Such a lapse is particularly problematic when it comes to heterophily by social
class origin (childhood class position). Marriages are often individuals’ strongest
voluntary tie, and although marriages that are cross-class by class destination (current
class position) are relatively rare, marriages in which each partner shares a level
of education but has a different class origin are relatively common (Blau and Duncan
1967; Blossfeld and Timm 2003; Kalmijn 1991; Schwartz and Mare 2005). Marriages
that are heterophilous by class origin but homophilous by class destination
play a potentially important if understudied role in shaping inequality. Compared
to adults born into disadvantaged class positions, adults born into more advantaged
class positions are more likely to have parents who give them additional tens of
thousands of dollars during their 20s and 30s (Schoeni and Ross 2005), subsidize
their housing and further education (Semyonov and Lewin-Esptein 2001), and
bequeath more wealth (Aldous 1995). In addition, upwardly mobile actors generally
do not fully adopt the cultural repertoires of those born into the middle class; they
instead maintain distinct ideas of how to attend to work, use money, and raise children—
all of which may shape their own and their children’s class position (Dews
and Law 1995; Granfield 1991; Karp 1986; Streib 2013, 2015; Stuber 2005; Van
Eijck 1999). Holding current class position constant, marriages between two adults
from the same class background may then amplify inequality whereas marriages
between two adults raised in different classes may diffuse it. In a time when perceptions
of class conflict are high and class distinctions are pronounced (Morin 2012;
Murray 2012), it is vital to understand why actors appreciate a partner raised in
another class enough to share their resources with them.