Patterns Of Homogamy Research Articles

Education, class and assortative marriage in rural Shanxi, China in the mid-twentieth century

This paper examines the consequences of political, economic and social change in mid-twentieth century China for patterns of assortative mating by both education and class. Traditionally in China, marriages were arranged by parents, and ideally matched families of similar socioeconomic status. However, the Marriage Law passed by the People’s Republic of China in 1950 promoted free choice and forbade arranged marriage and other interference by families in the marriage decisions of their children. Later, Land Reform, Collectivization and other movements had profound impacts on rural household organization and social relations. We investigate their effects on assortative mating by using novel linked administrative data compiled in rural Shanxi Province in North China in the mid-1960s. These data record the education and family class labels (jiating chushen) of spouses for 1459 couples in 30 villages. The class labels were assigned in the 1950s based on family landholding before the Land Reform and became hereditary. We find that class label had effects above and beyond those of education, suggesting that assortative mating studies that only consider education overlook an important dimension of social status in marriage patterns, and thereby overstate the overall permeability of boundaries between social groups. Furthermore, by comparing couples according to whether they married before or after 1949, we find that patterns of homogamy and hypergamy remained highly stable in the face of substantial social transformation after 1949.

Homogamy and heterogamy in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for couples’ fertility behaviour

ABSTRACTThis study examines patterns of homogamy and heterogamy and their implications for couple’s fertility behaviour. Data were obtained from demographic and health surveys conducted in Ghana, Nigeria and Zambia between 2001 and 2014. The study population were couples in a monogamous union where wives were aged 35 years and over: 1785 in Ghana, 3185 in Nigeria and 3175 in Zambia. Results of the descriptive analysis show that educational, religious and ethnic homogamy and occupational heterogamy were predominant among the couples and mean children ever born varied according to couples’ characteristics. The significant predictors of fertility as revealed in the multivariate analysis included educational homogamy and heterogamy, occupational homogamy, age difference and religious and ethnic homogamy. To expedite fertility transition in the three countries and other sub-Saharan African countries, programmes and policies aimed at reducing fertility in the region should incorporate strategies that focus on the characteristics of couples in union.

Migration, Occupational Identity, and Societal Openness in Nineteenth-Century Belgium

This article examines social heterogamy as an indicator of “societal openness”, by which is meant the extent to which social origin, as defined by the social position of one's parents, is used as the main criterion for selection of a marriage partner. We focus on two topics. The role first of migration and then of occupational identity in this selection of a partner according to social origin. And in order to evaluate the true social and economic context in which spouses lived, we do not use a nationwide sample but rather choose to examine marriage certificates from eleven cities and villages in Belgium, both Flemish and Walloon, during the nineteenth century. By observing different patterns of homogamy according to social origin we show in this article that partner selection was affected by the relationship between migration, occupational identity and class structure. It seems difficult to interpret all these divergent patterns in terms of modernization. In our opinion the historical context creates a complicated set of conditions reflected in differences in the type and strength of migration and in the sectoral composition and evolution of the local economy. The whole exerts an influence over partner selection.

Finding the Right Partner: Rural Homogamy in Nineteenth-Century Sweden

In pre-industrial society, choosing a marriage partner was a crucial process, and especially so for landowners. This study focuses on social aspects of mate selection in five rural parishes in southern Sweden between 1829 and 1894, using an individual-level database containing information on a large number of marriages and the social origins of the marrying couple regardless of whether they were born in the relevant parish or not. The information makes it possible to study homogamy without introducing the possible selection biases implicit in looking only at non-migrating population, a consideration which is of great importance in a society characterized by very high levels of geographical mobility. The results show a community marked by quite strong homogamy but with pronounced differences among social groups. Landholding peasants were the most homogamous. The pattern of homogamy also remained fairly constant despite fundamental economic and social change.

Marriage Markets and Marital Choice

This article presents a search model of marital choice. We tested the hypothesis that demographic shortages of suitable marital partners not only lower the probability of marriage, but increase the likelihood that never-married women will either: (a) marry men with characteristics dissimilar to their own or (b) marry men with low socioeconomic status. This analysis was accomplished using data from the 1979-1986 waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, merged with various local-area sex ratios from the 1980 decennial U.S. Census. We found that a favorable marriage market, measured in terms of the relative number of men to women, increases the odds of marrying a high-status man compared with a low-status man (as measured in terms of education and occupation). It also increases the chance of forgoing marriage rather than marrying low-status men. At the same time, we found little evidence that mate surpluses or deficits in the local marriage market affect patterns of homogamy or assortative mating. The implication is that market conditions— good or bad—have little to do with women's willingness to marry heterogamously. Women are unwilling to “cast a wider net” in the face of market constraints.

Patterns of Homogamy and the Field of Eligibles

Using retrospective reporting as a source of longitudinal data, an analysis is presented of varying degrees of homogamy between a homogeneous sample of engaged girls and three men with whom each had had a serious relationship. Evidence is presented which suggests that (a) there is a general tendency to become more homogamous through mate selection period on some dimensions (e.g., education) but to become less so on other dimensions (e.g., urbanity); (b) some of patterns more easily fit a theory based on variations in opportunities to meet different kinds of partners, others more easily fit a normative theory; (c) social changes during selection period (geographical or social mobility) influence level and pattern of homogamy. T he principle of homogamy in mate selection process is well established in sociological literature. Numerous studies have supported general proposition that dominant pattern in our society, even within framework of freedom of choice, is for marital partners to come from similar social categories. However, in spite of wealth of empirical evidence of this kind, we have not yet gone much beyond rather simple generalization that choices are usually made within broad social categories. We have stopped raising questions about social bases of mate selection seemingly because we assume that important sociological analysis has already been carried out by demonstrating homogamous patterns. In contrast, major thesis of this paper is that studies of homogamy have only begun to examine sociological aspects of mate selection. They have only posed problem, not solved it. There is nothing new in idea that problems remain in this area of inquiry. At least a decade ago Burgess and Locke' suggested that the actual factors determining assortative mating have not been studied, and they proceeded to list six possible explanations of empirical findings. Most of these explanations are of two types. The first type views patterns of mate selection as a function of opportunities. It explains similarities of mates on basis of residential segregation and differences in activity patterns of various social categories which limit range of contacts of any person to encounters with persons like himself. The second explanation is a normative one. It views patterns of similarity as result of preferences on part of chooser for persons like himself and/or enforcement of such homogamous choices through social sanctions. A recent treatment of some of issues by Katz and Hill attempts to combine two under a general norm-interaction theory.2 Although such a combination may have theoretic value, it makes even more apparent fact that same behavior may be result of very different antecedents. Conformity with pattern of homogamy, when At occurs, may be due to either limited opportunities or adherence to a norm. Simple reporting of pattern will not determine which is case.3 * The research was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from Duke University Research Council. I am indebted to Joel Smith and George Maddox for their helpful critique of an earlier version of this paper. 1 Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke, The Family (New York: The American Book Company, 1953), p. 370. 2 Alvin M. Katz and Reuben Hill, Residential Propinquity and Marital Selection: A Review of Theory, Method, and Fact, Marriage and Family Living, 20 (1958), pp. 27-35. The first two assumptions of this theory are: 1. That marriage is normative. 2. That, within normative fields of eligibles, probability of marriage varies directly with probability of interaction. (p. 33) 3 These two factors occupy different positions in logic of explication of patterns of homogamy This content downloaded from 207.46.13.86 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:25:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Patterns of Homogamy and the Field of Eligibles

Patterns of Homogamy and the Field of Eligibles