Advertisement

Intimacy, Similarity, and Equality Among Married People in East Asia

Chapter
  • 224 Downloads
Part of the Quality of Life in Asia book series (QLAS, volume 13)

Abstract

This paper endeavors to examine personal intimacy by way of comparative investigation of the confiding behaviors of married men and women in East Asian societies. A number of hypotheses were derived from assortative marriage and pure relationships theories for empirical testing. Assortative marriage contends that similarity is a precondition to intimate disclosure, while pure relationship theory proposes equality to be a major determinant. Using data from the East Asian Social Survey collected in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and China, this study finds that educational and age assortative mating do not facilitate confiding of husbands and wives. In contrast, power sharing in decision-making produces consistent effects across four populations. Husbands’ contribution to housework also has favorable influence in Taiwan and Japan. This study concludes that husbands and wives are more willing to talk their feelings, emotions or troubles out when they are practicing equality on household behaviors. Assortative pairing on demographic background predicts less variation of intimacy among couples.

Keyword

Marital satisfaction Assortative marriage Household division of labor Husband-wife relationship 

References

  1. Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  3. Bessey, D. (2015). Love actually? Dissecting the marriage–happiness relationship. Asian Economic Review, 29, 21–39. 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719–737.Google Scholar
  6. Blossfeld, H. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73(Jan-Feb), 47–51.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, W.-c. (2013). Family ties, living arrangement, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(215–233), i.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felmlee, H., & Hargens, L. L. (1988). Estimation and hypothesis testing for seemingly unrelated regression: A sociological application. Social Science Research, 17, 384–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  12. Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces, 74, 1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Han, H. (2010). Trends in educational assortative marriage in China from 1970 to 2000. Demographic Research, 22, 733–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsieh, Y.-S., & Chen, I.-C. (2012). Changes in intergenerational influences on cross-ethnic marriage in Taiwan. In C.-C. Yi & Y.-H. Chang (Eds.), Social change in Taiwan, 1985–2005: Family and marriage (pp. 181–227). Insitute of Sociology, Academia Sinica: Taipei.Google Scholar
  15. ICPSR. (2013). East Asian social survey (Eass), cross-national survey data sets: Families in East Asia, 2006 (Icpsr 34606). Retrieved March 15, 2017, from (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/34606).
  16. Jamieson, L. (2011). Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalization or another form of ethnocentrism? Sociological Research Online, 16(4), 15. www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/15.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal Relationships in modern society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. Jamieson, L. (1999). Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship’. Sociology, 33, 477–494.Google Scholar
  19. Joyner, K., & Kao, G. (2005). Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 70, 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaku, S. (2013). Patriarchy in East Asia: A comparative sociology of gender. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  21. Kontula, O., & Haavio-Mannila, E. (2004). Renaissance of romanticism in the era of increasing individualism. In J. Jean Duncombe, K. Harrison, G. Allan, & D. Marsden (Eds.), The state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and commitment (pp. 79–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lebra, T. S. (1998). Confucian gender order and personal fulfillment for Japanese women. In W. H. Slote & G. A. De Vos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp. 209–227). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, W.-S., & McKinnish, T. (2018). The marital satisfaction of differently aged couples. Journal of Population Economics, 31, 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li, A., Robustelli, B. L., & Whisman, M. A. (2016). Marital adjustment and psychological distress in Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oshio, T., Nozaki, K., & Kobayashi, M. (2013). Division of household labor and marital satisfaction in China, Japan, and Korea. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patrick, S., & Beckenbach, J. (2009). Male perceptions of intimacy: a qualitative study. Journal of Men’s Studies, 17, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qian, Y. (2017). Gender asymmetry in educational and income assortative marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qian, Y., & Sayer, L. C. (2016). Divison of labor, gender ideology, and marital satisfaction in East Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raymo, J. M., Park, H., Xie, Y., & Yeung, W. J. J. (2015). Marriage and family in East Asia: Continuity and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 471–492.Google Scholar
  31. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of intimacy and care beyond ‘the family’: Personal life and social change in the early 21st century. Current Sociology, 52, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slote, W. H. (1998). Psychocultural dynamics within the confucian family. In W. H. Slote & G. A. De Vos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp. 37–51). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smart, C., & Shipman, B. (2004). Vision in monochrome: Family, marriage and the individualization thesis. British Journal of Sociology, 55, 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taniguchi, H., & Kaufman, G. (2014). Gender role attitudes, trouble talk, and marital satisfaction in Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 975–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsai, M.-C., & Chen, W.-C. (2017). Family, work and wellbeing in Asia. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsai, M.-C., & Yang, W.-S. (2017). Familial exchange and intergenerational contact in East Asian societies. In M.-C. Tsai & W.-C. Chen (Eds.), Family, Work and Wellbeing in Asia (pp. 21–42). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tu, W.-M. (1998). Probing the “three bonds” and “five relationships” in confucian humanism. In W. H. Slote & G. A. De Vos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp. 121–136). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  41. United Nations Development Programme. (2018). Human development indices and indicators 2018 statistical update. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  42. Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What’s love got to do with it? equality, equity, commitment and women’s marital quality. Social Forces, 84, 1321–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong, H.-P. C. (2016). Ethnic assortative matching in marriage and family outcomes: Evidence from the mass migration to the US during 1900–1930. Journal of Population Economics, 29, 817–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu, L.-H., Yeh, H.-J., & Tsay, R. M. (2013). Meeting the other half: Matchmakers and settings of contact in educational assortative marriage (in Chinese). Taiwanese Sociology, 26, 147–190.Google Scholar
  45. Xu, X., & Lai, S.-C. (2004). Gendern ideology, marital roles, and marital quality in Taiwan. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 318–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yeh, K.-H., Yi, C.-C., Tsao, W.-C., & Wan, P.-S. (2013). Filial piety in contemporary Chinese societies: A comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. International Sociology, 28(3), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yi, C.-C., & Chang, Y.-H. (2012). Social change in Taiwan, 1985–2005: Family and marriage. Taipei: Insitute of Sociology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
  48. Yi, C.-C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2014). The intergenerational transmission of the value of children in contemporary Chinese families: Taiwan and Mainland China compared. Comparative Population Studies, 39(4), 679–706.Google Scholar
  49. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, Y., & Van Hook, J. (2009). Marital dissolution among interracial couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations