ArticleDemography2025
Gender Asymmetry in the Fertility of Racially and Ethnically Exogamous U.S. Couples.
Article in Demography, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hypotheses explaining fertility levels in unions of women and men with different racial and ethnic origins (exogamous union fertility)-including stigma, in-between, pronatal, and assimilative fertility-apply equally when the minority group partner is the woman or the man. As an alternative, we propose a gendered theorizing of exogamous union fertility in which the fertility preferences of either the woman's or the man's racial and ethnic group might dominate. Our analyses reveal strong support for male-predominant patterns: the couple's fertility is nearer to that in an endogamous union of the man's racial and ethnic group than to that of an endogamous union of the woman's racial and ethnic group. We conjecture that women selecting into exogamous unions to realize their own individual fertility preferences might partially explain this finding. We find no cases of female predominance, in which the couple's fertility is nearer to that in an endogamous union of the woman's racial and ethnic group than that of an endogamous union of the man's racial and ethnic group. In addition, using a simple fertility model in which both the woman's and the man's racial and ethnic groups are included as predictors, we find that only the man's coefficients are statistically and substantively significant. A critical implication of our findings is that the standard demographic practice of using the woman's racial and ethnic group will increasingly downwardly bias estimates of fertility differences by race and ethnicity in the United States as exogamy becomes increasingly common.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.