Chapter 26 Quiz: Class, Status, and Mate Value
Instructions: Choose the best answer for multiple-choice questions. For short-answer questions, write 2–4 sentences.
1. Social exchange theory applied to romantic relationships proposes that:
a) Love is an irrational phenomenon that cannot be analyzed economically b) People in relationships implicitly track what they give and receive, and satisfaction depends on the perceived equity of exchange c) Men always seek younger partners while women always seek wealthier partners d) Economic factors are irrelevant to attraction because love transcends material conditions
Answer: b
2. According to Eagly and Wood's social role theory, historical patterns of female hypergamy (women partnering "up" the economic ladder) are best explained by:
a) Evolved preferences for resource-rich mates that developed in ancestral environments b) Women's innately higher valuation of status and security relative to men c) Structural conditions that made women economically dependent on marriage, making resource-seeking a rational strategy d) Cultural traditions that have remained unchanged across all societies
Answer: c
3. The concept of "educational homogamy" refers to:
a) The preference for partners with similar physical attractiveness b) The practice of seeking partners of higher educational attainment than oneself c) The trend toward partnering with others of similar educational level d) Educational programs designed to help people find partners
Answer: c
4. Pierre Bourdieu's concept of "cultural capital" is most relevant to class and dating because:
a) It explains why people with more money are always more attractive b) It describes non-financial assets (aesthetic tastes, vocabulary, credentials) that signal class membership and create or block feelings of "clicking" with potential partners c) It argues that education and income are perfectly correlated d) It predicts that working-class people are less capable of forming lasting relationships
Answer: b
5. Research comparing stated preferences with behavioral responses in speed-dating contexts (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008) found that:
a) Stated preferences for financial prospects perfectly predicted who people actually pursued b) Physical attractiveness was the only factor that predicted behavioral outcomes c) Stated preferences often diverged from what actually produced felt attraction in real interactions d) Class and income were irrelevant to both stated preferences and behavioral outcomes
Answer: c
6. The Schwartz and Mare (2005) study on educational homogamy found that:
a) Educational homogamy has decreased in the U.S. since 1940 b) College graduates became significantly more likely to partner with other college graduates over the second half of the twentieth century c) Educational homogamy is primarily found in working-class communities d) Men's educational attainment is the only factor driving assortative mating
Answer: b
7. Premium features on dating apps like Tinder Gold and Bumble Premium most directly create class stratification by:
a) Preventing people from different income groups from seeing each other's profiles b) Providing features (seeing who liked you, priority display, unlimited likes) that translate into higher match rates, available only to those who can pay c) Requiring proof of income before allowing users to sign up d) Using income brackets as mandatory profile fields visible to all users
Answer: b
8. Jessi Streib's research on cross-class couples found that class difference often manifested as:
a) Explicit conflict about income and financial management, with few other points of friction b) Differences in habitus and orientation — e.g., "spontaneous" versus "planned" decision-making styles — that created persistent misunderstandings c) Simple incompatibility that always led to relationship dissolution d) Complete invisibility — partners in cross-class relationships rarely noticed class differences
Answer: b
9. The "gold digger" stereotype is described in the chapter as ideologically problematic primarily because:
a) It accurately describes the motivations of most women who seek wealthy partners b) It polices women's economic calculation in partner selection while not applying equivalent scrutiny to men's valuations of women's attractiveness — treating women's rational economic behavior as moral failure c) It underestimates the frequency with which women seek economic advantage in relationships d) It is a purely fictional concept with no real-world referents
Answer: b
10. An intersectional analysis of mate value, as applied to Sam Nakamura-Bright's experience, would emphasize:
a) That race and class effects simply add together in a straightforward way b) That his biracial identity is irrelevant to his class experience c) That his race and class interact in ways that produce qualitatively different experiences than either dimension alone would predict d) That evolutionary models are sufficient to explain his dating market position
Answer: c
11. Short answer: What is the "marriage premium" for men's earnings, and why is the causal interpretation of this finding contested?
Model answer: The marriage premium refers to the approximately 10–15% higher earnings observed among married men compared to unmarried men. The causal interpretation is contested because of selection bias: men who marry tend to be healthier, more educated, and more economically stable even before marriage, making it difficult to separate the effect of marriage itself from the preexisting characteristics of men who marry. Some of the premium may reflect employer stereotypes about married men's reliability, or domestic support from partners — but longitudinal studies suggest the true causal effect is smaller than raw correlations imply.
12. Short answer: In your own words, explain why Putnam's analysis in Our Kids treats educational homogamy as a driver of economic inequality rather than simply a reflection of it.
Model answer: Putnam argues that educational homogamy actively creates and compounds inequality, not merely mirrors it. When two highly educated professionals partner together, their household income, social networks, neighborhood resources, and parenting investments cumulate. Their children are dramatically more likely to attend college and partner with other college graduates. Working-class households face the inverse compounding. So homogamy doesn't just reflect the class system — it is one of the mechanisms by which class position reproduces itself across generations. The marriage market is an inequality-generating machine, not just an inequality-reflecting one.