Abstract
Spatial homogamy may be defined as follows: anyone may be attracted to anyone else, but near candidates are more attractive than distant candidates. In this article, we propose a model of partner choice, where homogamy is defined in terms of spatial, demographic, socioeconomic and cultural similarity. A spatial choice model using random utility theory is formulated, taking into account a relaxation of the independence from the irrelevant alternatives property, as spatial alternatives are not independent of one another. We model partner choice given the characteristics of the chosen partner and a choice set of alternatives, using unique micro data on all new cohabiters in the Netherlands, linked to other relevant data sets. The model takes the spatial locations of potential candidates within a choice set into account, including an indicator for the spatial similarity between alternatives. We find that spatial homogamy is a vital component of partner matching, aside from and adding to the spatial effects in demographic, socioeconomic and cultural homogamy. Given a choice set of partners, the highest likelihood of a match occurs with a person who is born and lives near by, who is close in age, is in the same life stage and has the same marital status, who has the same educational and income level and the same labour market status, who speaks the same dialect and lives in a culturally similar residential area. The distance effect is most pronounced for those individuals with lower levels of education and those living in rural areas.
Résumé
L’homogamie spatiale peut être définie de la manière suivante : n’importe quelle personne peut être attirée par une autre, mais les candidats les plus proches sont plus attractifs que les candidats plus lointains. Dans cet article, un modèle du choix du partenaire est proposé, dans lequel l’homogamie est définie en termes de similarités spatiale, démographique, socio-économique et culturelle. Un modèle spatial de choix basé sur la théorie de l’utilité aléatoire est proposé, tenant compte d’un assouplissement de l’indépendance par rapport aux alternatives non pertinentes puisque les alternatives spatiales ne sont pas indépendantes l’une de l’autre. Le choix du partenaire est modélisé en tenant compte des caractéristiques du partenaire choisi et d’un ensemble d’alternatives de choix, en utilisant une base de données individuelles concernant tous les nouveaux cohabitants aux Pays-Bas appariée à d’autres bases de données pertinentes. Le modèle considère les localisations spatiales des partenaires potentiels parmi les alternatives de choix à prendre en compte, en incluant un indicateur de similitude spatiale entre les alternatives. Les résultats montrent que l’homogamie spatiale est une composante fondamentale de la recherche de partenaire s’ajoutant à l’impact spatial de l’homogamie démographique, socio-économique et culturelle. Etant donné un choix de partenaires, le partenaire qui aura la probabilité la plus élevée d’être choisi est celui qui est né et vit à proximité, ayant un âge semblable, qui se trouve dans la même étape du cycle de vie et qui a le même statut matrimonial, qui a les mêmes niveaux d’instruction, de revenus et de statut sur le marché du travail, qui parle la même langue et qui vit dans une zone résidentielle culturellement semblable. L’effet de la distance est encore plus accentué pour les individus ayant un faible niveau d’instruction et pour ceux vivant en zone rurale.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Statistics Netherlands includes the following variables pertaining to the two persons living at one address in their imputation model: age difference, average age, degree of urbanization, number of unmarried persons at the address and the age of the oldest person combined with the gender of the youngest person. When the imputation probability crosses a threshold value, the two persons are classified as two households. When the threshold is not crossed, the two persons are classified as a single household. About 10 % of all household positions are imputed, while the household positions of 46 % of all unmarried couples without children are imputed. The procedures are described in Harmsen and Israëls (2003) and Israëls and Harmsen (1999). Imputation was only involved in determining household positions, and not in further data linking.
As the clogit procedure in Stata deletes incomplete cases, those with missing values at either variable are excluded from the analysis. About half of the missing values pertain to those born abroad, as they have no Dutch birthplace. An analysis of cases with missing values shows that these individuals more often lived abroad the year before cohabitation or marriage, currently more often live in urban areas, are a bit older, slightly more often divorced and they have studied at an institute of higher education less often. The final data set consists of 144,316 partners. To test model stability, several random samples were taken; results were stable throughout.
A likelihood ratio test was used to test the improvement in log likelihood and found that the fit of each additional model improved significantly compared to the previous model.
References
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. The Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–846.
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beekink, E., Liefbroer, A. C., & Van Poppel, F. W. A. (1998). Changes in choice of spouse as an indicator of a society in a state of transition: Woerden, 1830–1930. Historical Social Research, 23(1/2), 231–253.
Burdett, K., & Coles, M. G. (1997). Marriage and class. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 141–168.
Clegg, E. J., Ringrose, T. J., & Cross, J. F. (1998). Some factors affecting marital distances in the Outer Hebrides. Journal of Biosocial Science, 30(1), 43–62.
Coleman, D. A. (1979). A study of the spatial aspects of partner choice from a human biological viewpoint. Man NS, 14(3), 414–435.
Coleman, D. A., & Haskey, J. C. (1986). Marital distance and its geographical orientation in England and Wales, 1979. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 11, 337–355.
Daan, J., & Blok, D. P. (1969). Van Randstad tot Landrand; toelichting bij de kaart: Dialecten en Naamkunde, volume XXXVII of Bijdragen en mededelingen der Dialektencommissie van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
De Graaf, N. D., Smeenk, W., Ultee, W., & Timm, A. (2003). The when and whom of first marriage in the Netherlands. In H. P. Blossfeld, & A. Timm (Eds.), Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies (pp. 79–112, Vol. 12). European Studies of Population. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
De Valk, H., Liefbroer, A. C., Esveldt, I., & Henkens, K. (2001). De één is de ander niet: patronen van gezinsvorming onder allochtonen in Nederland [Everyone is different: Patterns of family formation among migrants in the Netherlands]. Bevolking en Gezin, 30(3), 67–96.
Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2011). Intermarriage, value context and union dissolution: Sweden 1990–2005. European Journal of Population. doi:10.1007/s10680-011-9253-y.
Duncan, S., & Smith, S. (2002). Geographies of family formations: Spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27, 471–493.
Dykstra, P. A., & Van Wissen, L. J. G. (1999). Introduction: The life course approach as an interdisciplinary framework for population studies. In L. J. G. van Wissen & P. A. Dykstra (Eds.), Population issues. An interdisciplinary focus (pp. 1–22). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Fisher, W. A. (1980). The Soviet marriage market. Mate selection in Russia and the USSR. New York: Praeger Scientific.
Haandrikman, K. (2010). Waar ontmoeten partners elkaar? Sociale differentiatie in ontmoetingsplaatsen. [Where do partners meet? Social differentiation in meeting places]. Mens en Maatschappij, 85(2), 176–195.
Haandrikman, K., Harmsen, C., Van Wissen, L. J. G., & Hutter, I. (2008a). Geography matters: Patterns of spatial homogamy in the Netherlands. Population, Space and Place, 14(5), 387–405.
Haandrikman, K., Harmsen, C., Van Wissen, L. J. G., & Hutter, I. (2008b). De geografische dimensie van partnerkeuze [The geographical dimension of partner choice]. Bevolkingstrends, 56(3), 19–28.
Haandrikman, K., & Hutter, I. (2012). That’s a different kind of person—spatial connotations and partner choice. Population, Space and Place, 18(3), 241–259.
Haandrikman, K., & Van Wissen, L. J. G. (2011). Regional variation in short distance homogamy. Genus, 67(1), 45–59.
Haandrikman, K., Van Wissen, L. J. G., & Harmsen, C. (2011). Explaining spatial homogamy. Compositional, spatial and regional cultural determinants of regional patterns of spatial homogamy in the Netherlands. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 4, 75–93.
Harmsen, C., & Israëls, A. (2003). Register-based household statistics. Paper presented at the European population conference, 26–30 August 2003, Warsaw.
Heeringa, W. (2004). Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Hendrickx, J. (1994). The analysis of religious assortative marriage. An application of design techniques for categorical models. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
Hendrickx, J. (1998). Religious and educational assortative marriage patterns in the Netherlands, 1940–1985. The Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 34(1), 5–22.
Hoffman, S. D., & Duncan, G. J. (1988). Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography. Demography, 25(3), 415–427.
Israëls, A., & Harmsen, C. (1999). Imputatiemodel voor jaarlijkse huishoudensstatistiek; adressen met twee niet-in-gezinsverband-levende personen [Imputation model for annual household statistics; addresses with two non-family related persons]. Internal Memo Statistics Netherlands, Division Research and Development, Sector Statistical Methods. Voorburg: Statistics Netherlands.
Janssen, J. P. G., De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (1999). Heterogamie en echtscheiding: Een analyse van Nederlandse registergegevens 1974–1994 [Heterogamy and divorce: An analysis of Dutch register data, 1974–1994]. Bevolking en Gezin, 28, 35–57.
Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39(3), 435–453.
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Shifting boundaries. Trends in religious and educational homogamy. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 786–800.
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422–452.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
Kalmijn, M. (2001). Veranderingen in vriendschapsnetwerken tijdens de levensloop. Een toets van de paarsgewijze-afzonderingshypothese [Changes in friendship networks over the life course: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis]. Mens en Maatschappij, 76(3), 221–239.
Kalmijn, M., De Graaf, P. M., & Janssen, J. P. G. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands: The effects of differences in religion and nationality, 1974–94. Population Studies, 59(1), 71–85.
Kalmijn, M., & Flap, H. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces, 79(4), 1289–1312.
Kalmijn, M., & Vermunt, J. K. (2007). Homogeneity of social networks by age and marital status: A multi-level analysis of ego-centered networks. Social Networks, 29, 25–43.
Kok, J., & Van Bavel, J. (2006). Stemming the tide. Denomination and religiousness in the Dutch fertility transition, 1845–1945. In R. Derosas & F. van Poppel (Eds.), Religion and the decline of fertility in the Western World (pp. 83–105). Dordrecht: Springer.
Küchemann, C. F., Harrison, G. A., Hiorns, R. W., & Carrivick, P. J. (1974). Social class and marital distance in Oxford city. Annals of Human Biology, 1(1), 13–27.
Lampard, R. J. (1997). Party political homogamy in Great Britain. European Sociological Review, 13(1), 79–99.
Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 15–32.
Mayfield, R. C. (1972). The spatial structure of a selected interpersonal contact: A regional comparison of marriage distances in India. In P. W. English & R. C. Mayfield (Eds.), Man, space, and environment. Concepts in contemporary human geography (pp. 385–401). New York: Oxford University Press.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
McFadden, D. (1978). Modelling the choice of residential location. In A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickers, & J. W. Weibull (Eds.), Spatial interaction theory and planning models (pp. 75–96). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Ono, H. (2005). Marital history homogamy between the divorced and the never married among non-Hispanic whites. Social Science Research, 34, 333–356.
Ono, H. (2006). Homogamy among the divorced and the never married on marital history in recent decades: Evidence from vital statistics data. Social Science Research, 35, 356–383.
Pellegrini, P. A., & Fotheringham, A. S. (2002). Modelling spatial choice: A review and synthesis in a migration context. Progress in Human Geography, 26(4), 487–510.
Schoen, R. (1983). Measuring the tightness of a marriage squeeze. Demography, 20(1), 61–78.
Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42(4), 621–646.
Smits, J. (1996). Trouwpatronen en sociale openheid. Opleidinghomogamie en beroepshomogamie in een zestigtal landen [Marital patterns and social openness. Educational and occupational homogamy in 60 countries]. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Stevens, G., & Schoen, R. (1988). Linguistic intermarriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 267–279.
Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
Uunk, W. (1996). Who marries whom? The role of social origin, education and high culture in mate selection of industrial societies during the twentieth century. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Van de Putte, B. (2003). Het belang van de toegeschreven positie in een moderniserende wereld. Partnerkeuze in de 19e-eeuwse Vlaamse steden (Leuven, Aalst en Gent) [The importance of ascribed positions in a modernizing society. Partner selection in 19th century Flemish cities (Leuven, Aalst and Gent)]. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Van der Bunt, G. G., Van Duijn, M. A. J., & Snijders, T. A. B. (1999). Friendship networks through time: An actor-oriented dynamic statistical network model. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 5(2), 167–192.
Van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2011). Ethnic minority-majority unions in Estonia. European Journal of Population, 27, 313–335.
Van Poppel, F., & Ekamper, P. (2005). De Goudse horizon verruimd. Veranderingen in de herkomst van Goudse bruiden en bruidegoms [The widening of Gouda’s horizon. Changes in the origin of brides and bridegrooms in Gouda]. In J. Kok & M. H. D. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Genegenheid en gelegenheid. Twee eeuwen partnerkeuze en huwelijk (pp. 181–211). Amsterdam: Aksant.
Van Poppel, F. W. A., Liefbroer, A. C., Vermunt, J. K., & Smeenk, W. (2001). Love, necessity and opportunity: Changing patterns of marital age homogamy in the Netherlands, 1850–1993. Population Studies, 55, 1–13.
Acknowledgments
The major part of this work was conducted while the first author was at the Population Research Centre of the University of Groningen. The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding from the Stockholm University SIMSAM Node for Demographic Research in the person of Gunnar Andersson for the final phase of the project. We thank the reviewers and the editor of EJP for helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haandrikman, K., van Wissen, L.J.G. Explaining the Flight of Cupid’s Arrow: A Spatial Random Utility Model of Partner Choice. Eur J Population 28, 417–439 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9260-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9260-7