| Title |
Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-017-0576-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pilar Gonalons-Pons, Christine R. Schwartz |
| Abstract |
The growing economic resemblance of spouses has contributed to rising inequality by increasing the number of couples in which there are two high- or two low-earning partners. The dominant explanation for this trend is increased assortative mating. Previous research has primarily relied on cross-sectional data and thus has been unable to disentangle changes in assortative mating from changes in the division of spouses' paid labor-a potentially key mechanism given the dramatic rise in wives' labor supply. We use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) to decompose the increase in the correlation between spouses' earnings and its contribution to inequality between 1970 and 2013 into parts due to (a) changes in assortative mating, and (b) changes in the division of paid labor. Contrary to what has often been assumed, the rise of economic homogamy and its contribution to inequality is largely attributable to changes in the division of paid labor rather than changes in sorting on earnings or earnings potential. Our findings indicate that the rise of economic homogamy cannot be explained by hypotheses centered on meeting and matching opportunities, and they show where in this process inequality is generated and where it is not. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 83% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 95 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 28% |
| Researcher | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 54 | 57% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,964,488
of 25,335,657 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#537
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,227
of 317,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,335,657 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.