This study examines the relationship between educational assortative mating and marital quality among Shanghai residents born in the 1980s, against the backdrop of gender reversal in higher education and the increasing prevalence of educational hypogamy in China. Utilizing the data of 2016 Fudan Yangtze River Delta Social Transformation Survey, the research investigates the effects of educational homogamy and hypogamy on marital quality through a gendered perspective. The findings reveal that both patterns negatively impact women’s marital satisfaction, with exerting no significant influence on men’s experiences. The study concludes that traditional educational matching profoundly shapes Chinese women’s perceptions and participation in marriage, highlighting the importance of incorporating educational dynamics into analyses of marital relationships, especially for women. underscores the necessity for ongoing societal progress to promote gender equality within marital relationships.
BeckerG. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (Enlarged Edition). Harvard University Press.
2.
BehrmanJ. A. (2019). Contextual declines in educational hypergamy and intimate partner violence. Social Forces, 97(3), 1257–1282. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy085
3.
BlauP. M. (1978). The American occupational structure: Free Press.
4.
BlauP. M.BeekerC.FitzpatrickK. M. (1984). Intersecting social affiliations and intermarriage. Social Forces, 62(3), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/2578701
5.
BlauP. M.BlumT. C.SchwartzJ. E. (1982). Heterogeneity and intermarriage. American Sociological Review, 47(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095041
BourdieuP. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage Publications.
8.
BourdieuP. (2000). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
9.
ChenM. (2018). Does marrying well count more than career? Personal achievement, marriage, and happiness of married women in urban China. Chinese Sociological Review, 50(3), 240–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/21620555.2018.1435265
10.
ChudnovskayaM.KashyapR. (2020). Is the end of educational hypergamy the end of status hypergamy? Evidence from Sweden. European Sociological Review, 36(3), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz065
11.
De HauwY.GrowA.Van BavelJ. (2017). The reversed gender gap in education and assortative mating in Europe. European Sociological Review, 33(4), 445–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9407-z
12.
DongH.XieY. (2023). Trends in educational assortative marriage in China over the past century. Demography, 60(1), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-10411058
13.
EsteveA.SchwartzC. R.van BavelJ.PermanyerI.KlesmentM.Garcia-RomanJ. (2016). The end of hypergamy: Global trends and implications. Population and Development Review, 42(4), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12012
14.
FengX. (2014). Who’s married to whom? The marriage pattern of the urban youth and its interpretation in theory. Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 36(4), 27–34.
15.
FukudaS.RaymoJ. M.YodaS. (2020). Revisiting the educational gradient in marriage in Japan. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(4), 1378–1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12648
16.
GlennN. D.RossA. A.TullyJ. C. (1974). Patterns of intergenerational mobility of females through marriage. American Sociological Review, 39(5), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094314
17.
GrowA.SchnorC.JanV. B. (2017). The reversal of the gender gap in education and relative divorce risks: A matter of alternatives in partner choice?Population Studies- A Journal of Demography, 71(sup1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2017.1371477
18.
GruijtersR. J.ErmischJ. (2019). Patrilocal, matrilocal, or neolocal? Intergenerational proximity of married couples in China. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(3), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12538
HuA.QianZ. (2016). Does higher education expansion promote educational homogamy? Evidence from married couples of the Post-80s generation in Shanghai, China. Social Science Research, 60(60), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.05.001
22.
JiY.WuX. (2018). New gender dynamics in post-reform China: Family, education, and labor market. Chinese Sociological Review, 50(3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/21620555.2018.1452609
23.
KalmijnM. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422–452. https://doi.org/10.1086/230542
LeiX.YaohuiZ.WenjianX. (2014). Dose marrying up make your life more satisfied? Marriage pattern and its long-term effects. Chinese Economic Quarterly, 14(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.13821/j.cnki.ceq.2015.01.003
26.
LiH. (2013). Does similar mating make life happier——the empirical study on the relationship between assortative mating structure and subjective well-being. Population & Development, 19(2), 56–65.
27.
LiY. (2008). Trends in educational assortative marriage: 1949–2000. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 7(03), 73–79.
28.
LiY.LuX. (2008). Homogamous mating and its transformation. Youth Studies, (6), 27–33.
29.
LiY.XuA. (2004). Mating and gendered preference——western theories and local interpretations. Youth Studies, (01), 14–23.
LiuW. (2023). Challenges to women’s development and policy directions in the milieu of rising modern families. Journal of Chinese Women’s Studies, 175(1), 11–21.
MaL. (2017). Homogamy, heterogamy, and marital barriers in current Chinese society. Population Research, 41(6), 16–32.
34.
MareR. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095670
35.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
PiaoX.MaX.ManagiS. (2021). Impact of the intra-household education gap on Wives’ and Husbands’ well-being: Evidence from cross-country microdata. Social Indicators Research, 156(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02651-5
38.
PotarcaG. (2021). Online dating is shifting educational inequalities in marriage formation in Germany. Demography, 58(5), 1977–2007. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9420350
39.
PotarcaG.RossierC. (2022). Are women in hypogamous unions more depressed? A cross-national comparison among the highly educated. European Sociological Review, 38(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab031
40.
QianY.QianZ. (2015). Work, family, and gendered happiness among married people in urban China. Social Indicators Research, 121(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl1205-014-0623-9
41.
RaymoJ. M.IwasawaM. (2005). Marriage market mismatches in Japan: An alternative view of the relationship between women’s education and marriage. American Sociological Review, 70(5), 801–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000504
SchwartzC. R.HanH. (2014). The reversal of the gender gap in education and trends in marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 79(4), 605–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414539682
44.
SchwartzC. R.MareR. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42(4), 621–646. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2005.0036
45.
ShiL. (2019). Seven decades of educational assortative mating in mainland China. Population Research, 43(6), 90–104.
46.
SimpsonJ. A.CampbellB.BerscheidE. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(3), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167286123011
47.
SmitsJ.UlteeW.JanL. (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(5), 781–788. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657547
48.
TheunisL.SchnorC.WillaertD.JanV. B. (2018). His and her education and marital dissolution: Adding a contextual dimension. European Journal of Population, 34(4), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9448-y
49.
ThomasR. J. (2020). Online exogamy reconsidered: Estimating the internet’s effects on racial, educational, religious, political and age assortative mating. Social Forces, 98(3), 1257–1286. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz060
Van BavelJ.SchwartzC. R.EsteveA. (2018). The reversal of the gender gap in education and its consequences for family life. In CookK. S.MasseyD. S. (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (Vol. 44, pp. 341–360). Annual Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041215
52.
VerbruggeL. M. (1977). The structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces, 56(2), 576–597. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577741
53.
VinkM.van der LippeT.DerksB.EllemersN. (2022). Does national context matter when women surpass their partner in status?Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670439
54.
WangJ.LiY. (2021). Educational assortative mating and marital satisfaction. Chinese Journal of Population Science, (2), 52–63.
55.
WangJ.LiY. (2022). Educational assortative mating in China (1978–2018). Journal of Social Development, 9(3), 184–203.
56.
XiaoS.QianY. (2020). Mate selection among online daters in shanghai: Why does education matter?Chinese Journal of Sociology, 6(4), 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X20957422
57.
XuQi (2022). The reversal of the gender gap in education and the change in Chinese couple’s status assortative mating pattern. Youth Studies, 446(5), 1–13.
58.
ZhangH.HoP. S. Y.YipP. S. F. (2012). Does similarity breed marital and sexual satisfaction?The Journal of Sex Research, 49(6), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.574
59.
ZhaoX.SunS. B. (2022). Partners’ educational pairings and subjective well-being in China: An analysis using the diagonal mobility model. Journal of Family Issues, 43(11), 3004–3029. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211038068
60.
ZhouY. (2019). Economic resources, cultural matching, and the rural–urban boundary in china’s marriage market. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(3), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12559
61.
ZhouY.JiaY.XieY. (2023). Gender differences and social class heterogeneity in mate preferences: An exploratory study based on the choice experiment approach. Sociological Studies, 38(6), 107–130.
