Explaining the Flight of Cupid's Arrow: A Spatial Random Utility Model of Partner Choice;Pour expliquer le vol de la flèche de Cupidon: Un modèle d'utilité aléatoire du choix du partenaire

European Journal of Population

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 417-439

  Haandrikman, Karen ^a   van Wissen, Leo J G ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Random utility; Register data; Spatial choice; Spatial homogamy; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHIC TREND; LOCATION THEORY; MODEL TEST; MODEL VALIDATION; SETTLEMENT PATTERN; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84869176509     PISSN: 01686577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10680-012-9260-7     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. The Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813-846.
2. Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. 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.
4. Burdett, K., & Coles, M. G. (1997). Marriage and class. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 141-168.
5. 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.
6. Coleman, D. A. (1979). A study of the spatial aspects of partner choice from a human biological viewpoint. Man NS, 14(3), 414-435.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Fisher, W. A. (1980). The Soviet marriage market. Mate selection in Russia and the USSR. New York: Praeger Scientific.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Haandrikman, K., & van Wissen, L. J. G. (2011). Regional variation in short distance homogamy. Genus, 67(1), 45-59.
20. 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.
21. Harmsen, C., & Israëls, A. (2003). Register-based household statistics. Paper presented at the European population conference, 26-30 August 2003, Warsaw.
22. Heeringa, W. (2004). Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. Groningen: University of Groningen.
23. Hendrickx, J. (1994). The analysis of religious assortative marriage. An application of design techniques for categorical models. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
24. Hendrickx, J. (1998). Religious and educational assortative marriage patterns in the Netherlands, 1940-1985. The Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 34(1), 5-22.
25. Hoffman, S. D., & Duncan, G. J. (1988). Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography. Demography, 25(3), 415-427.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Kalmijn, M. (1991). Shifting boundaries. Trends in religious and educational homogamy. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 786-800.
30. Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422-452.
31. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395-421.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Kalmijn, M., & Flap, H. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces, 79(4), 1289-1312.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Lampard, R. J. (1997). Party political homogamy in Great Britain. European Sociological Review, 13(1), 79-99.
39. Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
40. Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 15-32.
41. 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.
42. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York: Academic Press.
43. 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.
44. Ono, H. (2005). Marital history homogamy between the divorced and the never married among non-Hispanic whites. Social Science Research, 34, 333-356.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Schoen, R. (1983). Measuring the tightness of a marriage squeeze. Demography, 20(1), 61-78.
48. Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42(4), 621-646.
49. 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.
50. Stevens, G., & Schoen, R. (1988). Linguistic intermarriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 267-279.
51. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234-240.
52. Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2011). Ethnic minority-majority unions in Estonia. European Journal of Population, 27, 313-335.
57. 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.
58. 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.