Table 2.
Estimates of multinomial logistic regression models for intermarriage of native men by immigrant status of the partner (Panel A; ref: native–native marriage) and logistic regression models for marriage migrant marriages of native men (Panel B; Model 1, ref: resident immigrant marriage)
| A | B | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High status | Medium status | Low status | Marriage migrant | |||||
| OR | SE | OR | SE | OR | SE | OR | SE | |
| Individual attractiveness | ||||||||
| Education (ref: upper secondary) | ||||||||
| 1 Primary/lower secondary | 1.13 | 0.08 | 0.66*** | 0.07 | 0.92 | 0.17 | 1.16 | 0.14 |
| 2 | 1.12*** | 0.03 | 0.99 | 0.03 | 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.99 | 0.04 |
| 4 | 0.94** | 0.02 | 0.86*** | 0.02 | 1.10 | 0.06 | 0.87*** | 0.03 |
| 5 | 0.91*** | 0.02 | 0.83*** | 0.02 | 1.24*** | 0.08 | 0.83*** | 0.04 |
| 6 | 0.93* | 0.03 | 0.72*** | 0.03 | 1.51*** | 0.12 | 0.80*** | 0.05 |
| 7 Postgraduate education | 1.17* | 0.06 | 0.67*** | 0.06 | 1.95*** | 0.30 | 0.60*** | 0.07 |
| Labour income (ref: lowest septile) | ||||||||
| 2 | 0.84*** | 0.02 | 0.87*** | 0.03 | 0.79*** | 0.05 | 0.78*** | 0.04 |
| 3 | 0.76*** | 0.02 | 0.76*** | 0.02 | 0.72*** | 0.04 | 0.69*** | 0.03 |
| 4 | 0.72*** | 0.02 | 0.72*** | 0.02 | 0.62*** | 0.04 | 0.65*** | 0.03 |
| 5 | 0.71*** | 0.02 | 0.69*** | 0.02 | 0.56*** | 0.03 | 0.65*** | 0.03 |
| 6 | 0.71*** | 0.02 | 0.74*** | 0.02 | 0.54*** | 0.03 | 0.59*** | 0.03 |
| Highest septile | 0.73*** | 0.02 | 0.66*** | 0.02 | 0.51*** | 0.03 | 0.50*** | 0.02 |
| Age (ref: 26–34) | ||||||||
| 18–25 | 0.79*** | 0.02 | 1.06 | 0.03 | 1.11 | 0.07 | 0.81** | 0.05 |
| 35–40 | 1.58*** | 0.03 | 1.20*** | 0.03 | 1.43*** | 0.06 | 1.23*** | 0.04 |
| 41 and older | 2.58*** | 0.05 | 1.72*** | 0.04 | 1.97*** | 0.10 | 1.52*** | 0.06 |
| Relationship order (ref: first) | ||||||||
| Second | 1.14*** | 0.02 | 0.79*** | 0.02 | 1.06 | 0.05 | 1.14*** | 0.04 |
| Third or higher | 1.47*** | 0.06 | 1.04 | 0.05 | 1.59*** | 0.15 | 1.64*** | 0.11 |
| Partner origin (ref: West/European) | ||||||||
| Nordic | 0.22*** | 0.01 | ||||||
| Central/East European | 1.85*** | 0.09 | ||||||
| Latin American | 1.85*** | 0.10 | ||||||
| Asian | 2.59*** | 0.12 | ||||||
| African | 2.78*** | 0.19 | ||||||
| Middle Eastern | 0.60*** | 0.05 | ||||||
| Assortative mating variables | ||||||||
| Educational-assortative mating (ref: homogamy) | ||||||||
| Hypergamy: partner higher education | 1.05* | 0.02 | 1.14*** | 0.03 | 1.39*** | 0.08 | 1.35*** | 0.06 |
| Hypogamy: partner lower education | 1.30*** | 0.03 | 1.62*** | 0.04 | 1.41*** | 0.08 | 1.24*** | 0.06 |
| Age-assortative mating (ref: age homogamy) | ||||||||
| Hypergamy: partner older | 1.64*** | 0.03 | 1.04 | 0.03 | 1.44*** | 0.08 | 1.07 | 0.05 |
| Hypogamy: partner younger (3–6 years) | 1.03 | 0.02 | 1.38*** | 0.03 | 1.45*** | 0.06 | 1.44*** | 0.05 |
| Hypogamy: partner younger (7 + years) | 1.32*** | 0.03 | 3.63*** | 0.08 | 3.21*** | 0.15 | 2.86*** | 0.10 |
| Baseline | 0.05*** | 0.00 | 0.01*** | 0.00 | 0.00*** | 0.00 | 0.11*** | 0.01 |
| N | 616,750 | 52,281 | ||||||
| Assortative mating coef. significantly different | ||||||||
| Hypergamy versus hypogamy | Yes | Yes | No | No | ||||
| Older versus younger (3–6 years) | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||||
| Older versus younger (7 + years) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
Models control for partner’s education, type of municipality of residence, and period interactions. Labour income is averaged over t − 4 to t − 1. Educational-assortative mating is based on a seven-category registration of education. Age homogamy is defined as an age gap of less than 3 years. See “Appendix” section for detailed variable labels and descriptions
OR odds ratios, SE standard errors
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
aWald test of equality of coefficients, significance at 5% level