Demography

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 621–646 | Cite as

Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003

  • Christine R. Schwartz
  • Robert D. Mare

Abstract

This paper reports trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003 in the United States. Analyses of census and Current Population Survey data show that educational homogamy decreased from 1940 to 1960 but increased from 1960 to 2003. From 1960 to the early 1970s, increases in educational homogamy were generated by decreasing intermarriage among groups of relatively well-educated persons. College graduates, in particular, were increasingly likely to marry each other rather than those with less education. Beginning in the early 1970s, however, continued increases in the odds of educational homogamy were generated by decreases in intermarriage at both ends of the education distribution. Most striking is the decline in the odds that those with very low levels of education marry up. Intermarriage between college graduates and those with “some college” continued to decline but at a more gradual pace. As intermarriage declined at the extremes of the education distribution, intermarriage among those in the middle portion of the distribution increased. These trends, which are similar for a broad cross section of married couples and for newlyweds, are consistent with a growing social divide between those with very low levels of education and those with more education in the United States.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, A. 2002. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, D., S. Sanders, and L. Taylor. 2003. “Measurement of Higher Education in the Census and Current Population Survey.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 98:545–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackwell, D.L. 1998. “Marital Homogamy in the United States: The In uence of Individual and Paternal Education.” Social Science Research 27:159–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackwell, D.L. and D.T. Lichter. 2000. “Mate Selection Among Married and Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Family Issues 21(3):275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ——. 2004. “Homogamy Among Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Couples.” Sociological Quarterly 45:719–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau, P.M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blau, P.M. and O.D. Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blossfeld, H.-P. and A. Timm, eds. 2003. Who Marries Whom? Educational Systems as Marriage Markets in Modern Societies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Borjas, G.J., R.B. Freeman, L.F. Katz, J. DiNardo, and J.M. Abowd. 1997. “How Much Do Immigration and Trade Affect Labor Market Outcomes?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1997(1):1–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(1):29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bumpass, L.L., T.C. Martin, and J.A. Sweet. 1991. “The Impact of Family Background and Early Marital Factors on Marital Disruption.” Journal of Family Issues 12:22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bumpass, L.L. and J.A. Sweet. 1972. “Differentials in Marital Instability: 1970.” American Sociological Review 37:754–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casper, L.M. and S.M. Bianchi. 2002. Continuity and Change in the American Family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and M.W. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. (Monographs in Population and Biology 16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Charles, K.K. and M.-C. Luoh. 2003. “Gender Differences in Completed Schooling.” The Review of Economic Statistics 85:559–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cherlin, A.J. 2004. “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:848–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clogg, C.C. and S.R. Eliason. 1988. “Some Common Problems in Log-Linear Analysis.” Pp. 226–57 in Common Problems/Proper Solutions: Avoiding Error in Quantitative Research, edited by J.S. Long. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, A.M. and F.B. Brawer. 2003. The American Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Costa, D.L. and M.E. Kahn. 2000. “Power Couples: Changes in the Locational Choice of the College Educated, 1940–1990.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:1287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edin, K., M.J. Kefalas, and J.M. Reed. 2004. “A Peek Inside the Black Box: What Marriage Means for Poor Unmarried Parents.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:1007–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. England, P. and G. Farkas. 1986. Households, Employment, and Gender: A Social, Economic, and Demographic View. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, E. and R. Guttman. 1984. “Mate Selection in Man: Evidence, Theory, and Outcome.” Social Biology 31:243–78.Google Scholar
  23. Fernández, R., N. Guner, and J. Knowles. 2005. “Love and Money: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Household Sorting and Inequality.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(1): 273–344.Google Scholar
  24. Fernández, R. and R. Rogerson. 2001. “Sorting and Long-Run Inequality.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:1305–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer, C.S., G. Stockmayer, J. Stiles, and M. Hout. 2004. “Distinguishing the Geographic Levels and Social Dimensions of U.S. Metropolitan Segregation, 1960–2000.” Demography 41:37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldin, C. and L.F. Katz. 2000. “Decreasing (and Then Increasing) Inequality in America: A Tale of Two Half-Centuries.” Pp. 37–82 in The Causes and Consequences of Increasing Inequality, edited by F. Welch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Goldstein, J.R. and C.T. Kenney. 2001. “Marriage Delayed or Marriage Forgone? New Cohort Forecasts of First Marriage for U.S. Women.” American Sociological Review 66:506–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goode, W.J. 1956. After Divorce. Glencoe, IL: Free PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Gottschalk, P. 1997. “Inequality, Income Growth, and Mobility: The Basic Facts.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11(2):21–40.Google Scholar
  30. Jaeger, D.A. 1997. “Reconciling the Old and New Census Bureau Education Questions: Recommendations for Researchers.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 15:300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jargowsky, P.A. 1996. “Take the Money and Run: Economic Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” American Sociological Review 61:984–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Johnson, R.A. 1980. Religious Assortative Mating in the United States. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kalmijn, M. 1991a. “Shifting Boundaries: Trends in Religious and Educational Homogamy.” American Sociological Review 56:786–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. —. 1991b. “Status Homogamy in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 97:496–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. —. 1994. “Assortative Mating by Cultural and Economic Occupational Status.” American Journal of Sociology 100:422–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. —. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. —. 2003. “Union Disruption in the Netherlands.” International Journal of Sociology 33(2): 36–64.Google Scholar
  39. Kane, T.J. and C.E. Rouse. 1999. “The Community College: Educating Students at the Margin Between College and Work.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 13(1):63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Katz, L.F. and K.M. Murphy. 1992. “Changes in Relative Wages, 1963–1987: Supply and Demand Factors.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107:35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kremer, M. 1997. “How Much Does Sorting Increase Inequality?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:115–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lichter, D.T., R.N. Anderson, and M.D. Hayward. 1995. “Marriage Markets and Marital Choice.” Journal of Family Issues 16:412–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mare, R.D. 1991. “Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating.” American Sociological Review 56:15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mare, R.D. 2000. “Assortative Mating, Intergenerational Mobility, and Educational Inequality.” Working Paper CCPR-004-00. California Center for Population Research, University of California-Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  45. Mason, K.O. and A.-M. Jensen. 1995. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–14 in Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries, edited by K.O. Mason and A.-M. Jensen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mishel, L., J. Bernstein, and S. Allegretto. 2005. The State of Working America 2004/2005. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Oppenheimer, V.K. 1994. “Women’s Rising Employment and the Future of the Family in Industrial Societies.” Population and Development Review 20:293–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park, J.H. 1996. “Measuring Education Over Time: A Comparison of Old and New Measures of Education From the Current Population Survey.” Economics Letters 50:425–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pencavel, J. 1998. “Assortative Mating by Schooling and the Work Behavior of Wives and Husbands.” American Economic Review 88:326–29.Google Scholar
  50. Powers, D.A. and Y. Xie. 2000. Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Qian, Z. 1998. “Changes in Assortative Mating: The Impact of Age and Education, 1970–1990.” Demography 35:279–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Qian, Z. and D.T. Lichter. 2001. “Measuring Marital Assimilation: Intermarriage Among Natives and Immigrants.” Social Science Research 30:289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Raftery, A.E. 1995. “Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research.” Sociological Methodology 25:111–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Rose, E. 2004. “Education and Hypergamy in Marriage Markets.” CSDE Working Paper No. 04-03. Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  57. Ruggles, S., M. Sobek, T. Alexander, C.A. Fitch, R. Goeken, P.K. Hall, M. King, and C. Ronnander. 2004. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. Distributed by the Minnesota Population Center, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  58. Rytina, S., P.M. Blau, T. Blum, and J. Schwartz. 1988. “Inequality and Intermarriage: A Paradox of Motive and Constraint.” Social Forces 66:645–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schoen, R. and R.M. Weinick. 1993. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitations.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:408–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simkus, A. 1984. “Structural Transformation and Social Mobility: Hungary 1938–1973.” American Sociological Review 49:291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smits, J., W. Ultee, and J. Lammers. 1998. “Educational Homogamy in 65 Countries: An Explanation of Differences in Openness Using Country-Level Explanatory Variables.” American Sociological Review 63:264–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. ———. 2000. “More or Less Educational Homogamy? A Test of Different Versions of Modernization Theory Using Cross-Temporal Evidence for 60 Countries.” American Sociological Review 65:781–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens, G. and R. Schoen. 1988. “Linguistic Intermarriage in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 50:267–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stevens, G. and G. Swicegood. 1987. “The Linguistic Context of Ethnic Endogamy.” American Sociological Review 52:73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sweeney, M.M. and M. Cancian. 2004. “The Changing Importance of White Women’s Economic Prospects for Assortative Mating.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:1015–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tzeng, J.M. and R.D. Mare. 1995. “Labor Market and Socioeconomic Effects on Marital Stability.” Social Science Research 24:329–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tzeng, M.-S. 1992. “The Effects of Socioeconomic Heterogamy and Changes on Marital Dissolution for First Marriages.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:509–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ultee, W.C. and R. Luijkx. 1990. “Educational Heterogamy and Father-to-Son Occupational Mobility in 23 Industrial Nations.” European Sociological Review 6(2):125–49.Google Scholar
  69. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology.” Technical Paper 63RV. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  70. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. “Table A-2. Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High School or College, by Race, Hispanic Origin and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2004.” Available online at http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/tabA-2.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine R. Schwartz
    • 1
  • Robert D. Mare
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California-Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUCLALos Angeles

Personalised recommendations