PERFIL DEL PUESTO

As outlined in chapter 3.1 in part I, parents have a wide range of ways and methods to get involved in their children’s mate selection. These range from mild low-degree interference to the most extreme form of forced marriages. Due to the information available within the TIES survey, the investigation of direct parental influence is restricted to the examination of parental pressure and the channel of meeting one’s partner. First, respondents were asked about the enforcing and discouraging pressures exerted by their families and in-laws towards their current union. Especially negative pressure is important since it can prevent the formation of unions or break them up (e.g., Yahya and Boag 2014). Moreover, it promotes the couple’s lower commitment and investment in the relationship (Lehmiller and Agnew 2006).

Within the present sample, a tenth indicates having experienced pressure to separate (cf.

Table II.1.1). More than twice as many experienced supportive pressure by their families and in-laws (result not shown). Thus, it seems that parents are more open to taking an affirmative rather than destructive approach to getting involved in the partner choice process. However, it might also be that second-generation immigrants are more open to admitting their parents’ supportiveness rather than resistance. Negative pressure is most common among Turks (12 percent), followed by Moroccans (10 percent) and uncommon among Ex-Yugoslavs (2 percent). Moroccan parents most often act encouragingly (25 percent), closely followed by Turks whereas only 11 percent of Ex-Yugoslavs experience such encouraging influence (cf. Table II.1.1). Women are somewhat more likely to experience any form of pressure (results not shown).

Table II.1.6 displays the ethnic partner choice patterns for those who claim to have experienced pressure to separate by their parents or in-laws. A chi-square test supports the overall association between such negative pressure and ethnic partner choice and renders it significant. However, Cramér’s V indicates only a minor correlation. Pressure to part with one’s partner is not specific to one union type but can be found across all of them. Yet, a

Parental Influence on the Ethnic Partner Choice within Immigrant Families in Europe

141

higher share of couples who were pressured to separate is ethnically mixed as compared to couples without this experience. The difference in the experience of negative parental pressure between endogamous and exogamous unions is statistically significant at the .1-percent level (result not shown). This result thus supports hypothesis 1a which presumes that ethnically endogamous couples are less likely to experience pressure to separate than ethnically mixed couples. This hypothesis is based on the notion that parents tend to prefer ethnic endogamy for their offspring. This preference originates from the endogamy norm which parents try to enforce. This norm is inherent in many social groups as it promises the conservation and survival of the culture across generations. Moreover, similarity of partners is seen as a guarantee for a more harmonious and successful relationship (cf. chapter 2.5 in part I).

As mentioned before, this sample does not comprise couples who gave in to such pressures and separated before becoming more serious or relationships that were prevented from forming in the first place (cf. Yahya and Boag 2014). Moreover, some respondents might not have disclosed their own experience. After all, parental involvement and especially negative interference is uncommon and perceived adversely within the native European population.

Thus, the true share of couples facing opposition is likely to be higher and might be related more strongly to interethnic unions.

Shares of parental negative pressure are not significantly different between transnational and locally endogamous couples. This result is contradictory to hypothesis 1b which assumes that locally endogamous unions experience more negative parental pressure than transnational unions. The reasoning standing behind this assumption is that parents are more often directly involved in transnational than in locally endogamous partner choice (e.g., Beck-Gernsheim 2007). Thus, they have simply no need to express their disagreement since they are already more likely to be a part of the decision process itself and can voice their opinions therein.

TABLE II.1.6 ETHNIC PARTNER CHOICE BY THE EXPERIENCE OF PRESSURE TO SEPARATE BY THE FAMILY

Transnational

union Union with

local co-ethnic Interethnic:

Native Interethnic:

Other minority Total

No Obs. 656 598 192 68 1,514

% 43.3 a 39.5 a 12.7a 4.5 100.0

Yes Obs. 61 57 29 18 165

% 37.0 a 34.5 a 17.6a 10.9 100.0

Total Obs. 717 655 221 86 1,679

% 42.7 39.0 13.2 5.1 100.0

Cramér's V = .10 𝜒²(3) = 17.0 (p<.01)

Note: Shares in the same column that do not share a subscript differ at p<.05 in the Bonferroni multiple comparison test.

The relationship between encouraging pressure and ethnic partner choice is even weaker (Cramér’s V = .07; 𝜒² (3, N = 1,676) = 8.48, p<.05) than that of the pressure to separate.

Thus, I will not consider it further and also rely on negative, discouraging pressure for the multivariate analyses.

Parental Influence on the Ethnic Partner Choice within Immigrant Families in Europe

142

While marriage arrangement is becoming less common (Baykara-Krumme 2017) and displays an increase in participation and independence of the couple (Baykara-Krumme 2014; Lesthaeghe and Surkyn 1995; Topgül 2015), this form of union formation has not ceased to exist entirely. Moreover, an intermediate form has emerged. Therein, parental approval supplements the couple’s free partner choice or the couple’s approval supplements the parental choice (e.g., Lesthaeghe and Surkyn 1995; Topgül 2015).

Accordingly, it is interesting to have a look at the extent to which young immigrant couples meet through parents rather than through other channels such as friends or leisure activities. The TIES survey contains information on how respondents met their current partner. This information is only available for four out of the six countries, i.e., for Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and France. Table II.1.7 displays the ethnic partner choice patterns by the way the couples met for these countries.

TABLE II.1.7 ETHNIC PARTNER CHOICE BY CHANNEL OF MEETING ONE'S PARTNER Transnational

Note: Shares in the same column that do not share a subscript differ at p<.05 in the Bonferroni multiple comparison test.

Almost a third of all respondents met their family more or less directly through the family.

This is the most common form of meeting. Besides being introduced by the parents, this includes having met in a family celebration, during holidays in the parental country of origin, or through someone in the parents’ friendship network. Meeting at a family celebration or during holidays in the home country are most common therein. In total, only 5 percent indicated that they were introduced by their parents. Overall, meeting through the family is more common (41 percent) among Turks than among Moroccans or Yugoslavs.

Among the latter, this accounts for less than a sixth of all unions. After meeting through the family, meeting through friends (27 percent), at work, in school, or at university (16 percent), or during leisure activities (16 percent) are the most prevalent forms. Among Ex-Yugoslavs, meeting through friends is most common and among Moroccans, meeting during leisure time or at work, school, or university. With regard to the various union types,

Parental Influence on the Ethnic Partner Choice within Immigrant Families in Europe

143

couples who met through the family are – not very surprisingly – especially endogamous unions. The share of transnational unions is also highest in this group (cf. Table II.1.7).

Work, school, or university contexts in particular, as well as a public environment, seem to provide good opportunities for the emergence of ethnically mixed unions due to the higher likelihood of being ethnically heterogeneous.

1.5.2 INDIRECT INFLUENCE VIA INTERGENERATION CULTURAL TRANSMISSION