There a Future for Egalitarian Marriage?" Virginia Law Review, 84(4): 509-672.
Yount, K. M. (2005), "Resources, Family Organization, and Domestic Violence against Married Women in Minya, Egypt." Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3): 579-596.
附錄
《圖 1-1》2011 印度行政區及人口分布圖
資料來源：Chandramouli (2011), “Provisional Population Totals”，頁 37。
《圖 1-2》印度性比例趨勢
資料來源：Guilmoto (2007), “characteristics of sex-ratio imbalance in India, and future scenarios”，頁 3。
《圖 1-3》1981-2001 印度各省幼兒性比例
資料來源：Guilmoto (2007), “characteristics of sex-ratio imbalance in India, and future scenarios”，頁 4。
《圖 3-1》小孩數時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-2》兒子數時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-3》女兒數時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-4》小孩亡存比時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-5》兒子亡存比時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-6》女兒亡存比時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-7》亡存比兒女差時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-8》曾受家庭暴力比例時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-9》曾受情緒暴力比例時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-10》曾受丈夫掌控比例時間趨勢圖
《圖 3-11》各省出生性比例時間趨勢圖
《表 3-1》各被解釋變數之統計摘要：全部樣本
樣本數 平均值 標準差 最小值 最大值
小孩數 53812 2.1761 1.5133 0 13 兒子數 53812 1.1363 1.0051 0 9 女兒數 53812 1.0398 1.0776 0 9
小孩亡存比 47234 0.0779 0.2535 0 4 兒子亡存比 37725 0.0695 0.2691 0 6 女兒亡存比 34101 0.0618 0.2506 0 4 亡存比兒女差 24592 0.0092 0.3703 -3.5 6
家庭暴力指數 39984 0.4810 1.0287 0 6 情緒暴力指數 39992 0.1946 0.5942 0 3 丈夫掌控指數 40008 0.7563 1.2112 0 6 註：小孩數、小孩亡存比、兒子數、兒子亡存比、女兒數、女兒亡存比、亡存比 兒女差等七個變數以NFHS 資料庫中之 national women’s weight 加權計算而得；
家庭暴力、情緒暴力、丈夫掌控欲等三個變數以資料庫中之 national domestic violence weight 計算而得。
《表 3-2》各被解釋變數之統計摘要：1978 年（含）前出生者 兒女差等七個變數以NFHS 資料庫中之 national women’s weight 加權計算而得；
家庭暴力、情緒暴力、丈夫掌控欲等三個變數以資料庫中之 national domestic violence weight 計算而得。
《表 3-3》各被解釋變數之統計摘要：1979 年（含）後出生者 兒女差等七個變數以NFHS 資料庫中之 national women’s weight 加權計算而得；
家庭暴力、情緒暴力、丈夫掌控欲等三個變數以資料庫中之 national domestic violence weight 計算而得。
《表 3-4》各解釋變數之全國及各省平均值
受教年數 家庭財富指數 受訪者年齡 婚姻存續期間指數
India 3.8359 3.7232 30.4567 2.9692
Jammu and Kashmir 4.1185 4.2708 32.4980 2.9591 Himachal Pradesh 4.3758 4.1739 32.2647 3.1014 Punjab 4.3663 4.5886 31.8727 3.0036 Uttaranchal 4.3831 4.1791 31.0259 2.9708 Haryana 4.1806 4.2843 29.3195 2.7951 Delhi 4.2750 4.8340 33.0804 3.1794 Rajasthan 3.7942 4.0193 28.7362 2.7678 Uttar Pradesh 4.1641 3.5692 29.1718 2.8226 Bihar 3.7359 3.5219 28.1821 2.8083 Sikkim 3.7184 4.1608 30.0260 2.7378 Arunachal Pradesh 3.5761 3.4784 28.6430 2.6558 Nagaland 3.5346 3.5218 31.8504 2.9597 Manipur 3.8598 3.6893 32.6126 2.7916 Mizoram 3.5349 4.1336 32.8567 3.0349 Tripura 3.4597 3.1502 30.8021 2.9866 Meghalaya 3.4658 3.4921 30.7957 2.8219 Assam 3.6392 3.1142 30.5290 2.8747 West Bengal 3.4846 3.2455 30.0340 2.9926 Jharkhand 3.8592 3.2022 28.4487 2.7522 Orissa 3.6066 3.0908 30.8626 3.0013 Chhattisgarh 3.7320 3.0404 28.7082 2.7331 Madhya Pradesh 3.8694 3.2085 29.4233 2.9635 Gujarat 3.6680 4.2158 31.3158 3.0364 Maharashtra 3.7586 3.9678 30.8098 3.0284 Andhra Pradesh 3.7316 3.8060 29.6045 3.0537 Karnataka 3.7181 3.7373 30.4174 2.8766 Goa 4.1309 4.4809 34.2255 2.7884 Kerala 4.0369 4.3137 33.9471 3.2374 Tamil Nadu 3.9345 3.6085 32.1657 3.1353
註：本表內容以NFHS 資料庫中之 national women’s weight 加權計算而得。
《表 4-1》被解釋變數為小孩數之迴歸結果：全部樣本
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 小孩數 小孩數 小孩數 小孩數 小孩數
省出生性比例 -0.156*** -0.154*** -0.452*** -0.0404* -0.0382*
(0.0226) (0.0233) (0.0353) (0.0234) (0.0198) 受教年數 -0.0604*** -0.0658*** -0.0547*** -0.0230***
(0.0116) (0.00630) (0.00567) (0.00440) 次貧 0.0420 -0.0345 -0.0869* -0.0566
(0.0684) (0.0509) (0.0455) (0.0419)
中等 -0.00930 -0.156*** -0.237*** -0.166***
(0.0895) (0.0575) (0.0517) (0.0475)
次富 -0.0279 -0.304*** -0.454*** -0.301***
(2.297) (2.334) (3.647) (1,447) (1,414)
樣本數 53,234 53,234 53,234 53,234 53,234 R2 0.072 0.081 0.278 0.391 0.482 註：括號內數值為標準差。***代表顯著水準小於等於 1%，**代表顯著水準小於等於 5%，*代表 顯著水準小於等於10%。
《表 4-2-1》各被解釋變數之迴歸結果：全部樣本（1）
(0.00440) (0.00317) (0.00376) 次貧 -0.0566 -0.0232 -0.0334
(0.0419) (0.0307) (0.0223)
中等 -0.166*** -0.0918*** -0.0741***
(0.0475) (0.0325) (0.0279) 次富 -0.301*** -0.148*** -0.153***
(0.0528) (0.0353) (0.0285) 最富 -0.661*** -0.326*** -0.335***
(0.0643) (0.0407) (0.0311) 出生年 15.25*** 8.204*** 7.046***
(1.433) (0.746) (0.802) 出生年2 -0.00386*** -0.00208*** -0.00178***
(0.000363) (0.000189) (0.000203) 結婚5~9 年 0.957*** 0.502*** 0.455***
(0.0249) (0.0153) (0.0161) 結婚10~14 年 1.507*** 0.813*** 0.694***
(0.0451) (0.0285) (0.0286) 結婚15~19 年 1.884*** 1.015*** 0.869***
(0.0567) (0.0378) (0.0301) 結婚20~24 年 2.478*** 1.309*** 1.168***
(0.0682) (0.0402) (0.0406) 結婚25~29 年 3.168*** 1.664*** 1.504***
(0.0845) (0.0517) (0.0518) 結婚30 年以上 3.821*** 2.027*** 1.794***
(0.147) (0.0665) (0.0961)
省別虛擬變數 是 是 是
常數項 -15,052*** -8,098*** -6,954***
(1,414) (735.6) (791.6)
樣本數 53,234 53,234 53,234
R2 0.482 0.300 0.216
註：括號內數值為標準差。***代表顯著水準小於等於 1%，**代表顯著水準小於 等於5%，*代表顯著水準小於等於 10%。
《表 4-2-2》各被解釋變數之迴歸結果：全部樣本（2）
(4) (5) (6) (7)
小孩亡存比 兒子亡存比 女兒亡存比 亡存比兒女差
省出生性比例 -0.00230* -0.00470** -0.00408** -0.00207 (0.00124) (0.00226) (0.00183) (0.00175) 受教年數 -0.00415*** -0.00267** -0.00125 -0.000911
(0.00121) (0.00115) (0.00110) (0.00205)
次貧 0.00233 -0.00103 0.0108 -0.0203 (0.0105) (0.0142) (0.0112) (0.0224)
中等 -0.0230** -0.0204 -0.0185** -0.00212 (0.00959) (0.0135) (0.00915) (0.0182)
次富 -0.0380*** -0.0392*** -0.0302*** -0.00375 (0.0101) (0.0124) (0.0108) (0.0169)
最富 -0.0658*** -0.0646*** -0.0571*** -0.00468 (0.00970) (0.0126) (0.0115) (0.0177) 出生年 0.333** 0.492** 0.480*** -0.0540 (0.160) (0.213) (0.151) (0.327) 出生年2 -8.42e-05** -0.000124** -0.000122*** 1.40e-05
(4.06e-05) (5.41e-05) (3.83e-05) (8.28e-05) 結婚5~9 年 0.0239*** 0.0168*** 0.0138*** -0.00903
(0.00625) (0.00633) (0.00525) (0.00815) 結婚10~14 年 0.0409*** 0.0410*** 0.0301*** 0.00596
(0.00642) (0.00707) (0.00570) (0.0113) 結婚15~19 年 0.0559*** 0.0599*** 0.0391*** 0.00505
(0.00884) (0.00972) (0.00812) (0.0140) 結婚20~24 年 0.0790*** 0.0937*** 0.0628*** 0.0246
(0.0103) (0.0119) (0.0107) (0.0161) 結婚25~29 年 0.133*** 0.153*** 0.109*** 0.0216
(0.0133) (0.0144) (0.0144) (0.0231) 結婚30 年以上 0.157*** 0.185*** 0.146*** 0.0267
(0.0176) (0.0243) (0.0193) (0.0309)
省別虛擬變數 是 是 是 是
《表 4-2-3》各被解釋變數之迴歸結果：全部樣本（3）
(8) (9) (10)
家庭暴力指數 情緒暴力指數 丈夫掌控指數
省出生性比例 -0.0137** -0.00631* -0.00249
(0.00597) (0.00328) (0.00704)
(0.000191) (0.000115) (0.000207) 結婚5~9 年 0.215*** 0.0633*** 0.138***
《表 4-3》省出生性比例單位效果佔樣本平均數及樣本標準差比例：全部樣本
平均值 標準差 β1 β1／平均值 β1／標準差
小孩數 2.1761 1.5133 -0.0382 -0.017554 -0.025242 兒子數 1.1363 1.0051 -0.0162 -0.014257 -0.016118 女兒數 1.0398 1.0776 -0.022 -0.021158 -0.020415
小孩亡存比 0.0779 0.2535 -0.0023 -0.029537 -0.009072 兒子亡存比 0.0695 0.2691 -0.0047 -0.067674 -0.017463 女兒亡存比 0.0618 0.2506 -0.00408 -0.066020 -0.016278 亡存比兒女差 0.0092 0.3703 -0.00207 -0.225684 -0.005590
家庭暴力指數 0.4810 1.0287 -0.0137 -0.028482 -0.013318 情緒暴力指數 0.1946 0.5942 -0.00631 -0.032421 -0.010620 丈夫掌控指數 0.7563 1.2112 -0.00249 -0.003292 -0.002056 註：β1為完整模型之省出生性比例係數。
《表 4-4》各被解釋變數之迴歸結果：1978 年（含）前出生者
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 小孩數 兒子數 女兒數 小孩亡存比 兒子亡存比 女兒亡存比 亡存比兒女差 家庭暴力指數 情緒暴力指數 丈夫掌控指數
省出生性比例 -0.0385*** -0.0136* -0.0249*** -0.00320** -0.00664** -0.00406** -0.00351* -0.00661 0.000294 -0.00702 (0.0132) (0.00792) (0.00672) (0.00159) (0.00271) (0.00200) (0.00196) (0.00606) (0.00304) (0.00691) 樣本數 34,699 34,699 34,699 33,139 28,080 25,026 19,967 26,355 26,361 26,371 註：括號內數值為標準差。***代表顯著水準小於等於 1%，**代表顯著水準小於等於 5%，*代表顯著水準小於等於 10%。表中所有欄位均為完整模型，但 僅列出主要解釋變數的係數及樣本數。
《表 4-5》各被解釋變數之迴歸結果：1979 年（含）後出生者
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 小孩數 兒子數 女兒數 小孩亡存比 兒子亡存比 女兒亡存比 亡存比兒女差 家庭暴力指數 情緒暴力指數 丈夫掌控指數
省出生性比例 -0.0554*** -0.0302*** -0.0251** -0.00345 -0.00282 -0.00428* 0.00348 -0.0492** -0.0239** -0.0370*
(0.0133) (0.00833) (0.00974) (0.00258) (0.00324) (0.00246) (0.00731) (0.0207) (0.0101) (0.0222) 樣本數 18,535 18,535 18,535 13,528 9,129 8,589 4,190 13,240 13,243 13,248 註：括號內數值為標準差。***代表顯著水準小於等於 1%，**代表顯著水準小於等於 5%，*代表顯著水準小於等於 10%。表中所有欄位均為完整模型，但 僅列出主要解釋變數的係數及樣本數。
《表 4-6》省出生性比例單位效果佔樣本平均數及樣本標準差比例：切割樣本
1978 年（含）前出生者
平均值 標準差 β1 β1／平均值 β1／標準差
小孩數 2.7433 1.4870 -0.0385 -0.014034 -0.025891 兒子數 1.4388 1.0240 -0.0136 -0.009452 -0.013281 女兒數 1.3045 1.1597 -0.0249 -0.019087 -0.021472
小孩亡存比 0.0883 0.2623 -0.0032 -0.036248 -0.012200 兒子亡存比 0.0808 0.2895 -0.00664 -0.082215 -0.022934 女兒亡存比 0.0720 0.2697 -0.00406 -0.056397 -0.015056 亡存比兒女差 0.0118 0.3878 -0.00351 -0.296450 -0.009051
家庭暴力指數 0.5019 1.0561 -0.00661 -0.013171 -0.006259 情緒暴力指數 0.2016 0.6010 0.000294 0.001458 0.000489 丈夫掌控指數 0.7211 1.1872 -0.00702 -0.009735 -0.005913
1979 年（含）後出生者
平均值 標準差 β1 β1／平均值 β1／標準差
小孩數 1.3025 1.0739 -0.0554 -0.042533 -0.051586 兒子數 0.6704 0.7701 -0.0302 -0.045045 -0.039214 女兒數 0.6321 0.7775 -0.0251 -0.039709 -0.032284
小孩亡存比 0.0566 0.2332 -0.00345 -0.060929 -0.014793 兒子亡存比 0.0403 0.2047 -0.00282 -0.070013 -0.013778 女兒亡存比 0.0373 0.1954 -0.00428 -0.114746 -0.021906 亡存比兒女差 -0.0013 0.2917 0.00348 -2.774898 0.011928
家庭暴力指數 0.4494 0.9850 -0.0492 -0.109480 -0.049950 情緒暴力指數 0.1841 0.5836 -0.0239 -0.129832 -0.040953 丈夫掌控指數 0.8098 1.2449 -0.037 -0.045693 -0.029722 註：β1為完整模型之省出生性比例係數。
《表 4-7》以出生年虛擬變數控制固定效果之迴歸結果：全部樣本
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 小孩數 兒子數 女兒數 小孩亡存比 兒子亡存比 女兒亡存比 亡存比兒女差 家庭暴力指數 情緒暴力指數 丈夫掌控指數
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 小孩數 兒子數 女兒數 小孩亡存比 兒子亡存比 女兒亡存比 亡存比兒女差 家庭暴力指數 情緒暴力指數 丈夫掌控指數