Intergroup Marriage: An Examination of Opportunity Structures

Tim B. Heaton, Brigham Young Universiv Cardell K. Jacobson, Brigham Young Universiv

Though a number of authors have noted the increase in interracial marriages in the United States over the past few decades, few researchers have systematically examined variables that affect the opportunity for intergroup marriage among several different groups: Whites, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics. In this paper we examine several “opportunity” variables and their relationship to intergroup marriage for couples age 40 or younger: immigration, military service, metropolitan residency, age, region, college attendance, and socioeconomic status. We examine these relationships for African, White, Asian, and Hispanic Americans. Results for both males and females are presented. The analysis is based on data from the 1990 census. The propensity to marry within one’s own group dropped slightly for all groups but Asian Americans from 1980 to 1990. White and Black Americans continue to have the highest endogamy rates. Hispanic and Asian Americans have lower rates, and regional variations are highest for them as well. The results suggest that the opportunity variables are important factors af- fecting rates of intergroup marriage.

Scholars who have examined the rising rate of interethnic and interracial marriage in the United States have utilized several different theories to explain the patterns they find. Some have focused on intermarriage as an indicator of as- similation (for recent examples of this perspective, see Kitano Yeung, Chai, and Hatanaka 1984; and Hwang, Saenz, and Aguirre 1994). Others have examined intergroup marriage in light of the “exchange hypothesis” first proposed by Merton (1 94 1). These authors suggest that low socioeconomic status White women exchange their high racial status for economic security, while well-to-do minority men exchange their high socioeconomic status for interracial accep- tance and evidence that they can marry “White” (Schoen and Wooldredge 1989; Heaton and Albrecht 1996; Qian 1997; Kalmijn 1993). Others take a more cul- tural approach, emphasizing differences among groups in beliefs, values, and be- havior (Spickard 1989). We extend this research by focusing on contexts which facilitate interracial marriage by creating greater contact among groups. We refer to organizational arrangements which foster intergroup contact as opportunity structures. Using data from the 1990 census, we evaluate the role of opportunity structure with a multivariate model of intermarriage between several different minority groups and Whites.

Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 70, No. 1, Winter 2000, 3-1 02000 by the University of Texas Press, PO. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

INTERGROUP MARRIAGE 3 1

Our focus on opportunity structures draws from Blau and others (Blau 1977; Blau, Blum, and Schwartz 1982; Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984; Blum 1984; Sampson 1984; Alba and Golden 1986; Hwang et al. 1994) who argue that relative group size is critical in determining the amount of outgroup contact that individuals are likely to experience. Group size is inversely related to the chances that individuals will marry out of their own group. Whereas group size has received considerable attention, other aspects of organizational structure that influence intergroup contact have received less attention. We contend that settings that are integrated, enhance contact, and promote ideals of equality and diversity also increase the likelihood of intergroup marriage. In particular we ex- amine how military service, college attendance, metropolitan residence, and ge- ographic region are related to patterns of interracial marriage.

The potential role of organizational structure is clearly demonstrated by the military, a structure not often examined in previous research on intergroup mar- riage. Farley (1998) reports that White men who served in the military are three times more likely to marry Black women than are men who did not serve. White women with military experience are seven times more likely to marry Black men than those women without military service. Since the military services are gen- erally desegregated, emphasize fair treatment? and create relatively homogeneous socioeconomic groups, opportunity for intergroup contact is increased for mem- bers from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Overseas assignments, especially in Asia, also increase contact with different races.

A second opportunity structure is created by colleges or universities where intergroup contact is enhanced. Whereas elementary and secondary schools are often homogeneous because of segregated neighborhood boundaries, college campuses recruit from a broader population base. More liberal attitudes are also likely to prevail in college settings and to reduce social barriers to interracial and interethnic interaction. Most research driven by the status-exchange hypothesis has focused on the status aspects of education exclusively. Results are not con- clusive, but higher status does appear to be an avenue of outmarriage among minorities (Qian 1997; Fu and Heaton 1997). In order to distinguish the opportunity structure created by college from status effects of education? we in- clude both college experience and an index of socioeconomic status in the model.

Marriage markets are generally local, rather than national. Generally those who live in metropolitan areas are likely to have more contact with members of different racial and ethnic groups than those living in rural areas. Furthermore, greater tolerance generally exists for intergroup marriages in metropolitan areas because of norms prescribing “urban civility.” Thus, metropolitan areas provide a third structure that results in higher rates of White exogamy. The effect of higher density and diversity, however, may be just the reverse for minorities.

32 TIM B. HEATON AND CARDELL K. JACOBSON

Increased numbers of minorities improve the opportunities for marriage within one’s own group. The mathematics of increasing minority group size make it possible for increasing exogamy for the majority while simultaneously increas- ing endogamy for the minority.

Finally, regional differences in population composition and in the history of intergroup relations also influence the opportunities for interaction. Farley (1998) finds higher rates of intermarriage in California and Hawaii. Jacobson and Heaton (1997) find that rates of intermarriage vary within broadly defined regions of the country. We distinguish three regions. First, the South, with its his- tory of slavery and a higher concentration of African Americans, is likely to have a different pattern of interracial marriage than the rest of the country. Second, the West Coast has a rich mix of immigrants from Asia and Latin America. This di- verse mix may also alter the pattern of intergroup interaction (see, e.g., Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan 1990). These two regions are thus expected to have differ- ent rates of interracial marriage than exist in the rest of the country.

Three other variables are included as control variables because of their pos- sible impact on intergroup marriage. These variables present both the possibili- ties for different amounts of contact at the same time they reflect differences in normative attitudes about intergroup marriage. First, high socioeconomic status enhances the chances of exogamy for a member of a low-status group, while rel- atively low status increases the chances of marrying out of high-status groups (Fu and Heaton 1997). Second increased age is likely to be negatively associated with intergroup marriage since not only have older people had less peer contact with members of other groups, but norms against intergroup marriage were more prevalent when they were younger and in the marriage market. Third, we control for immigration status. Ideally, couples who marry before immigrating should not be included but census data do not include date of marriage. Exclusion of all immigrants would seriously bias results, especially in the case of military ser- vice. Many interracial marriages of military personnel include an immigrant spouse. Thus, we use immigration status as a control variable in the analysis.

Methods and Data

Data for the analysis are taken from the 1990 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). All married persons with spouses present were selected from the 1 percent sample, and husbands and wives were matched. Because the re- sulting file was large, (over one million married couples) we sampled 10 per- cent of the most common type of marriage-those between White non-Hispanic husbands and wives. Cases are weighted to adjust for this sampling procedure. Analysis will focus on the four groups mentioned above. Native Americans and other small ethnic groups are excluded from the analysis because of insufficient cases.

INTERGROUP MARRIAGE 33

Several recent studies of interracial marriage rely on information from mar- riage certificates. Although certificate data have several advantages, not all states supply consistent data. In the most comprehensive study, only thirty-three states were included (Kalmijn 1993). The 1990 census data do not include information on marriage dates, but they do provide complete geographic coverage and in- clude a broader set of variables, such as income, Hispanic and Asian origin, and military service, than can be found on mamage certificates. To focus attention on the most recent trends our analysis is restricted to couples where the wife is age 40 or younger. In sum, we argue, college, cities, the military, and regional cultures form a context within which people meet and decide to marry.

We measure socioeconomic status using years of schooling completed, in- come, and occupational prestige (mean substitution is used for those reporting no occupation). We used factor analysis to create a single variable reflecting these three measures of socioeconomic status. Factor loadings for the three indi- cators range from .718 to 326 and are similar for each gender. Although corre- lations between college experience and the socioeconomic measures are high (.67 for males and .63 for females), they are not so high as to prohibit inclusion of both sets of variables in the same equation.

In the analysis which follows, we first examine the frequency of various types of interracial marriage. Several studies have used log-linear models to ex- amine the cross-classification of wife’s and husband’s race (Qian 1997; Schoen and Wooldredge 1989). The log-linear approach allows the modeling of popula- tion composition but does not allow for several independent variables. We use multinomial logistic regression to evaluate the simultaneous influence of covari- ates on the race/ethnicity of spouses by gender.

Results

The frequencies and percentages of homogamous and heterogamous mar- riage are reported in Table l . While each group has a high rate of homogamous marriage, Whites and African Americans are more likely than Asians and Hispanics to marry within their own group. These results are consistent with re- sults found by Blau and others (Blau 1977; Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984; Jacobson and Heaton 1997; Qian 1997). We would expect more marriages in the White husband-White wife category simply because Whites are a large share of the population. The results show more marriages of Whites to Asians and Hispanics than to African Americans, though they are still a relatively small per- centage compared to White-White marriages. As previous census reports have shown, the number of marriages between White women and Afican American men is higher than between African American women and White men. The re- verse gender pattern is observed in marriages between Whites and Asians. Again, this pattern is consistent with results found by a number of other

34 TIM 9. HEATON AND CARDELL K. JACOBSON

Table 1 Pattern of InterracialiEthnic Marriages

Husband

Wife White Black Asian Hispanic

Number White, non-Hispanic 187,070 864 729 3,702 Black 286 13,351 18 145 Asian 1,784 136 5,774 173 Hispanic 3,883 268 150 15,779

Row Percentages

White, non-Hispanic 97.2 0.4 0.4 1.9 Black 2.1 96.7 0.1 1.1 Asian 22.7 1.7 73.4 2.2 Hispanic 19.3 1.3 0.7 78.6

Column Percentages White, non-Hispanic 96.9 5.9 10.9 18.7 Black 0.1 91.3 0.3 0.7 Asian 0.9 0.9 86.6 0.9 Hispanic 2.0 1.8 2.2 79.7

researchers. Little gender difference is observed in marriages between Whites and Hispanics.

The values of covariates, by gender, for each race/ethnic group are pre- sented in Table 2. Current military service is uncommon, especially among women. Still, over one-fifth of Whites and African Americans under age 40 have had some military experience. College experience is highest among Asians and lowest among Hispanics, but it is also relatively low among African AEerican women. A majority of each group lives in metropolitan areas, but the percentages are especially high for Asians and Hispanics. Age in the sample is similar for most groups, though Asians are a little older and Hispanics a little younger than other groups. These age variations may reflect differences in age at marriage. Socioeconomic status is highest for Asians and lowest for Hispanics. Regional distributions indicate relative concentration of Blacks in the South, Asians on the Pacific Coast, and Hispanics in both the South and the Pacific Coast.

INTERGROUP MARRIAGE 35

Table 2 Characteristics of Wives and Husbands in the Analysis

~ ~~

Characteristics White Black Asian Hispanic

Wives: % currently in military % prior military service % immigrated in last 20 years % immigrated 20+ years ago % attended college 'YO metropolitan residence Average age Socioeconomic status 'Yo South % Pacific Coast

% currently in military % prior military service % immigrated in last 20 years % immigrated 20 + years ago % attended college YO metropolitan residence Average age Socioeconomic status 'Yo South % Pacific Coast

Husbands:

0.3 1.3 2.3 1.6

55.8 72.8 31.5

.3 27.1 15.5

3.1 21.5 2.5 1.9

60.2 73.1 34.5

27.4 16.3

.35

0.9 2.3 6.4 1.2

52.4 78.8 31.9

55.9 8.3

5.5 24.3

6.5 1.1

46.7 79.2 35.1 - .08

54.2 9.1

.19

0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7

84.1 45.8 5.1 9.1

63.2 32.1 94.4 87.2 32.5 30.4

16.1 33.2 45.9 36.9

.3 1 -.31

2.0 1.8 6.0 10.9

80.6 45.4 8.2 12.5

73.6 32.4 96.0 87.3 36.0 33.4

14.5 32.8 47.4 37.0

.56 - .36

Multivariate Analysis

In this section we examine the simultaneous influence of covariates on the likelihood of marrying someone of each race/ethnicity. The results from the multinomial logistic regression are presented in Table 3. The implicit reference category is always endogamy, such that positive coefficients show an increased likelihood of marrying someone of a different race, while negative coefficients indicate a lower odds of intermarriage.

Higher rates of interracial marriage are clearly related to military service. Each coefficient for military service is in the expected direction, and a majority of the coefficients are statistically significant when all the variables are included in the analysis. The pattern is particularly clear for men who have served and

Tab

le 3

Ef

fect

s of I

ndep

ende

nt V

aria

bles

on

Spou

se’s

Rac

e/Et

hnic

ity

Rac

e/

Like

lihoo

d C

urre

nt

Prio

r Im

mig

ratio

n Im

mig

ratio

n A

ttend

ed

Met

ropo

litan

Pa

cific

et

hnic

ity

spou

se is

: C

onsta

nt

mili

tary

m

ilita

ry

afte

r 19

70

befo

re 1

970

colle

ge

resi

denc

e A

ge

SES

Sout

h C

oast

Wiv

es

Whi

te

Bla

ck

Asia

n H

ispa

nic

Bla

ck

Whi

te

Hisp

anic

Asia

n W

hite

B

lack

H

ispa

nic

Hisp

anic

W

hite

B

lack

A

sian

-3.5

6*

-4.1

6*

- 1.

24*

-2.2

0*

-2.5

0*

2.16

* -.4

7 .46

-.83*

-3

.74

-4.9

9*

2.18

* .1

8 .3

9 .3

1 .2

0 .6

9*

.91*

.7

5*

1.09

* .9

9*

1.16

.6

8 2.

76*

1.13

*

.54

1.09

* 2.

34*

1.71

* -

.45

1.19

* .9

0*

.I7

.3 1

.39

-2.0

0*

-1.9

4*

-2.2

2

- 1.

30*

- .96

* - .8

2*

.18

-.32 .35*

1.13

* .7

6

-.45*

-.7

9 -.

38

-.55*

- .

54*

- .2

0

.03

.20*

-.1

1*

.40*

- .0

1

-.19*

- .4

6 .0

1

.75*

.6

2*

1.03

*

.77*

1.

05*

.75*

-.35*

.5

2

- 1.

39*

-.95*

- 1.

27*

-.22*

.2

8 .3

4

-.01

-.02*

-.0

4*

-.05*

-.0

7*

-.01

-.01

-.05*

.01 .oo

-.01

-.03 .1

1*

- .0

3

.12 .oo

.03

-.I9

-.2

0 .42*

.3

1*

.36*

- .oo

- .0

3 .2

6*

- 1 .o

o*

-1.1

5*

.52*

.6

3*

.93

-.66*

-.8

1*

- 1.

29*

.58*

1.

63*

1.31

*

.91*

.2

6

-.21*

-.4

1 .54

-.35*

-.7

4*

.74*

Whi

te

Blac

k A

sian

Hisp

anic

Blac

k W

hite

A

sian

Hisp

anic

Asia

n W

hite

Bl

ack

Hisp

anic

Hisp

anic

Whi

te

Blac

k A

sian

-4.9

9*

-4.3

2 - 1.

98

-2.5

8*

-6.2

7*

-3.7

6*

2.37

* - .8

2 .0

8

-.I4

-3

.14*

-4

.76*

Hus

band

s

1.55

* .3

8*

1.02

* .3

5 .2

9 .7

6*

-.I0

-.0

8 .i5

.95*

2.

60*

1.04

* .6

9*

.48*

.3

9*

.73*

.0

1 .2

1*

.OO

]SO*

.6

7*

.29*

.5

7*

.60*

.1

3*

.64*

-.02*

-.0

3 .4

1*

1.31

.54*

.2

3*

- .6

0*

.46

.31*

- .2

9*

.01

.07

-1.2

5*

.47*

2.

34*

1.30

* .3

0 1.

21*

.52*

.1

5 .0

1 .2

0 -.7

5*

1.06

* .9

6*

.56*

.2

4 1.

14*

.4 1 *

.I

3 -.0

2 .0

4 -.8

7 .8

1*

.39

.64*

-2.9

1*

-.73*

.2

4 -.g

o*

-.05*

.0

5 .2

6 -.4

1*

1.59

.6

5 -2

.68*

-2

.09

-.46

.20

-.07

.22

.55

-1.7

1 .2

6 .8

9*

-2.2

5*

-.72*

.5

0 -.7

1 -.0

6*

-.40*

-.0

6 .4

0

.48*

.1

8*

-1.6

1*

-.61*

.5

3*

-.17*

-.0

1*

.56*

-.8

7*

-.45*

2.

06*

1.15

* - .9

2*

.2 1

.08

.74*

-.0

4*

.28*

-1

.19*

-1

.41*

2.

38*

.66*

- .9

7*

- .3

0 .5

2*

.03

.OO

.69*

-.6

3*

.67*

*p <

.05

.--C

oeff

icie

nt n

ot r

epor

ted

38 TIM 6. HEATON AND CARDELL K. JACOBSON

even more evident if the husband is currently enrolled in the service. The rela- tive impact on intermarriage can be computed by taking exponents of the multi- nomial coefficients. For example, current military service of White men increases the odds of marrying a Black woman by more than eightfold (e2.18 =8.85) . Female military service dramatically increases the marriage rate between women of each racelethnicity and African American men. Military service has a particularly large influence on the likelihood that a man of any other ethnic or racial group will marry an Asian bride.

Colleges, on the other hand, are not universal melting pots. Clearly, college attendance increases the chances for outmarriage for the two lower status groups. Blacks and Hispanics who have attended college are more likely to marry into the two higher status groups. College experience also tends to increase the chances for exogamy among White men. But college attendance actually de- creases the chances that non-Hispanic White women will marry Hispanic men, that Asian women will marry White or Black men, and that Asian men will marry Black women. Thus, while college may provide an opportunity for mar- riage out of lower status groups, people in higher status groups who attend col- lege are not necessarily more likely to marry into lower status groups.

Metropolitan residence is associated with the likelihood of exogamous mar- riage in different ways for different groups. As expected, non-Hispanic Whites are much more likely to marry into a different group if they live in metropolitan areas. The results are much less consistent for spouses from non-White groups, however. Asians are generally more likely to marry endogamously if they live in metropolitan areas. For Blacks and Hispanics, metropolitan residence increases the chances of marriage into other minority groups, but decreases the likelihood of marriage to the White majority. It stands to reason that marriage to Whites is more likely in nonmetropolitan areas where Whites are such a large majority and that marriage into other minority groups is greater in areas with greater diversity. Asians not fitting this pattern may be due to their smaller number and recency of immigration.

Regional patterns of intermarriage reflect both the composition of regions and subcultural differences. Blacks and Hispanics are more concentrated in the South, and southern residence is negatively related to exogamy for these two mi- norities. Likewise, Asians and Hispanics are concentrated in the Pacific region, and they are less likely to marry exogamously in this region. Blacks and Hispanics do not intermarry in the South as frequently as might be expected given their concentration. Resistance to intermarriage remains stronger in the South than in other regions of the country. In contrast, Asians and Hispanics do intermarry in the Pacific region, perhaps reflecting greater tolerance there. More detailed geographic breakdowns would probably reveal that Blacks and Hispanics are not concentrated in the same states in the South, but that Hispanics

INTERGROUP MARRIAGE 39

and Asians do live in the same states in the Pacific region. On the other hand, the legacy of slavery may have created a wider social gap between minority groups in the South than exists along the Pacific Coast.

The hypothesis of regional subcultures is also supported by the tendency for non-Hispanic Whites to intermarry with each other minority group if they live on the Pacific Coast, but they are only more likely to marry Hispanics if they live in the South. Blacks also have higher rates of intermarriage if they live along the Pacific Coast but lower rates if they live in the South.

The effects of control variables are generally not large. The coefficients for age tend to be small and statistically nonsignificant. When the coefficients are large enough to be statistically significant, they are in the negative direction re- flecting the increase in exogamous marriage among younger cohorts. Likewise, the coefficients for socioeconomic status tend to be small and are often not sta- tistically significant. As exchange theory predicts, there is a tendency for higher status minority individuals to marry into the higher status groups (non-Hispanic White and Asian) and for lower status minority individuals to marry into the two lower status groups (Hispanic and Black). Finally, coefficients for immigration status do not show a consistent pattern. White and Black immigrants are more likely to be in exogamous marriage, while Asian and Hispanic immigrants are more likely than non-immigrants to marry endogamously.

Conclusion

Proscriptions against interracial and interethnic marriage are declining. Yet in the 1990s substantial differences in exogamy exist among racial and ethnic groups. Overall, we found low rates of exogamy for White and African Americans and higher rates for Asians and Hispanics. Opportunity structures af- fecting the size of groups, as well as diversity and integration, play an important role in facilitating outmarriage. Specifically, military service, college attendance, and area of residence each influence mate selection patterns. But the results for each of the variables differ by group, reflecting the complexity of the interracial and interethnic marriage markets.

Military service has the most consistent pattern of effects. The effect of mil- itary service is probably strong because the military experience alters several aspects of opportunity structure. Military integration increases contract, empha- sizes fair treatment, reduces social barriers, increases contact with other cultures, and reduces socioeconomic boundaries. Thus, exposure to the military environ- ment increases the likelihood of interracial marriage.

College appears to be an important opportunity structure for groups char- acterized by lower-than-average socioeconomic status, namely Blacks and Hispanics. College environments may increase contact among groups and reduce socioeconomic distinctions. But higher-status groups who attend college are not

40 TIM B. HEATON AND CARDELL K. JACOBSON

necessarily more likely to marry endogamously. Perhaps a greater concentration of Whites and Asians on college campuses enforces their tendencies toward en- dogamy. Blacks and Hispanics, on the other hand, are underrepresented on col- lege campuses and are thus more likely to marry exogamously.

Geographic variables also yield mixed results because the concentrations of minority groups have two countervailing effects. Heterogeneity does increase the likelihood of intergroup marriage, and this effect is most clearly demonstrated by higher rates of intermarriage for non-Hispanic Whites in metropolitan areas and in ethnically mixed regions. On the other hand, a greater concentration of mi- norities allows more choice within their own group, thus increasing endogamy. This effect is most evident for Blacks and Hispanics in the South and Asians in metropolitan areas. Given the strong tendency toward endogamy in all groups, the opportunity for choice within one’s own group often outweighs the opportu- nity for interaction among groups that are relatively small.

In sum, intergroup marriage is constrained by the size of groups, segrega- tion, and socioeconomic and cultural barriers. In this paper we have identified three important factors that alter opportunity structures for interaction and thus impact exogamy rates. The clearest effects are evident for military service. We speculate that this is because the military creates a multifaceted opportunity structure. College attendance and geographic concentration have less consistent influences, presumably because they do not have as great an impact of various dimensions of opportunity structure. More detailed analysis of separate dimen- sions of the opportunity structure is not possible with the limited information on marriage certificates and census data presently available. Mate selection processes are complex and are compounded by long-standing norms against in- terracial marriage. Opportunity structures appear to interact with socio- economic status, gendered roles, and tendencies toward endogamy in their influence of marriage patterns. Additional research that incorporates more vari- ables and examines local marriage markets is needed. Inclusion of a more com- plete set of variables, however, must be postponed until samples with more detailed marital histories are available.

REFERENCES

Alba, Richard D., and Reid M. Golden. 1986. “Patterns of Ethnic Marriage in the United States.”

Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. Free Press: New York. Blau, Peter M., Carolyn Beeker, and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 1984. “Intersecting Social Affiliations and

Blau, Peter M., Terry C. Blum, and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1982. “Heterogeneity and Intermarriage.”

Social Forces 65:202-19.

Intermarriage.” Social Forces 62585-606.

American Sociological Review 47:45-62.

INTERGROUP MARRIAGE 41

Blum, Terry C. 1984. “Racial Inequality and Salience: An Examination of Blau’s Theory of Social Structure.” Social Forces 62:607-16.

Farley, Reynolds. 1998. “Racial Issues: Recent Trends in Residential Patterns and Intermarriage.” Pp. 85-128 in Diversity and its Discontents, edited by Neil Smelser and Jeffrey Alexander. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fu, Xuanning, and Tim B. Heaton. 1997. Interracial Marriage in Hawaii, 1983-1994. Lewiston, N Y The Edwin Mellen Press.

Heaton, Tim B., and Stan L. Albrecht. 1997 “The Changing Pattern of Interracial Marriage.” Social Biology 43:203-217.

Hwang, Sean-Shong, Rogelio Saenz, and Benign0 E. Aguirre. 1994. “Structural and Individual Determinants of Outmarriage among Chinese-, Filipino-, and Japanese-Americans in California.” Sociological Inquiry 64:396414.

Jacobson, Cardell K., and Tim B. Heaton. 1997. “Regional and Racial and Ethnic Composition Effects on Intermarriage Rates in the United States.” Family Perspectives 30:353-67.

Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1993. “Trends in BlacWWhite Intermarriage.” Social Forces 72: 119-46. Kitano, Harry H. L., Wai-Tsang Yeung, Lynn Chai, and Herbert Hatanaka. 1984. “Asian-American

Merton, Robert K. 1941. “Intermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory.” Ps-ychiatty

Qian, Zhenchao. 1997. “Breaking the Racial Barriers: Variations in Interracial Marriage Between 1980 and 1990.” Demography 34:263-76.

Sampson, Robert J. 1984. “Group Size, Heterogeneity, and Intergroup Conflict: A Test of Blau’s Inequality and HeterogeneiQ.” Social Forces 62518-39.

Schoen, Robert, and John Wooldredge. 1989. “Marriage Choices in North Carolina and Virginia, 1969-71 and 1979-81.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:465-81.

Spickard, Paul R. 1989. Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Tucker, M. Belinda, and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan. 1990. “New Trends in Black American Interracial Marriage: The Social Structural Context.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:209-18.

Interracial Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46: 179-90.

4136 1-74.