* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download FullText - Brunel University Research Archive
Social network (sociolinguistics) wikipedia , lookup
Structural anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Criminology wikipedia , lookup
Anthropology of development wikipedia , lookup
Social contract wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of terrorism wikipedia , lookup
Incest taboo wikipedia , lookup
Other (philosophy) wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
Structural functionalism wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
In-group favoritism wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Inclusive fitness in humans wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Labeling theory wikipedia , lookup
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making wikipedia , lookup
Origins of society wikipedia , lookup
George Herbert Mead wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
History of the social sciences wikipedia , lookup
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.