Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe* Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea Abstract: In this paper, we examine (1) whether parental educational homogamy is associated with children’s tertiary educational attainment in different European countries and (2) whether this association is moderated by families’ educational backgrounds. Using data from the European Social Survey and multilevel logistic regression models, we find that parental homogamy is important for children’s tertiary educational attainment. In particular, children of more highly educated homogamous parents are more likely to obtain a tertiary degree themselves. This parental homogamy association varies across countries. While the association is below the European average in Czechia, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany, it is equal or close to average in Slovenia, Estonia, France, Poland, Ireland, Sweden, and Lithuania, and above average in Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Belgium. Our findings suggest that parental educational constellations should be examined more closely in further education inequality research. Keywords: Parental homogamy · Intergenerational transmission · Educational inequality · European Social Survey · Family background 1 Introduction In the course of educational expansion, all European societies have experienced a dramatic increase in educational attainment in recent decades (Blossfeld et al. 2016; Breen et al. 2009; Shavit/Blossfeld 1993). Women in particular have benefited from this development. They have been able to catch up with men in terms of educational attainment and have even overtaken them in recent years, leading to a gender gap reversal (Blossfeld 2023; De Hauw et al. 2017; DiPrete/Buchmann 2013; Van Bavel Comparative Population Studies Vol. 49 (2024): 243-272 (Date of release: 27.08.2024) Federal Institute for Population Research 2024 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2024-10 URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2024-10en1 * This article belongs to a special issue on “Changes in Educational Homogamy and Its Consequences”. ** This article has an Online Appendix with supplementary material URL: https://www.comparativepopulationstudies.de/index.php/CPoS/article/view/600/415 http://www.comparativepopulationstudies.de https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2024-10 • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea244 et al. 2018). As a result of this structural change, educational homogamy among couples, and thus among parents – i.e., partners having the same level of educational attainment – has increased across cohorts in many European countries (Blossfeld/ Timm 2003; Hu/Qian 2023; Uunk 2024).1 However, we still know little about the consequences of parental homogamy for children’s educational inequalities. Only a few retrospective2 country studies have examined the association between parental homogamy and children’s school readiness, academic achievement and educational attainment, studying South Korea (Byun et al. 2020), the United States (Beck/ González-Sancho 2009; Edwards/Roff 2016), and European countries such as Denmark (Bingley et al. 2022) and the United Kingdom (Gonzalez-Sancho 2014). Furthermore, only very little research has examined the association between parental hypogamy (the mother has a higher education than the father) and children’s educational expectations and attainment in cross-country comparisons (Ortiz-Gervasi 2021). In particular, to our knowledge, there is no international comparative study that examines the moderating effect of parental education on the association between parental educational homogamy and children’s educational attainment. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature. We use data from the 2016 and 2018 rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) from 20 European Union (EU) countries. We analyse tertiary educational attainment because this education level is fully comparable across countries and more than half of the current inequality of educational opportunities is generated at the transition to it (Katrňák/Hubatková 2022). Accordingly, our study focuses on two questions: (1) Is parental homogamy associated with a higher likelihood of children’s tertiary educational attainment in different European countries? (2) Is this association moderated by a family’s educational background? We focus on parental educational homogamy because (1) it has been empirically shown to be the most important family resource for children’s educational attainment (Bukodi/Goldthorpe 2013; Meraviglia/Buis 2015: 57), (2) both mother and father have an educational degree, but not necessarily a job, and (3) parental educational attainment is in most cases stable over the life course, while this is less often the case for occupation (Marks 2008). This article is structured as follows. The first section briefly reviews the theories that attempt to explain why parental homogamy is relevant for children’s educational opportunities. We also provide a short introduction to the context of the 20 European countries we analyse. We then relate our study to the discussion on the operationalisation of family background. Next, we present our data, methods, 1 Note that parents that do not reflect a certain population at a specific point in time. 2 A retrospective study examines the direct intergenerational transmission of educational inequality, starting from a sample of children and then collecting information about their parents. The prospective approach, on the other hand, also examines the demographic processes (such as mating and fertility) of the intergenerational reproduction of education inequality. It is usually based on a representative sample of individuals who are then asked about their children. This takes into account, for example, the fact that not all individuals in a cohort become parents. A prospective comparative study is presented by Wittemann and Yastrebov (2024) in this special issue. Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 245 and empirical results. Our findings show that parental educational homogamy increases the probability of obtaining a tertiary degree and that there is cross- national variability. Moreover, we find that parental homogamy is particularly relevant for children from more highly educated parents. These results suggest that parental educational constellations should be studied in further research on the intergenerational transmission of education inequality. 2 Theories and hypotheses To understand how parental educational similarity and children’s tertiary educational attainment are linked and why parental education might act as a moderator, we consider different theories for (1) the association between parental homogamy and children’s educational attainment and (2) the interaction between parental education and parental homogamy on children’s educational attainment. Pooling of resources In the pooling of resources theory, all resources are pooled and shared within the family. There are different views on whether it matters (Buis 2013) if both the mother and father contribute to these shared resources (Lundberg et al. 1997). Rising educational similarity of parents across cohorts implies that highly educated families are increasingly pooling their good educational resources and lower educated parents are increasingly pooling their low educational resources, which is likely to lead to greater educational inequality in the next generation (Blossfeld/Buchholz 2009; Mare 2016). Resource multiplication theory suggests that the accumulation of educational resources in households largely perpetuates the educational opportunities of children from highly educated homogamous households (Becker et al. 2018; Blossfeld/Buchholz 2009; Erola/Kilpi-Jakonen 2017). Thus, parental education moderates the relationship between parental educational homogamy and children’s educational outcomes. Highly educated parents are well-informed about the tertiary education system and can guide their children through it (Bukodi/Goldthorpe 2013; Pfeffer 2008). They are more likely to teach their children to use “refined” language and to expose them to “high culture” (e.g., by visiting museums and libraries or listening to classical music). These traits are in line with the middle-class standards informally required by academic institutions (Bourdieu/Passeron 1990; Lareau 1989; Sullivan 2002). Highly educated parents can also help their children if they have problems with studying (Pfeffer 2008) and can complement each other’s expertise if they are knowledgeable in different subject areas. Agreeance in parenting styles In the literature, a potential mediating mechanism for the association between parental homogamy and children’s educational outcomes is the similarity in parenting • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea246 preferences. This is reflected by an agreement in parenting styles and low gender specialisation in child rearing among similarly educated parents (Beck/González- Sancho 2009; Gonzalez-Sancho 2014). Examples of parenting agreement include beliefs about child-rearing practices and the role of parents in child development, concordance in the quality of parent-child interactions, approaches to discipline, the intellectual stimulation of children, the promotion of play and learning, and participation in parent-teacher meetings (Bonke/Esping-Andersen 2011; El Nokali et al. 2010; Gniewosz et al. 2023; Gonzalez-Sancho 2014). Research shows that parenting styles affect children’s educational outcomes (Kiernan/Mensah 2011; Wang et al. 2014). It can be assumed that individuals who enter into a partnership and have children together have previously gone through a selection process that avoids potential partners who differ greatly in their views on childrearing. While this selection process will not be perfect, homogamy nonetheless should lead to greater agreement in parenting styles among couples (Beck/González-Sancho 2009; Gonzalez-Sancho 2014). However, other arguments point to the role of education as a moderator. Bonke and Esping-Andersen (2011) and Byun et al. (2020) suggest that highly educated homogamous parents in particular prioritise their children’s education. These highly educated parental couples are in daily contact with each other, learn from each other, share information, influence each other on how to be better parents, and discuss their children’s problems and successes. Such parents are also more likely to share the amount and quality of parenting time with their children in a more gender-equal way, leading to greater family harmony and a more conducive learning environment for their children (Keizer et al. 2020). Conversely, homogamous parents with low levels of education are more likely to have a more traditional division of childcare between the sexes, leading to less family harmony (Bonke/Esping-Andersen 2011; Keizer et al. 2020). Their parenting may also be of lower quality because they have less experience of learning from each other than couples who share childcare more equally. This should in turn lead to a less positive learning environment for their children. Divorce Homogamous couples also have a lower probability of union dissolution and divorce (Goldstein/Harknett 2006; Mäenpää/Jalovaara 2014). They have a higher status equality in their relationship and experience higher rewards in their interactions with their partner (Boertien/Härkönen 2018; Theunis et al. 2018). They are also seen as more equal in their beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and preferences (Theunis et al. 2018). Finally, family and friends are more likely to endorse homogamy in parents’ education because they prefer members of their own social group (Mäenpää/ Jalovaara 2014). Thus, children who grow up in homogamous families are more likely to live in intact families than children from heterogamous families. Dysfunctional families represent a less stable environment, often implying greater stress for children. Researchers have shown that this has a negative impact on children’s educational Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 247 outcomes (Bernardi/Boertien 2016; Gähler/Palmtag 2015; Grätz 2015; Härkönen et al. 2017). Family dissolution and the corresponding changes in children’s living arrangements negatively affect their educational outcomes (Perkins 2019). Therefore, the association between parental homogamy and children’s tertiary educational attainment may in fact be partly caused by the lower probability of divorce among homogamous couples. However, empirical evidence shows that homogamy leads to lower union dissolution and divorce rates only among highly educated homogamous parents (Theunis et al. 2018). Thus, parental education also acts as a moderator in this case. From the perspective of the highly educated, homogamy is seen as particularly attractive because it facilitates maintaining a societally privileged position (Mäenpää/Jalovaara 2014; Theunis et al. 2018). It is also argued that highly educated homogamous couples are more gender egalitarian and have better interpersonal skills, leading to a more equal distribution of household tasks and higher marital satisfaction (Boertien/Härkönen 2018). Some research also indicates that parental separation does not have a negative impact on children’s educational opportunities for highly educated (homogamous) parents (Boertien/Härkönen 2018). This implies that highly educated parents are more likely to be able to compensate for this negative life event with their advantageous resources (Grätz 2015). From the perspective of the less educated, homogamy means that both partners have similarly disadvantageous characteristics, which is not particularly conducive to a relationship (Tynes 1990). For example, two parents with lower levels of education are likely to face greater economic constraints, resulting in more stress, less satisfaction, and a higher risk of divorce. They may also be less able to manage and resolve marital disputes (Conger et al. 2010). Thus, parental homogamy should only have a positive effect on the educational attainment of children of highly educated parents. We derive the following two competing hypotheses from our theoretical considerations: Hypothesis 1: Children of educationally homogamous parents will have higher educational attainment than children with heterogamous parents. Hypothesis 2: Only children of highly educated homogamous parents will benefit from parental homogamy. Our cross-national ESS dataset limits our ability to disentangle the various mechanisms of the theoretical considerations presented above. Moreover, the ESS dataset does not allow us to investigate whether the differences in educational attainment between children of educationally homogamous and heterogamous parents are true causal effects or the result of selection processes into homogamous couples. If the parental mating process were truly random and unaffected by other social factors, then parental homogamy would be exogenous and causal inference would be possible. However, parental homogamy is very likely endogenous and mate choice is influenced by other social factors that explain differences in • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea248 children’s educational opportunities (Gonzalez-Sancho 2014). For example, we could hypothesise a reverse causal relationship in which parents who choose an educationally homogeneous partner are generally less likely to divorce, and that the lower likelihood of divorce is not necessarily a consequence of educational homogamy and greater harmony in the relationship, but rather a selection effect. Therefore, more detailed information and longitudinal data would be more suitable. However, for our research interest, it is more relevant to establish this phenomenon and to test our two hypotheses in a variety of European countries than to investigate the underlying mechanisms or causal direction. 3 The European context We analyse 20 European countries that differ in their welfare and education systems, as well as in their educational expansion patterns. We expect these institutional and macro-structural contexts to be important for understanding the cross-country differences in the relationship between parental homogamy and children’s tertiary educational attainment. We provide only a very rough overview of these contexts here, as some have changed considerably over time and we cannot go into detail on all these changes (e. g. Van de Werfhorst 2019; Esping-Andersen 1999). In our analysis, the Western Continental European group of countries includes Germany (DE), Austria (AT), Switzerland (CH), the Netherlands (NL), France (FR), and Belgium (BE). These countries are characterised by the retention of strong traditional and hierarchical social structures and social security remains organised around the traditional male breadwinner model (Esping-Andersen 1990). We therefore expect that educational hypergamy (the father has a higher education than the mother) and homogamy are still the dominant patterns among parents compared to educational hypogamy (the mother has a higher education than the father). In the German- speaking countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland) and the Netherlands, the emphasis on social stratification is also strongly reflected in the early tracking into different school types and a strong vocational training system that discourages working class children from pursuing academic careers (Buchholz et al. 2016; Buchmann et al. 2016; Dronkers/Korthals 2016; Van de Werfhorst 2019). Therefore, we would expect a strong association between the similarity in parental resources and children’s tertiary educational attainment. Conversely, France and Belgium moved to comprehensive school systems in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively (Farges et al. 2016; Van de Werfhorst 2019). We therefore expect lower associations in these countries. Our analysis also covers Eastern European countries such as Poland (PL), Czechia (CZ), Hungary (HU), Estonia (EE), Lithuania (LT), and Slovenia (SI). These countries have undergone a remarkable transformation from socialist to capitalist systems. The socialist system was characterised by an early educational expansion, as education was seen as a means to increase social and gender equality (Esping-Andersen 1999). Thus, we expect parental homogamy, and perhaps even parental hypogamy, to be particularly high among parents in these countries. The comprehensive school system was very common during the socialist period (Van de Werfhorst 2019). After the fall Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 249 of the Iron Curtain, inequality and competition increased (Cook 2010), and school tracking was introduced in Czechia and Hungary (Horn et al. 2016; Van de Werfhorst 2019). These two countries (and Slovenia) also had early tracking before the Cold War (Van de Werfhorst 2019). Social protection is still relatively high in Czechia and Slovenia and intermediate in Poland and Hungary (Cook 2010). We therefore expect the association between parental educational homogamy and children’s tertiary education to be less pronounced in these countries. Estonia and Lithuania have become particularly liberal and market-oriented (Cook 2010). Therefore, we expect the association between parental homogamy and children’s tertiary education to be particularly high in the two Baltic countries in our analysis. The Mediterranean countries of Spain (ES), Portugal (PT), and Italy (IT) experienced transitions from authoritarian dictatorships to democracies in the 20th century (Teixeira et al. 2003; Ballarino et al. 2009). Italy was the first, followed by Portugal and Spain. All three had a strong emphasis on the traditional male breadwinner model, but have emancipated themselves (Ferrera 2010). They were also latecomers to the educational expansion process, with a strong catching-up process in educational attainment in recent decades (Cobalti/Schizzerotto 1993; Teixeira et al. 2003). It is therefore to be expected that the percentages of educational hypergamy and homogamy are relatively high in these countries and that parental educational hypogamy is still very low. Mediterranean countries are also characterised by a relatively late establishment of the welfare state (Ferrera 2010). These countries have moved from early- to late-tracking school systems across cohorts (Ballarino et al. 2009; Van de Werfhorst 2019). Consequently, we expect weak associations between parental educational similarity and children’s tertiary attainment. Scandinavian countries such as Sweden (SE), Norway (NO), and Finland (FI) are characterised by strong social-democratic welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen 1990), placing great emphasis on social and gender equality. In addition, these countries provide extensive childcare and many highly educated women work in the service sector. We therefore expect the proportion of educationally homogamous and hypogamous couples among parents to be relatively high in the Nordic countries. The strong focus on equality, such as the equality of living conditions in these countries (ensured, e.g., by high taxation and redistribution) is also reflected in comprehensive schooling systems that do not stratify children into different school tracks (Esping-Andersen 1990; Van de Werfhorst 2019). Scandinavian countries are known for their low social origin effects on children’s educational attainment (Erikson/Jonsson 1996). However, in recent years, these countries, especially Sweden, have also experienced a rise in inequality and welfare cuts, which could make the pooling of resources for children’s educational attainment more consequential (Esping-Andersen 1999). However, since this is a relatively recent phenomenon, we still expect low associations between parental educational homogamy and children’s tertiary attainment for these countries. Finally, our analysis also includes two Anglo-Saxon countries; Ireland (IE) and the United Kingdom (UK). These two countries are generally characterised by liberal welfare regimes, i.e., they are very market-oriented, with low social redistribution and high social inequality (Esping-Andersen 1990). There is a strong focus on equality • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea250 of opportunity by social origin and gender (Esping-Andersen 1990). As a result, these countries were forerunners in the educational expansion process. However, the UK also had a stronger emphasis on the traditional breadwinner model (Orloff 2010). We therefore expect relatively high proportions of educationally homogamous and hypogamous parents in Ireland and educationally homogamous and equal shares for hyper- and hypogamous parents in the UK. The UK introduced a comprehensive school system in the 1960s (Van de Werfhorst 2019). However, due to these countries’ liberal market systems, there are strong inequalities in living conditions between children from different family backgrounds, and not all can take advantage of these equal opportunities to the same extent. The Irish education system is characterised by a stable early tracking system across cohorts (Van de Werfhorst 2019). Thus, in both education systems, we expect strong associations between parental educational similarity and children’s tertiary attainment. 4 Parental homogamy and the operationalisation of family background In the literature on the intergenerational transmission of social inequality, family background has been captured through various approaches. It is assumed that families pool their resources and share the same living conditions, which affects their children’s opportunities in life (Sørensen 1994: 32-33). In this section, we provide an overview of different approaches to measuring family background and how parental educational hypergamy, homogamy, and hypogamy can be integrated into analysis. We then outline and justify the approach we choose for our analysis. In early research, both economists and class theorists only used data on fathers to analyse children’s educational inequality (Holmlund et al. 2011; Goldthorpe 1983). One reason for this was that no data on maternal resources were available (Goldthorpe 1983; Sørensen 1994). This literature also argued that the father’s position reflected the mother’s position in the case of parental homogamy (Goldthorpe 1983: 470; Björklund/Jäntti 2009: 4). Furthermore, in traditionally male-dominated societies, the mother’s position was still seen as strongly dependent on the father’s position (Goldthorpe 1983; Sørensen 1994). The following describes how maternal resources and parental similarity are considered in operationalising the concept of “family background.” Joint classifications and parental homogamy To take into account the educational resources of both the father and the mother, educational levels of both parents were included in additive models (Sørensen 1994). However, including both parental resources into regression models as separate variables represents an individualistic rather than a family approach (Sørensen 1994). In addition, separate parental resources cover the independent contributions of each parent, but not their similarity (Holmlund et al. 2011). To reduce collinearity and to introduce a single measure of the family’s position, the sum or average of Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 251 parental resources were added into later analyses (Erikson 1984; Holmlund et al. 2011). These approaches also control for the case of assortative mating (Holmlund et al. 2011; Bingley et al. 2022). Researchers therefore often include an interaction term to account for the case that the effect of one parent’s resources is influenced by the other parent’s resources, leading to an effect beyond the individual parents’ effects (Becker 1973; Eeckhaut et al. 2013). However, for our research interest in the similarity of parental resources and its association with children’s acquisition of a tertiary degree and whether it only plays a role when parents have high educational resources, we do not need to distinguish between the similarity of parental resources and the reinforcing effects of parental resources. Furthermore, including both parental resources separately in a model with an interaction term can also exacerbate collinearity problems. Moreover, latent variable approaches have been used to operationalise family background as a pooling of resources, taking into account different parental characteristics and allowing to specify the relative importance of paternal and maternal resources (Meraviglia/Buis 2015). As far as we know, however, this approach does not allow us to assess in which cases educational similarity matters. Does it only matter at the lower or higher rungs of the educational ladder, or is resource pooling always beneficial? Head of household measures and parental homogamy In class analysis, only the head of the household determines the class position of the family and therefore assumed to be the main influence on the life chances, lifestyles, attitudes, and interests of family members (Sørensen 1994). The class concept also implies that when parents have different positions in the employment system, the family nonetheless has a single class position in the stratification system that determines the position of power and advantage in society (Goldthorpe 1983, 1984; Erikson 1984). It is assumed that there are no differences in class positions between members of the same family. If this were the case, there would be class conflicts within families (Goldthorpe 1983). In conventional class system scholarship, the father determines the family class position (Goldthorpe 1983). However, as the education and labour market attachment of women increased and researchers realised that the father is not necessarily the head of all households, the dominance approach was developed to integrate maternal resources into the family concept (Beller 2009; Sørensen 1994). In this operationalisation, the family’s position in society is determined by the “dominant” position of both parents (Erikson 1984). This operationalisation accounts for cases in which the mother has a higher position than the father does. Although these approaches were originally developed for parental social class to determine families’ market situations, they have also been applied to parental education to define family background (Thaning/Hällsten 2020; Sørensen 1994: 33). However, research in the dominance approach tradition still often neglects the mother’s educational resources, as the highest education is often that of the father (Blossfeld 2018; Sørensen 1994; Thaning/Hällsten 2020). This is problematic in contemporary societies, as mothers generally play an important role in children’s • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea252 educational attainment, as they tend to spend more time with children and interact more actively with them (Ballarino et al. 2021; Buis 2013: 3-4; González-Sancho 2012). Proponents of the conventional and dominance approaches argue that the resources of the other parent are important for intergenerational transmission and can be accounted for through complementary measures of household composition (Erikson 1984: 508-509; Goldthorpe 1984: 498). We follow their suggestions and add information on household composition in terms of parental educational hypergamy, homogamy, and hypogamy to the analysis. In combination with the dominance approach, this measure can be used to examine whether it makes a difference whether the mother or father is more highly educated and is considered the head of the family (hypogamy and hypergamy) or whether both parents have the same level of education (homogamy). The interaction of the two operationalisations also allows to directly test whether homogamy and heterogamy are only relevant for high or low levels of education. 5 Data, variables, and method We use ESS data from the 2016 and 2018 rounds. The ESS is a biennial, cross- sectional, and cross-national survey, which is particularly suitable for our purposes as it provides fully harmonised and comparable data on respondents’ education and family background.3 The country samples are representative of all individuals aged 15 and over. We restrict our analysis to individuals between the ages of 25 and 69 at the time of data collection. The lower age limit of 25 ensures respondents’ highest level of education and the upper age limit enables reliable cross-country comparisons. This results in a sample of 54,379 respondents across both survey rounds and 20 European countries. Sample sizes per country are reported in Table A2 in the Appendix. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of all analysed variables for 20 countries. Our dependent variable is the respondent’s tertiary educational attainment. Country experts classified the different educational attainment levels covered in the ESS based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. We use four hierarchical educational categories: primary, lower secondary, upper secondary, and tertiary education.4 We created a dummy variable with 0 indicating individuals 3 For 2016, we use “ESS8 ‒ integrated file, edition 2.2”; for 2018, we use “ESS9 ‒ integrated file, edition 3.1.” We use data from two years to ensure enough cases for analysis. Before merging these two rounds, we tested the differences in respondents’ educational attainment categories (our dependent variable) over these two years. Using likelihood-ratio chi-square tests, the differences in frequencies of tertiary education and non-tertiary education are not statistically significant at the 5 percent level in all but two countries (the Netherlands and Sweden, cf. Table A1 in the Appendix). 4 The ISCED 2011 is the International Standard Classification of Education, using three-digit codes. The first digit distinguishes the vertical levels of education, the second digit distinguishes the horizontal differences within the educational levels and the third digit identifies the degree that relates to the next possibilities to study. The ISCED 2011 codes of the ESS are not exact equivalents of the international ISCED 2011 codes (cf. Schneider 2010). We recoded the three-digit ESS codes into four levels as follows: (0/129 = 1) (212/229 311 321 421 = 2) (312 313 322 323 412 413 422 423 510 520 = 3) (610/800 = 4). Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 253 Ta b. 1 : D es cr ip tiv e st at ist ic s So ur ce : E SS 8 (2 01 6) ‒ in te gr at ed fi le (D O I: ht tp s:/ /d oi .o rg /1 0. 21 33 8/ es s8 e0 2_ 2) , e di tio n 2. 2 an d ES S9 (2 01 8) ‒ in te gr at ed fi le , ed iti on 3 .1 (D O I: ht tp s:/ /d oi .o rg /1 0. 21 33 8/ es s9 e0 3_ 1) Va ria bl e M ea n St d. D ev . M in . M ax . Ca te go rie s Pr op or tio ns In di vi du al v ar ia bl es (l ev el -1 ) Te rt ia ry e du ca tio n at ta in m en t - - 0 1 0) n o; 1 ) y es 0) 7 0. 2% ; 1 ) 2 9. 8% Ed uc at io na l o rig in (I SL ED s td .) 0. 00 1. 00 -1 .2 3 2. 44 hi gh es t p ar en ta l I SL ED s ta nd ar di se d Pa re nt al e du ca tio na l p ai rin g - - 0 2 0) h om og am y (th e sa m e ed uc at io n) ; 1 ) h yp og am y 0) 6 6. 1% ; 1 ) 1 4. 2% ; 2 ) 1 9. 7% (fa th er 's ed uc at io n lo w er ); 2) h yp er ga m y (m ot he r's ed uc at io n lo w er ) G en de r - - 0 1 0) m al e; 1 ) f em al e 0) 4 7.7 % ; 1 ) 5 2. 3% Bi rt h co ho rt s - - 0 2 0) 1 94 9- 19 63 ; 1 ) 1 96 4- 19 78 ; 2 ) 1 97 9- 19 93 0) 3 6. 0% ; 1 ) 3 4. 8% ; 2 ) 2 9. 2% O cc up at io na l o rig in - - 0 2 0) ro ut in e an d se m i-r ou tin e m an ua l a nd s er vi ce 0) 3 5. 1% ; 1 ) 5 3. 9% ; 2 ) 1 1. 0% oc cu pa tio ns ; 1 ) t ec hn ic al , c ra ft o cc up at io ns a nd fa rm er s; 2) p ro fe ss io na ls , c le ric al a nd in te rm ed ia te oc cu pa tio ns , m an ag er s a nd a dm in ist ra to rs Co nt ex tu al le ve l Co un tr y (le ve l-2 ) - - 1 20 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess9e03_1 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess9e03_1 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess9e03_1 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess9e03_1 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess9e03_1 https://doi.org/10.21338/ess9e03_1 • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea254 who did not attain tertiary education and 1 for those who did. In the 20 ESS countries analysed, on average, about 70 percent of respondents aged 25-69 did not attain tertiary education and 30 percent did. Proportions for all 20 analysed countries are presented in Table A3 in the Appendix. The two main independent variables at the individual level are parental education and parental educational pairing. For parental education, we first transformed the paternal and maternal ISCED 2011 measures into continuous International Standard Level of Education (ISLED) variables (Schröder/Ganzeboom 2009, 2014). The ISLED measure optimises the role of education in the status attainment process and, as a continuous variable, is more appropriate for our statistical analysis than a categorical variable. We then applied the dominance principle, according to which the highest parental ISLED defines the respondent’s educational origin (Erikson 1984). Average ISLEDs in ESS data for the 20 analysed countries are presented in Table A4 in the Appendix. In the analysis, we use a standardised ISLED measure of educational origin (z-scores: mean = 0, SD = 1). For parental educational pairing, we examine the pairwise combinations of education based on the parents’ educational levels. To construct the parental pairing variable, we used the highest educational level of the father and mother based on ISCED 2011 and distinguished four hierarchical categories: (1) primary, (2) lower secondary, (3) upper secondary, and (4) tertiary education.5 Since we determine educational origin through the highest parental level of education, we are able to create a pairing variable by combining these four categories for both parents, which has these three categories: (0) homogamy (both parents have the same level); (1) hypogamy (the father has a lower level of education than the mother); and (2) hypergamy (the mother has a lower level of education than the father) (Van Bavel et al. 2018). Our control variables are gender, birth cohort, and parental occupational class (social origin). Gender is a dummy variable with two categories (0 for men and 1 for women; see Table A5 in the Appendix). The birth cohort is constructed by subtracting the respondent’s age from 2018 (the second year of data collection). We define three birth cohorts: (0) 1949-1963, (1) 1964-1978, and (2) 1979-1993 (see Table A6 in the Appendix).6 To construct the parental social class, we used two variables from the ESS dataset that capture the father and mother’s occupation when the respondent was 14 years old. On the basis of these occupational measures, we distinguish three basic types of occupations in the European labour market for mothers and fathers: (0) routine and semi-routine manual and service occupations; (1) technical, craft occupations, and farmers; and (2) professionals, clerical, intermediate occupations, managers, and administrators. We report the respondent’s occupational origin 5 We created these categories as described above (cf. footnote 3). 6 The three created cohorts only partially follow the established and largely-used cohorts – Baby Boomers (1945-1959), Generation X (1960-1980), and Generation Y (1981-2000). They were designed to match the age range of our dataset (25-69) and an even distribution into three groups. Furthermore, we did not intend to analyse cohort changes in tertiary educational attainment in this paper. Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 255 according to the higher of these two values (one for the mother and the other for the father; see Table A7 in the Appendix). The data have a hierarchical structure. Individuals (level-1) are clustered in countries (level-2). We therefore use multilevel models to estimate the associations between the independent variables and the dependent variable. As our dependent variable is binary (tertiary education attainment or not), we use two-level random logistic regression models (Gelman/Hill 2006; Rabe-Hesketh/Skrondal 2012). The model has the following form: logit[P(Yij = 1)] = β0 + β1x1ij + ... + β8x8ij + µ0j The left-hand term in the equation is the logit of the probability of tertiary education attainment for respondent i in country j. Level 1 covariates are: x1ij = parental education (ISLED standardised), x2ij = parental educational pairing (hypogamy), x3ij = parental educational pairing (hypergamy), x4ij = gender (woman), x5ij = cohort (1964-1978), x6ij = cohort (1979-1993), x7ij = parental social class (technical/craft occupations), and x8ij = parental social class (professionals/ administrators) with estimated intercept β0 and parameters β1,..., β8. µ0j is a random intercept varying across countries (level 2) (the random intercept is assumed to be uncorrelated with the observed individual variables). 5 Empirical Results Differences in the patterns of educational pairings of parents in 20 European countries We begin by describing the patterns of parental homogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy among the respondents’ parents in the 20 European countries we analyse. Table 2 shows that parental homogamy is remarkably dominant in all European countries. Parental educational homogamy clearly outweighs heterogamy. On average, about 66 percent of the respondents’ parents are educationally homogamous. Among heterogamous parents, hypergamy is more common than hypogamy, at 20 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Parental homogamy is particularly high in Mediterranean (Italy, Portugal and Spain) and Eastern European (Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia and Poland) countries, where it exceeds 70 percent of couples. These proportions reflect the strong catching up process in educational expansion in the Southern European countries and the strong emphasis on gender equality in the Eastern European countries under state socialism. Traditional parental hypergamy is the second most common constellation in the German-speaking countries of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, and the French-/Dutch-speaking countries of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. This pattern is consistent with the stronger emphasis on the traditional male breadwinner model in continental Europe. Finally, the countries in which parental hypogamy is the second most common constellation or in which parental hypogamy is as common as hypergamy are the (1) • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea256 progressive liberal countries (Ireland and UK), former socialist and now very liberal Baltic countries (Lithuania and Estonia) and the Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway and Sweden). All these countries have a strong emphasis on gender equality and are also forerunners in educational expansion. Tab. 2: Proportion of ESS respondents by parental educational pairing and countries (aged 25-69) Parental educational pairing Country type Country Homogamy Hypogamy Hypergamy N (same level of (father's (mother's education) education lower) education lower) in % Western European Austria 66.1 5.2 28.8 3,181 Belgium 58.3 15.1 26.6 2,184 France 63.6 12.6 23.8 2,258 Germany 56.1 8.6 35.3 3,204 Netherlands 59.0 12.9 28.1 2,009 Switzerland 59.7 8.0 32.2 2,014 Eastern European Czechia 71.2 12.0 16.8 3,402 Estonia 59.8 24.8 15.4 2,530 Hungary 74.3 13.2 12.6 2,121 Lithuania 66.7 22.1 11.2 2,358 Poland 75.9 12.8 11.3 2,088 Slovenia 69.6 12.9 17.5 1,787 Mediterranean Italy 74.9 8.2 16.9 3,453 Portugal 80.7 8.4 11.0 1,468 Spain 78.6 7.0 14.4 2,425 Scandinavian Finland 65.6 17.8 16.6 2,462 Norway 61.1 17.5 21.4 1,981 Sweden 59.6 19.5 20.9 1,888 Anglo-Saxon Ireland 64.4 19.8 15.9 3,237 United Kingdom 62.6 16.4 21.0 2,191 Total 66.3 13.6 20.1 48,241 Source: ESS8 (2016) ‒ integrated file (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2), edition 2.2 and ESS9 (2018) ‒ integrated file, edition 3.1 (DOI: https://doi. org/10.21338/ess9e03_1). https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 257 The association between parental homogamy and children’s attainment of tertiary education Table 3 shows the estimated random logistic regression models for tertiary education attainment.7 Model M0 is the null random intercept model, where no covariates are considered (x1ij,...,x8ij = 0 in Equation 1). The intercept can be interpreted as the average odds across all countries of attaining a tertiary education degree compared to attaining a lower education level. It is 0.42 (exp(-0.855)), or about 58 percent lower (100*[exp(-0.855)-1]). The individual-level independent variables (parental education and parental educational pairing) and control variables (gender, birth cohorts, and parental social class) are included in model M1 (x1ij ,..., x8ij in Equation 1). We used a log-likelihood ratio (LR) test to compare Models M0 and M1. This test reveals that the additionally included variables significantly improve the model fit.8 Model M1 shows that parental education is positively associated with obtaining a tertiary degree. Parental education is a standardised variable (z-scores) and must therefore be interpreted in terms of changes by one standard deviation (SD). For example, an increase of 1 SD in educational origin means that the odds of tertiary education attainment increase by a factor of 2.05 (exp(0.718)). The more educated the parents are, the higher the probability of their children attaining a tertiary degree. This relationship is expected and has been observed in many social stratification analyses (e.g., Blau/ Duncan 1967; Breen 2007; Breen/Müller 2020). Educated parents are knowledgeable about academic education themselves and can advise and support their children (Bukodi/Goldthorpe 2013; Pfeffer 2008). Model M1 also reveals that children from educationally heterogamous parents are statistically less likely to attain tertiary education than children from educationally homogamous parents (the reference category). At first sight, this is consistent with Hypothesis 1, in which we expect that children from educationally homogamous parents are more likely to attain tertiary education because their parents are more consistent in their parenting styles, less likely to divorce, and create a less stressful learning environment for their children. With regard to parental heterogamy, our variable also takes into account whether the mother or the father is more highly educated, and the estimated values indicate this does in fact matter. In couples where the mother has a lower level of education than the father (hypergamy), children are significantly less likely (as indicated by a Wald test) to attain tertiary education than children in couples where the father has a lower level of education (hypogamy). The probability is lower by 20 percent for hypergamous parents (100*[exp(-0.228)-1]) and 13 percent for hypogamous parents (100*[exp(-0.135)-1]), respectively, compared to homogamy. In a recent article, Ortiz- 7 We estimated all models with the Stata command melogit. We used combination of ESS weights including design weights and probability weights. The do-file and data will be provided upon request. 8 ICC (intraclass correlation) increases when the predictors are added to random logistic regression models. This happens because an unexplained variation at level one cannot decrease if the standard logistic distribution is used (cf. Kreft/De Leeuw 1998; Goldstein 2010). • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea258 Tab. 3: Random logistic regression models for tertiary education attainment Variable Levels M0 M1 M2 M3 Individual level Educational origin (ISLED std.) 0.718*** 0.862*** 0.867*** (0.015) (0.020) (0.021) Parental educational homogamy ref. ref. ref. pairing hypogamy -0.135*** -0.039 -0.008 (father lower) (0.036) (0.038) (0.064) hypergamy -0.228*** -0.196*** -0.177*** (mother lower) (0.030) (0.032) (0.061) Gender man ref. ref. ref. woman 0.131*** 0.133*** 0.135*** (0.022) (0.022) (0.022) Birth cohorts 1949-1963 ref. ref. ref. 1964-1978 0.194*** 0.177*** 0.177*** (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) 1979-1993 0.384*** 0.352*** 0.351*** (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) Occupation origin manual/service occupation ref. ref. ref. technical/craft occupation 0.517*** 0.499*** 0.499*** (0.027) (0.027) (0.027) professionals/ 1.008*** 0.932*** 0.925*** administrators (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) Constant -0.855*** -1.523*** -1.458*** -1.464*** (0.108) (0.109) (0.112) (0.121) Interactions Educational origin (ISLED std.)*hypogamy (father's lower) -0.405*** -0.396*** (0.036) (0.037) Educational origin (ISLED std.)*hypergamy (mother's lower) -0.219*** -0.212*** (0.028) (0.029) Random effects parameters Country variation: constant 0.226*** 0.210*** 0.222*** 0.265*** (0.073) (0.068) (0.072) (0.087) hypogamy (father's lower) 0.040* (0.022) hypergamy (mother's lower) 0.040** (0.020) ICC Country 0.074 0.092 0.094 0.101 LL Model -21 -19 -19 -19 560.23 413.46 397.59 383.62 N (respondents) 48 241.00 48 241.00 48 241.00 48 241.00 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01. ** p<0.05. * p<0.1 Source: ESS8 (2016) ‒ integrated file (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2), edition 2.2 and ESS9 (2018) ‒ integrated file, edition 3.1 (DOI: https://doi. org/10.21338/ess9e03_1) https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 259 Gervasi (2021) used ESS data to show that there is a gendered effect of parental educational heterogamy: Women benefit from having educationally hypogamous parents (positive and significant interaction term) and are disadvantaged if they have educationally hypergamous parents (negative and significant interaction term).9 Model M1 also demonstrates that women are more likely to attain tertiary education. Their odds are 1.13 (exp(0.131)) times higher than those of men. Many studies have shown that there are gender differences in tertiary education attainment. While men were more likely to attain tertiary education in older cohorts, women caught up and even surpassed them in recent years (DiPrete/Buchmann 2013; Shavit/Blossfeld 1993). M1 also reveals that across cohorts, more and more children are attaining tertiary education. This reflects the gradual expansion of tertiary education in European countries during the second half of the 20th century. In addition, children from higher parental social classes are more likely to attain tertiary education. The odds are 1.67 times (exp(0.517)) higher for children of parents in technical and craft occupations, and 2.74 times (exp(1.008)) higher for children of parents in professional, intermediate, managerial and administrative occupations than for children of parents in semi-routine, routine manual, and service occupations. These associations do not change significantly in the next two models (M2 and M3 in Table 3). Is parental education a moderator? Model M2 is the same as model M1, but it adds an interaction between educational origin and parental educational pairing (the term β9x1ijx2ij + β10x1ijx3ij is added to Equation 1). With this interaction term, we test Hypothesis 2 on whether the effect of parental pairing is moderated by parental education levels. Model M3 is the same as Model M2, but it allows both variants of parental pairing (hypogamy and hypergamy) to vary randomly across countries. It is a random coefficient model, which means that the term µ1jx2ij + µ2jx3ij is added to Equation 1 (the full equation for Model M3 is presented in the Appendix). This random coefficient model allows us to examine cross-country differences in all variants of parental pairing. The likelihood-ratio (LR) test of nesting model M1 in M2 and M2 in M3 indicates that all these extensions of model M1 significantly improve the model’s fit to the data. We interpret the results using Model M3. The interactions of variants of parental pairing (hypogamy and hypergamy) with educational origin are different, negative, and significant. Educational origin moderates the association between parental educational pairing and children’s tertiary educational attainment. This means that for each higher level of parental education, the differences in the probabilities of 9 We have tested for this interaction in our data (gender by parental heterogamy) and come to similar conclusions as Ortiz-Gervasi doe. Parental educational homogamy increases the odds of tertiary educational attainment compared to parental educational heterogamy. Looking at parental educational hypogamy and hypergamy, girls from hypogamous families have significantly higher odds of tertiary attainment than boys from the same families do. However, this is not the aim of our study. • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea260 tertiary educational attainment between children of educationally hypogamous and hypergamous parents compared to children of educationally homogamous parents increase. To illustrate this, Figure 1 shows the estimated probabilities of tertiary educational attainment by educational origin (standard deviations of average ISLED) for the three categories of parental educational pairing (homogamy, hypogamy and hypergamy) for men (left-hand side) and women (right-hand side). The probabilities are calculated for average parental class. The probabilities rise from lower to the higher educational origins (from 15 percent on average for the lowest educational origins to 65 percent on average for the highest educational origins). There is no difference in trends by gender. In the case of women, the curves are only slightly shifted upwards by model M3 parameter for gender. Parental homogamy significantly increases the probability of children obtaining a tertiary degree at almost all levels of educational origin, except for children of parents with low levels of education, where there is Fig. 1: Probability of obtaining a tertiary degree by educational origin (ISLED std.) and levels of parental educational homogamy by gender 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -1 .2 -1 .0 -0 .8 -0 .6 -0 .4 -0 .2 0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 2. 0 2. 2 2. 2 2. 4 -1 .2 -1 .0 -0 .8 -0 .6 -0 .4 -0 .2 0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 2. 0 2. 2 2. 2 2. 4 Men Women Homogamy Hypogamy (father lower) Hypergamy (mother lower) Pr ob ab ili ty (% ) Educational origin (ISLED std.) Note: SD is standard deviation of ISLED std. SD 0 is standardised average of ISLED. Whiskers denote 95% confidence intervals. Source: ESS8 (2016) ‒ integrated file (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2), edition 2.2 and ESS9 (2018) ‒ integrated file, edition 3.1 (DOI: https://doi. org/10.21338/ess9e03_1) https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 261 no difference between children from educationally homogamous or heterogamous parents. In the highest educational origins, hypergamy and hypogamy reduce the probability of children’s tertiary attainment to almost the same (the association of mother’s lower education is even stronger compared to father’s lower education). Although each curve point in Figure 1 has a confidence interval, these intervals do not say anything about the statistical differences between parental homogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy in specific categories of educational origin (they refer to the estimated parameters of model M3 and their differences from 0). The statistical differences between homogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy must therefore be tested in a different way. We used the contrast statistical procedure (Mitchell 2012) for all combinations of parental educational pairing categories and educational origin for men and women separately (cf. Table A8 in the Appendix). Among the higher educated families, parental homogamy is important and significantly increases the probability of tertiary educational attainment compared to parental heterogamy (hypogamy and hypergamy) for both men and women. It does not matter whether the parental constellation is educationally hypogamous or hypergamous (there is no statistically significant difference between these variants), heterogamy is always detrimental to tertiary educational attainment compared to parental homogamy. Among less educated parents, children from hypogamous couples (where the mother is more educated) have a significantly higher probability of obtaining a tertiary degree. In sum, these empirical findings are consistent with Hypothesis 2, which proposed that parental homogamy is only beneficial for children’s tertiary education attainment when parents are highly educated. According to the pooling of resources theory, high levels of education from both parents are beneficial for children, as children have access to two people with resources conducive to education. According to a variant of the agreement in parenting styles argument, highly educated parents are more likely to share childcare equally, leading to greater harmony between parents and a more conducive learning environment for children. Finally, according to the divorce argument, highly educated homogamous parents are less likely to divorce and can compensate for doing so, leading to less emotional stress and better educational outcomes for their children. However, we cannot completely rule out Hypothesis 1, as our results also suggest that in the middle range of parental educational resources, parental homogamy benefits children. Hypothesis 1 proposed that parental educational homogamy always increases the probability of tertiary educational attainment compared to parental educational heterogamy, regardless of educational origin. The association of parental educational homogamy is positive for all educational origins except the lowest, where it is not different from parental hypergamy and significantly lower than in the case of parental hypogamy. Only maternal educational advantages matter for the children of less educated parents. • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea262 Cross-national differences in the association between parental educational pairings and children’s tertiary education attainment Finally, we examine whether there are country differences in the association between parental educational homogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy and children’s probabilities of obtaining a tertiary degree. Figure 2 shows caterpillar plots of the empirical Bayes residuals based on model M3. The zero line marks an average (main) association of homogamy, hypogamy and hypergamy respectively. The numbers below or above zero indicate the extent to which each country is above or below the average in terms of the association of homogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy with children’s probabilities of obtaining a tertiary degree. There is large variation in parental homogamy across countries. However, there is almost no country variation for parental educational heterogamy (hypogamy and hypergamy). The lowest association between parental homogamy and children’s tertiary attainment is observed in Czechia and Austria. The association is also below average in countries such as Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany, but less pronounced. These are all countries with a very high share of parental educational homogamy or a relatively high percentage of parental educational hypergamy. While one would expect low associations with parental homogamy in formerly socialist countries, it is surprising that parental homogamy in German-speaking countries is less important for children’s tertiary educational attainment than elsewhere, as they are known for their early segregation into different educational branches and high educational inequality. Slovenia, Estonia, France, and Poland do not differ from the average and Ireland, Sweden and Lithuania have an association close to the average. Countries in this intermediate group have a relatively high share of educationally hypogamous parents compared to educationally hypergamous parents (Estonia, Lithuania, Ireland, and Sweden). The highest associations are found in Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Belgium. These are countries with a percentage of parental educational homogamy above 60 percent and even above or close to 80 percent of couples. This high association was expected for the liberal UK, with relatively high social inequalities, and for the Netherlands and Belgium, with relatively early tracking (which was only changed in Belgium recently). However, this result is more surprising for the Scandinavian countries of Norway and Finland, which are characterised by high social securities, a comprehensive school system, and low educational inequality. Especially in the Scandinavian countries, it seems important to take into account not only the educational position of the family, but also the similarity of resources as an amplifying factor of educational inequality. Ultimately, the associations between parental hypogamy and hypergamy and the likelihood of children obtaining a tertiary degree are not very different between countries. Both associations are weak and below average in the UK and Norway and stronger and above average in Austria and Hungary. Nevertheless, the differences in parental educational hypogamy and hypergamy associations between countries are relatively small and we should not overinterpret them. We therefore conclude that parental heterogamy, compared to parental homogamy, reduces the probability of children obtaining a tertiary degree in a similar way in all European countries. Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 263 Fig. 2: Estimation of homogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy associations for tertiary education attainment by country Homogamy (parents' same education) -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Ra nd om h om og am y ef fe ct CZ AT HU IT CH DE SI EE FR PL IE SE LT ES FI NL PT UK NO BE Hypogamy (father's education lower) -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Ra nd om h yp og am y ef fe ct UK NO BE FI NL ES LT FR IE DE SE EE CH SI IT CZ PT PL HU AT Hypergamy (mother's education lower) -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Ra nd om h yp er ga m y ef fe ct FR UK NO SE FI CH BE LT EE IE NL DE SI ES PL PT IT AT CZ HU Source: ESS8 (2016) ‒ integrated file (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2), edition 2.2 and ESS9 (2018) ‒ integrated file, edition 3.1 (DOI: https://doi. org/10.21338/ess9e03_1) https://doi.org/10.21338/ess8e02_2 https://doi • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea264 7 Conclusions and discussion The consequences of parental homogamy on children’s educational attainment are an understudied topic. This paper aimed to shed light on the issue in two ways: (1) by testing whether parental homogamy is associated with children’s tertiary education attainment in different European countries and (2) by assessing whether this association is moderated by parental education. With regard to the first objective, we demonstrated that parental homogamy has a positive association with children’s tertiary educational attainment compared to parental heterogamy. Parental educational homogamy increases the chances of children obtaining a tertiary degree. Conversely, children from educationally heterogamous parents are less likely to attain tertiary education. However, children from educationally hypogamous parents – i.e., whose mothers have higher educational attainment than their fathers – are less disadvantaged than children from educationally hypergamous parents. Concerning the second objective, we were also able to show that parental educational homogamy is partly moderated by parental education. Children of highly educated homogamous parents are much more likely to obtain a tertiary degree than children of educationally hypergamous or hypogamous parents. In this study, we found empirical support for theories suggesting that parental homogamy is relevant to children’s educational opportunities only among parents with higher levels of education. However, we could not completely rule out theories and hypotheses suggesting that parental homogamy is important for children of all educational backgrounds. Only for children of parents with low levels of education did homogamy show no association. Finally, we also examined whether there are differences in the association between parental homogamy, hypergamy, and hypogamy for children’s tertiary educational attainment across European countries. Cross-country differences in parental homogamy are much greater than in parental hypogamy and hypergamy. Two surprising findings were that the association between parental homogamy and children’s tertiary degree were below average in continental European countries and above average in Scandinavian countries. One interpretation might be that in continental countries with high social origin effects on educational inequality, similarity has a less strong additional effect. Conversely, the similarity of parental educational resources may be particularly important in the Scandinavian countries, where educational attainment is less influenced by parental education. Whatever the reasons for these findings, more research is needed to investigate this unexpected result. Parental hypogamy and hypergamy reduce the probability of obtaining a tertiary degree in all European countries in a similar way compared to parental educational homogamy. We conclude that when studying differences in children’s educational opportunities by family background, it is important to not only include indicators of parental resources, but also to take into account the similarity and dissimilarity of maternal and paternal resources. Our study also has some limitations: First, our sample of two ESS waves does not allow us to examine changes in the associations of parental homogamy with Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 265 children’s tertiary education across cohorts. Further research examining these associations across cohorts is needed. There is also a need for research that examines how the association between highly educated homogamous parents and children’s tertiary educational attainment varies across countries and cohorts. Second, ESS data does not provide information on how long children lived with their parents, whether their parents were divorced or not, or when they got divorced. It is therefore unclear what influence non-resident parents have on their children, apart from child support payments. This could be problematic if we want to examine the effect of the similarity of parents’ education on children’s education. However, studies show that non-resident parents invest significant time and money in their biological children (Tach 2015). The data also does not allow us to examine parenting style mechanisms. Third, we cannot determine whether parents are cohabiting or married, and whether this makes a difference for the effect of parental educational homogamy. Especially in the European context, cohabitation has become a means of testing a relationship for its suitability for marriage or even as a substitute for marriage (Hiekel et al. 2014; Perelli-Harris et al. 2014). However, there are country- specific variations. There is no universal model of whether marriage is still a prerequisite for childbearing, despite the spread of cohabitation and out of wedlock birth in Europe. There is evidence of a decoupling of marriage and childbearing, particularly in Scandinavian countries (Heuveline/Timberlake 2004; Kiernan 2002). However, even in Sweden, family-forming marriage (no children and no conception of a first child at least 8 months before marriage) remains the most common family model (Holland 2013). Cross-national comparisons show that this model is still typical for the majority of the population across cohorts and ages, although cohabitation now frequently precedes marriage (Holland 2017). On the other hand, legitimising conception through marriage has become more important in Central and Eastern Europe in recent decades, while in Western Europe and Norway this model is less preferred (Holland 2017). This reflects changes in family values and norms (Inglehart 2020), as well as individualisation and the deinstitutionalisation of marriages (Cherlin 2004; Fučík et al. 2019). Empirical evidence is inconclusive as to whether patterns of homogamy differ between cohabiting and married couples (Blackwell/Lichter 2004). However, if there are differences, they appear to be small (Blackwell/Lichter 2004). Future studies with better and longitudinal data should examine these issues in greater detail. Acknowledgements Tomáš Katrňák’s work on this study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant No. GA22-33722S: Development of Social Mobility in Central and Eastern European Countries from the 1970s to the Present: A Dynamic Equilibrium?) • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea266 References Ballarino, Gabriele; Meraviglia, Cinzia; Panichella, Nazareno 2021: Both parents matter. Family- based educational inequality in Italy over the second half of the 20th century. In: Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 73: 100597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2021.100597 Ballarino, Gabriele et al. 2009: Persistent inequalities? Expansion of education and class inequality in Italy and Spain. In: European Sociological Review 25,1: 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn031 Beck, Audrey; González-Sancho, Carlos 2009: Educational assortative mating and children’s school readiness. Working Paper #2009-05-FF. Princeton: Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Becker, Gary S. 1973: A theory of marriage: Part I. In: Journal of Political Economy 81,4: 813- 846. https://doi.org/10.1086/260084 Becker, Gary S. et al. 2018: A theory of intergenerational mobility. In: Journal of Political Economy 126,1: 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1086/698759 Beller, Emily 2009: Bringing intergenerational social mobility research into the twenty-first century: Why mothers matter. In: American Sociological Review 74,4: 507-528. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400401 Bernardi, Fabrizio; Boertien, Diederik 2016: Understanding heterogeneity in the effects of parental separation on educational attainment in Britain: Do children from lower educational backgrounds have less to lose? In: European Sociological Review 32,6: 807- 819. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw036 Bingley, Paul; Cappellari, Lorenzo; Tatsiramos, Konstantinos 2022: Parental assortative mating and the intergenerational transmission of human capital. In: Labor Economics 77: 102047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102047 Björklund, Anders; Jäntti, Markus 2009: Intergenerational income mobility and the role of family background. In: Nolan, Brian; Salverda, Wiemer; Smeeding Timothy (Eds.): Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 491-521. Blackwell, Debra L.; Lichter, Daniel T. 2004: Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. In: The Sociological Quarterly 45,4: 719-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02311.x Blau, Peter M.; Duncan, Otis D. 1967: The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Buchholz, Sandra 2009: Increasing resource inequality among families in modern societies: The mechanisms of growing educational homogamy, changes in the division of work in the family and the decline of the male breadwinner model. In: Journal of Comparative Family Studies 40,4: 603-615. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.40.4.603 Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Timm, Andreas 2003: Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Blossfeld, Pia N. 2018: Changes in inequality of educational opportunity: The long-term development in Germany. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. Blossfeld, Pia N. 2023: How the rise of academic families across cohorts influences sons’ and daughters’ tertiary education in West Germany? In: Frontiers in Education 8: 1154356. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1154356 Blossfeld, Pia N.; Blossfeld, Gwendolin J.; Blossfeld, Hans-Peter 2016: Changes in educational inequality in cross-national perspective. In: Shanahan, Michael J. et al. (Eds.): Handbook of the life course. Wiesbaden: Springer: 223-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2021.100597 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn031 https://doi.org/10.1086/260084 https://doi.org/10.1086/698759 https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400401 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102047 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02311.x https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.40.4.603 https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1154356 Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 267 Boertien, Diederik; Härkönen, Juho 2018: Why does women’s education stabilize marriages? The role of marital attraction and barriers to divorce. In: Demographic Research 38: 1241- 1276. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.38.41 Bonke, Jens; Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 2011: Family investments in children ‒ productivities, preferences, and parental child care. In: European Sociological Review 27,1: 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp054 Bourdieu, Pierre; Passeron, Jean-Claude 1990: Reproduction in education, society and culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Breen, Ricahrd 2007: Social mobility in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Breen, Richard et al. 2009: Nonpersistent inequality in educational attainment: Evidence from eight European countries. In: American Journal of Sociology 114,5: 1475-1521. https://doi.org/10.1086/595951 Breen, Richard; Müller, Walter 2020: Education and Intergenerational Social Mobility in Europe and the United States. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Buchholz, Sandra et al. 2016: Secondary school differentiation and inequality of educational opportunity in Germany. In: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter et al. (Eds.): Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality. An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 79-92. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00014 Buchmann, Marlis et al. 2016: Differentiation in secondary education and inequality in educational opportunity: the case of Switzerland. In: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter et al. (Eds.): Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality. An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 111-128. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00016 Buis, Maarten L. 2013: The composition of family background: The influence of the economic and cultural resources of both parents on the offspring‘s educational attainment in the Netherlands between 1939 and 1991. In: European Sociological Review 29,3: 593-602. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs009 Bukodi, Erzsébet; Goldthorpe, John H. 2013: Decomposing ‘social origins’: The effects of parents’ class, status, and education on the educational attainment of their children. In: European Sociological Review 29,5: 1024-1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs079 Byun, Soo-yong; Bai, Yifan; Chung, Hee Jin 2020: Consequences of Educational Assortative Mating for Children‘s Academic. In: Park, Hyunjoon; Hyeyoung Woo (Eds.): Korean Families Yesterday and Today. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 95-118. Cherlin, Andrew J. 2004: The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 66,4: 848-861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x Cobalti, Antonio; Schizzerotto, Antonio 1993: Inequality of educational opportunity in Italy. In: Shavit, Yossi; Blossfeld Hans-Peter (Eds.): Persistent inequality. Changing educational attainment in thirteen countries. Boulder: Westview Press: 155-192. Conger, Rand D.; Conger, Kathrine J.; Martin, Monica. J. 2010: Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 72,3: 685-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x Cook, Linda J. 2010: Eastern Europe and Russia. In: Castles, Francis G. et al. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford. Oxford University Press: 671-686. De Hauw, Yolien; Grow, Aandré; Van Bavel, Jan 2017: The reversed gender gap in education and assortative mating in Europe. In: European Journal of Population 33,4: 445-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9407-z DiPrete, Thomas A.; Buchmann, Claudia 2013: The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for American schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.38.41 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp054 https://doi.org/10.1086/595951 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00014 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00016 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs009 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs079 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9407-z • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea268 Dronkers, Jaap; Korthals, Roxanne 2016: Tracking in the Netherlands – Ability selection or social reproduction. In: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter et al. (Eds.): Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality. An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 149-162. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00018 Eeckhaut, Mieke C. et al. 2013: Analysing the effect of educational differences between partners: A methodological/theoretical comparison. In: European Sociological Review 29,1: 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr040 Edwards, Ryan D.; Roff, Jennifer 2016: What mom and dad’s match means for junior: Marital sorting and child outcomes. In: Labour Economics 40: 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.005 El Nokali, Nermeen E.; Bachman, Heather J.; Votruba-Drzal, Elizabeth 2010: Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. In: Child Development 81,3: 988-1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x Erikson, Robert 1984: Social class of men, women and families. In: Sociology 18,4: 500-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038584018004003 Erikson, Robert; Jonsson, Jan O. 1996: The Swedish context: Educational reform and long-term change in educational inequality. In: Erikson, Robert; Jonsson, Jan O. (Eds.): Can education be equalized? The Swedish case in comparative perspective. Boulder: Westview Press: 65- 93. Erola, Jani; Kilpi-Jakonen, Elina 2017: Social inequality across the generations: the role of compensation and multiplication in resource accumulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432568 Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 1999: The social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 1990: The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Farges, Géraldine et al. 2016: The long-term outcomes of early educational differentiation in France. In: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter et al. (Eds.): Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality. An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 287-303. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00029 Ferrera, Maurizio 2010: The South European countries. In: Castles, Francis G. et al. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford. Oxford University Press: 611-660. Fučík, Petr; Chromková Manea, Beatrice E.; Rabušic, Ladislav 2019: K problému deinstitucionalizace manželství. In: Rabušic, Ladislav et al. (Eds.): Odděleně spolu? : Česko a Slovensko optikou vývoje hodnot po roce 1991. Bratislava: Slovart: 33-60. Gähler, Michael; Palmtag, Eva-Lisa 2015: Parental divorce, psychological well-being and educational attainment: Changed experience, unchanged effect among Swedes born 1892-1991. In: Social Indicators Research 123: 601-623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0768-6 Gelman, Andrew; Hill, Jennifer 2006: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790942 Gniewosz, Gabriela; Katstaller, Michaela; Gniewosz, Bernhard 2023: Adolescents’ psychological adjustment during challenging times: The role of mothers’, fathers’, and adolescents’ ratings of parental warmth. In: Developmental Psychology 59,1: 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001473 Goldstein, Joshua R.; Harknett, Kirsten 2006: Parenting across racial and class lines: Assortative mating patterns of new parents who are married, cohabiting, dating or no longer romantically involved. In: Social Forces 85,1: 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0125 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00018 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038584018004003 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432568 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00029 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0768-6 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790942 https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001473 https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0125 Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 269 Goldthorpe, John H. 1983: Women and class analysis: in defence of the conventional view. In: Sociology 17,4: 465-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038583017004001 Goldthorpe, John H. 1984: Women and class analysis: A reply to the replies. In: Sociology 18,4: 491-499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038584018004002 Gonzalez-Sancho, Carlos 2014: Educational homogamy, parenting practices and children’s early development. Dissertation. Oxford: University of Oxford. Grätz, Michael 2015: When growing up without a parent does not hurt: Parental separation and the compensatory effect of social origin. In: European Sociological Review 31,5: 546- 557. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv057 Härkönen, Juho; Bernardi, Fabrizio; Boertien, Diederik 2017: Family dynamics and child outcomes: An overview of research and open questions. In: European Journal of Population 33: 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9424-6 Heuveline, Patrick; Timberlake, Jeffrey M. 2004: The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 66,5: 1214-1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x Hiekel, Nicole; Liefbroer, Aart C.; Poortman, Anne-Rigt 2014: Understanding diversity in the meaning of cohabitation across Europe. In: European Journal of Population 30,4: 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1 Holland, Jennifer A. 2013: Love, marriage, then the baby carriage? Marriage timing and childbearing in Sweden. In: Demographic Research 29: 275-306. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.11 Holland, Jennifer A. 2017: The timing of marriage vis-à-vis coresidence and childbearing in Europe and the United States. In: Demographic Research 36: 609-626. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.20 Holmlund, Helena; Lindahl, Mikael; Plug, Erik 2011: The causal effect of parents‘ schooling on children‘s schooling: A comparison of estimation methods. In: Journal of economic literature 49,3: 615-651. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.3.615 Horn, Dániel; Keller, Támas; Róbert, Péter 2016: Early tracking and competition – A recipe for major inequalities in Hungary. In: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter et al. (Eds.): Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality. An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 129-147. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00017 Hu, Yang; Qian, Yue 2023: Gender, educational expansion and intergenerational educational mobility around the world. In: Nature Human Behaviour 7: 583-595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01545-5 Inglehart, Ronald 2020: Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Katrňák, Tomáš; Hubatková, Barbora 2022: Transitional inequality offset: Educational expansion and inequality of educational opportunity in European countries between 2000 and 2018. In: European Sociological Review 38,6: 882-903. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcac003 Kiernan, Kathleen 2002: Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, issues, and implications. In: Booth, Alan; Crouter, Ann C. (Eds.): Just living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: 3-31. Kiernan, Kathleen E.; Mensah, Fiona K. 2011: Poverty, family resources and children‘s early educational attainment: the mediating role of parenting. In: British Educational Research Journal 37,2: 317-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411921003596911 https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038583017004001 https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038584018004002 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv057 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9424-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1 https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.11 https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.20 https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.3.615 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.00017 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01545-5 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcac003 https://doi.org/10.1080/01411921003596911 • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea270 Keizer, Renske et al. 2020: The influence of fathers and mothers equally sharing childcare responsibilities on children’s cognitive development from early childhood to school age: an overlooked mechanism in the intergenerational transmission of (dis)advantages? In: European Sociological Review 36,1: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz046 Lareau, Anette 1989: Home Advantage. Social class and parental intervention in elemnetary education. Sussex: Falmer Press. Lundberg, Shelly J.; Pollak, Robert A.; Wales, Terence J. 1997: Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom child benefit. In: Journal of Human Resources 32,3: 463-480. https://doi.org/10.2307/146179 Mäenpää, Elina; Jalovaara, Marika 2014: Homogamy in socio-economic background and education, and the dissolution of cohabiting unions. In: Demographic Research 30: 1769- 1792. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.65 Mare, Robert D. 2016: Educational homogamy in two gilded ages: Evidence from inter- generational social mobility data. In: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 663,1: 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215596967 Marks, Gary N. 2008: Are father’s or mother’s socioeconomic characteristics more important influences on student performance? Recent international evidence. In: Social Indicators Research 85,2: 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9132-4 Meraviglia, Cinzia; Buis, Maarten L. 2015: Class, status, and education: the influence of parental resources on IEO in Europe, 1893-1987. In: International Review of Social Research 5,1: 35- 60. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/irsr-2015-0004 Mitchell, Michael N. 2012: Interpreting and visualizing regression models using Stata. College Station: Stata Press. Orloff, Ann S. 2010: Gender. In: Castles, Francis G. et al. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 253-264. Ortiz-Gervasi, Luis 2021: The advantage of daughters in hypogamous families: parental heterogamy and educational outcomes among children of highly educated parents. In: European Societies 23,5: 644-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2021.1969028 Perelli-Harris, Brienna et al. 2014: Towards a new understanding of cohabitation: Insights from focus group research across Europe and Australia. In: Demographic Research 31: 1043-1078. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34 Perkins, Kristin L. 2019: Changes in household composition and children’s educational attainment. In: Demography 56,2: 525-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0757-5 Pfeffer, Fabian T. 2008: Persistent inequality in educational attainment and its institutional context. In: European Sociological Review 24,5: 543-565. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn026 Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia; Skrondal, Aanders 2012: Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station: Stata Press. Schneider, Silke L. 2010: Nominal comparability is not enough: (In-) equivalence of construct validity of cross-national measures of educational attainment in the European Social Survey. In: Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 28,3: 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2010.03.001 Schröder, Heike; Ganzeboom, Harry B. 2014: Measuring and modelling level of education in European societies. In: European Sociological Review 30,1: 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct026 Schröder, Heike; Ganzeboom, Harry B. 2009: Measuring and Modelling Education Levels in European Societies. Paris: European Consortium for Sociological Research [https:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=71bfca2738713c03d3e50281 80c86b6785e915b8, 06.03.2024]. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz046 https://doi.org/10.2307/146179 https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.65 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215596967 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9132-4 https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/irsr-2015-0004 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2021.1969028 https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0757-5 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2010.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct026 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=71bfca2738713c03d3e50281 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=71bfca2738713c03d3e50281 Parental Educational Homogamy and Children’s Tertiary Education in Europe • 271 Shavit, Yossi; Blossfeld, Hans-Peter 1993: Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder: Westview Press. Sørensen, Annemette 1994: Women, family and class. In: Annual Review of Sociology 20,1: 27- 45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.20.080194.000331 Sullivan, Alice 2002: Bourdieu and education: How useful is Bourdieu‘s theory for researchers? In: Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences 38,2: 144-166. Tach, Laura 2015: Social mobility in an era of family instability and complexity. In: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 657,1: 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214547854 Teixeira, Pedro; Amaral, Alberto; Rosa, Maria J. 2003: Mediating the economic pulses: The international connection in Portuguese higher education. In: Higher Education Quarterly 57,2: 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00241 Thaning, Max; Hällsten, Martin 2020: The End of Dominance? Evaluating Measures of Socio- Economic Background in Stratification Research. In: European Sociological Review 36,4: 533-547. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa009 Theunis, Lindsay et al. 2018: His and her education and marital dissolution: Adding a contextual dimension. In: European Journal of Population 34: 663-687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9448-y Tynes, Sheryl R. 1990: Educational heterogamy and marital satisfaction between spouses. In: Social Science Research 19,2: 153-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(90)90019-F Uunk, Wilfred 2024: Trends and Cross-National Differences in Educational Homogamy in Europe: The Role of Educational Composition. In: Comparative Population Studies 49: 215- 242. Van Bavel, Jan; Schwartz, Christine R.; Esteve, Albert 2018: The reversal of the gender gap in education and its consequences for family life. In: Annual Review of Sociology 44: 341-360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041215 Van de Werfhorst, Herman 2019: Early tracking and social inequality in educational attainment: Educational reforms in 21 European countries. In: American Journal of Education 126: 65- 99. https://doi.org/10.1086/705500 Wang, Ming-Te; Hill, Nancy E.; Hofkens, Tara 2014: Parental involvement and African American and European American adolescents‘ academic, behavioral, and emotional development in secondary school. In: Child Development 85,6: 2151-2168. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12284 Wittemann, Vanessa; Yastrebov, Gordey 2024: Untangling the Role of Assortative Mating in Prospective Educational Mobility in 12 European Countries. In: Comparative Population Studies 49, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.20.080194.000331 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214547854 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00241 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9448-y https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041215 https://doi.org/10.1086/705500 https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12284 • Pia N. Blossfeld, Tomáš Katrňák, Beatrice Chomková Manea272 Date of submission: 31.10.2023 Date of acceptance: 12.06.2024 Dr. Pia N. Blossfeld (*). University of Innsbruck. Innsbruck, Austria. E-mail: pia.blossfeld@uibk.ac.at URL: https://piablossfeld.github.io/ Prof. Dr. Tomáš Katrňák, Dr. Beatrice Chomková Manea. Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies. Brno, Czech Republic. E-mail: katrnak@fss.muni.cz; manea@fss.muni.cz URL: https://www.fss.muni.cz/en/o-nas/zamestnanci-fakulty/7150-tomas-katrnak https://www.fss.muni.cz/en/o-nas/zamestnanci-fakulty/66436-beatrice-elena- chromkova-manea mailto:pia.blossfeld@uibk.ac.at https://piablossfeld.github.io/ mailto:katrnak@fss.muni.cz mailto:manea@fss.muni.cz https://www.fss.muni.cz/en/o-nas/zamestnanci-fakulty/7150-tomas-katrnak https://www.fss.muni.cz/en/o-nas/zamestnanci-fakulty/66436-beatrice-elena-chromkova-manea https://www.fss.muni.cz/en/o-nas/zamestnanci-fakulty/66436-beatrice-elena-chromkova-manea https://www.fss.muni.cz/en/o-nas/zamestnanci-fakulty/66436-beatrice-elena-chromkova-manea Published by Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB) 65180 Wiesbaden / Germany Managing Publisher Dr. Nikola Sander 2024 Editor Prof. Dr. Roland Rau Prof. Dr. Heike Trappe Managing Editor Dr. Katrin Schiefer Editorial Assistant Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs Wiebke Hamann Layout Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientific Advisory Board Kieron Barclay (Stockholm) Karsten Hank (Cologne) Ridhi Kashyap (Oxford) Natalie Nitsche (Canberra) Alyson van Raalte (Rostock) Pia S. Schober (Tübingen) Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers Bruno Arpino (Barcelona) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Gabriele Doblhammer (Rostock) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) Michael Feldhaus (Oldenburg) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna) Birgit Glorius (Chemnitz) Fanny Janssen (Groningen) Frank Kalter (Mannheim) Stefanie Kley (Hamburg) Bernhard Köppen (Koblenz) Anne-Kristin Kuhnt (Rostock) Hill Kulu (St Andrews) Nadja Milewski (Wiesbaden) Thorsten Schneider (Leipzig) Tomas Sobotka (Vienna) Jeroen J. A. Spijker (Barcelona) Helga de Valk (The Hague) Sergi Vidal (Barcelona) Michael Wagner (Cologne) mailto:cpos@bib.bund.de http://www.comparativepopulationstudies.de