Sociology 971 Seminar on the Demography of Fertility, Families, and Households
Week 4. Marriage Markets & Assortative Mating: Trends and Differentials
Hyun Sik Kim, Jennifer Holand
I. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS
 Geographic specification:
 Urban vs. (Suburban vs.) Rural: (South 1991)
 Regional Economy
 Presence of Higher Education Institutions
 Sex Ratios:
 Biologically determined:
Birth: 1.05 Men/Women
Age 15 – 50: 105-99.
Data Source: Population Division of
the Department of Economic and
Social Affairs of the United Nations
Secretariat 2001. World Population
Prospects: The 2000 Revision, Vol. II,
The Sex and Age Distribution of
Populations. New York: United
Nations.
 Exogenous events can also play a role:
 Migration
 War: Germany 1950:
Data Source: Population Division of the
Department of Economic and Social
Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat
2001. World Population Prospects: The
2000 Revision, Vol. II, The Sex and Age
Distribution of Populations. New York:
United Nations.
 Age specific incarceration and mortality rates (Wilson 1987; Fragile
Families: Bruce Western)
Week 4: Trends & Differentials
Kim & Holland
Page 2 of 4
Week 4: Trends & Differentials
Kim & Holland
Page 3 of 4
II. MARKET ACTORS: Assets & Preferences: What matters?
 Economic Status: Gender differentials (Qian & Preston 1993; South 1991; Lichter, et
al 1995)
 Education: a possible proxy for future earnings potential? (Sweeney 2002; Mare
1991; Schwartz & Mare 2005)
 Physical Attractiveness: Gender differentials (South 1991)
 Age: Associated with heterogamy. Suggestive of selection? Constricting marriage
market?** (Lichter et al 1995; South 1991)
 Previous marriage, children (South 1991)
 Differentials: Race/Ethnicity: Evidence for market advantages** (South 1991)
III. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MARKETS AND PREFERENCES
** Do Preferences Change With Changes In Market Characteristics?
 Evidence: South’s findings on age; Black women’s willingness to marry
heterogamously.
 However, Lichter, et al (1995), examining education and occupation, find little
evidence of preference change in the face of market fluctuations. Women index their
reservation-quality spouse to their own status characteristics and market conditions
have little to do with willingness to marry heterogamously.
IV.
A.




OUTCOMES
Some general correlations: (Kalmijn 1991)
Occupational status: 35% similar attribute, around .40 correlation
Education: 40-66% similar attribute, around .60 correlation
Spouses’ fathers’ occupation: 36-49% similar attribute
The correlation between spouses’ education is stronger than the correlation between
spouses’ class origins (Blau & Duncan 1967)
 1962 and 1973 Occupational Change in a Generation(OCG) surveys: 1) educational
boundary is much stronger than social-origin boundary 2) structural changes partly
explain educational homogamy but nearly all of social origin homogamy
B. Homogamy:
EDUCATION:
The dates vary, but there is agreement that educational homogamy has increased from
1960s through 2003. (Kalmijn 1991; Mare 1991; Schwartz & Mare 2005)
 Homogamy declined from 60% in 1940 to 45% in 1960; Increased continually up to
55% in 2003. Rate of increase has slowed since 1990s. (Schwartz & Mare 2005)
 Probability of homogamy increased at top of the educational hierarchy from 1960 to
1970s; increased at both top and bottom since mid-1970s. (Schwartz & Mare 2005)
 For both marriages and cohabitations, the barrier between less than a high school
education and at least a high school education remained the hardest to cross, followed
by the barrier between less than a high school education and more than a high school
education (Qian 1998)
 Inverted U-curve relationship between industrialization/economic development and
educational homogamy (Smits et al 1998)
 Implications for generational inequality (albeit small): increase of correlation from
Week 4: Trends & Differentials
Kim & Holland
Page 4 of 4
0.6 to 0.8 would increase the correlation between parents’ and children’s education by
11%, from 0.346 to 0.385
AGE
 1980s increasing homogamy—a deviation from the trend in the 1970s and 1990s.
(Qian & Preston 1993; Qian 1998)
C. Heterogamy & Declines in Homogamy:
EDUCATION
 Trends in educational heterogamy roughly inverse of educational homogamy trends
 Proportion of marriages with husbands with a higher education than the wife 45%
in 1940, 60% in mid 1970s, down to 45% in 2003. (Schwartz and Mare 2005)
 Marriages with women with a higher education than husband more likely since
1980 relative to marriages with higher educated husband. (Qian 1998)
 Correlation between spouses’ education fell from 0.649 in 1940 to 0.620 in 1990
(Kremer 1997)
 International Trends:
 Decline of 2.5% in educational homogamy from 1940s to 1970s in 60 countries
(Smits et al 2000)
 Decline in educational homogamy in Japan, Taiwan, and China but stability in
United States from the early 1970s to the late 1980s (Raymo & Xie 1998)
AGE (Qian 1998)
 The odds of men marrying younger women changed significantly, from 2.40 in 1970
to 2.23 in 1980 and 2.85 in 1990. Odds of women marrying younger men unchanged.
 Age interacts with education
 Age and education homogamy positively related.
 However, in case of educational heterogamy, younger people more likely to
marry people with higher education and older people more likely to marry people
with less than a high school diploma.
RELIGION
 Protestants and Catholics increasingly likely to intermarry from 1920s to 1980s
(Kalmijn 1991, ASR)
 Religion interacts with education
 Highest rates of educational homogamy in Confucian and Catholic countries,
moderate rates of homogamy in mixed Catholic/Protestant and Muslim countries
and the lowest rates of homogamy and that Protestant countries. (Smits, et al
1998)
 Social boundaries that separate educational groups are stronger than those
separating religious groups and that the institution of marriage has become more
secular.
D. Foregone Marriage:
RACE: (Raley 1996; Lichter, et al 1992; Lichter, et al 1995)
 Lack of black marriageable men contributed difference in marriage between Black
and White. For example, Black are .72 times likely to cohabit, .39 times likely to
marry and 1.85 times likely to cohabit for first unions than white. (Raley 1996)
 Divergence in union formation rates by race increased over time