Multigenerational Effects of Early Life Health Shocks

1

Abstract A large literature has documented links between harmful early life exposures and later life health and

socioeconomic deficits These studies however are typically unable to examine the possibility that these

shocks are transmitted to the next generation Our study traces the impacts of in utero exposure to the

1918 influenza pandemic on the outcomes of the children and grandchildren of those affected using

representative survey data from the US We find evidence of multigenerational effects on educational

economic and health outcomes

Key Terms 1918 influenza Multigenerational effects Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS)

2

Introduction

Understanding persistent poverty and poor life outcomes has posed significant challenges for

social science theories as well as crafting policy responses Of particular interest is the so called

ldquolong armrdquo of childhood circumstances where events and conditions early in an individualrsquos life

(even in utero) may set in motion an accumulation of disadvantage The Developmental Origins

of Health and Disease theory (often referred to as the Barker hypothesis) suggests that in utero

insults program the fetus in ways that lead to maladaptive responses to the environment that

persist throughout the life course and explain poor long term outcomes (for a history of the

Barker hypothesis see Barker 2007) However since the likelihood of experiencing an early

insult is related to parental circumstances there is an empirical challenge to causally examining

the impacts of early insults This issue ties into a key question of whether intergenerational

persistence in poor outcomes may stem in part from genetic mechanisms that may be more

resistant to policy efforts In order to separate potential channels some research has focused on

exogenous (ie unrelated to genetics) health shocks during early life to explore long term

outcomes

Indeed a strong causal link between harmful early life in utero shocks and lowered later

life health and economic outcomes has been found in a number of clearly identified empirical

studies In addition to separating genetic and non-genetic mechanisms many of these

investigations are also able to uncover biological (ie fetal programming) explanations by

studying specific insults including the effects of prenatal nutritional status and exposure to

infectious disease Without the use of experimental (ie animal model) research designs these

studies use so-called quasi-experimental designs by leveraging striking demographic events such

as the Dutch famine and the 1918 flu pandemic (Almond 2006 Lindeboom Portrait et al 2010)

3

The results generally suggest large lifelong impacts of in utero insults on economic and health

outcomes

With these results established a next question is whether they might persist into the

outcomes of future generations We explore the question of intergenerational persistence of fetal

insults by extending previous work that uses the 1918 influenza pandemic as a natural

experiment (Almond 2006) by adding multigenerational data We document that in utero

exposure to the pandemic can be seen in the educational attainments of multiple generations

More specifically we find a reduction of approximately 110th a year of schooling (statistically

insignificant) for the first generation 15th a year of schooling for the second generation and

16th of a year of schooling for the third generation1 We also show large effects on economic as

well as health outcomes for the second generation Our findings suggest the importance of in

utero health insults that persist across multiple generations and allow a shift in our analytical

frame from the ldquolong arm of childhood circumstancesrdquo to the ldquolong arm of previous generationrsquos

circumstancesrdquo or alternatively ldquothe long reach of historyrdquo (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) Our

results can also be interpreted in the context of assessing benefits of policy and environmental

conditions that reduce the likelihood of in utero health insults where the full benefits may unfold

over multiple generations

Background Literature

Our research intersects several related literatures There is a large literature that

documents associations between early life insults and later life outcomes following the original

1 As mentioned in greater detail in 31 the first generation is comprised of the parents from the Wisconsin

Longitudinal Study (WLS) This is the generation that is treated or exposed in utero to the 1918 flu

epidemic The second generation is the WLS graduates and siblings who are the focus of the WLS and

the third generation is comprised of the offspring of the WLS graduates and siblings

4

Barker Hypothesis In addition we draw on literature that explores multigenerational linkages of

environmental exposures on life course outcomes These literatures are rarely unified in a single

analysis largely due to data constraints We overcome these limitations by leveraging a three-

generational dataset that coincides with a key demographic event from the early 20th centurymdash

the 19181919 influenza epidemic

The seminal work of the economist Douglas Almond (2006) was one of the first papers to

exploit the 1918 flu pandemic as a natural experiment and to test whether in utero exposure to

infectious disease influences later life outcomes Using US census microdata to situate

respondent births in both time (birth quarter) and place (exploiting geographic variation in the

severity of the flu) Almond (2006) finds evidence of lower educational attainment higher rates

of physical disability as well as lower income and socioeconomic status for cohorts exposed to

the 19181919 flu while in utero (estimated using birth quarter age and timing of the flu) as

compared to unexposed adjacent cohorts In a related paper Almond and Mazumder (2005) use a

similar approach with the Survey of Income and Program Participation and find negative health

effects for adults who were in utero (based on birth quarter) during the outbreak Subsequent

work has built on these outcomes finding excess cardiovascular disease (Mazumder Almond et

al 2010) increased likelihood of kidney disease diabetes circulatory and respiratory problems

in old age (Lin and Liu 2014) and increased old-age mortality in non-cancer related causes

(Myrskylauml Mehta et al 2013 Fletcher 2014)2 More broadly the negative effect from the flu

dovetails with other negative in utero shocks see for example Catalano et al (2011) Roseboom

et al (2001) Schulz (2010) and Torche (2011)

2 Though Cohen Tillinghast and Canudas-Romo (2010) and Fletcher (2014) found no effects on overall

mortality

5

The mechanisms underlying these broad effects from in utero influenza exposure are not

fully understood in humans3 However in studies of monkeys (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) and

mice (Kash Tumpey et al 2006) it has been shown that the reconstructed 1918 flu virus triggers

an exceptionally intense and prolonged innate immune response More specifically gene-

expression analysis shows that proteins involved in the innate immune system have a higher and

sustained expression when triggered by the 1918 reconstructed virus than when triggered by the

contemporary flu of the same H1N1-type (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) While the specific 1918 flu

strain cannot be studied in humans through purposeful exposure for ethical reasons both animal

and human studies have linked the maternal immune response during severe flu infection in

pregnancy to offspring brain development as well as impaired adult behavior and cognitive

outcomes (Fatemi Earle et al 2002 Brown and Derkits 2010 Canetta and Brown 2012 Miller

Zhu et al 2013 Li Chang et al 2014) These results align with research in psychology that links

inflammatory processes in mothersmdashincluding stress and infection as well as stress-induced

immunosuppressionmdashto poor birth outcomes (for a review see Stretter 2011) Recent evidence

suggests that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu may not only affect adult outcomes but also the

outcomes of subsequent generations Richter and Robling (2013) were the first to identify an

effect of first generation prenatal exposure (using birth trimester) to the 1918 flu pandemic on

the outcomes of the second generation (the children of those exposed to the 1918 flu in utero)

The authors use historical influenza morbidity data matched to birth information to identify

potential exposure to the 1918 flu and find that first generation maternal in utero exposure in the

second trimester lowers educational attainment for female children by 2-25 months or by 15-

18 percent but find no such effect for male children An analogous result is identified for first

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

1

Abstract A large literature has documented links between harmful early life exposures and later life health and

socioeconomic deficits These studies however are typically unable to examine the possibility that these

shocks are transmitted to the next generation Our study traces the impacts of in utero exposure to the

1918 influenza pandemic on the outcomes of the children and grandchildren of those affected using

representative survey data from the US We find evidence of multigenerational effects on educational

economic and health outcomes

Key Terms 1918 influenza Multigenerational effects Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS)

2

Introduction

Understanding persistent poverty and poor life outcomes has posed significant challenges for

social science theories as well as crafting policy responses Of particular interest is the so called

ldquolong armrdquo of childhood circumstances where events and conditions early in an individualrsquos life

(even in utero) may set in motion an accumulation of disadvantage The Developmental Origins

of Health and Disease theory (often referred to as the Barker hypothesis) suggests that in utero

insults program the fetus in ways that lead to maladaptive responses to the environment that

persist throughout the life course and explain poor long term outcomes (for a history of the

Barker hypothesis see Barker 2007) However since the likelihood of experiencing an early

insult is related to parental circumstances there is an empirical challenge to causally examining

the impacts of early insults This issue ties into a key question of whether intergenerational

persistence in poor outcomes may stem in part from genetic mechanisms that may be more

resistant to policy efforts In order to separate potential channels some research has focused on

exogenous (ie unrelated to genetics) health shocks during early life to explore long term

outcomes

Indeed a strong causal link between harmful early life in utero shocks and lowered later

life health and economic outcomes has been found in a number of clearly identified empirical

studies In addition to separating genetic and non-genetic mechanisms many of these

investigations are also able to uncover biological (ie fetal programming) explanations by

studying specific insults including the effects of prenatal nutritional status and exposure to

infectious disease Without the use of experimental (ie animal model) research designs these

studies use so-called quasi-experimental designs by leveraging striking demographic events such

as the Dutch famine and the 1918 flu pandemic (Almond 2006 Lindeboom Portrait et al 2010)

3

The results generally suggest large lifelong impacts of in utero insults on economic and health

outcomes

With these results established a next question is whether they might persist into the

outcomes of future generations We explore the question of intergenerational persistence of fetal

insults by extending previous work that uses the 1918 influenza pandemic as a natural

experiment (Almond 2006) by adding multigenerational data We document that in utero

exposure to the pandemic can be seen in the educational attainments of multiple generations

More specifically we find a reduction of approximately 110th a year of schooling (statistically

insignificant) for the first generation 15th a year of schooling for the second generation and

16th of a year of schooling for the third generation1 We also show large effects on economic as

well as health outcomes for the second generation Our findings suggest the importance of in

utero health insults that persist across multiple generations and allow a shift in our analytical

frame from the ldquolong arm of childhood circumstancesrdquo to the ldquolong arm of previous generationrsquos

circumstancesrdquo or alternatively ldquothe long reach of historyrdquo (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) Our

results can also be interpreted in the context of assessing benefits of policy and environmental

conditions that reduce the likelihood of in utero health insults where the full benefits may unfold

over multiple generations

Background Literature

Our research intersects several related literatures There is a large literature that

documents associations between early life insults and later life outcomes following the original

1 As mentioned in greater detail in 31 the first generation is comprised of the parents from the Wisconsin

Longitudinal Study (WLS) This is the generation that is treated or exposed in utero to the 1918 flu

epidemic The second generation is the WLS graduates and siblings who are the focus of the WLS and

the third generation is comprised of the offspring of the WLS graduates and siblings

4

Barker Hypothesis In addition we draw on literature that explores multigenerational linkages of

environmental exposures on life course outcomes These literatures are rarely unified in a single

analysis largely due to data constraints We overcome these limitations by leveraging a three-

generational dataset that coincides with a key demographic event from the early 20th centurymdash

the 19181919 influenza epidemic

The seminal work of the economist Douglas Almond (2006) was one of the first papers to

exploit the 1918 flu pandemic as a natural experiment and to test whether in utero exposure to

infectious disease influences later life outcomes Using US census microdata to situate

respondent births in both time (birth quarter) and place (exploiting geographic variation in the

severity of the flu) Almond (2006) finds evidence of lower educational attainment higher rates

of physical disability as well as lower income and socioeconomic status for cohorts exposed to

the 19181919 flu while in utero (estimated using birth quarter age and timing of the flu) as

compared to unexposed adjacent cohorts In a related paper Almond and Mazumder (2005) use a

similar approach with the Survey of Income and Program Participation and find negative health

effects for adults who were in utero (based on birth quarter) during the outbreak Subsequent

work has built on these outcomes finding excess cardiovascular disease (Mazumder Almond et

al 2010) increased likelihood of kidney disease diabetes circulatory and respiratory problems

in old age (Lin and Liu 2014) and increased old-age mortality in non-cancer related causes

(Myrskylauml Mehta et al 2013 Fletcher 2014)2 More broadly the negative effect from the flu

dovetails with other negative in utero shocks see for example Catalano et al (2011) Roseboom

et al (2001) Schulz (2010) and Torche (2011)

2 Though Cohen Tillinghast and Canudas-Romo (2010) and Fletcher (2014) found no effects on overall

mortality

5

The mechanisms underlying these broad effects from in utero influenza exposure are not

fully understood in humans3 However in studies of monkeys (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) and

mice (Kash Tumpey et al 2006) it has been shown that the reconstructed 1918 flu virus triggers

an exceptionally intense and prolonged innate immune response More specifically gene-

expression analysis shows that proteins involved in the innate immune system have a higher and

sustained expression when triggered by the 1918 reconstructed virus than when triggered by the

contemporary flu of the same H1N1-type (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) While the specific 1918 flu

strain cannot be studied in humans through purposeful exposure for ethical reasons both animal

and human studies have linked the maternal immune response during severe flu infection in

pregnancy to offspring brain development as well as impaired adult behavior and cognitive

outcomes (Fatemi Earle et al 2002 Brown and Derkits 2010 Canetta and Brown 2012 Miller

Zhu et al 2013 Li Chang et al 2014) These results align with research in psychology that links

inflammatory processes in mothersmdashincluding stress and infection as well as stress-induced

immunosuppressionmdashto poor birth outcomes (for a review see Stretter 2011) Recent evidence

suggests that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu may not only affect adult outcomes but also the

outcomes of subsequent generations Richter and Robling (2013) were the first to identify an

effect of first generation prenatal exposure (using birth trimester) to the 1918 flu pandemic on

the outcomes of the second generation (the children of those exposed to the 1918 flu in utero)

The authors use historical influenza morbidity data matched to birth information to identify

potential exposure to the 1918 flu and find that first generation maternal in utero exposure in the

second trimester lowers educational attainment for female children by 2-25 months or by 15-

18 percent but find no such effect for male children An analogous result is identified for first

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

2

Introduction

Understanding persistent poverty and poor life outcomes has posed significant challenges for

social science theories as well as crafting policy responses Of particular interest is the so called

ldquolong armrdquo of childhood circumstances where events and conditions early in an individualrsquos life

(even in utero) may set in motion an accumulation of disadvantage The Developmental Origins

of Health and Disease theory (often referred to as the Barker hypothesis) suggests that in utero

insults program the fetus in ways that lead to maladaptive responses to the environment that

persist throughout the life course and explain poor long term outcomes (for a history of the

Barker hypothesis see Barker 2007) However since the likelihood of experiencing an early

insult is related to parental circumstances there is an empirical challenge to causally examining

the impacts of early insults This issue ties into a key question of whether intergenerational

persistence in poor outcomes may stem in part from genetic mechanisms that may be more

resistant to policy efforts In order to separate potential channels some research has focused on

exogenous (ie unrelated to genetics) health shocks during early life to explore long term

outcomes

Indeed a strong causal link between harmful early life in utero shocks and lowered later

life health and economic outcomes has been found in a number of clearly identified empirical

studies In addition to separating genetic and non-genetic mechanisms many of these

investigations are also able to uncover biological (ie fetal programming) explanations by

studying specific insults including the effects of prenatal nutritional status and exposure to

infectious disease Without the use of experimental (ie animal model) research designs these

studies use so-called quasi-experimental designs by leveraging striking demographic events such

as the Dutch famine and the 1918 flu pandemic (Almond 2006 Lindeboom Portrait et al 2010)

3

The results generally suggest large lifelong impacts of in utero insults on economic and health

outcomes

With these results established a next question is whether they might persist into the

outcomes of future generations We explore the question of intergenerational persistence of fetal

insults by extending previous work that uses the 1918 influenza pandemic as a natural

experiment (Almond 2006) by adding multigenerational data We document that in utero

exposure to the pandemic can be seen in the educational attainments of multiple generations

More specifically we find a reduction of approximately 110th a year of schooling (statistically

insignificant) for the first generation 15th a year of schooling for the second generation and

16th of a year of schooling for the third generation1 We also show large effects on economic as

well as health outcomes for the second generation Our findings suggest the importance of in

utero health insults that persist across multiple generations and allow a shift in our analytical

frame from the ldquolong arm of childhood circumstancesrdquo to the ldquolong arm of previous generationrsquos

circumstancesrdquo or alternatively ldquothe long reach of historyrdquo (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) Our

results can also be interpreted in the context of assessing benefits of policy and environmental

conditions that reduce the likelihood of in utero health insults where the full benefits may unfold

over multiple generations

Background Literature

Our research intersects several related literatures There is a large literature that

documents associations between early life insults and later life outcomes following the original

1 As mentioned in greater detail in 31 the first generation is comprised of the parents from the Wisconsin

Longitudinal Study (WLS) This is the generation that is treated or exposed in utero to the 1918 flu

epidemic The second generation is the WLS graduates and siblings who are the focus of the WLS and

the third generation is comprised of the offspring of the WLS graduates and siblings

4

Barker Hypothesis In addition we draw on literature that explores multigenerational linkages of

environmental exposures on life course outcomes These literatures are rarely unified in a single

analysis largely due to data constraints We overcome these limitations by leveraging a three-

generational dataset that coincides with a key demographic event from the early 20th centurymdash

the 19181919 influenza epidemic

The seminal work of the economist Douglas Almond (2006) was one of the first papers to

exploit the 1918 flu pandemic as a natural experiment and to test whether in utero exposure to

infectious disease influences later life outcomes Using US census microdata to situate

respondent births in both time (birth quarter) and place (exploiting geographic variation in the

severity of the flu) Almond (2006) finds evidence of lower educational attainment higher rates

of physical disability as well as lower income and socioeconomic status for cohorts exposed to

the 19181919 flu while in utero (estimated using birth quarter age and timing of the flu) as

compared to unexposed adjacent cohorts In a related paper Almond and Mazumder (2005) use a

similar approach with the Survey of Income and Program Participation and find negative health

effects for adults who were in utero (based on birth quarter) during the outbreak Subsequent

work has built on these outcomes finding excess cardiovascular disease (Mazumder Almond et

al 2010) increased likelihood of kidney disease diabetes circulatory and respiratory problems

in old age (Lin and Liu 2014) and increased old-age mortality in non-cancer related causes

(Myrskylauml Mehta et al 2013 Fletcher 2014)2 More broadly the negative effect from the flu

dovetails with other negative in utero shocks see for example Catalano et al (2011) Roseboom

et al (2001) Schulz (2010) and Torche (2011)

2 Though Cohen Tillinghast and Canudas-Romo (2010) and Fletcher (2014) found no effects on overall

mortality

5

The mechanisms underlying these broad effects from in utero influenza exposure are not

fully understood in humans3 However in studies of monkeys (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) and

mice (Kash Tumpey et al 2006) it has been shown that the reconstructed 1918 flu virus triggers

an exceptionally intense and prolonged innate immune response More specifically gene-

expression analysis shows that proteins involved in the innate immune system have a higher and

sustained expression when triggered by the 1918 reconstructed virus than when triggered by the

contemporary flu of the same H1N1-type (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) While the specific 1918 flu

strain cannot be studied in humans through purposeful exposure for ethical reasons both animal

and human studies have linked the maternal immune response during severe flu infection in

pregnancy to offspring brain development as well as impaired adult behavior and cognitive

outcomes (Fatemi Earle et al 2002 Brown and Derkits 2010 Canetta and Brown 2012 Miller

Zhu et al 2013 Li Chang et al 2014) These results align with research in psychology that links

inflammatory processes in mothersmdashincluding stress and infection as well as stress-induced

immunosuppressionmdashto poor birth outcomes (for a review see Stretter 2011) Recent evidence

suggests that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu may not only affect adult outcomes but also the

outcomes of subsequent generations Richter and Robling (2013) were the first to identify an

effect of first generation prenatal exposure (using birth trimester) to the 1918 flu pandemic on

the outcomes of the second generation (the children of those exposed to the 1918 flu in utero)

The authors use historical influenza morbidity data matched to birth information to identify

potential exposure to the 1918 flu and find that first generation maternal in utero exposure in the

second trimester lowers educational attainment for female children by 2-25 months or by 15-

18 percent but find no such effect for male children An analogous result is identified for first

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

3

The results generally suggest large lifelong impacts of in utero insults on economic and health

outcomes

With these results established a next question is whether they might persist into the

outcomes of future generations We explore the question of intergenerational persistence of fetal

insults by extending previous work that uses the 1918 influenza pandemic as a natural

experiment (Almond 2006) by adding multigenerational data We document that in utero

exposure to the pandemic can be seen in the educational attainments of multiple generations

More specifically we find a reduction of approximately 110th a year of schooling (statistically

insignificant) for the first generation 15th a year of schooling for the second generation and

16th of a year of schooling for the third generation1 We also show large effects on economic as

well as health outcomes for the second generation Our findings suggest the importance of in

utero health insults that persist across multiple generations and allow a shift in our analytical

frame from the ldquolong arm of childhood circumstancesrdquo to the ldquolong arm of previous generationrsquos

circumstancesrdquo or alternatively ldquothe long reach of historyrdquo (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) Our

results can also be interpreted in the context of assessing benefits of policy and environmental

conditions that reduce the likelihood of in utero health insults where the full benefits may unfold

over multiple generations

Background Literature

Our research intersects several related literatures There is a large literature that

documents associations between early life insults and later life outcomes following the original

1 As mentioned in greater detail in 31 the first generation is comprised of the parents from the Wisconsin

Longitudinal Study (WLS) This is the generation that is treated or exposed in utero to the 1918 flu

epidemic The second generation is the WLS graduates and siblings who are the focus of the WLS and

the third generation is comprised of the offspring of the WLS graduates and siblings

4

Barker Hypothesis In addition we draw on literature that explores multigenerational linkages of

environmental exposures on life course outcomes These literatures are rarely unified in a single

analysis largely due to data constraints We overcome these limitations by leveraging a three-

generational dataset that coincides with a key demographic event from the early 20th centurymdash

the 19181919 influenza epidemic

The seminal work of the economist Douglas Almond (2006) was one of the first papers to

exploit the 1918 flu pandemic as a natural experiment and to test whether in utero exposure to

infectious disease influences later life outcomes Using US census microdata to situate

respondent births in both time (birth quarter) and place (exploiting geographic variation in the

severity of the flu) Almond (2006) finds evidence of lower educational attainment higher rates

of physical disability as well as lower income and socioeconomic status for cohorts exposed to

the 19181919 flu while in utero (estimated using birth quarter age and timing of the flu) as

compared to unexposed adjacent cohorts In a related paper Almond and Mazumder (2005) use a

similar approach with the Survey of Income and Program Participation and find negative health

effects for adults who were in utero (based on birth quarter) during the outbreak Subsequent

work has built on these outcomes finding excess cardiovascular disease (Mazumder Almond et

al 2010) increased likelihood of kidney disease diabetes circulatory and respiratory problems

in old age (Lin and Liu 2014) and increased old-age mortality in non-cancer related causes

(Myrskylauml Mehta et al 2013 Fletcher 2014)2 More broadly the negative effect from the flu

dovetails with other negative in utero shocks see for example Catalano et al (2011) Roseboom

et al (2001) Schulz (2010) and Torche (2011)

2 Though Cohen Tillinghast and Canudas-Romo (2010) and Fletcher (2014) found no effects on overall

mortality

5

The mechanisms underlying these broad effects from in utero influenza exposure are not

fully understood in humans3 However in studies of monkeys (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) and

mice (Kash Tumpey et al 2006) it has been shown that the reconstructed 1918 flu virus triggers

an exceptionally intense and prolonged innate immune response More specifically gene-

expression analysis shows that proteins involved in the innate immune system have a higher and

sustained expression when triggered by the 1918 reconstructed virus than when triggered by the

contemporary flu of the same H1N1-type (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) While the specific 1918 flu

strain cannot be studied in humans through purposeful exposure for ethical reasons both animal

and human studies have linked the maternal immune response during severe flu infection in

pregnancy to offspring brain development as well as impaired adult behavior and cognitive

outcomes (Fatemi Earle et al 2002 Brown and Derkits 2010 Canetta and Brown 2012 Miller

Zhu et al 2013 Li Chang et al 2014) These results align with research in psychology that links

inflammatory processes in mothersmdashincluding stress and infection as well as stress-induced

immunosuppressionmdashto poor birth outcomes (for a review see Stretter 2011) Recent evidence

suggests that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu may not only affect adult outcomes but also the

outcomes of subsequent generations Richter and Robling (2013) were the first to identify an

effect of first generation prenatal exposure (using birth trimester) to the 1918 flu pandemic on

the outcomes of the second generation (the children of those exposed to the 1918 flu in utero)

The authors use historical influenza morbidity data matched to birth information to identify

potential exposure to the 1918 flu and find that first generation maternal in utero exposure in the

second trimester lowers educational attainment for female children by 2-25 months or by 15-

18 percent but find no such effect for male children An analogous result is identified for first

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

4

Barker Hypothesis In addition we draw on literature that explores multigenerational linkages of

environmental exposures on life course outcomes These literatures are rarely unified in a single

analysis largely due to data constraints We overcome these limitations by leveraging a three-

generational dataset that coincides with a key demographic event from the early 20th centurymdash

the 19181919 influenza epidemic

The seminal work of the economist Douglas Almond (2006) was one of the first papers to

exploit the 1918 flu pandemic as a natural experiment and to test whether in utero exposure to

infectious disease influences later life outcomes Using US census microdata to situate

respondent births in both time (birth quarter) and place (exploiting geographic variation in the

severity of the flu) Almond (2006) finds evidence of lower educational attainment higher rates

of physical disability as well as lower income and socioeconomic status for cohorts exposed to

the 19181919 flu while in utero (estimated using birth quarter age and timing of the flu) as

compared to unexposed adjacent cohorts In a related paper Almond and Mazumder (2005) use a

similar approach with the Survey of Income and Program Participation and find negative health

effects for adults who were in utero (based on birth quarter) during the outbreak Subsequent

work has built on these outcomes finding excess cardiovascular disease (Mazumder Almond et

al 2010) increased likelihood of kidney disease diabetes circulatory and respiratory problems

in old age (Lin and Liu 2014) and increased old-age mortality in non-cancer related causes

(Myrskylauml Mehta et al 2013 Fletcher 2014)2 More broadly the negative effect from the flu

dovetails with other negative in utero shocks see for example Catalano et al (2011) Roseboom

et al (2001) Schulz (2010) and Torche (2011)

2 Though Cohen Tillinghast and Canudas-Romo (2010) and Fletcher (2014) found no effects on overall

mortality

5

The mechanisms underlying these broad effects from in utero influenza exposure are not

fully understood in humans3 However in studies of monkeys (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) and

mice (Kash Tumpey et al 2006) it has been shown that the reconstructed 1918 flu virus triggers

an exceptionally intense and prolonged innate immune response More specifically gene-

expression analysis shows that proteins involved in the innate immune system have a higher and

sustained expression when triggered by the 1918 reconstructed virus than when triggered by the

contemporary flu of the same H1N1-type (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) While the specific 1918 flu

strain cannot be studied in humans through purposeful exposure for ethical reasons both animal

and human studies have linked the maternal immune response during severe flu infection in

pregnancy to offspring brain development as well as impaired adult behavior and cognitive

outcomes (Fatemi Earle et al 2002 Brown and Derkits 2010 Canetta and Brown 2012 Miller

Zhu et al 2013 Li Chang et al 2014) These results align with research in psychology that links

inflammatory processes in mothersmdashincluding stress and infection as well as stress-induced

immunosuppressionmdashto poor birth outcomes (for a review see Stretter 2011) Recent evidence

suggests that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu may not only affect adult outcomes but also the

outcomes of subsequent generations Richter and Robling (2013) were the first to identify an

effect of first generation prenatal exposure (using birth trimester) to the 1918 flu pandemic on

the outcomes of the second generation (the children of those exposed to the 1918 flu in utero)

The authors use historical influenza morbidity data matched to birth information to identify

potential exposure to the 1918 flu and find that first generation maternal in utero exposure in the

second trimester lowers educational attainment for female children by 2-25 months or by 15-

18 percent but find no such effect for male children An analogous result is identified for first

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

5

The mechanisms underlying these broad effects from in utero influenza exposure are not

fully understood in humans3 However in studies of monkeys (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) and

mice (Kash Tumpey et al 2006) it has been shown that the reconstructed 1918 flu virus triggers

an exceptionally intense and prolonged innate immune response More specifically gene-

expression analysis shows that proteins involved in the innate immune system have a higher and

sustained expression when triggered by the 1918 reconstructed virus than when triggered by the

contemporary flu of the same H1N1-type (Kobasa Jones et al 2007) While the specific 1918 flu

strain cannot be studied in humans through purposeful exposure for ethical reasons both animal

and human studies have linked the maternal immune response during severe flu infection in

pregnancy to offspring brain development as well as impaired adult behavior and cognitive

outcomes (Fatemi Earle et al 2002 Brown and Derkits 2010 Canetta and Brown 2012 Miller

Zhu et al 2013 Li Chang et al 2014) These results align with research in psychology that links

inflammatory processes in mothersmdashincluding stress and infection as well as stress-induced

immunosuppressionmdashto poor birth outcomes (for a review see Stretter 2011) Recent evidence

suggests that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu may not only affect adult outcomes but also the

outcomes of subsequent generations Richter and Robling (2013) were the first to identify an

effect of first generation prenatal exposure (using birth trimester) to the 1918 flu pandemic on

the outcomes of the second generation (the children of those exposed to the 1918 flu in utero)

The authors use historical influenza morbidity data matched to birth information to identify

potential exposure to the 1918 flu and find that first generation maternal in utero exposure in the

second trimester lowers educational attainment for female children by 2-25 months or by 15-

18 percent but find no such effect for male children An analogous result is identified for first

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

6

generation paternal exposure and male outcomes that is first generation exposure in the second

trimester lowers educational attainment for male children by 24 to 3 months or by 18-22

percent but paternal exposure showed no such effect for females Taken together first

generation exposure to the 1918 flu while in utero results in 2 to 3 months less schooling for the

second generation

Several pathways exist for the intergenerational transmission of early life health shocks

Through socioeconomic channels intergenerational persistence in poor outcomes could occur

when a fetally insulted parent marred by poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes raises a

child in a low-resource environment Biologically phenotype-to-phenotype transmission and

epigenetic inheritance are hypothesized to be key mechanisms for intergenerational transmission

(Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) In cases of in utero or very early life shocks phenotype-to-

phenotype transmission impacts the outcomes of the next generation through changes in parental

biological systems that lead to altered gestational andor lactation environments for offspring

(eg pre-pregnancy hypertension is linked to low birthweight) Importantly socioeconomic and

biological channels are not mutually exclusive and can also interact with one another that is the

effects of adult phenotype on offspring extend beyond physiology and metabolism to include

parental behaviorenvironmental response as a potential source of phenotypic transmission and

potentially even cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change (Benyshek 2013) For example

stress experienced by a mother prenatally may alter stress regulation in offspring which may in

turn increase risk for the same adult phenotype in the offspring as well as in subsequent

generations Epigenetic inheritance in comparison occurs when parental experiences alter gene

expression that is subsequently transmitted to offspring and future generations through the germ

line Here again there is an opportunity for socioeconomic circumstances to interact with

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

7

biologymdasheg where poverty through the experience of stress alters gene expression for

generations Our analysis of second generation outcomes will explore some of these channels

but not attempt to prioritize one over another

Work extending effects of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu to the third generation (the

grandchildren of those originally exposed in utero) in humans to the best of the authorsrsquo

knowledge does not exist The strongest evidence for a potential biological channel across

multiple generations comes from studies of historical data from Oumlverkalix region in Northern

Sweden that exploit variance in first generation grandparental food supply during childhood

Bygren Kaati et al (2001) for example find that an excess of food during the period just before

adolescence a time labeled the ldquoslow growth periodrdquo (SGP) shortens the grandsonrsquos longevity

A later study using the Oumlverkalix data replicates the results of Bygren Kaati et al (2001) in a

second cohort and further extends the results to include an association between first generation

paternal grandmotherrsquos food supply and granddaughterrsquos mortality risk (Pembrey Bygren et al

2006)4

Our work builds off of this evidence to conduct novel examinations of multigenerational

effects of in utero exposures in human populations The current research leverages a unique

survey to measure the multigenerational impacts of in utero exposure to the 1918 flu pandemic

Our hypothesis is that the previously documented direct effects of such shocks extend into the

outcomes of the second generation Going further we also estimate whether these effects

4 Van den Berg and Pinger (2014) externally validated the potential for transmission across three

generations by analyzing the impact of the German famine of 1916-1918 on the mental health outcomes

(an index from survey questions accounting for rsquogeneral mental healthrsquo rsquoemotional functioningrsquo rsquosocial

functioningrsquo and rsquovitalityrsquo) of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to the famine during their

SGP The authors find that paternal (maternal) grandfather (grandmothers) exposure during their SGP is

associated with better mental health in grandsons (granddaughters)

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

8

continue into the third generation In other words we ask whether the singular in utero shock has

a multigenerational effect--on the adult outcomes of those exposed in utero on their children

and on their grandchildren

Data and Empirical Methodology

Data

In order to examine multigenerational effects of an in utero exposure we require

multigenerational data Very few datasets in the US have a multigenerational component and fit

the relevant time period for our exposure (ie birth cohorts around 1918) Our data come from

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey (WLS) which is a random one-third survey of graduating

high school seniors in Wisconsin in 1957 The majority of these respondents were born in 1939

and form our second generation Thus the parents of the WLS graduates form our first

generation with birth years overlapping the 19181919 in utero exposure period This allows for

the creation of our primary measure for in utero exposure to the 1918 flu epidemic an indicator

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

9

for either first generation parent being born during the 1918-1919 range56 Additional data are

collected on the later life outcomes of the WLS graduates and a selected sibling as well as a

limited number of outcomes for the children (third generation) of the graduatessiblings

providing the structure for our multigenerational analysis

Summary statistics are presented in table 1 As shown approximately 10 percent of WLS

parents are born in either 1918 or 1919 On average fathers are born in 1907 and mothers are

born in 1911 consequently a birth year of 1918 or 1919 is closer to the right-tail of the

distribution of births and the rate of 10 percent is driven primarily by relatively young mother

exposures7 Since WLS graduatersquos fathers tend to be on average 4 years older than mothers this

right-tail problem is larger for generation 1 males This is seen in Figure 1 While not the

primary focus of the WLS data collection several parental (first generation) outcomes are

5 Parent year of birth is recorded from the WLS graduates This self-reported measure is used to create

the indicator of flu exposure those parents born in 1918 or 1919 To maximize sample size we use

differing waves of the WLS and reported birth years from biological siblings to supplement the reported

year of birth from WLS graduates Parent birth years are first collected for the 199293 graduate wave

Missing observations are then sequentially added from graduate reports in later wavesmdash2003 and 2011

After using all graduate reported year of parent birth variables observations are then filled in from

identically reported measures from a selected biological sibling

Specifically for mothers (gen 1 females) 7976 observations come from graduates in the 199293

wave 366 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 84 observations come from 2011 wave

and 68 observations come from the selected sibling This leaves a base sample size of 8494 ~94 of

which is from the graduate reported 199293 wave For fathers (gen 1 males) 7929 observations come

from graduates in the 199293 wave 361 additional observations come from the 200305 wave 77 come

from the 2011 wave and 91 observations come from siblings leaving a base sample size of 8458 (again

~94 is from the grad reported 199293 wave)

From this base 7 observations are dropped for gen-1-femalersquos (WLS motherrsquos) year of birth due

to reported gen 2rsquos year of birth being 10 or less years after gen 1rsquos year of birth 45 additional

observations are lost if this threshold is increased to 15 years For gen-1-malersquos year of birth 2

observations are removed for identical reasons this increases to 25 additional observations for the 15 year

threshold We attribute this reduction in the sample mostly to measurement error 6 The 1918 flu epidemic in Wisconsin was from September 1918 through December 1918 but did not

reach the severity experienced in many other states According to historical records Wisconsin had the

fourth lowest numbers of deaths out of 25 reporting states (Burg 2000 Shors and McFadden 2009) 7 Appendix tables 7 and 8 provide evidence that our results are not driven solely by confounding between

exposure to the influenza pandemic and being young mothers

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

10

available including years of schooling occupational prestige and family socioeconomic status

in 19578

[insert table 1 here]

The primary focus of the WLS data collection is high school seniors in 1957 Wisconsin

the second generation of our study Given this focus on graduates (and their siblings) a large

number of economic and health variables are available in each wave of the WLS (irregular

intervals roughly 10-15 years apart 197577 19929394 2003-20052004-2007 and in 2011)

In addition to examining years of schooling several additional dependent variables in the second

generation intend to capture broad differences in economic and health well-being9 These include

income during the peak earning years (ie family income collected when graduates are 53 years

of age on average) net worth at initial retirement age (ie net worth collected when graduates

are 65 years of age on average) and general indicators of health measured by body mass index

and a count of doctor diagnosed illnesses (both collected in the wave when graduates are age 53

on average) Finally the WLS data contains information that is collected from the second

generation about the third generation we focus on years of schooling as the main outcome of

interest

8 The index of socioeconomic status is a factor weighted score combining data on father and motherrsquos

years of schooling fatherrsquos occupational prestige and average parental income Replacing this measure

with average parental income (see appendix table 1) does not change the effect of the flu indicator Job

prestige measures for both mother and father are based on Duncanrsquos Socioeconomic Index which is a

measure of job prestige based on income education and surveyed perceptions of general social standing

for certain occupations (Duncan 1961) 9 We note that our three generations of individuals are drawn from three non-overlapping set of birth

years the mean birth year for generation 1 is ~1910 generation 2 is ~1940 generation 3 is ~1965 Thus

since we are performing the analysis separately by generation we are controlling for much of the time-

variation in the meaning of education We also perform analysis stratified by sex in Appendix Tables 10-

12 so that we can also control for the differential meaning of education in each generation

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

11

Empirical Methodology

Our empirical strategy follows that of Almond (2006) by examining harmful effects of being

exposed in utero on later life outcomes We then extend this analysis by estimating

multigenerational impacts on both the second and third generations In so doing the primary

estimating equation is given by the following form

119910119894119891119892 = 1205730 + 1205731(119884119874119861 = 191819)1198911 + 120632119931119943120783 + 120633119935119946119943119944 + 120576119894119891119892

Our primary focus is on the coefficient 1205731 which measures the effect of having a

parentgrandparent born in 1918-1919 on a number of outcomes for 119894 individuals in 119891 families

for generation 119892 Parent year of birth time trends and their square are denoted by 120632119931119943120783 120633119935119946119943119944

represents generation specific controls and 120576119894119891119892 is representative of a family clustered error

term

For the first generation we control for birth year and its square capturing age-specific

trends that are tied to our first-generation outcomes of interest (eg years of schooling) For the

analysis of second and third generations birth years and squares for both first generation parents

are included as controls along with generation-specific controls for sex age and birth order

Our estimation strategy follows an intent to treat design It is likely that the actual

incidence of flu differed by socioeconomic status and social standing (Mamelund 2018

Sydenstricker 1931) Our use of year-of-birth however avoids potential confounding by SES

because allmdashboth rich and poormdashare defined as treated if they are born in one of the two years

Although avoiding confounders associated with actual disease incidence this estimation strategy

will underestimate the true effect of flu exposure lowering the magnitude of our coefficient of

interest

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

12

Results

First Generation

Our initial analysis explores the direct effects of being born during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic

While health data are sparse for the WLS graduatersquos parents (first generation) a number of

economic outcomes are available especially during the initial sample year of 1957 Table 2

explores the relationship between these economic variables and an indicator for birth during

19181919 Columns (1)-(3) of table 2 show the relationship between a WLS graduatersquos father

being born during 19181919 and the fatherrsquos years of schooling the fatherrsquos occupational

prestige and the familyrsquos index of socioeconomic status in 1957 (ie when the first generation

members are approximately 40 years old) While statistically insignificant a negative association

is observed between years of schooling and being born in 1918 or 191910 This is carried over

into fatherrsquos job prestige in column (2) from which the indicator of in utero exposure to the 1918

flu is associated with an approximate 01 standard deviation decline in the index of occupational

prestige These effects culminate in column (3) which shows a statistically significant negative

effect of in utero exposure to the flu and later life economic well-being a 13 decline in the SES

index which corresponds to a decline of roughly 10 percent of a standard deviation The findings

of table 2 corroborate past studies that show in utero exposure to the 1918 flu led to poorer

economic outcomes later in life (Almond 2006)11

[insert table 2 here]

10 First generation years of schooling are reported by the second generation WLS graduates Measurement

error is likely which may result in the insignificant coefficients of table 2 11 Richter and Robling (2013 Table 12) find a similar effect for in utero female exposure to flu in the first

trimester

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

13

Mirroring the results for males in the first generation a negative but statistically

insignificant association is observed between an indicator of birth in 19181919 and schooling

for first generation females This association however becomes statistically significant at the 1

percent level for the index of family SES the coefficient being nearly identical to that of a

malersquos in utero exposure to the flu though it is unclear whether these effects flow from labor

market andor marriage market sources The findings of table 2 are extended in table 3 which

explores potential marriage market effects of early life exposure to the flu epidemic12

Column (1) of table 3 regresses the indicator for male in utero exposure on an identical

measure for spousersquos exposure Females who were born in 19181919 were 5 percentage points

more likely to marry men who were also born during the same period Furthermore as shown in

columns (2) and (3) these women were more likely to marry men with fewer years of school and

lower job prestige These effects are significant at the 1 percent level Similar effects are seen in

columns (4)-(6) for 19181919 born males who are 14 percentage points more likely to marry flu

exposed females (p=000) and marry females with 026 fewer years of schooling (p=0101)

Given the findings of table 3 however we cannot rule out that this is a marriage market effect13

[insert table 3 here]

Second Generation

Our hypothesis is that the direct effects observed in tables 2 and 3 extend into future generations

To address this hypothesis we regress a number of economic and health outcomes of the WLS

graduates and siblings the offspring of the first generation examined in tables 2 and 3 These

12 Mothers and fathers of WLS graduates are assumed to be married 13 Appendix table 2 repeats the estimation of table 3 while also controlling for an indicator of own-flu

exposure and own year of birth measures

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

14

estimations are performed in tables 4 and 5 Column (1) in both tables focus on an indicator for

either parent being born in 19181919 the primary regressor of column (2) is an indicator for

fatherrsquos (gen 1 males) in utero exposure to the 1918 flu column (3) considers motherrsquos (gen 1

females) exposure and column (4) includes separate indicators for both mother and fatherrsquos

exposure Controls included in all columns include fatherrsquos year of birth and its square motherrsquos

year of birth and its square an indicator for sex in the second generation a measure of birth

order in the second generation and second-generation year of birth and its square

Table 4 focuses on economic outcomes of the WLS graduates To reiterate our

hypothesis is that in utero exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic has effects that persist for

multiple generations Table 2 shows the direct first generation effects while table 4 begins to

show the indirect effects that are transmitted to offspring Panel A regresses years of schooling in

the second generation on indicators of first generation exposure to the 1918 flu14 From column

(1) either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant decline of

021 years of schooling in the second generation This estimate is likely understated because the

sampling design of the WLS is a focus on high school seniors thus individuals with fewer than

twelve years of schooling are underrepresented in the data15 Columns (2)-(4) disambiguate this

effect into the maternal and paternal lines From which the effect of column (1) seems to be

driven by motherrsquos in utero exposure to the flu16

14 Appendix Table 6 includes a number of alternative measures for years of schooling in place of the

simple count used in Table 4 15 Table 3 includes selected siblings of the WLS graduates These siblings do not have to be high school

graduates 16 This finding differs from that of Richter and Robling (2013) who find maternal exposure tied to

daughter outcomes and paternal exposure tied to son outcomes

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

15

The findings of Panel A are extended into Panel B which replaces years of schooling as

the dependent variable with the natural log of family income for the 1992 wave a time when the

second generation respondents are 53 years of age on average and represents a time of peak

earning in the life course As with years of schooling a negative association is seen throughout

the specifications of Panel B Having either parent born in 19181919 is associated with a 22

percent decline in family income Once again this effect seems to be driven by motherrsquos not

fatherrsquos exposure Panel C replaces income with a measure of net worth for the 2004 wave This

measure of net worth is when the second generation respondents are on average 65 years of age

and is representative of earnings throughout the life course The dual indicator of column (1) is

negative but statistically insignificant at conventional levels (p=023) When looking at the effect

of mother exposure in column (3) however the effect becomes statistically significant at the

10 level (p=0069) implying those with mothers born during 19181919 have approximately

$36000 less in net worth by 2004

Following the broader health focus of the Barker hypothesis the economic effects of

table 4 are replaced with health measures in table 5 We consider three broad measures of

general health and well-being later in life self-reported health in later life (~53 years old)

height and BMI (again at ~53) The use of self-reported health is intended to capture general

well-being later in life (Fortin et al 2017) this is tested in Panel A of table 5 Mazumder et al

(2010) provide evidence that in utero exposure to the 1918 flu is associated with a reduction in

height and an increase cardiovascular disease so it is possible that these negative health

outcomes could be transmitted to offspring this is tested in Panel B of table 517 And given

17 Appendix Table 14 tests indicators for a number self-reported health conditions As shown a weak

positive association is shown between gen 1 female flu exposure and an indicator of cardiovascular

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

16

prior work linking early life exposure to the Dutch famine to BMI (Roseboom et al 2000) and

metabolic function (Lumey et al 2009) in adulthood as well as the fact that both the Dutch

famine and the 1918 flu impacted maternal stress and nutritional status18 we examine BMI as

another broad indicator of health for the second generation this is tested in Panel C of table 5 A

consistent pattern emerges across all panels Like SES outcomes in table 4 gen 1 female

exposure to the flu is shown to have negative statistically significant association with all health

outcomes in the second generation

From Panel A parentalmdashor gen 1mdashflu exposure reduces self-reported health by roughly

half a point (plt005) on a Likert scale from 1-5 1 being very poor health and 5 being excellent

health As shown and like prior estimates this effect is driven by gen 1 female exposure For

adult height gen 1 female exposure is associated with a reduction of about 02 inches (plt010)

which is larger than the direct effect documented by Mazumder et al of 005 inches however

Mazumder et alrsquos estimated effect falls within the 95 confidence interval of our estimated

coefficient Panel C considers the effect on second generation BMI From column (1) having

either parent being born in 19181919 is associated with a statistically significant increase in the

offspringrsquos BMI of 041 points As with the economic effects of table 4 this increase in BMI

appears to be driven by motherrsquos exposure This is seen in columns (2)-(4) which estimate a

statistically significant positive coefficient for motherrsquos exposure but a coefficient that is

statistically indistinguishable from zero for fatherrsquos exposure

disease during the 199293 wave of the WLS (Appendix Table 15A) This association however reduced

in magnitude and statistical significance for later-life waves of the WLS (Appendix Table 15B and 15C) 18 The Dutch famine influenced maternal nutritional status directly through caloric restriction and the

1918 flu through symptoms such as appetite loss vomiting andor diarrhea

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

17

A persistent effect of in utero exposure to the 1918 Flu is seen in tables 4 and 5 First

generation exposure consistently has a statistically significant and economically meaningful

effect on second generation health and economic outcomes And this effect appears to be driven

solely by motherrsquos exposure although due to marriage market associations we cannot

determine definitively that motherrsquos exposure produces this multigenerational effect through

biological mechanisms

Appendix Tables 10A-11G re-estimate Tables 4 and 5 splitting the sample by generation

2rsquos sex In short the negative effects of first generation exposure appear to be more prominent

in second generation males such that the harmful multi-generational effects are most prominent

in second generation men whose mothers were exposed to the 1918 flu19 Potential reasons for

this sex disparity could be tied to general trends in the differences between sons and daughters in

intergenerational mobility (Chadwick and Solon 2002) In other words sons are more likely to

inherit their families SES standing than daughters This implies that the negative gen 1 shock

from in utero exposure is more likely to affect sons through the proposed SES channel than

daughters resulting in a larger estimated effect for gen 2 males Furthermore there appears to

be a growing gap between in the intergenerational elastiticy between sons and daughters during

the time period in question (Olivetti and Paserman 2015) Another potential reason for the sex

difference could be the larger standard deviation in gen 2 male outcomes this is shown in

Appendix Table 9 Finally the findings of Appendix Tables 10A-11G differ from Richter and

Robling (2013) who show homogeneous sex effects from in utero flu exposure for education

19 When omitting those with no family income during the 1992 wave of the WLS negative effects from

gen 1 female flu exposure are primarily seen in second generation males This indicates however that

there is a greater frequency of no income amongst second generation females from gen 1 flu exposure

Additionally when looking at net worth in the 2011 wave of the WLS we see no difference by gen 2rsquos

sex

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

18

gen 1 female exposure led to reduction in gen 2 female education and gen 1 male exposure is

associated with gen 2 male education Given this disparity between the two studies our under-

representation for gen 1 male exposure and the mixed findings in Tables 10A-11G we view our

general finding of gen 1 female exposure working through gen 2 male outcomes as preliminary

and suggestive Indeed as we test in Appendix Tables 12A-12G the sex differences in gen 2 are

often not statistically significant

Third Generation

As mentioned previously the focus of the WLS data collection is high school graduates in 1957

but additional samples have been collected for a number of variables on the children of these

graduates Table 6 explores the effects of the WLS parents on the years of schooling for WLS

children estimating the effect of flu exposure across three generations20

Consistent with the second-generation estimations a persistent effect of the in utero flu

exposure is observed and this effect seems to be driven by grandmother exposure (gen 1

female) The joint indicator for either parent is negative and close to statistical significance at

the 10 percent level (p=0106) suggesting that exposure in the first generation is associated with

012 years of schooling less in the third generation The effect of grandfather exposure is

insignificantly different from zero while the coefficient of grandmother exposure is similar in

magnitude to the joint estimate of column (1) while being statistically significant at the 10

level (p=0066) Furthermore the decline in schooling seen in the third generation is similar but

slightly smaller in magnitude compared to the second generation effects seen in Panel A of table

20Analysis of the WLS gradsibling children (ie the third generation) restricts the sample to those

children that are biological children and that are 35 years of age and older by the 20032004 wave of the

WLS

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

19

421 This again indicates a persistent effect that may be attenuating over time Importantly while

the estimate for grandfather exposure is insignificant it is consistent with intergenerational

inheritance (Kuzawa and Eisenberg 2014) To say the same for grandmother exposure would

require effects to persist into the fourth generation (due to the differences in gametic

development) and this data is not available in the WLS

Conclusion

This paper presents novel evidence of multigenerational effects of in utero health insults We

use the sudden and unexpected influenza pandemic in 19181919 to trace out the effects of in

utero exposure to infectious disease on own outcomes for the first generation childrenrsquos

outcomes and grandchildrenrsquos outcomes We find that this exposure reduces educational

attainment and related economic outcomes across three generations For example individuals in

our second generation the WLS graduates and their siblings who have mothers who were

exposed to the 1918 flu in utero complete 15 fewer years of schooling (or 24 months less

schooling) The size of our estimated effect aligns well with those of Richter and Robling (2013)

who find that first generation in utero exposure to the 1918 flu results in 16 fewer years of

schooling (or 2 months to 25 months less schooling) for the maternal line We then extend

results to the third generation for the first time in the literature and find that individuals in the

third generation who have grandmothers who were exposed to the pandemic in utero complete

17 fewer years of schooling (or 17 months less schooling) than individuals without affected

grandmothers

21 For gen 1 female exposure in column (4) the p-value for a difference in coefficients between Panel A

of Table 4 and Table 6 is 0411 implying the effect in the third generation is statistically indistinguishable

from that in the second generation

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

20

There are at several potential mechanisms for the persistence of poor outcomes across

three generations we find in our data As previously outlined the intergenerational persistence in

poor outcomes due to early life health shocks could occur through socioeconomic channels

where a fetally insulted person with resulting low educational attainment raises a child in a low-

resource environment that reduces opportunities for high educational attainment of the child In

order to see multigenerational effects the reduced opportunities for high educational attainment

of the child must then reduce opportunities for their own children Alternatively

intergenerational transmission may occur through epigenetic inheritance through the germ line a

distinct possibility based on findings of the Oumlverkalix studies or phenotype-to-phenotype

transmission and cumulative intergenerational phenotypic change

Our analysis is unable to fully distinguish between these proposed intergenerational

channels the socioeconomic and biological but it is important to note that the channels are by no

means mutually exclusive Further analysis (appendix tables 3-5) that is intended to partially

account for the socioeconomic mechanism leads to mixed results in which the coefficient of first

generation flu exposure is attenuated to insignificance for some outcomes but not others This

provides evidence for a socioeconomic channel but does not eliminate the possibility of

epigenetic mechanisms or other biological channel through which socioeconomic status ldquogets

under the skinrdquo to influence outcomes of subsequent generations (eg the socioeconomic

circumstances of one generation may ldquoget under the skinrdquo of the next and subsequently be passed

via biology andor socioeconomics to other generations) Likewise the estimates of grandfather

effects on grandchildren are imprecise but consistent with transgenerational inheritance (Kuzawa

and Eisenberg 2014) Additionally while the WLS provides a unique framework to analyze

multiple generations the measurement of flu exposure is somewhat crude (from self-reported

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

21

parentsrsquo year of birth) and is in the right-tail of the distribution of parent birth years suggesting

the possibility of confounding from resource-poor younger mothers22 That is exposure to

influenza in the first generation is mechanically tied to motherrsquos ages of 20 and 21 because the

WLS sample is drawn based on having a child who was born in 1939 (and thus graduating high

school in 1957) While we cannot definitively separate these two effects our ability to compare

outcomes of slightly older mothers (ages 22 and 23 born in 1917 or 1916) provide evidence

more consistent with in utero exposure to influenza than impacts of having a mother who is

2021 years old

From a policy perspective our evidence may suggest a novel source of multigenerational

persistence in poverty through biosocial factors and suggest a need to consider evidence of

transgenerational social andor biological mechanisms We document the extent to which

harmful early life environments cascade through generations promoting a disadvantaged start for

those whose grandparents exposed to a hazardous early life environment

22 We specifically explore the confounding effects of younger mothers in appendix tables 7 and 8 These

tables show that younger mothers are indeed initially disadvantaged (ie less years of schooling)

however this young-mother disadvantage does not persist in subsequent generations Rather only those

mothers born in the 1918-1919 range have significant negative effects on later generations

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

22

References

Almond Doug 2006 Is the 1918 Influenza pandemic over Long‐term effects of in utero Influenza exposure in the post‐1940 US population Journal of Political Economy 114(4) 672-712

Almond Doug and Bhashkar Mazumder 2005 The 1918 Influenza Pandemic and Subsequent Health Outcomes An Analysis of SIPP Data American Economic Review 95(2) 258-262

Barker David James P 2007 The origins of the developmental origins theory Journal of Internal Medicine 261(5) 412-417

Benyshek Daniel C (2013) The ldquoearly liferdquo origins of obesity‐related health disorders New discoveries regarding the intergenerational transmission of developmentally programmed traits in the global cardiometabolic health crisis American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152(S57) 79-93

Brown Alan S and Elena J Derkits 2010 Prenatal infection and schizophrenia a review of epidemiologic and translational studies American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) 261-280

Burg Steven 2000 Wisconsin and the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918rdquo Wisconsin Magazine of History 84(1) 36-56

Bygren LarsOlov Gunnar Kaati and Soumlren Edvinsson 2001 Longevity determined by paternal ancestors nutrition during their slow growth period Acta biotheoretica 49(1) 53-59

Canetta Sarah E and Alan S Brown 2012 Prenatal infection maternal immune activation and risk for schizophrenia Translational Neuroscience 3(4) 320-327

Chadwick L and Solon G (2002) Intergenerational income mobility among daughters American Economic Review 92(1) 335-344

Cohen Alan A John Tillinghast and Vladimir Canudas-Romo 2010 No consistent effects of prenatal or neonatal exposure to Spanish flu on late-life mortality in 24 developed countries Demographic Research 22(20) 579

Fatemi S Hossein Julie Earle Reena Kanodia David Kist Effat S Emamian Paul H Patterson Limin Shi and Robert Sidwell 2002 Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 22(1) 25-33

Fletcher Jason 2014 Examining the Long Term Mortality Effects of Early Health Shocks US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No CES-WP-14-19

Kaati Gunnar Lars O Bygren and Soren Edvinsson 2002 Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents and grandparents slow growth period European Journal of Human Genetics EJHG 10(11) 682

Kash John C Terrence M Tumpey Sean C Proll Victoria Carter Olivia Perwitasari Matthew J Thomas Christopher F Basler et al 2006 Genomic analysis of increased host immune and cell death responses induced by 1918 influenza virus Nature 443(7111) 578-581

Kobasa Darwyn Steven M Jones Kyoko Shinya John C Kash John Copps Hideki Ebihara Yasuko Hatta et al 2007 Aberrant innate immune response in lethal infection of macaques with the 1918 influenza virus Nature 445 (7125) 319-323

Kuzawa Christopher W and Dan T Eisenberg 2014 The Long Reach of History Intergenerational and Transgenerational Pathwaysto Plasticity in Human Longevity Sociality Hierarchy Health Comparative Biodemography Papers from a Workshop National Academies Press

Li Wai-Yu Yi-Chun Chang L Jyuhn-Hsiarn Lee and Li-Jen Lee 2014 Prenatal infection affects the neuronal architecture and cognitive function in adult mice Developmental Neuroscience 36(5) 359-370

23

Lin Ming-Jen and Elaine M Liu 2014 Does in utero exposure to illness matter The 1918 influenza epidemic in Taiwan as a natural experiment Journal of Health Economics 37 152-163

Lindeboom Maarten France Portrait and Gerard J Van den Berg 2010 Long-run effects on longevity of a nutritional shock early in life the Dutch Potato famine of 1846ndash1847 Journal of Health Economics 29(5) 617-629

Mamelund SE (2018) 1918 pandemic mobidity The first wave hits the poor the second wave hits the rich Influenza and Other Respitory Viruses 12(3) 307-313

Mazumder Bhashkar Douglas Almond Kyung Park Eileen M Crimmins and Caleb E Finch 2010 Lingering prenatal effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic on cardiovascular disease Journal of developmental origins of health and disease 1(1) 26-34

Miller Veronica Y Zhu C Bucher W McGinnis L Ryan A Siegel and S Zalcman 2013 Gestational flu exposure induces changes in neurochemicals affiliative hormones and brainstem inflammation in addition to autism-like behaviors in mice Brain Behavior and Immunity 33 153-163

Myrskylauml Mikko Neil K Mehta and Virginia W Chang 2013 Early life exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic and old-age mortality by cause of death American Journal of Public Health 103(7) e83-e90

Olivetti C and Paserman MD (2015) In the name of the son (and the daughter) Intergenerational mobility in the United States 1850-1940 American Economic Review 105(8) 2695-2724

Pembrey Marcus E Lars Olov Bygren Gunnar Kaati Soumlren Edvinsson Kate Northstone Michael Sjoumlstroumlm and Jean Golding 2006 Sex-specific male-line transgenerational responses in humans European Journal of Human Genetics 14(2) 159-166

Richter Andreacute and Per Olof Robling 2013 Multigenerational effects of the 1918-19 influenza pandemic in Sweden Swedish Institute for Social Research 5

Shors Teri and Susan H McFadden 2009 1918 Influenza A Winnebago County Wisconsin Perspective Clinical Medicine amp Research 7(4) 147-156

Sydenstricker E (1931) The incidence of influenza among persons of different economic status during the epidemic of 1918 Public Health Reports 46(4) 154-170

van den Berg Gerard J and Pia R Pinger 2013 A validation study of transgenerational effects of childhood conditions on the third generation offsprings economic and health outcomes potentially driven by epigenetic imprinting IZA Discussion Paper

Tables and Figures

Table 1 Summary Statistics

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

First GenerartionFlu Indicators

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 8368 0112 0315Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 8456 0030 0170Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 8487 0093 0290

ControlsFirst Generation Malersquos Year of Birth 8456 1907435 7021First Generation Femalersquos Year of Birth 8427 1911189 6164

Dependent VariablesFirst Generation Malersquos Years of Schooling 8456 9778 3392First Generation Femalersquos Years of Schooing 8487 10499 2804First Generation Malersquos Job Prestige 8385 330662 214361First Generation Femalersquos Job Prestige 6683 12814 19934Family SES 8487 16231 11143

Second GenerationControls

Female Indicator 12459 0530 0499Birth Year 12459 1939406 4289Birth Order 12459 2529 1828

Dependent VariablesYears of Schooling 12459 13678 2361Family Income 1992 (in $1000s) 12112 68027 177105Net Worth 2004 (in $1000s) 10498 913046 2558927Self-reported health 1992 9888 4149 0668Height (inches) 9783 67406 3851BMI 1992 9671 26742 4657

Third GenerationControls

Birth Year 19913 1963901 3636Female Indicator 19913 0497 0500Birth Order 19913 2196 1263

Dependent VariableYears of Schooling 19913 14294 2309

Summary amp Notes This table provides summary statistics for all variables used The samples above may not berepresentative for all estimations For example the inclusion of siblings in the second generation increase the sample of parentalyear of birth and the corresponding flu indicator This increase in sample does not significantly change the sample statisticsabove Similar sample changes occur for the second generation controls above For the third generation the sample is restrictedto biological children over 35 years of age

24

Tab

le2

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Eco

nom

icE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

am

ily

SE

SY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

am

ily

SE

S(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

-01

39

-01

16lowast

-12

90lowast

lowast

(02

00)

(00

60)

(05

99)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)-0

133

-00

66

-13

61lowastlowast

lowast

(00

95)

(00

43)

(03

76)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8456

8385

8456

8487

6683

8487

RS

qr

00

32

00

08

00

23

00

13

00

04

00

13

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esd

irec

teff

ects

of

inu

tero

an

dea

rly

life

exp

osu

reto

the

1918

Flu

Ep

idem

ic

Bir

thye

ar

tim

etr

end

sin

lcu

de

yea

rof

bir

than

dit

ssq

uar

ean

din

clu

sion

inth

ees

tim

atio

nis

par

ent

spec

ific

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

alsi

gnifi

can

ceis

den

oted

by

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

25

Tab

le3

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Flu

Bir

thY

ear

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

luB

irth

Yea

rY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

e(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

01

40lowast

lowastlowast-0

259

-00

39

(00

34)

(01

58)

(00

72)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)0

056lowast

lowastlowast-0

340lowast

lowastlowast-0

118lowastlowast

lowast

(00

14)

(01

17)

(00

36)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8487

8412

8348

8456

6660

RS

qr

00

90

00

11

00

08

01

20

00

21

00

01

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esev

iden

ceof

marr

iage

mark

etse

lect

ion

inth

efi

rst

gen

erati

on

B

irth

year

tim

etr

end

sin

clu

de

year

of

bir

than

dit

ssq

uare

and

incl

usi

onin

the

esti

mat

ion

isp

aren

tsp

ecifi

cA

lles

tim

ati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enot

edby

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vely

26

Table 4 Second Generation Economic Effects

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0073)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0084 -0059(0129) (0129)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0211lowastlowastlowast -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0075) (0075)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0085 0084 0085 0085

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0221lowastlowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0098 -0066(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0262lowastlowast -0259lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0021 0021 0021 0021

Panel C Std Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0026(0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0033 0038(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038lowast -0040lowast

(0021) (0021)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0007 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of signficant harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration economic outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents(ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

27

Table 5 Second Generation Health Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Self-reported health (Likert 1=very poor 5=excellent)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0054lowastlowast

(0027)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0005(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0061lowastlowast -0061lowastlowast

(0028) (0028)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Panel B Height (inches)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0101)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0102 0127(0168) (0168)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0169lowast -0175lowast

(0103) (0103)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783r2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Panel C BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0412lowastlowast

(0191)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0082 0023(0344) (0346)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0422lowastlowast 0421lowastlowast

(0193) (0194)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration health outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (iegen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

28

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Tables and Figures

Table 1 Summary Statistics

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

First GenerartionFlu Indicators

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 8368 0112 0315Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 8456 0030 0170Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 8487 0093 0290

ControlsFirst Generation Malersquos Year of Birth 8456 1907435 7021First Generation Femalersquos Year of Birth 8427 1911189 6164

Dependent VariablesFirst Generation Malersquos Years of Schooling 8456 9778 3392First Generation Femalersquos Years of Schooing 8487 10499 2804First Generation Malersquos Job Prestige 8385 330662 214361First Generation Femalersquos Job Prestige 6683 12814 19934Family SES 8487 16231 11143

Second GenerationControls

Female Indicator 12459 0530 0499Birth Year 12459 1939406 4289Birth Order 12459 2529 1828

Dependent VariablesYears of Schooling 12459 13678 2361Family Income 1992 (in $1000s) 12112 68027 177105Net Worth 2004 (in $1000s) 10498 913046 2558927Self-reported health 1992 9888 4149 0668Height (inches) 9783 67406 3851BMI 1992 9671 26742 4657

Third GenerationControls

Birth Year 19913 1963901 3636Female Indicator 19913 0497 0500Birth Order 19913 2196 1263

Dependent VariableYears of Schooling 19913 14294 2309

Summary amp Notes This table provides summary statistics for all variables used The samples above may not berepresentative for all estimations For example the inclusion of siblings in the second generation increase the sample of parentalyear of birth and the corresponding flu indicator This increase in sample does not significantly change the sample statisticsabove Similar sample changes occur for the second generation controls above For the third generation the sample is restrictedto biological children over 35 years of age

24

Tab

le2

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Eco

nom

icE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

am

ily

SE

SY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

am

ily

SE

S(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

-01

39

-01

16lowast

-12

90lowast

lowast

(02

00)

(00

60)

(05

99)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)-0

133

-00

66

-13

61lowastlowast

lowast

(00

95)

(00

43)

(03

76)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8456

8385

8456

8487

6683

8487

RS

qr

00

32

00

08

00

23

00

13

00

04

00

13

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esd

irec

teff

ects

of

inu

tero

an

dea

rly

life

exp

osu

reto

the

1918

Flu

Ep

idem

ic

Bir

thye

ar

tim

etr

end

sin

lcu

de

yea

rof

bir

than

dit

ssq

uar

ean

din

clu

sion

inth

ees

tim

atio

nis

par

ent

spec

ific

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

alsi

gnifi

can

ceis

den

oted

by

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

25

Tab

le3

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Flu

Bir

thY

ear

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

luB

irth

Yea

rY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

e(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

01

40lowast

lowastlowast-0

259

-00

39

(00

34)

(01

58)

(00

72)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)0

056lowast

lowastlowast-0

340lowast

lowastlowast-0

118lowastlowast

lowast

(00

14)

(01

17)

(00

36)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8487

8412

8348

8456

6660

RS

qr

00

90

00

11

00

08

01

20

00

21

00

01

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esev

iden

ceof

marr

iage

mark

etse

lect

ion

inth

efi

rst

gen

erati

on

B

irth

year

tim

etr

end

sin

clu

de

year

of

bir

than

dit

ssq

uare

and

incl

usi

onin

the

esti

mat

ion

isp

aren

tsp

ecifi

cA

lles

tim

ati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enot

edby

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vely

26

Table 4 Second Generation Economic Effects

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0073)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0084 -0059(0129) (0129)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0211lowastlowastlowast -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0075) (0075)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0085 0084 0085 0085

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0221lowastlowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0098 -0066(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0262lowastlowast -0259lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0021 0021 0021 0021

Panel C Std Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0026(0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0033 0038(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038lowast -0040lowast

(0021) (0021)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0007 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of signficant harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration economic outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents(ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

27

Table 5 Second Generation Health Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Self-reported health (Likert 1=very poor 5=excellent)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0054lowastlowast

(0027)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0005(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0061lowastlowast -0061lowastlowast

(0028) (0028)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Panel B Height (inches)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0101)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0102 0127(0168) (0168)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0169lowast -0175lowast

(0103) (0103)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783r2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Panel C BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0412lowastlowast

(0191)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0082 0023(0344) (0346)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0422lowastlowast 0421lowastlowast

(0193) (0194)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration health outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (iegen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

28

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Tab

le2

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Eco

nom

icE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

am

ily

SE

SY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

am

ily

SE

S(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

-01

39

-01

16lowast

-12

90lowast

lowast

(02

00)

(00

60)

(05

99)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)-0

133

-00

66

-13

61lowastlowast

lowast

(00

95)

(00

43)

(03

76)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8456

8385

8456

8487

6683

8487

RS

qr

00

32

00

08

00

23

00

13

00

04

00

13

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esd

irec

teff

ects

of

inu

tero

an

dea

rly

life

exp

osu

reto

the

1918

Flu

Ep

idem

ic

Bir

thye

ar

tim

etr

end

sin

lcu

de

yea

rof

bir

than

dit

ssq

uar

ean

din

clu

sion

inth

ees

tim

atio

nis

par

ent

spec

ific

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

alsi

gnifi

can

ceis

den

oted

by

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

25

Tab

le3

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Flu

Bir

thY

ear

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

luB

irth

Yea

rY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

e(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

01

40lowast

lowastlowast-0

259

-00

39

(00

34)

(01

58)

(00

72)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)0

056lowast

lowastlowast-0

340lowast

lowastlowast-0

118lowastlowast

lowast

(00

14)

(01

17)

(00

36)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8487

8412

8348

8456

6660

RS

qr

00

90

00

11

00

08

01

20

00

21

00

01

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esev

iden

ceof

marr

iage

mark

etse

lect

ion

inth

efi

rst

gen

erati

on

B

irth

year

tim

etr

end

sin

clu

de

year

of

bir

than

dit

ssq

uare

and

incl

usi

onin

the

esti

mat

ion

isp

aren

tsp

ecifi

cA

lles

tim

ati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enot

edby

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vely

26

Table 4 Second Generation Economic Effects

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0073)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0084 -0059(0129) (0129)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0211lowastlowastlowast -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0075) (0075)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0085 0084 0085 0085

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0221lowastlowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0098 -0066(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0262lowastlowast -0259lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0021 0021 0021 0021

Panel C Std Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0026(0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0033 0038(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038lowast -0040lowast

(0021) (0021)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0007 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of signficant harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration economic outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents(ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

27

Table 5 Second Generation Health Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Self-reported health (Likert 1=very poor 5=excellent)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0054lowastlowast

(0027)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0005(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0061lowastlowast -0061lowastlowast

(0028) (0028)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Panel B Height (inches)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0101)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0102 0127(0168) (0168)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0169lowast -0175lowast

(0103) (0103)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783r2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Panel C BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0412lowastlowast

(0191)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0082 0023(0344) (0346)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0422lowastlowast 0421lowastlowast

(0193) (0194)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration health outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (iegen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

28

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Tab

le3

Fir

stG

ener

atio

n

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Flu

Bir

thY

ear

Yea

rsof

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

eF

luB

irth

Yea

rY

ears

of

Sch

S

td

Job

Pre

stig

e(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale)

01

40lowast

lowastlowast-0

259

-00

39

(00

34)

(01

58)

(00

72)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emal

e)0

056lowast

lowastlowast-0

340lowast

lowastlowast-0

118lowastlowast

lowast

(00

14)

(01

17)

(00

36)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

YY

YY

YY

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8487

8412

8348

8456

6660

RS

qr

00

90

00

11

00

08

01

20

00

21

00

01

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

pro

vid

esev

iden

ceof

marr

iage

mark

etse

lect

ion

inth

efi

rst

gen

erati

on

B

irth

year

tim

etr

end

sin

clu

de

year

of

bir

than

dit

ssq

uare

and

incl

usi

onin

the

esti

mat

ion

isp

aren

tsp

ecifi

cA

lles

tim

ati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

an

dard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enot

edby

an

d

re

pre

senti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vely

26

Table 4 Second Generation Economic Effects

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0073)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0084 -0059(0129) (0129)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0211lowastlowastlowast -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0075) (0075)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0085 0084 0085 0085

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0221lowastlowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0098 -0066(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0262lowastlowast -0259lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0021 0021 0021 0021

Panel C Std Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0026(0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0033 0038(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038lowast -0040lowast

(0021) (0021)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0007 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of signficant harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration economic outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents(ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

27

Table 5 Second Generation Health Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Self-reported health (Likert 1=very poor 5=excellent)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0054lowastlowast

(0027)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0005(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0061lowastlowast -0061lowastlowast

(0028) (0028)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Panel B Height (inches)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0101)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0102 0127(0168) (0168)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0169lowast -0175lowast

(0103) (0103)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783r2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Panel C BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0412lowastlowast

(0191)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0082 0023(0344) (0346)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0422lowastlowast 0421lowastlowast

(0193) (0194)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration health outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (iegen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

28

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Table 4 Second Generation Economic Effects

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0073)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0084 -0059(0129) (0129)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0211lowastlowastlowast -0209lowastlowastlowast

(0075) (0075)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0085 0084 0085 0085

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0221lowastlowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0098 -0066(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0262lowastlowast -0259lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0021 0021 0021 0021

Panel C Std Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0026(0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0033 0038(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038lowast -0040lowast

(0021) (0021)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0007 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of signficant harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration economic outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents(ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

27

Table 5 Second Generation Health Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Self-reported health (Likert 1=very poor 5=excellent)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0054lowastlowast

(0027)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0005(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0061lowastlowast -0061lowastlowast

(0028) (0028)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Panel B Height (inches)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0101)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0102 0127(0168) (0168)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0169lowast -0175lowast

(0103) (0103)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783r2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Panel C BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0412lowastlowast

(0191)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0082 0023(0344) (0346)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0422lowastlowast 0421lowastlowast

(0193) (0194)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration health outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (iegen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

28

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Table 5 Second Generation Health Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Self-reported health (Likert 1=very poor 5=excellent)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0054lowastlowast

(0027)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0005(0047) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0061lowastlowast -0061lowastlowast

(0028) (0028)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Panel B Height (inches)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0101)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0102 0127(0168) (0168)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0169lowast -0175lowast

(0103) (0103)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783r2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Panel C BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0412lowastlowast

(0191)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0082 0023(0344) (0346)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0422lowastlowast 0421lowastlowast

(0193) (0194)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table provides evidence of harmful effects of flu exposure in the first generation on secondgeneration health outcomes First generation time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (iegen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and itssquare and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

28

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Table 6 Generation Three Effects of Generation One Flu Exposure Years of Schooling

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0125(0077)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Male) -0007 0010(0136) (0136)

Ind for First Generation Flu Exposure (Female) -0144lowast -0144lowast

(0078) (0078)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table shows that the generational effects of flu exposure extend into the third generation of theWLS First generation flu exposure is shown to have a negative association with third generation years of schooling Firstgeneration time trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude anindicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sexindicator year of birth and its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to thosethird generation individuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) Allestimation is performed with OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

29

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

(a)

Fat

her

(b)

Moth

er

Fig

ure

1F

irst

Gen

erat

ion

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Yea

rof

Bir

th

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

figu

rep

lots

the

dis

trib

uti

on

for

firs

tgen

erati

on

year

of

bir

th

Flu

exp

osu

reis

class

ified

as

bei

ng

born

inei

ther

1918

or

1919

30

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1 First Generation Flu Exposure Effect on Family Income

Dependent Variable Family Income ($100s) 1957

(1) (2)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -3366(2592)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -5363lowastlowast

(2390)

Birth Year Time Trends Y YObservations 7440 7456R Sqr 0013 0004

Summary amp Notes This table replaces the index of socioeconomic status with family income (in $100s) in 1957 Allestimation is performed with OLS with robust standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

31

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

App

endix

Tab

le2

Mar

riag

eM

arke

tE

ffec

ts

Con

trol

ling

for

Ow

nY

ear

ofB

irth

Male

Fem

ale

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

eY

ears

of

Sch

Job

Pre

stig

e

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(M

ale

)-0

052

-211

82

-01

98

-03

74

(02

03)

(131

30)

(01

61)

(14

38)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

luE

xp

osu

re(F

emale

)-0

346lowast

lowastlowast-2

44

97lowastlowast

lowast-0

103

-13

88

(01

16)

(76

88)

(00

94)

(08

54)

Bir

thY

ear

Tim

eT

ren

ds

(Male

an

dF

emale

)Y

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

8348

8279

8348

6587

RS

qr

00

40

00

22

00

25

00

04

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

re-e

stim

ates

Tab

le3

wh

ile

contr

oll

ing

for

year

of

bir

than

dfl

uin

dic

ato

rsass

oci

ate

dw

ith

the

spou

sein

the

dep

end

ent

vari

ab

le

All

esti

mat

ion

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hro

bu

stst

and

ard

erro

rsre

port

edin

pare

nth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

sign

ifica

nce

isd

enote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e10

5

and

1le

vel

sre

spec

tive

ly

32

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 3 2nd Gen Economic Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Years of Schooling

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0088(0070)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0005 0008(0119) (0119)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0116 -0117(0072) (0072)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0206 0206 0206 0206

Panel B ln Family Income 1992

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0193lowast

(0111)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0080 -0050(0184) (0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0240lowastlowast -0238lowastlowast

(0116) (0116)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112R Sqr 0024 0024 0024 0024

Panel C Std Normal Net Worth 2004

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0003(0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0047 0049(0046) (0047)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0019 -0021(0020) (0020)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498R Sqr 0033 0033 0033 0033

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 4 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively 33

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 4 2nd Gen Health Effects Controlling for 1st Gen Outcomes

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A BMI

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0352lowast

(0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0051 -0001(0342) (0344)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0372lowast 0372lowast

(0192) (0193)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671R Sqr 0035 0035 0035 0035

Panel B Count of Illnesses

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0122lowast

(0065)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0076 -0096(0102) (0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0139lowastlowast 0144lowastlowast

(0067) (0068)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9921 9921 9921 9921R Sqr 0046 0046 0046 0046

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 5 while controlling for generation one economic outcomes fatherrsquos years ofschooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 First generation time trends are given by year of birth and itssquare for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sex secondgeneration year of birth and its square and birth order All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standarderrors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and1 levels respectively

34

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 5 Generation threersquos years of schooling Controlling for previous generation economicwell-being

Dependent Variable Years of Schooling for Gen 3(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A First Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0069(0076)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0022 0034(0133) (0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0102 -0104(0077) (0078)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913R Sqr 0117 0117 0117 0117

Panel B Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0025(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0008 0013(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0038 -0039(0073) (0073)

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0190 0190 0190 0190

Panel C First and Second Generation Controls

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex -0008(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0016 0019(0122) (0122)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0028 -0029(0073) (0073)

First Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Economic Outcomes Y Y Y Y

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Third Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 18449 18449 18449 18449R Sqr 0196 0196 0196 0196

Summary amp Notes This table re-estimates table 6 while controlling for generation one and tworsquos economic outcomes Forgeneration one these include fatherrsquos years of schooling motherrsquos years of schooling and family SES in 1957 generation twocontrols include the WLS graduatesiblingrsquos years of schooling family income in 1992 and net worth in 2004 First generationtime trends are year of birth measures for each parent and their square Second generation controls inlcude an indicator for sexsecond generation year of birth and its square and birth order Third generation controls include a sex indicator year of birthand its square and birth order Given the focus on years of schooling the sample is restricted to those third generationindividuals 35 years of age and older or born during or before 1970 (data were collected in 2005) All estimation is performedwith OLS with family (second generation) clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denotedby and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

35

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 6 Alternative measures of schooling in the second generation

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Indicator for any college (years of schooling gt12)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0044lowastlowastlowast

(0017)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0011 -0006(0029) (0029)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0044lowastlowast -0043lowastlowast

(0017) (0017)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0071 0070 0071 0071

Panel B Indicator for incomplete college (years of schooling gt12 amp lt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0008(0013)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 -0001(0022) (0022)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0008 -0008(0013) (0013)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0005 0005 0005 0005

Panel C Indicator for college graduate (years of schooling = 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0022lowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0003 0006(0020) (0020)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0021lowast -0021lowastlowast

(0011) (0011)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0019 0019 0019 0019

Panel D Indicator for post-college education (years of schooling gt 16)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0014(0010)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0011(0018) (0018)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0014 -0014(0010) (0010)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459R Sqr 0039 0039 0039 0039

Summary amp Notes This table replaces our continuous measure of years of schooling with specified dummy variables Firstgeneration time trends are given by year of birth and its square for both WLS parents (ie gen1 males and females) Secondgeneration controls inlcude an indicator for sex second generation year of birth and its square and birth order All estimationis performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

36

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 7 Young mothers Direct effect on Gen 1 Females

Dependent Variable Years of Sch Job Prestige Family SES

(1) (2) (3)

Ind for First Gen Female Flu Exposure (1918-1919) -0325lowastlowast -0841 -1749lowastlowastlowast

(0137) (1015) (0584)

Ind for mother born during 1920-1921 -0567lowastlowastlowast 0745 -1157(0206) (1515) (0914)

Ind for mother born during 1922-1923 -0666lowastlowast 0098 -2113(0330) (2210) (1298)

Ind for mother born after 1924 -0392 5682 0384(0486) (3705) (2126)

Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y

Observations 8487 6683 8487R Sqr 0014 0005 0014

Summary amp Notes This table includes indicators for alternative years of birth Younger mothers are shown to have lessyears of schooling All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesisStatistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

37

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

App

endix

Tab

le8

You

ng

mot

her

sG

ener

atio

n2

and

3eff

ects

Gen

2

Gen

3

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le

Yea

rsof

Sch

ln

Fam

In

c

1992

Std

N

W

2004

Sel

f-re

p

hea

lth

Hei

ght

BM

IY

ears

of

Sch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Ind

fo

rF

irst

Gen

F

emal

eF

luE

xp

osu

re(1

918-

1919

)-0

201lowastlowast

-02

95lowastlowast

-00

45

-00

73lowastlowast

-00

90

02

07

-00

86(0

092)

(01

32)

(00

32)

(00

32)

(01

22)

(02

25)

(00

94)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

20-1

921

-00

22

-00

40

-00

10

-00

61

01

33

-04

10

01

13

(01

37)

(01

74)

(00

51)

(00

43)

(01

80)

(03

11)

(01

41)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

du

rin

g19

22-1

923

-00

96

-01

88

-00

57

00

20

04

61

-11

29lowastlowast

01

55(0

184)

(03

20)

(00

61)

(00

75)

(02

83)

(04

51)

(02

23)

Ind

fo

rm

oth

erb

orn

afte

r19

2404

58

-01

87

00

01

-00

27

03

12

-08

85

03

99

(03

06)

(03

94)

(00

87)

(01

27)

(04

94)

(10

70)

(03

21)

Bas

eC

ontr

ols

YY

YY

YY

Y

Ob

serv

atio

ns

12459

12112

10498

9888

9783

9671

19913

RS

qr

00

85

00

21

00

08

00

09

05

86

00

29

00

79

Summary

ampNotes

Th

ista

ble

incl

ud

esin

dic

ator

sfo

ralt

ernati

ve

years

of

bir

th

Bei

ng

born

toa

you

nger

moth

ergen

erall

yis

not

ass

oci

ate

dw

ith

gen

erati

on

2or

3rsquos

outc

omes

ofin

tere

st

inst

ead

n

egat

ive

effec

tsar

eon

lyob

serv

edfo

rth

ose

born

du

rin

gth

efl

u

All

esti

mati

on

isp

erfo

rmed

wit

hO

LS

wit

hfa

mil

y(2

nd

gen

erat

ion

)cl

ust

ered

stan

dar

der

rors

rep

orte

din

par

enth

esis

S

tati

stic

al

signifi

can

ceis

den

ote

dby

an

d

rep

rese

nti

ng

sign

ifica

nce

at

the

10

5

an

d1

leve

ls

resp

ecti

vel

y

38

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 9 Summary Statistics by Gen 2 Sex

Variable N Mean Std Deviation

FemaleYears of Schooling 6607 13352 2088ln Family Income (1992 wave) 6411 9424 3577

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5654 10686 1010Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 5612 -0047 0539Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 5313 4164 0670Height (inches) 5231 646635 247936BMI 5124 26073 5114

Gen 3Years of Schooling 11947 14240 2291

MaleYears of Schooling 5852 14047 2587ln Family Income (1992 wave) 5701 10139 3030

ln Family Income (excl non-earners) 5264 10981 0836Std Net Worth (2004 wave) 4886 0059 1159Self-reported Health (1993 wave) 4575 4133 0665Height (inches) 4554 7055484 25596BMI 4547 27496 3948

Gen 3Years of Schooling 8046 14371 2332

Appendix Table 10A Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0090(0086)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0198 0214(0169) (0169)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104 -0114(0087) (0087)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6607 6607 6607 6607R Sqr 0075 0075 0075 0075

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

39

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 10B Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0523lowastlowastlowast

(0170)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0483 -0410(0321) (0323)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0512lowastlowastlowast -0491lowastlowastlowast

(0179) (0180)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 6411 6411 6411 6411R Sqr 0015 0013 0014 0015

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10C Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0007(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0078lowast 0078(0048) (0048)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0008 0005(0025) (0025)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5612 5612 5612 5612R Sqr 0007 0007 0007 0007

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

40

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 10D Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0027(0036)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 -0001(0071) (0071)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0022 -0022(0037) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5313 5313 5313 5313r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10E Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -2382(13366)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 44280lowastlowast 46351lowastlowast

(22343) (22480)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -12253 -14428(13485) (13561)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5231 5231 5231 5231r2 0015 0016 0015 0016

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

41

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 10F Results by sex Generation 2 Females

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0353(0286)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0105 0060(0514) (0516)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0326 0323(0289) (0290)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5124 5124 5124 5124R Sqr 0010 0010 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 10G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Females

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0087(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0104 -0101(0190) (0190)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0042 -0039(0098) (0098)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 11906 11906 11906 11906R Sqr 0086 0086 0086 0086

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

42

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 11A Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0322lowastlowastlowast

(0116)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0369lowastlowast -0338lowast

(0181) (0180)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0309lowastlowastlowast -0297lowastlowast

(0119) (0119)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5852 5852 5852 5852R Sqr 0060 0059 0060 0060

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11B RResults by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0116(0138)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0262 0261(0200) (0199)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0024 0014(0141) (0140)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5701 5701 5701 5701R Sqr 0009 0009 0008 0009

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

43

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 11C Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0038)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0013 -0001(0081) (0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0094lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0035)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4886 4886 4886 4886R Sqr 0004 0004 0004 0004

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

44

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 11D Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0083lowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0002 0012(0062) (0062)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0104lowastlowastlowast -0105lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0041)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4575 4575 4575 4575r2 0010 0009 0010 0010

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11E Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -15122(14275)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -22991 -20537(23287) (23176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -18595 -17540(14734) (14751)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4554 4554 4554 4554r2 0011 0011 0011 0011

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

45

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 11F Results by sex Generation 2 Males

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0465lowast

(0238)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0079 0006(0403) (0405)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0520lowastlowast 0520lowastlowast

(0245) (0246)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4547 4547 4547 4547R Sqr 0006 0005 0006 0006

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

Appendix Table 11G Results by sex Gen 3rsquos Years of Schooling for Gen 2 Males

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0177(0123)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0098 0144(0194) (0192)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0293lowastlowast -0302lowastlowast

(0125) (0126)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8007 8007 8007 8007R Sqr 0067 0067 0068 0068

Summary amp Notes This table repeats our base analysis while limiting the sample by sex of the second generation WLSrespondent All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

46

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12A Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable Years of schooling

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0253lowastlowast

(0107)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0252 -0226(0170) (0172)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0263lowastlowast -0242lowastlowast

(0113) (0115)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0084(0120)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0341 0339(0216) (0219)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0096 0056(0130) (0132)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12459 12459 12459 12459r2 0085 0085 0085 0085

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

47

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12B Heterogeneity by gender

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0128)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0196 0169(0190) (0189)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0081 -0104(0135) (0135)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0383lowastlowast

(0189)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0594lowast -0474(0349) (0355)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0339lowast -0283(0204) (0207)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 12112 12112 12112 12112r2 0021 0021 0021 0021

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

48

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12C Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Std Normal Net Worth 2004

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0065lowast

(0034)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0004 0019(0077) (0079)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0095lowastlowastlowast -0094lowastlowastlowast

(0030) (0031)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0071lowast

(0038)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0072 0039(0087) (0089)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0104lowastlowastlowast 0100lowastlowastlowast

(0035) (0037)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10498 10498 10498 10498r2 0008 0007 0008 0008

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

49

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12D Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Self-Reported Health

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0071lowast

(0036)[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0012 0031

(0058) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0093lowastlowast -0097lowastlowast

(0039) (0039)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0030(0045)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0031 -0051(0087) (0088)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0059 0065(0048) (0049)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9888 9888 9888 9888r2 0009 0009 0009 0009

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

50

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12E Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Height

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102(0133)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0129 -0125(0223) (0224)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0152 -0129(0141) (0142)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female -0000(0158)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0454 0495lowast

(0279) (0287)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0031 -0090(0170) (0175)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9783 9783 9783 9783nr2 0586 0586 0586 0586

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

51

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12F Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable BMI

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0376(0231)

[1em] Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0059 -0122(0402) (0407)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0441lowast 0457lowast

(0240) (0243)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0068(0316)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female 0282 0288(0573) (0589)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female -0035 -0069(0340) (0350)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9671 9671 9671 9671r2 0028 0028 0028 0028

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

52

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 12G Heterogeneity by sex

Dependent Variable Years of schooling in generation 3

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0131(0114)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male 0114 0175(0185) (0188)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0237lowastlowast -0261lowastlowast

(0118) (0121)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex)times Female 0009(0133)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Male)times Female -0225 -0292(0249) (0254)

First Gen Flu Exposure (Female)times Female 0152 0189(0141) (0145)

First Gen Birth Year Time Trends Y Y Y Y

Second Gen Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 19913 19913 19913 19913r2 0079 0078 0079 0079

Summary amp Notes This table estimates the interaction between an indicator for gen1 flu exposure and gen2rsquos sex tofurther examine the sex differences shown in Appendix Tables 10 and 11 All estimation is performed with OLS with familyclustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significanceat the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

53

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 13 Family Income 1992 excluding non-earners (ie fam inc = 0)

Dependent Variable ln Family Income 1992 wave (excluding those reporting 0)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0095lowastlowastlowast

(0033)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0031 -0019(0053) (0053)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0101lowastlowastlowast -0100lowastlowastlowast

(0034) (0034)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10918 10918 10918 10918r2 0050 0049 0050 0050

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0084lowast

(0050)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0019 -0007(0089) (0090)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0083 -0083(0053) (0054)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5654 5654 5654 5654r2 0026 0026 0026 0026

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0102lowastlowastlowast

(0039)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0051 -0040(0060) (0059)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0113lowastlowastlowast -0112lowastlowastlowast

(0040) (0040)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5264 5264 5264 5264r2 0029 0028 0029 0029

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel B in Table 4 excluding those who report $0 for familyincome All estimation is performed with OLS with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statisticalsignificance is denoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

54

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 14 Net Worth 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable Std Net Worth 2011 Wave of WLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Full Sample

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0032lowastlowastlowast

(0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0023lowast -0021lowast

(0012) (0011)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0032lowastlowastlowast -0031lowastlowastlowast

(0010) (0010)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9435 9435 9435 9435r2 0002 0002 0002 0002

Panel B Females Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0012lowast

(0006)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0009 -0008(0009) (0009)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0012lowastlowast -0011lowastlowast

(0006) (0006)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 5026 5026 5026 5026r2 0007 0006 0007 0007

Panel C Males Only

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0057lowastlowast

(0024)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0040lowast -0036lowast

(0023) (0021)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0057lowastlowast -0056lowastlowast

(0023) (0022)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 4409 4409 4409 4409r2 0001 0001 0001 0001

Summary amp Notes This table repeats the estimation of Panel C in Table 4 replacing the net worth measure from the 2004wave with an identical measure from the 2011 wave of the WLS All estimation is performed with OLS with family clusteredstandard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance is denoted by and representing significance at the 105 and 1 levels respectively

55

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 15A Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 1992 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0243(0152)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0107 0039(0252) (0255)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0285lowast 0282lowast

(0158) (0160)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9849 9849 9849 9849

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0007(0091)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0210 -0216(0170) (0173)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0007 0024(0095) (0097)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9858 9858 9858 9858

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0255(0184)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) -0107 -0169(0328) (0338)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0237 0252(0193) (0198)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 9845 9845 9845 9845

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

56

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 15B Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2004 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0018(0096)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0190 0207(0160) (0162)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0066 -0083(0102) (0104)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10672 10672 10672 10672

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) -0019(0072)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0096 0108(0124) (0125)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0051 -0059(0076) (0077)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10619 10619 10619 10619

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0108(0110)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0064 0027(0186) (0186)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0181 0179(0113) (0113)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 10617 10617 10617 10617

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

57

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18

Appendix Table 15C Gen 2 Specific Health Indicators 2011 Wave

Dependent Variable By Panel(1) (2) (3) (4)

Panel A Heart trouble

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0099(0092)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0244 0242(0154) (0155)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0033 0016(0099) (0100)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel B Hypertension

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0021(0081)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0095 0097(0138) (0139)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) -0004 -0011(0085) (0086)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8710 8710 8710 8710

Panel C Diabetes

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Either Sex) 0134(0102)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Male) 0203 0181(0175) (0176)

Ind for First Gen Flu Exposure (Female) 0140 0127(0107) (0107)

Base Controls Y Y Y Y

Observations 8709 8709 8709 8709

Summary amp Notes This table examines the association of gen 1 flu exposure with specific self-reported health conditionsLogistic estimation for all columns with family clustered standard errors reported in parenthesis Statistical significance isdenoted by and representing significance at the 10 5 and 1 levels respectively

58

• text 10818
• tables 10-8-18