:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:跨越族群的藩籬:從機會供給觀點分析臺灣的族群通婚
書刊名:人口學刊
作者:巫麗雪 引用關係蔡瑞明 引用關係
作者(外文):Wu, Li-hsuehTsay, Ruey-ming
出版日期:2006
卷期:32
頁次:頁1-41
主題關鍵詞:族群通婚婚姻配對擇偶過程結婚Ethnic intermarriageAssortative matingMating processMarriage
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(17) 博士論文(4) 專書(0) 專書論文(2)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:16
  • 共同引用共同引用:697
  • 點閱點閱:139
本研究的目的在於探討影響台灣族群通婚機會的因素。在探討族群通婚的形成因素時,大多數的研究僅考慮個人特徵與家庭背景的影響,對於擇偶過程的作用,很少涉及。從微觀的供給觀點,本文探究兩個影響族群通婚的重要因素:擇偶過程中能夠決定遇到不同族群對象的機率的「接觸場合」,以及決定與不同族群結婚的「婚姻自主性」對族群通婚的作用,藉以瞭解擇偶過程如何影響族群通婚的形成;同時,我們也重新討論個人的教育程度在族群通婚上發揮的影響力。本文的研究對象取材自「台灣地區社會變遷基本調查」第四期第二次「家庭組」的全國性調查資料。本文的分析發現,在擇偶過程中,認識異性的接觸場合與個人擁有的婚姻自主性是影響族群通婚的兩個重要因素。其中,學校、工作場合作為兩性交往的接觸場合有助於提高族群通婚的機會。擁有婚姻自主性者,提高跨族群通婚的機會。在不同族群內,教育對族群通婚的影響程度不一,這個分析結果顯示有必要重新檢視教育對族群通婚的影響機制,我們認為不該過度化約與誇大教育對族群通婚的正向作用,而忽略高教育人口與優勢族群共同產生的排他性。關於族群的作用,本文只部分支持人口結構的理論觀點,擁有相對較小人口數的客家人,相較於閩南人,有較高的族群通婚機會;但未有充足的證據支持外省人有較高的通婚機會。
The main purpose of this study is to explore the factors that affect the likelihood of ethnic intermarriage in Taiwan. While past research has found individual characteristics and family background as the significant determinants of ethnic intermarriage, little is known about the effects of mating process. To investigate the determinants of ethnic intermarriage, this study adopts a supply-side perspective of micro-level interaction opportunities. In particular, this paper focuses on two aspects of mating process: the contexts where a couple meets each other and the degree of autonomy as one makes the decision of marriage. We also discuss the effect of one’s education on the decision of marrying someone from a different ethnic group. A national sampling dataset used in the analysis come from the Fourth Wave of the Taiwan Social Change Survey. The results indicate that marriage autonomy and contact settings both have substantial effects in the formation of ethnic intermarriage. Specifically, the contexts where a couple meets each other, such as the schools where one attends, the workplaces where one pursues his or her career, help enhance the odds of ethnic intermarriage. Moreover, the stronger the marriage autonomy one has, the more likely for one to cross the ethnic boundary. The analytic results remind us that we should refrain from exaggerating the role of education in the ethnic intermarriage. The findings also highlight the exclusiveness of higher education and the advantage of Mainlanders. The results also support the macro-structural approach that minority ethnic groups, such as Hakka, tend to have greater opportunities of ethnic outmarriage. We do not have abundant evidence to support the statement that Mainlanders have a higher probability of outmarriage.
期刊論文
1.McPherson, J. Miller、Popielarz, Pamela、Drobnic, Sonja(1992)。Social Networks and Organizational Dynamics。American Sociological Review,57,153-170。  new window
2.Kalmijn, Matthijs(1994)。Assortative Mating by Cultural and Economic Occupational Status。American Journal of Sociology,100(2),442-452。  new window
3.Kalmijn, Matthijs(1998)。Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends。Annual Review of Sociology,24,395-421。  new window
4.Hwang, Sean-Shong、Saenz, Rogelio、Aguirre, Benigno E.(1994)。Structural and Individual Determinants of Outmarriage Among Chinese-, Filipino-, and Japanese-Americans in California。Sociological Inquiry,64,396-414。  new window
5.張思嘉(20011200)。擇偶歷程與婚前關係的形成與發展。中華心理衛生學刊,14(4),1-29。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.陳端容、陳東升(20010600)。跨族群的社會連結:工具理性行動邏輯與社會結構的辯證。臺灣社會學刊,25,1-53。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Mare, Robert D.(1991)。Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating。American Sociological Review,56(1),15-32。  new window
8.張茂桂、蕭新煌、章英華(19871010)。大學生的「中國結」與「臺灣結」:自我認定與通婚觀念的分析。中國論壇,25(1)=289,34-55。  延伸查詢new window
9.Kalmijn, Matthijs、Flap, Henk(2001)。Assortative Meeting and Mating: Unintended Consequences of Organized Setting for Partner Choices。Social Forces,79(4),1289-1312。  new window
10.王甫昌(19931200)。族群通婚的後果:省籍通婚對於族群同化的影響。人文及社會科學集刊,6(1),231-267。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.駱明慶(20010600)。教育成就的省籍與性別差異。經濟論文叢刊,29(2),117-152。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.薛承泰(19961000)。影響國初中後教育分流的實證分析:性別、省籍、與家庭背景的差異。臺灣社會學刊,20,49-84。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.王甫昌(19940400)。光復後臺灣漢人族群通婚的原因與形式初探。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊,76,43-96。  延伸查詢new window
14.張思嘉、周玉慧(20040600)。緣與婚前關係的發展。本土心理學研究,21,85-123。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.蔡淑鈴(19940600)。臺灣之婚姻配對模式。人文及社會科學集刊,6(2),335-371。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.吳乃德(20021200)。認同衝突和政治信任:現階段臺灣族群政治的核心難題。臺灣社會學,4,75-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.蔡瑞明(1996)。龍鳳配對?-臺灣夫妻間教育與階級的關係。行政院國家科學委員會研究彙刊:人文及社會科學,6(2),258-277。  延伸查詢new window
18.蔡淑鈴(1996)。臺灣婚姻配對之變遷:族群與教育的相對重要性。行政院國家科學委員會研究彙刊:人文及社會科學,6(2),301-315。  延伸查詢new window
19.Qian, Zhenchao(1997)。Breaking the Racial Barriers: Variations in Interracial Marriage between 1980 and 1990。Demography,34(2),263-276。  new window
20.Blau, Peter M.、Blum, Terry C.、Schwartz, Joseph E.(1982)。Heterogeneity and Intermarriage。American Sociological Review,47,45-62。  new window
21.Blau, Peter M.、Beeker, Carolyn、Fitzpatrick, Kevin M.(1984)。Intersecting Social Affiliations and Intermarriage。Social Forces,62(3),585-606。  new window
22.Blackwell, Debra L.(1998)。Marital Homogamy in the United States: The Influence of Individual and Paternal Education。Social Science Research,27,159-188。  new window
23.Eckland, Bruce K.(1968)。Theories of Mate Selection。Eugenics Quarterly,15,71-84。  new window
24.Emerson, Michael O.、Kimbro, Rachel Tolbert、Yancey, George(2002)。Contact Theory Extended: The Effects of Prior Racial Contact on Current Social Ties。Social Science Quarterly,83(3),745-761。  new window
25.Gurak, Douglas T.、Fitzpatrick, Joseph P.(1982)。Intermarriage among Hispanic Ethnic Groups in New York City。American Journal of Sociology,87,921-934。  new window
26.Huckfeldt, R. Robert(1983)。Social Context, Social Networks, and Urban Neigh- borhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choices。American Journal of Sociology,89,651-669。  new window
27.Jorfensen, Stephen R.(1977)。Social Class Heterogamy, Status Striving, and Perceptions of Marital Conflict: A Partial Replication and Revision of Pearlin's Contingency Hypothesis。Journal of Marriage and Family,39,653-661。  new window
28.Kalmijn, Matthijs(1991)。Status Homogamy in the United States。American Journal of Sociology,97,496-523。  new window
29.Kalmijn, Matthijs(1991)。Shifting Boundaries: Trends in Religious and Educational Homogamy。American Sociological Review,56,786-800。  new window
30.Kalmijn, Matthijs(1993)。Trends in Black/White Intermarriage。Social Forces,72(1),119-146。  new window
31.Kulczycki, Andrzei and Arun Peter Lobo(2002)。Patterns, Determinants, and Implications of Intermarriage among Arab Americans。Journal of Marriage and Family,64,202-210。  new window
32.Stevens, Gillian(1991)。Propinquity and Educational Homogamy。Sociological Forum,6,715-726。  new window
33.Tinker, John N.(1973)。Intermarriage and Ethnic Boundaries: The Japanese American Case。Journal of Social Issues,29(2),49-66。  new window
34.蔡瑞明、巫麗雪(2006)。Marrying Someone from an Outside Group: An Analysis of Boundary-crossing Marriages in Taiwan。Current Sociology,54(2),165-186。  new window
會議論文
1.章英華、黃毅志(1999)。婚配與朋友核心網絡之變遷 : 1970與1990年代的比較。臺灣社會的個人網絡 : 第三次社會變遷基本調查研討會。臺北:中央研究院社會學研究所籌備處。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.章英華、傅仰止(2002)。台灣社會變遷基本調查計劃:第四期第二次調查計劃執行報告 (計畫編號:NSC90-2420-H-001-004-B1)。臺北:中央研究院社會學研究所。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.Janssen, Jacques P. G.(2001)。Do Opposites Attract Divorce? Dimensions of Mixed Marriage and the Risk of Divorce in the Netherlands,Netherlands。  new window
圖書
1.Bogardus, Emory S.(1959)。Social Distance。Antioch Press。  new window
2.Ritzer, G.(1992)。Sociological theory。McGraw-Hill。  new window
3.陳其南(1990)。家庭與社會--臺灣和中國社會研究的基礎理念。臺北:聯經。  延伸查詢new window
4.Blau, Peter M.、Schwartz, Joseph E.(1984)。Crosscutting Social Circles。Orlando, FL:Academic Press。  new window
5.Treiman, D. J.(1977)。Occupational prestige in comparative perspective。New York:Academic Press。  new window
6.Simmel, Gerog(1955)。Conflict and the Web of Group-affiliations。London:Free Press。  new window
7.Turner, Jonathan H.、Maryanski, Alexandra、Fuchs, Stephan(1991)。The Structure of Sociological Theory。Belmont, Calif.:Wadsworth Publication。  new window
8.Gordon, Milton Myron(1964)。Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins。Oxford University Press。  new window
9.Simmel, Georg、Wolff, Kurt H.(1950)。The Sociology of Georg Simmel。Free Press。  new window
10.王甫昌(20030000)。當代臺灣社會的族群想像。臺北市:群學出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.林忠正、林鶴玲(1993)。臺灣族群的經濟差異。族群關係與國家認同。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
12.蔡瑞明(2002)。臺灣的社會階層化過程。臺灣社會。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
13.薛承泰(1993)。臺灣地區夫妻配對的初探:年齡、省籍、教育程度同質性。臺灣地區社會意向調查八十二年二月定期報告。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
14.Blau, Peter M.(1978)。Inequality and Heterogeneity。Inequality and Heterogeneity。New York, NY。  new window
15.Marsden, Peter(1990)。Network Diversity, Substructures, and Opportunities for Contact。Structures of Power and Constraint。Cambridge, MA。  new window
其他
1.內政部(2003)。內政統計通報,1,0。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.陳東升、陳端容(2001)。台灣跨社會群體結構性社會資本的比較分析。社會轉型與文化變貌:華人社會的比較。香港:香港中文大學香港亞太研究所。  延伸查詢new window
2.王甫昌(2001)。臺灣族群通婚與族群關係再探。社會轉型與文化變貌:華人社會的比較。香港:香港中文大學香港亞太研究所。  延伸查詢new window
3.洪永泰、李俊仁、孫瑞霞(1994)。歷次社會變遷與社會意向調查的籍貫與教育程度分析。台灣社會的民眾意向:社會科學的分析。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。  延伸查詢new window
4.胡台麗(1993)。芋仔與蕃薯--臺灣「榮民」的族群關係與認同。族群關係與國家認同。臺北:業強。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.De Graaf, N. Dirk、Smeenk, W.、Ultee, W.、Timm, A.(2003)。The When and Whom of First Marriage in the Netherlands。Who Marries Whom: Educational Systems as Marriage Markets in Modern Societies。London:Kluwer Academic。  new window
6.謝雨生、鄭宜仲(1995)。多元迴歸分析的假定與實例檢討:多元線性重合現象的診斷與處理。社會調查與分析:社會科學研究方法檢討與前瞻之一。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。  延伸查詢new window
7.伊慶春、熊瑞梅(1994)。擇偶過程之網絡與婚姻關係:對介紹人、婚姻配對、和婚姻滿意度之分析。臺灣社會的民眾意向:社會科學的分析。臺北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE