, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 735–753 | Cite as

Pathways to educational homogamy in marital and cohabiting unions

  • Christine R. SchwartzEmail author


There is considerable disagreement about whether cohabitors are more or less likely to be educationally homogamous than married couples. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, I reconcile many of the disparate findings of previous research by conducting a “stock and flow” analysis of assortative cohabitation and marriage. I find that cohabitors are less likely to be educationally homogamous than married couples overall, but these differences are not apparent when cohabiting and marital unions begin. Instead, the results suggest that differences in educational homogamy by union type are driven by selective exits from marriage and cohabitation rather than by differences in partner choice. Marriages that cross educational boundaries are particularly likely to end. The findings suggest that although cohabitors place greater emphasis on egalitarianism than married couples, this does not translate into greater educational homogamy. The findings are also consistent with a large body of research on cohabitation and divorce questioning the effectiveness of cohabitation as a trial marriage.


Married Couple American Sociological Review Union Type National Longitudinal Survey Marital Dissolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agresti, A. 2002. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S. 1973. “A Theory of Marriage: Part I.” Journal of Political Economy 81: 813–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. —. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blackwell, D.L. and D.T. Lichter. 2000. “Mate Selection Among Married and Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Family Issues 21: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. —. 2004. “Homogamy Among Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Couples.” Sociological Quarterly 45: 719–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein, P. and P. Schwartz. 1983. American Couples. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Brines, J. and K. Joyner. 1999. “The Ties That Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Sociological Review 64: 333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bumpass, L.L. 1990. “What’s Happening to the Family? Interactions Between Demographic and Institutional Change.” Demography 27: 483–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bumpass, L.L. and H.-H. Lu. 2000. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States.” Population Studies 54: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2002. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Cohort, 1979–2002 (Rounds 1–20) [Machine-readable database]. Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University [producer and distributor].Google Scholar
  11. Casper, L.M. and S.M. Bianchi. 2002. Continuity and Change in the American Family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Clarkberg, M., R.M. Stolzenberg, and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, Values, and Entrance Into Cohabitational Versus Marital Unions.” Social Forces 74: 609–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarkwest, A. 2007. “Spousal Dissimilarity, Race, and Marital Dissolution.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 639–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiMaggio, P. and J. Mohr. 1985. “Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection.” American Journal of Sociology 90: 1231–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drobnič, S., H.-P. Blossfeld, and G. Rohwer. 1999. “Dynamics of Women’s Employment Patterns Over the Family Life Course: A Comparison of the United States and Germany.” Journal of Marriage and Family 61: 133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dush, C.M.K., C.L. Cohan, and P.R. Amato. 2003. “The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts?” Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 539–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elwert, F. 2007. “Cohabitation, Divorce, and the Trial Marriage Hypothesis.” Unpublished dissertation. Department of Sociology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, J.R. and K. Harknett. 2006. “Parenting Across Racial and Class Lines: Assortative Mating Patterns of New Parents Who Are Married, Cohabiting, Dating, and No Longer Romantically Involved.” Social Forces 85: 121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamplova, D. 2009. “Educational Homogamy Among Married and Unmarried Couples in Europe: Does Context Matter?” Journal of Family Issues 30: 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jepsen, L.K. and C.A. Jepsen. 2002. “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples.” Demography 39: 435–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joyner, K. and G. Kao. 2005. “Interracial Relationships and the Transition to Adulthood.” American Sociological Review 70: 563–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalmijn, M. 1991. “Status Homogamy in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 97: 496–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. —. 1994. “Assortative Mating by Cultural and Economic Status.” American Journal of Sociology 100: 422–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kenney, C.T. and S.S. McLanahan. 2006. “Why Are Cohabiting Relationships More Violent Than Marriages?” Demography 43: 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klerman, J.A. and S.J. Haider. 2004. “A Stock-Flow Analysis of Welfare Caseload.” Journal of Human Resources 39: 865–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lillard, L.A., M.J. Brien, and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?” Demography 32: 437–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mare, R.D. 1991. “Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating.” American Sociological Review 56: 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, S.P. 2006. “Trends in Marital Dissolution by Women’s Education in the United States.” Demographic Research, Vol. 15, article 20: 537–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oppenheimer, V.K. 2003. “Cohabiting and Marriage During Young Men’s Career-Development Process.” Demography 40: 127–49.Google Scholar
  30. Qian, Z. 1998. “Changes in Assortative Mating: The Impact of Age and Education, 1970–1990.” Demography 35: 279–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qian, Z. and S.H. Preston. 1993. “Changes in American Marriage, 1972 to 1987: Availability and Forces of Attraction by Age and Education.” American Sociological Review 58: 482–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quillian, L. 1999. “Migration Patterns and the Growth of High-Poverty Neighborhoods, 1970–1990.” American Journal of Sociology 105: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raley, R.K. 2001. “Increasing Fertility in Cohabiting Unions: Evidence for the Second Demographic Transition in the United States?” Demography 38: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raymo, J.M. and Y. Xie. 2000. “Temporal and Regional Variation in the Strength of Educational Homogamy.” American Sociological Review 65: 773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenfeld, M. 2008. “Racial, Educational, and Religious Endogamy in Comparative Historical Perspective.” Social Forces 87: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sassler, S. and J. McNally. 2003. “Cohabiting Couples’ Economic Circumstances and Union Transitions: A Re-examination Using Multiple Imputation Techniques.” Social Science Research 32: 553–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schoen, R. and R.M. Weinick. 1993. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitations.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55: 408–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz, C.R. and R.D. Mare. 2005. “Trends in Educational Assortative Marriage From 1940 to 2003.” Demography 42: 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smock, P.J. 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smock, P.J. and W.D. Manning. 1997. “Cohabiting Partners’ Economic Circumstances and Marriage.” Demography 34: 331–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. South, S.J. and G.D. Spitze. 1994. “Housework in Marital and Nonmarital Households.” American Sociological Review 59: 327–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spanier, G.B. 1983. “Married and Unmarried Cohabitation in the United States: 1980.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 45: 277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stanley, S.M., G.K. Rhoades, and H.J. Markman. 2006. “Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect.” Family Relations 55: 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Surkyn, J. and R. Lesthaeghe. 2004. “Value Orientations and the Second Demographic Transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An Update.” Demographic Research, Special Collection 3, article 3: 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tzeng, M.-S. 1992. “The Effects of Socioeconomic Heterogamy and Changes on Marital Dissolution for First Marriages.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 509–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison

Personalised recommendations