The Changing Landscape of Race, Culture, and Family Life: Interracial Couples’ Contribution to the Conversation

White, Theresa Renee; Love, Susan M.; DeBose, Herman L.; Loprieno, Daniele

doi:10.22158/wjssr.v2n1p24

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Less is known about college students’ attitudes toward relationships that cross Hispanic ethnic lines. In general, though, the literature suggests that participating in a cross-group relationship that includes a Black partner may be more taboo and associated with greater social stressors than other cross-group combinations (Baptist, Craig, and Nicholson 2018; Livingston and Brown 2017; White et al 2015). Recognition of their marginalized treatment may increase the salience of this particular racial boundary crossing, thereby reducing the likelihood college students will engage in an IR/IER that includes one Black partner and increasing the likelihood that, if they do so, they will consistently label it as “interracial.”…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

College Students and “Interracial” Relationships: How Our Measures Matter

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use data from a random sample of students collected at two large public universities, one in the Midwestern region and one in the Southeastern region of the U.S., to document the prevalence of self-reported “interracial” romantic relationships (SR-IRRs) and the extent to which self-identifications differ from researcher-defined categorizations that label as “interracial/interethnic” all partnerships that cross racial or Latino/Hispanic ethnic boundaries (RD-IRRs). Our findings show that a substantial percentage of students in relationships that cross racial/ethnic lines do not identify them as “interracial.” As a result, measures of SR-IRR and RD-IRR produce very different prevalence figures for cross-group relationships (SR-IRR = 18% of respondents; RDIRR = 24%). The disjuncture between self-reports and researcher-defined categorizations is particularly pronounced for Hispanics and, to a lesser degree, non-Hispanic Whites. The consistency with which relationships that include non-Hispanic Black individuals are labeled, however, stands out as unique: every instance of racial/ethnic boundary crossing that involved an individual from this group was labeled as “interracial.” Multivariate analyses identify significant predictors of SR-IRRs and RDIRRs and how race/ethnicity, nativity status, and university location interact to shape relationship engagement and the likelihood of self-identifying relationships as “interracial.” Our discussion concludes with implications and suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%