Table 3.
Estimates of multinomial logistic regression models for intermarriage of native women by immigrant status of the partner (Panel A; ref: native–native marriage) and logistic regression models for marriage migrant marriages of native women (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 | 0.94 | 0.10 | 0.86 | 0.22 | 0.72 | 0.14 | 1.04 | 0.06 |
| 2 | 1.15*** | 0.03 | 1.19** | 0.06 | 1.21*** | 0.05 | 0.90 | 0.04 |
| 4 | 0.92*** | 0.02 | 1.07 | 0.04 | 0.90*** | 0.03 | 0.76* | 0.05 |
| 5 | 0.87*** | 0.02 | 0.93 | 0.05 | 0.73*** | 0.03 | 0.64*** | 0.05 |
| 6 | 0.81*** | 0.03 | 0.83** | 0.06 | 0.67*** | 0.04 | 0.99*** | 0.24 |
| 7 Postgraduate education | 0.90 | 0.09 | 0.91 | 0.20 | 0.80 | 0.17 | 2.97 | 0.23 |
| Labour income (ref: lowest septile) | ||||||||
| 2 | 0.81*** | 0.02 | 0.69*** | 0.03 | 0.71*** | 0.03 | 0.70*** | 0.03 |
| 3 | 0.72*** | 0.02 | 0.62*** | 0.03 | 0.60*** | 0.02 | 0.58*** | 0.03 |
| 4 | 0.65*** | 0.02 | 0.52*** | 0.02 | 0.52*** | 0.02 | 0.55*** | 0.03 |
| 5 | 0.63*** | 0.02 | 0.43*** | 0.02 | 0.43*** | 0.02 | 0.49*** | 0.03 |
| 6 | 0.63*** | 0.02 | 0.40*** | 0.02 | 0.37*** | 0.02 | 0.42*** | 0.03 |
| Highest septile | 0.59*** | 0.02 | 0.30*** | 0.01 | 0.26*** | 0.01 | 0.40*** | 0.03 |
| Age (ref: 26–34) | ||||||||
| 18–25 | 0.78*** | 0.02 | 1.41*** | 0.05 | 1.35*** | 0.05 | 1.27*** | 0.06 |
| 35–40 | 1.28*** | 0.03 | 0.82*** | 0.04 | 0.86*** | 0.03 | 0.92 | 0.05 |
| 41 and older | 1.36*** | 0.03 | 0.67*** | 0.04 | 0.83*** | 0.04 | 1.06 | 0.07 |
| Relationship order (ref: first) | ||||||||
| Second | 0.98 | 0.02 | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.03 | 1.39*** | 0.06 |
| Third or higher | 1.17*** | 0.05 | 1.14 | 0.10 | 1.48*** | 0.10 | 2.09*** | 0.19 |
| Partner origin (ref: West/European) | ||||||||
| Nordic | 0.17*** | 0.01 | ||||||
| Central/East European | 1.33*** | 0.07 | ||||||
| Latin American | 1.09 | 0.07 | ||||||
| Asian | 1.84*** | 0.11 | ||||||
| African | 5.99*** | 0.33 | ||||||
| Middle Eastern | 2.09*** | 0.10 | ||||||
| Assortative mating variables | ||||||||
| Educational-assortative mating (ref: homogamy) | ||||||||
| Hypergamy: partner higher education | 1.27*** | 0.03 | 1.41*** | 0.06 | 1.68*** | 0.07 | 1.50*** | 0.08 |
| Hypogamy: partner lower education | 1.12*** | 0.03 | 1.29*** | 0.06 | 1.56*** | 0.06 | 1.29*** | 0.07 |
| Age-assortative mating (ref: age homogamy) | ||||||||
| Hypergamy: partner older | 1.32*** | 0.02 | 1.04 | 0.03 | 1.17*** | 0.03 | 0.64*** | 0.02 |
| Hypogamy: partner younger (3–6 years) | 1.40*** | 0.03 | 2.04*** | 0.09 | 3.03*** | 0.12 | 2.09*** | 0.10 |
| Hypogamy: partner younger (7 + years) | 1.80*** | 0.07 | 7.44*** | 0.38 | 14.6*** | 0.61 | 5.95*** | 0.35 |
| Baseline | 0.06*** | 0.00 | 0.01*** | 0.00 | 0.02*** | 0.00 | 0.15*** | 0.01 |
| N | 605,474 | 40,373 | ||||||
| Assortative mating coef. significantly different | ||||||||
| Hypergamy versus hypogamy | Yes | No | No | No | ||||
| Older versus younger (3–6 years) | Yes | Yes | Yes | 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