It Is Your Decision to Date Interracially: The Influence of Family Approval on the Likelihood of Interracial/Interethnic Dating

Abstract

Although attitudes toward interracial romantic relationships (IRRs) have generally improved over the years, many Americans still disapprove of their family members being in IRRs. Prior studies have examined correlates of individual-level attitudes about interracial romance, but less is known about whether family members’ attitudes are directly associated with young people’s decisions to date interracially. Using data collected from 790 romantically involved college students at two large public four-year universities, we find that young adults who believe their siblings, parents, and grandparents approve of IRRs have greater odds of dating interracially. Compared to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be interracially involved but their decision to do so is much less dependent on the approval of their parents and grandparents. We also find young adults are more likely to date interracially if they have five or more relatives with IRR experience themselves. The findings and their implications are discussed.

Keywords

interracial dating romantic relationships young adults family race/ethnicity family approval

Introduction

Interracial/interethnic romantic relationships (IRRs) have become much more common in recent years, and we are now seeing historically high levels of marriage, cohabitation, and dating between members of different racial/ethnic groups (Passel et al., 2010; Pew Research Center, 2017; Tillman & Miller, 2017; Wang, 2012). Although the actual frequency of IRRs continues to vary by race and ethnicity (Pew Research Center, 2017), successive generations of Americans have become much more approving of interracial relationships in general (Newport, 2013), and adults across racial/ethnic groups now believe that the rise in this type of relationship is good for our society (Pew Research Center, 2017; Wang, 2012). This perspective is particularly common among young adults (ages 18–29 years) who, compared to older cohorts, are more likely to generally approve of IRRs and to have dated interracially themselves (Jones, 2005; Newport, 2013; Passel et al., 2010; Wang, 2012).

Given that romantic partners often become embedded into one another’s social networks, and most intimately within their family networks, familial approval of a partner may strongly influence a person’s decision about whether or not to form and maintain a romantic relationship. This may be true of all relationships, but it is especially salient for decisions regarding partnerships that are more likely to be socially stigmatized. Despite rising societal acceptance, a substantial portion of people, particularly among older individuals, continue to disapprove of family members engaging in IRRs. Moreover, some particular racial/ethnic combinations of partners continue to face greater stigma than others (Newport, 2013; Passel et al., 2010; Pew Research Center, 2017). As such, scholars interested in romantic relationship formation have called for more research that examines how the approval or disapproval of IRRs by parents, grandparents, siblings, and extended family members is related to an individual’s likelihood of entering an IRR (Bell & Hastings, 2015).

The present study addresses this important issue by using survey data collected from romantically involved young adults, attending two large public universities in the United States, to examine the relationship between interracial/interethnic dating and the respondents’ perceptions that parents, siblings, and grandparents approve of interracial romance. These perceptions are measured directly—respondents were explicitly asked how they thought their family members felt about IRRs—and indirectly—respondents were asked to provide a count of the number of relatives who had engaged in an IRR. Analyses also examine the roles of general familial support and race/ethnicity in the likelihood of engaging in an IRR as a college student.

Familial Attitudes and Romantic Partner Choice

Family members often play an instrumental role in a person’s romantic partner selection process. In general, families that are more supportive of one another tend to be more open to accepting an individual’s choice of romantic partner and more tolerant of “nontraditional” choices in partnership (Felmlee, 2001; Manning et al., 2011). That said, research shows that family members typically socialize young people on the importance of various partner traits, including race/ethnicity, by establishing norms regarding which groups are acceptable for romantic relationships (Edmonds & Killen, 2009). This may happen through conversations, casual comments, or explicit rules. Siblings, parents, and grandparents also often directly express their opinions about specific potential romantic partners (Prather, 1990). Through these mechanisms, relatives express attitudes about expected relationship behavior and the informal sanctions that may be imposed upon family members who do not conform to those expectations. The fact that general acceptance of IRRs has grown significantly over the past 60 years (Newport, 2013) has undoubtedly meant an expansion of the “acceptable partner” pool for many young Americans. Yet, because only 63% of adults are fine with intermarriage in their family (Passel et al., 2010; Wang, 2012), some individuals may continue to avoid engagement in IRRs so that they will not be stigmatized and marginalized by their relatives.

Both immediate and extended family members may also indirectly express approval of interracial romance by engaging in interracial relationships themselves. More than one-third (35%) of American adults have a close family member who has been intermarried (Passel et al., 2010), and countless more have relatives in nonmarital interracial/interethnic partnerships. This role modeling of IRR engagement by family members might be even more influential for young people’s own behavior than their general perceptions of whether or not family members might approve of IRRs. As such, we include an examination of familial social support and family members’ experience with interracial/interethnic relationships, as well as the respondents’ general perceptions of family members’ attitudes.

Research shows that attitudes toward IRRs may also be conditioned by the particular racial/ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved (Newport, 2013; Passel et al., 2010; Pew Research Center, 2017). Scholars using social exchange theory have posited that people enter into relationships with others as part of an exchange process, where each person attempts to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs or risks. The attractiveness of potential romantic partners, therefore, is determined based on the resources or desirable traits that he or she can bring to the relationship (Qian & Lichter, 2018). Given the strong links between race/ethnicity, social class, and social status in the United States (Portes & Landolt, 1996), social exchange theory suggests that racial/ethnic minorities will often see Whites as having attractive resources, especially in terms of social capital. Racial/ethnic minorities, particularly Black Americans, will be less likely to have these resources and, as a result, may be less likely to be viewed as an acceptable partner by White individuals, or those in their families and broader social networks (Burnett, 2014). The tenets of social exchange theory also suggest that individuals who have social networks, particularly family networks, that contain higher levels of social capital and resources will be less inclined to engage in behaviors that are considered unacceptable by their network because doing so might jeopardize their access to those resources. As such, the level of capital/resources within an individual’s social network may condition the effect of family attitudes upon individual behavior. To the extent that these are associated with race/ethnicity, we may see that individuals from racial/ethnic groups with higher overall access to capital/resources, such as White Americans, will be more strongly influenced by the attitudes of their family members than individuals with more limited access.

The Relative Influence of Different Family Members on Partner Choice

To date, much of the empirical research examining familial attitudes and IRRs have focused on the “family” as a whole (Jones, 2005; Newport, 2013; Passel et al., 2010). We know little, however, about how the attitudes or expectations of family members with specific familial relationships (e.g., siblings, parents, grandparents) to an individual may influence their behaviors. Family systems theory would suggest that this is a major limitation in the existing literature, as families are not one unified system, but rather organized into interdependent, reciprocally influential subsystems. These subsystems are composed of distinct relationships between parents and children, between siblings, between grandparents and grandchildren, and so forth (Whiteman et al., 2011). These different subsystem relationships may have differential levels of influence on individuals’ decision-making processes and, as a result, are important to consider with regard to familial influence on IRR engagement (James et al., 2018).

Parents

Parents play an integral role in the overall socialization of their children, including the development of attitudes and expectations for romance and union formation (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, 1999). While some parents are quite supportive of partnerships that would include a different-race partner, some are quite critical (Miller et al., 2004), directly expressing their disapproval. Many people in IRRs report receiving explicitly negative parental statements such as, “If you ever bring home a black guy, don’t expect to have this as your home or me as your father!” (Prather, 1990, p. 152) and “You have to pick me or this White girl” (Bell & Hastings, 2015, p. 763). Not surprisingly, many people in IRRs also believe that their parents disapprove of their relationships, hold racist attitudes, pressure them to uphold their cultures (Yahya & Boag, 2014), and are worried about the possibility of mixed-race grandchildren (Morales, 2012).

Parents also influence children’s romantic selections in more subtle and indirect ways. For instance, the average American family lives in a neighborhood that is moderately to highly racially segregated (Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilkes & Iceland, 2004) and sends their children to similarly segregated schools (Billingham & Hunt, 2016; Sikkink & Emerson, 2008). To the extent that parents are choosing these contexts for their families, they are limiting their children’s opportunities to interact with members of other racial groups (Allport, 1954; DuBois & Hirsch, 1990), develop cross-cultural awareness and understanding, and form interracial friendships and romantic relationships (Clark-Ibanez & Felmlee, 2004). At the same time, the growing numbers of parents who marry, cohabit (Pew Research Center, 2017), and date across racial/ethnic lines also serve as role models to their children, implicitly demonstrating their beliefs that interracial romance is acceptable and, perhaps, preferable. Thus, as the primary agents of socialization and sources of social support for their children, we expect that the attitudes and relationship behaviors of parents will be associated with the likelihood of IRR engagement in early adulthood.

Siblings

Most young adults in the United States today grew up with at least one sibling. Because of their shared environments and family experiences, siblings often hold similar views on topics such as relationships and race/ethnicity (Doughty et al., 2015; Stocker et al., 2002). Siblings also often act as confidantes, sources of social support, and advisors to one another (Killoren & Roach, 2014; Tucker et al., 2001). In particular, young adults often feel more comfortable discussing issues related to romance and intimacy with their siblings than their parents (Kowal & Blinn-Pike, 2004). In addition, siblings’ attitudes and social networks may play a role in actually facilitating romantic relationships, as people may meet potential partners through their brothers and sisters. Siblings with racially diverse networks may be more likely to approve of interracial romantic relationships, to be interracially involved themselves (Kreager, 2008; Wang et al., 2006), and to provide connections to potential partners of differing racial/ethnic backgrounds. For all of these reasons, sibling attitudes about IRRs may be particularly important for young people as they make relationship decisions.

Grandparents

Like other family members, grandparents also may play a critical role in the partner selection process of their grandchildren. This is especially true as an increasing percentage of grandparents are taking on regular child-rearing responsibilities for their grandchildren, either raising them independently or assisting their adult children on a day-to-day basis (Hayslip et al., 2013). The grandparents of many young adults in the United States today may disapprove of interracial relationships because they were socialized during the Jim Crow era of legalized racial segregation when such partnerships were still illegal and/or viewed as socially taboo (see Loving v. Virginia, 1967). In fact, individuals over the age of 65 years, those most likely to be grandparents of college-aged adults, are the most likely to disapprove of interracial relationships (Passel et al., 2010), and college students often report perceiving their grandparents as racists who strongly disapprove of mixed-race relationships (Yahya & Boag, 2014).

Grandparents’ attitudes about interracial/interethnic relationships may vary, however, by their own race/ethnicity, as some grandparents from racial/ethnic minority groups may actually encourage interracial/interethnic romance, seeing it as a means of successful assimilation. For example, Hispanic grandparents sometimes encourage their children and grandchildren to intermarry with Whites so that subsequent generations can attain a preferred lighter skin tone, “pass” as White, and access all the benefits that whiteness provides in our society (Killian, 2001). Despite the potential importance of grandparents as socializing agents and providers of ongoing social support during young adulthood, little is known about their actual influence over young people’s relationship behavior. We expect, however, that grandparents’ attitudes will have some association with IRR engagement.

Research Questions

Previous research has examined trends in interracial/interethnic romance as well as family approval of IRRs. We are not aware, however, of a study that has empirically tested whether or not an individual’s perceived family approval of interracial/interethnic romance is associated with their actual involvement in such a relationship. The present study aims to extend this body of literature, addressing the following research questions:

Q₁: Is perceived approval of interracial romance by siblings, parents, and grandparents positively associated with the likelihood of being in an IRR?

Q₂: Is the number of relatives who have been in an IRR positively associated with the likelihood of being in an IRR?

Q₃: Is perceived general family support positively associated with the likelihood of interracial being in an IRR?

Q₄: Does the respondent’s race/ethnicity significantly moderate the association between perceived family approval of IRRs (parent, sibling, and grandparent approval) and the likelihood of being in an IRR?

Methods

Data and Sample

Data for this project were collected in the fall of 2017 at two large public four-year universities located in the Southeastern United States after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Boards at both schools. Participants were recruited through blind email lists that included unique student email addresses (10,000 from University A and 5,000 from University B) drawn through a random sample of the currently enrolled student body compiled for the researchers by the Office of Institutional Research at each university. The sample of students was sent an email describing the study and inviting them to voluntarily participate without any incentives by completing an anonymous and confidential online survey. The email invitation informed students that they were eligible to participate if they were at least 18 years of age and currently enrolled in one of the participating universities. The link to the survey, which could be accessed through the Qualtrics software system to which the students’ respective university subscribed, was included in the email invitation.

A total of 1,472 students participated (814 participants from University A and 658 participants from University B) that yielded an estimated response rate of ~10%, which is similar to many other studies of college students conducted in this manner (see Mol, 2017). This estimated rate is very conservative, however, because we do not know how many students actually received and read the email invitation, or how many were excluded from eligibility, based on their responses to the pre-screening questions. The final analytical sample for the present study was limited to the 790 respondents who self-identified as Asian, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latino, Multiracial, or non-Hispanic White and who reported they were currently or recently (in the last 12 months) involved in either a same-race or interracial heterosexual romantic relationship. Respondents who indicated their current or most recent relationship was with a same-sex partner (66) were excluded from the analyses, because their sexuality could be a confounding factor, influencing family members’ approval of their relationship.

It is important to note that the age (average = 22 years old) and racial distributions of the total sample are relatively similar to the overall distributions of the two universities from which this sample was drawn. However, female respondents (78% of this sample) were overrepresented (54% and 56% of the student body is female at University A and B, respectively).

Measures

Dependent variable

The dependent variable interracial romantic involvement was based on the respondent’s answer to the question: “Would you consider your current or most recent romantic relationship to be an interracial relationship?” Those who answered yes were coded as being in an interracial relationship (IRR) (1), and those who replied no were coded as being in a same-race relationship (SRR) (0).

Independent variables

There are three independent variables that measure family members’ perceived approval of IRRs based on the respondent’s answer to the question: “How much would your _____ approve of you being in an interracial romantic relationship?” Sibling(s) approval of IRRs was measured with one question, with possible scores ranging from “strongly disapprove” (1) to “strongly approve” (5). Responses to separate questions regarding the respondent’s mother and father were combined into a two-item index, measuring parent approval of IRRs, with possible scores ranging from 2 (lowest approval) to 10 (highest approval). Responses to separate questions regarding the respondent’s maternal grandparents (asked with one question) and paternal grandparents (asked with one question) were combined into a two-item index, measuring grandparent approval of IRRs, with possible scores ranging from 2 (lowest approval) to 10 (highest approval).

Respondent’s race is a self-reported measure that categorizes respondents into one of five mutually exclusive categories: Asian, Black (African American/non-Hispanic Black, and/or Afro-Caribbean), Hispanic/Latino, Multiracial (a combination of two or more racial categories), or White (Caucasian/non-Hispanic White).

Perceived family support is a six-item additive index with scores ranging from 6 to 30 (α = 0.85). Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: (a) My family is emotionally supportive of me; (b) my family loves and cares about me; (c) I can talk to my family about my problems; (d) my family generally supports the decisions I make; (e) I can rely on my family to provide me with financial assistance when I need it; and (f) I know I can rely on my family to help me whenever I need it. Original responses were ordinal in nature, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).

Relatives in interracial relationships is a measure based on the respondent’s answers to the question: “To your knowledge, how many of your family members have been in an interracial romantic relationship?” Responses for the ordinal measure were coded into the following categories: none (0), one to two (1), three to four (2), and five or more (3).

Control variables

Previous studies have shown that interracial involvement is associated with a number of individual characteristics that may also be related to perceptions of familial approval of such relationships (Passel et al., 2010). Therefore, our analyses control for gender (Bratter & Eschbach, 2006), age (Pew Research Center, 2017), urbanicity (Pew Research Center, 2017), and family structure (Kreager, 2008). Gender is a self-reported measure that categorizes respondents as either female (1) or male (0). Age is measured continuously in years and ranges from 18 years to 63 years. Urbanicity was determined by respondents’ answers to the question: “In which type of geographic area were you primarily raised?” Responses were coded into a set of three dummy variables, indicating Urban, Suburban, or Rural. Family Structure measures the respondents’ “biological parents’ relationship to one another,” and respondents were coded into one of four mutually exclusive categories: (a) Never married to one another; (b) currently married/cohabiting with one another; (c) currently divorced/separated from one another; and (d) widowed parent.

Analytic Strategy

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the analytical sample of respondents in interracial and same-race romantic relationships. Table 2 presents the odds ratios (OR) and standard errors (SE) from the stepwise logistic regression analysis that examines the extent to which perceived parent, sibling, and grandparent approval of IRRs (models 2–4), family support (model 5), and number of relatives who have been in an IRR (model 6) are associated with the likelihood of romantically involved young adults being in an interracial relationship. We then assess whether or not the association between family approval and interracial involvement is moderated by the respondent’s race and present the findings in Table 3. All analyses were conducted using Stata SE version 14 statistical software (StataCorp, 2015).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Overall and by Relationship Type.

Variable Names	Interracial Relationships (n = 229)		Same-Race Relationships (n = 808)		Total (N = 1,105)		Variable Range
Variable Names	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Interracial relationships	1.00		0.00		0.29	0.45	0	1
Interracial romance approval
Sibling approval*	4.26	1.03	3.78	1.10	3.92	1.10	1	5
Parent approval*	7.96	2.26	6.69	2.42	7.06	2.44	2	10
Grandparent approval*	6.63	2.46	5.44	2.22	5.79	2.35	2	10
Respondent’s race
Asian*	0.10	0.31	0.02	0.14	0.05	0.21	0	1
Black	0.11	0.32	0.07	0.26	0.08	0.28	0	1
Hispanic*	0.20	0.40	0.14	0.35	0.16	0.37	0	1
Multiracial*	0.14	0.35	0.07	0.25	0.09	0.29	0	1
White*	0.44	0.50	0.70	0.46	0.62	0.49	0	1
Sex
Female	0.79	0.40	0.78	0.41	0.78	0.41	0	1
Male	0.21	0.40	0.22	0.41	0.22	0.41	0	1
Age	21.55	4.66	2.25	6.08	22.05	5.71	18	63
Urbanicity
Urban*	0.24	0.43	0.13	0.34	0.16	0.37	0	1
Rural*	0.07	0.26	0.12	0.32	0.11	0.31	0	1
Suburban	0.69	0.47	0.75	0.43	0.73	0.44	0	1
Family structure
Parents never married	0.07	0.26	0.08	0.27	0.08	0.27	0	1
Parents married	0.52	0.52	0.59	0.49	0.57	0.50	0	1
Parents divorced	0.36	0.48	0.29	0.45	0.31	0.46	0	1
Parents widowed	0.04	0.20	0.04	0.20	0.04	0.20	0	1
Family support	25.51	4.57	26.03	4.41	25.88	4.48	6	30
Family interracial experience
None*	0.28	0.45	0.39	0.49	0.36	0.48	0	1
1–2	0.43	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.45	0.50	0	1
3–4*	0.16	0.37	0.11	0.31	0.12	0.33	0	1
5+*	0.13	0.33	0.04	0.20	0.07	0.25	0	1
School	0.42	0.49	0.58	0.49	0.53	0.50	0	1

Note: *p < 0.05 denotes significant difference in means between respondents in same-race and interracial relationships. SD denotes the standard deviation. Some percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression of Family Context on Interracial Involvement, Odds Ratios, and Standard Errors (N = 790).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Asian	7.15***	7.65***	8.09***	7.07***	6.58***	7.04***	7.21***
Asian	2.739	−3.00	−3.28	2.80	2.54	2.70	2.95
Black	2.38**	2.34**	2.15*	2.09*	2.05*	2.39**	2.01*
Black	0.71	−0.71	−0.66	0.63	0.63	0.71	0.63
Hispanic	1.76*	1.68*	1.74*	1.66*	1.66*	1.76*	1.62*
Hispanic	0.40	−0.39	−0.41	0.39	0.38	0.40	0.39
Multiracial	2.98***	3.02***	2.68***	2.73***	2.42**	2.96***	2.39**
Multiracial	0.82	0.85	0.76	0.76	0.69	0.81	0.71
Female	1.04	1.09	1.20	1.22	1.00	1.03	1.15
Female	0.21	0.23	0.25	0.26	0.21	0.21	0.25
Age	0.97	0.98	0.98	0.98	0.97	0.97	0.98
Age	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
Urban	1.60*	1.60*	1.57*	1.54+	1.58*	1.60*	1.56*
Urban	0.35	0.35	0.35	0.34	0.34	0.35	0.35
Rural	0.90	0.90	0.95	0.97	0.88	0.89	0.9
Rural	0.27	0.28	0.29	0.30	0.27	0.27	0.28
Married parents	1.26	1.13	1.29	1.44	1.29	1.28	1.43
Married parents	0.42	0.39	0.44	0.49	0.44	0.43	0.50
Divorced parents	1.76+	1.58	1.67	1.98*	1.75+	1.78+	1.81+
Divorced parents	0.60	0.55	0.58	0.68	0.60	0.60	0.64
Widowed parents	1.84	2.14	1.98	2.22	1.96	1.85	2.45+
Widowed parents	0.93	1.10	1.03	1.14	0.99	0.93	1.29
School	0.57***	0.56***	0.56***	0.57**	0.60**	0.58**	0.59**
School	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.11
Sibling approval		1.56***					1.24*
Sibling approval		0.13					0.13
Parent approval			1.26***				1.14*
Parent approval			0.05				0.06
Grandparent approval				1.23***			1.09+
Grandparent approval				0.05			0.05
1–2 Relatives in IRRs					1.12		0.94
1–2 Relatives in IRRs					0.22		0.19
3–4 Relatives in IRRs					1.53		1.07
3–4 Relatives in IRRs					0.42		0.30
5+ Relatives in IRRs					2.55**		1.56
5+ Relatives in IRRs					0.88		0.56
Family support						0.99	0.96*
Family support						0.02	0.02
Constant	0.41+	0.07***	0.06***	0.08***	0.37+	0.54	0.09**
Constant	0.22	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.21	0.40	0.08

Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, and + p < 0.10.

IRRs = Interracial relationships.

Reference groups: White, male, urban, never married parents, School B, and no family members with interracial experience.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression of Race × Family Approval of Interracial Romance Interactions on Interracial Involvement, Odds Ratios and Standard Errors (N = 790).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Sibling approval × Asian	1.29
Sibling approval × Asian	0.49
Sibling approval × Black	1.06
Sibling approval × Black	0.27
Sibling approval × Hispanic	1.50
Sibling approval × Hispanic	0.37
Sibling approval × multiracial	1.37
Sibling approval × multiracial	0.38
Parent approval × Asian		1.01
Parent approval × Asian		0.13
Parent approval × Black		1.63**
Parent approval × Black		0.29
Parent approval × Hispanic		1.40**
Parent approval × Hispanic		0.16
Parent approval × multiracial		1.10
Parent approval × multiracial		0.14
Grandparent approval × Asian			0.88
Grandparent approval × Asian			0.12
Grandparent approval × Black			1.58*
Grandparent approval × Black			0.27
Grandparent approval × Hispanic			1.20+
Grandparent approval × Hispanic			0.12
Grandparent approval × multiracial			1.20
Grandparent approval × multiracial			0.16
Constant	0.10**	0.12**	0.11**
Constant	0.07	0.09	0.07

Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, and +p < 0.10.

Models control for race, gender, age, urbanicity, family structure, school, and the model-specific form of approval (sibling, parent, and grandparent). Full models provided in Appendix A.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics for all the variables in the study are shown in Table 1. Among the respondents, all of whom report having had a romantic relationship within the past 12 months, a full 29% report having an IRR. In terms of race/ethnicity, it is important to note that students of color are disproportionately represented in the IRR category, and White students are disproportionately represented in same-race relationship category. Young adults in interracial and same-race relationships also differ in terms of whether they grew up in urban areas (24% vs. 13%) and have divorced parents (36% vs. 29%). Those in IRRs also are more likely to attend School A than are those in same-race relationships.

When comparing those in IRRs and those in same-race relationships, we find no significant differences in age, gender, or perceived family support. We do find meaningful differences, however, in perceived family approval of IRRs, as respondents in interracial relationships tend to perceive that their siblings (4.26 vs. 3.78), parents (7.96 vs. 6.69), and grandparents (6.63 vs. 5.44) are more approving of interracial romance than do their peers in same-race relationships. Students in IRRs also are less likely than their peers to report having no relatives with IRR experience (28% vs. 39%) and more likely than their peers to report three or more such relatives (three–four = 16% vs. 11%; five or more = 13% vs. 4%) in interracial relationships.

Results of the Logistic Regression Analyses

Table 2 presents the OR for the logistic regression analysis, examining the relationship between family-related factors and the likelihood of the respondent being in an IRR. The baseline results shown in Model 1 indicate that, net of other demographic factors, there are significant racial differences in IRR engagement, such that racial/ethnic minorities (Asians OR 7.15, p < 0.001; Blacks OR 2.38, p < 0.01; Hispanics OR 1.76, p < 0.05; and Multiracial individuals OR 2.98, p < 0.001) have significantly greater odds of being in an IRR than Whites. We also find that young adults who grew up in urban areas (OR 1.60, p < 0.05) and those with divorced parents (OR 1.76, p < 0.10) have 60% and 76% greater odds of being in an interracial relationship, respectively, than those who grew up in the suburbs and whose parents were never married. There are also differences in IRR engagement among students by university location, with students at School B experiencing 43% lower odds (OR 0.57, p < 0.001) of being in an interracial relationship than respondents at School A.

Models 2 through 7 add in measures of family approval of IRRs, family experience with IRRs, and general family support. The results presented in models 2 through 4 reveal that, net of all background controls, young adults who perceive that their siblings (OR 1.56, p < 0.001), parents (OR 1.26, p < 0.001), and grandparents (OR 1.23, p < 0.001) would approve of them being in an IRR, respectively, have 56%, 26%, and 23% greater odds of actually being interracially involved. The results in Model 5 indicate that having relatives who have engaged in IRRs is associated with the respondent behavior too, as students with five or more family members with interracial experience are two and a half times more likely (OR 2.55, p < 0.01) to be in an IRR than those who have no family members with this experience. In contrast, Model 6 shows that perceived general family support is not significantly related with interracial involvement (OR 0.99, p > 0.10). All family-related measures are included simultaneously in Model 7 and the results reveal that, above and beyond other factors, perceptions of approval from siblings, parents, and grandparents continue to have a significant association with IRR engagement. The findings show young adults have significantly greater odds of actually engaging in interracial romance when they perceive that their siblings (OR 1.24, p < 0.05), parents (OR 1.14, p < 0.05), and grandparents (OR 1.09, p < 0.10) approve of interracial relationships. Interestingly, when these family approval measures are in the model, relatives’ actual experience with IRRs is no longer a statistically significant predictor of college students’ engagement. Thus, while families that are more supportive or tolerant of IRR engagement may also be more likely to include members with that kind of relationship experience, it is the perception of support from siblings, parents, and grandparents, rather than role modeling of behavior, that appears most strongly linked to young adults’ own decisions.

The analyses presented in Table 3 addressed our fourth research question by examining whether or not the association between family approval of IRRs and respondents’ actual engagement in an IRR is moderated by the respondents’ race. The findings in Model 1 indicate that, after controlling for race, gender, age, urbanicity, family structure, and university site, race/ethnicity is not a significant moderator of the relationship between perceptions of sibling approval and IRR involvement. Model 2, however, reveals that compared to their White peers, Black and Hispanic students who perceive that their parents are approving of IRRs have 93% lower odds¹ (OR 1.63; p < 0.01) and 78% lower odds (OR 1.40; p < 0.01), respectively, of IRR involvement than their White peers. Similarly, Model 3 shows that relative to White students, Black students who perceive their grandparents would approve of them being in an interracial relationship have 84% lower odds (OR 1.58; p < 0.01), and Hispanic students have 23% lower odds (OR 1.20; p < 0.10) of being interracially involved. Thus, for Black and Hispanic students, perceptions that parents and grandparents are supportive of IRRs are less likely to translate into their own IRR involvement. The effect of sibling attitudes, on the other hand, does not appear to be significantly moderated by respondent race. The predicted OR for the interactions are graphically depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1.

Odds of interracial involvement by respondent’s race and perceived parent approval of interracial romance.

Figure 2.

Odds of interracial involvement by respondent’s race and perceived grandparent approval of interracial romance.

Discussion and Conclusion

Family members tend to play a significant role in the partner selection process of most young adults. Despite the fact that a substantial portion of Americans, particularly among older cohorts, continue to disapprove of a family member being in an IRR (Newport, 2013; Passel et al., 2010), more young adults than ever are crossing racial boundaries for romance (Jones, 2005; Passel et al., 2010). The present study broadens the existing literature by exploring the extent to which family support and the approval of those in specific family roles—siblings, parents, and grandparents—is associated with IRR engagement among contemporary college students in the United States.

To investigate these family-related factors, our study was designed to address four research questions. The first research question asked if perceived approval of IRRs by one’s siblings, parents, and grandparents was associated with a greater likelihood that romantically involved college students will engage in an IRR. We find that the answer is yes. Young adults are significantly more likely to be interracially involved if they believe that their siblings, parents, and grandparents would accept their decision to date outside of their racial/ethnic group (Yahya & Boag, 2014).

The second research question explored the extent to which relatives’ IRR experience is related to young people’s own interracial involvement. We found that respondents who report having numerous family members (five or more) with IRR experience were more than twice as likely to cross racial lines for romance. This finding demonstrates that family members serve as role models in racial and ethnic socialization (Hughes et al., 2006), and by being in interracial relationships themselves, they introduce the idea that the race of one’s partner is not as important as other factors. As such, exposure to relatives’ interracial relationships may serve as a clear signal to other family members, especially younger generations, that race/ethnicity should not be a deterrent in the partner selection process, and that IRRs will be considered acceptable in their family, but other ways of conveying these messages also may be very important.

Our third research question asked if perceiving one’s family as supportive, in general, was associated with the likelihood of romantically involved college students being in an IRR. We discover that it is not. This finding stands in contrast to some previous research on middle- and high-school-aged youth, which found that individuals in IRRs reported less emotional support from their families than did those in same-race relationships (Tillman & Miller, 2017). There may be important developmental and practical differences between teenagers still living at home with their families and college students, who are vastly more likely to be living outside of their parental home, that would lead to a reduction in the salience of family social support for college students’ decision-making processes. At the same time, it is clear that family support regarding the specific topic of partner selection remains important, even at older ages. Future research should further explore this issue.

The final research question examined whether or not the association between family approval of interracial romance and the likelihood of interracial involvement is moderated by the respondent’s race. Our findings show that Blacks and Hispanics who perceive their parents and grandparents would approve of them being interracially involved are significantly less likely to be interracially involved than Whites who also perceive their family would approve of them being in an interracial relationship (see Figures 1 and 2). This is a novel finding, suggesting parent and grandparent approval of interracial romance is much more meaningful for Whites than Blacks and Hispanics. Put another way, although Blacks and Hispanics, generally, have greater odds of being in an IRR, Whites are less likely to be interracially involved without the perceived approval of their parents and grandparents. According to the Social Exchange Theory (Burnett, 2014), our finding could reflect the reluctance of Whites to cross racial lines for romance, unless they believe their family will support their decision. On the other hand, it is possible that even with family approval, Blacks and Hispanics prefer partners who share their culture and heritage, or they choose same-race partners to avoid being stigmatized, as many people in interracial partnerships often experience stigmatization (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006).

Some important limitations of this research should be noted. First, the survey from which this data were derived is cross-sectional and only captured information about the current/most recent romantic relationship, so the prevalence statistics presented here cannot inform us of lifetime engagement in IRRs. In addition, the analytic sample includes only college students who are currently or recently have been in a romantic relationship. As such, it is not possible to establish the temporal ordering of perceived family attitudes and IRR involvement. While we speculate that many people find it easier to select into interracial relationships when they believe that they will have the approval of their family members to do so, it is possible that perceptions of family approval for IRRs change after individuals actually enter into those kinds of relationships, potentially becoming more positive. It is also conceivable that some individuals who have dated interracially and experienced particularly high levels of family disapproval would have broken off those relationships as a result. If they had done so more than 12 months prior to the survey, they would not be captured here within our interracially dating subsample. Finally, the sample for this study was collected from college students enrolled at two specific universities in the Southeastern United States and may not be generalizable to students at other colleges or to the general population of young adults.

Despite these limitations, our findings are meaningful, in that they demonstrate the significant role family approval of interracial romance plays in influencing the likelihood that young adults interracially/interethnically date. Given that a large proportion of the U.S. population has at least on intermarried family member (Passel et al., 2010), the relatives of young adults are likely to continue shaping the prospect of interracial dating among young adults. It is also feasible that the general rise in expressive individualism in the United States (Cortois & Laermans, 2018; Gano-Overway & Duda, 1999) may lead more young people to make life choices independent of familial approval or disapproval and, in turn, family members to be more respectful of young people’s right to make their own romantic choices. Given that most young adults now believe interracial relationships are good for society (Wang, 2012), this may help to continue the upward trend in IRR formation and increase the number of American families that are racially and ethnically blended.

Going forward, we recommend that future research should examine the factors that specifically impact family members’ attitudes toward their interracial partnerships, why some choose to engage in such relationships themselves, and how family members influence the dynamics of existing interracial partnerships. Future research would also benefit from the use of longitudinal data analyses to better determine the temporal association between attitudes toward interracial romance and engagement in an interracial romantic relationship. Lastly, it is important for researchers to further examine the role race/ethnicity plays in the development of attitudes toward, and engagement in, interracial romance in American families.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Logistic Regression of Race × Family Approval of Interracial Romance Interactions on Interracial Involvement, Odds Ratios and Standard Errors (N = 790).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Asian	3.08	7.51*	15.78**
Asian	−4.59	−7.09	−14.13
Black	1.83	0.04*	0.09+
Black	−1.98	−0.06	−0.12
Hispanic	0.32	0.14*	0.56
Hispanic	−0.35	−0.13	−0.39
Multiracial	0.84	1.29	0.86
Multiracial	−0.98	−1.32	−0.78
Female	1.05	1.19	1.25
Female	−0.22	−0.26	−0.27
Age	0.98	0.98	0.98
Age	−0.02	−0.02	−0.02
Urban	1.54+	1.59*	1.54+
Urban	−0.34	−0.36	−0.34
Rural	0.92	1.01	1.01
Rural	−0.28	−0.31	−0.31
Married parents	1.02	1.01	1.25
Married parents	−0.35	−0.35	−0.43
Divorced parents	1.51	1.42	1.85+
Divorced parents	−0.53	−0.51	−0.65
Widowed parents	1.81	1.51	1.93
Widowed parents	−0.92	−0.78	−1.01
Sibling approval	1.38**
Sibling approval	−0.15
Sibling approval × Asian	1.29
Sibling approval × Asian	−0.49
Sibling approval × Black	1.06
Sibling approval × Black	−0.27
Sibling approval × Hispanic	1.5
Sibling approval × Hispanic	−0.37
Sibling approval × Multiracial	1.37
Sibling approval × Multiracial	−0.38
Parent approval		1.13*
Parent approval		−0.06
Parent approval × Asian		1.01
Parent approval × Asian		−0.13
Parent approval × Black		1.63**
Parent approval × Black		−0.29
Parent approval × Hispanic		1.40**
Parent approval × Hispanic		−0.16
Parent approval × Multiracial		1.1
Parent approval × Multiracial		−0.14
Grandparent approval			1.15**
Grandparent approval			−0.06
Grandparent approval × Asian			0.88
Grandparent approval × Asian			−0.12
Grandparent approval × Black			1.58**
Grandparent approval × Black			−0.27
Grandparent approval × Hispanic			1.20+
Grandparent approval × Hispanic			−0.12
Grandparent approval × Multiracial			1.2
Grandparent approval × Multiracial			−0.16
Constant	0.10**	0.12**	0.11**
Constant	−0.07	−0.09	−0.07

Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p <0.01, * p < 0.05, and +p < 0.10. References are White, male, suburban, and parents never married.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Byron Miller

Note

References

Allport

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Bell

G. C.

Hastings

S. O.

(2015). Exploring parental approval and disapproval for black and white interracial couples. Journal of Social Issues, 71(4), 755–771.

Billingham

C. M.

Hunt

M O.

(2016). School racial composition and parent choice: New evidence in preferences of white parents in the United States. Sociology of Education, 89(2), 99–117.

Bratter

J. L.

Eschbach

(2006). What about the couple? Interracial marriage and psychological distress. Social Science Research, 35, 1025–1047.

Burnett

(2014). Interracial relationships and social exchange theory. https://erikaburnettblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/interracial-relationships-and-social-exchange-theory/

Clark-Ibanez

Felmlee

(2004). Interethnic relationships: The role of social network diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 293–305.

Cortois

Laermans

(2018). Rethinking individualism: The basic script and the three variants of institutionalized individualism. European Journal of Social Theory, 21(1), 60–78.

Doughty

S. E.

McHale

S. M.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2015). Journal of Family Issues, 36(5), 589–608.

DuBois

D. L.

Hirsch

B. J.

(1990). School and neighborhood friendship patterns of Blacks and Whites in early adolescence. Child Development, 61(2), 524–536.

10.

Edmonds

Killen

(2009). Do adolescent’s perceptions of parental racial attitudes relate to their intergroup contact and cross-race relationships? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 5–21.

11.

Felmlee

D. H.

(2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79(4), 1259–1287.

12.

Gano-Overway

L. A.

Duda

J. L.

(1999). Interracial relationships between expressive individualism and other achievement goal orientations among African and European American athletes. Journal of Black Psychology, 25(4), 544–563.

13.

Hayslip

Herrington

R. S.

Glover

R. J.

Pollard

S. E.

(2013). Assessing attitudes toward grandparents raising their grandchildren. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(4), 356–379.

14.

Hughes

Rodriguez

Smith

E. P.

Johnson

D. J.

Stevenson

H. C.

Spicer

(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770.

15.

James

A. G.

Coard

S. I.

Fine

M. A.

Ruby

(2018). The central roles of race and racism in reframing family systems theory: A consideration of choice and time. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 419–433.

16.

Jones

J. M.

(2005). Most Americans approve of interracial dating. Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/19033/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Dating.aspx

17.

Killian

K. D.

(2001). Reconstituting racial histories and identities: The narratives of interracial couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(1), 27–42.

18.

Killoren

Roach

A. L.

(2014). Sibling conversations about dating and sexuality: Sisters as confidants, sources of support, and mentors. Family Relations, 63(2), 232–243.

19.

Kowal

A. K.

Blinn-Pike

(2004). Sibling influences on adolescents’ attitudes toward safe sex practices. Family Relations, 53(4), 377–384.

20.

Kreager

D. A.

(2008). Guarded borders: Adolescent interracial romance and peer trouble at school. Social Forces, 87(2), 887–910.

21.

Laursen

Jensen-Campbell

(1999). The nature and functions of social exchange in adolescent romantic relationships. In Furman

Bradford Brown

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 50–74). Cambridge University Press.

22.

Lehmiller

J. J.

Agnew

C. R.

(2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 40–51.

23.

Loving v. Virginia. (1967). S.C. 388 U.S. 1.

24.

Manning

W. D.

Cohen

J. A.

Smock

P. J.

(2011). The role of romantic partner, family and peer networks in dating couples’ views about cohabitation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26(1), 115–149.

25.

Massey

D. S.

Denton

N. A.

(1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.

26.

Miller

S. C.

Olson

M. A.

Fazio

R. H.

(2004). Perceived reactions to interracial romantic relationships: When race is used as a cue to status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 354–369.

27.

Mol

C. V.

(2017). Improving web survey efficiency: the impact of an extra reminder and reminder content on web survey response. Research Methodology, 20(4), 317–327.

28.

Morales

(2012). Parental messages concerning Latino/Black interracial dating: An exploratory study among Latina/o young adults. Latino Studies, 10(3), 314–333.

29.

Newport

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

30.

Passel

Wang

Taylor

(2010). Marrying out: One-in-seven new U.S. marriages is interracial or interethnic (Social & Demographic Trends Project). Pew Research Center.

31.

Pew Research Center. (2017). Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/

32.

Portes

Landolt

(1996). The downside of social capital. The American Prospect, 26. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-21093810/the-downside-of-social-capital

33.

Prather

J. E.

(1990). It’s just as easy to marry a rich man as a poor one! Students’ accounts of parental messages about marital partners. Mid-American Review of Sociology, 14(1–2), 151–162.

34.

Qian

Lichter

D. T.

(2018). Marriage markets and intermarriage: Exchange in first marriages and remarriages. Demography, 55(3), 849–875.

35.

Sikkink

Emerson

M. O.

(2008). School choice and racial segregation in US schools: The role of parents’ education. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(2), 267–293.

36.

StataCorp. (2015). Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. StataCorp LP.

37.

Stocker

C. M.

Burwell

Briggs

M.L.

(2002). Sibling conflict in middle childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1), 50–57.

38.

Tillman

K. H.

Miller

(2017). The role of family relationships in the psychological wellbeing of interracially dating adolescents. Social Science Research, 65, 240–252.

39.

Tucker

C. J.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2001). Conditions of sibling support during adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(2), 254–271.

40.

Wang

Kao

Joyner

(2006). Stability of interracial and intraracial romantic relationships among adolescents. Social Science Research, 35, 435–453.

41.

Wang

(2012). The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristic vary by race and gender. http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2012/02/SDT-Intermarriage-II.pdf

42.

Whiteman

S. D.

McHale

S. M.

Soli

(2011). Theoretical perspectives on sibling relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3(2), 124–139.

43.

Wilkes

Iceland

(2004). Hypersegregation in the twenty-first century. Demography, 41(1), 23–36.

44.

Yahya

Boag

(2014). My family would crucify me!: The perceived influence of social pressure on cross-cultural and interfaith dating and marriage. Sexuality & Culture, 18(4), 759–772.