Download FullText - Brunel University Research Archive

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
processes among 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 tension that existed between social stability and social
change within the U.S. during his lifetime For example, commenting on the effects of
1
NOTE: The present chapter is an excerpt from the book, Identity and Interethnic Marriage in the
United States (Gaines, 2017), to be published by Routledge. Permission has been granted by the
publisher so that the author may deposit this chapter on the Brunel University Research Archive
(BURA) in advance of publication.
2
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 the persistence 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 with Gaines, 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
3
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 socialpsychological 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,
4
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
5
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 independent or
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 interdependent or 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 with symbolic
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.
6
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 to individuals’ 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 necessarily by 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, within social 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
7
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 as antecedent
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
8
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 selfdefinitions. 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)
9
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), all individuals 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
10
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
11
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 difficulty of 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 6070% 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.
12
From a symbolic interactionist standpoint (Mead, 1934/1967), individuals
retain the capacity to seek spouses outside or within their ethnic groups, regardless of
opposition from the society at large. In addition, individuals retain the capacity to
establish and maintain interethnic (or, more often, intraethnic) marriages that are
psychologically as well as physically fulfilling, whether relationship outsiders
approve of those relationships or not. Such active pursuit of individual and
interpersonal goals within the context of interethnic (as well as intraethnic) marriage
would be anticipated by Mead’s symbolic interactionism as interpreted by Gaines and
Hardin (2013). Furthermore, such consciously experienced individual and relational
processes help to explain how some interethnic marriages survive (and, perhaps,
thrive) over the long term.
So far, we have viewed the symbolic interactionist perspective on individuals
and interethnic marriage (inspired by Mead, 1934/1967) primarily as a window into
understanding the role of thought or cognition in the development of interethnic
romantic relationships. However, Gaines and Hardin (2013) concluded that symbolic
interactionism also should take individuals’ feelings or affect into account, within the
context of romantic relationships as a whole. Given that love (i.e., “a delight in the
presence of the other person and an affirming of his [or her] value and development
as much as one’s own”; May, 1953, p. 206, emphasis in original) is fueled jointly by
individuals’ intense feelings and thoughts toward specific other persons (Berscheid,
1985), and given that love has emerged as the primary driver of interethnic marriage
in spouses’ first-hand accounts of their relationships (e.g., Porterfield, 1978;
Rosenblatt, Karis, & Powell, 1995), we agree with Gaines and Hardin’s call for
increased attention to affect alongside cognition, within a symbolic interactionist
13
perspective on romantic relationships. Moreover, we would endorse Gaines and
Hardin’s conclusion specifically within the context of interethnic marriage.
Toward a Bidirectional Model of Individuals within Interethnic Marriage
As we have seen, Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism not only
encompasses the dual perspectives of role theory and symbolic interactionism but also
makes it possible for social scientists to integrate those perspectives into a
bidirectional model that involves individuals’ self-definitions, individuals’ behavior,
and role expectations (Stryker & Statham, 1985). Gaines, S. L. Williams, and
Mickelson (2013) offered a step in the direction toward a bidirectional model, with
regard to the role of stigmatization in relationship processes within culturally diverse
families (i.e., families in which at least one member of a member of an ethnic
minority group). Drawing upon Goffman’s (1963) interactionist role theory, Gaines
and colleagues contended that one should distinguish between internalized stigma
(reflecting the influence of societal stereotypes on individuals’ self-definitions,
possibly mediated by individuals’ behavior) and experienced stigma (reflecting the
potential for individuals to interpret their social status in a way that potentially rejects
societal stereotypes). Gaines et al. argued that both internalized stigma and
experienced stigma may be reflected in individuals’ direct versus indirect supportseeking behaviors, which in turn may be reflected in supportive versus unsupportive
responses from members of individuals’ social networks, within culturally diverse
families.
If social network members are interpreted as proxies for (potential) societal
agents, then one might be able to argue that the supportive and unsupportive
responses from social network members that Gaines, S. L. Williams, and Mickelson
(2013) proposed as outcomes of individuals’ direct and indirect support-seeking
14
behaviors represent the impact of individuals’ behavior on society. However, such an
interpretation might represent a logical stretch. Perhaps it would suffice for us to
acknowledge elements of a bidirectional model within Gaines et al.’s
conceptualization of components of stigma (i.e., internalized stigma and experienced
stigma), personality variables (i.e., self-esteem and depression), components of
support-seeking (i.e., perceived support availability, fear of support rejection, direct
support seeking, and indirect support seeking), and components of network responses
(i.e., supportive and unsupportive network responses), in the spirit of Goffman’s
(1963) interactionist role theory. Although we are especially interested in the
implications of Gaines et al.’s model for understanding individuals and interethnic
marriage, the model can be applied to additional relationships (e.g., sibling, parentoffspring) within the context of culturally diverse families.
Of course, families can be culturally diverse without having two parents from
different ethnic groups (e.g., those adoptive families among whom the parents share a
common ethnic background but do not have that background in common with one or
more of the children). Also, the model by Gaines, S. L. Williams, and Mickelson
(2013) was not proposed specifically with husband-wife ethnic similarities or
differences in mind. Nevertheless, Gaines et al.’s model provides a useful starting
point for considering the potential structure and content of bidirectional models
regarding individuals and interethnic marriage, consistent with the role theory and
symbolic interactionism elements of Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism and
Goffman’s (1963) interactionist role theory. We will keep Gaines et al.’s model in
mind, especially as we examine the topic of social stigma in greater detail.
SOCIAL BEHAVIORISM AND BEYOND:
INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY AND
15
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN INTERETHNIC MARRIAGE
According to Gillespie (2005), Mead (1934/1967) – who tends to be construed
as a social behaviorist (owing partially to the subtitle of Mind, Self, and Society) – can
be construed alternatively as a “theorist of the social act.” However, it is not clear
exactly which social act(s) should be given priority in empirical studies of human
interaction from Mead’s perspective. Indeed, in an early review of Mind, Self, and
Society, Doob (1935) criticized Mead for relying so heavily upon anecdotes as
support for social behaviorism. Therefore, in and of itself, social behaviorism may
not be sufficient to explain the interplay among identity, social behavior, and role
enactment within interethnic marriage.
Fortunately for Gillespie (2005) and other proponents of Mead (1934/1967) as
a “theorist of the social act,” Mead’s social behaviorism is compatible with the bestknown theory of behavior within the field of close relationships – namely, Thibaut
and Kelley’s (1959; Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) interdependence theory
(see Zayas, Shoda, & Ayduk, 2002). In the present section, we shall review
interdependence theory, focusing upon its origins as a neo-behaviorist theory
(Berscheid, 1985) and casting it as a necessary complement to social behaviorism.
Furthermore, in the process of merging social behaviorism with interdependence
theory, we hope to provide a solid conceptual foundation for evaluating empirical
studies of identity and interethnic marriage.
On the Dual Meanings of “Behaviorism” in the Social Sciences
As Schellenberg (1978) noted, Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism can be
construed as “behaviorist” if one accepts the premise that properties of the mind
(within which self and identity ultimately are represented; Swann & Bosson, 2010)
ultimately must be understood in terms of their implications for individuals’ thoughts,
16
feelings, words, and deeds (i.e., individuals’ covert and overt behavior). However,
Mead’s expansive view regarding the content of behavior was at odds with John B.
Watson’s (1919) restrictive view that “behaviorism” should be limited to social
scientists’ direct observation of individuals’ words and deeds. J. B. Watson’s
restrictive view on behaviorism emerged as the dominant view across psychology
(including social psychology) from the end of the World War I era until the end of the
World War II era, at least within the United States (see S. T. Fiske & S. E. Taylor,
1991).
In turn, as Schellenberg (1978) pointed out, B. F. Skinner’s (1938) radical
behaviorism was even more restrictive in scope than was J. B. Watson’s (1919)
classical behaviorism. For example, J. B. Watson and Raynor’s (1920) infamous fearinduction study of “Little Albert” was based on the premise that certain changes in
individuals’ physical and social environment can lead to changes in individuals’
mental states and resulting behavior over the long term; whereas Skinner (1957) – a
“master of social psychology” alongside Mead, according to Schellenberg –
contended that even the most uniquely human of all behaviors (i.e., speech
production) could be understood solely in terms of environmental, rather than mental,
influences. Skinner’s radical behaviorism was articulated most clearly in Skinner’s
operant reinforcement theory, which emphasized the effects of environmental rewards
and costs on individuals’ behavior over time (Hall & Lindzey, 1970).
Finally, Berscheid (1985) noted that Skinner’s (1938) operant reinforcement
theory is reflected in several prominent social-psychological theories that are relevant
to studies of interpersonal attraction. For instance, George Homans’s (1961) social
exchange theory addresses social interactions that involve intangible “commodities”
(e.g., love) as well as tangible commodities (e.g., money) in terms of the rewards and
17
costs that individuals accrue. Also, taking the intangible-tangible distinction further,
Uriel Foa and Edna Foa’s (1974) resource exchange theory proposes that close or
personal relationships can be distinguished from not-so-close or social relationships
largely in terms of the importance of reciprocation involving the intangible resources
of affection (i.e., love) and respect (i.e., status). In addition, adding the construct of
investments, John Stacey Adams (1965) argued that the “profits” (i.e., rewards minus
costs) that individuals experience via social interaction must be understood in terms of
the different amounts of investments that different individuals make within social as
well as personal relationships.
Interdependence Theory: A Neo-Behaviorist Theory of Close Relationships
Among all of the neo-behaviorist theories that bear the intellectual stamp of
Skinner’s (1938) operant reinforcement theory, John Thibaut and Harold Kelley’s
(1959) interdependence theory undoubtedly has been the most influential within the
field of close relationships (Berscheid, 1985). According to interdependence theory
as interpreted by Rusbult (1980, 1983), rewards are positively reflected, whereas costs
are negatively reflected, in relationship satisfaction (i.e., individuals’ happiness with a
given close relationship). In turn, relationship satisfaction is positively reflected in
relationship commitment (i.e., individuals’ persistence with a given close relationship;
for a meta-analytic review, see Le & Agnew, 2003). Lastly, relationship commitment
is reflected in a variety of pro-relationship behaviors, such as accommodation (i.e.,
individuals’ opting to refrain from responding to partners’ anger or criticism with
relationship-threatening behavior, instead responding with relationship-maintaining
behavior; Rusbult et al., 1991).
Interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) is best understood as “neobehaviorist” partly because, in its revised version by Kelley and Thibaut (1978),
18
individuals clearly possess the ability to prioritize the long-term stability of their
relationships over their short-term desire to retaliate against partners who have
behaved badly (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Thus, interdependence theory
acknowledges cognition as a potential predictor of individuals’ behavior within close
relationships. Indeed, the construct of interdependence refers to interaction partners’
influence on each other’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior, with the caveat that
individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior may be interrelated over time (Kelley et
al., 1983/2002).
Furthermore, interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) is “neobehaviorist” in that, within the revised version by Kelley and Thibaut (1978),
interactions within close relationships are cast as functions of the psychological
attributes of each of the partners, and as functions of the social situations in which the
interactions take place (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). In this regard, interdependence
theory is more clearly influenced by Kurt Lewin’s (1936) field theory than by
Skinner’s (1938) operant reinforcement theory. After all, Lewin argued that in order
to understand the behavior of each individual, one must begin by understanding the
influence of the individual’s psychological attributes as well as the influence of the
situation (Schellenberg, 1978).
Integrating Interdependence Theory with Social Behaviorism in Studying Individuals
within Marriage in General
Stryker and Statham (1985) contended that social psychologists might find it
useful to combine Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) interdependence theory with the role
theory perspective from Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism in attempting to
understand individuals’ perception of the rewards and costs that they have incurred
within marital and other family relationships. First, to the extent that individuals
19
internalize traditional (and societally promoted) gender role expectations regarding
the behavior of themselves and their spouses, individuals are likely to behave toward
their spouses in ways that conform to implicit or explicit gender-role demands.
Second, to the extent that individuals behave in ways that comply with gender-role
demands, individuals are likely to affirm those self-definitions that are associated with
their gender. Third, to the extent that individuals’ self-definitions are based upon
individuals’ gender, individuals will tend to view their spouses’ stereotypically
opposite-sex behavior as rewarding, and to view their spouses’ nonstereotypical
behavior as costly.
Conversely, Kelley and colleagues (1983/2002) emphasized compatibility
between Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) interdependence theory and the symbolic
interactionism perspective, rather than the role theory perspective, of Mead’s
(1934/1967) social behaviorism. Kelley et al. (1983/2002) pointed out that
individuals possess the ability to reflect on the rewards and costs that they perceive
from their spouses. In turn, such reflections may influence individuals’ own behavior
(as well as reflections upon that behavior) toward their spouses. Finally, the resulting
interactions between individuals and their spouses may result in active negotiation
concerning role expectations or lack thereof. Based on Kelley et al.’s (1983/2002)
integration of interdependence theory and symbolic interactionism, it is not clear
exactly how the self is implicated in the impact of received rewards and costs on
individuals’ own reward- and cost-accruing behaviors toward their spouses.
Nevertheless, Kelley et al.’s (2003) subsequent writings on self-presentation hint that
individuals’ desire to align the way that they view themselves with the way that their
spouses view them may mediate the impact of received rewards and costs on
individuals’ own behavior.
20
In a chapter on self-presentation and personal relationships, M. R. Leary and
Miller (2000) drew upon Goffman’s (1959) interactionist role theory in encouraging
relationship scientists to attend increasingly to the impact of individuals’ selfpresentation efforts upon their partners’ perceptions (and, by implication, the
development of the relationships in question). M. R. Leary and Miller did not
specifically advocate an integration of Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) interdependence
theory with the bidirectional model of identity, behavior, and society that reflects the
role theory and symbolic interaction components of Mead’s (1934/1967) social
behaviorism. Nevertheless, M. R. Leary and Miller drew partly upon the work of
interdependence theorists such as van Lange and Rusbult (1995) in arguing that
relationship scientists’ traditional concern with partner perceptions and relationship
dynamics should be complemented with the oft-neglected issue of self-presentation as
cause and consequence of role expectations. Thus, we shall operate under the
assumption that interdependence theory and social behaviorism can inform each other
as conceptual means toward relationship scientists’ understanding of individuals and
marriage in general.
Integrating Interdependence Theory with Social Behaviorism in Studying Individuals
within Interethnic Marriage in Particular
In an introductory article within an edition of the Journal of Social Issues (JSI)
that focused on interethnic marriage in the United States, Gaines and colleagues
(Gaines, E. M. Clark, & Afful, 2015) promoted Thibaut and Kelley’s interdependence
theory (Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) as a
conceptual framework for studying interethnic marriage in the United States.
Furthermore, in a concluding article within that same edition, E. M. Clark and
colleagues (E. M. Clark, Harris, Hasan, Votaw, & Fernandez, 2015) offered a detailed
21
interdependence analysis regarding rewards accrued, costs accrued, alternatives
contemplated, and investments made by individuals within interethnic marital
relationships. Clearly, interdependence theory is informative (and, perhaps,
necessary) as a conceptual tool for those relationship scientists who wish to
understand interethnic marriage processes and outcomes (Dainton, 2015). However,
it is entirely possible that interdependence theory will not be sufficient for relationship
scientists’ purposes in studying individuals within interethnic marriage (Leslie &
Young, 2015).
With regard to the aforementioned JSI edition on interethnic marriage in the
United States, the article by Bell and Hastings (2015) alludes to Goffman’s (1963,
1967) interactionist role theory as well as Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959)
interdependence theory as interpreted by Rusbult and Buunk (1993). Bell and
Hastings were especially interested in the impact of parental as well as public forms
of approval versus disapproval on individuals’ “facework” (i.e., individuals’ attempts
at successfully manging relationship outsiders’ impressions of their partners and of
themselves) within interethnic romantic relationships. In a small-scale qualitative
study of interracial romantic couples (who were not necessarily married), Bell and
Hastings found that, when both spouses received approval from their parents,
approval versus disapproval from the general public was irrelevant to individuals’
facework. However, when at least one spouse received disapproval from his or her
parents, approval versus disapproval from the general public did affect individuals’
facework. Thus, it is possible that, from the standpoint of individuals within
interethnic romantic relationships, approval versus disapproval from the general
public consistently reflects prevailing societal norms; whereas approval versus
disapproval from parents can reflect parents’ responsiveness to individuals’ emotional
22
needs as easily as it reflects society’s expectations. However, given that Bell and
Hastings did not focus on the social-psychological experiences of individuals
specifically within interethnic marriage, more research is needed regarding the pivotal
role of parental approval in the relationship-oriented and self-oriented impression
management efforts of individuals who marry across ethnic lines.
Notwithstanding Bell and Hastings’s (2015) allusion to Goffman’s (1963,
1967) interactionist role theory – which, as we have observed, is compatible with a
bidirectional model of self-definitions, behavior, and role expectations as anticipated
by a comprehensive reading of Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism – none of the
articles in the aforementioned JSI edition on interethnic marriage in the United States
explicitly mentions social behaviorism or the bidirectional model. Nevertheless, as
we review the literature on identity and interethnic marriage in the United States, we
shall return to the JSI edition throughout the present book. With Thibaut and Kelley’s
(1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) interdependence theory as its primary theoretical
base, the JSI edition probes the limits of interdependence theory as applied to
interethnic marriage. A key assumption underlying the rationale for the present book
is the assumption that a merger of Mead’s social behaviorism with Thibaut and
Kelley’s interdependence theory will yield substantially greater insight into the
dynamics of interethnic marriage than will either theory on its own.
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT BOOK
A cursory review of the literature on identity and interethnic marriage (e.g.,
scanning the results of a PsycInfo search, using “identity,” “interethnic,” and
“marriage” as text terms, on December 21, 2016) reveals that the literature has
evolved from tacit acceptance of longstanding, negative stereotypes against
interethnic marriage among scholars and laypersons alike (often without considering
23
any empirical evidence regarding relational dynamics between the spouses; e.g.,
Cerroni-Long, 1984), to conceptual, if not empirical, challenges to those stereotypes
(e.g., Silva, K. Campbell, & Wright, 2012), to empirical as well as conceptual
challenges to the stereotypes (e.g., Vasquez, 2014). However, such a review only
skims the surface regarding the range of conceptual and empirical perspectives that
can be brought to bear upon the topic of identity and interethnic marriage in the
United States, even if we limit ourselves to those conceptual and empirical
perspectives that are most relevant to Mead’s (1934/1967) social behaviorism.
The present Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the subject matter of the
entire book, bringing together sociological and psychological theories and research on
identity and interethnic marriage. Following the present chapter, we will examine the
interplay between the self and interethnic marriage processes in Chapter 2.
Afterward, we shall shift our focus to identity (including personal and social
identities) as related to interethnic marriage processes in Chapters 3 and 4. Next, we
will deal more specifically with gender identity and ethnic identity (the latter of which
can include so-called “racial,” religious, and national components) as related to the
dynamics of interethnic marriage in Chapters 5 through 7. Lastly, we shall offer a
critique of our coverage of the literature on identity and interethnic marriage,
alongside suggested directions for future research and a brief discussion of recurrent
scholarly and popular interest in interethnic marriage, in Chapter 8.