Attitudes Regarding Laws Limiting Black-White Marriage

Abstract

This research effort explores attitudes toward interracial marriage and related behavior patterns in the United States. These patterns are examined longitudinally from the perspective of the general public over a 25-year period. Specifically, responses to whether one favors or opposes laws prohibiting marriages between Blacks and Whites are combined with a measure of social distance (whether one had a member of the opposite race over for dinner in the past year) to produce a hierarchy of responses that include both attitudes and corresponding behaviors, and in essence reflect varying degrees of racial prejudice. These attitudes and behaviors are analyzed using ordinal logistic regression from 1973 through 1996. Through the application of race relations and differential assimilation theories, the impact of racial group membership, age, and socio-economic status on interracial marriage attitudes and behaviors in contemporary American society is assessed. Our findings suggest that while there have been some dramatic shifts in racially patterned attitudes and behaviors across all groups, barriers to assimilation persist, and non-Blacks engage in a greater degree of social closure.

Keywords

interracial marriage differential assimilation social distance racial prejudice race relations

Introduction

Since 1960, the number of interracial marriages¹ in the United States has increased dramatically. In fact, interracial unions comprised 0.4% of all marriages in 1960 and 7% of all marriages in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). This represents a more than 15-fold increase in 50 years. Such changes are likely attributable to rising rates of approval for interracial unions and associated improvements in race relations (Batson, Qian, & Lichter, 2006). However, the relatively low share of interracial to same-race marriages may be reflective of persistently negative attitudes toward interracial marriages that are not fully captured via direct questions regarding attitudes toward interracial marriage (Baars, 2009).

As such, this article endeavors to delve deeper into the true nature and persistence of attitudes toward interracial marriage as well as how they impact relationships between individuals by examining attitudes toward interracial marriage in combination with selected measures of social distance. The differential assimilation perspective is applied to frame our understanding of how existing structures and intergroup dynamics operate to maintain such low rates of interracial marriage. In addition, we argue that those married interracially should be expected to encounter barriers and impediments because of their racial marriage composition and provide some related discussion in this area (Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010).

Literature Review

Interracial Marriage and Race Relations in the United States

The examination of interracial relationships can be insightful for understanding race relations in general. For example, Lewis and Yancey (1995) pointed out that interracial marriages are useful indicators of the level of racial acceptance within American society. From a historical standpoint, Gordon (1964) and Porterfield (1978) posited that the level of societal acceptance of interracial marriage is an important gauge for determining the extent of assimilation within a society. However, these studies examined the attitudes of individuals external to interracial unions. It is likely that the interpersonal dynamics within interracial relationships are useful for gaining knowledge of American racial relationships as well.

Similar to other couples, interracial unions must react to external social pressures. Although interracial couples have most certainly defied the social norm of racial endogamy, it is unrealistic to believe that they are unaffected by other social mores. Moreover, it seems likely that the norms and values that control informal dominant-group/minority-group relations would also influence such interracial romantic relationships. For example, if attitudes of multiculturalism tend to dominate informal Black/White relationships, then one should expect to find a tendency of interracial relationships to have pluralistic qualities. An understanding of the interpersonal dynamic within interracial marriages may be useful in comprehending other types of informal relationships between Blacks and Whites.

It should be noted that the racial culture of interracial marriages is not only shaped by the dynamics of the married couple but also by the attitudes each individual brings into a marriage. It is plausible that individuals who have adopted a racial culture different from their own are more likely to intermarry. For instance, if a White individual has rejected cultural elements of White American culture and adopted elements of African American culture, then he or she is likely to develop primary relationships that could lead to a Black/White interracial marriage. Previous dating history then may be a partial proxy for understanding cultural orientation shifts. However, this is an incomplete measure because individuals who date interracially may do so for reasons other than an appreciation of cultural elements of other races (Yancey & Lewis, 2008).

Interracial marriage as a proxy for race relations can be further understood in terms of color grading. Typically, American society values lighter skinned individuals more than darker skinned individuals. The composition of the interracial marriage will impact how and to what extent the union is accepted within society. Unions involving a Black spouse will be less accepted by society, thereby experiencing more institutional and social barriers. However, interracial marriages not involving a Black spouse (e.g., Hispanic-White, Asian-White, or Native American-White) will be more accepted by society and will have less problematic institutional and social experiences (Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010).

Barriers Encountered by Interracially Married Couples

A small but emerging cluster of empirical information regarding social acceptance of interracial marriage exists. Data obtained from those interracially married indicate three broad areas related to problems encountered by interracial couples (Yancey & Lewis, 2008). The first area that creates problems for interracially married individuals is racial discrimination. Research conducted by Lewis and Yancey (1995) and Lewis (1994) demonstrated that individuals in interracial marriages perceived being victims of discrimination because of their marital status. Generally, those in Black/White interracial unions indicated higher occurrence of racial discrimination in comparison with those in unions without a Black spouse. These findings were consistent across primary and secondary group relationships.

A second area that is problematic for interracially married couples is differential societal acceptance of the legal union. Anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia case in 1965, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws violated the right to due process and skin-color blindness on the part of the state (Moran, 2001). But American society has a system that continues to use race as a key identifying factor, and even after 40 years, race still plays an important role in how marital partners are chosen. Thus, interracial marriages (including both race and ethnicity) comprised only 9.5% of all married couple households in 2010 (Johnson & Kreider, 2013). Furthermore, the incidence of interracial marriages reflects an interesting pattern of color grading as Black/White marriages represent the smallest percentage of all interracial unions (Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010). In fact, only 8% of all interracially married couples involve a Black-White pairing, while 37.6% were Hispanic-White and 14% were Asian-White (Johnson & Kreider, 2013).

The third area involves differential acceptance by family members. Previous research reveals that family member acceptance of the interracial marriage is problematic (Lewis & Yancey, 1995). Individuals in Black/White marriages tended to suggest that they had problems, at least initially, being fully accepted as a couple by family members. However, information generated from recent survey research demonstrates that the majority of Americans (63%) say they “would be fine” with a family member marrying someone from any of the three major racial and ethnic groups (Asian, Hispanic, African American), though openness levels were lowest for marriages to African Americans (Passel, Taylor, & Wang, 2010; Wang, 2012).

Societal Attitudes Regarding Interracial Marriage

Attitudes toward interracial marriage have dramatically changed over the past 30 years. The American public, at least philosophically, does not support any type of laws that restrict marriage between members of different racial groups. Findings from the General Social Survey (GSS), a national random sample of American adults, show an overwhelming increase in the percentage of individuals who oppose laws against interracial marriage over time. Table 1 illustrates that over one third (36.1%) of respondents favored laws against interracial marriage in 1972, but less than 10% of Americans felt the same in 2002. To better understand how such attitudes may dovetail with corresponding behaviors, we also include responses to whether one had a member of the opposite race over for dinner in the past year (Table 2). Here, it is observed that behaviors lag a bit relative to attitudes. More specifically, support for laws against interracial marriages decreased fourfold, while the percentage reporting having had dinner with the opposite race merely doubled over a similar time frame (20% in 1973; 41% in 2006).

Table 1.

Percentage of Individuals Favoring Laws Against Marriage Between Blacks and Whites.

Item	1972	1980	1990	2000	2002
Yes	36.3	28.9	17.9	9.5	9.9
No	63.2	71.1	82.1	90.5	90.1
Total	100.0 (1,301)	100.0 (1,429)	100.0 (884)	100.0 (1,703)	100.0 (929)

Table 2.

Percentage of Individuals Reporting Having a Member of Opposite Race Over for Dinner Recently.

Item	1973	1980	1990	1996	2006
Yes	20.09	28.83	29.17	41.11	41.02
No	79.91	71.17	70.83	58.89	58.98
Total	100.0 (1,299)	100.0 (1,457)	100.0 (905)	100.0 (939)	100.0 (1,509)

Recent evidence suggests that greater approval of interracial marriages is tied to age and racial background. Respondents queried in a demographic trends study suggested that older individuals, irrespective of race, tended to oppose interracial marriages while younger individuals were much more accepting of interracial marriages. In addition, Whites were more likely to oppose interracial unions in comparison with other racial minority members (Passel et al., 2010). Finally, approval of Black-White marriages varies by region with the highest level of approval in the West (93%) and lowest in the South (83%; Newport, 2013). Accordingly, regional variations in interracial marriage patterns are observed such that they are twice as likely in the West (11%) relative to other regions (Northeast: 5.3%, Midwest: 4.4%, South: 6.2%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

The perception of social distance is also expected to impact acceptance of interracial marriage as well as marriage patterns themselves. Much of Bogardus’s (1947) work implies that the greater the perceived distance between racial or ethnic groups, the more prejudiced individuals tend to be toward the target group. For instance, in the early 1900s, Americans generally saw greater social distance between themselves and immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The distance between Americans and immigrants from Northern and Western Europe was perceived as much smaller. As a result, acceptance of Northern and Western Europeans was much easier. Given that intermarriage is an indication that social distance is minimized, the persistently low share of Black-White marriages relative to other combinations suggests that group boundaries are strongest between Whites and Blacks (Qian & Lichter, 2007). Certainly, this is reflected by racial variations in attitudes toward intermarriage as Blacks are the most accepting of intermarriage and Whites are least accepting. Furthermore, Blacks are much more likely to report having a family member who is in an interracial marriage relative to Whites (Pew Research Center, 2006).

Bogardus (1947) suggests that social distance often creates an in-group and out-group dynamic between racial or ethnic groups. This dynamic may be moderated to some extent by socio-economic status. The perceived distance may be relatively small for an out-group that is very similar in terms of socio-economic status irrespective of the physical differences. The in-group and out-group dynamic can be extended to social distance issues related to interracial marriages, as the type of racial group member involved in an interracial marriage may impact one’s perception of social distance between the groups involved and affect the social acceptance of the union.

Theoretically Framing Interracial Marriage

The relations between racial groups in the United States have generally been conceptualized from two sociological perspectives: assimilation and cultural pluralism (Geschwender, 1978). Alba and Nee (2003) have attempted to merge these two perspectives through the development of what they term new assimilation in America. This research utilizes this synthesis of the traditional assimilation approach as a guide for assessing interracial marriage through a race relations model. Interracial marriage is seen as a barometer for understanding the fabric of relations between racial and ethnic groups in America.

The New Assimilation perspective attempts to show that trans-nationalism, enhanced technological communication, and changing immigration patterns have changed the prior notion of minority racial and ethnic group assimilation (Alba & Nee, 2003). Traditional ways of viewing assimilation assumed immigrant groups would follow a model of accepting and embracing a White middle-class American lifestyle. The argument is that aspects of the immigrant culture will be incorporated into American society providing more of an absorption process rather than one characterized by the immigrant group giving up its cultural elements. In addition, those groups with similar cultures and comparable physical appearance will assimilate faster. Those with more divergent cultures and physical appearance will assimilate more slowly.

The assimilation perspective stresses that all racial minority groups eventually become part of the dominant group through absorption (Francis, 1976). The process is dynamic and gradual as socially defined differences between the racially dominant and subordinate groups become less important. Therefore, racial discrimination and racism lessen and eventually disappear during the assimilation process (Alba & Nee, 2003; Gordon, 1991).

Proponents of the traditional assimilation perspective suggest that there are seven phases involving dominant and subordinate group interaction that eventually results in the elimination of societal differences (Gordon, 1964). This begins with cultural assimilation whereby subordinate group members learn the dominant culture. This is followed by structural assimilation, which entails acceptance of subordinate group members into dominant primary and secondary group structures. The next phase is known as marital assimilation and is characterized by an environment with no difference in societal acceptance levels of interracial and non-interracial marriages. Fourth, identificational assimilation involves the societal acceptance of the children of interracial marriages. The fifth phase is described as attitudinal-receptional assimilation, characterized by a significant decrease in racial and ethnic prejudice within society. Next, is behavioral-receptional assimilation, characterized by a major reduction in racial and ethnic discrimination. The final phase is identified as civic assimilation in which power and value conflict between racial groups disappears.

The notion of social distance between racial groups also plays an important role in the assimilation process. It has been asserted that the greater the perceived social distance between groups, the greater the spatial and personal separation (van den Berghe, 1987). Proponents of the assimilation (both traditional and new) approach emphasize that social distance between minority and majority racial group members decreases over time.

But the degree of assimilation allowed at both the individual and group level is influenced by the social definition of skin color, the primary objectification of racial group membership. Typically in the United States, benefits and social status tend to vary by race with higher societal benefits and status accorded to lighter skinned racial groups and lesser societal benefits and status given to darker skinned racial groups. Sociologists define this process as color grading (Geschwender, 1978). It follows that racism and discrimination will be more intense against those individuals who are members of darker skin color racial groups (Francis, 1976). Therefore, in the United States, African Americans tend to encounter more racial discrimination than their Mexican American or Asian American counterparts despite the overall pace of assimilation (Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010).

The observed differentials in interracial marriages may be more fully understood via the use of Merton’s (1941) exchange theory. His writings suggest that a hierarchy of status among different racial groups in the United States creates a racial caste system. It places individuals with darker skin color in a lower caste relative to those with lighter skin. Thus, a member of a lower caste will marry a member of the higher caste only if they have other assets to trade for the privilege of “marrying up.” Supporting research by Fu (2001) determined that in Black/White interracial marriages, White women married to Black men had less educational attainment in comparison with White women married to White men. His study also provided evidence that Black women married to White men had comparatively more education than Black women married with Black men.

It can be extended that members of the lower racial castes should be more accepting of interracial dating and marriage patterns, and there is empirical support for this assertion. Indeed, several studies have shown that Blacks had more favorable attitudes toward interracial marriages than Whites (Aldridge, 1978; Passel et al., 2010; Sones & Holston, 1988; Spickard, 1989). On the other hand, Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1990) found that White partners of Black/White marriages tend to encounter ostracism from friends and relatives within their community more frequently than their Black spouses, while more recent work by Yancey and Lewis (2008) found that Mexican American/White unions experience more acceptance than Black/White unions.

Differential Assimilation and Its Research Application

Little evidence supports movement toward the complete elimination of racially motivated prejudice and discrimination suggested by the traditional assimilation perspective. Thus, dual hierarchy theory provides an alternate means for understanding the dynamics of race and class in the United States (Gans, 1999). Grounded in a social stratification perspective, it posits that 21st century American society would gravitate into a two-tiered hierarchal system driven mainly by racial and ethnic distinctions. White Americans and those racial and ethnic groups aligned with them will become the upper portion of the hierarchy. Conversely, Black Americans and other darker skinned groups will comprise the lower portion.

The New Assimilation perspective, which attempts to address variation in rates of absorption experienced by different racial and ethnic minority groups (Alba & Nee, 2003) taken together with dual hierarchy theory, provides the framework through which a differential assimilation approach may be implemented. The basic assumption underlying this concept is that rates of absorption vary between racial minority groups. In fact, some groups may not realize assimilation at all. Moreover, criteria for successful assimilation into the dominant culture may change over time. Differential assimilation extends beyond issues of economic stratification and involves broader aspects of society (Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010).

The historical classification of racial groups in the United States further clarifies differential assimilation. During most of the 20th century, groups were dichotomized into White and non-White categories. European groups, which were characterized as White, faced relatively few barriers to assimilation. Conversely, non-White groups had to navigate formidable hurdles in the process. It should be noted that African Americans comprised the overwhelming majority of those labeled as non-White.

Much like the dual hierarchy approach, it can be argued that the original racial and ethnic dichotomy from the early 20th century has changed. The more contemporary dichotomy now entails two very different categories, Black and non-Black. If this is the case, there has been significant movement illustrated by ethnic and racial minorities that were previously grouped with African Americans. Such groups are now combined with Whites in the non-Black category. Generally, individuals recognized as non-Blacks should face fewer assimilation barriers. Related to the original dichotomy, African Americans make up the vast majority of individuals identified as Black and, therefore, should continue to experience significant resistance relative to the assimilation process.

Differential assimilation, which takes into account the operation of social closure as a mechanism for maintaining dominant-subordinate relationships between racial groups, provides an excellent approach for examining interracial marriages. The assimilation process, whether framed from a traditional or the new assimilation perspective, is problematic for African Americans. As a result of this differential process, it is posited that individuals in Black/White marriages perceive encounters and experiences within society more negatively because of their union in comparison with those in interracial unions that do not involve a Black spouse. Moreover, social acceptance, perceptions, and treatment within society are seen as more problematic for interracial marriages with a Black spouse.

Utilizing the differential assimilation perspective, a general research hypothesis can be posited. Laws prohibiting Black/White marriages will be favored more by individuals associated with the dominant group in comparison with their subordinate group counterparts. Similarly, these same individuals will be more likely to maintain a greater degree of social distance from subordinate group members (as measured by reports of having had a member of the opposite race over for dinner). In addition, individuals from groups that perceive direct competition with Blacks socially and economically will tend to support laws prohibiting interracial marriage and will maintain greater social distance. Last, cultural elements may be at work relative to perceptions of interracial marriage resulting in age playing a role in perceptions and behaviors. From this differential assimilation hypothesis perspective, three sub-hypotheses are presented:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Whites will favor laws limiting Black/White marriages more than their Black counterparts and be less likely to report having a member of the opposite race over for dinner (highest level of racial prejudice).

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Members of lower socio-economic strata will favor laws limiting Black/White marriages more than those in higher socio-economic groupings (highest level of racial prejudice).

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Older individuals will be more likely to report racial prejudice than their younger counterparts.

Data

The data used to examine the trends in interracial marriage were taken from the GSS 1972 to 2012 cumulative file (GSS, 2013). We restricted the analytic sample to years in which both of the questions used to construct the dependent variable were available: 1973, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1984-1985, 1987-1989, 1990-1991, 1993, 1994, and 1996² (n = 19,981). The oversamples from 1982 and 1987 were dropped prior to conducting analysis. These data provide a great deal of information on core demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal questions including those related to interracial marriage (GSS, 2013). Furthermore, these data were collected over a period of years, thus permitting longitudinal analysis of key variables.

Method

The dependent variable represents a combination of responses to whether one favors laws against interracial marriage (“Do you think there should be laws against marriages between Negroes/Blacks/African Americans and Whites?”) and whether the respondent has had a member of the opposite race over for dinner recently (non-Black respondents: “During the last few years, has anyone in your family brought a friend who was a Negro/Black/African American home for dinner?”; Black respondents: “a member of opposite race”). Responses to how one feels about laws prohibiting interracial marriage are available for the years spanning 1972 to 2002. Responses to questions about dinner with the opposite race are available for the years spanning 1973 to 2006. Thus, analyses are conducted based on the years in which both are available: 1973 to 1996. The variables are dichotomous variables with a response of yes or no (1 = yes, 0 = no). Combing these dichotomous responses resulted in four ordered categories that represent an increasing level of racial prejudice:

those who did not support laws against interracial marriage and had an African American over for dinner (coded 0),

those who did not support laws against interracial marriage and did not have an African American over for dinner (coded 1),

those who supported laws against interracial marriage, but had an African American over for dinner (coded 2), and

those who supported laws against interracial marriage and did not have an African American over for dinner (coded 3).

The analysis considers several known correlates to one’s attitudes toward interracial marriage and related behaviors. In accordance with H1, we include race (1 = White, 0 = otherwise). To test H2, we include self-reported class (lower, working, middle, upper), years of education (0-20 years), and income (respondent income in constant dollars, US$486.00-US$235,707.00). To test H3, we include age in years (18-99). Finally, we control for known covariates including marital status (1 = married, 0 = otherwise), political affiliation (1 = republican, 0 = all else), religious affiliation (1 = Protestant, 0 = all else), and region (1 = south, 0 = all else).

The outcomes are modeled using generalized ordinal logistic regression. This is the appropriate model as it provides an ordinal alternative to modeling that does not violate the parallel lines assumption (Williams, 2006). Such a model predicts the probability that y will take on each of the values 1, 2, or 3. In this case, we model the odds of being in category 0 versus 1, 2, or 3; 0 or 1 versus 2 or 3; and 0, 1, or 2 versus 3. All analyses were conducted using STATA v.12.0.

Results

The following provides summary information on our sample of respondents. Figure 1 provides trends in prejudice levels between 1973 and 1996, and a large increase in the percentage of Americans displaying the lowest level of racial prejudice is observed (17%-38.5%). Interestingly, the percentage of Americans who report supporting laws against interracial marriage but having a member of the opposite race over for dinner (coded 2) remained relatively constant over the study period at approximately 3%. Finally, the greatest decline is observed for those in the highest category of racial prejudice, which dropped from 35% to 10%.

Figure 1.

Trends in support for laws against interracial marriage and social distance over time.

Table 3 provides bivariate analyses pooled over the entire time frame and indicates that most Americans (48.2%) fell into category 1: did not support laws against interracial marriage, but did not have a member of the opposite race over for dinner. An increasing level of racial prejudice was associated with older age (those who were in the highest category had an average age of 54.8, compared with an average age of 39.4 for those in the lowest category). Whites and other races were most likely to oppose the laws but not have an African American over for dinner, while Blacks were most likely to fall into the lowest category (oppose laws and shared dinner). Females were slightly more likely to be at the extreme ends (category 0 or category 3), while males were more likely to be in the center categories (1 or 2). Those who were never married were more likely than the other groups to be in category 1 and were by far the least likely to be in the highest category (9.4% vs. 23.2% married and 28.6% of widowed/divorced/separated respondents). An inverse association was observed for education and level of racism such that those who had more education were increasingly less likely to be in a higher category. Similarly, members of the upper class were most likely to be in the lowest category and least likely to be in the highest category. Accordingly, the mean income level was highest for those in category 0 (US$31,806.42) and lowest in category 3 (US$24,472.57). Protestants were most likely to fall into the highest category of racial prejudice as were those in the south. All differences reported were statistically significant at the .05 level or below.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics on Attitudes Toward Interracial Marriage and Social Distance, 1973-1996.

	Opposes laws against interracial marriage		Supports laws against interracial marriage
Characteristic	Has had member of opposite race over for dinner	Has not had member of opposite race over for dinner	Has had member of opposite race over for dinner	Has not had member of opposite race over for dinner
Overall, n (%)	5,367 (26.86)	9,628 (48.19)	588 (2.94)	4,398 (22.01)
Age (M, SD)	39.38, 14.46	43.36, 17.06	46.82, 17.24	54.80, 17.96
Race (row %)
White	24.30	48.63	3.03	24.04
Black	50.24	43.10	2.14	4.52
Other	37.88	49.37	2.51	10.23
Sex (%)
Male	26.49	50.14	2.58	20.79
Female	27.15	46.64	3.23	22.98
Marital status (%)
Married	24.64	48.93	3.21	23.22
Widowed/divorced/separated	25.78	42.49	3.11	28.63
Never married	35.53	53.26	1.85	9.36
Education in years (M, SD)	13.60, 2.93	12.81, 2.92	11.56, 2.69	10.43, 2.96
Class status (self-reported; %)
Lower	28.03	41.81	3.92	26.25
Working	26.43	47.53	2.90	23.14
Middle	27.46	49.89	2.81	19.84
Upper	32.44	44.71	4.20	18.66
Constant income (M, SD)	US$31,806.42; 26,862.56	US$30,428.72; 25,224.11	US$27,421.96; 24,859	US$24,472.57; 21,576.98
Religious affiliation (%)
Protestant	24.40	45.39	3.43	26.78
Catholic	26.94	54.17	2.32	16.56
Jewish	42.18	48.34	0.95	8.53
None	38.26	50.46	2.04	9.23
Other	41.36	49.53	1.64	7.48
Region
Northeast	31.36	50.86	2.27	15.51
Midwest	22.96	53.37	2.24	21.43
South	23.50	39.58	4.41	32.51
West	33.58	52.91	2.11	11.40

The results for the generalized ordered logistic regression are shown in Table 4.³ The first column contrasts category 0 (lowest level of prejudice) with categories 1, 2, and 3. The second column contrasts categories 0 and 1 (opposes laws) with categories 2 and 3 (supports laws). The final column contrasts categories 0, 1, and 2 with category 3 (supports laws and no dinner). Positive coefficients indicate that higher values of the independent variable make it more likely that the respondent is in a higher category on the dependent variable. Negative coefficients indicate that higher values of χ are associated with an increased likelihood of being in the current or a lower category (Williams, 2006).

Table 4.

Socio-Demographic Effects (Odds Ratios and Standard Errors) on Attitudes Toward Interracial Marriage and Social Distance, 1973-1996, Estimated by Generalized Ordered Logistic Regression.

	Model outcomes, odds ratios (SE)
	Higher three levels of racial prejudice (categories 1-3) vs. lowest level of racial prejudice (category 0)	Higher two levels of racial prejudice (categories 2 and 3) vs. lower two levels of racial prejudice (categories 0 and 1)	Highest level of racial prejudice (category 3) vs. all lower categories (categories 0-2)
Socio-demographic variables
Age	1.02 (.0019)***	1.03 (.0021)***	1.03 (.0022)***
Race (1 = White)	3.00 (.1885)***	5.87 (.7417)***	6.53 (.9529)***
Gender (1 = female)	0.79 (.0351)***	0.93 (.0533)	0.91 (.0560)
Marital status (1 = never married)	1.01 (.0549)	0.72 (.0620)***	0.73 (.0683)***
Social class	1.01 (.0391)	0.94 (.0468)	0.94 (.0491)
Years of education	0.87 (.0073)***	0.78 (.0087)***	0.77 (.0094)***
Income	1.00 (.0000)***	1.00 (.0000)***	1.00 (.0000)***
Religion (1 = protestant)	1.20 (.0526)***	1.69 (.1026)***	1.74 (.1134)***
Control variables
Region (1 = south)	1.12 (.0518)**	2.45 (.1357)***	2.32 (.1360)***
Year	0.98 (.0032)***	0.96 (.0040)***	0.96 (.0043)***

p>χ²	.0000
Pseudo R²	.1056

Note. Category 0 = opposes laws against interracial marriage and had a member of opposite race over for dinner recently; category 1 = opposes laws against interracial marriage but has not had a member of opposite race over for dinner recently; category 2 = supports laws against interracial marriage and had a member of opposite race over for dinner recently; category 3 = supports laws against interracial marriage and has not had a member of opposite race over for dinner recently.

p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

The observed results are generally as expected; however, an examination of the different categories reveals some interesting findings. Generally speaking, people were more likely to exhibit a higher level of racial prejudice with increasing age. Close inspection of the variable for race indicates that Whites were indeed more likely to have a higher level of racism, but they were especially more likely to support laws against interracial marriage (categories 2 and 3) than other race groups. For example, the odds of supporting laws against interracial marriage and not having a member of the opposite race for dinner are 6.5 times greater for Whites compared with other race groups, all else equal. Females are slightly less prejudiced, though the only significant relationship is observed for the odds of opposing the laws and having dinner versus the other categories. Those who have never been married are less prejudiced overall and significantly less likely to support laws against interracial marriage. Education exerts the greatest impact on the likelihood of opposing the laws and having a member of the opposite race over for dinner, and is the most influential predictor in the model. In similar fashion, an inverse association is observed for income and level of racism. Protestants are significantly more likely to be in either of the categories that support laws against interracial marriage as are those in the South. Finally, levels of racial prejudice have lessened over time.

Discussion

The differential assimilation perspective provides a mechanism through which to understand the relatively low level of interracial marriage and how associated behaviors operate to maintain existing structures. Specifically, dominant group members (non-Black) are more likely to support mechanisms and engage in behaviors that prohibit Black assimilation, while Blacks are more accepting of interracial marriage patterns and engage in behaviors that reduce social distance. In addition, those who perceive direct competition with Blacks socially and economically are more likely to support laws against interracial marriage as well as maintain greater social distance. Finally, cultural elements relating to perceptions and behaviors surrounding interracial marriage suggest that younger individuals are much more accepting of changes to existing structures. These assertions led to the development of three related hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Whites will be most likely to fall into the highest category of racial prejudice.

Hypothesis 5: Members of lower socio-economic strata (as measured by income and education) will exhibit higher levels of racial prejudice.

Hypothesis 6: Older individuals will exhibit greater levels of racial prejudice than their younger counterparts.

The hypotheses were fully supported and suggest that in fact, Whites are far more likely to report greater social distance, and they are especially more likely than other groups to support laws against interracial marriage. Alternately, Blacks were most likely to be in the lowest category of racial prejudice, and those in the other race category (non-Black) fell somewhere in between. Education emerged as a strong predictor of racial prejudice, and as expected, those with higher levels of education exhibited lower levels of social distance and far less support of laws against interracial marriage. Income operated in similar fashion, and the results suggested that increasing income was associated with a lower level of racial prejudice. Finally, older individuals were much more likely than younger ones to have a higher level of racial prejudice suggesting that some larger societal shifts have occurred, which have led to changing perceptions of interracial marriage and associated behaviors.

Our study is not without limitations, which provide opportunities for future research endeavors. First, it would be useful to continue the analysis into the 2000s. Responses to the questions used to construct our dependent variable did not overlap in any of the surveys conducted in the 2000s, though we are hopeful that future cycles will do so. Second, our measure of social distance could be improved or replaced with knowledge of actual presence of interracial marriage in the respondent’s family and/or willingness to intermarry. Future studies should incorporate such a measure, as it would allow for enhanced understanding of how attitudes translate with respect to racial intermarriage patterns and attitudes. Finally, recent research has indicated that intermarriage with Whites has declined markedly in the past decade (Qian & Lichter, 2007). This may suggest that color grading plays an important role in marital selection and is certainly worthy of increased attention in future research.

Nonetheless, the present study contributes to our understanding of attitudes toward interracial marriage and how they vary on the basis of a number of characteristics. Overall, the analysis suggests some dramatic shifts in both attitudes and behaviors surrounding interracial marriage patterns over time. Social acceptance of interracial marriage has increased substantially. Similarly, reported levels of social distance have also decreased, albeit more slowly. However, higher levels of support and social distance among non-Blacks relative to Blacks indicate that barriers to assimilation persist. Furthermore, it suggests that non-Blacks engage in a greater degree of social closure, which ultimately serves to reinforce existing dominant-subordinate group dynamics.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ginny E. Garcia, PhD, is an assistant professor of sociology at Portland State University. She has specialties in health disparities, discrimination, social demography, and the social determinants of health.

Richard Lewis Jr., PhD, is a tenured professor of sociology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. He has specialties in the area of intergroup relations, diversity leadership, and strategic planning. He has examined issues regarding interracial marriage since 1994.

Joanne Ford-Robertson, MS, is currently a lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. She is the advisor for the Undergraduate Sociology Program and has specialties in the area of social stratification, intergroup relations, and organizational change.

References

Alba

R. D.

Nee

(2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Aldridge

D. P.

(1978). Interracial marriages: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Journal of Black Studies, 8, 355-368.

Baars

(2009). Marriage in black and white: Women’s support for laws against interracial marriage. Intersections, 10(1), 219-238.

Batson

C. D.

Qian

Lichter

D. T.

(2006). Interracial and intraracial patterns of mate selection among America’s diverse black populations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 658-672.

Bogardus

E. S.

(1947). Measurement of personal-group relations. Sociometry, 10, 306-311.

Francis

E. K.

(1976). Interethnic relations: An essay in sociological theory. New York, NY: Elsevier.

V. K.

(2001). Racial intermarriage pairings. Demography, 38, 147-159.

Gans

(1999). The possibility of a new racial hierarchy in the twenty-first century United States. In Lamont

(Ed.), The cultural territories of race: Black and white boundaries (pp. 371-390). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Geschwender

J. A.

(1978). Racial stratification in America. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.

10.

Gordon

M. M.

(1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Gordon

M. M.

(1991). Assimilation in America: Theory and reality. In Yetman

N. R.

(Ed.), Majority and minority: The dynamics of race and ethnicity in American life (pp. 248-261). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

12.

Johnson

T. D.

Kreider

R. M.

(2013, April). Mapping interracial/interethnic married-couple households in the United States 2010. Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meetings, New Orleans, LA.

13.

Lewis

(1994). Racial discrimination encountered by individuals who are interracially married. Diversity: A Journal of Multicultural Issues, 2, 49-63.

14.

Lewis

Ford-Robertson

(2010). Understanding the occurrence of interracial marriage in the United States through differential assimilation. Journal of Black Studies, 41, 405-420.

15.

Lewis

Yancey

(1995). Biracial marriages in the United States: An analysis of variation in family member support. Sociological Spectrum, 15, 443-462.

16.

Merton

R. K.

(1941). Intermarriage and the social structure. Psychiatry, 4, 361-374.

17.

Moran

R. F.

(2001). Interracial intimacy: The regulation of race and romance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Newport

(2013). In U.S., 87% of approve of Black-White marriage, vs. 4% in 1958. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

19.

Passel

J. S.

Taylor

Wang

(2010). Marrying out: One-in-seven U.S. marriages is interracial or interethnic (Pew Research Center: A Social and Demographic Trends Report, pp. 1-37) Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/755-marrying-out.pdf

20.

Porterfield

(1978). Black and white mixed marriages. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

21.

Qian

Lichter

D. T.

(2007). Social boundaries and marital assimilation: Interpreting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage. American Sociological Review, 72, 68-94.

22.

Smith

T. W.

(Principle Investigator), Marsden

P.V.

Hout

(Co-Principal Investigators). (2013). General Social Surveys (GSS), 1972-2012 [machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center, 2005 (Producer); Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut (Distributor).

23.

Sones

D. G.

Holston

M. A.

(1988). Tolerance, sociability, sex, and race: Correlates of attitudes toward interracial marriage. Psychological Reports, 62, 518.

24.

Spickard

P. R.

(1989). Mixed blood: Intermarriage and ethnic identity in twentieth-century America. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

25.

Taylor

Funk

Craighill

(2006). Guess who’s coming to dinner: 22% of Americans have a relative in a mixed-race marriage (Pew Research Center: A Social Trends Report, pp. 1-6). Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Interracial.pdf

26.

Tucker

M. B.

Mitchell-Kernan

(1990). New trends in black American interracial marriage: The social structural context. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 209-218.

27.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Current population reports, P20–537. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt and https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf

28.

van den Berghe

P. L.

(1987). The ethnic phenomenon. New York, NY: Praeger.

29.

Wang

(2012). The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender (Pew Research Center: A Social & Demographic Trends Report). Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/02/SDT-Intermarriage-II.pdf

30.

Williams

(2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal, 6, 58-82.

31.

Yancey

Lewis

(2008). Interracial families: Current concepts and controversies. New York, NY: Routledge Press.