Social Behaviorism Perspectives on Interethnic Marriage in the U.S. 1

1

Chapter 1:

Social Behaviorism Perspectives on Interethnic Marriage in the U.S.[1]

Throughout the decades following the U.S. Civil Rights Era of the 1960s, many scholars within the interdisciplinary field of social psychology have maintained an active interest in the subject area of intergroup relations (for reviews, see Brewer & R. J. Brown, 1998; Stephan, 1985; Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010). In addition, throughout that time span (which coincides with the post-U.S. Women’s Rights Era; Spence, Deaux, & Helmreich, 1985), many scholars within social psychology have actively pursued the subject area of interpersonal relations (for reviews, see Berscheid, 1985; Berscheid & Reis, 1998; M. S. Clark & Lemay, 2010). However, relatively few social psychologists have immersed themselves simultaneously within the subject areas of intergroup relations and interpersonal relations (Gaines, 1997). Perhaps as a result, the number of published empirical studies regarding relationship processesamong interethnic married couples in the United States is rather small (for a review, see Gaines, E. M. Clark, & Afful, 2015).

One of the “masters of social psychology” (Schellenberg, 1978) was George Herbert Mead (1934/1967), whose theory of social behaviorism addressed individuals’ behavior as influenced jointly by individuals’ role expectations and by individuals’ self-perceptions (Allport, 1968/1985). As it turns out, Mead’s social behaviorism was developed long before the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Era(s) gave rise to tremendous change within American society. Nevertheless, Mead was a keen observer of the dynamic tensionthat existed between social stability and social change within the U.S. during his lifetime For example, commenting on the effects of globalization on the collective American psyche several decades before “globalization” became a buzzword within and beyond the social sciences, Mead declared: “…[We have begun to] realize that what takes place in India, in Afghanistan, in Mesopotamia, is entering into our lives, so that we are getting what we term ‘international mindedness’” (1934/1967, p. 270).

In the present book, we draw upon Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism as we survey the conceptual and empirical landscape regarding identity and interethnic marriage within the United States. Regarding key concepts, we shall define identity as individuals’ answer to the question, “Who am I?” (see Allport, 1961/1963); and we shall define interethnic marriage as any marriage that involves partners who differ in their racial, religious, and/or national group memberships (see Goffman, 1963). We will be especially interested in the processes through which individuals’ identities are reflected in the establishment, maintenance, and possible breakdown of interethnic marital relationships. As we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that struck down all existing state anti-“miscegenation” laws as unconstitutional, and as we note thepersistence of within-ethnic group pairings in the vast majority of marriages in the U.S. (even though the percentage of cross-ethnic group pairings has risen to 8% of all marriages in the U.S.; Passel, Wang, & P. Taylor, 2010), we concur withGaines, E. M. Clark, and Afful (2015) that the topic of identity and interethnic marriage is timely as well as important.

FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIAL BEHAVIORISM

Before delving into social behaviorism, we note that Mead’s Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (1934/1967) represents a collaborative effort among Mead’s family members and former students (especially Charles Morris) to pay homage to Mead’s scholarship, after Mead had died (Huebner, 2012). Various students’ lecture notes (some of which were typewritten, others of which were in their original handwritten form), along with unpublished manuscripts and lecture notes from Mead, were compiled, edited, and often augmented by commentaries from Morris and colleagues. Thus, although Mead has been hailed as a “master of social psychology” (Schellenberg, 1978), results of Hueber’s (2012) investigation into Mead’s archived materials indicate that Mind, Self, and Society is best viewed as a joint effort, not solely Mead’s contribution to the social-psychological literature.

Keeping in mind the social process by which Mind, Self, and Society(Mead, 1934/1967) was constructed, we also note that Mead’s social behaviorism shows promise – not just as a “universal” theory of links among individuals’ identity, behavior, and societal context (House, 1973) but also as a theory of self-concept that is sufficiently flexible to account for the unique social-psychological experiences of African-descent persons, among other socially defined groups (Nobles, 1973). Furthermore, social behaviorism is a pragmatic theory, addressing the practical consequences of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and actions (Troyer, 1946). Little wonder, then, that Mead himself has been described as a “sociological classic” (da Silva, 2006).

Social Behaviorism as Encompassing Role Theory

Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism is a broad theory that encompasses role theory (i.e., the perspective that society exerts considerable influence on individuals’ behavior, which in turn may affect the ways that individuals define themselves; Schellenberg, 1978). Role theory helps to explain how societies manage to remain relatively stable across time (Stryker & Statham, 1985). At a minimum, according to role theory, societies prescribe norms (whether implicitly or explicitly) concerning behavioral expectations for members of a particular social group. However, to the extent that individuals within a group internalize those norms (especially as the result of socialization by societal agents, such as families, religious institutions, and educational institutions), individuals not only will tend to act in accordance with those norms over the short term but also will tend to define themselves in a manner that is consistent with their role-prescribed behavior over the long term.

Within social psychology, the relevance of role theory to individuals’ behavior and, hence, to individuals’ self-definitions has been especially evident within the literature on gender roles (i.e., “normative expectations about the division of labor between the sexes and to gender-related rules about social interactions that exist within a particular cultural-historical context”;Spence, Deaux, and Helmreich, 1985, p. 150). The terms masculinity(alluding to stereotypes concerning appropriate behavior for men) and femininity(alluding to stereotypes concerning appropriate behavior for women) frequently are applied to role expectations for men and for women, respectively (Lenney, 1991). However, Spence and Helmreich (1978) argued that – at least within Western societies, such as the United States – instrumentality(alluding to self-oriented behavior) and expressivity(alluding to other-oriented behavior) are more useful terms for role expectations concerning men and women, respectively (following Parsons & Bales, 1955). We shall keep Spence and Helmreich’s instrumentality-expressivity distinction in mind as we consider relationship processes among interethnic married couples.

Unlike gender roles, we are not aware of a well-established literature within social psychology that addresses “ethnic roles,” for lack of a better term. Perhaps the closest analogue that we can find is the literature on self-construals (i.e., individuals’ view of themselves as distinct from, versus connected to, other persons; A. P. Fiske et al., 1998). However, it is not at all clear that American society expects persons of European descent to behave in a manner that is likely to give rise to an independentor individual-focused self-construal, or that American society expects Latinas/os, persons of African descent, persons of Asian descent, or indigenous Americans to behave in a manner that likely would give rise to an interdependentor other-focused self-construal. All things considered, role theory may be most useful in helping us understand how gender – part of the “air that we breathe,” according to Deaux and LaFrance (1998) – is manifested in the relational dynamics of interethnic marriage.

Social Behaviorism as Encompassing Symbolic Interactionism

Notwithstanding the implications of Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism for role theory, social behaviorism is more commonly associated withsymbolic interactionism (i.e., the perspective that individuals’ self-definitions direct individuals’ behavior, which in turn may transform entire societies; Schellenberg, 1978) than with role theory. Symbolic interactionism enables us to understand how societies can be induced to change(Stryker & Statham, 1985). At a minimum, according to symbolic interactionism, individuals maintain considerable autonomy in choosing how to define themselves. However, to the extent that individuals are encouraged (or, at least, are not discouraged) by the words and deeds of certain key societal agents (e.g., families, religious organizations, educational institutions) in the process of manifesting their freely chosen self-definitions in their behavior, individuals may challenge prevailing societal norms, and perhaps even change societies.

Within social psychology, the relevance of symbolic interactionism to individuals’ self-definitions and, consequently, to individuals’ behavior is most obvious within the literature on self and identity (Swann & Bosson, 2010). According to Baumeister (1997), the self refers toindividuals’ awareness that they are distinct from, yet interrelated with, the physical and social environment within which they live; and identity refers to the composite or aggregate of all of the definitions of self that are created for the individual (though not necessarilyby the individual). From the perspective of symbolic interactionism, individuals routinely seek to validate their identity via the words and deeds that they express in the presence of other persons (Stryker & Statham, 1985). Up to this point, we have described self and identity as if they are unidimensional. However, both self and identity can be (and frequently are) multifaceted.

Both gender identity(i.e., the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of presumed biological and/or sociocultural sex; Unger, 1979) and ethnic identity(i.e., the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of presumed biological and/or sociocultural heritage; Markus, 2008)may constitute central aspects of individuals’ overall identity (see Frable, 1997). However, the construct of gender identity arguably is not conceptualized or operationalized as coherently as is the construct of ethnic identity. For example, withinsocial psychology, Spence (1993) contended that individuals’ gender identity includes the largely orthogonal or independent constructs of positive and negative aspects of instrumentality and expressivity as gender-related personality traits (Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979), gender-role attitudes (Spence & Helmreich, 1978), and gender-role compliance (Spence, Helmreich, & Sawin, 1980) – and even that list might not be exhaustive, if one conceives of work, mastery, and competitiveness as gender-related achievement motives (see Spence & Helmreich, 1983). In contrast, within developmental psychology,Phinney and Ong (2007) contended that individuals’ ethnic identity is limited to the highly interrelated constructs of exploration and commitment.

Social Behaviorism as Encompassing a Bidirectional Model of Social Stability and Social Change

As we have seen, both symbolic interactionism and role theory were derived from Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism (Schellenberg, 1978). Taken separately, the two perspectives might seem to be at odds. Nevertheless, a unified view of social behaviorism would lead us to embrace a bidirectional model of social stability and social change. Within such a model, individuals’ behavior may serve asantecedent and consequence of societal roles; and individuals’ behavior likewise may serve as antecedent and consequence of self-definitions (Stryker & Statham, 1985).

Perhaps the most relevant literature in social psychology concerning a bidirectional model of social stability and social change is the literature on social stigma (i.e., the process by which individuals are made vulnerable to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination within a given society because of their actual or presumed possession of devalued physical and/or psychological characteristics; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). On the one hand, Goffman’s (1963) interactionist role theory indicates that society can place powerful constraints on stigmatized individuals’ behavior and, consequently, on individuals’ ability to convince other persons to accept one or more aspects of individuals’ identity (as role theory would suggest). On the other hand, Goffman’s interactionist role theory also suggests that stigmatized and nonstigmatized persons alike may retain the ability to “ad lib,” to use the metaphor of an actor on a stage (see also Goffman, 1959). Over time, stigmatized individuals’ repeated departures from the societal script may allow them to infuse more of themselves into the roles that they play, encouraging audience members (i.e., social perceivers) to rethink their preconceptions and re-evaluate the societal norms that initially led to such preconceptions.

Gaines (2001a) invoked the construct of stereotype threat (i.e., stigmatized persons’ concern that they will be evaluated negatively on the basis of their social group membership, rather than their individual attributes, within a particular social situation; Steele, 1997) in explaining how Goffman’s (1963) interactionist role theory can help relationship scientists understand the dual currents of social stability and social change among pairs or dyads in which at least one individual is stigmatized by society. Stigmatized individuals tend to be aware of the societal stereotypes that persist regarding their socially defined group; in fact, even family members may have knowingly or unknowingly endorsed such stereotypes. However, it is not inevitable that stigmatized individuals will internalize those stereotypes as part of their self-definitions. Rather, stigmatized individuals may appeal to spouses for socioemotional support; to the extent that they receive such support, stigmatized individuals may actively challenge stereotypes via their subsequent achievements, thus creating the potential for enduring social change.

SOCIAL BEHAVIORISM PERSPECTIVES

ON INDIVIDUALS WITHIN INTERETHNIC MARRIAGE

As J. D. Baldwin (1985) pointed out, the depiction of individuals’ emotional responses to other persons as causes and consequences of individuals’ thoughts, verbal acts, and nonverbal acts toward other persons, as found in Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism, is compatible with the interpretation of interdependence processes as reflecting the dynamic interplay between emotions on the one hand and thoughts, words, and deeds on the other hand, as found in Kelley et al.’s (1983/2002) elaboration of Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959; Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1959) interdependence theory. Indeed, social behaviorism can be applied to individuals’ perspective-taking and empathy toward other persons (Martin, 2005). As such, social behaviorism can be applied to various types of social interaction, including relational dynamics (e.g., the manifestation of relationship satisfaction, perceived alternatives, and investments in relationship commitment; see Rusbult, Coolsen, Kirchner, & Clarke, 2006).

In the present section, we shall consider the case to be made for Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism as a theory of identity, interdependence processes, and role enactment within interethnic marriage in particular. First, from the standpoint of role theory, we examine social roles as possible influences on individuals’ identities within interethnic marriage. Second, from the vantage point of symbolic interactionism, we look into aspects of individuals’ identities as potential influences on social roles (or, perhaps more accurately, enactment of social roles) within interethnic marriage. Finally, from the viewpoint of a bidirectional model, we explore the possibility that individuals’ behavior toward spouses (which can influence, and be influenced by, spouses’ behavior toward individuals) act as mediators between individuals’ expressions of identity and enactment of social roles.

Role Theory and Individuals within Interethnic Marriage

From the perspective of role theory (Mead, 1934/1967), allindividuals who are partners within interethnic marriage are at risk for stigmatization by society, regardless of the social status of the particular ethnic groups to which they belong (Gaines & Leaver, 2002). As Goffman (1963) put it, “…[T]he tribal stigmas of race, nation, and religion… [are] stigma that can be transmitted through lineages and equally contaminate all members of a family” (p. 14). The metaphor of contamination can be as powerful as it is accurate, especially when the interethnic marriages involve partners from different racial groups. For example, many spouses (especially some European-descent women who are married to African-descent men) report that they and their offspring have been ostracised by their own families of origin (Gaines & Leaver, 2002).

Continuing with Goffman’s (1963) theme of contamination, it is possible that many individuals opt to avoid entering into interethnic marriage (particularly interracial marriage), precisely because they do not wish to be judged negatively by family members, friends, acquaintances, or even strangers. In some instances, individuals might openly or not-so-openly maintain romantic liaisons that cross ethnic boundaries but do not culminate in marriage (Gaines & Leaver, 2002). In other instances, individuals might go so far as to actively avoid pursuing romantic relationships that would cross ethnic lines (see Gaines & Ickes, 2000). To varying degrees, such attempts at avoidance may have the effect (though not necessarily the intent) of preserving the status quo regarding stigmatization of those individuals who do marry across ethnic boundaries.

Not only are certain interethnic romantic relationships (e.g., interracial relationships) statistically less likely to blossom into marriage than are intraethnic romantic relationships; but those interethnic marriages that do occur are at elevated risk for divorce (Gaines & Leaver, 2002). Many individuals who had not been on the receiving end of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination from relationship outsiders in the past may find that, having married across ethnic lines, both they and their spouses are subjected to serious psychological (if not physical) assaults (see Gaines & Ickes, 2000). Given that marriages in general are difficult to maintain within contemporary American society (possibly due to the increasing demands that individuals may feel entitled to make upon their spouses; Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014; Finkel, Larson, Carswell, & Hui, 2014), those marriages in which individuals face the added difficultyof standing firm against potential assaults from hostile relationship outsiders(i.e., interethnic marriages) are understandably more vulnerable to breakup than are those marriages that are not burdened by that additional difficulty (i.e., intraethnic marriages). With such difficulties to manage, perhaps it is not surprising that the divorce rate is markedly higher for certain interethnic marriages than for certain intraethnic marriages (i.e., approximately 60-70% of interracial marriages in the United States end in divorce, compared to 40-50% of intraracial marriages in the U.S.; Gaines & Leaver, 2002).

Symbolic Interactionism and Individuals within Interethnic Marriage

Judging purely from the perspective of role theory (Mead, 1934/1967), one might question how virtually any interethnic marriage might persist over time. However, a similarly pure symbolic interactionist perspective (Mead, 1934/1967) might offer insight into the maintenance, as well as the rise, in interethnic marriages within the United States. Gaines and Hardin (2013) went so far as to contend that Mead’s symbolic interactionism could help integrate the fields of relationship science (e.g., Berscheid & Reis, 1998) and cultural psychology (e.g., A. P. Fiske et al., 1998). Although Gaines and Hardin were concerned primarily with reconciling the largely non-overlapping meanings that relationship scientists versus cultural psychologists assign to the construct of “interdependence” (rather than explaining the trajectories of interethnic marriage), their argument concerning individuals’ potential for active construction of themselves and of their relationship contexts is consistent with our advocacy of a symbolic interactionist approach to interethnic marriage.