The sweetness of forbidden fruit

Abstract

Past research on interracial dating has focused on demographic and adjustment factors while ignoring the traits most valued in romantic partners. We examined whether interracial and intraracial daters differ in the extent to which they possess various desirable attributes. In Study 1, undergraduates estimated their partners’ ratings of them on 27 attributes. A factor analysis yielded attractiveness (e.g., physically attractive), cerebral (e.g., intelligent), relational (e.g., compassionate), and vibrancy (e.g., confident) attributes. Compared with intraracial daters, interracial daters reported that their partners saw them more positively on attractiveness, cerebral, and relational attributes (Study 1), rated their partners more positively on attractiveness and cerebral attributes (Study 2), and were rated by independent coders as more physically attractive (Study 3). Implications are discussed.

Keywords

Attractiveness exchange theory intergroup relations interpersonal relationships interracial couples mate preferences psychology

Rates of interracial dating in the U.S. have increased steadily since the legalization of interracial marriage in 1967 under Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Bratter & King, 2008). Interracial unions comprised 15% of new marriages in 2010 (Wang, 2012), compared to 1% in 1970 (Zhang & Van Hook, 2009). Yet social barriers against interracial dating still exist. Regardless of ethnic composition, interracial couples often report not only prejudice from the public (e.g., rude looks and poor treatment) but also exclusion from social networks and close others, including family members (Foeman & Nance, 2002; Killian, 2001; Levin, Taylor, & Caudle, 2007; Mok, 1999; Rose & Firmin, 2013; Shibazaki & Brennan, 1998; Wang, Kao, & Joyner, 2006). For instance, Blacks and Asian Americans both report being labeled as “sellouts” by others of the same ethnicity for dating Whites (Foeman & Nance, 2002; Mok, 1999), whereas Whites report experiencing “secondhand racism,” that is, racism due to their relationships with ethnic minorities (Twine & Steibugler, 2006). Perhaps due to perceived social disapproval, interracial couples often engage in fewer public displays of affection (Vaquera & Kao, 2005). Depending on their race and gender, individuals in interracial relationships may also elicit negative personal attributions, such as being perceived as less competent or less psychologically well adjusted than those in intraracial relationships (Beigel, 1966; Brayboy, 1966; Lewandowski & Jackson, 2001; McNamara, Tempenis, & Walton, 1999).

Given these social biases, which types of individuals are involved in interracial relationships? What might motivate them to date interracially, and are there particular personal characteristics that may help them to overcome the social biases of interracial dating?

Many previous studies have focused on demographic variables associated with interracial dating. These studies indicate that ethnic minorities are more likely than Whites to have dated interracially (Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1995; Yancey, 2002). Also, there are gender differences such that men, for the most part, are more willing to date interracially than women (Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009; Fisman & Iyengar, 2008; Herman & Campbell, 2012). A nationally representative study also found that people who were more politically liberal, younger, more educated, and less religious were more willing to be involved in an interracial romantic relationship (Herman & Campbell, 2012).

Other studies have examined dating motives. Merton’s theory of hypogamy (1941) posits that racial status may be exchanged as an asset, such that individuals who are higher in racial status will establish relationships with those of lower racial status if they possess other assets, such as higher attractiveness, income, or education. Empirical evidence for this theory has been mixed. For example, Hispanics have been found to show dating or marriage patterns consistent with hypogamy, but other racial groups have not shown such patterns (Qian, 1997, Wang & Kao, 2007). Yancey and Yancey (1998) analyzed personal advertisements and failed to find evidence of an exchange of racial status for income or physical attractiveness. Robnett and Feliciano (2011) found that across 6,070 dating profiles, ethnic minority groups with relatively high socioeconomic status, such as Asian men, Middle Easterners, and Asian Indians, were often excluded as dating partners. Chen, Greenberger, Young, and Edwards (2001) similarly found that despite Asian Americans’ higher socioeconomic status relative to Hispanics and African Americans, White undergraduates preferred to date Hispanic or African American peers over Asian American peers. Overall, studies indicate that Whites are not exchanging their racial status for higher education or socioeconomic status in a partner.

Finally, researchers have compared adjustment levels of interracial and intraracial daters in an effort to explain why some individuals choose to date outside of their race. Results have been mixed. For example, although Shibazaki and Brennan (1998) found that interracial and interethnic daters, compared to intraracial daters, reported lower self-esteem, this finding was not replicated in subsequent studies (Gurung & Duong, 1999; Wang et al., 2006). Acculturation, too, has been identified as a predictor of interracial dating in some studies but not others (Fujino, 1997; Levin et al., 2007).

In summary, previous research on the characteristics of interracial daters has focused on demographic, hypogamy, and adjustment factors and has yielded mixed results regarding the latter two factors. These studies have largely ignored traits such as physical attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, and sociability, which have been found to be highly valued in potential partners (Buss, 1994; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). We hypothesized that because interracial daters face social biases, their partners would have to possess higher levels of these positive attributes to offset the costs of these biases. Specifically, we expected that interracial daters, compared to intraracial daters, would rate themselves more positively and estimate that their partners view them more positively on a variety of self-attributes (Study 1), would rate their partners more positively on these same attributes (Study 2), and would be rated as more physically attractive by independent coders (Study 3).

Study 1

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 488) consisted of undergraduates of diverse majors (drawn from psychology, economics, computer science, and social ecology courses) at a large, public west coast university. All participants were 18 years of age or older and were currently involved in a romantic relationship or had been involved in a relationship within the past year. Subjects were invited by researchers to take a paper-and-pencil questionnaire at the beginning or end of class lectures. Participation was voluntary, and participants were not compensated. We removed participants who were not currently involved in a relationship from our analyses. Forty more subjects were removed from the analyses because their relationships could not be categorized as either interracial or intraracial due to missing data about their partner’s race or due to their multiracial backgrounds, which sometimes both differed from and overlapped with their partners’ (e.g., an individual of mixed Asian and Caucasian ancestry dating a Caucasian).

The resulting sample of 245 subjects consisted of 164 females and 61 males. The mean age of participants was 21.78 (SD = 3.40). Forty-five percent identified as Asian, 28% as Caucasian, 19% as Hispanic, 5% as Middle Eastern, 2% as “other”, 1% as mixed race, and less than 1% as African American. Twenty-four percent were dating interracially and 76% were dating intraracially. Interracial couples were composed primarily of Caucasian–Asian couples (37%), Caucasian–Hispanic couples (23%), and Hispanic–Asian couples (10%). Of the Caucasian–Asian couples, 57% were Caucasian male-Asian female pairings. Of the Caucasian–Hispanic couples, 64% were Hispanic male–Caucasian female pairings. Of the Hispanic–Asian couples, 77% were Hispanic male–Asian female pairings.

Procedure

Questionnaires, which took approximately 10–15 min to complete, were administered either at the beginning or at the end of class periods. Participants provided demographic information, including their race and their partner’s race, and then rated themselves and estimated their romantic partners’ ratings of them on 27 positive self-attributes (e.g., intelligent, physically attractive, compassionate/kind, and confident). Last, they rated the importance to themselves of possessing each attribute and the importance of these attributes in a romantic partner.

Measures

Attribute ratings

Attributes used in this study were selected based on previous studies of the importance that college students assign to various attributes in the self and a romantic partner (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Regan, Levin, Sprecher, Christopher, & Gate, 2000). In addition, traits were drawn from scales used in similar studies that examined partner perceptions in romantic relationships (Campbell, 2005; Conley, Roesch, Peplau, & Gold, 2009) including Pelham and Swan’s (1989) Self-Attributes Questionnaire and Murray, Holmes, and Griffin’s (1996) Interpersonal Qualities Scale. The attributes responsible/reliable and family oriented were later added based on written feedback from a subsample of participants regarding other attributes of a romantic partner that were important. Specifically, the first 80 students who completed questionnaires were allowed, at the end of the survey, to list and rate up to three additional attributes that they felt were important for them or a romantic partner to possess. A total of 27 attributes were included in our final questionnaire. Self- and perceived partner ratings were rated on a 1–7 scale from not at all descriptive to very descriptive. Importance of these attributes in the self and partner was rated on a 1–7 scale from not at all important to very important.

Data analysis

Factor analysis

We used a principal component analysis with varimax rotation on importance-in-self ratings of attributes to reduce data. In order to ensure a larger subject to item ratio and thus yield more replicable results (Costello & Osborne, 2005), this analysis was performed on the larger initial sample of 488 undergraduates, including not only interracial and intraracial daters who were currently dating but also those who could not be categorized as dating interracially or intraracially and those who were not currently in a romantic relationship but had been in a romantic relationship within the past year.

Group differences

We conducted 2 × 2 analyses of variance to examine the main effect of interracial and intraracial dating status and the possible interaction of interracial versus intraracial dating status and gender on (1) ratings of the importance of the attribute types in the self and a romantic partner and (2) self-ratings and estimated ratings of themselves by their partners on these attribute types. This analysis allowed us to compare whether interracial and intraracial daters differed in the importance they assigned different attribute types and in their self-ratings and their estimations of their partners’ ratings of them.

Results

Factor analysis

Twenty-four attributes were entered into the factor analysis. Omitted attributes were religious/spiritual, high status/powerful, and wealthy/rich, which were on average not seen as desirable to our sample (mean importance ratings ranged from 3.83 to 4.04 on a 7-point scale). The analysis yielded five factors with eigenvalues of 7.55, 2.04, 1.42, 1.25, and 1.07, together explaining 58% of the variance in importance-in-self ratings. The last factor, which consisted only of two attributes (family oriented and responsible/reliable) and contributed to less than 5% of the variance, was removed to yield a four-factor model that explained 53.3% of the variance in importance-in-self ratings. Attributes that loaded similarly on multiple factors were excluded from the final model. Based on reliability analysis, the attribute creative was also removed to increase Cronbach's alpha of the third factor from .76 to .80.

The final model consisted of the following factors: cerebral (intelligent, high in academic ability, ambitious/goal oriented, rational, emotionally stable; α = .78), relational (compassionate/kind, affectionate, trustworthy, tolerant/accepting, good friend; α = .75), vibrancy (socially skilled, confident, outgoing/extroverted, fun/exciting; α = .80), and attractiveness (physically attractive, sexy, well groomed/stylish; α = .79). See Table 1 for factor loadings of individual attributes.

Table 1.

Study 1 factor loadings for different attributes using principal component analysis with varimax rotation.

Attribute	Factor 1: Cerebral	Factor 2: Relational	Factor 3: Vibrancy	Factor 4: Attractiveness
Rational	.75
Intelligent	.68
Emotionally stable	.65
Ambitious/goal oriented	.57
High in academic ability	.56
Compassionate/kind		.75
Tolerant/accepting		.69
Affectionate		.64
Good friend		.63
Trustworthy		.57
Outgoing/extroverted			.78
Socially skilled			.59
Fun/exciting		.43	.53
Confident	.45		.52
Physically attractive				.80
Sexy				.78
Well groomed/stylish				.72

Note. Item loadings of less than .40 are not reported.

Group differences

None of the interaction effects of interracial versus intraracial dating status and gender were significant, all ps > .10 (see Table 2 for effects on perceived partner ratings and Tables S1 and S2 for effects on self-ratings and importance ratings of attributes). Interracial and intraracial daters did not differ in self-ratings of attributes (see Table S1) or importance ratings of attributes in themselves or in a romantic partner (see Table S2), all ps > .10. Compared with intraracial daters, interracial daters reported more positive perceived partner ratings of their relational attributes, F(1, 240) = 3.94, p < .05; for interracial daters, M = 6.18, SD = .72; for intraracial daters, M = 5.95, SD = .80). Interracial daters also reported more positive perceived partner ratings of their cerebral attributes, F(1, 240) = 8.14, p < .01; for interracial daters, M = 5.92, SD = .72; for intraracial daters, M = 5.55, SD = .77. The same direction of differences was found with respect to attractiveness attributes, F(1, 240) = 5.11, p < .05; for interracial daters, M = 6.11, SD = .95; for intraracial daters, M = 5.65, SD = 1.09; p < .01. There were no significant between-group differences for vibrancy attributes, p > .10 (see Figure 1 and Table 2).

Figure 1.

Perceived partner ratings for interracial versus intraracial daters.

Table 2.

Study 1 ANOVA table for interracial versus intraracial dating status and gender on perceived partner ratings of attributes.

	Interracial M (SD)		Intraracial M (SD)		F values (and effect sizes, η²)
Attribute type	Male	Female	Male	Female	Type	Gender	Type × Gender
Relational	6.12 (.59)	6.21 (.78)	5.80 (.87)	6.03 (.76)	3.94 (.02)*	1.65 (.01)	.30 (.00)
Cerebral	5.86 (.66)	5.95 (.76)	5.60 (.83)	5.52 (.74)	8.14 (.03)**	.00 (.00)	.42 (.00)
Attractiveness	5.63 (1.22)	6.33 (.70)	5.48 (1.22)	5.73 (1.02)	5.11 (.02)*	8.06 (.03)**	1.84 (.01)
Vibrancy	5.52 (1.21)	5.69 (.93)	5.55 (1.08)	5.45 (1.12)	.36 (.00)	.04 (.00)	.64 (.00)

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance. Type = interracial dater or intraracial dater. df = 1237–1240.

**p ≤ .01; *p ≤ 01, two-tailed.

Discussion

In Study 1, we found that compared to intraracial daters, interracial daters reported that their partners viewed them more positively on cerebral (e.g., intelligent), attractiveness (e.g., physically attractive), and relational (e.g., compassionate) attributes. There were no significant differences in self-ratings between the two groups. These findings indicate that contrary to old stereotypes (Beigel, 1966; Brayboy, 1966; McNamara et al., 1999), interracial daters do not think more poorly of themselves than do intraracial daters. This finding supports past studies that found that interracial and intraracial daters did not differ in their self-esteem (Gurung & Duong, 1999; Wang et al., 2006). Instead, interracial daters may possess more positive attributes than intraracial daters, as suggested by perceived partner ratings. However, a partner’s actual ratings would serve as a better approximation of an individual’s desirability than perceived partner ratings. Thus, in the next study, couples provided ratings of each other’s attributes.

Study 2

In Study 2, couples came into the laboratory together and rated themselves and their partners on positive self-attributes. Additionally, we attempted to reduce ceiling effects in attribute ratings by changing the previously 7-point measure used in Study 1 to an 11-point measure with more extreme anchor labels, as participants in Study 1 tended to rate themselves and estimate that their partners rated them very highly. We also collected self-reported grade point average (GPA) from participants in order to obtain a more objective measure of cerebral attributes.

Method

Participants

Undergraduates from the same university as in Study 1 were recruited from the Human Subjects Pool and received one extra course credit for participation. Participants who were not eligible for course credit received US$6 for approximately 45 min of participation.

We recruited heterosexual couples who had been dating exclusively for at least 3 months. In addition, we limited the age of participants to 18–30. We excluded 18 couples who could not be categorized as interracial or intraracial from our analysis, resulting in a final sample of 100 couples (N = 200). On average, couples had been dating for 17.94 months (SD = 16.55; Mdn = 12.00). The mean age of these participants was 20.30 years (SD = 2.05). Ninety-seven percent of participants were currently working on a college degree or had graduated from college within the last 2 years. Of these participants, 81% were attending or had graduated from the institution where the study was conducted, and 16% were attending another college or university. The remaining participants did not respond to the relevant question. Participants were or had been enrolled in diverse majors and were of diverse ethnicities. The sample consisted of East Asians (34%), Southeast Asians (26%), Hispanics (15%), Caucasians (14%), and others (e.g., mixed race, South Asian, and Middle Eastern individuals; 11%).

Of the couples who participated in Study 2, 29% of the couples were interracial and 71% were intraracial. Those whose relationships qualified as interethnic but not interracial (e.g., an individual of Japanese ancestry dating an individual of Chinese ancestry) were categorized as being in an intraracial relationship. Interracial couples included Caucasian–Asian couples (24%), Caucasian–Hispanic couples (21%), Hispanic–Asian couples (14%), and others (e.g., pairings involving mixed race, South Asian, or Middle Eastern individuals; 41%). Of the Caucasian–Asian couples, 86% were pairings of a Caucasian male with an Asian female. Of the Caucasian–Hispanic couples, 84% were pairings of a Hispanic male with a Caucasian female. Of the Hispanic–Asian couples, half were pairings of a Hispanic male with an Asian female.

Procedure

Couples came into the laboratory together and completed questionnaires in separate rooms. First, they rated themselves and their partners on positive self-attributes; next, they rated the importance of these attributes in themselves and in a romantic partner. Last, they provided demographic information and their GPA.

Measures

Attribute ratings

The same attributes were used in this study as in Study 1, with the exception of attributes that did not load on the final 4 factors in the previous study. A total of 21 attributes were included on the questionnaire and 18 were included in the final analyses (see Table 1 for attributes included in Study 1 and Table 3 for attributes included in Study 2). Attributes were rated on a 1–11 scale from not at all descriptive to extremely descriptive. Importance of attributes in the self and partner was rated on a 1–11 scale from not at all important to extremely important.

Table 3.

Study 2 factor loadings for different attributes using principal component analysis with varimax rotation.

Attribute	Factor 1: Relational	Factor 2: Attractiveness	Factor 3: Vibrancy	Factor 4: Cerebral
Trustworthy	.77
Tolerant/accepting	.70
Good friend	.68
Responsible	.67
Compassionate/kind	.61
Family oriented	.52
Affectionate	.48
Sexy		.80
Physically attractive		.78
Well groomed/stylish		.74
Physically fit/athletic		.63
Witty			.80
Fun/exciting			.59
Confident			.57
Outgoing/extroverted		.44	.53
High in academic ability				.83
Intelligent				.77
Ambitious/goal oriented				.69

Note. Item loadings of less than .40 are not reported.

Data analysis

Factor analysis

As in Study 1, we used a principal component analysis with varimax rotation on importance-in-self ratings of attributes to reduce data.

Group differences

We used Pearson correlations between the male and female partners’ scores (on attribute ratings and GPA) to examine possible nonindependence of responses (Kashy & Snyder, 1995). Since the Pearson correlation coefficients revealed nonindependence between partners’ responses on some measures (rs = .05–.67), linear mixed models were used in subsequent analyses that examined differences between interracial and intraracial daters.

Results

Factor analysis

Twenty-one attributes were entered into the factor analysis, which was constrained to a four-factor solution. The four factors (cerebral, relational, vibrancy, and attractiveness) differed slightly between Study 1 and Study 2. In Study 2, due to the observed item loadings, we added the attributes family oriented and responsible to the relational factor and physically fit to the attractiveness factor. The attribute witty was loaded on the vibrancy factor in Study 2 but not in Study 1; thus witty was added to that factor in Study 2. The attribute socially skilled was included in the vibrancy factor in Study 1 but was removed from our questionnaire in Study 2 as conceptually it also could be categorized as a relational attribute. For the same reason, the attribute emotionally stable was included in the cerebral factor in Study 1 but was removed from the Study 2 questionnaire. Last, the attribute rational was dropped from the cerebral factor in Study 2 as it loaded on multiple factors. The final model resembled that of Study 1, consisting of a relational factor (compassionate/kind, affectionate, trustworthy, tolerant/accepting, good friend, family oriented, responsible; α = .77), an attractiveness factor (physically attractive, sexy, well groomed/stylish, physically fit; α = .78), a vibrancy factor (witty, confident, outgoing/extroverted, fun/exciting; α = .70), and a cerebral factor (intelligent, high in academic ability, ambitious/goal oriented; α = .77). The eigenvalues of the four factors were 5.7, 2.4, 1.5, and 1.4, respectively. Together these factors explained 55% of the variance in important-in-self ratings. See Table 3 for factor loadings of attributes in our final model.

Mixed model analyses

We conducted linear mixed model analyses with couples as units to test for differences between interracial daters and intraracial daters in self-ratings and partner ratings of attributes and in importance-in-self and importance-in-partner ratings. Interracial daters rated themselves higher than did intraracial daters on cerebral attributes, B = .59, t(97.37) = 3.01, p < .01, and showed a trend toward rating themselves higher on attractiveness attributes, B = .51, t(99.86) = 1.78, p < .10, and on vibrancy attributes, B = .42, t(97.46) = 1.76, p < .10 (Table S3). Interracial daters, compared to individuals in intraracial relationships, also rated their partners higher in cerebral attributes, B = .46, t(97.33) = 2.17, p < .05, and attractiveness attributes, B = .50, t(97.61) = 2.37, p < .05 (see Figure 2 and Table 4). As in Study 1, there were no significant differences between interracial and intraracial daters in importance ratings of attributes in the self and partner (see Table S4), although interracial daters showed a trend toward rating cerebral attributes as more important in the self than did intraracial daters, B = .35, t(97.54) = 1.71, p < .10. Interracial and intraracial daters also did not differ significantly in self-reported GPA, p > .10, although further analysis indicated that self-reported GPA was moderately correlated with both self-ratings and partner ratings of one’s cerebral attributes (for GPA and self-ratings, r = .36, p < .001; for partner ratings, r = .35, p < .001). Results of the mixed model tests are presented in Table 4 and Tables S3 and S4).

Figure 2.

Actual partner ratings for interracial versus intraracial daters.

Table 4.

Study 2 mixed models fixed effects for partner ratings of interracial versus intraracial daters.

	Fixed effects B (SE B)
Attribute type	Intercept	Type (interracial = 1)	Gender (male = 1)
Relational	9.34 (.12)***	.17 (.19)	.16 (.12)
Cerebral	8.63 (.15)***	.46 (.21)*	.02 (.19)
Attractiveness	8.12 (.15)***	.55 (.23)*	.53 (.16)***
Vibrancy	8.64 (.15)***	.34 (.24)	−.50 (.17)**

Note. Partner ratings = the subject’s ratings of his/her partner. Type = interracial dater or intraracial dater. Gender = gender of the subject. For intercept, df = 153.62–178.97. For type, df = 96.18–99.86. For gender, df = 93.30–97.12.

***p ≤ .001; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ 01, two-tailed.

Discussion

In Study 2, we examined whether interracial daters, compared to intraracial daters, were rated more positively by their partners on various attribute types. We found that interracial daters rated their partners more positively on cerebral and attractiveness attributes, supporting the prediction that interracial daters may possess a higher level of desirable attributes compared to intraracial daters. However, the two groups did not differ significantly in GPA, which could be regarded as a more objective measure of cerebral attributes.

Study 3

In Study 3, we gathered independent ratings of attractiveness, the most easily assessed of the different attribute types. These ratings allowed us to examine whether interracial daters may actually be more attractive than intraracial daters, rather than simply being perceived as more attractive by their partners.

Method

Participants

Participants were 124 couples comprised of undergraduates at the same university as in the previous studies and their romantic partners. Participants recruited from the Human Subjects Pool received one extra credit for their participation. If their partners were ineligible for credit, they received US$6. Recruited couples were 18–30 years old, heterosexual, and had been exclusively dating for at least 3 months.

Again, couples who could not be categorized as interracial or intraracial were excluded from our analysis, resulting in a sample of 101 couples (N = 202). These couples had been dating for an average of 19.87 months (SD = 17.95, Mdn = 14 months). Their mean age was 20.33 (SD = 2.05). Ninety-seven percent of participants were currently working on a college degree or had graduated from college within the last 2 years. Of these participants, 82% were attending or had graduated from the institution where the study was conducted, and 14% were attending another college or university. The remaining participants did not respond to the relevant question. The sample mostly consisted of East Asians (37%), Hispanics (18%), Southeast Asians (16%), and Caucasians (14%). The remaining participants were mostly of South Asian, Middle Eastern, or mixed ancestry.

Thirty-one percent of the couples were interracial and 69% were intraracial. Again, relationships that were interethnic but not interracial were categorized as intraracial relationships. Interracial couples were comprised of Caucasian–Asian couples (19%), Hispanic–Asian couples (19%), Caucasian–Hispanic couples (16%), and others (e.g., pairings involving mixed race, South Asian, or Middle Eastern individuals; 46%). Of the Caucasian–Asian couples, half were pairings of a Caucasian male with an Asian female. Of the Caucasian–Hispanic couples, 40% were pairings of a Hispanic male with a Caucasian female. All of the Hispanic–Asian couples were comprised of a Hispanic male with an Asian female.

Procedure

Couples came into the laboratory and photos were taken of them. Ten research assistants rated photos depicting the faces of individual participants for physical attractiveness.

Measures

Third-party ratings of attractiveness

The above-mentioned research assistants viewed photographs of the participants and rated the extent to which the attribute “physically attractive” described the participants, using an 11-point scale from not at all descriptive to extremely descriptive. Of the research assistants, six were female and four were male. Raters ranged from 19–24 years old (M = 20.7, SD = 1.49). Raters were of diverse ethnicities; four were of East Asian descent, three were of European descent, one was of Middle Eastern descent, one was of Southeast Asian descent, and one was of mixed ancestry (East Asian and Caucasian). Cronbach’s α was .88 for attractiveness ratings (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Yeo, 1994; Shackelford & Larsen, 1999; Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990).

Analyses

Linear mixed models were used to examine possible differences in physical attractiveness of interracial and intraracial daters.

Results

As predicted, interracial daters were rated as more physically attractive than intraracial daters, B = .42, t(99) = 2.16, p < .05. Figure 3 shows the mean differences in rated attractiveness between interracial and intraracial daters.

Figure 3.

Independently rated physical attractiveness of interracial versus intraracial daters.

General discussion

In this set of exploratory studies, we compared levels of desirable attributes possessed by interracial and intraracial daters. In Study 1, interracial and intraracial daters did not differ on their self-ratings of attributes. However, compared to intraracial daters, interracial daters perceived that their partners saw them more positively on relational, cerebral, and attractiveness attributes. In the subsequent study, interracial daters actually rated their partners more positively on cerebral and attractiveness attributes than did intraracial daters. Finally, in Study 3, we gathered independent ratings of physical attractiveness to determine whether interracial daters’ positive ratings of their partners’ attractiveness were based on a widely shared reality or were merely a case of “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” Across the three studies, interracial daters exhibited more desirable attributes than intraracial daters, most consistently in the realm of physical attractiveness. Also, contrary to stereotypes of interracial daters as self-loathing and insecure (Beigel, 1966; Brayboy, 1966; McNamara et al., 1999), interracial daters did not differ from intraracial daters in their self-ratings and showed awareness of their partners’ more positive evaluations of them.

Whereas previous research has found few consistent differences between interracial and intraracial daters in their motivations for dating and in their adjustment levels, this study suggests that interracial and intraracial daters may differ in their desirability as partners. These results are compatible with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) and the theory of hypogamy (Merton, 1941). First, despite the social costs of interracial dating, participants may have been motivated to date interracially because of their interracial partner’s higher levels of desirable attributes. This explanation is consistent with a recent qualitative study in which many college students reported staying in their interracial relationships despite familial and public disapproval because the benefits of being with their partners outweighed the costs (Rose & Firmin, 2013). Second, individuals may be more likely to enter into an interracial relationship when their partners inform them that they possess the attributes necessary for an exchange. In support of this argument, a recent study by Lewis (2013) found that Asians (both men and women) and Black women on a popular online dating site initiated more first contact messages to people of another race after receiving an interracial contact. Perhaps for these commonly excluded groups, receiving an initial message from someone of another race prompted awareness that they possessed attributes necessary for such an “exchange.”

The findings of our study have several important implications. First, our results contradict historical stereotypes of individuals who date interracially as undesirable or inferior. Interracial daters in our study were rated as possessing higher levels of desirable attributes and were aware of being rated highly by their partners. This indicates that, at least in a diverse college sample, interracial relationships are unlikely to be motivated by a lack of dating opportunities within one’s own ethnic group. Second, findings indicate that future studies that test the role of exchange in interracial relationships should take into account attributes other than level of education and socioeconomic status. It is also evident from our findings that research should examine individual as well as group differences to fully understand specific patterns of interracial relationships. Last, although tangential to this study’s central research questions, our results offer an alternative explanation of biracial individuals’ documented attractiveness. Previous researchers have suggested that biracial persons are perceived as more attractive than monoracials due to the averaging effect, or heterosis; that is, faces closer to the mean of the population are regarded as more beautiful because they signal good health (Lewis, 2010; Rhodes et al., 2005). Furthermore, researchers have posited that heterosis may cause mixed race individuals to possess higher levels of other positive attributes, as indicated by their overrepresentation in top positions of society (Lewis, 2010). Our results instead suggest that biracials’ higher attractiveness and other positive attributes could be explained by the good looks and desirable qualities of their parents. Future research should directly contrast these possible hypotheses.

Several limitations of this study must be mentioned. First, our sample size was not large enough to differentiate between various race/gender combinations of interracial couples, an analysis that could further illuminate our understanding of the results. Recent studies indicate that Black males and Asian females engage in sexual relationships with, and marry, individuals of other races far more frequently than their same-race, opposite gender counterparts (McClintock, 2010; Wang, 2012). We were unable to test whether these disparities in patterns of interracial relationships could be explained by differential perceptions of the mate desirability of different groups. However, both Black males and Asian females report being sexually eroticized by Whites (McClintock, 2010).

Another limitation is that our sample was comprised largely of Asians, Hispanics, and Caucasians. It is possible that our findings are not applicable to other racial groups, such as African Americans, who have been the focus of more studies on interracial relationships than other ethnic minorities in the U.S. Compared with Hispanics and Asians, Blacks have a prolonged history of social alienation and are less willing to date Whites (Robnett & Feliciano, 2011; Yancey, 2009), and thus predictors of their interracial dating may differ from those of other racial groups.

Results from this study also should be interpreted with caution because of the demographic characteristics of the particular university setting and the region from which we drew our sample. The demographically diverse institution is located on the West coast, which has the highest rates of interracial marriage in the country (Wang, 2012). In addition, results should not be generalized to other age-groups.

In summary, the current study documented that, compared to intraracial daters, interracial daters perceived that their partners saw them more positively on attractiveness, cerebral, and relational attributes (Study 1), were rated by their partners more positively on attractiveness and cerebral attributes (Study 2), and were rated by independent coders as more physically attractive (Study 3). These findings dispel myths of interracial daters as undesirable and may lead to a better understanding of current patterns of interracial romance in the U.S. Future studies would further our understanding of interracial relationships by differentiating between various race/gender combinations of interracial couples and exploring possible explanations for interracial daters’ higher attractiveness.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Supplemental material

The online data supplements are available at .

References

Beigel

H. G.

(1966). Problems and motives in interracial relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 2, 185–205.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bratter

J. L.

King

R. B.

(2008). “But will it last?”: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171.

Brayboy

T. L.

(1966). Interracial sexuality as an expression of neurotic conflict. The Journal of Sex Research, 2, 179–184.

Buss

D. M.

(1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic books.

Campbell

(2005). Responses to verifying and enhancing appraisals from romantic partners: The role of trait importance and trait visibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 663–675.

Chen

Young

Greenberger

Edwards

(2001). Close relationships between Asian American and European American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 85–100.

Conley

T. D.

Roesch

S. C.

Peplau

L. A.

Gold

M. S.

(2009). A test of positive illusions versus shared reality models of relationship satisfaction among gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1417–1431.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.

10.

Feliciano

Robnett

Komaie

(2009). Gendered racial exclusion among white internet daters. Social Science Research, 38, 39–54.

11.

Fisman

Iyengar

S. S.

(2008). Racial preferences in dating. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 117–132.

12.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.

13.

Foeman

Nance

(2002). Building new cultures, reframing old images: Success strategies of interracial couples. Howard Journal of Communications, 13, 237–249.

14.

Fujino

D. C.

(1997). The rates, patterns and reasons for forming heterosexual interracial dating relationships among Asian Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 809–828.

15.

Gangestad

S. W.

Thornhill

Yeo

R. A.

(1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73–85.

16.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Duong

(1999). Mixing and matching: Assessing the concomitants of mixed-ethnic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 639–657.

17.

Herman

M. R.

Campbell

M. E.

(2012). I wouldn’t but you can: Attitudes toward interracial relationships. Social Science Research, 41, 343–358.

18.

Homans

G. C.

(1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.

19.

Kashy

D. A.

Snyder

D. K.

(1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338–348.

20.

Killian

K. D.

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

21.

Levin

Taylor

P. L.

Caudle

(2007). Interethnic and interracial dating in college: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 323–341.

22.

Lewandowski

D. A.

Jackson

L. A.

(2001). Perceptions of interracial couples: Prejudice at the dyadic level. Journal of Black Psychology, 27, 288–303.

23.

Lewis

(2013). The limits of racial prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 18814–18819.

24.

Lewis

M. B.

(2010). Why are mixed-race people perceived as more attractive? Perception, 39, 136–138.

25.

McClintock

E. A.

(2010). When does race matter? Race, sex, and dating at an elite university. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 45–72.

26.

McNamara

R. P.

Tempenis

Walton

(1999). Crossing the line: Interracial couples in the South. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

27.

Merton

R. K.

(1941). Intermarriage and the social structure: Fact and theory. Psychiatry, 4, 361–374.

28.

Mok

T. A.

(1999). Asian American dating: Important factors in partner choice. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 103–117.

29.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180.

30.

Pelham

B. W.

Swann

W. B.

(1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672–680.

31.

Qian

(1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990. Demography, 34, 263–276.

32.

Regan

P. C.

Levin

Sprecher

Christopher

F. S.

Cate

(2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.

33.

Rhodes

Lee

Palermo

Weiss

Yoshikawa

Clissa

… Jeffrey

(2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34, 319–340.

34.

Robnett

Feliciano

(2011). Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Social Forces, 89, 807–828.

35.

Rose

S. F.

Firmin

M. W.

(2013). A qualitative study of interracial dating among college students. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 2, 67–92.

36.

Shackelford

T. K.

Larsen

R. J.

(1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 71–76.

37.

Shackelford

T. K.

Schmitt

D. P.

Buss

D. M.

(2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.

38.

Shibazaki

Brennan

K. A.

(1998). When birds of different feathers flock together: A preliminary comparison of intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 248–256.

39.

Simpson

J. A.

Gangestad

S. W.

Lerma

(1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1191–1201.

40.

Tucker

M. B.

Mitchell-Kernan

C. M.

(1995). Social structure and psychological correlates of interethnic dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 341–361.

41.

Twine

F. W.

Steinbugler

A.C.

(2006). The gap between whites and whiteness: Interracial intimacy and racial literacy. Du Bois Review, 3, 341–363.

42.

Vaquera

Kao

(2005). Private and public displays of affection among interracial and intra-racial adolescent couples. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 484–508.

43.

Wang

Kao

(2007). Does higher socioeconomic status increase contact between minorities and whites? An examination of interracial romantic relationships among adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 146–164.

44.

Wang

Kao

Joyner

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

45.

Wang

(2012.) The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, pp. 1–56. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/1/

46.

Yancey

(2002). Who interracially dates: An examination of the characteristics of those who have interracially dated. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 179–190.

47.

Yancey

(2009). Crossracial differences in the racial preferences of potential dating partners: A test of the alienation of African Americans and social dominance orientation. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 121–143.

48.

Yancey

(1998). Interracial dating. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 334–348.

49.

Zhang

Van Hook

(2009). Marital dissolution among interracial couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 95–107.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB