臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的主要目的在於探討擇偶的過程(認識場合、婚姻自主性、離校至結婚的時間間距)對異質性婚姻配對(教育與族群)的影響。過去的研究在探討影響婚姻配對模式的因素時，多半將焦點關注於個人特質、家庭特性與區位結構如何對個人的擇偶行為發揮作用力，因此忽略擇偶過程的影響。本文試圖運用宏觀的人口結構理論與微觀的次結構供給理論作為本文的理論架構，探討擇偶過程中認識場合、婚姻自主性、離校至結婚的時間間距對異質婚姻配對模式的作用，藉此瞭解擇偶過程的運作邏輯如何影響夫妻之間的婚姻配對。本文主要是分析「台灣社會變遷調查計畫」第四期第二次『家庭組』的調查資料，釐清促成異質性婚姻配對的因素。
本文的研究發現，擇偶過程是影響異質性婚姻配對的重要因素。就教育配對的部分而言，學校是一個抑制教育異質性婚姻配對的場合；而且人們離開學校越久，學校制度的影響效果越小，有越高的機會跨越教育障礙通婚；另外婚姻自主性對於跨越多個教育類屬的教育異質性配對也有促進效果。族群配對的分析結果顯示，教育程度對於跨越族群藩籬並不具有顯著的作用；學校、工作場合或非組織化場合相對於家庭鄰里，皆提高族群通婚的機會；自己決定婚姻者也有較高的通婚機會。

The main purpose of this study is to explore the effects of mating process on the likelihood of heterogeneous marriages in terms of educational attainment and ethnicity. Previous research tends to focus on the influence of individual characteristics, family’s attributes, and ecological structure on the mating; however, ignore the process of mating itself. This thesis attempts to employ the viewpoints of macro populational structure theory and micro substructure of supply-and-demand to analyze the dynamics of mating process, in particular, the organized setting that a couple meets each other, the degree of autonomy in making the decision of marriage, and the timing of marriage, in order to understand the making of heterogeneous marriages. The data of this analysis is mainly based on the Fourth Wave (Part II, Family Study) of Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS).
The results show that the mating process is an important factor in the making of the heterogeneous mating, i.e. boundary-crossing marriages. In terms of educational attainment, school one attended, as an organized setting, plays a significant role in reducing the likelihood of boundary-crossing marriages. In addition, the longer one leaves the schools, the lower the effect of schools as a restraining mechanism, therefore, increases the likelihood that one would marriage someone from a different group. The higher the degree of autonomy in one’s marriages decision-making, the higher the likelihood one would accept a heterogeneous marriage. In terms of assortative marriages of ethnicity, education does not play a significant role in boundary-crossing marriages. Comparing with the effect of neighborhood, certain organized settings, such as schools, workplaces, tend to increase the chance of heterogeneous marriages of ethnicity. The degree of autonomy also plays an important role in breaking the boundary of ethnicity in the marriage market.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
目錄 iii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究緣起 1
第二節 問題意識 4
第二章 理論架構與文獻回顧 8
第一節 婚姻市場的理性選擇 8
第二節 結構理論與婚姻配對 11
一 宏觀的人口結構理論 11
二 微觀的結構供給理論 13
第三節 教育配對的相關研究探討 17
第四節 族群配對的相關研究探討 23
第三章 分析架構與研究設計 28
第一節 研究架構 28
第二節 研究假設 30
一 夫妻教育配對的假設 30
二 夫妻族群配對的假設 32
第三節 研究設計與分析方法 35
一 資料來源 35
二 變項測量 36
1 依變項的定義與測量：跨界婚姻 36
a 教育異質婚 36
b 族群異質婚 38
2 自變項的定義與測量 39
3 樣本基本特性 42
三 分析方法 46
第四章 研究結果 48
第一節 婚姻配對之世代變化 48
第二節 擇偶過程之對應分析與迴歸分析 52
第三節 跨越教育界限之婚姻配對分析 58
一 描述性統計分析 58
二 夫妻教育異質性配對之邏輯迴歸分析 60
(一) 廣義之夫妻教育異質性配對分析 62
(二) 狹義之夫妻教育異質性配對分析 67
(三) 結語 68
第四節 跨越族群界限之婚姻配對分析 71
一 描述性統計分析 71
二 夫妻族群配對之邏輯迴歸分析 73
三 結語 76
第五章 結論與討論 81
參考書目 85
圖表
圖一 基本研究架構 29
圖二 夫妻教育異質性婚姻配對之趨勢圖 50
圖三 夫妻族群通婚之趨勢圖 51
圖四 擇偶過程之對應分析圖 56
表格
表一 教育異質婚的定義 38
表二 樣本基本特性(依變項) 44
表三 樣本基本特性(自變項) 44
表四 擇偶過程之迴歸分析 57
表五 夫妻教育配對之描述統計分析 59
表六 教育異質性婚姻配對（廣義）之邏輯迴歸分析 66
表七 教育異質性婚姻配對（狹義）之邏輯回歸分析 70
表八 夫妻族群配對之描述統計分析 72
表九 族群配對之邏輯迴歸分析(全部樣本) 77
表九(續) 族群配對之邏輯迴歸分析(部份樣本) 78
表十 教育對族群通婚的影響 79
表十一 擇偶過程對族群通婚的影響 80

中文參考書目
內政部統計處，2003，內政統計通報(1)：4。
王甫昌，1993a，〈光復後台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。
王甫昌，1993b，〈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。
王甫昌，2001，〈台灣族群通婚與族群關係再探〉。頁393-340，收錄於劉兆佳、尹寶珊、李明堃、黃紹倫主編《社會轉型與文化變貌》。香港：香港中文大學香港亞太研究所。
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〉。頁135-177，收錄於伊慶春主編《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。
林俊瑩，2001，〈中小學教師婚姻配對模式的特性之研究〉，《台灣教育社會學研究》1(1)：181-208。
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〉。頁333-361，收錄於伊慶春主編《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。
許崇憲，1999，《台灣地區各年齡層中、小學男女教師的婚姻配對》。台北：國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文。
張思嘉、周玉慧、黃宗堅，1999，〈從擇偶歷程看婚姻關係的形成與發展〉，國科會八十八年度專題研究計畫報告。
張思嘉，2001，〈擇偶歷程與婚前關係的形成與發展〉，《中華心理衛生期刊》4：1-29。
張茂桂、蕭新煌，1987，〈大學生的「中國結」與「台灣結」-自我認定與通婚觀念的分析〉，《中國論壇》289：34-53。
張維安、王德睦，1983，〈社會流動與選擇性婚姻〉，《中國社會學刊》 7：191-214。
蔡淑鈴，1994，〈台灣之婚姻配對模式〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》6(2)：335-371。
薛承泰，1993，〈台灣地區夫妻配對的初探：年齡、省籍、教育程度同質性〉。頁19-43，《台灣地區社會意向調查八十二年二月定期報告》。台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
薛承泰，1995，〈變遷中的台灣家庭結構：從人口與婚姻談起〉，《社會建設季刊》89：81-94。
謝雨生、鄭怡仲，1995，〈多元回歸分析的假定與實例探討：多元線性重合現象的診斷與處理〉，頁283-311，收錄於章英華等編《社會調查與分析：社會科學研究方法檢討與前瞻之一》。台北：中央研究院民族學研究所。
羅啟宏，1992，〈台灣省鄉鎮發展類型之研究〉，《台灣經濟月刊》，190: 41-68。
英文參考書目
Adams, Bert N. 1979. “Mate Selection in the United States: A Theoretical Summarization.” Pp. 259-267 in Contemporary Theories about the Family edited by W. R. Burr. New York: Free Press.
Becker, Gary S. 1981. A Treatise on Family. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. (王文娟、李華夏、吳惠林、鄒繼礎譯)《家庭論》，台北：立緒。
Blau, Peter M. 1978. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
Blau, Peter M. and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1984. Crosscutting Social Circles. Orlando: Academic Press.
Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1994. “The Process of Stratification.” Pp. 317-329 in Social Stratification, edited by David B. Grusky. Boulder: Westview Press.
Blau, Peter M. Terry C. Blum and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1982. “Heterogeneity and Intermarriage.” American Sociological Review 47: 45-62.
Blau, Peter M. Carolyn Beeker, Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 1984. “Intersecting Social Affiliations and Intermarriage.” Social Forces 62(3): 585-606.
Buss, David M. Todd K. Shackelford, Lee A. Kirkpatrick and Randy J. Larsen. 2001. “A Half Century of Mate Preferences: The Cultural Evolution of Values.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63: 491-503.
Blackwell, Debra L. 1998. “Marital Homogamy in the United States: The Influence of Individual and Paternal Education.” Social Science Research 27: 159-188.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. London: Macmillan.
De Graaf, Nan Dirk, Wilma Smeenk, Wout Ultee, and Andreas Timm. 2003.“The When and Whom of First Marriage in the Netherlands.” Forthcoming in a book edited by Hans-Peter Blossfeld and Andreas Timm.
Eckland, Bruce K. 1968. “Theories of Mate Selection.” Eugenics Quarterly 15: 71-84.
Emerson, Michael O. Rachel Tolbert Kimbro and George Yancey. 2002. “Contact Theory Extended: The Effects of Prior Racial Contact on Current Social Ties.” Social Science Quarterly 83(3): 745-761.
Feld, Scott. 1981. “The Focused Organization of Social Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 86: 1015-1035.
Feld, Scott. 1982. “Social Structural Determinants of Similarity among Association.” American Sociological Review 47: 797-801.
Grusky, David B. 1994. “The Contours of Social Stratification.” Pp. 3-35 in Social Stratification, edited by David B. Grusky. Boulder: Westview Press.
Hwang, Sean-Sgong, Rogelio Saenz, Benigno E. Aguirre. 1994. “Structural and Individual Determinants of Outmarriage among Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese Americans in California.” Sociological Inquiry 64: 396-414.
Huckfeldt, R. Robert. 1983. “Social Context, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choices.” American Journal of Sociology 89: 651-669.
Janssen, Jacques P. G. 2001. Do Opposites Attract Divorce? Dimensions of Mixed Marriage and the Risk of Divorce in the Netherlands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1991a. “Status Homogamy in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 97(2): 496-523.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1991b. “Shifting Boundaries: Trends in Religious and Educational Homogamy.” American Sociological Review 56(6): 786-800.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1993. “Trends in Black/White Intermarriage.” Social Forces 72(1): 119-146.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1994. “Assortative Mating by Cultural and Economic Occupational Status.” American Journal of Sociology 100: 422-452.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 395-421.
Kalmijn, Matthijs and Henk Flap. 2001. “Assortative Meeting and Mating: Unintended Consequences of Organized Setting for Partner Choices.” Social Forces 79(4): 1289-1312.
Kulczycki, Andrzei and Arun Peter Lobo. 2002. “Patterns, Determinants, and Implications of Intermarriage among Arab American.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 202-210.
Kikumura, Akemi and Harry H. L. Kitano. 1973. “Interracial Marriage: A Picture of the Japanese Americans.” Journal of Social Issues 29(2):67-81.
Mare, Robert D. 1991. “Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating.” American Sociological Review 56(1): 15-32.
Marsden, Peter. 1990. “Network Diversity, Substructures, and Opportunities for Contact.” Pp. 397-410 in Structures of Power and Constraint, edited by Craig Calhoun, Marshall W. Meyer, and W. Richard Scott. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oppenheimer, V.K. 1988. “A Theory of Marriage Timing: Assortative Mating Under Varying Degrees of Uncertainty.” American Journal of Sociology 94(3): 563-591.
Pagnini, Deanna L. and S. Philip Morgan. 1990. “Intermarriage and Social Distance among U.S. Immigrations at the Turn of the Century.” American Journal of Sociology 96(2): 405-432.
Raymo, James M. and Yu Xie. 1998. “Temporal and Regional Variation in the Strength of Educational Homogamy.” American Sociological Review 63：773-781.
Ritzer, George. 1992. Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rex, John. 1986. Race and Ethnicity. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. (顧駿譯)《種族與族類》，台北：桂冠。
Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2002. “Measures of Assimilation in the Marriage Market: Mexican American 1970-1990.”Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 152-162.
Simmel, Georg. 1955. “The Web of Group Affiliations.” Pp.125-195 in Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Smits, Jeroen, Wout Ultee, and Jan Lammers. 1998a. “Educational Homogamy in 65 Countries: An Explanation on Differences in Openness Using Country-Level Explanatory Variables.” American Sociological Review 63: 264-285.
Smits, Jeroen, Wout Ultee, and Jan Lammers. 1998b. “More or Less Educational Homogamy? A Test of Different Versions of Modernization Theory Using Cross-Temporal Evidence for 60 countries.” American Sociological Review 63： 781-788.
Surra, Catherine A. 1990. “Research and Theory on Mate Selection and Premarital Relationships in the 1980s.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:844-865.
Treiman, Donald. 1977. Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Tinker, John N. 1973. “Intermarriage and Ethnic Boundaries: The Japanese American Case.” Journal of Social Issues 29(2):49-66.
Tsai, Shu-Ling (蔡淑鈴). 1996. “The Relative Importance of Ethnicity and Education in Taiwan’s Changing Marriage Market.” Proceedings of Humanities and Social Science 6(2): 301-315.
Tsay, Ruey-Ming (蔡瑞明). 1996. “Who Marries Whom? The Associations between Wives’ and Husbands’ Educational Attainment.” Proceedings of Humanities and Social Science 6(2): 258-277.
Tsay, Ruey-Ming (蔡瑞明) and Li-hsueh Wu(巫麗雪). 2003. “Marrying Someone From a Different Group: An Analysis of Boundary-Crossing Marriages in Taiwan.” Paper presented at conference on “The Intergenerational Relations in Families’ Life Course.” Co-Sponsored by Institute of Sociology and RC06, International Sociological Association. Taipei: Academia Sinica. March 12-14, 2003.
Turner, Jonathan H., Alexandra Maryanski and Stephan Fuchs. 1991. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publication. (吳曲輝等譯)《社會學理論的結構》。台北：桂冠。
Ultee, Wout C. and Rund Luijkx. 1990. “Educational Heterogamy and Father-to-Son Occupational Mobility in 23 Industrial Nations: General Societal Openness or Compensatory Strategies of Reproduction?” European Sociological Review 6: 125-149.