Family Influence on Partner Choice of Second Generation: What Are the Experiences of Turkish Origin Women in Switzerland?



Alternative partner choices of youth with a migratory background might be exogamy (out-group partners), local endogamy (co-ethnic partners living in the host country) and transnational endogamy (co-ethnic partners from the country of origin). In the literature, transnational marriages are often associated with strong family influence. Swiss TIES (The Integration of European Second Generation) Survey reveals that native-born youth of Turkish descent are rarely confronted with some family influence while choosing a partner, whatever the migratory status of the partner is. The issue concerns women almost exclusively.

In this paper, I analyse partner choices of Turkish origin women in Switzerland in order to explore whether families play a role in their partner choice processes, how and why families exert influence and how daughters perceive and react to such influence. In-depth interviews of Turkish origin women make it possible to explore, in greater detail, perceptions of family influence on partner choices as well as the coping strategies employed by young women. I find a variety of ways in which families influence partner choices and point out how young people negotiate their choices.


Migratory Background Family Influence Partner Choice Turkish Origin Family Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ballard, R. (2008). Inside and outside: Contrasting perspectives on the dynamics of kinship and marriage in contemporary South Asian transnational networks. In R. Grillo (Ed.), Immigrant families in multicultural Europe: Debating cultural difference (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2007). Transnational lives, transnational marriages: A review of the evidence from migrant communities in Europe. Global Networks, 7(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boos-Nünning, U., & Karakasoglu, Y. (2004). Viele Welten Leben. Lebenslagen von Mädchen und jungen Frauen mit griechischem, italienischem, jugoslawischem, türkischem und Aussiedlerhintergrund. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familien, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Questions de sociologie. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  5. Böcker, A. (1994). Chain migration over legally closed borders: Settled immigrants as bridgeheads and gatekeepers. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, 30(2), 87–106.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corijn, M. (2009, 25–26 June). Divorce among Turkish and Moroccan marriage migrants in Flanders (Belgium). Paper presented at the seventh meeting of the European Network for the Sociological and Demographic Study of Divorce, Antwerp, Belgium.
  8. Crul, M., & Doomernik, J. (2003). The Turkish and Moroccan second generation in the Netherlands: Divergent trends between and polarization within the two groups. International Migration Review, 37(4), 1039–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erdem, E. (2009). Islam, secularism and gender equality: Empirical findings from 1998 demographic and health survey in Turkey. APSA 2009 Toronto meeting paper. Accessed 23 June 2012.
  10. Fibbi, R., Wanner, P., Kaya, B., & Piguet, E. (2004). Second generation immigrants from Turkey in Switzerland. Zeitschrift für Türkeistudien, 16(1/2), 217–239.Google Scholar
  11. Fibbi, R., & Topgül, C., et al. (2010). Second generation of Turkish and former Yugoslavian descent in Zurich and Basel. TIES Country Report. Neuchatel: Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies.Google Scholar
  12. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Huschek, D., De Valk, H. A. G., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2012). Partner choice patterns among the descendants of Turkish immigrants in Europe. European Journal of Population, 28(3), 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalmijn, M., & Van Tubergen, F. (2010). A comparative analysis of intermarriage: Explaining differences among national-origin groups in the United States. Demography, 47, 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalmijn, M., Liefbroer, A. C., Van Poppel, F., & Van Solinge, H. (2006). The family factor in Jewish-Gentile intermarriage: A sibling analysis of The Netherlands. Social Forces, 84(3), 1347–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koç, I., Hancıoğlu, A., & Çavlin, A. (2008). Demographic differentials and demographic integration of Turkish and Kurdish populations in Turkey. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lievens, J. (1999). Family-forming migration from Turkey and Morocco to Belgium: The demand for marriage partners from the countries of origin. The International Migration Review, 33(3), 717–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milewski, N., & Hamel, C. (2010). Union formation and partner choice in a transnational context: The case of descendants of Turkish immigrants in France. International Migration Review, 44(3), 615–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nauck, B. (2007). Immigrant families in Germany. Family change between situational adaptation, acculturation, segregation and remigration. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 19, 34–54.Google Scholar
  23. Prieur, A. (2002). Gender remix: On gender constructions among children of immigrants in Norway. Ethnicities, 2(1), 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Santelli, E., & Collet, B. (2012). The choice of mixed marriage among the second generation in France. Papers, 97/1, 93–112.Google Scholar
  25. Sayad, A. (1979). Les enfants illégitimes. Actes de La Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 25, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaw, A., & Charsley, K. (2006). Rishtas: Adding emotion to strategy in understanding British Pakistani transnational marriages. Global Networks, 6(4), 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Straßburger, G. (2004). Transnational ties of the second generation: Marriages of Turks in Germany. In T. Faist & E. Ozveren (Eds.), Transnational social spaces. Agents, networks and institutions (pp. 211–223). Gateshead: Athenaeum Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tekçe, B. (2004). Paths of marriage in Istanbul: Arranging choices and choice in arrangement. Ethnography, 5(2), 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Timmerman, C. (2006). Gender dynamics in the context of Turkish marriage migration: The case of Belgium. Turkish Studies, 7(1), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Topgül, C., & Wanner, P. (2009, 27 September–2 October). Marriage migration from Turkey to Switzerland: Exploring the causes for women and men. Poster paper presented at the XXVI IUSSP International Population Conference, Marrakech, Morocco.
  31. Williams, L. (2010). Global marriage: Cross-border marriage migration in global context. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Demographic and Life Course Studies (I-DEMO)University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations