Journal of Marital and Family Therapy July 2000,V01. 26, N0.3,293-304

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION OF MEXICAN AMERICAN

COUPLES: ISSUES OF ACCULTURATION AND CLINICAL INTERVENTION

AND NON-HISPANIC WHITE AMERICAN INTERETHNIC

Charles Negy University of Central Florida

Douglas K. Snyder Texas A & M University

Despite the increasing prevalence of interethnic marriages, remarkably little empirical literature exists for guiding clinical interventions offered to these couples. This study compared the marriages of 72 couples with one Mexican-American partner and one non-Hispanic White American partnel; 75 Mexican-American couples, and 66 non-Hispanic White couples. Overall, the interethnic couples were more similar to non-Hispanic White couples than they were to Mexican-American couples across multiple domains, with the latter group indicating modestly higher levels of relationship distress. Among interethnic couples, Mexican-American wives’ level of acculturation related signijkantly to both their own marital- and parental-role orientation and to distress in their relationships with children, as well as to their husbands’ marital distress regarding child rearing and the couple’s interactions regarding finances. Implications for clinical interventions with Mexican- and White-American interethnic couples are discussed.

The racial and ethnic demographics of the United States have changed dramatically over the last three decades. These changes are reflected in the fact that more individuals are marrying outside their own ethnic or racial group (Chan & Smith, 1995; Ibrahim & Schroeder, 1990; Salgado de Snyder & Padilla, 1982). According to a recent census, interethnic and interracial marriages increased from 3 10,000 to approximately 1.3 million from 1970 to 1994 (US. Bureau of Census, 1994). Although members of all ethnic and racial groups enter into interethnic marriages, currently the majority of interethnic marriages are ones in which one partner is non-Hispanic White and the other partner is of Hispanic descent (Berg, 1995).’ The prevalence of this marital constellation likely results from the growing number of Hispanics in the US. population relative to the number of White Americans; Hispanics currently make up 10% of the US. population and they are the fastest-growing minority group (Padilla & Salgado de Snyder, 1985; Vega, 1990).

What empirical literature exists to guide couple therapists providing services to interethnic couples? Despite the increasing number of Hispanic- and White-American mixed marriages, remarkably few studies have investigated the relationships formed by individuals from these two ethnic groups. In this study we examined the mixed relationships of Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White-American couples and contrasted these marriages with the monoethnic relationships of both Mexican-American and White- American married couples sampled from the same geographic region. We anticipated that findings from this study would contribute to an empirical literature underlying clinical interventions with this growing population.

Charles Negy, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, PO Box 161390, University of Central Florida, Orlando,

Douglas K. Snyder, PhD, is Professor and the Director of Clinical Training, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University,

Portions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August, 1998.

FL 32816.

College Station, TX 77843-4235.

July 2000 JOURNAL OF MARIZAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 293

Most of the literature regarding mixed marriages has been restricted to statistical data describing national or regional cross-ethnic marital patterns or has focused on various legal or social aspects of mixed marriages. In comparison, little has been learned about “the people in the marriages or about their relationships” (Johnson &Warren, 1994, p. 2). Prior research focusing on interethnic couples has primarily involved case studies in which a relatively small number of interethnic couples describe their experiences related to having married someone outside their own ethnic or racial group (e.g., Johnson &Warren, 1994). Moreover, most mixed-marriage studies have focused on Black-White interracial couples, and very few have investigated Hispanic and non-Hispanic-White mixed marriages (e.g., Kearl & Murguia, 1985; Salgado de Snyder & Padilla, 1982).

Nevertheless, two overarching theses dominate the literature regarding mixed marriages. The first asserts that, relative to monoethnic marriages, the cross-cultural nature of interethnic and interracial marriages makes them more susceptible to stress (e.g., Chan & Smith, 1995; Ibrahim & Schroeder, 1990; Solsbeny, 1994); the second asserts that they are at higher risk for ending in divorce (Monahan, 1970; Rankin & Maneker, 1987; Schwertfeger, 1982). Mixed marriages are thought to be less stable than monoethnic marriages due to their families’ and society’s disapproval of such unions and to the different values and customs these couples bring into their marriages. Ironically, however, despite higher divorce rates among interethnic couples relative to monoethnic couples, there is scant evidence to support the assertion that mixed marriages are more distressed than monoethnic marriages. In the absence of directly comparing mixed and monoethnic marriages, it is difficult to determine if couples in mixed marriages actually experience higher levels of distress. For example, mixed couples’ higher divorce rates may only reflect the relative independence of individuals who choose to marry outside their own ethnic group; such individuals may be more willing to dissolve an unsuccessful relationship than individuals in monoethnic marriages.

Do Mexican- and White-American interethnic couples experience greater relationship distress than comparable monoethnic groups, as suggested by previous anecdotal literature? Do the effects of inter- ethnicity vary as a function of which partner (husband or wife) is the minority group member? Does degree of acculturation-the extent to which the minority partner has adopted the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the dominant culture-influence the levels of relationship satisfaction for either the Mexican- or White- American partner? Empirical findings regarding such fundamental questions contribute to a foundation on which a scientific basis for clinical interventions with interethnic couples can be built.

We examined the interethnic relationships of Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White-American couples using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R; Snyder, 1997). Findings for these couples were compared with MSI-R data reported in a previous study (Negy & Snyder, 1997) of a sample of monoethnic Mexican-American and monoethnic White-American couples residing in the same geographic location as the interethnic sample. In order to determine how the interethnic marriages might vary as a function of the Mexican-American partner’s acculturation level, the MSI-R performance of each partner in the interethnic group was correlated with the acculturation level of the Mexican-American spouse in these dyads. Previous studies (e.g., Kagan & Madsen, 1971; Negy & Woods, 1993; O’Guinn, Imperia, & MacAdams, 1987) have found that across time many Hispanics or Mexican Americans adopt attitudes, traits, and other characteristics that are increasingly similar to those of White Americans. There is a growing consensus that acculturation should be considered when conducting research with Hispanic populations (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993; Lopez, 1988; Malgady, Rogler, & Costantino, 1987).

Finally, to complement quantitative measures concerning these interethnic marriages, additional qualitative data were obtained from the couples in this study. These findings were expected to provide additional insight into individuals’ views toward positive and negative outcomes of marrying outside their own ethnic group.

METHOD

Participants The sample included 72 interethnic couples in which one partner was Mexican American (33 husbands

and 39 wives) and the other was non-Hispanic White American; 75 couples in which both partners identified

294 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FMILY THERAPY July 2000

TABLE 1 Group-by-Gender Mean Comparisons on Sociodemographic Measures

Age Husbands Wives

Years married Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Percentage employed outside home

Prebious marriages

Number of children

Years of education

Husbands Wives

Mexican Americana White Americanb Interethnic Couples' M SD M SD M SD

34.5 33.1

9.8 9.8

0.1 0.1

1.8 1.7

14.1 14.6

8.8 8.4

7.6 7.6

0.4 0.4

1.5 1.4

2.6 2.8

41.4 12.8 39.5 12.8

14.5 11.8 14.6 12.1

0.3 1.2 0.2 0.5

1.7 1.4 1.6 1.3

15.8 3.2 16.0 2.7

36.6 34.7

9.1 10.4

0.5 0.2

1.5 I .5

15.6 15.8

8.7 8.2

8.5 13.4

0.2 0.5

1.4 1.3

2.5 2.2

93.3% 92.4% 91.7% 80.8% 78.8% 83.1%

Effects Group

8.63"

5.36'

ns

ns

12.45**

ns

"n =75; hn =66; % = 7 2 *p < .01; " p < .001

themselves as Mexican American; and 66 couples in which both partners identified themselves as White American. All couples were sampled from a region of the southwest United States bordering Mexico in which Mexican Americans make up approximately 85% of the population and non-Hispanic Whites about 14%. Sampling procedures were identical for all groups and promoted diversity across age, education, and other sociodemographic dimensions. Specifically, graduate students in psychology recruited couples from the local community as partial credit for research experience in assessment and cultural diversity. Students were instructed to seek broad representation of couples across diverse socioeconomic strata and were prohibited from recruiting members of their own immediate family. They were otherwise free to draw on their own personal and organizational contacts in the community. Given the frequent reluctance of minority group members to participate in research (cf., Okazaki & Sue, 1995), we anticipated that this recruitment strategy might facilitate the sample's diversity. Informal assessment of the sampling method indicated that approximately 80% of individuals who were approached agreed to participate.

Study participants had to be at least 18 years of age, legally married, and able to speak and read English; most Mexican-American participants were bilingual. Interviewers provided the study rationale, obtained informed consent, and administered all measures to couples in their homes. Spouses were instructed to complete measures separately and without collaboration. Couples were provided no feedback regarding their responses, but were encouraged to contact the first author if they had any questions or concerns.

Despite identical sampling methods, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that the three groups differed on several demographic criteria (F (12,322) = 3 . 3 8 , ~ < .001; see Table 1). Subsequent

July 2000 JOURNAL OF,MARIlXL AND FAMILY THERAPY 295

comparisons revealed that the monoethnic White couples were significantly older and had been married longer. Monoethnic Mexican- American couples reported nearly 2 fewer years’ education than White- American or interethnic couples. In comparing mixed marriages with both monoethnic groups combined, the interethnic couples differed from monoethnic couples only in terms of education ( F (1, 211) = 4.39, p < .05). There were no differences among groups in terms of previous marriages or number of children, nor were there significant group-by-gender interactions on any of these variables.

Both women and men of both ethnicities were equally likely to be employed outside the home, and, for men, there were no ethnic differences in occupational level (56% professional or managerial; 17% administrative; 27% technical, skilled, or semiskilled labor). Among women, there was a significant effect with monoethnic Mexican-American respondents reporting a lower rate of managerial or professional occupation relative to the other two groups (53% vs. 74%, respectively) and a higher rate of clerical or technical positions (24% vs. 8%; xz, (2N = 213) = 12.77, p < .01).

Because of ethnic group differences in age, length of marriage, and years of education, subsequent multivariate analyses controlled for demographic differences on these three variables. Two-group comparisons of monoethnic vs. interethnic couples controlled only for education.

Measures MSI-R. All respondents completed the MSI-R (Snyder, 1997), which is a 150-item, true-false, self-

report measure of relationship functioning designed to identify both the nature and intensity of distress in distinct areas of partners’ interaction. The MSI-R includes two validity scales, one global distress scale, and 10 additional scales assessing specific dimensions of the relationship. Scale names, abbreviations, and brief descriptions are as follows:

Inconsistency (INC). A validity scale assessing the individual’s consistency in responding to item content. (High scores reflect greater inconsistency.) Conventionalization (CW). A validity scale assessing individuals’ tendencies to distort the appraisal of their relationship in a socially desirable direction. (High scores reflect denial of common relationship shortcomings.) Global distress (GDS). Measures individuals’ overall dissatisfaction with the relationship. Afective communication (AFC). Evaluates individuals’ dissatisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by their partners. Problem-solving communication (PSC). Assesses the couple’s general ineffectiveness in resolving differences. Aggression (AGG). Measures the level of intimidation and physical aggression experienced by respondents from their partner. Time together (TTO). Evaluates the couple’s companionship as expressed in time shared in leisure activity. Disagreement about finances (FIN). Measures relationship discord regarding the management of finances. Sexual dissatisfaction (SEX). Assesses dissatisfaction with the frequency and quality of intercourse and other sexual activity. Role orientation (ROR). Evaluates the respondent’s advocacy for a traditional vs. nontraditional orientation toward marital and parental gender roles. (High scores reflect a nontraditional orientation.) Family history of distress (FAM). Reflects the disruption of relationships within the respondent’s family of origin. Dissatisfaction with children (DSC). Assesses the relationship quality between respondents and their children as well as parental concern regarding one or more children’s emotional and behavioral well- being. Conjlict over child rearing (CCR). Evaluates the extent of conflict between partners regarding child- rearing practices.

296 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY July 2000

The MSI-R is administered to each partner separately and requires approximately 25 min to complete. Individuals’ responses are scored along the 13 profile scales and are plotted on a standard profile sheet based on gender-specific norms using normalized T-scores. Each of the scales excluding the validity scales (INC and CNV) and ROR are scored in a direction whereby higher scores reflect higher levels of relationship distress. Coefficients of internal consistency for the 12 scales (excluding INC) average .82 (range = .70-.93) and test-retest stability coefficients average .79 (range = .74-.88).*

Previous studies have supported both the convergent and discriminant validity of the MSI-R scales. Actuarial tables linking scale scores to descriptors of the relationship provided by clinicians and both spouses show the MSI-R scales to relate to a broad range of external criteria consistent with their interpretive intent (Snyder, 1997; Snyder & Aikman, 1999). In addition, previous analyses of internal consistency, structural equivalence, and group-mean profiles have suggested the appropriateness of the MSI-R for use with Mexican-American respondents (Negy & Snyder, 1997).

Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans. Mexican-American respondents also completed the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA; CuCllar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980). The ARSMA contains 20 items, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5; the total score indicates the mean rating across items. High or moderately high scores ( > 3.2) reflect relatively high levels of acculturation to predominantly White-American culture, whereas low or moderately low scores (< 2.8) indicate low levels of acculturation. A key component to the ARSMA’s broad use in acculturation research is its lack of reliance on a singular, more restrictive criterion (such as language preference), which can distort respondents’ acculturation level (cf., Negy, 1993; Negy &Woods, 1992).

The ARSMA has been shown to have high internal consistency (a = .88) and good stability over a 1- month interval (r = 30). In the nearly 20 years since its publication, dozens of studies using samples of Mexican Americans have been published using the ARSMA or proxy measures of acculturation adapted from this measure. Various studies have supported the scale’s validity as a measure of acculturation among Mexican Americans (Cu6llar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991). Although scores on the ARSMA reflect the extent to which the respondent has characteristics of and exposure to White-American culture, proficiency or level of adaptive functioning within that culture is not indicated by these scores (Vega, Kolody, & Valle, 198Q3

Qualitative measures. In addition to objective measures, both partners in interethnic marriages were individually asked to respond to three open-ended questions: (1) Briefly indicate why you chose to marry someone outside your own ethnic group; (2) Can you name one good thing or benefit from being married to someone of your spouse’s ethnic group?; and (3) Can you name one bad thing or problem about being married to someone who does not belong to your ethnic group? After initially inspecting responses to the open-ended questions, responses to the first question were coded into three categories, and the responses to the second and third questions were coded into five categories each. To determine chance-corrected interrater agreement, kappa statistics for the three questions were calculated and judged to be adequate (K = .75, .90, and .76, respectively; allp < .01).

RESULTS

Comparison of Interethnic with Monoethnic Couples on the MSI-R Do mixed marriages differ in specific domains of relationship satisfaction from marriages in which

both partners belong to the same ethnic group? To address this question, differences between interethnic and monoethnic couples were examined using multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) controlling for group differences in years of education. Consistent with data-analytic strategies addressing non- independence in couples’ data (see Kashy & Snyder, 1995), analyses were conducted using a mixed-model factorial design treating gender as a within-couples repeated measure factor. Mean normalized T-scores and standard deviations on the MSI-R for each of the six marriage type X gender subgroups are shown in Table 2. Analyses examined effects for type of marriage (interethnic vs. monoethnic), gender, and type-by- gender interaction.

Despite previous literature suggesting greater marital distress among interethnic couples, there were no

July 2000 JOURVAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 297

TABLE 2 Group-by-Gender Mean Comparisons on the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised

(MSI-R) Subscales

Mexican American” White Americanb Interethnic Couplesc M SD M SD M SD

INC Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

Husbands Wives

CNV

GDS

AFC

PSC

AGG

IT0

FIN

SEX

ROR

FAM

DSC

CCR

52.4 53.8

49.7 48.5

53.1 52.9

52.0 51.5

51.6 52.0

53.6 52.7

52.3 51.5

52.1 51.0

49.5 49.3

52.4 53.4

49.6 50.6

47.3 47.3

50.3 49.7

9.1 8.4

10.2 9.8

9.6 7.8

9.1 10.0

9.8 9.7

11.4 9.1

9.7 10.6

10.4 8.6

9.0 9.0

8.1 7.1

9.3 7.7

9.0 9.6

7.6 8.5

48.8 49.3

52.0 50.6

47.0 48.2

48.8 48.3

48.2 46.4

49.2 48.9

48.9 49.5

49.7 48.7

49.5 48.9

51.2 52.3

49.1 49.0

47.8 48.4

47.7 49.4

8.7 9.24

9.64 8.9

8.4 7.9

9.0 7.8

9.4 8.9

8.9 8.3

8.9 9.6

9.4 8.6

8.6 7.2

9.8 9. I

9.4 10.1

9.7 10.4

7.9 9.0

51.8 9.4

9.9 50.6

50.5 49.2

49.0 47.3

50.7 48.2

50.4 49.2

51.3 48.6

50.4 51.4

49.6 48.4

55.1 52.9

49.7 50.6

50.51 50.4

49.9

10.1 9.4

8.9 9.2

9.3 8.8

8.6 9.2

8.4 9.8

9.1 9.2

9.2 9.7

9.5 10.4

9.8 9.1

8.1 7.9

8.6 9.6

1 .o 9.4

7.5 52.4 9.7

Note. For the MSI-R: INC = Inconsistency, CNV = Conventionalization, GDS = Global distress, AFC =Affective Communication, PSC = Problem-solving communication, AGG =Aggression, TTO = Time together, FIN = Disagreement about finances, SEX = Sexual dissatisfaction, ROR = Role orientation, FAM = Family history of distress, DCS = Dissatisfaction with children, CCR = Conflict over child rearing. “n = 75; hn = 66; Ln = 72.

significant main effects in the present sample for either type of marriage or gender, indicating that monoethnic and interethnic couples do not differ substantially in levels of relationship satisfaction across specific domains. Only the MANCOVA type-by-gender interactions based on analysis of all respondents on the 1 1 nonchild scales were significant (F (1 1, 200) = 2.23, p c .02). Follow-up ANCOVAs indicated that on the INC subscale, wives from interethnic marriages showed modestly lower (more consistent) scores, and on the ROR subscale, husbands from interethnic marriages showed modestly higher (less traditional) scores (p c .05 for both). Although statistically significant, the related effect sizes were modest (Cohen’s d = .25 and .38 for INC and ROR, respectively; Cohen, 1988).

Comparison of Interethnic with Mexican-American and White-American Couples on the MSI-R Interethnic marriages might fail to differ from a combined sample of monoethnic couples by virtue of

falling midway between subgroups of Mexican American and White American respondents on the MSI-R. Consequently, we conducted an additional set of analyses comparing all three groups, with follow-up ANCOVAs and painvise comparisons delineating specific effects. Group differences were examined using MANCOVAs controlling for age, length of marriage, and years of education. Analyses examined effects for marital group (interethnic vs. monoethnic Mexican American vs. monoethnic White American), gender, and group-by-gender interaction.

Of these comparisons, only tests of the main effect of group were significant (for the MANCOVA based on all couples ( F (22, 394) = 1.85, p c .Ol). Follow-up ANCOVAs indicated significant group effects on three MSI-R scales (p < .05) for GDS, AFC, and DSC, with trends (p < .lo) on two additional scales (PSC and AGG). Mexican-American respondents from monoethnic marriages scored higher, reflecting greater distress, on each of these scales except DSC on which both husbands and wives from interethnic marriages reported greater distress regarding their children relative to respondents in the other two groups. Again, related effect sizes were modest (Cohen’s d ranging from .29 to .49).

Cornparisons within Interethnic Group Does relationship satisfaction vary among interethnic couples as a function of which partner (husband

vs. wife) is of Mexican-American descent? Previous literature regarding role differentiation among tra&tional Mexican-American versus White-American couples suggests greater hierarchical structure emphasizing husband dominance in Mexican-American marriages (Falicov, 1982, 1998). One might hypothesize greater marital-role strain among interethnic couples in which the husband is Mexican- American, due to increased potential for differences in partners’ respective role expectations. Hence, additional analyses were conducted in this study to examine potential differences among interethnic couples as a function of the interaction between gender and ethnicity. No significant effects were obtained (p > S O for all analyses), indicating that gender of the Mexican-American partner had no impact on relationship satisfaction of interethnic couples.

Acculturation and Relationship Distress among Interethnic Couples Some investigators (e.g., Casas & Ortiz, 1985) have suggested that levels of higher acculturation often

demand renegotiation of traditional marital roles and greater role strain, particularly for women. In their analysis of acculturation and marital distress among monoethnic Mexican-American couples, Negy and Snyder (1997) found that level of acculturation was modestly related to marital distress on three MSI-R scales (CNV, TTO, and SEX) for Mexican-American wives but unrelated to distress for Mexican-American husbands. They argued that the role of acculturation in marital relationships is a complex one, depending on such factors as relative expectations of the two partners and acculturation levels within their extended family as well as immediate social-support system. Thus, level of acculturation might be predicted to exert even greater effects among interethnic couples in which partners enter marriage with different cultural backgrounds and expectations.

Consequently, the acculturation level of the Mexican-American partner for interethnic couples in this study was correlated with each partner’s scores on the MSI-R. For couples in which the wife was the Mexican-American partner (n = 39), wives’ level of acculturation related significantly to both their own

July 2000 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 299

TABLE 3 Qualitative Descriptors of Interethnic Marital Experiences

Mexican- White- White- Mexican- American American American American husbandsa wives“ husbandsb wivesh

Reasons for marrying outside own ethnic group: Partner’s ethnicity irrelevant to decision Liked specific aspects of partner’s culture Other

Benefits of marrying outside own ethnic group: Broader appreciation of partner’s culture No perceived benefits More enriched life for one’s children Enjoy Mexican Americans’ strong family unity Other

No perceived disadvantages Society’s or family’s lack of acceptance Conflict related to differences in cultures Language barrier with partner’s friends or family Other

Disadvantages of marrying outside own ethnic group:

85 % 9% 6%

70% 15% 0% 0%

15%

42% 15% 24% 9% 9%

94% 3% 3%

55% 0%

18% 21% 6%

36% 24% 12% 15% 12%

85% 13% 2%

33% 15% 3%

26% 23%

41% 18% 23% 15% 3%

79% 15% 5%

33% 31% 13% 0%

23%

33% 18% 26% 13% 10%

“n = 33; bn = 39.

<OR ( r = .33) and DSC scores (v = .43), and to their husbands’ CCR ( r = Sl) , DSC ( r = .41), and FIN scores r = .38; p < .05 for all analyses). By contrast, for couples in which the husband was the Mexican-American mtner (n = 33), husbands’ level of acculturation failed to relate significantly to any of their own or their wives’ scores on the MSI-R.

Qualitative Findings Regarding Experiences of Interethnic Couples Table 3 summarizes husbands’ and wives’ responses to three open-ended questions eliciting qualitative

descriptors of their experiences as partners in an interethnic marriage. The overall similarity of response patterns across gender and ethnicity was remarkable. For example, when asked why they chose to marry someone outside their own ethnic group, the vast majority of individuals (79%-94% across the four gender X ethnicity subgroups) reported that their spouse’s ethnicity had no bearing on their decision to marry him or her. A relatively small percentage of individuals indicated that they were attracted to specific aspects of their spouse’s culture (e.g., “I liked knowing that Hispanics value their families so much,” or “Hispanic men are frequently domineering, and I wanted to marry a man who would treat me as his equal”).

When asked to identify a benefit of marrying someone of their spouse’s ethnic group, the most frequently cited benefit was the opportunity to obtain a broader understanding and appreciation of the spouse’s culture (e.g., “Being exposed to a different culture enriches your life; we can take the best aspects of both”). Among wives in both ethnic groups, a commonly cited benefit was the belief that their children would have a more enriched life by being a part of two cultures (e.g., “My husband and I agree that our children will benefit from being more familiar with both cultures”). Among White-American husbands and wives, many also expressed their perception that Mexican-Americans have closely knit families (e.g., “Hispanic people are very family oriented, love life, and respect family traditions”).

Finally, when asked to identify difficulties related to having an interethnic marriage, the most frequent

300 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2000

response of husbands and wives in both ethnic groups was that there were no unique problems resulting from marriage to someone of a dissimilar ethnic group. A smaller percentage of participants indicated that negative aspects of interethnic relationships were family members’ and society’s lack of acceptance, or occasional conflicts related to cultural differences. Regarding cultural differences, some couples reported that such conflicts were most common in the area of child rearing-an area of distress consistent with the relatively high DSC- and CCR-MSI-R scores among interethnic couples (e.g., “We have different beliefs about how our children should be raised”).

DISCUSSION

Do Mexican- and White-American interethnic couples experience greater relationship distress than comparable monoethnic groups? Despite previous literature suggesting that interethnic relationships are inherently stressful due to inevitable cultural conflicts, this view was not supported by current findings. Overall, the interethnic Mexican- and White-American couples in this study were quite similar to the monoethnic White-American couples with respect to their satisfaction across a variety of relationship domains. Moreover, the interethnic couples reported relatively greater satisfaction with the affective dimension of their relationship and relatively less overall marital distress when compared to monoethnic Mexican-American couples. Even on these dimensions, although differences on the MSI-R between interethnic couples and monoethnic Mexican-American couples were statistically significant, the magnitude of these differences was relatively small.

Interethnic couples did express significantly higher distress concerning their children compared to monoethnic couples. Moreover, this effect was greater among highly acculturated Mexican-American wives and their White-American husbands, who also reported greater marital conflict over child rearing. What factors might account for these differences? Anecdotal literature commonly describes biracial and biethnic children as experiencing unique difficulties such as ambivalence over their racial or ethnic identity (Brandell, 1988; Overmier, 1990), lower self-esteem (Lyles, Yancey, Grace, & Carter, 1985), stress related to dealing with conflicting cultural demands (Johnson & Nagoshi, 1986), and feelings of marginality in both cultures (Brown, 1990; Gibbs, 1987). Although most of this literature has described children of Black and White parents, these concerns may generalize to children of Mexican- and White-American parents. Moreover, it is likely that such challenges create additional stress for the parents of these children as they struggle to support their children in forming a cultural identity.

However, an alternative explanation for this effect may relate to conflicting role expectations among partners in an interethnic marriage. Among the interethnic couples in this study, Mexican-American wives’ acculturation level correlated positively with their own (but not with their husbands’) nontraditional marital and parental gender roles. It seems likely that child rearing makes up a critical domain in which marital-role strain and differences in expectations are most apt to be experienced. As Crohn (1998) has noted, “Differences in cultural backgrounds become most obvious in child rearing” (p. 304). Although husbands in interethnic marriages reported modestly more egalitarian role attitudes than their male counterparts in monoethnic marriages, whether these attitudes are realized behaviorally in greater involvement in child- rearing responsibilities and sharing of their wives’ attitudes concerning discipline remains unknown. Interethnic couples may have special issues regarding parenting and child rearing based either in differences in their own expectations around role division in childcare or discipline or in exaggerated differences in role attitudes between their respective families of origin. They may also be more likely than monoethnic couples to experience child-rearing differences concerning religion, such as attendance in church or parochial schools.

Support for suppositions regarding potential role conflict among interethnic couples also comes from the observation of greater disagreement regarding finances among White-American husbands married to highly acculturated Mexican-American wives. One might surmise that strife in this domain reflects conflicts between Mexican-American wives’ asserting an active role in management of family finances and a broader sociocultural context that strongly emphasizes the male role of breadwinner and fiscal manager-partic- ularly in the rural southwestern environment in which these couples live.

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 301

As the prevalence of interethnic marriages increases, so too does the likelihood that a significant proportion of these couples will seek outside assistance for their relationship from marital and family therapists and other mental health professionals. It is critical that, in conceptualizing the difficulties that interethnic couples confront, clinicians not fall prey to some of the assumptions characterizing previous literature in this area. For example, previous researchers have analyzed interethnic and interracial relationships from a social-dominance perspective with respect to presumed power differences between majority-status partners and minority-status partners (e.g., Chan & Smith, 1995; Kearl & Murguia, 1985); others have speculated that individuals often have irrational motives for entering into such relationships, such as the wish to affirm antiracist liberalism or to express symbolically their rebellion against their parents or society (Lehrman, 1967; Porterfield, 1978). However, these authors have been criticized for failing to recognize that individuals typically enter into interethnic relationships because of love or common interests and that “most mixed marriages are no more ‘mixed’ than other marriages” (Johnson & Warren, 1994, p. 7). In our study, Mexican- and White-American interethnic marriages did not differ substantially from monoethnic marriages. Moreover, interethnic couples’ responses to open-ended questions suggested that their motives for marriage are no different from most individuals’ motives to marry and that, by and large, ethnicity had little influence on their choice of partner. It should be noted that these findings may be influenced by the specific region from which couples were sampled, in which Mexican-Americans make up the dominant ethnic group. That is, interethnic couples may experience higher distress when the “minority” member from a larger societal perspective also represents a local minority group.

Although no more distressed overall than couples from monoethnic marriages, interethnic couples seeking therapy need sensitivity to unique concerns confronting couples from diverse cultural backgrounds from their therapist. For example, Crohn (1998) emphasizes the importance of exploring couples’ own understanding of potential intercultural conflicts; he offers guidelines for eliciting an in-depth cultural history to delineate both the differences and similarities between the cultural and religious milieus of partners’ families of origin. Similarly, McGoldrick and Preto (1984) highlight factors influencing the degree of adjustment required in interethnic marriages. Among these are differences in values between the cultural groups involved, partners’ appreciation for each other’s heritage and their level of acculturation to the dominant culture, the interaction of gender-linked roles with cultural differences, and acceptance of the couple’s relationship by their respective families of origin. Despite the commonality of fundamental issues confronting interethnic couples, Falicov (1995) cautions against broad generalizations, noting that “factors that make for success or failure, happiness, or unhappiness, in a marriage are extremely complex and cannot merely be reduced to degrees of cultural commonalities and differences” (p. 23 1). Thus, the therapist’s familiarity with common issues confronting interethnic couples must be complemented by an understanding of the unique strengths and challenges confronting a given couple and their strategies for coping with difficulties.

Given the distinct challenges they face, interethnic couples not seeking therapy may nevertheless benefit from support groups or brief psychoeducational interventions aimed at assisting them with unique stressors confronting the interethnic marriage. As some interethnic couples expressed in response to open- ended questions, differences in cultural expectations-particularly regarding child rearing-may contribute to conflict concerning specific issues or domains. Language barriers may contribute to difficulties in drawing on a shared social-support system including friends, the church or other community groups, and especially members of each partner’s respective family of origin. Interethnic couples may also benefit from interventions aimed at helping them cope with society’s or family members’ disapproval of their relationship, and with potential rejection of their biethnic children by their monoethnic peers.

The results of this study emphasize the importance of building an empirical foundation for guiding clinical interventions with interethnic couples. For example, findings for these Mexican- and White- American interethnic couples may not generalize to other interracial (e.g., Black and White) couples given the unique social challenges such couples face related to the history of Black and White relations in the United States (Simpson & Yinger, 1985). Marital and family therapists should examine their assumptions regarding individual and sociocultural dynamics affecting interethnic couples and pursue opportunities to become better informed about relevant interventions with this growing population.

302 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY July 2000

REFERENCES

Berg, R. R. (1995). Low fertility among intermarried Mexican Americans: An assessment of three hypotheses. Unpublished

Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist,

Brandell, J. R. (1988). Treatment of the biracial child: Theoretical and clinical issues. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and

Brown, P. M. (1990). Biracial identity and social marginality. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 319-337. Casas. J. M., & Ortiz, S. (1985). Exploring the applicability of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for assessing level of marital

Chan, A. Y., & Smith, K. R. (1995). Perceptions of marital stability of Black-White intermarriages. In C. K. Jacobson (Ed.).

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York Academic. Crohn, J. (1998). Intercultural couples. Jn M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in

CuCllar, I., Amold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican-Americans-II: A revision of the

Cutllar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations.

Falicov, C. J. (1982). Mexican families. In M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp.

Falicov, C. J. (1995). Cross-cultural marriages. In N. S. Jacobson &A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy

Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York Guilford. Gibbs, J. T. (1987). Identity and marginality: Issues in the treatment of biracial adolescents. American Journal of

Ibrahim, F. A,, & Schroeder, D. G. (1990). Cross-cultural couples counseling: A developmental, psychoeducational intervention.

Johnson, R. C., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1986). The adjustment of offspring of within-group and interracialhntercultural marriages: A

Johnson, W. R., & Warren, D. M. (Eds.). (1994). Inside the mixed marriage: Accounts of changing attitudes, patterns, and

Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. C. (1971). Cooperation and competition of Mexican, Mexican-American, and Anglo-American

Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7,

Keari, M. C., & Murguia, E. (1985). Age differences of spouses in Mexican American intermarriage: Exploring the cost of

Lehrman, S. R. (1967). Psychopathology in mixed marriages. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 38, 67-82. Lopez, S. (1988). The empirical basis of ethnocultural and linguistic bias in mental health evaluations of Hispanics. American

Lyles, M. R., Yancey, A,, Grace, C., & Carter, J. H. (1985). Racial identity and self-esteem: Problems peculiar to biracial

Malgady, R. G., Rogler, L. H., & Costantino, G. (1987). Ethnocultural and linguistic bias in mental health evaluation of

McGoldrick, M., & Preto, N. G. (1984). Ethnic intermarriage: Implications for therapy. Family Process, 23, 347-364. Monahan, T. (1970). Are intermarriages less stable? Social Forces, 48, 461-473. Negy, C. (1993). Anglo- and Hispanic-Americans’ performance on the Family Attitude Scale and its implications for improving

Negy, C., & Snyder, D. K. (1997). Ethnicity and acculturation: Assessing Mexican-American couples’ relationships using the

Negy, C., &Woods, D. J. (1992). The importance of acculturation in understanding research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic

Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1993). Mexican- and Anglo-American differences on the Psychological Screening Inventory Journal

doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

48, 629-637.

Development, 16, 176187.

adjustment with Mexican Americans. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 47, 1023-1027.

Americanfamilies: Issues in race and ethniciry (pp. 369-386). New York Garland.

clinical practice (pp. 295-308). New York: Guilford.

original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199-217.

134-163). New York Guilford.

(pp. 23 1-246). New York: Guilford.

Orthopvchiat?, 57, 265-278.

Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21, 193-205.

comparison of personality factor scores. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 279-284.

perceptions of cross-culfural and interracial marriages. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

children of two ages under four instructional sets. Developmental Psychology, 5, 32-39.

338-348.

minority assimilation. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 453-460.

Psychologist, 43, 1095-1 097.

children. Journal of the American Academy of Child PsychiatT, 24, 15e153.

Hispanics. American Psychologist, 42, 228-234.

measures of acculturation. Psychological Reports, 73, 121 1-1217.

Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 9, 414-421.

Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 224-247.

July 2000 JOURNAL OF MRITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 303

of Personality Assessment, 60, 543-555.

Mexican-American wives. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 78-92. O’Guinn, T. C., Imperia, G., & MacAdams, E. A. (1987). Acculturation and perceived family decision-making input among

Okazaki, S., & Sue, S. (1995). Methodological issues in assessment research with ethnic minorities. Psychological Assessment,

Overmier, K. (1990). Biracial adolescents: Areas of conflict in identity formation. Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 14,

Padilla, A. M., & Salgado de Snyder, N. (1985). Counseling Hispanics: Strategies for effective intervention. In P. Pedersen (Ed.),

Porterfield, E. P. (1978). Black and White mixed marriages. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Rankin, R., & Maneker, J. (1987). Correlates of marital duration and black-white intermarriage in California. Journal of

Divorce, 11(2), 5147. Rogler, L., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health status among Hispanics. American

Psychologist, 46, 585-597. Salgado de Snyder, N., & Padilla, A. M. (1982). Cultural and ethnic maintenance of interethnically married Mexican Americans.

Human Organization, 41, 359-362. Schwertfeger, M. (1982). Interethnic marriages and divorces in Hawaii: A panel study of 1968 first marriages. Marriage and

Family Review, 5, 49-60. Simpson, G., & Yinger, J. (1985). Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis of prejudice and discrimination (5th ed.). New

York Plenum. Snyder, D. K. (1997). Manual for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological

Services. Snyder, D. K., & Aikman, G. G. (1999). The Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), Use of psycho-

logical testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (2nd ed., pp. 1173-1210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Solsberry, P. W. ( 1 994). Interracial couples in the United States of America: Implications for mental health counseling. Journal

ofMental Health Counseling, 16, 304-317. US. Bureau of Census. (1994). Current population reports, population characteristics, P20-484, marital status and living

arrangements. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. Vega, W. A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980s: A decade of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1015-1024. Vega, W. A,, Kolody, B., & Valle, R. (1988). Marital strain, coping, and depression among Mexican-American women. Journal

7, 367-375.

157-176.

Handbook of cross-cultural counseling and therapy (pp. 157-164). New York Praeger.

of Marriage and the Family, 50, 391403.

NOTES

304

The term “Hispanic” is not preferred by all members of this ethnic group. However, in order to eliminate potential confusion by using other terms interchangeably (e.g.. Latino, Chicano), “Hispanic” will be used throughout this article when refemng to persons who trace their heritage to Spanish origins. The exception to this is when we refer specifically to persons of Mexican descent living in the United States, to whom we refer as Mexican Americans. Similarly, we use the term “Whites” or “White Americans” to refer to Euro-Americans not of Hispanic descent. The Inconsistency (INC) scale comprises 20 pairs of items in which the two items making up each pair are either (a) similar in content and should be answered in the same direction, or (b) dissimilar or nearly opposite in content and should be answered in opposite directions. Item pairs were sampled across the entire range of construct domains reflected in the MSI-R item pool. Hence, coefficients of internal consistency are not appropriate measures for this scale. Different views persist regarding both the linearity and multidimensionality of acculturation. We used the overall ARSMA score because it has been studied more extensively than alternative measures of acculturation for use with Mexican Americans.

JOURNAL OF MARZTAL AND FmZLY THERAPY July 2000