MSU

LIBRARIES

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

" ~ Fiao 4 2004

tar me

 

 

3 9(1),

'_..

03-3

r
.J

IITIIIAIIIAGI AND ASSIIILATIOI 0' CHIN!!! AHIIICANS

3!

Chan lei-tin

A'flflSIS

Sub-itted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfill-eat of the require-enta
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1988

ABSTRACT

INTERMARRIAGE AND ASSIMILATION 0F CHINESE AMERICANS

BY

Chan Kai-tin

1980 Census data were used to examine the tendency for
interracial marriage with whites by Chinese Americans in
five SMSAs of California. Exogamy was the measure of
assimilation in the U.S. A very low rate of intermarriage
with whites was found. The odds of intermarriage with white
Americans were greater for Chinese women than for Chinese
men and greater for Chinese women born in the U.S. than for
Chinese women born outside the U.S. The odds of
intermarriage with whites were greater for those with some
college than for those with lesser amounts of education.
The multivariate logit regressions suggested that the
effects of education were independent of the effects of
gender or country of birth.

Finally, among endogamous Chinese, native-born tended
to marry native-born; and foreign-born tended to marry
foreign-born. These results suggested that college
attendance promotes assimilation of Chinese Americans into

U.S. society through outmarriage to whites and that this

Chan Kai-tin
tendency is also encouraged by the second-class status that
women occupy in the Chinese culture.

This study concludes with suggestions for future
research on exogamy among Chinese Americans. It is
suggested that the Chinese community may become internally
more differentiated and that exogamy may become less common
as the numbers of Chinese immigrants continue to expand in

response to the Immigration Law of 1965.

Copyright by
Chan Kai-tin
1988

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my daughter, my wife, my

sisters and my parents.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge with grateful appreciation my major
professor, Dr. Nan E. Johnson, for her kindest and helpful
advice, guidance and support during the conduct of this
research. As teacher and friend, she not only suggested
thoughtful comments on this report and assisted throughout
the study, but also gave crucial support in bringing it to
completion. Dr. Rita S. Gallin made constructive
suggestions on an earlier draft of this work.

I am also indebted for a great deal of technical
support and assistance to Mrs. Harriet Dhanak, Director of
Data Archives of Michigan State University; and Mr. Francis
K. H. Cheung; who in one way or another helped to develop
the computing programme for processing the 1980 U.S. Census
public use sample tape. The report was finalized when I was
back home in Hong Kong, and I would like to thank Mrs.
Olivia Mejorado for helping to print the manuscripts.

Finally, I am grateful to my wife for tolerating the
disruptions and stresses during my absence in the U.S.
Without her encouragement, my study in the U.S. would not
have been possible. I would also like to thank my sisters
and parents for their emotional and financial suppOrt of my

education.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
List of Figures

Introduction
The problem ---------------------------------
Assimilation and Exogamy ————————————————————

Statement of Hypotheses ————————————————————————

Methodology
Data ----------------------------------------
Dependent Variable --------------------------
Independent (Test) Variable _________________
Control Variables ---------------------------

Findings

The Relationship of Gender to Exogamy -------
The Relationships of Education, Age at

first Marriage and Country of Birth

to Exogamy ------------------------------
The Relationships of Country of Birth

between Chinese Husband and Chinese

Wife ------------------------------------

Discussion ————————————————————————————————————

References ------------------------------------

iv

14

18
19
20
20

23

25

29

30

41

Tables

LIST OF TABLES

l. Interracial marriage rates of Chinese for 1980

2. Characteristics of Chinese men and women in

study sample
3. Logit regression
4. Logit regression
5. Distributions of

represents by
and of wife

for female Chinese exogamy
for male Chinese exogamy

endogamously wedded Chinese
country of birth of husband

Page
35

36

37
38

39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

l. Gordon's process of assimilation

vi

Page

40

INTRODUCTION

The problem

 

Assimilation of minority groups in America has been a
core issue in race and minority studies. Most of these
studies (Alba, 1986; Blau, 1984; Burma and others, 1984;
Clifford, 1982 and Glick, 1970) merely focus on the Black,
Jew, Mexican or American-Indian. Little has been done on
the Asian, especially the Chinese. Chinese were the first
Asians to come to the United States. Their migration dates
from the middle of the 19th century. Theoretically after
over a hundred years, they should have mixed or melted to a
great extent into the host society as did the German and
Irish before them. Therefore, a study of Chinese
assimilation should reveal the patterns by which an
immigrant group adapts to a new social environment and
should suggest policies by which the host society can
facilitate that adaptation.

The early Chinese sojourners, mostly young men,
maintained a psychological and social separateness from the
larger society and braced themselves against the full impact
of the dominant society's values, norms, attitudes and
behavior patterns. What they desired was to make their
living and save up enough money to return home (Kitano 1984;
Lyman 1977; Yuan 1963; Lee 1960 and Men 1948). They had no

intention to settle in the "New World". However their

2
industrious and hard work subjected them to massive anti-
Chinese hostilities and violences.

The general hostile attitude, as suggested by Lyman
(1977), Yuan (1963), Sung (1963) and Lee (1960), triggered a
strong and in-depth awareness of collective discrimination
which drove the Chinese immigrants together into the
isolated ghetto - Chinatown, where they preserved their own
style of living, cultural values and norms. This exclusive
culture and group attachment functioned not only as a
defensive mechanism, protecting the Chinese from white
hostilities but further reinforced their sojourner attitudes
and prevented them from a complete assimilation into
American society. Although their incentive to return to
China was inhibited by the Communist takeover in 1949, they
still haped to return home one day.

Even though Chinese have settled in America for more
than a century, they have not completely assimilated into
American society (Lee 1960). The primary reasons suggested
are: l) the extent of anti-Chinese harassment; 2) the vested
interests of Chinatown elites in maintaining an exclusive
community and culture. Chinatown provides not only a haven
of refuge but also Chinese labor markets and clientele which
foster a parallel economy (Nee and Wong 1985; Light 1984; Li
1976; and Lee 1960).

Kuo and Lin (1977) studied the assimilation of Chinese
Americans in Washington, D.C., by means of their

socioeconomic attainment and their orientation to Chinese

3

cultural values. They used three distinctive indicators to
measure the degree of assimilation: namely, Chinese
Americans' affection toward China and Chinese culture,
racial identification, and sustenance of traditional Chinese
values. They found that socioeconomic attainment had a
negligible effect on the indicators of centrifugal
tendencies, when the level of education was controlled.
Their finding implied no relationship between socioeconomic
attainment and assimilation; that is, Chinese Americans who
had successfully attained high socioeconomic status were
still very "Chinese" in the three dimensions. The
relatively slow pace of assimilation among Chinese Americans
was attributed to their strong Chinese friendship ties and
subculture. In other words, the strong group attachment
hindered Chinese assimilation. These results, consistent
with Lee's (1960) theory, suggested that Chinese Americans
had not fully fused into the host society, even though some
of them had successfully attained their "American dream".

On the contrary, early studies strongly suggested that
both native and foreign born Chinese have been successful in
assimilating into American culture and behavior. For
example, Loh's (1945: 160-173) Philadelphia study pointed
out that Chinese enjoyed the same kind of leisure and
hobbies as did Americans, and adopted American first names
for their offspring. Cheng (1948:203-323) noted that many
Chinese had adopted American baseball, American food,

Christianity, as well as religious and secular American

4

holidays. Abel and Hsu (1948) argued that the acceptance of
American customs and social rituals has modified the Chinese
personality structure, such that native born Chinese behave
more like American born Caucasians. Fong (1965) in his
study of 336 Chinese college students concluded that as
Chinese become progressively more removed from their
ancestral culture and as they have greater contact with the
dominant American culture, they would fully assimilate and
internalize American perceptual norms. What these earlier
writers implied was that adoption of American hobbies,
language, diet, religion and holidays transformed the
Chinese into Americans both psychologically and
behaviorially. These contrasting results might confuse our
understanding of Chinese Americans' assimilation. It is
fruitful to ask, in this respect, how far did Chinese

Americans assimilate into the host society?

Assimilation and Exogamy

 

The importance of intermarriage in the field of migrant
assimilation has often been stressed. Price and Gubrzycki
(1962) argued that intermarriage is the strongest test of
group cohesion. It is the last stage in the total
assimilation of two or more ethnic groups; and even if
intermarriage may not be directly relevant to economic,
residential or other types of social integration, it is
still the most useful index of complete assimilation.

0n the other hand, some have argued that a high rate of

5
intermarriage is not always accompanied by a high rate of
assimilation. Marcson (1950) thus noted that some old
"assimilated" migrant groups in the U.S. had maintained a
lower intermarriage rate than new ones, a fact which
suggested that intermarriage might be a function of factors
other than assimilation.

Although there is no agreement among scholars on the
exact strength of intermarriage as a measurement of
assimilation, there is, however, a general recognition that
intermarriage is an important aspect which needs special
treatment (Choi 1975; Schmitt 1965; Price and Gubrzycki
1962; and Merton 1941). In the case of Chinese migrants in
the United States, where they have noticeably distinct
features and cultural traits, intermarriage represents a
significant stage in the assimilation process.

What does it mean to be fully assimilated into the
majority society? For the Anglo-Saxon conformists, the
central assumption is the superiority of the behavior and
values of the Anglo-Saxon core group, such that immigrants
must conform to the core culture. It is the immigrant's
primary responsibility to learn the English language and the
core group's values and behavioral patterns. Indeed, it is
a one way adaptation, for the Anglo-Saxons are not expected
to adopt any of the immigrant's ancestral culture and
values.

The melting pot model, a more idealistic goal for

American society, proposed that foreign-born and native-born

6
people in the United States would blend together culturally
and biologically into a new people and a new civilization.
The concept of this model is perhaps a noble one but in
practice, as Kitano put it, is "difficult to form much more
than a vague notion of how it would work" (1973: 68). This
perspective dominated most of the early racial studies.

Pluralists on the other hand disagreed with the goal of
inevitable integration or assimilation of different racial
and ethnic groups. Rather, they believed culturally diverse
racial or ethnic groups could live in harmony so that
distinct cultural practices and identities of each ethnic
group should and could be retained within a society.

Racial integration, however, is a complex and multi-
dimensional issue, and no single model can account for a
thorough and complete explanation. Even though each ethnic
group has retained its own cultural distinction, a
considerable degree of assimilation would likely occur as a
result of massive intergroup contact. Similarly, Chinese
Americans on the one hand retain a pluralistic style of
living which is characterized by a strong group attachment
and racial identity, while on the other hand they exhibit a
considerable degree of acculturation into the host society.
That is why previous studies by Loh, Cheng, Abel and Hsu,
and Fong concluded some Chinese Americans had assimilated
successfully in the host society.

Despite the weakness of each model, many scholars tried

to develop a general theory or generalization on intergroup

7
relations. R. E. Park's (1950) race relation cycle is the
typical attempt. He suggested that immigrants go through an
inevitable process of contact, competition, accommodation
and eventual assimilation. Park believed it is an ongoing,
progressive, inevitable "interpenetration and fusion"

"persons and groups acquire the memories,

process in which
sentiments and attitudes of other persons or groups, and by
sharing their experiences and history, are incorporated with
them in a common cultural life" (Park 1969 p.665). He also
believed, a common language and extensive primary contacts
among groups are crucial to facilitate assimilation.

In fact, Park's theory is based on the melting pot
ideology. It emphasizes the "adaptive capacity" (Wagley and
Harris, 1958) of the immigrant and their ancestral culture.
Park equated assimilation with fusion and regarded the
continuing existence of identifiable ethnic groups in
America as a sign of non-assimilation. However Park revised
the theory in 1937 to acknowledge three possible outcomes of
ethnic assimilation: a caste system such as in India; a
complete assimilation; and a permanent institutionalization
of minority status within a larger society. Park's later
emphasis on alternate outcomes combines the ideas of melting
pot and pluralism.

Banton's (1967) writings are another attempt to explain
racial relations. He saw six different stages of

assimilation, namely: the peripheral contact,

institutionalized contact, acculturation, integration,

assimilation or amalgamation, and pluralism. These orders
are merely guidelines or concepts without any concrete
measures and are expansions of Park's race relation cycle.

Gordon's (1964: 71) multiple stages of assimilation, on
the other hand, provide more concrete and realistic measures
of the immigrant's extent of assimilation. Assimilation
according to Gordon can be dissected into several different
dimensions which Operate to some degree independently of
each other. The crucial factor in facilitating assimilation
is the extent of primary or intimate relations between core
group members and immigrants or their descendents. Gordon
distinguished assimilation into two main types which are
based on the degree of primary relations involved; namely
acculturation and structural assimilation, as shown in
figure 1.

Acculturation or behavioral assimilation refers to the
change of immigrants' cultural patterns to those of the host
society. Gordon asserted that it is the far most common
type of assimilation to occur and may take place when no
other type occurs either simultaneously or later. Moreover,
it varies inversely with discrimination and spatial social
segregation but may nevertheless occur in spite of these
delaying phenomena.

Gordon distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic
acculturation. Intrinsic changes are those affecting the
vital ingredients of the ethnic group which are essential to

its historical-cultural heritage. They include "religious

9
belief, religious practice, ethical values, musical tastes,
folk recreational patterns and a sense of a common past"
(Gordon 1964:79). Extrinsic changes are external to the

core of a group's ethnic heritage. These include changes in

"dress, manner, patterns of emotional expression and
language pronunciation" (Gordon 1964:79). Extrinsic
acculturation occurs more readily than does intrinsic

acculturation (Yinger, 1981; Gordon, 1964). As such the
results of Loh, Cheng, Abel and Hsu, and Fong documented the
large degree of extrinsic acculturation of Chinese
Americans, as does the study of Chinese Americans by Weiss
(1971) in Sacramento. But these works are less able to
record intrinsic acculturation for this ethnic group.
Acculturation is a necessary, but insufficient
condition for structural assimilation. Structural
assimilation, as defined by Gordon, is the "entrance of the
minority group into the primary institutions of the core
society at the primary level. This process spans the life
cycle of the individual, from children's play group through
the college fraternity to the grave. It involves the
entrance of immigrants and their descendants into social
cliques, organizations, institutional activities and civic
life of the receiving society" (Gordon 1964:81). Once
structural assimilation occurs, either simultaneously with
or subsequent to acculturation, all other types of
assimilation will naturally follow (Gordon 1964:81).

It is critical, at this point, to distinguish between

10

two kinds of relationships, primary and secondary. Primary
relationships are created by personal friendship patterns,
frequent interfamily visits, communal worship, communal
recreation and the most important element -- mutual
acceptance of each other. Therefore they are warm, intimate
and personal. Secondary relationships are found in the
general activities of civic life such as earning a living,
carrying out political responsibility and engaging in the
instrumental affairs of the larger society (Gordon
1967:411). They are relatively impersonal and segmental.
Thus only primary relations would facilitate a complete
assimilation while secondary relations might retain the
minority group in its pluralistic position.

The most appropriate indicator of primary relations is
marriage, since it is the most intimate and personal
relation between individuals in U.S. society. When marriage
occurs between two distinct ethnic or racial group members,
it signifies a mutual acceptance between the two members,
and symbolizes a weakening of ethnic identity for the
minority group. Therefore it is difficult to maintain an
ethnically pluralistic society when there is extensive
mating across group lines (Kitano and others 1984).
Intermarriage then, shall be used in this study as an
indicator of structural assimilation.

Studies in intermarriage and assimilation between
ethnic groups had been done as early as in the dawn of the

century. The study of Down (1911), Drachsler (1920), Park

11
(1921), Davie (1936), Bossard (1939), Kolivosky (1953),
Kitano and others (1984), and Yinger (1984) suggested
intermarriage is the most vital and realistic index in
measuring the extent of assimilation between ethnic groups.
They asserted that there is a positive relation between the
intermarriage rate and the degree of assimilation.

Merton (1941) suggested the significance of cultural
constraint on intermarriage. He proposed that the frequency
of intermarriage depends on the limitation of cultural norms
and social conditions of a society. Norms, he implied,
could be either prescriptive or proscriptive, that is either
encouraging or discouraging ingroup or outgroup marriage.
Such norms might control intermarriage directly or
indirectly. Since each society or culture has its own taboo
or norm governing the choice of mates for its members, the
degree of limitation may vary from society to society or
culture to culture. Intermarriage in this sense, could be
interpreted not only as a break-down of barriers between the
two ethnic groups, but also as a change in the structural
functioning of institutions in both groups.

Merton's proposal put forward the significance of
cultural norms in governing the selection of an out-group
mate. The mechanism of favoring an ingroup mate not only
denotes the strength of cultural effect but also "increasing
group solidarity and supporting the social structure by
helping to fix social distances which obtain between groups"

(Merton, 1941:363). Merton's proposition on the importance

12

of cultural constraint on intermarriage was further
supported by Hollingshead (1980) and Bean and Bradshaw
(1970). Merton also asserted that the strength of cultural
norms could be hampered by social conditions, such as the
size, sex and age compositions of the groups in question as
well as the contact between their members. These
propositions presumed that even though the cultural norms
are strong enough to control its members' choice, the
demographic conditions of that group may counter the norms.
For example, smaller groups tend to have a higher
outmarriage rate than larger ones because there are
insufficient potential mates for ingroup marriage (Blau, et
al. 1984 and Labov and Jacobs 1986). Blau and others
(1984) also found that the degree of heterogeneity in the
community was directly related to the rate of outmarriage.
Although Blau and Merton's perspectives did provide a
probable account of intermarriage between groups, their
purely cultural and structural portrait may not be adequate
to explain the variations of outmarriage by the Chinese.
Any theory of outmarriage must deal with racial
discrimination.

As Lyman (1977), Yuan (1971) and Lee (1960) suggested,
the early racial discrimination and anti-Chinese experiences
forced the Chinese to form their own ethnic community which
in turn consolidated a strong group attachment protecting
them from extensive harassment. Yinger (1981: 253)

suggested "group solidarity among members of a group may

13

block identification with an open society", as in the
Chinese case. It is not surprising that while most Chinese
descendants, both native and foreign born live away from
Chinatown, they still maintain a close link with the Chinese
community. This may explain why even most Chinese with a
relatively high socioeconomic status and educational level
do not show high rate of structural assimilation into the
host society (Lyman 1977, Kuo and Lin 1977, and Yuan 1971).

Kitano and his colleagues (1984) studied Asian
intermarriage in Los Angeles, 1979; they found that Chinese
were second only to Japanese in having the highest
outmarriage rate. Outmarriage was more likely to be with
non-Asians (e.g.: White, Black) than with other Asians
(e.g.: Japanese, Korean). Compared with Burma's (1963)
result, a significant increase of outgroup marriage has been
found since 1959. However the study of Kitano and others
merely focused on Los Angeles, leaving the rest of Chinese
Americans untouched. As Alba (1986) argued, if a small
number of individuals marry across the ethnic boundary, it
does not change the boundary or weaken ethnicity; but an
extensive intermarriage among one ethnic group with the
others signifies a massive weakening of boundary
maintenance. Therefore by definition such boundary changes
mean changes to ethnicity as well. The high intermarriage
rate in their study should be envisioned merely as an

individualistic conception.

14

Statement of Hypotheses

 

The objective of this study is to assess how far
Chinese have assimilated into American society. Are there
any differences among Chinese regarding their extent of
assimilation? Which Chinese are most likely to assimilate
and lessen the group ties? Will there be any difference
between native-born and foreign-born Chinese?

To assess the pace of assimilation of Chinese
Americans, intermarriage between Chinese Americans and
Caucasians is employed as the index of measurement. Since
intermarriage with other racial groups is greatly
proscripted by Chinese culture, it is hypothesized in this
regard that a low rate of intermarriage with Caucasians is
expected among both native-born and foreign-born Chinese.
Thus the lower the rate of intermarriage between Chinese and
Caucasians, the slower the pace of assimilation among the
Chinese will be.

Traditionally, sons in Chinese culture are the legal
heirs to family prOperty and bear the family name. The
concern about continuity and stability of lineage ancestors
gave rise to the preference of sons over daughters. This
preference carries both advantages and obligations; the
responsibilities include supporting the parents in their old
age and performing the rites of ancestor worship. So as to
protect their economic stake, the elders strongly discourage
their sons from marrying outsiders. Daughters on the other

hand are raised to be "outsiders" and their status in the

15
family is inferior to that of sons. They are relatively
free from traditional and cultural constraints. Therefore a
difference of intermarriage rate is expected between male
and female Chinese.
Hypothesis 1: The odds of exogamy is lower among
the male Chinese than among female

Chinese.

Education is held to be a force for acculturation (Kuo
and Lin, 1977; Gordon, 1964). It brings individuals into
contact with a more ethnically heterogeneous circle of
classmates. Education not only provides knowledge or skills
but also facilitates the development of both primary and
secondary relationships among students. However, a major
distinction should be made between college and the preceding
stages of the educational system. A college education is
generally thought to impart critical values and ideas which
have presumed to be destructive of traditional forces like
ethnicity (Feldman and Newcomb 1969). College education is
considered to be the most favorable factor which promotes
interracial relation than do primary and secondary
education. Moreover, the traditional male dominance and
anti-feminist ideas of Chinese cultural practice subjects
the female Chinese to extensive social inequality. For
instance, it is generally believed that, it is a feminine
virture for the female to receive no education and to be

submissive to her husband or mother-in-law. Parents are not

16
willing to invest in the daughter's education as a result.
Therefore, it is assumed that those Chinese who have a
liberal and critical college education will be more likely
to weaken their attachment to the Chinese culture and group
and to develop both primary and secondary relationships with
those outside Chinese culture.
Hypothesis 2: The higher the level of education,
the the greater the odds of

outmarriage.

It has been generally believed that Chinese married at
a youthful age. Previous studies by Buck (1934) and Chen
(1946) revealed that the average age at first marriage was
20.5 years for men and 18.2 years for women. Yet C.Y.Choi's
(1975) Melbourne study found that Chinese-Australians were
married at an older average age. He found that almost half
of the Chinese were married before 25 years of age, very few
married between the ages 25 to 29, and almost none at ages
30 and over. Schmitt (1966) in his Hawaiian study found
that people who intermarry are somewhat older at the time of
their marriage than those who marry within their own ethnic
group.

The studies suggested Chinese who settled outside or
were born outside China tended to marry later than those who
married in China. However, as Choi (1975) indicated, the
keen competition for marriage partners within the Chinese

community does not favor endogamy, and this disfavor grows

17
stronger with the age of the prospective brides and grooms.
These considerations lead us to Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 3: The higher the age at first
marriage, the greater the odds of

outmarriage.

Nativity is considered as a crucial factor affecting
the likelihood for one to marry inside or outside his/her
ethnic group. Nativity not only symbolizes a person's place
of birth but also his/her cultural heritage and generational
status. Lee (1960) and Pong (1965) suggested that, as
native-born Chinese or the second and third generation
Chinese assimilate into American society, they might be more
willing to deviate from their traditional cultural norms and
pick up those mainstream cultural values. Kitano and others
(1984) in their study of Asian intermarriage in Los Angeles,
1977, found that a high rate of intermarriage was expected
among those native-born Chinese than among foreign-born.
Since native-born Chinese are more exposed to American
culture in their socialization than their foreign-born
counterparts, the former are more likely to assimilate into
the country. Therefore the native-born Chinese are probably
more willing to wed outside the ethnic minority group.

Hypothesis 4: The outmarriage rate is higher among

native-born Chinese than foreign-

born Chinese.

18
Stevens and Swicegood (1987), in their study of mother
tongue shift and ethnic endogamy, found that nativity is
strongly related to the probability of endogamy. That is,
foreign born respondents are more inclined to marry within
their ethnic group than are native-born respondents.
However they did not examine further the nativity and other
characteristics of those endogamous couples. Previous
studies by Choi (1975), Lee (1960) and Fong (1965) suggested
that persons with similar socialization and value
orientation would tend to associate with persons of similar
cultural traits. Thus a higher endogamous rate is expected
among members with similar nativity and personal
characteristics.
Hypothesis 5: When inmarriage occurs within the
Chinese community, native-born tend
to marry native-born and foreign-

born tend to marry foreign-born.

METHODOLOGY

Data

 

The data for this study were the five percent public
use sample randomly drawn from the 1980 Census of households
in California. Since the Gold Rush of 1849, the State of
California has been a site of Chinese-immigrant settlement
in the U.S. and a locus of overt and covert acts of

discrimination against them (Lyman, 1977; Lee, 1960). The

19
overt acts included the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882 by the U.S. Congress. The anti-Chinese immigration
laws were not effectively rolled back until the passage of
the Kennedy-Johnson Immigration Act of 1965, which abolished
the quota system of limiting immigrants according to their
national origin. After 1965, the influx of Asians to the
U.S. soared; and during the 19703 decade, the number of
Asian Americans increased more rapidly (141%) than did
Blacks (17%) or Hispanics (39%) (Gardner, Robey, and Smith,
1985: 3). The largest share of Chinese, in addition to
other Asian Americans, lived in California as of the 1980
U.S. Census. Thus, our focus on Chinese living there in
interracial marriages to whites in 1980 showed how much the
social distance between Chinese and white Americans had
lessened after decades of inequality. The long form of the
1980 U.S. Census questionnaire asked respondents for their
country of birth, racial/ethnic group membership, gender,
level of education, marital status, age at first marriage
(if relevant), and relationship to other household members.
Therefore, the long form of the 1980 Census questionnaire in
California contained all data necessary to test our five

hypotheses.

Dependent Variable

 

Since the emphasis of this study was the structural
assimilation of a minority racial group with a majority

racial group, the index of assimilation was the marriage of

20
Chinese to white spouses. As such, the dependent variable
was scored: 0) if both spouses were Chinese; or 1) if one
spouse was Chinese and the other was white. Exogamous
marriages linking Chinese spouses to other nonwhite spouses
were excluded, for these unions symbolized primary-group
relations between two minority groups rather than between a

minority and a majority.

Independent (Test) Variables

 

The independent variables of this study were named in

the five hypotheses: sex; education (1 = high school or

less; 2 8 some college or more); age at first marriage (1

under age 30; 2 = age 30 or more); and nativity (0

foreign-born; 1 = U.S.- born).

Control Variables

 

It was necessary to control the effects of other
factors which ‘were correlated with an independent variable
and the dependent variable and which might thus confound the
association between them. These controls were made by
exclusions. For example, one such factor was the number of
times a respondent had ever been married, because the
factors determining exogamy in remarriages might differ from
those in first marriages. Hence, we excluded all marital
unions which were not the first for both spouses.

The causal factors shaping Chinese exogamy to white

Americans apply only to Chinese marriages occurring within

21

U.S. borders. In other words, if Chinese people are married
outside the U.S., their selection of a spouse is exempted
from the pressures enforcing social distance between the
white majority and a racial minority in America. Therefore,
it was decided to restrict this study to first marriages
involving at least one Chinese spouse and occurring within
the U.S. Because the 1980 U.S. Census did not ask the
place of first marriage, we assumed that persons born in the
U.S. were married there.

For Chinese born abroad, the place of first marriage
was calculated by comparing age at first marriage, age at
the 1980 Census of California, and year of immigration to
the U.S. The age at first marriage was subtracted from the
age at the 1980 Census to yield the duration of first
marriage. Unfortunately, the year of immigration was given
by the Census only in groups of years: 1975-1979; 1970-1974;
1965-1969; 1960-1964; 1950-1959; and before 1950. To
compute the minimum duration of U.S. residence, we
subtracted the last year in an indicated immigration-year
category from 1980. If the minimum duration of U.S.
residence exceeded the duration of first marriage, it was
assumed that the marriage occurred in the U.S.; and the
marital union was retained for further analysis. If the
duration of first marriage occurred in a year prior to the
grouping in which the year of immigration to the U.S.
occurred, it was assumed that the marriage was contracted

abroad; and the spouses to that union were excluded from

22

further study. Furthermore, if the duration of first
marriage (e.g., three years) implied a year of first
marriage (e.g., 1977) in the same category as the time
period of immigration to the U.S. (e.g., 1975-1979), it was
indeterminate whether the marriage was solemnized shortly
before or after arrival in the U.S.; and thus the partners
to that marriage were withheld from the study.

Residential propinquity affects the selection of
spouses. Chinese were unlikely to live in nonmetropolitan
areas of California in 1980; hence, those who did so were
exposed to a greater chance to marry whites. For these
reasons, we focused only on Chinese first marriages in the
U.S. for whom the couples resided in the five metrOpolitan
areas of California with the largest Chinese pOpulation:
Anaheim - Santa Ana; Los Angeles; Sacramento; San Jose; and
San Francisco.

Another control variable was husband's age. Initial
cross-tabulations of the dependent and the independent
variables revealed many empty cells, and it was found that
these empty cells could best be excluded if we limited this
study only to couples for whom the husband was at least
thirty-years-old at the time of the 1980 Census of
California.

Finally, foreign-born Chinese men and women immigrating
to the United States before 1950 were excluded from this
study. These "old immigrants" tended to be from elite

Chinese families, and their main reason for entering the

23
U.S. was to study. However, many Chinese people coming
into the U.S. after the Communist Revolution of 1949 were

political refugees who had different motives for entry.

FINDINGS

The Relationship of Gender to Exogamy

 

The inmarriage and outmarriage rates for the Chinese
Americans are shown in Table l. Endogamy was the dominant
marriage pattern, since 87.47% of the Chinese husbands and
85.34% of the Chinese wives had Chinese spouses. Exogamy
was relatively rare; but when it did occur, it was more
likely to be to a member of the white majority than to other
Asians, Blacks, or Hispanics. Moreover, Chinese women were
somewhat more likely than Chinese men to be currently living
in a first marital union with a white spouse (8.94% and
6.37% respectively). These results lent tentative support
to Hypothesis 1.

The remainder of this analysis pertains to the 914
Chinese men and the 759 Chinese women in Table 1 who were
married endogamously or else were married to a white spouse.
Table 2 shows that the differences in proportions of such
Chinese men and women who married white Spouses depended on
country of birth. If the country of birth was not the U.S.,
the percentages of Chinese men and women marrying whites

were nearly equal (5.07% and 5.43%, respectively). If the

24
country of birth was the U.S., the percentage of Chinese men
married to white women was lower than the percentage of
Chinese women wedded to white men (8.33% and 12.33%,
respectively). To examine the possibility that this
difference of four percent might be due only to samplying
error, we calculated a difference-of-proportions test (see
Blalock, 1972: 228-230). The null hypothesis was that the
sampling distribution of the difference in proportions was
approximately normal with a mean of zero and a standard
deviation of 0.02 (for the formula to calculate the standard
deviation, see Blalock, 1972: 229). The Z statistic could
then be calculated as the ratio of the observed difference
in proportions (0.04) to this standard deviation (0.02).
Because Hypothesis I predicted a direction of difference, we
used a one-tailed test; hence, at the 5% level of
statistical significance, an observed Z greater than 1.645
would reject the null hypothesis in favor of the
alternative, Hypothesis 1. It is evident that in the case
of the native-born Chinese, the observed Z = 2. The
rejection of the null hypothesis for native-born but not for
foreign-born Chinese may mean that the foreign-born men and
women have a similar level of structural assimilation into
primary-group relationships with the white majority but that
this kind of structural assimilation proceeds more quickly
in future generations of Chinese Americans and more quickly
for Chinese women than for Chinese men in future

generations. For these reasons, we conducted all tests of

25

subsequent research hypotheses separately for men and women.

The Relationships of Education, Age at first Marriage
and Country of Birth to Exogamy

 

 

Table 2 shows that the percentage of study respondents
attending college for one or more years was higher for
Chinese men than for Chinese women. This difference was
4.13% ( = 72.29% - 68.16% ) in favor of men among the
native-born and 2.35% ( = 79.03% - 76.68%) in favor of men
among the foreign-born. To examine whether these
differences might have resulted only from sampling error, we
computed a Z statistic to compare gender differences in the
proportions having some college. Z was 1.372 for the
native-born and 0.765 for the foreign-born, and neither
statistic was significant at the five percent level (one-
tailed test). The lack of noteworthy differences between
Chinese men and women in the pr0portions going to college is
somewhat surprising. Among the foreign-born, it may signify
that obtaining tertiary education is an important reason why
both Chinese men and women immigrate to the U.S. Among the
native-born, it may mean that acculturation into American
values is erasing the tendency for Chinese women to seek
less education than Chinese men.

The educational advantage of foreign-born over native-
born Chinese was far more important than that of males over
females. Among men, 6.74% more of the foreign-born than of
the native-born ( - 79.03% - 72.29%) had at least one year

of college, and the difference-in-prOportions test indicated

26

that this disparity probably was not due to sampling error
(Z = 2.366, p less than 5%). Among women, 8.52% more of the
foreign-born than of the native-born had been to college, a
difference not likely to have arisen by chance (Z = 2.56, p
less than 5%). The educational superiority of the foreign-
born reinforces the interpretation that college attendance
may have been a cause or a consequence of their immigration
to the U.S.

Greater college attendance was also associated with a
later mean age at first marriage among the foreign-born than
the U.S.-born Chinese. It is possible that the foreign-born
Chinese came from more economically privileged family
origins in comparison to their native-born counterparts and

"on time".

thus encountered less familial pressure to wed
Yet even among the foreign-born, the women had a much
younger age at first marriage than did the men (25.47 years
and 29.41 years, respectively).

The data in Table 2 show: that educational attainment
is related to country of birth; that country of birth is
related to mean age at first marriage; and that mean age at
first marriage is related to gender. These
interrelationships suggested that all these variables should
be controlled in tests of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4. Such
controls were afforded by multivariate logit regressions of
marital exogamy (0 a no, endogamously married; 1 = yes,

exogamously married) upon education, age at first marriage,

and country of birth. These regressions were computed

27

separately for Chinese men and Chinese women. Logit
regressions were preferred over ordinary-least-squares (OLS)
regressions because the dependent variable was a dichotomy
in which more than 90% of all cases fell into a single
category. Such extreme Splits in the distribution of cases
across the categories of the dependent variable made it
unlikely that the assumption of homoscedasticity could be
met (Johnson and Nelson, 1984: 534-535). Since the
assumption of homoscedasticity is necessary to render
unbiased, efficient estimates of parameters in OLS
regression but not in logit regression, we chose the latter
regression technique.

Table 3 shows the logit regression for Chinese women;
and Table 4, for Chinese men. Each of these logit
regressions contained five predictor terms: the effect of
the regression intercept (constant); an effect each for
education, age at first marriage, and country of birth; and
finally, an effect for the interaction between education and
country of birth. When all five terms were in the equation,
the likelihood-ratio chi-square and degrees of freedom were
2.817 and 3.0 respectively, for Chinese women (Table 3) and
3.684 and 3.0 respectively, for Chinese men (Table 4). The
near equality of a likelihood-ratio chi-square with its
associated degrees of freedom signified that the logit
regression models in Tables 3 and 4 predicted expected cell
counts that matched observed frequencies very well indeed.

Hypothesis 2 argued that Chinese women and men who had

28

attended college had higher odds of marrying a white spouse
than did Chinese women and men who had lesser amounts of
education. The regression statistics can be interpreted in
two ways. The five regression coefficients (B) can be
summed to show the whole effect of the intercept and of
being college educated, being wedded for the first time at
ages 30 or older, being born in the U.S., and being in both
of the latter two categories simultaneously, upon the odds
of marrying a white spouse. A regression effect (B) which
is not statistically significant from zero means that this
effect on the odds of marital exogamy with a white is nil.
Alternatively, we can take the antilogarithm (eB) of a given
regression effect; and if it is significantly different from
unity, we can assume that being in the second category of
this effect greatly affects the odds of marrying a white
spouse. Table 3 shows that if a Chinese woman had at least
one year of college, her odds of marrying a white man were
1.92 to 1.00 (p less than 5%). If a Chinese man had at
least one year of college, his odds of marrying a white
woman were 1.68 to 1.00 (p less than 5%). These results
could not reject Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 held that the odds of outmarriage
increased with the age at first marriage. Yet the odds of
outmarriage were about even for Chinese women, whether or
not they married for the first time at ages thirty or older
(1.24 to 1.00, p greater than 5%; Table 3). Likewise, the

odds of outmarriage to a white were about even (0.98 to

29
1.00, p greater than 5%; Table 4) whether or not Chinese men
wedded for the first time at ages of thirty or older. These
results rejected Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 posited that the odds of outmarriage to a
white would be greater among U.S.-born Chinese than among
foreign-born Chinese. Indeed, if a Chinese woman were
native-born, her odds of marrying a white man were nearly 2
to 1 than if she were foreign-born (Z - 2.29, p less than
5%; Table 3). However, if a Chinese man were native-born,
his odds of wedding a white wife were about even with those
of a Chinese man who was foreign-born (Z a 1.25, p more than
5%; Table 4). As such, these results rejected Hypothesis 4
for Chinese men but not for Chinese women. This outcome
supports the interpretation that the speed of assimilation
into primary-group relations with whites proceeds least
rapidly for Chinese men and most rapidly for U.S.-born
Chinese women. Since marital exogamy may threaten the key
role that Chinese sons play in the support and the
continuity of their families of origin, stronger familial
pressures may be brought to bear against the outmarriage of

sons than of daughters.

The Relationships of Country of Birth between Chinese
Husband and Chinese Wife

 

 

This study has argued that the country of birth is a
valid index of acculturation and assimilation into the
country of residence. Because marriages tend to unite

persons who share intrinsic values, we reasoned that

30
endogamy in the Chinese community would tend to pair men and
women with the same country of birth. Table 5 shows that of
the 316 endogamously married, U.S.-born Chinese women, 279 (
= 88.29%) were married to native-born Chinese husbands. 0f
the 323 endogamously married U.S.-born Chinese men, 279 ( =
86.38%) were married to U.S.-born Chinese wives. When the
nativity status of Chinese spouses did not match, it was not
much more likely that the wife was foreign-born (7.89% of
all cases) than the husband (6.63%). These results could

not reject Hypothesis 5.

DISCUSSION

Intermarriage between the Chinese and the U.S. white
majority implies a mutual acceptance between members of the
two racial groups and represents a significant stage in the
process of assimilating Chinese and white Americans into a
common culture. The rate of Chinese exogamy with white
spouses in our Californian sample was relatively low in
1980, a fact which suggested that these metropolitan Chinese
were still strongly attached to their ethnic enclave.
However, 40% of all persons of Chinese ancestry in the U.S.
resided in California in 1980 (Gardner et a1., 1985: 11).
Therefore, higher rates of exogamy would likely have been
found if our sample had included northern, eastern, and
southern states, where Chinese settlement has been
relatively sparse.

Compared to Chinese men or foreign-born Chinese women,

31

native-born Chinese women living in metrOpolitan California
in 1980 had the largest odds of intermarriage with whites.
Chinese men are subjected to stronger pressures to carry on
their family name through pure-blooded offspring and to bear
the responsibility for supporting the aged ancestors.
Because Chinese females do not have such awesome
responsibilities and because they are viewed as no more than
temporary members of their families of origin, they do not
experience such strong pressures against racial exogamy; and
what pressures that do exist for them probably fade rapidly
with residence in the U.S. As such, the pressures against
racial exogamy are probably weaker on Chinese daughters born
in the U.S. than on Chinese daughters born in East Asia.

Steven and Swicegood's (1987) findings were the
opposite of ours. They reported that males were somewhat
more likely to marry outside their ethnic groups in
comparison to females. However, their regressions pooled
respondents from 20 different ethnic groups, at least 12 of
which were predominantly white. This pooling left them
unable to discriminate different patterns of ethnic exogamy
among different ethnic groups. This inability probably
accounts for the discrepancy in findings between their study
and ours.

Even after gender and country of birth had been
controlled, 3 major factor favoring the marriage of Chinese
respondents to white spouses was attending college. This

tendency supported Gordon's (1964) notion that peOple of the

32

same educational level are likely to interact and to share
common values despite possible differences in ethnic
background. However, the effect of college attendance was
not strong enough to overcome the effect of foreign birth,
since foreign-born Chinese women had much lower odds of
marrying a white than did U.S.-born Chinese women, although
a much greater percentage of foreign-born than of native-
born Chinese women had some college attendance.

Other important findings were that foreign-born Chinese
respondents tended to marry other foreign-born Chinese and
that native-born Chinese respondents tended to marry other
native-born Chinese. This assortative mating could not be
explained by place of marriage, because all respondents in
this study had been married for periods of time that were
shorter than their durations of residence in the U.S. and so
presumably they had been subjected to opportunities for
courtship within the U.S. Our results, thus, cannot reject
Sun's (1966) conclusion that foreign-born Chinese people
have a generally unfavorable attitude toward American-born
Chinese people. The number of Chinese peeple living in the
U.S. almost doubled between the 1970 and the 1980 Census,
due to the liberalization of the Immigration Act of 1965.
This liberalization suggests that there has recently been,
and will continue to be, a decline in outmarriage of Chinese
to whites, as the number of U.S. Chinese continues to
explode. Simultaneously, one might expect a burgeoning

cultural differentiation within the Chinese community

33
according to country of birth. Such trends, if they should
continue into the future, will make the U.S. a more
pluralistic society than ever.

These trends imply a need for future studies of ethnic
assimilation through intermarriage. Such new studies should
address factors which we could not control. One was
religion, a question about which has never been posed in the
U.S. Census, which was the basis of our present
investigation. We reason that Chinese adherents of Eastern
religions may be less inclined than Chinese devotees of
Western religions to marry white Americans. But an analysis
of this possibility must await future research.

Another question is how much does one's first language
govern the choice of one's mate. Studies by Stevens and
Swicegood (1987), Stevens (1985), and Fisherman (1977)
suggested that a shift in one's mother tongue from Chinese
to English is a necessary and a fundamental condition for
acculturation and assimilation of Chinese minorities. In
other words, if a person of Chinese descent is strongly
attached to speaking Mandarin or some other Chinese dialect,
he or she may be less likely to marry those who cannot speak
it and thus may be predisposed to wed inside the Chinese
community. Because our 1980 Census data did not contain
information on first-spoken language, we could not analyze
the relationship between language shift and the choice of a
marital partner. If mother tongue does govern this choice,

then the recent inundation of Chinese immigrants into the

34
U.S. portends a reduced demand for white spouses by members
of the Chinese community.

Finally, our Census data contained information only on
the present Spouse, not on previous mates. If first
marriages involving Chinese with white spouses are more
prone to disruption than are endogamous marriages within
either group, then Chinese-white unions would have been
relatively underrepresented in our study's data. Future
studies of nuptiality in the U.S. Chinese community should
contain questions on both present and former marital unions
(if applicable). It would be instructive to see whether a
broken exogamous union leads to endogamy within the Chinese

community or to new exogamy with the white community.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.

35

Interracial marriage rates of Chinese for 1980

 

 

Chinese men Chinese women Total
Spouse's race N % N % N %
White 62 6.37 72 8.94 134 7.53
Black 3 0.31 6 0.75 9 0.05
American 0 0.00 1 0.12 1 0.06
Indian
Japanese 38 3.90 25 3.11 63 3.54
Chinese 852 87.47 687 85.34 1539 86.51
Filipino 7 0.72 6 0.75 13 0.73
Korean 5 0.51 3 0.37 8 0.45
Vietnamese 1 0.10 0 0.00 1 0.06
Other Asians 3 0.31 3 0.37 6 0.34
and Pacific
Islanders
Spanish 2 0.21 2 0.25 4 0.22
write-in
entry
Others 1 0010 O 0000 1 0006
Total 974 100.00 % 805 100.00 % 1779 100.00 %
Note: The data in this and following tables are from the

1980 Census public use sample tape of California;

see text for a description of the study sample.

36

 

 

 

Table 2. Characteristics of Chinese men and women
in study sample
Chinese men Chinese women
native foreign native foreign
Variable born born born born
Percent
out-married 8033 Z 5.07 2 12033 2 5043 Z
to Whites
Percent
in-married 91067 2 94093 X 87067 Z 94057 70
Mean age 27.27 yrs. 29.41 yrs. 24.18 yrs. 25.47 yrs.
at first
marriage
Mean age 47.24 yrs. 37.79 yrs. 43.37 yrs. 33.74 yrs.
at Census
Percent
with 1 or
more years 72.29 % 79.03 % 68.16 % 76.68 %
of college
Total 480.00 434.00 446.00 313.00

37

Table 3. Logit regression for female Chinese exogamy

 

(0 - No; 1 = Yes)

 

Independent variables B

(her characteristics) B e Z

Constant 2.6791 14.5220 8.92 *
(0.3003)

Education 0.6524 1.9201 2.36 *

(some high school or (0.2768)

less = 1; some college
or more - 2)

Age at first marriage 0.2152 1.2401 1.24
(under age 30 - 1; (0.1733)
30 or over = 2)
Nativity 0.6356 1.8882 2.29 *
(foreign born = 0; (0.2770)
native born - 1)
Nativity by education 0.1854 1.2037 0.67
(0.2773)
Total 4.3677 78.8617
2
Likelihood ratio X 2.817
Degrees of freedom 3.0
Probability 0.421

 

Note : Standard errors are in parentheses
*P < 0.05

N3 759 cases

38

Table 4. Logit regression for male Chinese exogamy

 

( 0 = NoiAl = Yes)

 

Independent variables B

(his characteristics) B e Z

Constant 3.0066 20.2185 13.19 *
(0.2279)

Education 0.5159 1.6751 2.30 *

(some high school or (0.2244)

less - 1; some college
or more . 2)

Age at first marriage -0.0168 0.9833 -0.16
(under age 30 - 1; (0.1455)
30 or over a 2)
Nativity 0.2835 1.3278 1.25
(foreign born = 0; (0.2259)
native born -1)
Nativity by education -0.0110 0.9891 -0.49
(0.2242)
Total 3.7782 43.7370
2
Likelihood ratio X 3.684
Degrees of freedom 3.0
Probability 0.298

 

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses
*P < 0.05

N = 914 cases

39

Table 5. Distributions of endogamously wedded Chinese

 

respondents by country of birth of

 

husband and of wife

 

Chinese women

 

 

Native born foreign born
N Percent N Percent
Native born 279 88.29 % 44 18.18 %
Chinese
men
Foreign born 37 11.71 % 198 81.82 %
Total 316 100.00 % 242 100.00 %
2

X a: 27603].

Degree of freedom = 1

*P < 0.05

LIST OF FIGURES

40

Figure l. Gordon's process of assimilation

 

 

Subprocess Type or stage of

or condition assimilation
Change of cultural Cultural or behavioral
pattern to those of assimilation

host society

Large scale entrance Structural
into cliques, clubs assimilation
and institutions of

host society on

primary level

Large scale Marital assimilation
intermarriage

Development of Identificational
sense of peoplehood assimilation
exclusively in host

society

Absence of Attitude receptional
prejudice assimilation

Absence of
discrimination Behavioral receptional
assimilation

Absence of value
and power conflict Civic assimilation

Special term

Acculturation

None

Amalgamation

None

None

None

None

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

41

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alba, Richard D.
1983. "A preliminary examination of ethnic

identification among Whites." American Sociological
Review 48:240-247.

Alba, Richard D.
1985. "The twilight of ethnicity among Americans of
Euorpean ancestry: the case of Italians." Ethnic and
Racial Studies 8:134-157.

Alba, Richard D.
1986. "Pattern of ethnic marriage in the United
States." Social Forces 65:202-223.

Barron, M.
1972. The blending Americans: patterns of
intermarriage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blalock, Hubert M.,Jr.
1967. Toward a theory of minority group relation. New
York: John Wiley and Son, Inc.

Blalock, Hubert M.,Jr.
1972. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill.

Blalock, Hubert M., Jr.
1982. Race and ethnic relation. New York: Prentice
Hall, Foundation of Sociology.

Blau, Peter M.; Blau, Terry C. and Schwartz, Joseph E.
1982. "Heterogenity and intermarriage." American
Sociological Review 47:45-62.

Blau, Peter M.; Beeker, Carolyn and Fitzpatrick, Kevin M.
1984. "Interacting social affiliation and
intermarriage." Social Forces 62:585-605.

Blau, Peter M. and Schwartz, Joseph E.
1984. Cross cutting social circles: testing a marco-
structural theory of intergroup relations. New York:
Academic Press Inc.

Bossard, James H.S.
1932 "Residential propinquity as a factor in marriage
selection." American Journal of Sociology 38:217-224.

Bowker, Gordon and Carrier, John
1976. Race and ethnic relation: Sociological readings.
New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers Inc.

42

BUCk, JeLe
1934. Land utilization in China. Shanghai: Shanghai
Commercial Press.

Burma, John H.
1963. "Interethnic marriage in Los Angeles 1948-1959."
Social Forces 42:156-165.

Burma, John H.; Crester, Gray A. and Seaxrest Ted
1984. "A comparision of the occupational status of
intermarrying and intramarrying couples: a research
note." Sociology and Social Research 32:508-519.

Chen, Ta
1946. "Population in modern China", Supplement to the
American Journal of Sociology 52:41-114.

ChOi, CeYe
1975. Chinese migration and settlement in Australia.
Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Clifford, Jansen
1982. "Inter-ethnic marriages.‘ International Journal
of Comparative Sociology 23:225-235.

Crester, Gary A. and Leon, Joseph J.
1982. Intermarriage in the United States. The
Harvorth Press.

Dormon, James H.
1979. "Ethnic groups and ethnicity: some theoretical
considerations." The Journal of Ethnic Studies 7:23-36.

Farber, Bernard; Gordon, Leonard and Mayer, Albert J.
1979. "Intermarriage and Jewish identity: the
implications for pluralism and assimilation in American
society." Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:222-230.

Fienberg, Stephen F.
1981. The analysis of cross-classified categorical
data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Fisherman, Joshua A.
1976. "Ethnic community mother schools in the U.S.A.:
dynamics and distributions." International Migration
Review 14:233-247.

Fong, Stanley L.M.
1965. "Assimilation of Chinese in America: changes in
orientation and social perception." American Journal of
Sociology 61:265-273.

43

Fong, Stanley L.M.
'01973. "Assimilation and changing social roles of
Chinese Americans." Journal of Social Issues 29:115-
127.

Gans, Herbert J.
1979. "Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups
and cultures in America." Ethnic and Racial Studies
231-200

Gardner, Robert W., Bryant Robey, and Smith Peter C.
1985. "Asian Americans: Growth, change, and diversity."
Population Bulletin 40(4):1-43.

Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel P.
1965. Beyond the melting pot. Cambridge, Mass.: The
MIT Press.

Gleason, Philip
1979. "Confusion compounded: the melting pot theory."
Ethnicity 6:10-20.

Glick, Clarence E.
1970. "Interracial marriage and admixture in Hawaii."
Social Biology 17:278-291.

Gordon, Milton M.
1964. Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Gordon, Milton M.
1975. "Toward a general theory of racial and ethnic
group relations." Pp.84-110 in Nathan Glazer and Danial
P. Moynihan (eds.), Ethnicity: theory and experience.
Cambridge; Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Greeley, Andrew M.
1969. Why can't they be like us ? New York: Dutton.

Greeley, Andrew M.
1974. Ethnicity in the United States. New York:John
Wiley and Sons.

Haegendoren, Van M.
1982. "Ethnicity, language and state." Plural Societies
13:47-57.

Hastings, Donald W.; Clellard, Donald A. and

Danielson, Robin L.
1982. "Gordon's assimilation paradigm revisited: the
issues of ethnic community, insularity and return
migration." Research in Race and Ethnic Relations
3:189-206.

44

Hollingshead, August B.
1950. "Cultural factors in the selection of marriage
mates." American Sociological Review 15:619-627.

Johnson, Nan E. and Lean, Sue Wen
1985. "Relative income, race and fertility.‘
Studies 39:99-112.

Population

Johnson, Nan E. and Nelson, Merwyn R.
1984. "Housing quality and child mortility in the rural
Philippines." Journal of Biosocial Science 16:531-540.

Johnson, Nan E. and Nishida, Ryoko
1980. "Minority group status and fertility: a study of
Japanese and Chinese in Hawaii and California."
American Journal of Sociology 86:496-511.

Kennedy, Ruby R.
1944. "Single or triple melting pot?" American Journal
of Sociology 49:331-339.

Kitano, Harry H.L.; Yeung, Wai-tsang; Chai, Lyn and
Hatanaka Herbert
1984. "Asian American interracial marriage.‘
Marriage and the Family 46:179-190.

' Journal of

Kikumura, A.and Kitano, H.H.L.
1973. "Interracial marriage: a picture of the Japanese
Americans." Journal of Social Issues, 29:67-81.

Kolivosky, Michael E.
1953. "Intermarriage between two divergent ethnic
groups as an index of assimilation." Unplished Ph. D.
dissertation, Department of Sociology, Michigan State
University.

Kuo, Wen H. and Lin, Nan
1977. "Assimilation of Chinese-Americans in Washington
D.C." Sociological Quarterly 18:340-352.

Labov, Teresa and Jacobs Jerry A.
1986. "Intermarriage in Hawaii 1950-1983." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 48:79-88.

Lee, Rose Hum
1948. "The decline of Chinatowns in the U.S." American
Journal of Sociology 54:442-432.

Lee, Rose Hum
1960. The Chinese in the U.S. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.

45

Li, Peter Si
1976. "Ethnic business among Chinese in the U.S." The
Journal of Ethnic Studies 4:35-41.

Lian, Kwen Fee
V 1982. "Identity in Minority group relations." Ethnic
and Racial Studies 5:42-52.

Lieberson, Stanley
1961. "A societal theory of race and ethnic relations."
American Sociological Review 1:902-910.

Lieberson, Stanley and Waters, Mary
1985. "Recent social trend: ethnic mixtures in the
U.S." Sociology and Social Research 70:43-52.

Lieberson, Stanley
1985. "Unhyphenated Whites in the U.S." Ethnic and
Racial Studies 8:159-180.

Light, Ivan
1979. "Disadvantageed minorities in self-employment."
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 20:31-
45.

Light, Ivan
1984. "Immigrant and ethnic enterprice in North
America." Ethnic and Racial Studies 7:195-216.

Lyman, Standford M.
1977. The Asians in North America. Santa
Barbara,Cali.: ABC Clio Inc.

M8ki€18ki, SeJeJre
1972. "The U.S. as a pluralist society." Plural
Societies 3:29-33.

Marson, Simon
1950. "A theory of intermarriage and assimilation."
Social Forces 29:75-78.

Merton, Robert K.
1941. "Intermarriage and the social structure: fact and
theory." Psychitary 4:361-374.

Mcgough, Pierce J.
1976. Marriage and adoption in Chinese society with
special reference to customary law. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Nee, Victor and Wong, Herbert Y.
1985. "Asian American socioeconomic achievement."
Sociological Perspectives 28:281-306.

46

Nielsen, Francois
1985. "Toward a theory of ethnic solidarity in modern
society." American Sociological Review 50:133-149.

Park, R.E. and Burgress E.W.
1969. "Accomodation" and "Assimilation" in Introduction
to the science of Sociology. p.663-783 Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Peres, Yochanan and Schrift, Ruth

1978. "Intermarriage and interethnic relation: a
comparative study." Ethnic and Racial Studies 1:428-
451.

Price, C.A. and Gubrzycki, J.
1962. "The use of intermarriage statistics as an index
of assimilation." Population Studies 16:58-69.

Prrodipto, R.
1962. "The measurement of assimilation: the Spokane
Indians." American Journal of Sociology 67:541-551.

Ramsoy, Natalie R.
1966. "Assortative mating and the structure of cities."
American Sociological Review 31:773-786.

Riaz, Hassan
1974. Interethnic marriage in Singapore: a study in
interethnic relations. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asia Studies.

Robinson, Vanghan

1980. "Patterns of south Asian ethnic exogamy and
endogamy in Britain." Ethnic and Racial studies 3:427-
443.

Rubin, Israel

1975. "Ethnicity and cultural pluralism." Phylon 36:140-148.

Schmitt, R.C.
1965. "Demographic correlates of interracial marriage
in Hawaii." Demography 2:463-473.

SChllitt, R.C.
1966. "Age differences in marriage in Hawaii.’
of Marriage and the Family 27:59-60.

' Journal

Simpson, George E. and Yinger, Milton J.
1985. Racial and cultural minorities: an analysis of
prejudice and discrimination. New York: Harper and Row.

47

Stevens, Gillian
1985. "Nativity, marriage and mother tongue shift."
American Sociological Review 50:74-83.

Stevens, Gillian and Swicegood, Gray
1987. "The linguistic context of ethnic endogamy."
American Sociological Review 52:73-82.

Stone, John, ed.
1977. Race, ethnicity and social change. California:
Wadsworth.

Sun, Shirely
1966. "Crackes in the flower drum." San Francisco
Magazine 8:36-48.

Sung, Betty Lee
1967. Mountain of gold: the study of Chinese in
America. New York: Macmillan.

Wacker, Fred R.
1979. "Assimilation and cultural pluralism in American
social thought." Phylon 40:325-333.

Weber, Max
1968. "Ethnic group" in Economy and society edited by
Guenther Roth and Clasus Wittch, Bedminster Press, Vol
1, p.385-398.

Weiss, Melford S.
1971. Conflict and compromise: the social organization
of a Chinese community in America. Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Weiss, Melford S.
1970. "Selective assimilation and the dating process:
the patterning of Chinese-Caucasian interracial
dating." Journal of Marriage and the Family 32:273-278.

White, Naomi R.
1978. "Ethnicity, culture and cultural pluralism."
Ethnic and Racial Studies 1:139-153.

Woodrum, Eric
1981. "An assessment of Japanese American assimilation,
pluralism and subordination." American Journal of
Sociology 87:157-169.

Wong, Eugene F.
1985. "Asian American middleman minority theory, the
framework of an American myth." The Journal of Ethnic
Studies 13:51-88.

 

48

Wong, Morrison G.
1980. "Changes in socioeconomic status of the Chinese
male population in the U.S. from 1960-1970."
International Migration Review 14:511-524.

Yinger, Milton J.
1981. "Toward a theory of assimilation and
dissimilation." Ethnic and Racial Studies 4:249-264.

Yuan D.Y.
1969. "Division of labor between native born and
foreign born Chinese in the U.S." Phylon 30:160-169.

      

HICHIGR TATE u Iv

"III!Mimuuwmfiwlaw/WIN“

3006852010