Attitudes of Women and Men towards Interracial Marriages: 1972 – 2002


By Joseph Tucker
University of Nevada, Reno
Abstract:

Despite African Americans apparent socioeconomic gains and despite the decline in openly expressed racist attitudes, interracial marriages remain rare compared to racially endogamous marriages. Interracial marriages have become more acceptable to some, but others continue to disapprove well into the 21st Century. Although approval rates vary substantially by race and gender, few studies have examined them with the exception of (Baars, 2009) which focused exclusively on females. This article uses the General Social Survey to conduct two studies. The first study successfully replicates Baars’ study on female attitudes towards racially exogamous marriages. Study two extends the research by using logistic regression to test the net effects of race and gender on approval of interracial marriages while controlling for demographic factors. The findings show that blacks express significantly more tolerance towards interracial marriages compared to whites and males are more likely to express tolerant attitudes compared to females.

 

Bio

Joseph Tucker is a graduate student and lecturer in the Sociology department at the University of Nevada, Reno. His research interests include quantitative analysis, ethnic and race relations, culture and religion. More specifically, his work examines how attitudes towards interracial romantic relationships have changed. Joseph currently teaches Applied Statistics 207 at the University of Nevada, Reno and Sociology 101 at Truckee Meadows Community College.


Introduction

Interracial marriages have been controversial throughout the history of the United States and continue to be controversial today for some people. In 2009, a Louisiana Justice of the Peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple stating, “There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said, “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.” (Foster, 2010, p. 1). Bardwell was quick to clarify that he never said they couldn’t get married but that he refused to participate in it for the sake of their children (Foster, 2010). According to the article Bardwell admitted to having refused at least four other couples during his 2 1/2 years as a Justice of the Peace.

A common response from many people would be to acknowledge that this took place in the south where racial attitudes differ from the rest of the country, however, in November 2013, a Washington Post columnist wrote, ” People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York – a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children” (Cohen, 2013). This comment has sparked contentious discourse across the nation and was later claimed, by the author, to represent the views of cultural conservatives, not his own (Farhi, 2013).

The United States is a society that is culturally diverse and has carried with it a long history of challenges due to various ethnic and racial groups trying to coexist with each other (Feagin, 2006). In particular, the histories of slavery and legal segregation in the U.S. have affected relationships between whites and blacks all the way into the twenty-first century (Feagin, 2006). Albert Gordon (1964) tells us the most intimate, and therefore most accurate, measure of strong race relations is intermarriage.

There are many reports indicating that interracial and interethnic relationships are becoming more frequently accepted possibly due to a growing biracial and multiracial population (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Douglas & Yancey, 2004). Approval of intermarriages has increased at a faster rate than actual interracial marriages over the last five decades indicating that the social distance gap between blacks and whites have closed more than it actually has (Cherlin, 2008; Douglas & Yancey, 2004; Golebiowska, 2007; Gullickson, 2006; Qian & Lichter, 2007).

Few studies have focused on differences between whites and blacks in attitudes toward interracial marriage in recent decades, with at least two exceptions: Baars (2009) examined women’s attitudes towards interracial marriage using logit regression and included race as a factor. Baars (2009) found that approval of interracial marriages increased more for white women than for black women but ultimately converged over a thirty year period. The second study by was a longitudinal study measuring attitudes towards interracial marriage and behavior patterns by analyzing whether a participant had had a member of the opposite race over for dinner (Garcia, Lewis jr., & Ford-Robertson, 2015). The current research will build on Baars’ (2009) work by replicating her study and including men as well.

Research in the social sciences is continually becoming increasingly more complex thanks to innovations in statistical methods, longitudinal data, improvements in laboratory experimentations and successful replications of previous research (Butz & Torrey, 2006). One challenge noted by various researchers in a variety of disciplines is that little attention and value is placed on replication (Lindsay & Ehrenberg, 1993 ; Schmidt, 2009; White, 2002).

Aside from the value placed on replication, there are studies published where replications fail to find the claimed effects of the original study (Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999). There are also studies where researchers find the claimed effect, but to a smaller degree, even when using a different dataset and different measurements (Villarreala, 2012). This last example serves as a standard to which as social scientific studies should be held.

While a comprehensive explanation as to why some studies cannot be replicated is beyond the scope of this paper, the current study successfully replicated a previous study on female attitudes towards interracial marriages between whites and blacks. The current study not only adds to the literature by demonstrating a successful replication, but also by adding male attitudes to the study and providing an opportunity to compare female and male attitudes over a 30 year period.

The previous research was conducted by Baars (2009), who found that females’ attitudes converged between 1972 and 2002. The study was conducted using the General Social Survey (GSS) from 1972-2002. The dependent variable (DV) was a dichotomous variable, “Do you think there should be laws preventing marriages between Whites and Blacks/African Americans/Negroes? The question was only asked between 1972 and 2002 for whites and between 1980 and 2002 for blacks.

Baars (2009) found that there was an increase in tolerance (more females responding, “No,” as time progressed. Not surprisingly, however, she also found that white female’ attitudes became increasingly more tolerant over the years when compared with their black female counterparts. This is not surprising because white females are significantly more likely to express disapproval of intermarriage compared to black females.

Both the previous study by Baars (2009) and the current study are relevant and important today because interracial marriages are still rare phenomena (Zebroski, 1999) that elicit strong negative attitudes from individuals in the United States (Childs, 2005; St. Jean, 1998; Yancey, 1998). Many surveys note that attitudes have become increasingly more tolerant even despite the fact that interracial marriages remain low and qualitative studies reveal deep rooted negative attitudes towards intermarriage (Childs, 2005). One challenge concerning many of these surveys is that they catch only a single point in time versus analyzing the trend in attitudes and how they have changed over the years (Byars et al., 2012; Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009; Fischer, 2011).

Research Question and Hypotheses

The current research project will replicate Baars’ (2009) study on tolerance towards interracial marriage and add to the current literature by comparing men with women in the model. Baars (2009) found that tolerance increased between 1972 and 2002 more for white females than for black females. Females, who are more educated, living outside of the South and in urban environments vs. rural environments, were also more likely to be more tolerant of intermarriages.

For males, I hypothesize that the increase in tolerance towards interracial marriage will be greater for well-educated white males when compared with well-educated black males. Males living outside of the South, in urban settings and well-educated will show a greater increase in tolerance. When comparing males with females, however, white men will be less tolerant than white females. 76 percent of black-white marriages tend to consist of a black male/white female (Carrol, 2007). Some research suggests that white males are not willing to cross racial boundaries while others point to black females being unwilling to cross racial lines (Childs, 2005; Yancey, 1998; Zebroski, 1999). It is possible that while certain groups are not willing to cross racial boundaries when it comes to romantic relationships, they can still hold positive attitudes towards them. The current research, however, will only compare how the tolerance changed between 1972-2002 for whites and 1980-2002 for blacks. The GSS didn’t begin asking blacks whether or not they approved of intermarriages until 1980.

Research Methods

The data for the current research comes from the General Social Survey (GSS). The GSS is a nationally representative opinion survey that began polling opinions in 1972, with data as recent as 2010. The survey was asked every year between 1972-1978 and 1983-1993. The years in between the dates previously listed and since 1994 were conducted biannually.

The data is collected by interviewers who conducted ninety-minute face-to-face interviews. The data is limited to Whites and Blacks because the GSS for many years only used three racial categories “White” “Black” and “Other”. Participants were usually classified by the interviewer. If the interviewer was uncertain then, they would be instructed to ask. Beginning in 2002, participants were asked to self-identify and were able to list up to three categories.

Baars (2009) limited the data to black and white females only. While filtering processes were not specified, she notes that her total sample consists of 14,927 females. White females made up about 87.8 percent of the sample size with 13,101 participants. Black females made up 12.2 percent of the sample with 1,826 participants. Since the exact filtering process is unknown, the current researcher was unable to filter the sample of females to the same sample size. Thus, the female sample size for the current research consists of 13,388 White females (87.2 percent) and 1,953 Black females (12.7 percent). For males, the sample consists of 12,390 participants, 11,233 (90.6 percent) for whites and 1,157 (9.3 percent).

The dependent variable is support for laws preventing interracial marriages between whites and blacks. The GSS asked the question, “Do you think there should be laws against marriages between (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) and Whites?” This question was asked of whites every year the survey was administered between 1972 and 2002. It was asked of blacks every year the survey was administered between 1980 and 2002. The response to the question consisted of four responses, yes, no, don’t know and no answer. Less than 1,000 participants answered don’t know and no answer, therefore, their answers were turned to missing. “Yes” answers were given a value of 1 and “no” answers were given a value of 0.

The independent variables will include race, age, education, urbanicity and geographic region. Race will be limited to black and white. Age is broken into 15-year cohorts and education will be categorized as less than high school education, high school, and more than high school education. Urbanicity will be categorized into rural, suburban, and urban. It was unclear exactly how these variables were coded. Therefore, urban, suburban and rural categories were adjusted until they approached Baars (2009) study. [i]The original data was compiled by Smith et al. (2011) who described their process of classifying the population size where the interviews were conducted.

All independent variables and the dependent variable will be dichotomized into dummy variables “0 1” with all responses that do not fit the criteria being changed to missing (i.e. those who were labeled as “Other” in the race category). A new dummy variable, “sample” will be created to filter all missing responses. All responses on each variable will be assigned a “1” values and those with no responses will be assigned a value of “0”.

The current analysis will be broken into two studies. Study 1 will replicate Baars (2009) to ensure that it is replicable. Study 2 will then add males to the model to compare with the females.

Study 1

To analyze the data, I will begin by conducting a series of cross-tabulations in order to compare the current data set with Baars (2009). First, cross-tabulations will be conducted for females in a pooled sample. Next, cross-tabulations will be conducted to compare the differences between black and white females on each independent variable. Finally, multivariate logistic regression will be used to assess the level of tolerance of individuals based on each predictor variable while controlling for all other variables.

Study 2

In study 2, males will be substituted for females in the same exact model. First, cross-tabulations will be conducted for males in a pooled sample. Next, cross-tabulations will be conducted to compare the differences between black and white males on each independent variable. Finally, multivariate logistic regression will be used to assess the level of tolerance of individuals based on each predictor variable while controlling for all other variables.

Data Discussion

Table 1 illustrates the overall attitude of both white and black females in the pooled sample. Only about 24 percent of women say they would support laws banning marriage between whites and blacks. For white females, 27 percent say they would support these laws and a mere 7 percent of black females say they would. Each of these percentages is within one percentage point of those reported in Baars (2009).

Table1: Responses of Females to GSS Question, 1972-2002
Category Yes No (n)
All Women 24% 76% 15,341
White Women 27% 73% 13,388
Black Women 7% 93% 1,953

 

Table 2 highlights the differences reported by each independent variable. Each result is within one percentage point of those reported in the original study with the exception of the rural sample. The rural sample in the original study had an (n) of 4,219 while the (n) of the current study is 6,152. There then is a difference of 1,933 participants. Baars (2009) reported 35.5 percent answered yes to supporting laws against intermarriage and 64.4 percent reported no. These percentages are still very close (within three percentage points) of the current study which is 32 percent reported “yes” and 68 percent “reported “no.” This difference could be the result of the difference in sample size and the coding of the variable “Urbanicity.” This difference did not affect the overall results of the replication.

Table 2 Responses of White and Black Women: Should There be Laws Preventing Interracial Marriage, 1972-2002
Characteristic Yes No (n)
Age
18-30 12% 88% 3,747
31-45 16% 84% 4,630
46-60 28% 72% 3,359
61-75 42% 58% 2,547
76+ 50% 50% 1,058
Education
0-11 years 47% 53% 3,990
12 years 24% 76% 5,349
13+ years 9% 91% 6,002
Region
South 35% 65% 5,226
Non-South 19% 81% 10,115
Urbanicity
Urban 16% 84% 4,070
Suburban 21% 79% 5,119
Rural 32% 68% 6,152

The participants who were least likely to support anti-miscegenation laws were younger (18-45), more educated (13+ years of college), not living in the South and lived in urban or suburban areas. Those aged 61-75 are almost as equally likely to support laws against interracial marriage as they are to oppose them. By the ages 76+ participants were as equally likely to support laws as they were to oppose them.

Table 3 consists of the responses given by white females from 1972-2002. The results on each variable here fall within one percentage point on the original study again with the exception of the variable Rural. The original study reported 37 percent “yes” and 63 percent “no.” The largest difference appears to be in education. Only 10 percent of white females with at least some college reported support compared to 54 percent with less than a high school diploma.

Table 3 Responses of White Women: Should There be Laws Preventing Interracial Marriage, 1972-2002
Characteristic Yes No (n)
Age
18-30 13% 87% 3,179
31-45 18% 82% 3,972
46-60 31% 69% 2,966
61-75 45% 55% 2,308
76+ 53% 47% 963
Education
0-11 years 54% 46% 3,333
12 years 26% 74% 4,787
13+ years 10% 90% 5,268
Region
South 41% 59% 4,235
Non-South 21% 79% 9,153
Urbanicity
Urban 20% 80% 3,006
Suburban 23% 77% 4,615
Rural 34% 66% 5,767

Table 4 demonstrates the results of black females from 1980-2002. All of the results fall within two percentage points of the original study. The differences in results between the original and current study are likely the difference in sample sizes. The current study consists of 144 more participants. Similar to the responses of the white females, the largest effects can be seen with age and education. Individuals aged 18-60 were significantly less likely to support anti-miscegenation laws. Likewise, support for laws against intermarriage significantly decreased from less than high school to having a high school diploma and at least some college.

Table 4 Responses of Black Females : Should There be Laws Opposing Interrmarriage, 1980-2002
Characteristic Yes No (n)
Age
18-30 2% 98% 568
31-45 4% 96% 658
46-60 7% 93% 393
61-75 17% 83% 239
76+ 23% 77% 95
Education
0-11 years 14% 86% 657
12 years 5% 95% 562
13+ years 2% 98% 734
Region
South 10% 90% 991
Non-South 4% 96% 962
Urbanicity
Urban 5% 95% 1064
Suburban 5% 95% 504
Rural 13% 87% 385

 

Table 5 shows the regression coefficients from Baars (2009) study with the coefficients from the current study for females. The purpose of the table is to both show the impact of the independent variables on the dependent variable and to show that the current research successfully replicated Baars (2009) despite the sample differences. All of her coefficients fall within the female confidence interval range of the current study.

Race had the largest effect with a coefficient of -1.831 while controlling for all other variables. Blacks are significantly less likely to support anti-miscegenation laws compared to whites. This means that the strongest predictor of attitudes towards interracial marriages in this model is race. This makes sense based on the idea that interracial marriages symbolize equality and a closing of the social distance gap (Allport, 1979; Feagin, 2006; Gordon, 1964).

Finally, Year also has a negative coefficient (-.055) indicating that there has been a gradual increase in tolerance towards interracial marriages over time. This is more than likely due to changes in governmental practices (Supreme Court rulings), increased education for individuals as whole and increased contact between blacks and whites (Allport, 1979; Gordon, 1964).

 

Table 5: Comparison of Female Coefficients
Difference of Coefficients
Variable Baars Coef. S.E. (B) Coef. Fem. S.E. (B) 95% Conf. Int.
Urban -0.604* 0.060 -0.58* 0.060 -0.697 -0.463
Suburban -0.461* 0.052 -0.396* 0.051 -0.496 -0.297
Non-South -1.053* 0.047 -1.086* 0.047 -1.178 -0.994
Educ. 12 yrs. -0.748* 0.052 -0.776* 0.052 -0.878 -0.674
Educ.13+yrs. -1.762* 0.062 -1.753* 0.061 -1.873 -1.633
Race: Black -1.881* 0.107 -1.831* 0.105 -2.036 -1.627
Age 18-30 -2.046* 0.101 -2.05* 0.092 -2.231 -1.867
Age 31-45 -1.537* 0.096 -1.564* 0.086 -1.732 -1.395
Age 46-60 -0.919* 0.094 -0.938* 0.085 -1.103 -0.772
Age 61-75 -0.443* 0.097 -0.416* 0.084 -0.581 -0.251
Year -0.055* 0.003 -0.057* 0.003 -0.062 -0.051
_Cons 111.958* 5.324 115.31 5.292 104.938 125.7
Log likelihood = -6358.1745 Pseudo R2         =     0.2536
LR chi2(11)     =   4320.23 Prob > chi2     =       0.0000
*=Variable Significant at the p<.05 Level

 

The total sample size consisted of 27,731 participants 44.7 percent of which were male. As reported above, the male sample of the GSS consisted of 12,390 male participants according to the current model. There were 11,233 white males (90.7 percent) and 1,157 black males (9.4 percent). Males were analyzed in the same model as the females. The dependent variable was asked of white males from 1972-2002 and for black males from 1980-2002.

Males differ slightly from females overall in their attitudes towards laws opposing interracial marriage. As can be seen in Table 6, 22 percent of males (compared to 24 percent for females) reported that they would support anti-miscegenation laws. The greatest difference was between white males (24 percent) and white females (27 percent). Black males were the least likely to support anti-miscegenation laws with only 5 percent responding yes.

Table 6: Responses of Males to GSS Question
category Yes No (n)
All Men 22% 78% 12,390
White Men 24% 76% 11,233
Black Men 5% 95% 1,157

 

Cross tabulations of white and black males across the independent variables yielded some interesting results (Table 7 below). 13 percent of males, 18-30, reported willingness to support these laws compared to 12 percent of females. There was a 3-5 percent difference between males and females ages 46-75 with females reporting more opposition. Consistent with the females, however, the younger are significantly more likely to express tolerant attitudes towards interracial marriage.

In regards to education, 43 percent of males (compared to 47 percent of females) answered yes they would support the laws. Participants with a high school diploma and some college answered similarly regardless of gender. 32 percent of males in the South indicated support for anti-miscegenation laws compared to 35 percent of women in the South. Like the females, males living outside of the South and in urban areas were significantly less likely to support laws banning interracial marriage.

Table 7 Responses of White and Black Males: Should There be Laws Preventing Interracial Marriage, 1972-2002
Characteristic Yes No (n)
Age
18-30 13% 87% 3,221
31-45 16% 84% 3,842
46-60 25% 75% 2,800
61-75 39% 61% 1,948
76+ 45% 55% 579
Education
0-11 years 43% 57% 3,169
12 years 24% 76% 3,619
13+ years 9% 91% 5,602
Region
South 32% 68% 4,146
Non-South 18% 82% 8,244
Urbanicity
Urban 15% 85% 3,131
Suburban 18% 82% 4,078
Rural 30% 70% 5,181
Table 8 Responses of White Males: Should There be Laws Preventing Interracial Marriage, 1972-2002
Characteristic
Yes No (n)
Age
18-30 14% 86% 2,890
31-45 18% 82% 3,473
46-60 27% 73% 2,539
61-75 41% 59% 1,790
76+ 47% 53% 541
Education
0-11 years 47% 53% 2,799
12 years 26% 74% 3,249
13+ years 10% 90% 5,185
Region
South 35% 65% 3,575
Non-South 19% 81% 7,658
Urbanicity
Urban 17% 83% 2,523
Suburban 19% 81% 3,785
Rural 31% 69% 4,925

 

Table 9 Responses of Black Males: Should There be Laws Opposing Interrmarriage
Characteristic Yes No (n)
Age
18-30 5% 95% 331
31-45 4% 97% 369
46-60 5% 95% 261
61-75 9% 91% 158
76+ 16% 84% 38
Education
0-11 years 9% 91% 370
12 years 3% 97% 370
13+ years 4% 96% 417
Region
South 8% 92% 571
Non-South 3% 97% 586
Urbanicity
Urban 4% 96% 608
Suburban 3% 97% 293
Rural 11% 89% 256

 

Table 10: Comparison of Coefficients
Difference of Coefficients
Variable Baars Coef. S.E. (B) Coef. Fem. S.E. (B) 95% Conf. Int. Coef.Male S.E. (B) 95% Conf. Int.
Urban -0.604* 0.060 -0.58* 0.060 -0.697 -0.463 -0.533* 0.066 -0.664 -0.403
Suburban -0.461* 0.052 -0.396* 0.051 -0.496 -0.297 -0.414* 0.057 -0.527 -0.302
Non-South -1.053* 0.047 -1.086* 0.047 -1.178 -0.994 -0.984* 0.052 -1.086 -0.883
Educ. 12 yrs. -0.748* 0.052 -0.776* 0.052 -0.878 -0.674 -0.498* 0.060 -0.616 -0.382
Educ.13+yrs. -1.762* 0.062 -1.753* 0.061 -1.873 -1.633 -1.582* 0.064 -1.707 -1.457
Race: Black -1.881* 0.107 -1.831* 0.105 -2.036 -1.627 -1.897 0.141 -2.174 -1.62
Age 18-30 -2.046* 0.101 -2.05* 0.092 -2.231 -1.867 -1.662* 0.113 -1.883 -1.441
Age 31-45 -1.537* 0.096 -1.564* 0.086 -1.732 -1.395 -1.233* 0.108 -1.444 -1.021
Age 46-60 -0.919* 0.094 -0.938* 0.085 -1.103 -0.772 -0.862* 0.108 -1.073 -0.651
Age 61-75 -0.443* 0.097 -0.416* 0.084 -0.581 -0.251 -0.311* 0.108 -0.524 -0.1
Year -0.055* 0.003 -0.057* 0.003 -0.062 -0.051 -0.052* 0.003 -0.058 -0.05
_Cons 111.958* 5.324 115.31* 5.292 104.938 125.7 105.126* 5.643 94.067 116.2
* = Variable reached Significance at the p<.05 Level
Female Coefficient Does not fit Male confidence interval

 

A trend analysis was also conducted to measure the decline in support for the laws between 1972 and 2002 (see Figure 1). White females reported the greatest increase in tolerance over the thirty year span. In 1972 just over 60 percent of white females indicated they would support laws opposing intermarriage. By 2002 the percentage dropped to 28 percent. White male tolerance also significantly increased over this period: Originally 55 percent of them indicated they opposed interracial marriages, but by 2002 only 28 percent stated that view. The times series for blacks is shorter, but also reveals substantial change. In 1982, 17 percent of black females and 13 percent of black males indicated intolerance of interracial marriages. By 2002, these percentages dropped to 7 percent and 5 percent respectively. It is noteworthy that the increase in tolerance was greater for black females than black males.

To facilitate interpretation, the results of the logistic regression were graphed. We consider the results for each predictor in succession, but note that the graphs are of predicted values from the logistic regression analysis controlling for other variables. That means the graphed results are the pure effect of each variable adjusted for its shared correlations with other predictors (see Figures 2 through 6).

Aside from race, education has the largest impact in all four groups, controlling for other influences. The respondents who express the most intolerance are those with less than high school. In the case of whites, these percentages are both over 50 percent. Thus, by the time these groups’ complete high school and have at least some college, the percentage decreases to about 26 percent for white females and 22 percent for white males. Black participants show a similar trend. For black females, 24 percent express intolerant views and drop to 6 percent with at least some college education. For black males, the percentage decreases from 17 percent to 4 percent.

Race is evident (Figure 3 shows above) in that whites are far more likely to express opposition towards intermarriage compared to blacks, even net of education, Southern residence, and other control variables. In fact, whites are three times more likely to oppose intermarriage than blacks. It also holds true that the females of both groups express support for laws against interracial marriage slightly more than their same-race male counterparts.

Similar to whites, among both black males and females, 18 to 45 year olds are equally likely to express tolerant attitudes, all else equal. However, males 46 and over tend to be more tolerant than females. Interestingly, the percentage of both black females and black males who express intolerant attitudes decreases from 8 and 10 percent to 2 percent. Although a higher percentage of whites express intolerant views in general, there is a similar trend showing that the two older cohorts are twice as likely to express opposition to intermarriage compared to the two younger cohorts.

Urbanicity is also a significant predictor of attitudes towards intermarriage. Each group in urban areas tends to express more tolerant views than their counterparts in suburban and rural populations. Each group expresses more tolerant attitudes towards intermarriage; however, the decrease is no more than one or two percentage points.

Finally, the percentages of whites in the South who support laws against intermarriage sit at 54 percent for females and 48 percent for males. Likewise, twice as many blacks in the South oppose interracial marriages as their peers in other regions. The greatest contrast within groups here consists of a 22 percentage point difference between white females in the South compared to their peers elsewhere.

Discussion

Between 1972 and 2002 the U.S. saw drastic changes in racial attitudes. More specifically, attitudes towards interracial marriages became significantly more tolerant. Although, overall opposition towards intermarriage has decreased, the current research highlights significant gender differences where males appear to be more tolerant than females. White females’ attitudes decreased more than all other groups. The most significant predictors of tolerance towards intermarriage were race, age and education.

The stronger predictor of the three is race where blacks are significantly more likely to oppose anti-miscegenation laws compared to whites. The younger generations, however, and those who are well-educated tend to express the most tolerant views. Also, consistent with the literature, those in rural settings and in the South, express significantly less tolerant views than those in urban settings and other regions of the U.S. Similarly, as previously discussed, time by itself has had a significant impact, while controlling for all other variables, highlighting that people’s attitudes have expressed more tolerant attitudes each year between 1972 and 2002. The growing increase in tolerance towards interracial marriages may be a possible reason as to why the GSS stopped using the question after 2002.

Limitations

There are a few of important limitations to the current research that must be acknowledged. First, the dependent variable may not have directly measured participants’ attitudes towards intermarriage. The argument can be made that an individuals can oppose laws against intermarriage and also oppose intermarriage at the same time. Thus, the dependent variable may only approximate individual attitudes. There is also the issue of social desirability bias. Many individuals may have replied no to the question of interest in order to not appear racist.

A second limitation to the current research involves the independent variables. Variables such as age and years of education are continuous variables. The current research dichotomized each independent variable and may have potentially lost some of the data by doing so. The main reason for doing this was to replicate prior research. Thus, future research should keep all continuous variables continuous in order to maintain the integrity of the data and possible yield stronger effects.

The study is also limited in understanding the true effects of race on attitudes. As mentioned before, between the years of interest for the study, individuals were classified as “White”, “Black”, or “Other” by the interviewer. He/she was only instructed to ask if he/she wasn’t sure. Furthermore, there is no way to tell how multiracial couples were classified. In 2000 individuals began self-identifying and could use up to three categories.

While there appears to be significant differences between individuals living in the South and those outside of the South, contemporary research highlights that those in the West are most accepting of interracial relationships. Furthermore, intermarriage rates in New York tend to be a lot lower than in Midwestern states like Kansas. While the reason for this is beyond the current research, future studies should consider either keeping the 9 regional codes listed in the GSS or recoding the regions into five distinct categories (South, East, Northeast, Midwest, and West).

Finally, the study is limited in that the model of analysis did not include all variables that can potentially impact attitudes towards intermarriage. There is a myriad of research linking political and religious affiliation to attitudes towards intermarriage. Thus, future research should explore other variables that may have a strong impact as well. Marital status or parenthood, for example, may drastically affect one’s attitudes towards intermarriage.

 

 

References

Allport, G. (1979). The Nature of Prejudice . Cambridge, MA : Perseus Books.

Baars, M. (2009). Marriage in Black and White: Women’s Support for Law Against Interracial Marriage 1972-2000. Intersections, 10(1), 219-238.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racial Attitudes or Racial Ideology? An Alternative Paradigm Forexamining Actors’ Racial Views. Journal of Political Ideologies , 63-82.

Butz, W., & Torrey, B. (2006). Some Frontiers in Social Science. Science, 1898-1900.

Byars, H., Jordan, K., Brock, N., & VanDellen, M. (2012). Implicit and Explicit Racial Attitudes and Preference for Interracil Dating. Journal of Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Behavior and Identity , 5(Hiver ), 60-67.

Carrol, J. (2007). Gallup.com. Retrieved 2012, from Gallup.com: http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417.most-americans-approve-interracial-marriage.aspx

Cherlin, A. J. (2008). Public and Private Families: An Introduction. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Childs, E. C. (2005). Looking Behind the Stereotypes of the “Angry Black Woman” An Exploration of Black Women’s Responses to Interracial Relationships. Gender and Society, 19(4), 544-561.

Childs, E. C. (2008). Listening to the Interracial Canary: Contemporary Views on Interracial Relationships Among Blacks and Whites. Fordham Law Review , 2770-2786.

Cohen, R. (2013, November 11). Christie’s tea-party problem. Retrieved from Washing Post Online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-christies-tea-party-

Douglas, G., & Yancey, G. (2004). Taking Stock of America’s Attitudes on Cultural Diversity: Am Analysis of Public Deliberation on Multiculturalism, Assimilation and Intermarriage. . Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 1-20.

Farhi, P. (2013, November 12). Controversy over Richard Cohen’s comments on the de Blasio family. Retrieved from The Washington Post Online : http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/controversy-over-richard-cohens-comments-on-the-de-blasio-family/2013/11/12/3c37f900-4bda-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_print.html

Feagin, J. (2006). Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York, New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. (2009). Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters . Social Science Research , 38, 39-54.

Fischer, M. (2011). Interracial Contact and Changes in the Racial Attitudes of White College Students . Soc. Psychol. Educ. , 547-574.

Foster, M. (2010, March 18). Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License by Louisiana Justice of the Peace. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html

Garcia, G. E., Lewis jr., R., & Ford-Robertson, J. (2015). Attitudes Regarding Laws Limiting Black-White Marriage: A Longitudinal Analysis of Perceptions and Related Behaviors. Journal of Black Studies, 199-217.

Golebiowska, E. A. (2007). The Contours and Etiology of Whites’ Attitudes Toward Black-White Interracial Marriage . Journal of Black Studies, 38(2), 268-287.

Gordon, A. I. (1964). Intermarriage. Boston : Beacon.

Gullickson, A. (2006). Education and Black-Whte Interracial Marriage. Demography, 43(4), 673-689.

Lindsay, R., & Ehrenberg, A. (1993 ). The Design of Replicated Studies . The American Statistician , 217-228.

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 and Intergroup Relations, 7, 354-369.

Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. T. (2007). Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage. American Sociological Review, 72, 68-94.

Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet Daters . Social Forces , 807-828.

Romano, R. C. (2003). Race Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press .

Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences . Review of General Psychology , 90.

Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., Hout, M., & Jibum, K. (2011). General Social Surveys, 1972-2010 [Cumulative File]. ICPSR31521-v1. Storrs, CT. Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], doi:10.3886/ICPSR31521.v1.

St. Jean, Y. (1998). Let People speak for Themselves: Interracial Unions and the General Social Survey. Journal of Black Studies , 28(3), 398-414.

Stearns, E., Buchmann, C., & Bonneau, K. (2009). Interracial Friendships in the Transition to College: Do Birds of a Feather Flock Together Once They Leave the Nest. Sociology of Education, 173-195.

Steele, K. M., Bass, K. E., & Crook, M. D. (1999). The Mystery of the Mozart Effect: Failure to Replicate. Psychological Science , 366-369.

Villarreala, A. (2012). Flawed Statistical Reasoning and Misconceptions About Race and Ethnicity . American Sociological Review , 495-502.

Von Robertson, R., Mitra, A., & Van Delinder, J. (2005). The Social Adustment of African American Females at a Predominantly White Midwestern University. Journal of African American Studies , 8(4), 31-46.

White, H. (2002). Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Poverty Analysis . World Development , 511-522.

Yancey, G. (1998). An Analysis of Resistance to Racial Exogamy: The 1998 South Carolina Ferendum . Journal of Black Studies, 31(5), 635-650.

Zebroski, S. A. (1999). Black-White Intermarriages: The Racial and Gender Dynamics of Support and Opposition . Journal of Black Studies , 30(1), 123-132.

 

[i] “This code is the population to the nearest 1,000 of the smallest civil division listed by the U.S. Census (city, town, other incorporated area over 1,000 in population, township, division, etc.) which encompasses the segment. If a segment falls into more than one locality, the following rules apply in determining the locality for which the rounded population figure is coded. If the predominance of the listings for any segment are in one of the localities, the rounded population of that locality is coded. If the listings are distributed equally over localities in the segment, and the localities are all cities, towns, or villages, the rounded population of the larger city or town is coded. The same is true if the localities are all rural townships or divisions. If the listings are distributed equally over localities in the segment and the localities include a town or village and a rural township or division, the rounded population of the town or village is coded. The source of the data is the 1970 U.S. Census population figures published in the PC (1)-A series, Tables 6 and 10. For cases from the 1980 and 1990 frames analogous tables from the 1980 and 1990 Censuses were used. See Appendix N for changes across surveys.”

 

+ There are no comments

Add yours