性別化的社會資本與配偶網絡

Gender Differences in Social Capital and Spousal Networks

10.30401/RSS.201410_8(2).0004

傅仰止(Yang-Chih Fu)；張心潔(Hsin-Chieh Chang)

社會資本 ； 配偶網絡 ； 網絡重疊 ； 網絡媒介 ； 性別角色 ； Social Capital ； Spousal Networks ； Network Overlapping ； Network Bridging ； Gender Roles

社會科學論叢

8卷2期（2014 / 10 / 01）

125 - 165

繁體中文

本研究探討社會資本和配偶網絡的關聯，如何因性別角色的社會建構過程，產生差異。社會資本測量採用定位法（Position Generator），配偶網絡的指標則包括夫妻雙方朋友圈的「重疊」（overlapping）程度，以及在位置網絡中經過配偶結識對象的「媒介」（bridging）比例。考量內生性（endogeneity）因素後，兩階段迴歸分析發現如下：夫妻網絡重疊程度與雙方各自的社會資本密切相關，女性較易以配偶既有的網絡作為媒介。女性透過配偶網絡媒介的幅度，可由網絡重疊清楚區辨，但是這兩項網絡指標，對男性建構其社會資本而言，並無關聯。已婚女性容易依附於先生的個人網絡，建構其個人社會資本，而已婚男性的社會資本，則相對獨立於太太的個人網絡。本文依據這項研究發現，討論社會資本與配偶網絡的性別化傾向，如何鑲嵌於台灣社會對家庭與婚姻內部性別角色的規範，又如何和就業市場性別化分工的脈絡息息相關。

Based on two large-scale representative surveys in Taiwan, this study examines how married men and women differ in the ways that social capital is linked to two types of spousal networks: overlapping and bridging. Network overlapping refers to the degree that one knows the spouse' friends; network bridging indicates the extent to which one gets to know someone at various ranks along the occupational hierarchy through the spouse. After taking the issue of endogeneity into account, two-stage multivariate regression analyses show that individual social capital is positively associated with the degree of network overlapping. Moreover, married women are more likely to build their social capital through bridging spousal networks than married men. To what extent such a bridging role plays for a wife clearly varies by how well she knows her husband's friends. In contrast, the husband's tendency to rely on bridging spousal networks, if any, cannot be identified by the extent of network overlapping. It appears that married women's social capital is often contingent upon their husbands' personal networks, yet married men tend to construct their own social capital independently of their wives' existing circles. We interpret such findings with the cultural norms in Taiwan that impose different expectations to married men and women regarding gender and family roles, as well as the structural constrains in the labor market that restrict married women's networking with more prestigious and resourceful social circles.

1. 呂玉瑕、伊慶春(2005)。社會變遷中的夫妻資源與家務分工：台灣七〇年代與九〇年代社會文化脈絡的比較。台灣社會學，10，41-94。
   連結：
2. 侯佩君、杜素豪、廖培珊、洪永泰、章英華(2008)。台灣鄉鎮市區類型之研究：台灣社會變遷基本調查第五期計畫之抽樣分層效果分析。調查研究—方法與應用，23，7-32。
   連結：
3. Baron, James N.,Hannan, Michael T.(1994).The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Sociology.Journal of Economic Literature,32,1111-1146.
4. Bernard, Jessie Shirley(1982).The Future of Marriage.New Haven:Yale University Press.
5. Bianchi, Suzanne M,Milkie, Melissa A,Sayer, Liana C,Robinson, John P(2000).Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.Social Forces,79(1),191-228.
6. Boisjoly, Johanne,Duncan, Greg J.,Hofferth, Sandra(1995).Access to Social Capital.Journal of Family Issues,16(5),609-631.
7. Bott, Elizabeth(1957).Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families.New York:The Free Press.
8. Burt, Ronald(1992).Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
9. Burt, Ronald S.(1987).A Note on Strangers, Friends and Happiness.Social Networks,9(4),311-331.
10. Coleman, James S.(1988).Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.American Journal of Sociology,94,S95-S120.
11. Coleman, James S.(1990).Foundations of Social Theory.Cambridge, MA.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
12. Davis, S. N.,Greenstein, T. N.(2009).Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences.Annual Review of Sociology,35,87-105.
13. Esser, Hartmut(2003).Social Embeddedness and Marital (In-)Stability.Colloquium on Creation and Returns of Social Capital,Amsterdam:
14. Fischer, C. S.,Oliker, S. J.(1983).Research Note on Friendship, Gender, and the Life Cycle.Social Forces,62,124-133.
15. Fischer, Claude S.(1981).The Public and Private Worlds of City Life.American Sociological Review,46(3),306-316.
16. Flora, Jan L.(1998).Social Capital and Communities of Place.Rural Sociology,63(4),481-506.
17. Ganzeboom, Harry B. G.,Treiman, Donald J.(1996).Internationally Comparable Measures of Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations.Social Science Research,25,201-239.
18. Granovetter, Mark S.(1973).The Strength of Weak Ties.American Journal of Sociology,78(6),1360-1380.
19. Hsiung, Ray-May,Yi, Chin-Chun,Fu, Yang-chih(2006).Overlapping Social Networks: How Couples Manage Family Expenditure in Taiwan.Current Sociology,54(2),187-208.
20. Hsung, Ray-May,Lin, Nan,Brieger, Ronald(2009).Contexts of Social Capital: Social Networks in Markets, Communities, and Families.London:Routledge.
21. Kadushin, Charles(2012).Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings.Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
22. Lin, Chung-cheng(1989).Occupational Segregation Between Sexes in Taiwan.Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy,2,155-175.
23. Lin, N.(ed.),Cook, K.(ed.),Burt, R.(ed.)(2001).Social Capital: Theory and Research.New York:Aldine de Gruyter.
24. Lin, Nan(2001).Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
25. Lin, Nan(ed.),Cook, Karen(ed.),Burt, Ronald S.(ed.)(2001).Social Capital: Theory and Research.New York:Aldine de Gruyter.
26. Lin, Nan,Erickson, Bonnie H.(2008).Social Capital: An International Research Program.Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
27. Lin, Nan,Fu, Yang-chih,Chen, Chih-jou Jay(2014).Social Capital and Its Institutional Contingency: A Study of the United States, China and Taiwan.London:Routledge Press.
28. Marsden, Peter V.(ed.),Lin, Nan(ed.)(1982).Social Structure and Network Analysis.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Pub.
29. Nelson, Joel I.(1966).Clique Contacts and Family Orientation.American Sociological Review,31(5),663-672.
30. Park, Mee-Hae(1991).Patterns and trends of educational mating in Korea.Korea Journal of Population and Development,20(2),1-15.
31. Park, Robert E. [1925] 1915. “The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment,” reprinted in R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie eds., The City: Chicago (University of Chicago Press), pp.1~46.
32. Putnam, Robert D.(2000).Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community.New York:Simon & Schuster.
33. Richardson, J.(ed.)(1986).Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.New York:Greenwood Press.
34. Sampson, Robert J.,Morenoff, Jeffrey D.,Earls, Felton(1999).Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children.American Sociological Review,64(5),633-660.
35. StataCorp(2013).Stata Treatment-Effects Reference Manual: Potential Outcomes/Counterfactual Outcomes.College Station, TX:StataCorp LP. Hu.
36. Winship, C.,Morgan, S.L.(1999).The Estimation of Causal Effects from Observational Data.Annual Review of Sociology,25,659-706.
37. Wirth, Louis. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, no. 1 (July), pp. 1~24.
38. Zhang, W.(2009)."A Married Out Daughter Is Like Spilt Water"? Women's Increasing Contacts and Enhanced Ties with Their Natal Families in Post-Reform Rural North China.Modern China,35(3),256-283.
39. 王素彎、連文榮(1989)。台灣地區勞動市場的性別歧視。台灣銀行季刊，40(1)，363-381。
40. 田安里、黃財尉、楊素圓(2006)。雙薪家庭夫妻間有一樣的婚姻滿意度嗎？從夫妻性別角色態度與角色承諾的觀點研究。國立臺北教育大學學報，19(2)，255-280。
41. 林南、陳志柔、傅仰止(2010)。社會關係的類型和效應：臺灣、美國、中國大陸的三地比較。台灣社會學刊，45，117-162。
42. 張晉芬(2002)。找回文化：勞動市場中制度與結構的性別化過程。台灣社會學刊，29，97-125。
43. 章英華、傅仰止(2002)。,台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
44. 章英華、傅仰止、張苙雲、瞿海源(2012)。附錄：台灣社會變遷基本調查計畫的演變（1985-2011）。台灣的社會變遷1985~2005：家庭與婚姻，台灣社會變遷基本調查系列三之1，台北:
45. 傅仰止(1995)。都市人的社會心理特質：公私場域之分。中國社會學刊，18，17-73。
46. 黃柏銓(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台灣大學生物產業傳播暨發展學研究所。
47. 黃紀(2008)。因果推論與觀察研究：『反事實模型』之思考。社會科學論叢，2(1)，1-22。
48. 劉毓秀編(1995)。台灣婦女處境白皮書報告：1995年。台北:時報。
49. 蔡宗和(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北大學社會學系。
50. 蔡明璋(2002)。權力、性別意識、親密關係與家務分工。台灣社會學會 2002年年會，台中:
51. 邊燕杰編、涂肇慶編、蘇耀昌編(2001)。華人社會的調查研究：方法與發現。香港:牛津大學出版社。

1. 蔡子弘,王光旭(2022)。社會資本與公民意識：世代差異的比較。公共行政學報，63，51-102。
2. (2023)。困於夾縫中的勞動者如何生存：以社會排除與社會資本理論探討鄉村中高齡婦女勞動型態。社會政策與社會工作學刊，27(2)，47-97。