Marital homogamy as social stratification indicator Tomáš Katrňák Faculty of Social Studies Masaryk University Brno What is homogamy? •Marital sorting follow regular patterns at the aggregate societal level •Rule of homogamy (sometimes also endogamy) says: –most people who marry do not choose a partner at random –they seek partners based on similarities in social characteristics •family backgrounds •educational levels •social class •race/ethnicity •religion •age •Marital sorting is not purely random process What is homogamy? •Homogamy is a tendency to vote for a partner with similar social criteria •Homogamy is a result of marital sorting •The opposite of homogamy is heterogamy • Why to study homogamy? Example of educational homogamy •Educational homogamy is the indicator of “societal openness” •It is the indicator of educational differences and their role among people •High educational homogamy means, that people perceive educational differences as high and these differences are reflected in their marital choic –Lower educational homogamy indicates that educational differences are not significant in people’s perception –The educational differences among people are not reflected in marital selection • •Smits, Ultee a Lammers says: “(a) society in which many marriages take place between persons belonging to different social groups (…) can be considered a more open society than one in which few socially mixed marriages occur” (ASR 1998a: 265) • •Individual (preferences, propensity) •Structural (social barriers and constrains) •Social (closeness, acceptability) – •Based on common sense or massmedia we are convinced that only individual factors play a role, that we choose our partners mostly by ourselves • •However, in an everyday reality, the choosing of partners does not happen according individual preferences as we would expect • • Three factors influencing choice of partner •Economically and social-psychologically oriented sociologists •Sociological micro-perspective •Partner preferences and their effect on marital behaviour •People usually prefer similar or the same partners • •Why? –because of status maintenance and stabilization of economic individual level –because of cultural understanding and sharing the same values –Because of Exchange of gender expectations connected with male and female gender role in family • • • Individual factors •Sociological macro-perspective •Analysis of concluded marriages (ex-post data analysis) •Opportunity structure •There is a supply from which single people collect •3 dimensions (educational homogamy): –Number of educational groups – analytical effect •higher number of educational groups increase educational heterogamy –The size of educational groups – prevalence effect •increased size of educational group means the rise of educational homogamy in this group –Gender gap in educational groups – gender effect •gender gap closure inside of educational group means the rise of educational homogamy in this group – Structural factors •Sociological macro-perspective •Analysis of concluded marriages (ex-post data analysis) •Social factors are connected with social constrains between groups of men and women on marriage market •These are „distances“ that must be overcome in order the marriage could be concluded •Differences are educational, age, occupational, religious, ethnical or regional. •It depends on what differences are societal important, which role people in marriage market give them •The effect of social structure, social stratification, social segregation on partner choice •Differences determine this choice, however, the choice is a mechanism that maintains and confirms these differences • • • Social factors Homogamy: basic concepts •Homogamy, hypergamy, hypogamy –Gender is a key –Hypogamy is usually defined: W higher, M lower –Hypergamy is usually defined: W lower, M higher • •Absolute homogamy –opportunity structure –prevalence effect – •Relative homogamy – assortative mating –social distances –preference effect •AEH: the result of both: –the opportunity structure and assortative mating •AEH is also influenced by: –cultural factors such as marriage tradition –demographic trends, religion –degree of ethnic segregation –women's labor market participation •AEH is indicated by the percentage distributions –this is the proportion of marriages in which men and women are identical in the characteristics examined. • •In homogamy tables we cannot distinguish –what proportions of the marriages are conditioned by structural circumstances –what proportions are result of partners’ intentions and preferences (of assortative mating) • – – • • • Absolute educational homogamy (AEH) Absolute educational homogamy – data/table •What can be computed? – • • AEH and trends in ES (educational structure) A “great U-turn” hypothesis. The proportion of educationally homogamous marriages declines from the turn of the twentieth century until mid-century and then steadily increases thereafter AEH and EE (educational expansion) AEH - trends in time •Two intentional counter-effects against structural conditions of educational hypogamy rise •Level effect (from woman’s point of view) –homogamy remains desirable as a norm among tertiary educated women (they look for a husband with the same education level) •Opportunity and benefit effect (from man’s point of view) –tertiary educated men have higher opportunities for homogamy marriage –tertiary educated women - high occupational status, high income –women’s higher earnings prospects at a time when dual-income families have become the norm • •These two counter-effects are not sufficient to compensate for the increase of educational hypogamy •But they mean an increase AEH (maximally maintained) • • – – • • • Counter-effects of changes in educational structure AEH by educational levels •Is there one absolute educational homogamy? –or are there more homogamies? • •Tertiary homogamy is “deliberate” homogamy –given by partners’ preferences •Lower educational homogamy is structural homogamy –while the most attractive candidates select among themselves the least attractive candidates rely on one another –the gap between preferences and possibilities is huge in the case of low education level candidates AEH by educational levels (cont.) Trends in partners’ meeting: 1930 - 2004 https://youtube.com/shorts/XKwIKH5slEA?feature=share -Traditional dating -structural bariers -friends, school… -limited assortative mating - -Virtual dating -no structural barriers -more preferences and similarities -various pool of potential partners -more assortative matting??? -lower homogamy??? •the assumption that educational differences between groups of men and women define their chances in the marriage market •REH is defined as educational assortative mating •REH indicates the chances to enter into a homogamous marriage –regardless of what (unequal) proportion of men and women are in the marriage market • •if unequal chances do not exist = perfect heterogamy. •REH empirically indicated by odds ratios in contingency tables. – • • • REH (relative educational homogamy) •the size of social and educational reproduction •higher social mobility implies lower relative educational homogamy • •degree of modernisation and industrialization •developed countries have lower relative educational homogamy • •degree of political democracy •more politically developed countries show lower REH • •dominant religion •Protestant countries have lower REH than Catholic countries • •welfare state régime •REH is lower in social democratic regimes than in regimes with conservative social policies - • • • • • – – • • • REH - factors •It always depends on the focus of the research and the research question • •AEH is preferred when we are interested in the number of marriages in which the partners are similar in terms of social characteristics (pattern of pairing, its distribution in the population, size of the social group constituted on the basis of the marriages) • •REH is preferred when we are interested in the inequality of the chances of entering into a particular type of marriage • •However, since AEH incorporates the REH, it is standard in homogamy research to use both concepts together. • • AEH or REH? Relative edu homogamy - trends in time Why Who Marries Whom Matters • •Example of infant health • Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PBe8Xmp1os • • Homogamy table – what can be computed?