6 Journal of Marriage and Family for this research because they collected infor- income in each time period.Moreover,results mation on respondents'age at first marriage of analyses using wages and salaries were (the census)or whether respondents married substantively the same as those using the total within the past 12 months (the ACS),number income. of times married,and total personal income for Incomes in the 2008-2012 5-year ACS data the previous year.Thus,both data sets allowed file were inflated to 2012 dollars.To perform me to examine newly contracted first marriages log-linear analysis,I have to recode the continu- and to obtain information on both spouses ous income measure into a categorical measure. education and income at the time of marriage. To reduce zero cells while preserving adequate Given the focus on income,I limited my detail in spouses'income (Schwartz,2010), sample to working-age adults.In addition, I classified each individual's income by the as marriage patterns may differ between decile he or she occupied in the income dis- native-borns and immigrants,I only included tribution of the 1980 and 2008-2012 analytic couples in which both spouses were U.S.born. samples,respectively.In other words,income In sum,I used a sample of U.S.-born couples in deciles were defined by ranking all people in which both the husband and wife were aged 18 the period-specific analytic samples by their to 55 years and married for the first time within income.Thus,spouses were classified by time approximately 1 year prior to the census or period based on their income relative to other ACS.Sensitivity analysis (available on request) people irrespective of gender. confirmed that the results did not change if I Similar to prior research (e.g.,Qian,1997; included immigrants or used alternative age Qian Lichter,2007;Schwartz Mare,2012), ranges.After excluding 462 couples in which classified each spouse into one of the four either spouse had negative income or both education levels-less than high school,high spouses had zero income,the final sample sizes school,some college,and college degrees and were 38,016 couples in 1980 and 37,686 couples above.As a robustness check,I experimented in2008-2012. with different classifications of educational More than 80%of newlyweds were non- and income levels (e.g.,income quintiles and Hispanic White couples,and supplementary five education levels)and obtained results analyses of White couples only yielded substan- similar to those reported next.Taken together, tively identical results to those reported next. I produced a five-way table with 3,200 cells Assortative mating patterns might be different (10 Income deciles for husbands x 10 Income for racial or ethnic minority couples considering deciles for wives x4 Education levels for hus- the differences across racial or ethnic groups bands x4 Education levels for wives x2 Time in the gender gap in education,the retreat from periods). marriage,the availability of economically suit- able men,and the marriage pool influenced by the large influx of recent immigrants(Cherlin, Analytical Approach 2010;DiPrete Buchmann,2013;Qian I used log-linear models to examine educa- Lichter,2007,2011:Schoen Cheng,2006). tional and income assortative mating.The chief Sample sizes were too small to separately exam- advantage of log-linear models lies in their abil- ine racial or ethnic minority couples,so I leave ity to estimate associations between spouses' this task to future research.The goal of this characteristics (e.g.,education or income)while article is to provide a general account of gender controlling for husband-wife differences in the asymmetry in assortative mating patterns among marginal distributions of these characteristics U.S.newlyweds. as well as shifts in the marginal distributions Following Cancian and Reed (1999),I (Kalmijn,2010:Qian Lichter,2007,2011; defined an individual's income as his or her total Schwartz Mare,2005;but see Rosenfeld, pretax personal income from all sources for 2005,for a critique of log-linear models).The the previous year.I examined spouses'income first set of models included only educational from all sources rather than their annual wage pairing of spouses.The second set of log-linear and salary earnings because the total income models added associations between spouses' reflects individuals'overall economic quality. income.Finally,I examined how education On average,individuals'wages and salaries interacts with income to shape assortative constituted more than 90%of their own total mating patterns.6 Journal of Marriage and Family for this research because they collected infor￾mation on respondents’ age at first marriage (the census) or whether respondents married within the past 12 months (the ACS), number of times married, and total personal income for the previous year. Thus, both data sets allowed me to examine newly contracted first marriages and to obtain information on both spouses’ education and income at the time of marriage. Given the focus on income, I limited my sample to working-age adults. In addition, as marriage patterns may differ between native-borns and immigrants, I only included couples in which both spouses were U.S. born. In sum, I used a sample of U.S.-born couples in which both the husband and wife were aged 18 to 55 years and married for the first time within approximately 1 year prior to the census or ACS. Sensitivity analysis (available on request) confirmed that the results did not change if I included immigrants or used alternative age ranges. After excluding 462 couples in which either spouse had negative income or both spouses had zero income, the final sample sizes were 38,016 couples in 1980 and 37,686 couples in 2008–2012. More than 80% of newlyweds were non￾Hispanic White couples, and supplementary analyses of White couples only yielded substan￾tively identical results to those reported next. Assortative mating patterns might be different for racial or ethnic minority couples considering the differences across racial or ethnic groups in the gender gap in education, the retreat from marriage, the availability of economically suit￾able men, and the marriage pool influenced by the large influx of recent immigrants (Cherlin, 2010; DiPrete & Buchmann, 2013; Qian & Lichter, 2007, 2011; Schoen & Cheng, 2006). Sample sizes were too small to separately exam￾ine racial or ethnic minority couples, so I leave this task to future research. The goal of this article is to provide a general account of gender asymmetry in assortative mating patterns among U.S. newlyweds. Following Cancian and Reed (1999), I defined an individual’s income as his or her total pretax personal income from all sources for the previous year. I examined spouses’ income from all sources rather than their annual wage and salary earnings because the total income reflects individuals’ overall economic quality. On average, individuals’ wages and salaries constituted more than 90% of their own total income in each time period. Moreover, results of analyses using wages and salaries were substantively the same as those using the total income. Incomes in the 2008–2012 5-year ACS data file were inflated to 2012 dollars. To perform log-linear analysis, I have to recode the continu￾ous income measure into a categorical measure. To reduce zero cells while preserving adequate detail in spouses’ income (Schwartz, 2010), I classified each individual’s income by the decile he or she occupied in the income dis￾tribution of the 1980 and 2008–2012 analytic samples, respectively. In other words, income deciles were defined by ranking all people in the period-specific analytic samples by their income. Thus, spouses were classified by time period based on their income relative to other people irrespective of gender. Similar to prior research (e.g., Qian, 1997; Qian & Lichter, 2007; Schwartz & Mare, 2012), I classified each spouse into one of the four education levels—less than high school, high school, some college, and college degrees and above. As a robustness check, I experimented with different classifications of educational and income levels (e.g., income quintiles and five education levels) and obtained results similar to those reported next. Taken together, I produced a five-way table with 3,200 cells (10 Income deciles for husbands × 10 Income deciles for wives × 4 Education levels for hus￾bands × 4 Education levels for wives × 2 Time periods). Analytical Approach I used log-linear models to examine educa￾tional and income assortative mating. The chief advantage of log-linear models lies in their abil￾ity to estimate associations between spouses’ characteristics (e.g., education or income) while controlling for husband–wife differences in the marginal distributions of these characteristics as well as shifts in the marginal distributions (Kalmijn, 2010; Qian & Lichter, 2007, 2011; Schwartz & Mare, 2005; but see Rosenfeld, 2005, for a critique of log-linear models). The first set of models included only educational pairing of spouses. The second set of log-linear models added associations between spouses’ income. Finally, I examined how education interacts with income to shape assortative mating patterns