a 1:;
fahffll‘hi
eagbfifi:

”L"

,V

‘
J‘
+
‘2 ”€31;
|¥
,,.
a“ e

,.
a: ,

"§§:":‘fi:§’

l, I ‘4‘ ‘ ‘Lq‘LJ .

x54” V
w

Jim. .-:::v, ‘ ‘
{Mini-km“?!

r
S:

 

.; “ : . 7 , -. ‘ w :::~
V , . ‘ “ij’_ , 4 . ‘ ~ .. m(hg.--1‘.flq‘

 

. ‘r.
. flaw M

”.1" r .

 

3
‘

~ re:-. w '

.‘AJ.;..

 

 

 

THbms

lCHlGAN STATE UN ERSI

‘Ill/lllllullIlllllllllllllll . L

3 1293 01409 6147

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Attitudes Toward Interracial Couples

presented by

Donna Annemarie Gerard

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in PSYChOlogy

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

‘ ___‘skfi ',

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove this chockom from your ncord.
To AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll
. Utb U I NU]

 

4—2—1447

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERRACIAL COUPLES
By

Donna Annemarie Gerard

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1995

ABSTRACT
ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERRACIAL COUPLES
By

Donna Annemarie Gerard

Research was conducted to investigate attitudes toward interracial couples and to
determine if some interracial unions are more acceptable than others. Subjects received
information about a married couple and indicated their impressions of compatibility,
likability, marital success, desire for social distance, personal image, psychological
adjustment, social orientation, intelligence, and social, professional and relationship
success. The racial composition of the target couple was varied (e.g. Black male/White
female). Subjects perceived White couples and Asian/White couples to be more
compatible, likable and more likely to enjoy marital success than Black/White couples.
Asian/White couples were not perceived differently than White couples. The hypothesis
that in-group members who engage in interracial marriage are judged more harshly than
out-group members who do (Black Sheep Efl‘ect) was not supported. Implications of the
results and the importance of determining how information about interracial couples is

processed are discussed.

This work is dedicated to my grandmother

Anne T. Lewandowski

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend my most Sincere appreciation to my advisor Linda A.
Jackson who has been a consistent source of encouragement. You’re the best blend of a
mentor who is both supportive and “by my side” while at the same time teaching me to
“stand on my own two feet”.

To my committee members Galen V. Bodenhausen whom I greatly respect and
admire and Norbert L. Kerr whose genuine love and enthusiasm for the field is contagious.
I am indeed fortunate to gain my training from the three of you.

To my forth floor combat buddies who have become like family: Jen, Julie, Susan,
Ruth, Carole, Ulrike, Todd, and Dale. Special thanks to my “whining” partners Lisa and
Mike.

I am especially gratefirl to Ranald and Christine Hansen who introduced me to the
wonderful world of social psychology. Without the two of you, I would truly not be here.

Most importantly, to my husband Wayne, whose love and support and genuine joy
in my growth has made it all possible. Thanks for the many cups of tea served at my

computer and your dependable “Can I get you anything?” while I worked on this thing.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................. 2
I. Occurrence of interracial marriage ............................................................. 4
II. Early research ........................................................................................... 4
IIIvfiGian-White intermarriage ........................................................................ 9
IV. Black-White intermarriage ........................................................................ 10
V. Characteristics of those engaging in interracial marriage ............................ 12
VI. VAfirbivalence toward interracial relationships ............................................. 14
VII. Related research bearing on interracial relationships .................................. 16
VIII. Experimental problem ............................................................................... 20
METHODS ....................................................................................................... 21
I. Subjects ................................................................................................... 21
H. Design ..................................................................................................... 21
111. Materials ................................................................................................. 22
IV. Dependent measures ................................................................................ 22
V. Procedure ............................................................................................... 24
RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 26
1. Preliminary analyses .................................................................................... 26
H. Test of hypothesis I ..................................................................................... 27
III. Test of hypothesis H ................................................................................... 28
IV. Test of hypothesis III .................................................................................. 30
V. Additional analyses ..................................................................................... 31
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 42
1. Interpretation of results ............................................................................ 42
II. Future research .......................................................................................... 46
HI. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 47
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................. 50
APPENDICES:
A: Introduction to study and cover story ............................................................ 57
B: Target couple description .............................................................................. 59
C: Mood measure .............................................................................................. 60
D: Compatibility questionnaire ........................................................................... 61
E: Social distance questionnaire ......................................................................... 63

F: Person perception questionnaire ..................................................................... 64

G: Potential partners questionnaire ..................................................................... 66
H: Couple strengths/weaknesses questionnaire ................................................... 68
I: Racial identity questionnaire .......................................................................... 7 O
.1: Demographic questionnaire ........................................................................... 71
K: Modern Racism scale and Marlowe-Crown social desirability scale ............... 72
L: Debriefing form ............................................................................................. 74

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table l - Compatibility and Ease of Imagining means ...................... 28
Table 2 - Racial identity and Traditionality means ............................ 32

Table 3 - Mean scores of 7 Person Perception dimensions for White
and Asian target combinations .......................................... 3 5

Table 4 - Mean scores of 7 Person Perception dimensions for White

and Black target combinations .......................................... 36
Table 5 - Top attributions of Failure by condition ............................. 37
Table 6 - Top attributions of Success by condition ............................ 37
Table 7 - Top attributions of Failure by target ................................... 38
Table 8 - Top attributions of Success by target ................................. 38
Table 9 - Top attributions of Failure by MixA ................................... 39
Table 10 - Top attributions of Success by MixA ................................ 39
Table 11 - Top Similarities named by subjects ................................... 40
Table 12 - 20 similarity dimensions by subject sex ............................. 40
Table 13 - 20 similarity dimensions by condition ............................... 41

Table 14 - 20 similarity dimensions by same- vs
mixed-race couples .......................................................... 41

vii

INTRODUCTION

Personal relationships can be difficult to establish and sometimes even more
difficult to maintain. They can be experienced as fi'agile entities in need of constant
attention or as tenacious ones with virtual lives of their own. They are susceptible to
fluctuations instigated by both internal and external forces. They are by their very nature
complex. The same features that frequently make relationships dificult to experience also
make them challenging to study. Thus, it is not surprising that the study of interracial
relationships might present unique challenges.

For those who study interracial relationships, there is an additional hurdle; the
absence of an adequate theoretical framework. Why can‘t the study of interracial
relationships call upon the ever increasing body of research on relationships in general to
answer its questions? In some respects it can. Questions such as how we relate to our
loved ones, how we seek and encourage intimacy with our partner, and the stages a
relationship passes through as it grows apply to all human relationships.

However, all of these aspects of relationships are internal to the couple. There are
also external forces that impinge on the relationship. According to Duck (1988), in his
book W , there are ”circumstances that impinge on the relationship from
outside” that establish the external context of the alliance. Among these he notes the
efi‘ects of belonging to a particular culture with its own set of rules and definitions, and the
influence of being in a network of otha people within which the relationship occurs.

There are strong social norms that dictate acceptable potential partners from the

2

field of possible partners. Winch (1958) suggested that we consider our "field of eligibles"
as those potential spouse candidates who are both appropriate and probable. Rodin
(1981) went further to say that we "disregard" those who don‘t meet our criteria and that
this disregard renders them invisible for all practical purposes. So what comprises
appropriate, probable or visible? There is a potent preference towards things (and people)
that are familiar (Kerckhofl‘, 1974). We prefer to be with those similar to ourselves; it is
perceived to be more comfortable and safe. As a result, we usually select marriage
partners and friends who are of the same race, religion, social class, educational
background and economic status as ourselves (Burchinal, 1962; Kerekhofi‘, 1974; Rubin,
1973; Udry, 1971). In fact, research has demonstrated that we often marry someone who
lives very close to us (Fischer, 1982; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). There still exist very
strong social norms regarding the selection of marriage partners with a bias towards
choosing same-race partners (Klemer, 1970). These norms are internalized and are a
result of living in a structured and racially stratified society. They influence and guide our
behavior.

Why do we follow norms for prescribed behaviors? Weiss (1975) suggests that
this is probably based on our need for inclusion and our desire to be members ofa
community. In other words, we often do "care what the neighbors think". Part of living
in a community is living by its rules and most communities have rules regarding eligible
partners. If these rules are disregarded, then the risk of being excluded from the
community is a real one. Not only do we have to worry about what the neighbors think,

we have to wow about what they might do. As Duck (1988) suggests, the accepted

3

norms of being a Capulet weigh heavily on one who finds herself in love with a Montague.
Such norms may be internalized by people who therefore want to make homogamous
same-race choices. Further, these internalized norms can be enforced by others through
effective sanctions (Duck, 1981). In short, the pressures a society places on its members
could be viewed as strong enough to influence one’s choice of acceptable marriage
partners.

Given that marriage to someone of a difl‘erent race was a felony in the United
States until as recently as 1967 (Porterfield, 1982), that marrying outside ones’ own race
is seen by many as breaching an important and basic social nonn (Klemer, 1970; Spickard,
1989), and considering the conflictual nature of race relations in our country (Hernton,
1988), it seems fair to presume that interracial relationships compared to irrtraracial ones
are subject to a different external context. Therefore, the framework developed to guide
research of relationships in general is not completely applicable to interracial relationships;
the external contexts are difl‘erent.

If we accept that differences (e. g. in perceptions of partners, internal and extemal
influarces, etc.) between same versus mixed-race couples do exist, why have these
discrepancies not been addressed in the literature? Why is there a lack of empirical
research concerning interracial relationships? This may be due, in part, to what some
authors see as a lack of interest in the subject (Bernard, 1980; Porterfield, 1978).
Researchers often investigate topics of personal concern or experience. It may also be
that due to the controversial nature of interracial relationships, researchers of the past have

hesitated to open the proverbial can of worms for fear of being censured (Jeter, 1982).

4
This controversy is particularly true of those maniages occurring between African-
Americans and Caucasians. This combination still remains as the most unacceptable of all
interracial pairings (Hernton, 1988; Porterfield, 1982).

Yet, the increasing incidence of interracial marriage (especially between Blacks and
Whites) suggests that it is not just an historical artifact but rather a genuine and robust
social trend worthy of study. According to the 1990 Census (U .8. Bureau of the Census,
1990) the number of Black-White marriages has tripled since 1970, from 65,000 to
218,000. This accounts for an average of 1.0 - 1.5% of all maniages. Some say this
might be an underestimation due to the fact that many states no longer record racial
information on marriage licenses. This makes attaining accurate numbers diEert. It is
known from the most recent census, however, that interracial births in the United States
have increased 26 times faster than the overall birth rate. This includes all interracial
births, not just Black/White (Zack, 1993). Of course, there is no way to know if this is a
genuine trend or rather reflects a reporting bias. If the current trend persists, interracial
marriages will continue to increase in number. How people who engage in such unions
are perceived, our attitudes toward them, and our willingness (or unwillingness) to accept
interracial marriage among our own family and fiiends are issues that an increasingly
larger portion of individuals may have to consider in the firture.

Barium

Early research approached interracial marriage as a problem to be solved; a

transgression to be controlled. Although some research attempted to understand this topic

in terms of social conditions, psychological and psychoanalytic approaches were not

5
uncommon (Cretser & Leon, 1982). For example, interracial marriage has been explained
in terms of inadequate repression of attraction to the opposite sex parent (Grier & Cobbs,
1968; Ho, 1984; Kelley, 1976). If the Oedipus/Electra complex (which centers on
attraction to the opposite sex parent) is not successfully navigated as a child, he or she (as
an adult) may choose a partner who is as different from their opposite sex parent as
possible as a means of settling the issue. This is attributed to an ”exaggerated phobia of
incest" (Ho, 1984). Research conducted to investigate this theory [ms relied solely on
individual case studies and proof is even more elusive since these conflicts are assumed to
be unconscious and are thaefore dificult to establish or falsify.

Biegel (1966) proposed that a lack of self-esteem or feelings of inferiority may
cause someone to marry a member of a (perceived) lower social group because they feel
they deserve no better. His research consisted of interviewing 19 interracial couples, each
consist ofone White partner. The other partner was Black (11), Japanese (2), Puerto
Rican (2), Chinese (1), EEFYEWQM (1) or Mexican (2). Seven of the couples were
married,6hadconsidered maniageatonetime,6wereintimateandcommittedbutdid
not intend to marry. Biegel relates each subjects personal story and concludes with tables
that summarize characteristics of the 19 couples as he perceived them. Partial motives for
interracial pairings included feelings of inferiority, rejection of one's own race, sexual
shortcomings of self and pathological characteristics (i.e. emotional instability, feelings of
inferiority, homosexual tendencies, sadism and psychotic tendencies). Biegel concluded
that "thedifl‘erential statusandprestigeassignedtothedifl'erentracesinoneculmralarea

ofl‘er opportunities to satisfy neurotic, psychotic or other maladjustive tendencies. It is

6
this maladjustive motivation that distinguishes so many hetero-racial sexual relations and
marriages. " Again, conclusions were drawn based on relatively small samples of people
using subjective measures that are open to interpretation.

Thomas Brayboy (1961), a Black psychiatrist, stated that ”deep seated
psychological sickness of various sorts underlie the 'vast majority' of marriages between
Blacks and Whites." He further explains that it is because of society's opposition that
thesemarriagesofl‘eraplacetoactout one's personal problernsandthat ”these nrarriages
often have little to do with love and tenderness; instead they are arenas for hostility,
control and revenge. ” Brayboy insists that all behavior is unconscious in its motivation.
Unfortunately, this makes his position unfalsifiable. As with the previously mentioned
explanations, this too draws only on case studies for its support (Porterfield, 1982).

Other positions include Whites marrying non-Whites for idealistic reasons
(Osmundserr, 1965), as a show of rebellion against parental authority (Saxton, 1968) or
because self-hate is sometimes being expressed by marriage to an “inferior" (Rubenstein,
1963). Attempts to support any of these theories empirically have failed. According to
Porterfield (1982), the theories are "unsystematic, fragmentary, and speculative. "

Although fewer in number, other, less volatile explanations have looked to
sociological or geographic factors to explain the steady increase in interracial marriage.
General propinquity was suggested as a partial determinant ofintermarriage as early as
1946 (Barron, 1946). Desegregation in educational institutions, places of employment,
residential areas (to some extent) and transportation have all led to increased contact

between manbers of different groups. With an increase in contact comes an increase in

7
other-race fiiends, neighbors, co-workers and often, romantic partners. Propinquity is
probably an even more valid partial explanation today than it was when it was first
suggested because of the increased possibility of contact.

' Some have looked at the patterns of interracial marriage for an explanation of the
occurance of interracial marriage. Considering marriages between Blacks and Whites,
unions involving Black males and White females are by far the most prevalent since 1874
(when considering maniages versus matings) and continue to account for the majority of
interracial marriages (Porterfield, 1982; Wade, 1991). In fact, the current ratio of Black
male-White female versus White male-Black female marriages is 2 to l (Wade, 1991).
Two reasons have been offered to explain the preponderance of this specific combination
although both seem rather dated in light ofcurrent data. The first is based on ”social
exchange theory" and the second on "accessibility theory”.

Mth regard to social exchange theory, some have suggested that in the case of
Black males marrying White females, the Black male has exchanged his socioeconomic
status forthe social status gained by a White wife (Davis, 1941). In other words, he gains
socially and she gains economically. This may have seemed especially compelling when
occupational opportunities for women were even more limited than they are now and were
in fact practically nonexistent. During the earlier part of this century a women's financial
security was derived almost completely from her man's economic status. In fact, some
have argued that a Black husband enhanced his economic-occupational status by having a
White wife (Merton, 1964). However, with the rise in Black consciousness and solidarity

that began in the 60's and has continued through present times, having a White wife might

8

make things more difficult for a Black male rather than easier. This may be true especially
when it comes to the opinion of other Blacks who may view marriage to a White as
“selling out” (Hernton, 1988).

The second explanation for the preponderance of Black male/White female
marriages, is the notion of accessibility to females. It is based on traditional sex roles,
with females the more passive partner and males the more active instigator. Historically,
Black males have not had access to White females. White males have had access to Black
females however. Since White males have long occupied a dominant position in society,
there has been little public censure of their activities nor much social pressure to legitimize
their sexual relationships. Black males have not enjoyed the same position and would be
more prone to pressure from society to legitimize their unions via marriage.

The current limited data do not appear to support either the "social exchange
theory” or the ”accessibility theory" explanations. Nor do they seem to support the notion
of interracial marriage as an expression of neurotic conflict. Instead, as related shortly, the
findingssuggestsimilaritiesineducation, socialandoccupationalstatusasbeingissuesof
consideration for those marrying interracially. In reality, the little empirical research that
has been done has concluded that people who marry interracially do so for the same
reasons as those who marry intraracially; for love, companionship and compatibility
(Porterfield, 1982). They support a more tolerant view of people seeking a life partner
with whom they can share love, warmth and intimacy (Jeter, 1982), and who marry for
love, shared interests, values and ideas (Brown, 1987). Yet, given the types of

explanations that have been advanced by many researchers, combined with historical

9
influences, it is not surprising that many misconceptions regarding these unions persist.
Further, it is reasonable to assume these misconceptions might afl‘ect peoples' perceptions
and attitudes toward interracial marriage even though overall disapproval has lessened
(Schuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985).

While the issues surrounding Black/White intermarriage will dominate this
discussion subsequently, due to the complexities of the issues involved, some background
information regarding Asian/Caucasian intermarriage is also necessary. Much of the
research conducted on Asian out-marriage concerns primarily Chinese and Japanese
occurrences (Kitano, 1982; Kitano & Yeung, 1982; Kitano, Yeung, Chai, & Hatanaka,
1984; Schwertfeger, 1982; Sung, 1990). Marriages between Asians and Caucasians are
much more common than marriages between Afiican-Americans and Caucasians in the
United States. In 1979, 41.2% of Chinese and 60.6% of Japanese living in the United
States, married outside their race (Kitano et a1, 1984). While it is dificult to compare the
racism and discrinrination displayed towards a population held in slavery (i.e. Afiican-
Americans) to that directed towards a particular immigrant group (e. g. Japanese), it is
safe to say that the sentiment towards Asians up until the second World War was negative
(e. g. the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which forbade any Chinese immigration until
1943; Kitano & Yeung, 1982). The same miscegenation laws applied to both Asians and
African-Americans. Miscegenation is defined as interbreeding between members of
difl‘erent races or marriage or cohabitation between a man and a woman of different races.

As will be discussed later, Asians who ”marry out” share many of the same characteristics

10

as Blacks or Whites who do so. There are however, two considerations unique to this
group that influence the occurrence of interracial marriage; generation and acculturation.

The first, generation, refers to how long ago the family irnnrigrated to the United
States. The Chinese were the first Asian group to come to the United States with the
initial migration occurring between 1850 and 1882. The Japanese immigration occurred
later, between 1890 and 1924 (Kitano, 1982). Research demonstrates that the incidence
of marrying outside ones’ race increases with successive generations. For instance in
1979, Chinese and Japanese who married out did so at a rate of 15.2% and 26.1%
respectively for first generations compared to 55.1% and 43.6% for second generations.
By the third generation, 37.1% of Chinese and 50.0% of Japanese in the US. married out
(Kitano et a1, 1984).

The second influence, which is tied to the first, is acculturation. As individuals
become more acculturated, they are less under the control of their families, are firrther
removed from historical circumstances, are more fanriliar with American norms and roles,
and are more likely to use personal motives for selecting a marriage partner than their
cohorts who have not been acculturated to the same extent (Kitano et al, 1982).

When considering maniage between Blacks and Whites, the interaction of two
factors seem to be important: cultural influences and historical events. It is difficult to
understand the lack of acceptance of Black/White interracial relationships without
knowing something of our country's unique history as it relates to race.

In spite of the fact that early colonists held rigid attitudes about sexuality,

11

particularly the sexuality of Afiicans, race mixing did occur. In fact, there was
proportionately more interracial mating in the colonial era that at any later time in
American history until the present (Jordan, 1974). The overall trend has been curvilinear,
with a decline in the occurrence ofinterracial marriages between 1900 and 1940, at which
point the number began to climb once again.

There are two important points to keep in mind when considering this curvilinear
pattern. First, the early part of the trend refers to interracial mating while the later portion
deals with interracial marriage; a very significant difference. Most of the early unions
were informal or coercive with only a very small number resulting in marriage, which
occurred primarily between White men and Black women. These casual relationships,
while not necessarily embraced, were overlooked as long as maniage was not the result.
To acknowledge interracial relations via maniage was to admit equal status between
partners and this was contrary to the whole racial system (Spickard, 1989). As early as
1630, courts began to condemn and punish those involved in interracial unions but it
wasn't until almost a century later that specific laws against it emerged. In North Carolina
for instance, a 1741 statue was enacted for the "prevention of that abominable mixture
and spurious issue, which hereafter may increase in this govermnent by White men
intermarrying with Indians, Negroes, Mustees or Mulattos" (Spickard, 1989).

The second point to remember is that the relationships occurring during the early
historical period often dealt with forced relations, mostly between men of power and their
slaves (Hernton, 1988), whereas those occurring later were between consenting partners.

While both legal and social sanctions were in place, census information attests to the fact

12

that relations between the races did not abate. In the 1850 census, 405,751 mulattos were
counted. In 1860, the number rose to 588,363 (US. Bureau of the Census, 1850, 1860).

Certainly it is reasonable to argue that these early pairings were not really
"relationships" in the usual sense. Most were probably not mutually satisfying or
nurturing for both partners. While the pairings of interest for this research consist of
consensual relationships, the cultural, legal and social past has set the stage for the current
attitudes toward interracial relationships.

In the 20 years following the abolition of slavery, laws against miscegenation came
to exist in almost every state. By 1920, 30 of the 48 states had outlawed interracial
maniage. Even as recently as 1967, seventeen states still had such laws. It was then that
the constitutionally of these laws was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court by a
Virginian couple named Richard and Mildred Loving. The result was a decision that made
such laws unconstitutional. Yet, while the written laws have been changed, the
"unwritten" laws have not (Hernton, 1988; Frankenberg, 1993). Interracial 3299.191, may

be protected traversal censure but they still battlesoeialestraeism and castigation

---.4‘..
W“... .- .

was»

(Hernton, 1988). Both Blacks and Whites have their objections to interracial marriage,
citing the destruction of family traditions as a result of race mixing, problems that the

couple and their children will face, and the loss of purity of each race (Hernton, 1988;

Frankenberg, 1993).

 

Some research has indicted that those who choose to intermarry tend to be, on

average, older than those who do not (Burma, 1963; Cretser, 1967; Monahan, 1973;

13

Porterfield, 1982; Risdon, 1954). At the time of Porterfield's study in 1982, of 67
interracial couples in the United States, the average age was 22.5 for grooms and 20.5 for
brides. The grooms in his study married at an average age of 27.5 and brides averaged
21.0 years of age. Most of the research also supports the fact that those intermarrying are
more likely to have been married previously (Burma, 1963; Pavela, 1964; Monahan, 1973;
Porterfield, 1982). The average number of children born to interracial couples was found
to be similar to White/White couples but fewer than those born to Black/Black couples
(Hear, 1974). Initially, research tested the hypothesis that only those of lower social
classes engaged in interracial marriage (Calhoun, 1917). In fact, some believed that only
the "vilest and most degraded” would intermarry (Renter, 1918; Shannon, 1930).
Attempts were also made to show that only those of low occupational levels entered into
interracial unions (Hofli'nan, 1896; Holmes, 1937; Stonequist, 193 9) but it was disputed
even at that time by others (Dubois, 1899; Schuyler, 1934; Roberts, 1956). Research
conducted somewhat more recently (Monahan, 1976) found that all socioeconomic groups
participate in interracial marriages and the whole spectrum of occupational levels is
represented as well. Empirical findings demonstrate that almost all members of interracial
couples share a similar social, educational and economic background with their partners
(Aldridge, 1978; Blau, Becker & Fitzpatrick, 1984; Porterfield, 1982; Poussaint, 1983).
womence of interracial marriage has increased greatly (Aldridge, 1978;
Brown, 1987; Porterfield, 1982), attitudes towards it are ambivalent at best (Crester &
Leon, 1982; later, 1982). A survey conducted by NORC (National Opinion Research

Center) in 1982 showed that 66% of respondents answered "no” to the following

14

question: Do you think there should be laws against maniages between Blacks and
Whites? Thirty-four percent answered "yes". However, in 1983 when NORC asked ”Do
you approve or disapprove of maniage between Whites and non-Whites", only 40%
indicated that they approved. Apparently, while many would not go so far as to make
interracial marriage a felony, they still do not personally approve of it. Other questions
pertaining to social distance (e.g. firll neighborhood integration, acceptable Black/White
student ratio for schools, having a Black dinner guest to your home) have shown
considerable change towards less discrimination over the years (Schuman, Steeh & Bobo,
1985). However, as long as there remains a level of uncomfortableness in these areas, it

seems safe to assume there will be a reluctance by some to accept interracial marriage.

 

Surveys indicate that the attitudes verbally expressed toward interracial dating and
marriage have become increasingly tolerant (Schuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985; Taylor,
Sheatsley, & Grail, 1978). Yet other evidence shows that even though attitudes are
becoming more positive, behavioral biases continue (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). In other
words, people are willing to advocate tolerant ideals in principle but are reluctant to stand
by them in practice. The potential discrepancies between attitudes and behaviors have been
well documented (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).

These findings serve to illustrate the discrepancy between our verbal support of
abstract principles and our reluctance to see them actually implemented. This
ambivalence has been demonstrated to apply to issues such as residential integration,

educational desegregation and racial hiring quotas (Katz, Wackenhut & Hass, 1986).

15

Thus, while many Whites are willing to recognize that Blacks have been ill-treated in the
past and deserve some assistance, they also question the motives and methods of Blacks in
attaining these changes ( Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay, 1982).

The ”lip—service argument", so dubbed by Katz et a1 (1986), describes a type of
prejudice that differs fi'om the old-fashioned, overt type. It refers to the discrepancy
between the egalitarian principles a group endorses (e. g. Whites) and their reluctance to
see then implemented. These relatively new expressions of prejudice have been called
"symbolic racism" (Kinder & Sears, 1981), "modern racism" (McConahay, 1986) and
”aversive racism" (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). While the terms used to describe the
phenomenon may differ, certain general similarities exist. This new type of subtle
prejudice is expressed by citing ambiguous or non-racial grounds for opposition to issues
(e.g. Blacks probably prefer to live where they feel more comfortable) rather than the
more blatant, overt racist positions (e. g. We don‘t want you here) of the past. In the
present study we expected that subjects would cite non-racial grounds for an interracial
couples' perceived incompatibility where possible. They might, for instance, note
educational difl‘erences between the partners and base their low ratings of potential marital
success on that. This prediction holds for subjects overall and is predicted by both the
aversive racism notion (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986) and the modern racism theory
(McConahay, 1986).

Given that there has been a shift toward a more tolerant view toward interracial
marriage, why have attitudes toward these relationships remained ambivalent? A partial

answer to this question lies in what we know about relationships in general.

 

Perhaps the most prominent literature to lend itself to this topic is that which deals
with in—groups and out-groups. Often, intenacial couples we encounter are comprised of
one in-group member (a member of our own racial group) and an out-group member
(someone of a race other than our own). The differentiation we make between the groups
we belong to and those we don't has been the topic of much research (Allport, 1954;
Tajfel, 1969, 1970; Billing & Tajfel, 1973).

The most often cited result of the studies investigating in-group/out-group
distinctions is that we tend to evaluate our own group more favorably than other groups;
the in-group bias. This bias may manifest itself in many ways such as indicating greater
liking for in-group members, judging them to be more intelligent, more attractive and
more deserving of special consideration. Further, out-group members are seen as
demonstrating less variability amongst themselves than are in-group members; the out-
group is considered to be homogeneous (Diehl, 1990; Messick & Mackie, 1989), less
complex, and less individuated (Judd & Park, 1988; Linville & Jones, 1980).

The theory of in-group/out-group difl‘erentiation would therefore predict that if
presented with an interracial couple, we would show a favorability bias towards our own
group member. But would we? Recent work by Marques (Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988;
Marques, Yzerbyt & Leyens, 1988; Marques, Robalo & Rocha, 1992) suggests we might
not always show in-group favoritism. Marques et al (1988,1992) maintain that likable in-
group members will be judged more favorably than likable out-group members, but

unlikable in-group members will be judged more unfavorably than unlikable out-group

17

members. The authors refer to this concurrent process of in-group favoritism and in-
group derogation as the "black sheep efl‘ect" (Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988). Based upon
social identity theory, Marques et al suggest that evaluations of in-group members are
more extreme than evaluations of out-group members. Further, extreme negative
evaluations will be expressed toward in-group members whose deviant behaviors involve
an issue deemed important to the group’s social identity. As discussed earlier, the
presence of potent internalized norms dictating appropriate romantic partners could be
viewed as important to a groups social identity. Hence, someone deviating from this
expected behavior could be subject to extremely negative evaluations.

Another literature relevant to the present study is the research on group attitudes
(Eagly, Mladinic & Otto, in press; Esses, Haddock & Zanna, 1993; Jackson et al, 1995).
For instance, recent work by Jackson et al (1995), suggests that Asian-Americans enjoy a
more positive overall evaluation by Whites than do Afiican-Americans. For Afiican-
Americans, less positive affect (feelings and emotions) evoked by the group accounted for
less positive ratings by Whites. Asian-Americans evoked more positive affect than did
Afiican-Americans.

However, to make predictions based only on the members as individuals ignores
the powerful social context they are presented in: marriage to one another. We have not
only two individuals but also a potent social relationship that usually views the two people
as one unit (Heider, 1958). Sedikides, Olsen & Reis (1993) demonstrated that
relationships ofl‘er a basic and natural category that is utilized when organizing information

about two people. Their work showed that when a bond or relationship was perceived to

1 8
be quite strong, such as that between married partners, it served as an aid in organizing
information about the partners. Additionally, F iske & Cox (1979) demonstrated that
relationships are a common way of categorization.

Research has demonstrated that we form social judgments of couples almost
automatically and that these judgments are based on our unobtrusive observations and
brief contact (Levinger & Snoek, 1972). Further, such judgments are made based on our
”implicit understanding of prototypical relationship types" (F orgas, 1993). In other
words, do they look like a couple? Do they look like they belong together? Often, these
superficial judgments are made utilizing salient characteristics such as physical
attractiveness. Along these lines, balance and a sense of " good match” are very desirable
characteristics (F orgas & Dobosz, 1980). Balance theory and social exchange theory
support this also (Byrne, 1971; Heider, 1958). According to some researchers (F orgas &
Dobosz, 1980; Levinger, 1990) we possess very well-defined, consensual notions about
appropriate relationships for our culture. In essence, we make comparisons among the
two partners and decide if they are ill- or well-matched even when we have only physically
observable information.

Even anecdotal evidence tells us we often evaluate couples for " goodness of fi "
and that this evaluation considers the couple as a unit. Consider that sometimes we know
one of the partners but have never met the other, for example, a co-worker’s spouse. If
this co-worker is someone we get to know, we probably have an opinion of their
relationship based on knowledge of one member of the pair only. Often, what we know

about someone's choice of a marriage partner can tell us something about them. Meeting

19

the spouse of this co-worker frequently gives us insight into a side of him or her we didn't
know. If the woman you work with is always very serious and business-like at the office,
but her husband (whom you just met) has a wonderful sense of humor, it might influence
your perception of her; maybe she is not quite as staid as you once thought. It is this
perception of the members as a unit that will act to qualify the attitudes held about the
individuals involved. In other words, as stated earlier, the two peOple will be viewed
relative to the relationship (F orgas, 1993; Forgas & Dobosz, 1980; Levinger, 1990;
Levinger & Snoek, 1972).

Additionally, there are influences impinging upon perceivers having to do with the
interaction of race and sex. Specifically, White males and Black females would be
expected to exhibit the greatest disapproval of interracial marriages involving White
females and Black males although for different reasons. Historically, White males have
attempted to keep their White females ”pure and unspoiled” by controlling White
female/Black male relations (Spickard, 1989). Due in part to the belief in the superiority
of the White race and the necessity of keeping it pure, and in part to preventing sexual
competition when White females were few in number (Hernton, 1988; Jordan, 1974),
relations between Black males and White females were considered the most repugnant. It
is suggested that these beliefs have endured until the present for many, resulting in
continued disapproval of this type of interracial relationship.

Black women, on the other hand might have different reasons for disapproving of
this particular interracial combination. For instance, due to the high rate of death and

incarceration among Black men (Jones, 1986), the pool of potential mates for Black

20

women is shrinking (Brown, 1987). Each defection of a Black male to an interracial
relationship further limits available partners.

Given the early explanations advanced by researchers, combined with historical
influences, it is likely that many misconceptions regarding interracial unions still exist.
Further, it is reasonable to assume these misconceptions might affect peoples' perceptions
and attitudes toward interracial marriage even though overall disapproval (at least as
measured by survey data) has lessened.

In summary, attitudes toward interracial couples are proposed to emerge fiom a
combination of historical events, internalized norms which dictate appropriate marriage
partners, evaluations of in-group versus out-group members, and specific attitudes held
towards particular racial/ethnic groups. The present study examined attitudes toward
interracial couples and ascertain whether some interracial combinations are more
acceptable than others. The following predictions were ofl‘ered.

Hypothesis 1:

It was predicted that ratings of likability, compatibility and anticipated marital
success would be higher for same-race couples than mixed-race couples.
Hypothesis 2:

Mixed-race couples consisting of Asian-American/Caucasian partners would elicit
higher ratings of compatibility, likability and anticipated marital success than Afiican-
American/Caucasian couples.

This hypothesis was derived from two sources. The first was research discussed

demonstrating that Asian-Americans enjoy a more favorable overall evaluation as a social

2 1
group than do Afiican-Americans (Jackson et al, 1993). Asian-Americans, because they
are perceived by Caucasians to uphold the same values as themselves, will be viewed as
less different and therefore more acceptable as potential partners. The second source was
historical conflict between Afiican-Americans and Caucasians, a conflict that persists
today. Specifically, White male's historically long standing objection to White females
involvement with Black males.
Hypothesis 3:

In Black/White and Asian/White couples, especially low ratings of likability and
compatibility will be observed for the White partner (the deviant in-group member)
compared to the Black or Asian partner (the deviant out-group member).

METHOD
Snbiests

Subjects consisted of 284 Michigan State University undergraduates recruited
fiom introductory level psychology classes‘. Subjects participated in exchange for course
credit. They were recruited by means of sign-up sheets posted in classrooms and outside
the main psychology office.

Design

A between subjects design consisting of seven conditions was used with 32-34
subjects in each condition. Conditions were identical with the exception of the racial
composition of the dyad. Three of the seven conditions were of same-race partners; both
partners are either Asian-American, African-American or Caucasian. The remaining four

conditions consisted of mixed-race dyads: Asian-American male/Caucasian female, Asian-

22

American female/Caucasian male, Afiican-American male/Caucasian female and African-
American female/Caucasian male.

Materials

Coupleflescfipfions; The couple information was ostensibly written by a research
assistant who had interviewed the couple. Information was presented on one page and
included the date and time the interview supposedly took place, each partner’s name, age,
and race, and a handwritten description giving neutral information about the couple to
enhance the cover story (Appendix B).

DemadentMeaarres:

C III 1.1.1.1”.

Fourteen questions were designed to measure subjects' perceptions of the
compatibility of the target couple (e. g. perceived equality of the members, probability of
marital success, likability of the partners as individuals). All questions were measured
using either a 7-point likert scale or a multiple choice format (Appendix D).

“11115 'IE' 51

A six question measure based on Bogardus' Social Distance Scale was used. The
items were ordered to reflect an increasing willingness to associate with the target couple
in a variety of social situations. Responses were collected using a 7-point Likert scale
(Appendix E)-

E E . U . .
Thirty characteristics were presented to subjects on likert scales. The

characteristics were selected to measure the following dimensions for each partner:

23

competence/intelligence (uneducated, intelligent, capable, dependable, wise), professional
success (ambitious, hardworking, lazy, prosperous, successful), relationship success
(warm/loving, trustworthy, romantic, committed and understanding), personal
characteristics (masculine/feminine, attractive, likable), psychological adjustment (self-
esteern, well-adjusted, moody, depressed,), social orientation (traditional, rebellious, old-
fashioned, and religious) and social success (sociable, fiiendly, isolated/lonely and out-
going). Presentation was counterbalanced so that subjects rated either the wife first
followed by the husband or the husband followed by the wife. (Appendix F).

E . l E , Q l' . l l

Subjects were asked to indicate what they considered to be the most important
quality/characteristic in a potential mate. Subjects were then asked to rate how important
it was that their own marital partner (present or firture) possess each of the 20
qualities/characteristics. Responses were collected on a 7-point likert scale (Appendix G).
S l I 1!! I Q . .

Subjects were asked to list their perceptions of both the strengths and weaknesses
of the target couple’s marriage in an open-ended format. On the next page, subjects were
provided with 10 possible reasons why this couple might enjoy a successfirl marriage, and
10 possible reasons for an unsuccessful union. Subjects were asked to indicate which, if
any, might apply to the couple they read about by placing a ” 1 " in heat of the most likely
reason, a "2" in fiont of the second most likely reason, and so on. (Appendix H).
Raniaudentim

Three questions asked subjects to indicate how strong was each partner’s racial

24

identity (Appendix I).

 

The final page of the booklet requested demographic information about the subject
( age, sex, race/ethnicity and marital status). To check the manipulations, subjects were
presented with multiple choice questions asking them to recall information about the
target persons. Of primary importance was the race of each of the target partners
(Appendix 1)-
mm

The first page of the dependent measures booklet asked subjects to indicate the
extent to which they were feeling each of twenty-seven afl‘ect terms (e.g. sad, angry,

joyfirl). A 1-5 rating scale was used in which 1 = not at all and 5 = very much. The affect

terms tapped 6 dimensions: positive affect, negative afi‘ect, tense, disgust, fear and anxiety
(Appardix C).

 

McConahay's Modern Racism Scale and Marlowe-Crown’s Social Desirability
Scale were administered as the final measures just prior to debriefing the subjects

ostensibly as part of a different study (Appendix K).

We
Subjects participated in groups of approximately 4-8. The experimenter welcomed

mbjedsmdfanufiafizedthemvnththeexpaimembymadmgthemuwucfionmdcover

25

story (see Appendix A). At this time, subjects were asked to indicate their willingness to
participate by reading and signing the consent form. Subjects were then separated into
different partitioned cubicles to enhance their sense of anonymity and confidentiality. The
experimenter then distributed the booklet of dependent measures to each participant.
Inside the cover of the booklet was a separate sheet containing the couple description (see
Appendix B). Subjects were instructed to copy the number from the upper right hand
coma of the couple description sheet to the front of their booklets. This numba
coincided with the subjects condition. Different handwriting and various page layouts
were utilized to strengthen the impression that many different couples were being tested.
Subjects were instructed to read carefully their couple description and then to begin
working their way through the booklet, answering every question. Participants were
reminded to proceed through the questionnaires in the order in which they were presented.
Further, itwasexplainedthattheymiglnremmtotheirdescriptionsheetatanyfime
during the experiment to assist them in answering the questions. Subjects were asked to
place their materials face down on the desk when they were finished.

Next, subjects were asked to complete a short questionnaire, ostensibly unrelated
to the present study. A different consent form naming a different experimenter
accompanied the Modern Racism Scale and Social Desirability scale (see Appendix K).
When all subjects had completed the experiment, the experimenter asked subjects to
deposit all materials in a large box, debriefed the subjects by reading the debriefing form
(Appendix L) and distributing a copy of the debriefing form to each participant. Subjects

were then given an opportunity to ask any questions, were thanked and dismissed.

26

RESULTS
EteliminaatAnalxses

Reliability analyses established the reliability of the 7 person perception
dimensions: Competence/Intelligence (5 items, alpha = .86, e.g. intelligent), Professional
Success (5 items, alpha = .84, e.g. ambitious), Relationship Success (4 items, alpha = .81,
e. g. warm/loving), Personal Image (3 items, alpha=70, e.g. attractive), Psychological
Adjustment (3 items, e.g. depressed, alpha = .80), Social Orientation (3 items, alpha = .84,
e.g. traditional) and Social Success (4 items, alpha = .83, e. g. fiiendly). The traits
rebellious, well-adjusted and understanding were dropped fi'om their respective
dimensions of Social Orientation, Psychological Adjustment and Relationship Success due
to low inter-item correlations.

Four questions (How compatible do you think this couple is, How likely is this to
be a successful relationship, How much do you like them as a couple and What chance of
success from 0% to 100% do you give this marriage) were combined to measure overall
couple compatibility (alpha = .81).
finial Distance; The six social distance questions were combined to form a composite
measure (alpha = .78). Higher scores indicated a greater willingness to interact with the
target couple.

Indium The social orientation of both husband and wife were combined to give an
overall sense of how traditional the couple was perceived to be. Higher scores indicated a
more traditional position (6 items, alpha = .87, e. g. old-fashioned).

mm A composite score was computed to measure how strongly the husbands’

27

and wives’ ties to their own racial in-group were perceived to be. This measure combined
responses regarding how comfortable each member of the target dyad was with members
of their own race, how rejected they felt by their own race, and the strength of their
racial/ethnic identity. Reliability analyses indicated alpha = . 55 and .57 for husbands and

wives respectively.

Hypothesis 1: Ratings of compatibility, likability, and anticipated marital success will be

greater for same- than for mixed-race couples.

Oneway analysis of variance (AN OVA) showed no differences on the
“Compatibility” composite measure were performed on the three same race couples. Five
planned comparisons were made using Student-Newman-Keuls range tests. White-
M/White-F3 couples were seen as significantly higher than White-M/Black-F or Black-
M/White-F couples, (M5 = 5.77 vs 5.29 and 5.45, respectively, 1(222) = 2.315, p<.022).
White-M/White-F couples were perceived to be higher on Compatibility than Black-
M/White-F couples particularly, (M5 = 5.77 vs 5.29 with 1(222) = 2.358, p<.019). There
were no significant differences found between White-M/White-F couples and Asian-
M/White—F or White-M/Asian-F couples (M5 = 5.77 vs 5.65 and 5.75, respectively,
I(222)= .424, p<.672).

Additionally, White-M/White-F and Asian-M/Asian-F couples, when compared to
Black-M/White-F and White-M/Black-F couples, were viewed as more compatible 1(222)

= 2.747, p< .007. A trend, (1(222) = 1.842, p<.067), was observed demonstrating White-

2 8
M/White-F couples (M = 5.77) and Asian-M/Asian-F couples (M = 5.75) to be higher in
compatibility than all four interracial couples (M = 5.53).

Subject's expressed a trend toward desiring more social distance fiom couples in
mixed-race (M = 5.79) compared to same-race (M = 6.04) marriages (E(1,227) = 3.32,
p<.069) as measured by the composite social distance variable.

Two social distance questions demonstrated significant differences between same-
and mixed-race couples. Subject's reported they would feel more comfortable being in
same race marriages (M = 5.83) compared to mixed race marriages (M = 4.91) (E(1,227)
= 17.08, p<.001). Subjects also reported feeling more comfortable supporting a family
member‘s involvement in same- (6.01) than mixed- (5.49) race marriages (E(1,227) = 5.98,
p<.015).

Table l: Compatibility and Base of Imagining self in relationship means by condition.

 

 

 

 

Condition wmale’ bmale amale amale wmale bmale wmale
w female b female a female w female a female at female b female

Compatrbility‘ 5.77. 5.59. 5.75. 5.65. 5.75. 5.29,, 5.45,

Imagine2 2.7 3, 3.23, 3.20, 4.00, 3.20, 4.63., 3.82.,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Composite on questions described in the text. Highc- mrmba's indicate guru compatibility.
2 Measure of how easy subjects could imagine being in the target relationship. Higher numbers indicate gentler difl'roulty.
All we signifiomt a the p<.05 level.

a = Asim, b = Block, W = White

Hypothesis II: Ratings of compatibility, likability, and anticipated marital success
will be greater for interracial couples with Asian members than interracial couples with

Afiican-American members.

Oneway ANOVA’S compared interracial conditions that included an Asian

29

members to those including an Afiican-American member. Asian-M/White—F and White-
M/Asian-F couples were viewed as more compatible, likable, and more likely to enjoy
marital success than Black-M/White-F or White-M/Black-F couples (M5 = 5.70 vs 5.38
respectively E(l, 125) = 5.20, p<.024). Husbands in Asian-M/White-F and White-
M/Asian-F marriages were viewed as more competent/intelligent than those involved in
Black-Merite-F combinations (Ms_= 5.51 and 5.02 respectively, E( 1,125) = 12.41, p<
.000). This was not true for the wives (E( 1,125) = 1.52, p<.219).

There was a trend towards husbands involved in Black-M/White-F marriages to be
viewed as lower on the Psychological Adjustment dimension than those in Asian-
M/White-F unions (Ms = 2.66 vs 2.93, E(1,125) = 3.22, p<.074). Again, this did not occur
for wives.

Both partners in each of the Black/White combinations were perceived as less
traditional, religious and old-fashioned than Asian/White combinations on the Social
Orientation dimension (husbands involved in Asian/White marriages averaged 3 .94
compared to 3.21 for those in Black/White unions (E(1,125) = 11.52, p<.001) while for
wives, data Show the means to be 3.90 vs 3.31, respectively (E(1,125) = 7.53, p<.007).

A trend in the predicted direction demonstrated that wives in Asian/White
marriages were perceived to enjoy more Relationship Success than wives in Black/White
maniages (Ms =5.65 vs 5.39, E(1,228) = 3.52, p<.062).

Additionally, there was a trend suggesting that subjects found it easier to imagine
themselves in Asian/White marriages than in Black/White marriages (M5 = 3.56 vs 4.20,

E(1,228)= 3.31, p<.071) (see table 1).

3O

Hypothesis HI: Deviant in-group members will be rated more harshly than deviant out-

group members.

This hypothesis was tested by comparing deviant in- and out-group partners to
non-deviant in- and out-group partners on the seven person perception dimensions (e. g.
White-M/Black-F and Black-M/White-F to White-M/White-F and Black-M/Black-F).
Two 2x2 factorials were conducted; one with White and Black combinations and one with
White and Asian combinations. Analyses were conducted using 2-Way ANOVA
procedures (Race of partner by deviance/non-deviance). ANOVA’s were performed
twice; once for the seven male person perception dimensions (e.g.
Competence/Intelligence) and once for the female's. This resulted in 14 possible analyses
of interest for each 2x2 factorial (24 total). Significant interactions in the predicted
pattern were the crucial test of this hypothesis. A significant must indicate that the deviant
in-group member was rated more harshly than deviant out-group members.

rltl .‘ .01. . r“ :ru 52.21 .01 o. ‘-.< .t u o.:- w .14 s ..: r-u Arlr ’v 2m m ‘ u 4‘1?!
mules

White-M/White-F and Asian-M/Asian-F couples (non-deviant) were compared to
Asian-M/White-F and Asian-F/White-M couples (deviant). Mean responses were used
across subjects within each condition. When considering perceptions of Asian-M/White-F
and White-M/Asian-F couples, no significant differences emerged on any of the 14
measures (7 female and 7 male) to support the Black Sheep hypothesis; there were no

significant interactions. Deviant in-group members were not judged more harshly than

31

deviant out-group members.
do“ A .- .r c 3-.. . .0 , o: a 1r 0 at o .3 . muArlr - :1 . 111. ‘eu [3 =.
males
When considering the responses of all subjects, no difi‘erences emerged to indicate
that deviant in-group members were judged more harshly than deviant out-group members

on any of the 7 dimensions, for either the wives or husbands.

Additional Analyses:

Analysis of the mood measure failed to show any significant difi'erences between
same- and mixed-race target conditions. There were no significant differences between
male and female subjects‘.

Overall, subjects found it much easier to imagine themselves in same- versus
mixed-race unions (M3 = 3.05 vs 3.88, respectively, (E(1,228) = 10.62, p<.001).
However, there was also a trend such that subjects found it easier to imagine themselves in
marriage with an Asian-American partner than with an Afiican-American partner (M5 =
4.43 vs 3.80 respectively, E (1,125)= 3.31, p<.07).

Subjects viewed couples, as a unit, lower in Traditionality when they were in
interracial vs intraracial marriages (M3 = 4.55 vs 3.58, E(1,228)= 47.80, p<.001).
Husbands and wives were each perceived to have a weaker Racial Identity when involved
in interracial unions. This pattern was demonstrated for both wives in mixed- vs same-race
maniages (M5 = 5.13 vs 5.70, E(1,228)= 21.60, p< .001) and husbands (M5 = 5.27 vs

5.71, E(1,228)= 14.20, p<.001).

32

Further, traditionality was perceived to be particularly low when the couple
included an African-American partner compared to when it included an Asian-American
partner (M5 = 3.26 vs 3.92, E(1,228)= 10.77, p<.001). A woman involved with an
Afiican-American partner was viewed as having a weaker Racial Identity (M = 4.93) than
one involved with an Asian-American (M = 5.35, E(1,228F 6.27, p<.013). For men, the
same pattern held true such that they were perceived as having a weaker Racial Identity
when involved with an African-American woman compared to an Asian-American woman

(Ms = 5.07 vs 5.47, E(1,228) = 5.78, p<.017).

Table 2: Racial identity and Traditionality

 

Condition: wmale’ bmnle amale amale wmale bmale wmale
w female b female a female w female a female w female 1) female

 

Racial identity‘ 4.10, 4.20, 4.00, 4.12, 4.41, 4.50, 4.52,

Traditionality’ 4.65, 4.43, 4.57, 3.83, 3.99, 3.05, 3.44,

' Comprised of 3 questions (for both the husband and wife) concerning comfort with members of their own
race, extent to which the target is perceived to feel rejected by members of race, and strength of racial identity.
A measure of the couples racial ties.

’ A combination of the husband’s and wife’s social orientation.

’ a=Asianb=Blackw=White

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111‘ .o o .. :10 s _.:_1 .0 1° .0111: at .114,‘:1uhlr' :11 111' r1 ; '-
males
A number of differences emerged on the person perception dimensions (see Table
3). Subjects perceived differences in the level of Professional Success (e. g. ambition, hard
working) same-race couples possessed relative to mixed-race couples. There was a trend
such that wives were perceived to have less professional success when they married

outside their race than when they married within (M3 = 4.52 vs 4.71, E=(1,129) = 2.79,

33

p<.09). For target husbands, the same relationship held true and reached significance (M5
= 4.86 for same race vs 4.58 for intennarried, E(1,129)= 6.19, p<.01).

Not surprisingly, subjects reported differences in the Social Orientation of those
who would marry across race lines compared to those who married within them. For
women, members of interracial pairings (Ms = 3.90) were perceived as less religious, old-
fashioned and traditional than members of intraracial unions (M5 = 4.63, E( 1,129) = 14.91,
p<.001). For husbands in inter- vs intraracial unions the same pattern emerged (M5 = 3.95
vs 4.60, E(1,129) = 11.18, p<.001).

In addition, subjects believed women who were in interracial marriages were lower
in psychological adjustment than women in intraracial maniages (M5 = 2.98 vs 2.82,
E(1,129) = 3.85, p<.052).

1111111‘ :11 3 2..” =.. .1 1 ‘vs .1111: 4.1 1 =1. .,-11A1l11' :11 111-
Was

A number of differences were found for target couples comprised of Black and
White members (see Table 4). Subjects reported large differences between interracial
(Black-M/White-F and White-M/Black-F couples) and intraracial couples (Black/Black
couples and White/White couples) with regard to their Social Orientation, both for the
wives (M5 = 3.32 vs 4.49, E(1,129) = 41.66, n<.001) and for husbands (M3 = 3.21 vs
4.59, E=(1,129) = 49.75, p<.001). Husbands who married out were perceived as lower on
the Competence/Intelligence dimension than those who married in (m = 5.03 vs 5.45,
E(l,129)= 9.29, p<.003) and were also believed to demonstrate lower levels of

Professional Success (M5 = 4.47 vs 4.80, E(1,129) = 8.94, p<.003). “fives, on the other

34

hand, were viewed as having less Relationship Success when involved with a same-race
partner (M5 = 5.40 vs 5.75, E(1,129)= 4.72, p<.032).

Descriptive analyses of the reasons subjects cited most often as the basis for the
potential maniage failure revealed that ”Money concerns” (n=72 ), “Unlucky” (n=71), and
“Differences in having children” (n=78) were most fiequently cited. Other patterns
emerged when responses to same-race couples were compared to responses to mixed-race
couples. Of those subjects who mentioned “Different backgrounds”, 94% of the 67
responses were with respect to mixed-race couples. Of subjects who mentioned “Family
pressures” (n=63), 83% were in reference to mixed-race couples.

The three most commonly mentioned reasons for potential success of the marriage
were “Partners remained faithfirl” (n=176), “Work well as a team” (n= 124), and
“Compatible from the beginning” (n=108). Table 5 presents the frequencies and
percentages of each response by condition.

On the potential partner’s questionnaire, subjects were first asked to indicate what
the most important quality was that they would like their potential spouse to share with
themselves. Twenty-seven (11%) of subjects who responded mentioned “similar values
and morals”. Other top responses included “common interests” (n=l3; 5%), “personality”
(n=11; 4%), “understanding” (n=10; 4%) and “common goals” (n=10; 4%).

Twenty other items were subjected to ANOVA procedures and analyzed by
subject sex, same- vs mixed-race targets, and condition. (see Tables 12-14)

Table 3: Subjects’ mean scores for the 7 Person Perception dimensions for targets
comprised of Whites and Asians.

Perceptions of wives:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

Perceptions of husbands:

C ompetencellntelligence
HUSB: W A

N 5.44 5.48

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y 5.47 5.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competence/Intelligence
WIFE: W A
N 5.28' 5.403
Y 5 .23‘ 5.235
Relationship Success
WIFE: W A
N 5.63 5.38
Y 5.60 5.72
Professional Success
WIFE: W A
N 4.67 4.74
Y 4.51 4.54
Social Orientation
WIFE: W A
N 4.65 4.61
Y 4.04 3.74
Personal Image
WIFE: W A
N 5.38 5.14
Y 5.27 5.15
Psychological Adjustment
WIFE: W A
N 2.93 2.71
Y 3.17 2.75
Social Success
WIFE: W A
N 5.37 5.23
Y 5.18 5.63

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship Success
HUSB: W A
N 5.56 5.52
Y 5.59 5.61
Professional Success
HUSB: W A

 

N 4.92 l 4.80

 

 

 

 

Y 4.57 l 4.58

 

SocialOr-ientation
HUSB: W 7 A
N 466 I454

 

 

 

 

 

Y 3.94 l 3.95

 

Person! image
HUSB: W A

N 5.44 I 5.21

 

 

 

 

 

Y 4.95 [5.30

 

Psychological Adjustment
HUSB: W A

N 2.91 2.62

 

 

Y 2.65 2.68

 

 

 

 

 

Social Success
HUSB: W A

N 5.48 5.25

 

 

 

Y 5.31 5.51

 

 

 

 

NOTE: N=not deviant Y=deviant W=White A=Asian

Table 4: Subjects’ mean scores for the 7 Person Perception dimensions for targets

comprised of Whites and Blacks.

Perceptions of wives:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competence/Intelligence
WIFE: W B

N 5.28I 5.312

Y 5.076 5.05”
Relationship Success
WIFE: W B

N 5.63 5.83

Y 5.39 5.41
Professional Success
WIFE: W B

N 4.67 4.58 I

Y 4.47 4.50 |
Social Orientation
WIFE: W B

N 4.65 4.33

Y 3.54 3.06
Personal Image
WIFE: W B

N 5.38 5.38

Y 5.34 5.03
Psychological Adjustment
WIFE: W B

N 2.93 2.85

Y 3.04 2.92
Social Success
WIFE: W B

N 5.37 5.64

Y 5.23 5.31

 

 

 

 

 

36

Perceptions of husbands:

HUSB: W B

 

N 5.44 5.46

 

Y 5.07 4.99

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship Success
HUSB: W B

 

N 5.56 5.59

 

 

 

 

Y 5.42 5.27

 

 

Professional Success
HUSB: W B

 

N 4.92 4.68

 

 

 

 

Y 4.61 4.34

 

 

Social Orientation
HUSB: W B

 

N 4.66 4.53

 

 

 

 

Y 3.04 3.36

 

 

Personal Image
HUSB: W B

 

N 5.44 5.42

 

Y 5.33 5.23

 

 

 

 

 

Psychological Adjustment

HUSB: W B

 

N 2.91 2.95

 

Y 2.83 3.02

 

 

 

 

 

Social Success
HUSB: W B

 

N 5.48 5.53

 

Y 5.62 5.l4

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: N=not deviant Y=deviant W= White B = Black

Table 5: Subjects‘ responses of the top attributions for failure of the target couple’s maniage across conditions

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

common: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total:
Differences in education 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 8
Family pressure 3.2 4.8 9.5 17.5 11.1 25.4 28.6 63
Money 19.4 19.4 12.5 9.7 15.3 8.3 15.3 72
Unfaithfulness 25.0 20.5 15.9 11.4 15.9 2.3 9.1 44
Different backgrounds 0.0 3.0 3.0 22.4 16.4 26.9 28.4 67
Incompatible from start 19.0 19.0 14.3 19.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 21
Lack ofcommon interest 5.6 13.9 27.8 16.7 16.7 5.6 13.9 36
Unlucky 15.5 16.9 19.7 8.5 14.1 12.7 12.7 71
Differences in having kids 20.5 21.8 23.1 6.4 10.3 10.3 7.7 78
Differences in raising kids 23.9 17.4 19.6 6.5 17.4 6.5 8.7 46

 

Table 6: Subjects’ responses of the top attributions for success of the target couple’s marriage across
conditions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
CONDITION: 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Total:
Similarities in education 12.5 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 8
Family support 0.0 21.4 17.9 7.1 14.3 21.4 17.9 28
Faithful 13.1 15.3 14.8 11.9 13.1 13.6 18.2 176
Work well as a team 14.5 16.1 16.9 11.3 12.1 12.9 16.1 124

 

Compat. from the beginning 14.8 11.1 18.5 10.2 15.7 16.7 13.0 108

 

 

 

Shared interests 15.9 21.6 11.4 12.5 14.8 8.0 15.9 88
Similar background 7.1 28.6 35.7 7.1 7.1 0.0 14.3 14
Lucky 22.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.2 11.1 33.3 9

 

Similarities in having kids 12.5 12.5 37.5 12.5 0.0 12.5 12.5 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similarities in raising kids 100. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2

 

NOTE: Numbers in boxes are percentages of the number in the total column. Total column refers to the total
number of responses made by subjects. Responses were counted only if the item was ranked “3" or higher by a
subject.

Table 7: Subjects” responses of the top attributions for failure of the target couple’s marriage

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW
By Target Same Race Mixed Race
Couples Couples
Difl‘erences in education 50% 50%
Family Pressure 17% 83%
Money 51% 49%
Unfaithfulness 61% 39%
Different background 6% 94%
Incompatible from start 52% 48%
Lack of common interests 47% 53%
Unlucky 52% 48%
Differences in having kids 65% 35%
Differences in raising kids 60% 40%

 

 

 

 

 

Note: %refertopercentages basedon the totalnurnber ofresponses aslisted in Table 5.

Table 8: Subjects’ responses of the top attributions for failure of the target couple’s marriage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

By MixA AIW & W/A B/W a W/B
Couples Couples

Differences in education 25% 25%
Family Pressme 29% 54%
Money 32% 24%
Unfaithfulness 27% 1 1%
Different background 38 % 55%
Incompatible from start 29% 19%
Lack of common interests 33% 19%
Unlucky 23% 25%
Difierences in having kids 17% 18%
Differences in raising kids 24% 15%

 

 

 

 

 

Note:%refertopercenlagesbasedonthe totalnumberofresponseeaslistedinTable 5.

Table 9: Subjects’ responses of the top attributions for success of the target couple’s marriage

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s b
By Target Same Race Mixed Race
Couples Couples
Similarities in education 63% 37%
Family support 39% 61%
F aithfulness 43% 57%
Work well as a team 48% 52%
Compat from the beginning 44% 56%
Shared interests 49% 51%
Similar backgrounds 71% 29%
Lucky 22% 78%
Similarities in having kids 63% 37%
Similarities in raising kids 100% 0%

 

 

Table 10: Subjects’ responses of the top attributions for success of the target couple’s marriage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
By MixA A/W & W/A B/W & WIB
Couples Couples
Similarities in education 25% 13%
Family support 39% 61%
F aithfuhress 25% 39%
Work well as a team 23% 29%
Compat from the beginning 26 % 30%
Shared interests 27% 24%
Similar backgrounds 14% 14%
Lucky 33% 33%
Similarities in having kids 13% 13%
Similarities in raising kids 100% 0%

 

 

 

 

 

Note:%refertopercentagesbasedonthe totalnumberofresponsesaslistedinTableS.

Table 11: Subjects’responsestohowthcywouldliketheirpotentialspousetobemostsirnilartothemand
dreirnfingsonOotheritemsofpotenfialshnilarityratedforirnpmtance.

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
Most important similarity (open-ended):
Response: Number of Percentage:
responses:

1. Values/Morals 27 11

2. Interests 13 5

3. Personality 11 4

4. Understanding 10 4

5. Goals 10 4

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: 70 88 (30%)]efithisquesfimblmk001erbpmswashwludedtustnespectcommihnent
intelligence,hcnesty,communicaticn.

Table 12: Difiaencesbetwemmabmdfanabmbjecumwhnshnihifiesmeywouflvdmmapotenfifl
spouse.

Taken from Twenty nestle-s:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question: Males Females F p
level
Education 5.7 6.0 4.5 .034
Income 3.5 4.4 20.1 .001
Physically fit 5.6 5.0 15.7 .001
Occupation 3.1 3.7 4.6 .032
Social class 3.2 3.7 4.2 .040
Respect 6.8 7.0 6.1 .014
Morals 6.0 6.5 10.4 .001
Physically attr 5.6 4.9 15.1 .001
Ideas a/b kids 5.4 6.3 25.7 .001
Family appro 4.1 5.1 15.0 .001
Love 6.7 7 .0 4.1 .042

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NotezNumbersrepresentmeanscoresforeachsexacrossconditions

41

Table 13: Subjects’ ratings of 20 items of potential similarity rated for importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question: Differences between: F p level
Income B/B (3.2) vs NA (4.7) 2.9 p< .009
Conversation W (5.4) vs W/A (6.3) 3.11 p< .05

 

 

Table 14: Subjects’ ratings of 20 items of potential similarity rand for importance.

 

 

 

 

 

W
Question: Differences between: F p< level
Same race Same race (4.5) vs mixed (4.0) 3.16 p< .07
Same religion Same race (3.4) vs mixed (2.9) 3.53 p< .06
Same social class Same race (3.3) vs mixed (3.7) 2.87 p< .09

 

 

 

 

 

 

42

DISCUSSION

Recent surveys suggest that more people are engaging in interracial marriage (U. S.
Bureau of the Census, 1990) and that a greater percentage of the population is more
tolerant of it (NORC, 1982, 1993; Schurnan, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985). One purpose of this
study was to see how interracial couples are perceived compared to intraracial couples.
Given the complex race relations in this country (Jordan, 1974; Klemer, 1970; Porterfield,
1982; Spickard, 1989), coupled with strong social norms to marry within one’s race
(Kerckhofl’, 1974; Rodin, 1981; Wlnch, 1958), it was expected that mixed marriages
would not be viewed in the same way as same-race unions. As predicted, they were not.

The hypothesis that subjects would perceive same-race couples as more
compatible, more likely to enjoy marital success, and more likable than interracial couples
received partial support. Subjects did not differentiate between any of the three same-race
couples on the compatibility measure; all were perceived to be equally compatible. It
might be that subjects, by rating interracial couples as lower in compatibility, were
reflecting their awareness of the potential obstacles mixed couples might face in our
society. However, other data suggest that subjects hold perceptions of interracial couples
that reflect a disfavor ofthe couple rather than a concern them.

Yet this perception of lower compatibility among interracial couples did not apply
to all interracial pairings. Couples that included an Asian member were not perceived
differently than White couples. Further, it made no difl’erence which partner was Asian. In
contrast, couples that included a Black member were perceived as lower in compatlbility

compared to White couples. Those target couples comprised of a Black male and a White

43

female were perceived as the least compatible. This is consistent with the historical
account related earlier that suggests that this combination remains the least acceptable
pairing (Herton, 1988).

In addition, couples who engage in interracial marriage were perceived to possess
weaker racial identities and to be less traditional. This could be interpreted as support for
the prediction that subjects are less supportive of interracial marriages because they violate
a very important social norm. Those who would marry interracially are not perceived to be
following the rules. Further'support arises from the fact that subjects found it easier to
imagine themselves in any kind of same-race marriage, be it White, Black or Asian, than in
an interracial maniage even though all subjects were themselves White. Those couples
comprised of a Black male and a White female were perceived as the least compatible is
consistent with the historical account related earlier.

The social distance composite also demonstrated that subjects are not as
comfortable in social situations with interracial couples as they are with intraracial
couples. If the lower ratings of compatibility were merely reflecting the potential hardships
faced by interracial couples rather than disapproval of them, there would be little reason
for difl’erences on the social distance scale.

Yet, the preference for same-race couples over mixed-race couples is only part of
the picture. It seems that all interracial couples were not perceived in the same way: some
were more acceptable than others. It was predicted that subjects would rate interracial
couples involving an Asian-American member as more compatible, more likable and more

likely to succeed in their relationships than those involving an African-American member

44

for two reasons. First, prior research has demonstrated that Asians and Asian-Americans
are seen to value work, education and family traditions even more than Whites, and evoke
more positive affect in White subjects than do African-Americans (Jackson et al, 1995).
Second, our unique history with regard to slavery and the struggles of African-Americans
to overcome that legacy continues to influence many Whites' attitudes towards Blacks. As
expected, our subjects did find those involved in Asian/White intermarriages to be more
likable, better suited to each other, and more likely to stay married than marriages
involving a White and African-American partner. Further, the mm'ority of harsher
judgments made against interracial marriages were made against those involving Blacks
and Whites. Of the distinctions subjects made between couples on the seven person
perception dimensions, the majority judged couples involved in mixed-race marriages
more harshly than those in same-race unions. In other words, couples who were judged to
be engaging in deviant behavior (marrying out) were perceived more negatively than non-
deviant couples (marrying within one’s race). But, nearly twice as many main effects
found for deviance pertained to couples including a Black partner compared to those with
an Asian partner.

In fact, on an open-ended question, when subjects were asked to suggest potential
downfalls of the target marriage, of the 27% that mentioned the interacial nature of the
union, 21% pertained to those with a Black member. It seems possible that many people
don’t even think ofintermaniage with an Asian partner as truly interracial. While the
Social Orientation measure showed all interracial couples to be less traditional than

interracial couples, marriages involving Blacks and Whites were seen as the most non-

4 5
traditional.

It seems reasonable to assume that Whites do not perceive Asians as being that
different from themselves. One obvious point is physicality; Asians don’t look as difl’erent
from Whites as Blacks do. Further, as research has demonstrated, Asians are perceived to
be more similar to Whites than are Blacks on beliefs, values, and work ethics. It seems
Whites might not consider marriage to someone who is Asian as much of a deviation.

Very little support was found for the third hypothesis; that of the Black Sheep
Effect. Since subjects reported no difl’erences between White/White couples and those
couples involving an Asian member on the compatibility composite measure, it follows
that they would not judge their in-group members who chose to marry someone who was
Asian more harshly; they weren't perceived as particularly “deviant”. The lack of support
for the Black Sheep Efl‘ect as it relates to marriages involving an African-American
member is a bit more puzzling.

It may be that information about interracial couples is processed difl’ererrtly than
information about intraracial couples. Perhaps the former is not as “natu ” a category as
the latter (Sedikides, Olsen & Reis, 1993). People involved in interracial relationships
might retain more individuality or may not be yoked in the same way as intramarried
couples are in the minds of subjects. Therefore, there would be less confiision or overlap
in judgments made about either partner. In other words, even though they are married,
partners in an interracial relationship may be treated as separate units more so than those
in traditional marriages.

Alternatively, the lack of evidence for the Black Sheep Efl’ect might be related to

46

the cover story subjects were given. Subjects were told that married couples had
volunteered to participate in a study about leads to successful maniages. Subjects may
have assumed that those couples who participated were interested in learning about their
relationship, and in improving it. Although subjects were told the couples would not read
their expefimmtal booklets, they were told that the couples would receive feedback from
the objective source (the subjects). It might be that subjects wanted to be constructive in
their ratings. They may have wanted to be more supportive since the couples were being
so open and vulnerable by participating. In essence, they may have felt placed in the role
of maniage counselor or armchair psychologist.

People are engaging in interracial maniages of all types with increasing frequency.
The present study attempted to begin considering how interracial couples and the partners
involved are viewed. The data seem to support the hypothesis that mixed-race couples are
still viewed more negatively than same-race couples. What is diflicult to determine from
the present study is what portion of the data reflects disapproval of interracial maniage
and what portion reflects perceptions of the potential obstacles these marriages face.
Although this study speaks somewhat to the issue, it is important that future research
attempt to difl‘erentiate more carefully between subjects personal beliefs and their
reflection of societal beliefs.

In addition, a design that does not put subjects into the pseudo-counselor position
might reveal data more in line with their personal beliefs. Perhaps subjects could offer their
opinions on a marriage that had “ended in divorce”, and ofi‘er their perceptions of why

that occurred.

47

Another compelling question that needs to be addressed concerns how information
about interracial couples is encoded and recalled compared to information about
intraracial couples. Do we process information about them in the same way as for same-
race couples? Sedikides et al( 1993) found that subjects made more mistakes recalling
information about married couples compared to unmarried couples. Would we make the
same mistakes if we compared same race couples to mixed race couples? Interracial
couples are oflen not perceived as a couple (e. g. waiting to be seated in a restaurant,
making purchases in a store). Does this same failure to perceive the couple as a “unit”
extend to how we process information about them? Would subjects fail to interrnix
partner information as they seemed to do for the married or “yolk ” couples Sedikides et
al(1993) presented? If so, what are the ramifications of this the couple?

One direction for future research would be to consider more specifically how
information processing about the couple differs from that of individuals. Does it matter
when we find out that someone is in an interracial relationship? What is the difi‘erence
between meeting an interracial couple first, compared to getting to know one member first
(e. g. your in-group member) and then finding out he/she has married outside his/her race?
Does the impression of the in-group member change or does the impression one holds
influence how the out-group member (their spouse) is perceived?

The study of relationships in general has many questions to address. The study of
interracial relationships brings with it difi‘erent and challenging questions; questions that

may interest an increasingly larger segmart of the population.

48

FOOTNOTES

lForty-one subjects who indicated their race to be other than Caucasian were dropped
from the analyses. Another 11 subjects were excluded due to either failing the
manipulation check (asking them to recall the race of the husband and wife); 8 subjects or
because they indicated suspicion (3 subjects). Consequently, 229 subjects’ responses ( 101
males and 129 females) were analyzed

Subjects were probed for suspicion by being asked "In your own words, what do you
understand the purpose of this experiment to be?" Any response that indicated that the
subjects doubted they were reading about an actual married couple was coded as
suspicious and not used in the analysis.

2 Additional analyses revealed no difl‘erences between the 3 same race couples on any of
the seven person perception dimensions with one exception. An mm woman
was perceived to have a higher level of relationship success than an Afi'ican-American
woman (t(99)= 2.14, p<.03).

3 The race and sex of the target dyad are indicated throughout the paper by race of
male/race of female (e. g. Asian-M/White-F would indicate a couple comprised of an Asian
husband and a White wife).

‘ Several other questions that failed to show any significant difl‘erences are not discussed.
These include questions 2—4, 7 ,& 8 from the compatibility questionnaire, and questions 1-3
on the strength/weakness form. The Potential Partners’ Qualities measure is also not

discussed as it relates more to what subjects look for in a maniage partner and is not

49

directly related to perceptions of the target dyad.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aldridge, D. (1978). Interracial marriages: Empirical and theoretical consideration.
IQumalnffilackimdies. 3(3), 355-368.

Allport, G. W. (1954). IMP—[film Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barron, M. L. (1946). Wm Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University
press.

Barron, M. L. (1951). Research on intermarriage: A survey of accomplishments and

PTOSpects IheAmencaleumalnfSncinlnaLiL 249-255

Beigel, H. G. (1966). Problems and motives in interracial relationships. Iheloumalofifiex
W20), 185-205.

Bernard, RM. (1980). Ir‘ - ’ r.: ' ' ' '
Wm Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Blau, P. M., Becker, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1984). Intersecting social afliliations and
intermarriage. W20), 585-605.

Blumstein, P. & Schwartz, P. (1983). W New York:
William Morrow.

 

Billig, M. & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior.
WWW}. 27-52

Bodenhausen, G. V & Wyer, R. S ,.Jr (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making

and information processing strategies. WW
_8. 267-282.

Brayboy, T. L. (1966). Interracial sexuality as an expression of neurotic conflict. Ih_e_
W20), 179-184.

Brown, J A. (1987). Casework contacts with Black-white couples. W
W (January) 24-29

Burchinal, L. G. (1962). Membership groups and attitudes toward cross-religious dating
and maniage MammamLEamibLumzz. 248-253

50

51

Burma, J. H. (1963). Interethnic maniage in Los Angeles, 1948-1959. W
156-165.

Byme, D. (1971). Win, New York: Academic Press.

Calhoun, A. W. (1917). WWW Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur
H. Clark.

Cheng, C. K. & Yamarnura, D. S. (1957). Interracial marriage and divorce in Hawaii.
Social Forces, 36, October, 83-84.

Cretser, G. A. (1967). An investigation of interethnic marriage in Los Angeles County,
1950-1961, and its relation to selected demographic factors. Unpublished Master's
thesis, University of Southern California.

Cretser, G. A & Leon, J. J. (1982). W The Haworth
Press: New York.

Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste societies. AmeficanAmhmelggiw, (July-
Sept), 388-395.

Diehl, M (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical

findin88 InW Stroebe&M Hewstone (MUW
Buchanan. 263-292

Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). W San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

DuBois, W. E. B. ( 1899). The Philadelphia Negro: A social study. Boston: Ginn.

Duck, S. (1981). - .
Academic Press.

 

Duck, S. (1982). -
Academic Press.

 

Duck, S. (1988). W Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA.

Eagly, A H. ,Nfladinic, A. ,& Otto, S. (in press). Cognitive and afl‘ective bases of attitudes

toward social groups and social groups and social policies. WM
Smialhrmhnlnu

Esses, V. M., Haddock, G, & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes and emotions as

52
determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds),

Afl‘ect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception.
(pp. 137-166). San Diego, CA Academic Press.

Fischer, C. (1982). W515, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Forgas, J. P. ( 1993) On making sense of odd couples: Mood effects on the perception of
mismatched relationships. WWW 12(1), 59-70.

Forgas, J. P. & Dobosz, B. (1980). Dimensions of romantic involvement: Towards a
taxonomy of heterosexual relationships. WM 290-300.

Frankenberg, R (1993). W University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.

Greir, W. H. & Cobbs, P. M. (1968). Elam New York: Basic Books.

Heer, D. M. (1974). The prevalence of Black-White marriage in the United States, 1960
and 1970 Wald. May, 246-257

Heider, F. (1958). Wm New York: Wiley-

Hernton, C. C. (1988). WWW Anchor Books, New York:
Doubleday.

 

Hoffman, F. L. (1896). ’
Macmillan.

Holmes, S. J. ( 193 7). WW Berkley: University of California

Press.

 

Jackson,L. A, Hodge, C N. ,.Gerard,D A, Ingram]. M. ,BodenhausernG. V. ,Ervin,

K. S..&Sheppard,L A(inpress).
mum Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

 

Jeter, K (1982). Analytic Essay: Intercultural and interracial marriage. In G. A Cretser
& J. J. Leon (Eds. ) W New York: Haworth Press.

Jones,J. M. (1986). Racism: Acrrlturalanalysisoftheproblemlnl. F. Dovidio&S. L.
Gamer (EdS) W San Diego CA Academic

53

Press.

Jordan, W. D. (1974). Ihnflilgmnlhundm. New York: Oxford University press.

Judd, C. M. & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the
individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778-
788.

Katz,I., Wackenhut, J. & Hass, R. (1986). Racial ambivalence, value duality,and

behavior. In]. F. Dovidio&S. L. Gaertner(Eds)Prerudrce._Discrimination.and
Racim San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kelley, M. (1976). - . « ' . : ' ' . ' ‘
intmcialmmjage, Ph. D. dissertation, California School of meessional Psychology,
Los Angeles, CA

 

Kerckhofl‘, A. C. (1974). The social context of interpersonal attraction. In T. L. Huston
(Ed) Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press.

Kinder, D. R & Sears, D. O. (1981). Symbolic racism versus threats to the good life.
W49. 414-431

Kitano, H. H. &Yeung,W., (1982). Chinese interracial marriage. W
W5. Hayworth Press, Inc. 35— 48

Kitano, H. H. ,Yeung, W., Chai, L. ,& Hatanaka (1984). Asian-American Interracial
marriage WFebruary, 179-190

Klemer, R. H. (1970). tr..- u.=..~ - : ' ~ New York: Harperand Row.

 

Krueger, J. & Rothbart, M. (1988). Use of categorical and individuating information in

making inferences about personality WWW
22187-195.

Levinger G & SnoekJ D (1972) Ammanrnmlatinmhipsmm
intmndmm Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Locksley, A, Borgida, E., Brekke, N. ,& Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social
judgment MW 9821 -831

Lynn, A. (1953). Interracial marriages in Washington D. C., 1940-1947. Ph.D.
dissertation, Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press.

 

54

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J.
F.Dovidio&S...:.LGaertner(Eds)-ic'- : : : '
CA. Academic Press

 

Marques, J. M. ,Yzerbyt, V. Y. & Leyens, J. P (1988). The 'Black Sheep Efl‘ect':
Extremity of judgments towards rn-group members as a function of group

identification. Eumpeanlnumalnffimralkmholmml- 16

Marques, J. M. & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep efl'ect: Judgrnental extremity
towards m-group members in inter- and intra-group situations. Ermnlgumalgfi

WM 287-292.

Marques, J. M. ,,Robalo E. M. & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the 'black sheep'
effect: Assessing the rrnpact of social identification and perceived variability on group

judgements WWW;
Melville, K. (1980). W New York: Random House.

Merton, R. K. (1941). Interrnarriage and the social structure: Fact and theory. Rm
4. (August), 361-374.

Messick, D. M. & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L.
W Porter (Eds) WM. 45-81

Moe, J. L. ,,Nacoste R. W., &Insko, C. A. (1981). Beliefversusraceasdeterminants of
discrimination A study of southern adolescentsin 1966 and 1979.1mnmlgf

WWLION- 1050

Monahan, T. P. (1970). Interracial marriage: Data for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.
12mm 2, 287-299.

Monahan, T. P. (1973). Marriage across racial lines in Indiana. W1
W (November), 632-640.

Monahan, T. P. (1976). The occupational class of couples entering into interracial

marriages W10) 175- 192

Osmundsen, J. A (1965). Doctor discusses mixed marriages. W
W1.

Pavela, T. H. (1964). An exploratory study of Negro-white intermarriage in Indiana.
W26. 209-211

Porterfield, E. (1973). -

 

Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Porterfield, E. (1982). Black-American intermarriage in the United States. In G. A.

Cretser & J. J. Leon (Eds. ) W New York: Haworth
Press.

Poussaint, A C. (1983). Black men-white women: An update. EhonyMagazine, 124-128.

Reuter, E. B. (1918). W Boston: Gorham Press.

Risdon, R. (1954). A study of interracial marriages based on data for Los Angeles county.
WWW 94-102

Roberts,....RET(l9S6) .. .- z. '
W Ph. D. thesis, University of Chicago.

 

Rodin, M. J. (1982). Non-engagement, failure to engage, and disengagement. In S. Duck
. _ ,. . _ ~ London: Academic

 

Rubin, Z. (1973). Likingandlnidng. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Saxton, L. IheindiidduaLmaaeanthefamflx. Belmont, CA‘ Wadsworth.

SchumaJLH Steeh, C &Bob0 L (1985) BMW
'mtemretatigns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schuyler, G. s. (1934). When Black weds White. MQdeMomhhafi. (February), 11-17.

Schwertfeger, M. M. (.1982) Interethnic marriage and divorce in Hawaii: A panel study of
1968 first marriages. W The Hayworth Press, Inc. 49-59.

Sedikides, C. ,Olsen, N. ,& Reis, H. T. (1993). Relationships as natural categories. Journal
WWWEJI) 71-82

Shannon, A H. (1930). I: -
York: Walter Neale.

 

Spickard, P. R. (1989) u. -. _ _ ° ° -
W Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

 

Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.,) Ihe
WWW Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum

56

Stonequist, E. V. (1939). Race mixture and the mulatto. In Edgar T. Thompson (Ed. )
W New York. Greenwood Press

Sung, B.L., Chinese American Intermariiages (1990). Journal of Comparative Family
Studies. Vol 21, no. 3, 337-352.

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. WW 25(4), 79-97.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Emma),
96-1 02.

Udry, J. R. (1981). W (2nd edition), Lippincott, Philadelphia,
PA

U. S. Bureau of the Census. (1909). Marriage and divorce, 1867-1906.

H 8- Bureau of the Con-ms. (1990). W (110th
Edition) Washington DC. : US. Government Printing Office.

Wade, J. T. (1991). Marketplace economy: The evaluation of interracial couples. 3.6.819.
WWW 12(4), 405 -422

Weiss, R S. (1975). Mmmfiemtjgn, New York: Basic Books.

Wmch, R. F - (1958). Mateselectiommmmcoinplemmmneeda New York:
Harper.

Zanna, M. P., Haddock, G., & Esses, V. M. (1990). Qnthananirmfipreiudim. Paper
presented at the Nags Head Conference on Stereotypes and Intergroup
Relations, Nags Head Conference Center, Kill Devil Hills, NC.

Zanna,M. P. &Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: Anewlookatanold concept. InD. Bar-

Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds) Wedge Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

APPENDICES

57

APPENDIX A

Welcome to the RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTION STUDY. Please listen carefully as I
tell you a little bit about our study and describe what your contribution to it will be.

The field of personal relationships has grown considerably in the last ten years as an area
of active research. Because we live in a world where we are called upon to be many things
to many people (i.e. child, spouse, parent, friend, etc.) relationships are a very real issue
and one that even non-researchers are interested in. We are all concerned with improving
our ties with loved ones, being a better partner or parent and resolving the conflicts that
arise between people we care about. Among these, lies a renewed interest in marriage and
monogamous relationships. Peoples's intensified commitment to forming lasting
relationships has led researchers to try and better understand the dynamics of successfiil
versus unsuccessfirl relationships, especially marriage. In fact, sometimes the very ones
that seem doomed from the start last forever and the matches made in heaven end quickly.
What is it that makes a relationship successful? How can we improve our chances of
having a happy, healthy partnership?

In order to investigate these questions, we have interviewed a large number of married
couples. They differ on many, many qualities including age, race, religion, how long
they've known each other and how they met. Some have children, others do not. Some
have been married recently, others for a number of years. In other words, we‘ve collected
lots of data to examine the similarities and differences among married couples. We will be
following up on each couple periodically to track their relationship.

Therefore, what we have so far, is the perspectives of the couples themselves about what
they view as their strengths and weaknesses. What we'd like fi'om you today is an
"objective observers” perspective on these relationships and some information regarding
your own ideas of marriage.

If you are interested in participating please indicate this by reading and signing the consent
form in front of you now.

After consent forms are completed and materials are distributed:

We are interested in general factors that make a relationship work or not work. To that
end we asked our researchers to write a short description of couples that they interviewed.
Because we did not want to influence what they wrote we did not ask them to follow any
specific format. Any identifying information has been removed from these descriptions to
protect the anonymity of our couples. Any information that revealed how long they had
been together was also removed as it might be too biasing. Before you begin, copy the
number marked on ydur couple description sheet to the front of your booklet so we know
which couple you considered. Then begin by carefully reading the couple description
sheet. Start working your way through your booklet. Feel free to refer back to the

58

description sheet whenever you'd like. Please be frank and honest in your responses.
They are completely confidential and anonymous; the couples will not see your responses.
They will receive general feedback from them however. Please do not skip any questions
and answer each in the order it is presented. You may begin.

59

APPENDIX B
Couple # Date of interview
Interview # Time of interview
Interviewer initials: Duration of interview

Do we have correct address? Y N
Do we have correct telephone (hm & wk) Y N

 

 

 

 

HUSBAND: WIFE:
Name: Name:
(last) (first) (last) (first)
Age: Age:
Race/ethnicity: Race/ethnicity:
[ ] Asian-American [ ] Asian-Ameri
[ ] Afiican-American [ ] Afiican-American
[ ] Caucasian/White [] Caucasian
[ ] Hispanic [ ] Hispanic
[ ] Native American [ ] Native American
[ ] Other [ ] Other

Previously married? Y N Previously married? Y N

 

Provide a short description of the interview and enclose this form with the questionnaires
administered to each partner.

Couple # 117 live in a suburb of Detroit where they have recently purchased an older
home they intend on remodeling. The interview took place there shortly ( 1 month) after
they moved in.
“Michael" is 5'10" tall with dark hair and is Asian-American. He is 27 years old. His wife
"Julie", a White Caucasian aged 26 is 5'5" tall and has shoulder length brown hair. Michael
and Julie met through mutual fiiends who introduced them at an event held downtown in
the summer time. They indicate that they "hit it ofi" immediately. Neither remembers
who asked whom out first. They do agree that their first date consisted of dinner and a
movie. Michael related that after the movie they stopped for coffee and talked for several
hours. Both admit that after meeting each other they stopped dating other people.
Michael and Julie dated for almost two years before marrying. It is a first marriage for
both of them. They have no children at present. They do have a new dog, a mixed breed
named Spig. Although both partners work fiill time, they indicate that they still manage
to fit in activities they both enjoy.

The interview ended with their agreement that they could be contacted in 6 months
for the first follow-up interview.

60

APPENDIX C

Sometimes the way you are feeling can influence your responses. In order to account for
this in our experiment, we ask you to fill out the following. Using the scale below, indicate
HOW YOU ARE FEELING RIGHT NOW by placing a number in front of each feeling.

1 = NOT AT ALL

2 = A LITTLE

3 = MODERATELY
4 = QUITE A BIT

5 = VERY MUCH

RIGHT NOW I FEEL:

__ sad __ joyful __ scared
__ relaxed __ disgusted __ angry
__ attentive __ lonely __ excited
__ revolted _ nervous _ hostile
__ interested _ frightened __ calm
_ depressed _ peaceful __ contempt
__ delighted __ anxious __ loving
__ jittery __ happy __ loathing

irritable fearfiil downhearted

61

APPENDIX D

1. How compatible do you think this couple is?
Not at all compatible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very compatible

2. How ”well-matched" do you think this couple is?
Very well-matched l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all well-matched

3. How suitable would you say the woman is for the man in this relationship?
Not at all suitable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very suitable

4. How suitable would you say the man is for the woman in this relationship?
Very suitable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all suitable

5. How likely do you think it is that this will be a successful relationship?
Notatalllikely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very likely

6. How happy do you think this couple is?
Veryhappy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notatallhappy

7. How much do you like the male in this couple?
Notatall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Verymuch.

8. How much do you like the female in this couple?
Verymuch l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notatall

9. If 100% is "til death do us part" and 0% is "it won't last 6 months”, what percentage
best describes the chances you give to this marriage surviving?
"Won‘t last six months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "til death do us part”

10. Ofien one partner is perceived as “having made a catch” or as “lucky to have gotten
him/her”. Which of the following best describes the couple you just read about?
A) I’d say she is the lucky one
B) I’d say he is the lucky one
C) I’d say neither is very lucky
D) I’d say both are equally lucky

I 1. Which of the following do you believe to be true?
A) The woman is of a higher social class than the man
B) The man is of a higher social class than the woman
C) They seem to be of equal social class

62

12. Which of the following do you believe to be true?
A) The woman has a higher occupational status
B) The man has a higher occupational status
C) Their occupational status is equal

13. Which of the following do you perceive to be true?
A) The woman has a higher educational status
B) The man has a higher educational status
C) Their educational status is equal

14. Please indicate your best guess as to the highest educational level attained by each
partner. Select only one for each partner.

HIM HER
Some high school

High school

Some college

College degree

Graduate work

Ph.D. or professional _
degree

63

Appendix E

Keep in mind the couple you just read about. Answer the following questions frankly and
honestly. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Please answer every question.

1. I would be comfortable being in a similar relationship.
Definitely no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely yes

2. I would be comfortable supporting a family member’s involvement in a similar
relationship.
Definitely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely no

3. I would be comfortable with my best fiiend being in
a similar relationship.
Definitely no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely yes

4. I would be comfortable having this couple as fiiends
Definitely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely no

5. I would be comfortable having this couple as neighbors
Definitely no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely yes

6. I would be comfortable working with this couple
Definitely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely no

64

Recall the information you were given about the female (male) in this couple. Indicate the
extent to which you believe the following dimensions describe her (him). Rate her (him)
fiankly and honestly; your responses are confidential. We are interested in your best

judgment.

Very uneducated 1
Very ambitious 1
Very cold/unloving 1
Not very feminine 1

Very high 1
self-esteem

Not very traditional

fl

Very sociable 1

H

Not very intelligent
Very hardworking 1
Not very attractive 1
Very well-adjusted 1
Not very rebellious 1
Very fiiendly 1
Not very capable 1
Very lazy I
Not very trustworthy 1

Very likable 1

Not very moody 1

2

6 7 Very educated

6

6

7

7

Not very ambitious
Very warm/loving
Very feminine

Very low
self-esteem

Very traditional

Not very sociable
Very Intelligent

Not very hardworking
Very attractive

Not very well-adjusted
Very rebellious

Not very friendly
Very capable

Not very lazy

Very trustworthy

Not very likable

Very moody

65

Very old-fashioned l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very old-fashioned

Not very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very isolated/lonely
isolated/lonely

Very dependable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very dependable
Not very prosperous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very prosperous

Very romantic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very romantic
Frequently depressed I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rarely depressed

Not very out-going l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very out-going

Very wise I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very wise

Not very religious l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very religious

Not very successful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very successful

Very understanding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very understanding

Notverycommitted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Verycommitted
to relationship to relationship

66

APPENDIX G
Naturally we consider the whole person when selecting a marriage partner and we take
many things into consideration. Usually though, it is important that the potential partner
be similar to ourselves in at least some ways. First, in the space below, tell us what you
believe to be the most important dimension of similarity you'd share with your partner.
Then, rate the following considerations by how important each one is or would be to you
in choosing a marriage partner. Read each one carefully then select the number that best
reflects your opinion.

It is most important that my mate and I be similar in the following
way:

 

How important is each of the following characteristics in your choice of a mate?

1. EDUCATION
Notveryimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Veryimportant

2. INTELLIGENCE
Veryimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notveryimportant

3. INCOME

Notveryimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Veryimportant

4. SAMERACE

Veryimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notveryimportant

5. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Notveryimportant l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Veryimportant

6. SAME RELIGION
Veryimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notveryimportant

7. NATIONALITY
Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

8. OCCUPATION
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very important

9. SOCIAL CLASS
Notveryimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Veryimportant

67

10. RESPECT EACH OTHER
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very important

11. SEXUAL COMPATIBILITY
Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

12. POLITICAL AFFILIATION
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very important

13. VALUES/MORALS
Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

14. GOOD CONVERSATIONALIST
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very important

15. PHYSICALLY FIT
Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

16. SENSE OF HUMOR
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very important

17. SHARED INTERESTS
Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

18.LOVE
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very important

19.SAME IDEAS ABOUT CHILDREN
Not very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

20.FAMILY APPROVES
Very important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

68

APPENDIX H

In your personal opinion, what do you see as the potential downfalls or weaknesses of this
marriage?

In your opinion, what do you see as the potential strengths or strong points of this
marriage?

In your own words, what do you understand the purpose of this experiment to be?

 

69

Try to imagine that you are the "old" boyfriend or girlfiiend in this relationship.

1.

How comfortable would you be with your old boyfiiend/girlfiiend talking to their
spouse about your past relationship?
Very comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very uncomfortable

How jealous would you be of their relationship?
Not very jealous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very jealous

. How easy is it for you to imagine yourself in this relationship?

Veryeasy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notveryeasy

IfI were to tell you that this couple divorced after three years of marriage, what would
you imagine the most likely cause to be? Indicate any that apply. Ifyou think it is more
than one, put a "1" by the most likely, ”2" by the next likely, etc.

_ Differences in education

_ Family pressures

_ Money problems

_ Unfaithfulness

__ Difi‘erences in background

__ Incompatible from the beginning

__ Lack of common interests

_ Unlucky

__ Differences about having children

_ Differences about raising children

5. HI were to tell you that this couple has been happily married for 16 years, what would

you imagine the most likely reason to be? Indicate any that apply. Ifyou think it is more
than one, put a "1" by the most likely, "2" by the next likely, etc.
_ Similarities in education

_ Strong family support

__ Faithful and loving to each other

_ Work well as a "team"

__ Compatible fi'om the beginning

__ Many shared interests

__ Similar backgrounds

__ Lucky

__ Similarities about having children

__ Similarities about raising children

70

APPENDIX I
Once again, consider the husband when answering these last few questions.

How comfortable would you say he is with other members of his own race?
Not very comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very comfortable

To what extent do you think he feels rejected by members of his own social group?
Verymuch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notatall

To what degree do you think he has a strong sense of racial/ethnic identity?
Not very strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very strong

Now consider the wife when answering these last few questions.

How comfortable would you say she is with other members of her own race?
Not very comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very comfortable

To what extent do you think she feels rejected by members of her own social group?
Verymuch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notatall

To what degree do you think she has a strong sense of racial/ethnic identity?
Not very strong 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Very strong

AT THIS TIME PLEASE TURN YOUR "COUPLE DESCRIPTION" SHEET
FACE DOWN ON YOUR DESK.

71

APPENDIX J
PLEASE CIRCLE THE CORRECT ANSWER:

What was the wife's name in this couple?
a. Carol c. Lisa
b. Jennifer (1. Julie

What was her age?
a. 18 c. 22
b. 19 d. 25

What was her race/ethnicity?
a. Afiican-American

b. Asian-American

c. Caucasian/White

d. Hispanic

e. Native American

f. Other

What was the husband's name in this couple?
a. Carl c. Michael
b. John (1. Peter

What was his age?
a. 19 c. 25
b. 20 d. 27

What was his race/ethnicity?

a. Afiican-American d. Hispanic

b. Asian-American e. Native American
c. Caucasian/White f. Other

What is your sex? _ MALE __ FEMALE What is your age?

What is your race/ethnicity? Your marital status?
a. Afiican-American a. Single

b. Asian-American b. Married

c. Caucasian/White c. Divorced

d. Hispanic d. Widowed

e. Native American
f. Other

72

APPENDIX K

PLEASE INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS. PUT THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER IN THE
SPACE PROVIDED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY.

5 = STRONGLY AGREE

4 = AGREE

3 = NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE
2 = DISAGREE

l = STRONGLY DISAGREE

_ OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES, THE GOVERNMENT AND NEWS MEDIA
HAVE SEEMED MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY
GROUPS THAN THE MAJORITY GROUPS IN OUR SOCIETY.

_ MINORITY GROUPS SHOULD NOT PUSH THEMSELVES WHERE THEY
ARE NOT WANTED.

_ IT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND THE ANGER OF MINORITY GROUPS IN OUR
SOCIETY.

_ DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MINORITY GROUPS IS NO LONGER A
PROBLEM IN AMERICA.

__ OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES, MINORITY GROUPS HAVE GOTTEN
MORE ECONOMICALLY THAN THEY DESERVE.

_ MINORITY GROUPS ARE GETTING TOO DEMANDING IN THEIR PUSH
FOR EQUAL RIGHTS.

Please read each statement and decide whether you feel, in general, that it is mostly true as
applied to you or mostly false. Please circle the appropriate letter (T=True, F=False)
directly to the left of each statement.

. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.

. Before voting, I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates.

. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune that they only got what they
deserved.

. I like to gossip at times.

. On occasion I have doubts about my ability to succeed.

. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.

. I have never intensely disliked anyone.

t-lt-it-l
"11"?!“
mix):—

r-it-i—lI-l
"11"1'1'1'1'1'1
\IO‘MA

F
F
F

t-lt-it-lr-lt-lt-l t-lt-it-i
"11"1'1'11'11'11'11

t-lt-lt-It-lt-it-IP-l
"1'1'1'1'1'1'131'21'11'11

v-iu-r—r-r—r—r—r
mmmmmmm

Fit-I
’11"!!!

--1
~21

73

8. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car.

9. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.

10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little
of my ability.

11. I am always carefiil about my manner of dress.

12. I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

13. When I don't know something, I don‘t at all mind admitting it.

14. I never resent being asked to return a favor.

15. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget.

16. [fl could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would
probably do it.

17. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.

18. I can remember ”playing sick" to get out of something.

19. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way.

20. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener.

21. I always try to practice what I preach.

22. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others.

23. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my
own.

24. Mytablemannersathomeareasgoodaswhenleatoutinarestaurant.

25. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.

26. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.

27. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.

28. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way.

29. I‘m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.

30. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even
though I knew they were right.

31. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.

32. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud-mouthed, obnoxious

people.
33. I would never think of letting someone else punished for my wrong-doings.

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SEX: MALE FEMALE

74

Appendix L

At this time we'd like to thank you for participating in the Relationship Perception
Study. Psychological research can be conducted in many different ways. One thing that is
common to all research however is an interest in learning how people actually think, act
and feel in a variety of situations. Because we want true and frank answers, researchers
will sometimes not explain everything about the experiment until it is over. That way we
can better gather your genuine opinions without subjects trying to " give us what we
want".

Because of this, it is sometimes necessary to use deception in an experiment. For
instance, in this experiment there are not true married couples that participated in an
interview. We tried to make them real for you, in order to gather your opinions on their
compatibility as couples. Ifwe were to tell you here is a pretend man and a pretend
woman, pretend they're married, the information we collected would probably be different
than if you accept them as real people. Are there any questions at this point as to why this
deception was necessary? We try very hard to make the situation as real as possible.

This particular experiment is interested in influences our perceptions of a couple's
compatibility. Further, we believe that this is influenced by a number of factors including
race. Specifically, we are interested in how couples comprised of different races are
perceived compared to couples of the same race. So all of you read the same couple
description except we switched the race of the man and woman. This way we can
compare all the different responses for each combination. Are there any questions?

Ifyou will bring your credit cards up I will stamp them and give you a copy of this
debriefing form to take with you. Although I can't discuss results at this time (since we
don't have them yet) I‘d be happy to talk in greater detail to any of you interested in this
topic. Again, thank you for participating.

.r.: .

q .
'1 W»

V
’ 7 .15":
9’ . “kt-J”

‘d

 

 

 

‘ v
. .31.; r,
r.‘ ' '

i’,'
'V- 7‘?
.L ,.

33:”: ‘- '

“,..--‘r
v

.j I: :;
y' .r,'i

, .
‘»'F f
' -V- {.fi‘itu'r.

7 r .
_ Eryn '-