Private and Public Displays of Affection

Among Interracial and Intra-Racial

Adolescent Couples n

Elizabeth Vaquera, University of Pennsylvania

Grace Kao, University of Pennsylvania

Objective. This article examines variation in displays of affection between interracial

and intra-racial adolescent couples. Method. Using the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative sample of
adolescents in the United States, we estimate hierarchical linear models to compare
characteristics of interracial and intra-racial relationships among white, African-
American, Hispanic, Asian American, and Native American adolescents. In our
comparisons we highlight three dimensions of relationship attributes: public
display, private display, and intimate physical contact. Results. Our findings
suggest that interracial couples are less likely than intra-racial couples to exhibit
public and private displays of affection, but are not different from intra-racial
couples in intimate displays of affection. Conclusions. Social barriers against
interracial dating still exist such that even though interracial couples are similar to
intra-racial couples in their levels of intimacy in private, they are less comfortable
displaying their feelings in public.

The increasing diversity of ethnic groups, along with more liberal views of
interracial marriage in the United States, has resulted in greater proportions
of interracial marriages. In 1970, interracial marriages accounted for about
0.7 percent of all marriages in the United States; by 1992, this figure had
increased to 2.2 percent (Qian, 1997). This trend is consistent with
arguments offered by social distance theories. For instance, over 30 years
ago, Bogardus (1968) found that the social distance between whites and
other racial groups was decreasing over time. More recently, there is

n
Direct correspondence to Elizabeth Vaquera, Department of Sociology, University of
Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 hvaquera@ssc.upenn.edui. This
research was supported by a grant from the NICHD (R01 HD38704-01A1) to the second
author. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard
Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by Grant P01-HD31921
from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative
funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and
Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. The authors will share all coding
information on request with those who wish to replicate the study. Persons interested in
obtaining data files from Add Health must contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center,
123 W. Franklin St., Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 hwww.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth/
contract.htmli. The authors thank Sona Kim for clerical assistance.

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 86, Number 2, June 2005

r2005 by the Southwestern Social Science Association
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 485
evidence that interracial marriages are becoming more common (Qian,
1997), and that an even greater proportion of individuals has dated someone
of a different racial group (Laumann et al., 1994). This is even more true for
the youngest cohorts, whose schools may provide a more racially diverse
setting compared to their parents’ friendship networks and, thus, increased
opportunities to meet and date others of different races or ethnicities.
Early assimilation theorists argued that marriage between groups was the
ultimate indicator of social distance; however, individuals also experience
other forms of contact less binding than marriage, such as dating and
friendship. Romantic relationships offer another lens with which to view the
relative distance between race and ethnic groups, but the lack of systematic
nationally representative data has made it difficult to study these processes.
Despite increasing interest of researchers in the formation of interracial
relations, it remains unclear whether interracial and intra-racial pairings vary
in their behaviors. If individuals manage to break norms that dictate within-
group romance, are these relationships perceivably different from intra-racial
relationships? Are their relationships comparable at all levels to those that do
not cross racial lines? Our article compares interracial versus intra-racial
relationships on three dimensions of romantic relationships among white,
African American, Hispanic, Asian Americans,1 and Native American
adolescents. We analyze three dimensions of displays of affection: public,
private, and intimate (physical) contact. We suspect that interracial
relationships may be similar to intra-racial relationships in private because
there is less threat of negative sanctioning by others. We also hypothesize
that these couples may be less likely to publicly display their affection toward
each other since they are more vulnerable to criticism from people who do
not accept interracial relationships. This pattern would indicate that youth in
such relationships are still affected by social norms against interracial dating.

Management of Interracial Romantic Relationships

In the United States, most people get romantically involved and marry
within ethnic and racial lines. There are still very few individuals who cross
these lines. Interracial couples are far from being the norm and thus it is
reasonable to expect that these couples will not be widely accepted, in other
words, an interracial couple is susceptible to stigmatization. Erving Goffman
first conceptualized the concept of stigma to designate individuals with an
undesirable trait (i.e., ‘‘stigma’’), such as racial minorities or the disabled
(Goffman, 1963). Most of the current research on stigma still uses the term
in a similar sense and focuses on the individual. However, we might apply

1
For purposes of brevity, Asian Americans will be referred to throughout the rest of the
article as Asians.
486 Social Science Quarterly
the same characteristics that describe a stigmatized individual to a romantic
couple that is different in some way, like an interracial couple. There is some
evidence from qualitative research suggesting that interracial couples do
share common experiences with stigmatized individuals, such as social
pressures and rejection, and that as a result they diminish their social
exposure by going out less often to have dinner or to the movies (Datzman
and Gardner, 2000; St. Jean, 1998). Previous recent research on stigmatized
individuals has found similar protective behavioral patterns (e.g., Brown,
1998; Crandall et al., 2000; Miller and Kaiser, 2001; Oyserman and Swim,
2001).
Being stigmatized affects many aspects of the person’s social life. To cope
with it, individuals may use psychological, behavioral, social, economic, or
even educational resources. In the present article we are interested in
behavioral-social changes that the couple may adopt to cope with being
different. More extensive research on stigmatized individuals exists in other
areas such as educational attainment, depression, self-esteem, and so forth
(see, e.g., Crandall et al., 2000; Crocker and Major, 1989, 2003).
Stigma management theories contribute to the understanding of why it is
reasonable to expect that interracial couples will differ in their behaviors
from intra-racial couples. This approach emphasizes the importance of
context and outside influences that affect in-group dynamics. In their
application of the concept of stigma to exchange theory, Gramling and
Forsyth (1987) describe different strategies that individuals use for stigma
management. Among these strategies, there is ‘‘avoiding interaction’’ as a
recourse actors use to avoid stigma. In the case of displays of affection, this
can translate into a lower level of interaction with other people to avoid
conflictive situations. However, this definition does not imply that stigma
will affect other types of interactions in which only the couple is involved
(private and intimate displays of affection). Gaines, referring to Goffman’s
work, emphasizes that this management is necessary only in public when
‘‘distinguishing characteristics are readily visible (e.g., persons of color,
heterosexual women [sic]) and face the constant task of managing tension
when in public’’ (Gaines, 2001:113). According to these theories and other
previous research, we expect interracial couples to have lower levels of public
displays of affection than intra-racial couples, but these differences may also
appear in private and intimate encounters (Datzman and Gardner, 2000;
Oyserman and Swim, 2001; Brega and Coleman, 1999).

Displays of Affection

Research on stigma management provides an adequate framework to

analyze differences in behavioral patterns for interracial couples. However,
this approach seems valid only for the public displays of affection by the
couple. It says nothing about other more intimate types of affection that
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 487
occur in private and do not involve anyone external to the relationship. In
addition, there are other factors that may intervene in the display of affection
between romantically involved partners. In this section we review literature
dealing with other elements that play an important role in accounting for
the levels of display of affection among couples, both public and private. We
highlight some of the findings on behaviors of adolescents engaged in
romantic relationships. Whenever possible, we have linked those findings to
interracial romantic relationships; however, because the literature on the
topic is still scarce, this was not always possible.
Current research on adolescent romantic relationships has pointed at
some salient patterns and characteristics of romantic relationships. Carver,
Joyner, and Udry (2003) find that romantic and sexual relationships become
more prevalent during adolescence (see also Furman, Brown, and Feiring,
1999, especially ch. 5). Along with age, gender differences are also apparent,
because girls and boys differ in their reports of relationship characteristics
(Shulman and Collins, 1997). Previous research suggests that males and
females experience romantic relationships differently; for instance, based on
the same data we are using for this article, Carver, Joyner, and Udry (2003)
show that adolescent girls have more experience than adolescent boys with
intimate relationships. This is likely because girls begin dating earlier and are
likely to date older boys.
Researchers have found that nativity of the adolescent matters both to the
likelihood of engaging in a relationship and to the shaping of the dynamics
of a relationship once it has started. First-generation or immigrant youth are
usually compared to youth who are born in the United States of foreign-
born parents (second generation), or to native-born youth of native-born
parents (third generation or beyond). For instance, Fujino (1997) argues
that the higher the generational status, the more likely individuals are to out-
marry. Similarly, King and Harris (forthcoming) show that first-generation
immigrant adolescents are significantly less likely than third-generation
youth to be involved in romantic relationships. This pattern is linked to the
process of acculturation, meaning that generational status is directly related
to dating/marriage rates through the adoption of behaviors of the majority
youth in the United States. Following this same hypothesis, we also suspect
that immigrant youth may be less likely to engage in both public and private
displays of affection.
Relationships do not happen in a vacuum. Previous research has also
examined how the setting in which the adolescents live affects their romantic
relationships. McNamara, Tempenis, and Walton (1999) provide strong
evidence on how a family’s reaction to the relationship can have a very
stressful impact on the person romantically involved with someone of a
different race. They argue that, as a consequence, it is very common for
interracial couples to withdraw from public interaction. Datzman and
Gardner (2000) report similar findings from 19 in-depth qualitative
interviews. Families may mirror the rejection received by the larger society
488 Social Science Quarterly
and impose restrictions if their members disagree with the relationship.
Foeman and Nance (1999) acknowledge that even if the partners do not
discuss it, family and peers will influence early decisions that the couple
make. Leslie, Huston, and Johnson (1986) argue that the parental
knowledge of the relationship is associated with relationship commitment.
Therefore, the more attached an individual is to the partner, the more likely
it is that he or she has introduced the partner to his or her parents. Studies
have also suggested that parental values and goals vary by social class. Lower-
class parents are more likely to value conformity, whereas higher-class
parents tend to value autonomy (Gerris, Deković, and Janssens, 1997).
These differences may affect the ways children are reared and what types of
relationships are accepted at home. In the present article, we use mother’s
education as a proxy for social class.
Families and friends appear as the most salient groups that influence
individuals when choosing a romantic partner (e.g., Baxter and Wide-
nmann, 1993; Kalmijn, 1998; Leslie, Huston, and Johnson, 1986; Mok,
1999; Shulman and Collins, 1997). It is reasonable to expect that romantic
relationships in adolescence will be reciprocally linked to friendship groups.
Often, adolescents draw romantic partners from friendship networks
(Carver, Joyner, and Udry, 2003; Shulman and Knafo, 1997). Conse-
quently, we expect to find some similarities between findings of previous
research on adolescents’ friendship networks and work on their romantic
relationships.
As shown by Bearman and Brückner (2001), religiosity is one important
factor that influences how romantic relationships develop. Higher levels of
religiosity are not directly related to the number of partners reported by the
respondents. However, religious respondents report lower levels of intimate
contact with their partners. We hypothesize that religiosity has an impact on
the level of expression of affection in general. Also, religion is related to
more conservative values that may have a global impact on all levels of
demonstration of affection by these adolescents. We argue that religiosity
may work in two different ways. Religious communities are in general quite
racially segregated in the United States, and people with strong religious
beliefs may be less prone to engage in sexual activity or even to date someone
due to the morals advised by their religion.
In their research on interethnic attraction, Lee and Gudykunst (2001)
found that people like others they perceive to have similar communication
styles, self-concept support, low uncertainty and ethnic identity, and positive
intergroup expectations. These feelings might be hindered if the individual
feels that a person of a different identity does not share the same values or
background. Harris and Kalbfleisch (2000) show that strategies to initiate
relationships with partners of a different race are different from those used to
date people of the same race.
According to Foeman and Nance (1999), when two people of different
backgrounds come together, they need to become acquainted with each
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 489
other to overcome their differences. This is a more difficult process than
when two people of similar background get together. Foeman and Nance
(1999) propose four stages through which interracial relationships have to
go: racial awareness, coping, identity emergence, and maintenance.
According to these findings, we expect that interracial and intra-racial
couples display different behaviors. The external pressures interracial couples
encounter are different and, in addition, they share less cultural
characteristics than intra-racial couples. Thus they might need more time
to get acquainted with each other. Rostosky et al. (2000) report that time is
one of the most important factors for the couple to increase their levels of
social and physical (intimate) contact. Following all these findings, it is
plausible to assume that interracial couples will need more time than intra-
racial relationships to reach a comparable level of display of affection.
However, not all studies found differences between the behaviors of
interracial and intra-racial relationships. Harris and Kalbfleisch (2000) found
some evidence that expectations and satisfaction do not seem to be different
for interracial versus intra-racial relationships. Diane Fujino (1997) studied
dating patterns among Asian and white students. She found no sex
differences in interracial dating and that acculturation did not predict
interracial dating. According to Fujino, propinquity, along with physical
attractiveness, is the strongest predictor of interracial dating. Also, Gurung
and Duong (1999) found no differences in satisfaction or commitment when
comparing same-ethnic heterosexual relationships with mixed-ethnic ones.
Despite increased interest of researchers in romantic relationships during
adolescence, many parameters remain overlooked. Most of the studies
presented above suffer from major limitations, such as the use of small and
convenience samples usually drawn from a single school or geographic
region. In addition, research on romantic relationships during adolescence is
often only concerned with other psychological (e.g., depression or self-
esteem) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., delinquency), not the patterns of the
relationship itself (see Giordano (2003) for an excellent review on
relationships in adolescence). Some of the major shortcomings of previous
research are that when race is taken into account, most studies do not use
comprehensive categories. In some cases they do not report the race of the
partners or, if they do, it is just dichotomized (black-white) (Lee and
Gudykunst, 2001; Harris and Kalbfleisch, 2000; Lauritsen, 1994; Hallinan
and Williams, 1989). Most research looks at one specific racial composition
to talk about differences between interracial and intra-racial relationships,
generally black-white; other interracial pairings have been studied rarely (see
Fujino (1997) for an exception on Asian-white couples). Our approach is
different from previous studies in that we examine all interracial couples and
compare them to all intra-racial couples. We attempt to discover an
overarching pattern that applies to all interracial versus intra-racial couples.
Also, we use a nationally representative sample in order to obtain
generalizable results to the adolescent population.
490 Social Science Quarterly
Data and Methods

The data for this article come from the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (Add Health). Add Health is a school-based study of
adolescents in Grades 7 through 12 (Bearman, Jones, and Udry, 1997). We
use data from the Wave I In-Home Sample to examine the romantic
relationships of these adolescents. Data are collected from students of 80
high schools that were randomly selected from a database of U.S. schools.
The schools are stratified on size, region, urbanicity, school type, racial mix,
and grade span. Seventy-nine percent of the schools contacted participated.
When a school refused to participate, another school within a similar cell for
all the school strata characteristics was chosen. Once a school was recruited,
feeder schools were identified. A feeder school contains a seventh grade and
sends its graduates to the recruited high school. Feeder schools were selected
with a probability proportional to the number of students it contributed to
the high school. Add Health includes a total of 134 schools, the sizes of
which varied from less than 100 students to more than 3,000 (Bearman,
Jones, and Udry, 1997).
Various instruments were used to obtain the data. The In-School
Questionnaire was administered to students in Grades 7 to 12 from
September 1994 through April 1995. There was no ‘‘make-up’’ day for
students missing on the day of administration. Each participating school
provided the study with a roster of its students. Names on the roster were
assigned identification numbers, then copies of the roster were made and
provided to students to use in identifying their friends in the course of filling
out the In-School Questionnaire. The In-School Questionnaire was
completed by more than 90,000 adolescents, meaning that over 80 percent
of all enrolled students participated.
All students who completed the In-School Questionnaire plus those who
did not complete a questionnaire but were listed on a school roster were
eligible for selection into the core In-Home Sample. Approximately 200
adolescents were selected from each of the 80 schools (not the feeder
schools). A total core sample of 12,105 adolescents was interviewed. This is
the ‘‘core’’ Wave I In-Home Sample, which is different from the ‘‘Grand
Sample’’, which contains a number of oversamples originally identified from
responses to the In-School instrument. There are oversamples for ethnic,
disabled, and genetic groups. In addition, there was a saturated oversample
in 16 large schools. In this article we use the grand sample of the In-Home
Questionnaire.
In-Home interviews were conducted between April and December 1995
and were completed by 80 percent of those selected. All data were recorded
on notebook computers. For less sensitive topics, the interviewer read the
questions aloud and entered the respondent’s answers (CAPI). For more
sensitive topics, the respondent listened to prerecorded questions through
earphones and entered the answers directly into the computer (audio-CASI).
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 491
In addition to maintaining data security, this minimized the potential
influence from the interviewer or others present during the interview.

Unit of Analysis

The sample used is the Wave I In-Home Grand Sample, which includes
20,745 respondents. From these respondents, we focus on those who
reported having a romantic relationship. We selected those cases using the
following questions: ‘‘In the last 18 months have you had any special
romantic relationship with anyone?’’ If the respondent answered ‘‘yes,’’ he or
she is included in the sample. These respondents are considered to have a
romantic relationship. If the respondent answered ‘‘no’’ to the previous
question, he or she was skipped to another section. Then the adolescent was
asked: (1) ‘‘In the last 18 months, did you ever hold hands with someone
who was not a member of your family?’’ (2) ‘‘In the last 18 months, did you
ever kiss someone on the mouth who was not a member of your family?’’ (3)
‘‘In the last 18 months, did you ever tell someone who was not a member of
your family that you liked or loved them?’’ and (4) ‘‘Did you do these things
with the same person?’’ If they answered ‘‘yes’’ to all of the questions, the
reference person is considered a romantic partner and the respondent is also
included in the sample. The adolescents who responded ‘‘yes’’ to these last
four questions are considered to be in a ‘‘liked’’ relationship. All those
considered to be in a romantic relationship and in a ‘‘liked’’ relationship
were asked a series of questions about the characteristics of the partners and
events in the relationship. Respondents who reported a romantic relation-
ship could list information on up to three relationships. Respondents who
reported a ‘‘liked’’ relationship could report only one. In our analyses we
have included information on the type of relationship as well as past
experience under the construct ‘‘relationship history.’’ Under this group we
include reports of whether the respondent is involved in a romantic or liked
relationship. It also includes reports on past experience, that is, whether
among those involved in romantic relationships respondents listed one, two,
or three relationships in the last 18 months. When they reported more than
one relationship, we used the information on the partner listed first (or most
recent one).
Adolescents who reported being in a same-sex relationship were excluded
because they are likely to present different characteristics regarding public
and private displays of affection. Although homosexual relationships may
share some of the taboos on public display with interracial couples, their
idiosyncrasies are different and for this reason we decided to omit them from
our analyses.
We distinguish adolescents by gender and race. The racial groups are
mutually exclusive: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African American,
Hispanic, non-Hispanic Native American, and non-Hispanic Asian. To
492 Social Science Quarterly
maintain consistency with other studies, respondents who mark ‘‘Hispanic’’
are considered Hispanic regardless of their race (Qian, 1997).
Due to the layout of the questionnaire, the adolescents could choose up to
four races plus ‘‘other’’ (if the student was Hispanic, he or she was asked in a
different question); to avoid confusion regarding the definition of what
constitutes an interracial relationship, we have included only those
adolescents who chose one race. Five percent of the respondents identified
themselves as multiracial (see Appendix A). We excluded them because of
the difficulty of classifying the nature of the relationships of people who
identified themselves as multiracial. For instance, would an Asian-white
person dating an Asian person be correctly classified as an interracial or an
intra-racial relationship? If a black-white adolescent reported having a black
partner or a white partner, should that be classified as interracial? We believe
these are complex questions that need to be explored in their own right, so
we have omitted them from our analyses here.
Over 53 percent of the In-Home respondents reported having a
relationship over the past 18 months. In Appendix A, we present socio-
demographic information on adolescents distinguishing between whether
or not they have ever reported being in a romantic relationship. These
descriptive tabulations give us a sense of how different youth who have
engaged in a romantic relationship are from those who have not.
We performed t tests to check for differences between adolescents who
reported information on at least one relationship and those who reported
not having had a relationship in the last 18 months. Those youth who have
ever been in a romantic relationship are significantly older than those who
did not report having a relationship. There is also more representation of
females and whites, whereas the proportion of Asians that reported having a
relationship is significantly lower than that of the other races (see Appendix
A). Likewise, those in relationships are more likely to report being
multiracial. As others have already reported, our data also show that
adolescents who are first generation (born outside the United States) are less
likely to participate in romantic relationships than second- or third-
generation adolescents (King and Harris, forthcoming). Last, those who
report having had a relationship in the last 18 months show lower levels of
religiosity than those who did not. (We analyze these differences later in the
section on independent variables.) In sum, the group used for this article
shows some differences with respect the total of students who form the In-
Home Sample.
Add Health was designed as a cluster sample in which the clusters were
sampled with unequal probability. This design complicates the statistical
analysis because the observations are no longer independent and identically
distributed. To account for this complexity, we have weighted our predictive
models and used hierarchical models on school clusters. In this way we
adjust for differences in selection probabilities and response rates; doing this
also allows sample totals to serve as estimates of population totals. Failing to
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 493
account for this complexity would have resulted in biased parameter
estimates and incorrect variance estimates (Tourangeau and Shin, 1998;
Chantala and Tabor, 1999; Chantala, 2002).

Displays of Affection Within Interracial and Intra-Racial Couples

Race is a central sociodemographic variable in the study of relationships.

The levels of homogamy are different for each racial group (Blau, 1977;
Laumann et al., 1994; Qian, 1997; Goldstein, 1999; Fu, 2001) and as we
have observed in preliminary analyses with our data, the level of display of
affection in the relationship is different for different races. Table 1 presents
the race of partners by the race of respondents. As theories on homophily
and social distance predict, same-race couples are the most common type of
relationship for most of the racial groups. The most homogamous groups
are the whites and African Americans, with about 90 percent of the
respondents having intra-racial relationships. Hispanics and Asians present
lower rates of homophily (around 70 percent). When Hispanics and Asians
report an interracial relationship, the most common choice is with a white
partner (20 percent and 14 percent, respectively). One exception is the
Native American respondents, whose most common partners are white (44
percent). This behavior is explained because they are the smallest minority,
which makes it difficult for them to select other Native Americans (Qian,
1997).
Table 2 shows reports of number of past relationships in the last 18
months and type of relationship by race and ethnicity of the respondent.

TABLE 1
Relationship Composition by Respondent’s Race and Report of Partner’s Race

Partner’s Race
Respondent’s African Native Row
Race White American Hispanic Asian American Total
White 91.19 1.88 5.58 0.90 0.44 56.77
5,954 123 364 59 29 6,529
African American 4.37 89.33 4.93 0.32 1.05 21.51
108 2,210 122 8 26 2,474
Hispanic 20.20 4.98 71.35 2.05 1.42 16.57
385 95 1,360 39 27 1,906
Asian 14.39 2.99 10.65 71.21 0.75 4.65
77 16 57 381 4 535
Native American 43.86 7.02 26.32 1.75 21.05 0.50
25 4 15 1 12 57
Column total 56.94 21.29 16.68 4.24 0.85 100.00
6,549 2,448 1,918 488 98 11,501
494 Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 2
Characteristics of Relationships by Race of Respondent (Percents)

African Native
Variables White American Hispanic Asian American
One romantic relationship 53.38 51.96 55.90 63.05 62.30
Two romantic relationships 22.88 20.61 20.67 19.44 16.39
Three romantic relationships 10.36 8.24 8.61 7.35 16.39
Liked relationship 12.88 18.59 14.26 9.63 4.91
Relationship is still going on 43.11 55.78 46.14 44.17 42.62
N 6,662 2,523 1,998 571 61

Most notable is that Asians report the least number of romantic

relationships (i.e., most of the adolescents report only one or two
relationships). Only 7 percent of Asians report three romantic relationships.
In contrast, 16 percent of the Native Americans report three relationships, as
do 10 percent of the whites, 9 percent of the Hispanics, and 8 percent of the
African Americans. As for the ‘‘liked’’ relationships, Native Americans are
the group that reports the lowest levels of this type of relationship, 5 percent,
followed by Asians at 10 percent. The racial group with the most ‘‘liked’’
relationships is the African American (19 percent), then Hispanics (14
percent), and third whites (13 percent).
Interracial relationships comprise the minority of romantic relationships
among adolescents. Table 3 compares these two types of relationships by
using reports on activities the respondents performed with their romantic
partners. A clear distinct pattern for these two types of relationships is
apparent. Intra-racial couples engage in more public and private activities
than interracial couples. Most striking are the differences between intra-
racial and interracial couples in some measures such as going out with the
partner in a group or meeting the partner’s parents. For instance, almost 76
percent of the intra-racial couples have introduced their partner to the
parents, but only 69 percent of the interracial couples have done so. A two-
tailed probability test shows highly significant differences for these two
activities. Significant differences also appear for holding hands and saying to
others that they are a couple. In the case of private display of affection, intra-
racial and interracial couples differ significantly in their answers about giving
a present and thinking of themselves as a couple. Differences for intimate
contact are not apparent. None of the activities of intimate display of
affection show significant statistical differences between interracial and intra-
racial couples. For a more detailed look at this information, we have
included Appendix B, which breaks down the different racial dyads possible
among all racial groups. We have ordered them by the race of the
respondent followed by the reported race of their partner. As we can observe
from this table, the interracial couples tend to report lower levels of public
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 495
TABLE 3
Percent of Adolescents Who Performed These Activities with Their Partner by
Type of Relationship (Percents)

Dependent Variables Intra-racial Interracial Significance

Public Display
Held hands 89.90 88.33 n

Said to others they were a couple 85.76 82.88 nn

Went out together alone 78.00 77.00

Went out together in a group 78.40 71.99 nnn

Met partner’s parents 75.91 69.46 nnn

Private Display
Gave partner a present 72.08 69.18 nn

Received present from partner 76.25 74.63

Told partner that he/she loved her/him 82.05 80.90
Partner said that loved him/her 79.69 79.03
They thought of themselves as a couple 90.88 88.77 nn

Intimate Display
Kissed 91.56 90.31
Touched under clothing or with no clothes on 62.78 61.92
Touched each others’ genitals 53.68 53.66
Had sexual intercourse 42.40 41.66
N 9,232 1,817
n
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001. Two-tailed probability computed using the t distribution.
NOTE: The Ns for the tables do not match due to missing values in the dependent variables.

display of affection than their intra-racial ‘‘reference’’ group. Some

exceptions arise, but the majority (over 80 percent) follows that pattern.
In the case of the private display of affection, we also observe that in most
cases interracial couples have lower means than those of the intra-racial
couples. Finally, when we look at intimate contact, there is no clear pattern.
Half the interracial couples show higher levels than the intra-racial ones, and
the other half showed lower levels.

Predicting Public, Private, and Intimate Behavior

The statistics above reveal differences between interracial and intra-racial

relationships for each analyzed group. To assess the robustness of these
patterns, we estimated hierarchical regression models of the levels of display
of affection (public, private, intimate). The dimensions of public and
intimate displays can range from 0–5, while that of intimate display ranges
from 0–4. These scales are additive and measure whether the respondent had
done 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or all of the activities included in each dimension (as listed
in Table 3). To check the internal validity of our concepts, we ran factor
analyses for these three levels of displays of affection. The results from the
496 Social Science Quarterly
factor analysis show that these items can be grouped in the three separate
dimensions we have named public, private, and intimate display. In each of
the factor analyses, the values of Cronbach’s alpha were above 0.60, which
suggests that they are three coherent factors.
The first group, public display, includes activities that usually involve the
participation or knowledge of the relationship by others such as introducing
the partner to the parents. The second group, private display, refers to
communication of affection, which usually happens in private, like saying ‘‘I
love you,’’ and the last group, intimacy, includes several forms of physical
contact, such as kissing or fondling. The more activities they did with the
partner, the higher the level of intimacy and display of the relationship.
Other studies have used similar categories to account for levels of intimacy
and private display of affection in relationships (cf. Berscheid, Snyder, and
Omoto, 1989; Rostosky et al., 2000).

Empirical Analysis

Our main interest is the differences in the display of affection of the

adolescents depending on the nature of relationship (i.e., interracial or intra-
racial). In the tables above, we observed differences in the public display of
the relationship between these two types of couples, but not significant
differences in their intimate contact. Our objective is to test whether these
differences remain robust after controlling for other characteristics that
previous research has demonstrated to play a part in the levels of display of
affection among couples.
As a preliminary analysis, we ran a bivariate regression to measure the
relationship the three levels of display of affection have with the racial
composition of the couple. Interracial couples have lower levels of public of
display of affection and its relationship is highly significant (b 5
0.16,
p value 0.000). Interracial couples also show lower levels of private display of
affection than intra-racial couples (b 5
0.08, p value 0.024). Finally, no
linear relationship appeared between the nature of the couple and the
intimate behavior of the partners (b 5
0.03, p value 0.424). Adolescents
in interracial relationships seem to report lower levels of public display of
affection than those in intra-racial relationships. We find a similar pattern in
private displays of affection. However, interracial couples are indistinguish-
able from intra-racial couples in terms of their intimate physical displays of
affection. This exploratory analysis shows that interracial couples report
lower levels of affection in terms of public and private display than do intra-
racial couples, but report no differences in their level of physical intimacy.
This pattern is maintained across age, gender, and racial lines (tables not
shown). We are interested in whether this pattern can be attributed solely to
being part of an interracial couple, or if these patterns are associated with
individual, relationship, and contextual factors.
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 497
Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression models that
predict the level of display of affection for the adolescents who were involved
in relationships in the last 18 months for each of the three dimensions
(public, private, and intimate). The covariates used in this analysis are
divided into three groups: the first set includes variables at the individual
level, the second group includes measures of the type and experience in past
relationships, and the last set deals with contextual factors regarding where
youths met their partners. The analysis of the results focuses on the main
variable of interest, that is, whether there are differences in displays of
affection between interracial and intra-racial couples after controlling for all
the other factors. Then, we report general patterns on the other variables
included in the model that also help to understand the dynamics of the
relationship.
There are two models for each type of display of affection. Models A, C,
and E include only sociodemographic characteristics plus whether the
relationship was interracial or not. Models B, D, and F include relationship
information as well as contextual factors. Models A and B show the results of
the regression for the public display of affection. The model in the first
column (Model A), which does not take into account relationship and
contextual factors, suggests that the difference in average display of public
affection for an interracial couple, controlling for the rest of variables, is 0.12
points lower than that of those in intra-racial relationships. Net of the
individual characteristics of the respondents, interracial couples, on average,
engage in fewer public activities than intra-racial couples.
After we take into account other factors related to the relationship and the
context (Model B), being in an interracial relationship is still associated with
less display of public affection compared to intra-racial relationships. None
of the variables in the model completely account for the inverse relation
between being involved in an interracial couple and lower levels of public
display of affection. As in the previous model, all minority groups report
lower average levels of public display of affection than whites. On average,
African Americans report 0.5 fewer activities and Hispanics report 0.3 fewer
activities than whites. Asian and Native Americans also report lower levels of
public displays of affection; however, their values are not significantly
different from those of whites. An explanation for their lower levels of public
display of affection could be due to behavioral differences not accounted
for in these models.
The third and fourth columns (Models C and D) predict the level of
displays of affection at the private level. When only individual characteristics
are taken into account, interracial couples’ display of private affection is
lower, on average, than that of intra-racial couples (
0.13). Possible
explanations for this can be cultural differences between ethnic/racial groups
or different backgrounds, which might have an effect on the ability of
communicating between the partners (Foeman and Nance, 1999; Harris
and Kalbfleisch, 2000). This difference does not disappear once we take into
 498
TABLE 4
Estimates from Hierarchical Regression Model

Public Display Private Display Intimate Display

Predictor Variables Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E Model F
Intercept 2.03 n n n 2.82 n n n 2.42 n n n 3.41 n n n
2.56 n n n
1.27 n n n
(0.15) (0.19) (0.17) (0.22) (0.16) (0.20)
Interracial couple
0.12 n n
0.12 n n
0.13 n n
0.15 n n 0.08 0.10
(0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.04) (0.05)
Individual Characteristics
Female 0.09 n n n
0.02
0.10 n n n
0.23 n n n 0.03 0.01
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)
Age 0.12 n n n 0.09 n n n 0.10 n n n 0.05 n n n 0.31 n n n 0.27 n n n
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
White — — — — — —
African American
0.55 n n n
0.53 n n n 0.02
0.00 0.17 n n n 0.21 n n n
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.05) (0.06)
Hispanic
0.23 n n n
0.31 n n n 0.14 n 0.10
0.11
0.17 n
(0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.06) (0.07)
Asian
0.16
0.03 0.12 0.07
0.39 n n
0.42 n n

Social Science Quarterly

(0.12) (0.13) (0.14) (0.16) (0.12) (0.14)
Native American
0.12
0.21
0.09
0.01
0.63 n n
0.77 n n
(0.22) (0.28) (0.26) (0.33) (0.23) (0.30)
First generation
0.12
0.08
0.03 0.06
0.14
0.09
(0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09)
Second generation 0.08 0.10 0.06
0.02 0.03 0.01
(0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07)
Third generation or — — — — — —
more
Mother’s education 0.03 n 0.00
0.04 n n
0.05 n n n
0.02
0.01
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
 Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents
TABLE 4—Continued
Public Display Private Display Intimate Display
Predictor Variables Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E Model F
Relationship History
Length of relationship 0.00 n n n 0.02 n n n 0.01 n n n
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Ongoing relationship 0.24 n n n 0.35 n n n 0.25 n n n
(0.03) (0.04) (0.03)
One relationship — — —
Two relationships
0.06
0.17 n n n
0.07
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Three relationships
0.12 n
0.38 n n n 0.08
(0.05) (0.06) (0.05)
Liked relationship
0.45 n n n
0.57 n n n
0.50 n n n
(0.04) (0.05) (0.05)
Context Factors
They were friends 0.03
0.10 n n
0.17 n n n
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03)
They were acquaintances 0.08 n
0.10 n 0.05
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
They were neighbors
0.06
0.05 0.21 n n
(0.08) (0.09) (0.08)
They met in church
0.12
0.08
0.39 n n n
(0.07) (0.08) (0.07)
Importance of religion
0.01 0.02
0.25 n n n
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Other present during
0.05
0.03
0.06
interview (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)
N 8,524 5,841 8,524 5,841 8,524 5,841

2 log likelihood 33,578 22,286 36,082 23,881 33,811 22,563
n
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.

499
Note: Standard errors appear in parentheses.
500 Social Science Quarterly
account other variables associated with the social context and the
characteristics of the relationship. It is worth noting that girls report, on
average, 0.23 fewer intimate activities than males (Model D). Similar to the
patterns observed in our models of public displays of affection, and
consistent with developmental theories, the older the adolescent, the higher
the level of private displays of affection. As in the first two models, when all
the variables are taken into account, only those coefficients that refer to the
relationship are significant. Both the duration of the relationship and
whether it is still ongoing are associated with higher levels of private displays
of affection.
When predicting the level of intimacy of the couple (Models E and F),
being in an interracial couple is not significant even when we take into
account only individual-level characteristics. Two interesting patterns
emerge in this type of affection when we look at the racial groups. African
Americans report different patterns in their intimate display of affection
than do the rest of racial groups. This is especially interesting because it is in
sharp contrast with their public behavior. African American youth are the
ones with the lowest public display of affection compared to whites but the
highest displays of intimate behavior. When compared to whites, African
Americans are the only group that shows higher levels of intimate contact
than whites. African American respondents have, on average, 0.21 points
more of display of intimate affection than whites. However, Hispanic and
Asians have an average of 0.17 and 0.42 points, respectively, lower than
whites. Native Americans report even lower levels of intimate contact
(
0.77).
Several general patterns emerge regarding the control variables. Those
adolescents in ‘‘liked’’ relationships report, on average, less public, private,
and intimate contact than those in romantic relationships. Adolescents in
‘‘liked’’ relationships performed fewer activities than those in romantic
relationships (in the case of intimate contact, about 0.5 activities lower than
romantic relationships after controlling by rest of factors). Adolescents in a
‘‘liked’’ relationship may behave differently from those in a romantic
relationship because this type of relationship, according to its definition,
involves a lower level of attachment.
Length of the relationship appears in all the models as one of the most
important variables for understanding an increase in display of affection.
Although the length of relationship does not completely account for the
difference in levels of displays of affection between interracial and intra-
racial couples, it is a significant predictor of greater displays of affection in
all three spheres of affection.
Among the contextual factors, we also control for the presence of others
during the interview. Since we use highly sensitive questions, such as those
related to sexual behavior, it is likely that the responses of the adolescents are
affected by the presence of a third party when answering the questions.
None of the models shows significant differences for those adolescents who
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 501
responded with someone else present. However, there is a contextual factor
that becomes significant in the last model: religiosity. Religiosity is
significant in this model but not in the previous ones. There is a 0.25
change in intimate display of affection for a unit increase in the importance
of religion for the respondent, holding all other variables constant.
Adolescents who report that religion is important in their lives engage in
less intimate activities than less religious youth.

Discussion

Interracial couples are still the exception in our society. Although they are
more numerous than interracial marriages, they still comprise a minority of
all relationships. Our findings suggest that while the barriers to interracial
dating may be lower than for interracial marriages, there are still significant
obstacles even among youth. However, in an increasingly multicultural
society, it might be the case that mixed-race romantic relationships are more
widely accepted by adolescents, who have more opportunities than ever
before to meet people of other races.
Preliminary analyses confirmed our hypothesis that interracial couples
have lower levels of affection in the case of public and private displays, but
no differences appeared for interracial couples when examining the intimate
behavior of the adolescents (physical contact such as kissing or fondling). To
check the robustness of these findings, we considered a model with other
variables that included, first, individual characteristics of the respondents
only and then another more complex model that also took into account
contextual factors and variables on the relationship (such as how long the
couple had been dating, the level of attachment measured by the variable
‘‘liked,’’ or where the couple had met, among others). More complex models
cannot completely account for the differences in public behavior between
interracial and intra-racial couples. After controlling for individual,
relationship, and contextual factors, interracial and intra-racial couples still
differ in their display of public affection. It does not seem that adolescents
completely overcome intolerance toward mixed couples.
Private displays of affection measured factors mostly related to the
expression of affection between the partners. Despite taking into account
elements that previous studies found relevant to measure this kind of
expression, differences persist. Contrary to what some other research has
argued (Harris and Kalbfleisch, 2000), we report that interracial couples
have lower levels of expression of affection than intra-racial ones.
No significant differences emerge for interracial and intra-racial couples
when we look at their physical contact. This finding can have a two-fold
interpretation. On the one hand, it demonstrates that despite others having
trouble accepting their relationship, the couple still manages to have a
comparable intimate life to that of intra-racial relationships. On the other
502 Social Science Quarterly
hand, if parents and friends do not know who these adolescents are dating,
this may negatively affect the happiness of the couple, their commitment to
each other, and the eventual length of the relationship (Rostosky et al.,
2000). Further research needs to address all these implications.
We were also interested to find differences between the racial groups with
respect to displays of affection. All minority groups show, on average, lower
levels of displays of affection in public, such as introducing the partner to
the parents or going out with a group of friends, than do white respondents.
No statistically significant differences are observable among racial groups to
explain the level of private display of affection. There is not much theoretical
or empirical research that helps us understand why this is the case. Some
hypotheses to be tested in future research might have to do with the
dynamics of parent-child interactions at home and how racial composition
of friends affects public displays of affection.
As for the intimate contact among couples, two racial groups show
differences that are worth mentioning. African American respondents have a
higher level of physical contact with their partners than do whites. This
could be explained by males participating in sports, which might make them
more popular at school, and thus give them more opportunities to have
sexual relationships. Asians show the opposite pattern, presenting lower
levels of intimate contact than whites or African Americans. This could be
an effect of more authoritarian or controlling parents for Asians, or more
permissive environments for African Americans and whites. Evidence of
different parenting styles is shown in research on educational outcomes (e.g.,
Kao, 2004; Massey et al., 2003). We suggest this as an area for further
research since very little has been published on it.
In this article we show that stigma management theories are a useful link
between race relations and adolescent relationships. This theoretical
approach emphasizes how context and outside influences affect the dynamic
between dyads. We demonstrate that youth involved in romantic interracial
relationships may be using some of the techniques proposed by this theory
to avoid stigmatization when in public, such avoiding letting others know
about their partner, not introducing him or her to their parents, or not
holding hands in public. There is also slight evidence that the level of
communication of their affection (private display of affection) is lower for
interracial couples. We have not found evidence that these ‘‘protective’’
techniques have an effect in other more private settings when the couple
spends time alone together. In our findings there are no differential patterns
in the behavior of these adolescents, whether in an intra-racial or interracial
relationship, when engaging in intimate contact.
Our article contributes to the study on adolescents in several ways. It tries
to define patterns of adolescent behaviors in romantic relationships by using
stigma management theory (a commonly used psychological approach),
along with variables commonly used by sociological research. As Giordano
claims, research on adolescent relationships is still an underdeveloped area of
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 503
research in the social sciences (Giordano, 2003). Authors interested in
romantic relationships during adolescence point out that relationships
during this period matter for these youth and thus deserve the attention of
researchers (Furman, Brown, and Feiring, 1999). What we learn about
today’s youth might inform us about the race relations of the future. If we
understand the dynamics of interracial relations at a young age, we can better
predict how these may affect individuals’ attitudes toward other groups when
they become adults. Moreover, monitoring the differences in the experiences
of interracial versus intra-racial relationships may more closely indicate the
acceptance of such relationships and the distance between racial groups.

REFERENCES

Baxter, Leslie A., and Sally Widenmann. 1993. ‘‘Revealing and Not Revealing the Status of
Romantic Relationships to Social Networks.’’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
10:321–37.
Bearman, Peter S., and Hannah Brückner. 2001. ‘‘Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges
and First Intercourse.’’ American Journal of Sociology 106(4):859–912.
Bearman, Peter, Jo Jones, and J. Richard Udry. 1997. The National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health: Research Design. Available at hhttp://www.cpc.edu/projects/addhealth/
design.htmli.
Berscheid, Ellen, Mark Snyder, and Allen M. Omoto. 1989. ‘‘The Relationships Closeness
Inventory: Assessing the Closeness of Interpersonal Relationships.’’ Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 57(5):792–807.
Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New
York: Free Press.
Bogardus, Emory S. 1968. ‘‘Comparing Racial Distance in Ethiopia, South Africa and the
United States.’’ Sociology and Social Research 52:149–56.
Brega, Angela G., and Lerita M. Coleman. 1999. ‘‘Effects of Religiosity and Racial
Socialization on Subjective Stigmatization in African-American Adolescents.’’ Journal of
Adolescence 22:223–42.
Brown, Lisa M. 1998. ‘‘Ethnic Stigma as a Contextual Experience: A Possible Selves
Perspective.’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24:163–73.
Carver, Karen, Kara Joyner, and J. Richard Udry. 2003. ‘‘National Estimates of Adolescent
Romantic Relationships.’’ In P. Florsheim, ed., Adolescent Romantic Relations and Sexual
Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practical Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
Chantala, Kim. 2002. Introduction to Analyzing Add Health Data. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina
Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Chantala, Kim, and Joyce Tabor. 1999. Strategies to Perform a Design-Based Analysis Using the
Add Health Data. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Crandall, Christian S., Jo-Ann Tsang, Richard D. Harvey, and Thomas W. Britt. 2000.
‘‘Group Identity-Based Self-Protective Strategies: The Stigma of Race, Gender, and Garlic.’’
European Journal of Social Psychology 30:355–81.
504 Social Science Quarterly
Crocker, Jennifer, and Brenda Major. 1989. ‘‘Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self-
Protective Properties of Stigma.’’ Psychological Review 96(4):608–30.
———. 2003. ‘‘The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma: Evolution of a Modern Classic.’’
Psychological Inquiry 14(3–4):232–37.
Datzman, Jeanine, and Carol Brooks Gardner. 2000. ‘‘‘In My Mind, We Are All Humans’:
Notes on the Public Management of Black-White Interracial Romantic Relationships.’’
Marriage and Family Review 30(1–2):5–24.
Foeman, Anita Kathy, and Teresa Nance. 1999. ‘‘From Miscegenation to Multiculturalism:
Perceptions and Stages of Interracial Relationship Development.’’ Journal of Black Studies
29(4):540–57.
Fu, Vincent. 2001. ‘‘Racial Intermarriage Pairings.’’ Demography 38(2):147–59.
Fujino, Diane C. 1997. ‘‘The Rates, Patterns and Reasons for Forming Heterosexual
Interracial Dating Relationships Among Asian Americans.’’ Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 14(6):809–28.
Furman, Wyndol B., Bradford Brown, and Candice Feiring. 1999. The Development of
Romantic Relationships in Adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaines Jr., Stanley O. 2001. ‘‘Coping with Prejudice: Personal Relationship Partners as
Sources of Socioemotional Support for Stigmatized Individuals.’’ Journal of Social Issues
57:113–28.
Gerris, Jan R. M., Maja Deković, and Jan M. A. M. Janssens. 1997. ‘‘The Relationship
Between Social Class and Childrearing Behaviors: Parents’ Perspective Taking and Value
Orientations.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:834–47.
Giordano, Peggy C. 2003. ‘‘Relationships in Adolescence.’’ Annual Review of Sociology
29:257–81.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goldstein, Joshua R. 1999. ‘‘Kinship Networks that Cross Racial Lines: The Exception or the
Rule.’’ Demography 36(3):399–407.
Gramling, Robert, and Craig J. Forsyth. 1987. ‘‘Exploiting Stigma.’’ Sociological Forum
2(2):401–15.
Gurung, Reagan A. R., and Tenor Duong. 1999. ‘‘Mixing and Matching: Assessing the
Concomitant of Mixed-Ethnic Relationships.’’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
16(5):639–57.
Hallinan, Maureen T., and Richard A. Williams. 1989. ‘‘Interracial Friendship Choices in
Secondary Schools.’’ American Sociological Review 54:67–78.
Harris, Tina M., and Pamela J. Kalbfleisch. 2000. ‘‘Interracial Dating: The Implications
of Race for Initiating a Romantic Relationship.’’ Howard Journal of Communications 11:
49–64.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1998. ‘‘Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, and Trends.’’
Annual Review of Sociology 24:395–421.
Kao, Grace. 2004. ‘‘Parental Influence on Educational Outcomes of Immigrant Youth.’’
International Migration Review 38:43–65.
King, Rosalind Berkowitz, and Kathleen Mullan Harris. Forthcoming. ‘‘Romantic
Relationships Among Immigrant Adolescents.’’
Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents 505
Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 1994. The
Social Organization of Sexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lauritsen, Janet L. 1994. ‘‘Explaining Race and Gender Differences in Adolescent Sexual
Behavior.’’ Social Forces 42(3):859–84.
Lee, Carmen M., and William B. Gudykunst. 2001. ‘‘Attraction in Initial Interethnic
Interactions.’’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations 25:373–87.
Leslie, Leigh A., Ted L. Huston, and Michael P. Johnson. 1986. ‘‘Parental Reactions to
Dating Relationships: Do They Make a Difference?’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family
48:57–66.
Massey, Douglas S., Camille Z. Charles, Garvey F. Lundy, and Mary J. Fischer. 2003. The
Source of the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America’s Selective Colleges and
Universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McNamara, Robert P., Maria Tempenis, and Beth Walton. 1999. ‘‘It’s a Family Affair:
Interracial Couples’ Perceptions of Familial Responses.’’ Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology
27(2):15–28.
Miller, Carol T., and Cheryl R. Kaiser. 2001. ‘‘A Theoretical Perspective on Coping with
Stigma.’’ Journal of Social Issues 57:73–92.
Mok, Teresa A. 1999. ‘‘Asian American Dating: Important Factors in Partner Choice.’’
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 5(2):103–17.
Oyserman, Daphna, and Janet K. Swim. 2001. ‘‘Stigma: An Insider’s View.’’ Journal of Social
Issues 57(1):1–14.
Qian, Zhenchao. 1997. ‘‘Breaking the Racial Barriers: Variation Interracial Marriage
Between 1980 and 1990.’’ Demography 34(2):263–76.
Rostosky, Sharon S., Renee V. Galliher, Deborah P. Welsh, and Myra C. Kawaguchi. 2000.
‘‘Sexual Behaviors and Relationships Qualities in Late Adolescent Couples.’’ Journal of
Adolescence 23:583–97.
Shulman, Shmuel, and W. Andrew Collins, eds. 1997. ‘‘Romantic Relationships in
Adolescence: Developmental Perspectives.’’ New Directions for Child Development 78.
Shulman, Shmuel, and Danielle Knafo. 1997. ‘‘Balancing Closeness and Individuality
in Adolescent Close Relationships.’’ International Journal of Behavioral Development 21(4):
687–702.
St. Jean, Yanick. 1998. ‘‘Let People Speak for Themselves: Interracial Unions and the
General Social Survey.’’ Journal of Black Studies 28(3):398–414.
Tourangeau, R., and Hee-Choon Shin, S. 1998. National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health: Grand Sample Weight. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
506 Social Science Quarterly
Appendix A: Frequencies of Selected Variables

Variable No Relationship Relationship p Valueo0.001

Age Mean: 15.57 Mean: 16.46
SD: 1.79 SD: 1.63
12 0.75% 0.17%
13 13.61 4.46
14 17.59 9.00
15 17.92 14.23
16 18.56 19.11
17 15.20 22.32
18 11.49 22.45
19 3.85 7.40
20 0.73 0.76
21 0.29 0.10
Gender 0.001
Male 50.98 48.66
Female 49.02 51.34
Race
White 47.06 52.79 o0.001
African American 22.29 21.51 0.086
Hispanic 16.45 17.49 0.125
Asian 10.4 5.59 o 0.001
Native American 2.35 2.62 0.293
Number of Races Marked Mean: 1.05 Mean: 1.05 0.001
SD: 0.23 SD: 0.25
1 95.69 94.61
2 3.94 4.95
3 0.32 0.42
4 0.05 0.02
Generational Status
First generation 11.33 8.00 o 0.001
Second generation 7.83 6.89 0.014
Third generation and 51.72 56.76 o 0.001
beyond
Generation missing 29.12 28.34 0.238
Religion Mean: 2.23 Mean: 2.16 o 0.001
SD: 0.79 SD: 0.78
Not important 22.15 23.81
Somewhat important 32.39 36.29
Very important 45.46 39.89
Other Present During 29.47% 23.63% o 0.001
Interview
N 7,307 13,438
 Affection Among Interracial and Intra-Racial Adolescents
Appendix B: Mean Displays of Affection by Race of the Partners

Public Private Intimate

Respondent-Partner N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
All couples 11,049 4.03 (1.31) 4.00 (1.46) 2.50 (1.40)
White-White 5,721 4.20 (1.23) 3.96 (1.48) 2.47 (1.39)
White-African American 120 3.92 (1.36) 3.82 (1.52) 2.84 (1.32)
White-Hispanic 354 4.00 (1.32) 3.80 (1.61) 2.51 (1.43)
White-Asian 55 4.05 (1.39) 3.30 (1.48) 2.45 (1.42)
White-Native American 26 3.85 (1.49) 3.92 (1.55) 2.88 (1.17)
African American-African American 2,105 3.70 (1.45) 4.03 (1.42) 2.66 (1.39)
African American-White 106 3.69 (1.28) 3.98 (1.51) 2.74 (1.32)
African American-Hispanic 113 3.51 (1.52) 3.77 (1.58) 2.34 (1.44)
African American-Asian 8 3.51 (1.51) 3.77 (1.59) 2.75 (1.32)
African American-Native American 24 4.25 (0.70) 4.88 (0.35) 3.25 (1.16)
Hispanic-Hispanic 1,319 3.96 (1.30) 4.14 (1.35) 2.45 (1.38)
Hispanic-White 375 4.01 (1.28) 3.93 (1.57) 2.53 (1.40)
Hispanic-African American 93 3.61 (1.44) 3.95 (1.49) 2.34 (1.47)
Hispanic Asian 38 3.76 (1.42) 3.87 (1.36) 2.34 (1.56)
Hispanic-Native American 25 4.20 (1.12) 4.08 (1.15) 2.88 (1.33)
Asian-Asian 367 4.07 (1.23) 4.24 (1.30) 2.32 (1.53)
Asian-White 75 3.88 (1.29) 3.72 (1.53) 1.76 (1.35)
Asian-African American 14 3.86 (0.86) 4.00 (1.36) 2.79 (1.12)
Asian-Hispanic 55 4.13 (1.04) 3.96 (1.49) 2.24 (1.36)
Asian-Native American 4 3.25 (2.36) 3.25 (2.36) 2.25 (1.50)

507
Continued
 508
Appendix B—Continued
Public Private Intimate
Respondent-Partner N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Native American-Native American 12 4.17 (1.30) 4.25 (1.48) 2.25 (1.48)
Native American-White 22 4.14 (1.04) 4.14 (1.21) 1.82 (1.37)
Native American-African American 3 3.00 (2.65) 4.67 (0.58) 3.67 (0.58)
Native American-Hispanic 14 3.86 (1.40) 3.93 (1.49) 2.50 (1.60)
Native American-Asian 1 N/A N/A N/A

Social Science Quarterly