ArticlePDF Available

Black/White dating online: Interracial courtship in the 21st century.

January 2014
Psychology of Popular Media Culture 3(1):2-18

DOI:10.1037/a0035357

Authors:

G. A. Mendelsohn

University of California, Berkeley

Lindsay Shaw Taylor

Andrew T. Fiore

Meta

Coye Cheshire

University of California, Berkeley

We analyzed personal profiles and records of communication for more than a million nationwide users of a major online dating site. White more than Black, women more than men, and old more than young users stated a preference for a same-race partner. Overall, Blacks, especially Black men, proved more open to cross-race dating than did Whites. More than 80% of the contacts initiated by Whites were to Whites, with only 3% to Blacks. This sharp difference held for men and women and even for those who stated no racial or ethnic preference in their profiles. Blacks were 10 times more likely to contact Whites than Whites were to contact Blacks. Reciprocations to messages showed the same trends, but more moderately.

Stated Preferences (in Percents)

…

Percent of Contacts Initiated by Black and White Users to Black and White Recipients

…

Percent of Contacts Reciprocated by Black and White Recipients to Black and White Initiators

…

Figures - uploaded by Coye Cheshire

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Coye Cheshire

Content may be subject to copyright.

Black/White Dating Online: Interracial Courtship in the

21st Century

Gerald A. Mendelsohn, Lindsay Shaw Taylor, Andrew T. Fiore, and Coye Cheshire

University of California, Berkeley

We analyzed personal proﬁles and records of communication for more than a million

nationwide users of a major online dating site. White more than Black, women more

than men, and old more than young users stated a preference for a same-race partner.

Overall, Blacks, especially Black men, proved more open to cross-race dating than did

Whites. More than 80% of the contacts initiated by Whites were to Whites, with only

3% to Blacks. This sharp difference held for men and women and even for those who

stated no racial or ethnic preference in their proﬁles. Blacks were 10 times more likely

to contact Whites than Whites were to contact Blacks. Reciprocations to messages

showed the same trends, but more moderately.

Keywords: interracial dating, interethnic courtship, online dating, interpersonal attraction, inter-

group relations

At two in the morning on July 11, 1958, the

bedroom of Richard and Mildred Loving, a

married couple of mixed race, was entered by a

Virginia sheriff and two deputies who arrested

them for violation of the state’s Racial Integrity

Act. Nine years later, the Supreme Court ruled

that antimiscegenation laws were unconstitu-

tional. The ruling came three centuries after the

ﬁrst antimiscegenation statute was enacted in

the United States. Despite being unenforceable,

antimiscegenation legislation was not ﬁnally re-

moved from the books of all 50 states until 2000

when, by a vote of 59% to 41%, it was repealed

in Alabama. Clearly, throughout the country’s

history, interracial couples have had to contend

with a less than friendly environment. Recent

evidence indicates, however, that in the past

four decades there has been a marked change in

attitudes toward marriage between a Black and

a White person. Gallup Poll data collected in

1968 showed that 73% of Americans disap-

proved of interracial marriage, while 20% ap-

proved. The corresponding percentages in 2007

were 17% and 77%, a complete reversal (Car-

roll, 2007). The percentage of Black respon-

dents approving has been consistently higher

than the percentage not approving, but the per-

centages moved from 56% approving versus

33% against in 1968 to 85% versus 10% in

2007. In all groups (White, Black, and His-

panic), the percent approving is a function of

age; nevertheless, in the most recent poll, more

than two thirds of those aged ⬎50 years ap-

proved (Jones, 2011). The change in attitude has

been paralleled by a change in behavior. During

the same 40-year period, the prevalence of

Black–White marriages increased more than

ﬁvefold. Still, ⬍1% of all marriages in the

United States are between a White and a Black

person (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), a rate well

below what would be expected by chance. Even

among newlyweds in 2008, a group that is on

average considerably younger than the general

population, the percentage of Black–White mar-

riages did not reach 2% (Passel, Wang, & Tay-

lor, 2010).

It is not surprising that the rate of Black–

White intermarriage remains so low despite the

changes in law and attitude, for marriage be-

tween a White and a Black person has long been

a special case in the United States. Only nine

Gerald A. Mendelsohn and Lindsay Shaw Taylor, De-

partment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley;

Andrew T. Fiore and Coye Cheshire, School of Information,

University of California, Berkeley.

This research was supported in part by the National

Science Foundation, HSD-IIS 0624356.

Andrew T. Fiore is now at Facebook, Inc.

Lindsay Shaw Taylor is self-employed.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to Gerald A. Mendelsohn, 3210 Tolman Hall,

Berkeley, CA 94720-1650. E-mail: jermend@berkeley.edu

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2014, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2–18 2160-4134/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035357

states, including Hawaii and Alaska, have never

had an antimiscegenation law and it was not

until 1957 that more than half the states were

without one. Although the legal impediments

have been removed, those stemming from ste-

reotypes and prejudice remain in force. The data

on racial intermarriage reviewed by Lee and

Edmonston (2005) suggest, they write, that “so-

cial norms against White–Black marriage were

much stronger than norms against marriages

among the other groups” (p. 13). The research

literature on interpersonal attraction would like-

wise lead to the expectation that romantic rela-

tionships between Blacks and Whites would be

rare. It is well established that proximity and

similarity are positively associated with attrac-

tion and liking (Berscheid & Reis, 1998;Fiske,

2004). Both are likely to be substantially greater

within than between ethnic/racial groups, and

with respect to marriage in the United States,

homogamy is the rule (Blackwell & Lichter,

2004;Passel, Wang, & Taylor, 2010;Rosen-

feld, 2008).

Intermarriage and the courtship that precedes

it are central elements in the processes of as-

similation by minority groups. “Theorists,”

writes Rosenfeld (2002), “have used measures

of intermarriage as the most basic measuring

stick for the social distance between groups and

with good reason” (p. 152). Similarly, Kalmijn

and Van Tubergen (2010) describe intermar-

riage as “an indicator of the degree to which

different groups in society accept each other as

equals” (p. 459). By that standard, it is clear that

to date there has been only limited progress in

the assimilation of African Americans. But,

plainly, attitudes are changing and so too,

thanks to the Internet, is the social environment

in which courtship takes place. Various forms

of social networking that scarcely existed a de-

cade ago are now easily accessible to anyone

with an Internet-connected computer or a smart

phone (Pew Internet & American Life Project,

2010). Increasingly, as the use of online dating

services grows, people whose paths would

never have crossed ofﬂine now regularly meet

and have meaningful exchange in the virtual

world. Segregation—in housing, religious wor-

ship, employment, and so forth— has not gone

away, but the restrictions it imposes on the

dating/marriage market can be evaded online.

It is, of course, too early to know whether the

change in possibilities will result in a change of

actualities, but the study of patterns of online

dating can provide more detailed information

about interracial courtship than has hitherto

been available. Studies of online dating have an

important advantage over prior studies that have

largely relied on self-report measures, in that

they allow researchers to focus on actual court-

ing behavior, potentially consequential behav-

ior, rather than on what participants say they

have done or would be willing to do. What

makes online dating behavior particularly inter-

esting is the freedom of choice available to

daters—they are free to state preferences and to

contact and reply to whom they wish in near

anonymity and with no direct intrusion of third

parties. Thus, the data collected from online

dating sites can make a distinctive contribution

to the understanding of intergroup relations and

minority group assimilation in contemporary

American society.

Although in its early stages, a literature on

the role of race and ethnicity in online dating

has begun to accumulate. Studies by Feliciano,

Robnett, and Komaie, 2009;Robnett and Fel-

ciano (2011), and Feliciano, Lee, and Robnett

(2011) made use of a large sample of proﬁles

collected in four urban areas from heterosexual

users (age 18 –50 years) of a major online dat-

ing site. They reported ﬁndings regarding stated

racial/ethnic preferences of White, Hispanic,

African American, and Asian men and women.

Their results show that preferences vary as a

function of ethnicity and gender and their inter-

action. Women and Whites more than men and

African Americans indicated a preference for

partners of their own race, and members of

minority groups were more open to dating

Whites than Whites were to dating them. The

overall pattern of results suggests in their view

that the Black–White boundary is more “rigid”

(Felciano, Lee, & Robnett, 2011, p. 205) than

that between other groups. Findings consistent

with these were reported by Yancey (2007b,

2009), who downloaded about a thousand on-

line proﬁles from locations across the nation,

and by Sweeney and Borden (2009) in a sample

of young (aged 21–30 years) online daters in

Atlanta. Note that in these studies, the depen-

dent variable of interest was the stated racial/

ethnic preference(s) of participants. Statements

of preference, however, may or may not be in

accord with preferences as revealed in contact

behavior, that is, decisions about whom to con-

3BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tact and to whom to reply when contacted are

not necessarily consistent with what users state

their preferences to be. There are, to date, only

a few studies that have analyzed contact data,

but those that do conﬁrm the importance of race

and gender in online dating. The online dating

service OkCupid (Rudder, 2009) reported on its

blog that among its users, patterns of respond-

ing to messages depended on the race/ethnicity

of the sender and the recipient. For example,

White women were more likely to respond to

White men than to men of any other race/

ethnicity on the site. A study by Hitsch, Horta-

çsu, and Ariely (2010) conducted in 2003 in two

urban areas demonstrated same-race prefer-

ences for men and, more strongly, for women.

There was, however, an inconsistency between

stated and revealed preferences for women:

Women who stated no preference in regard to

race/ethnicity nevertheless revealed in their be-

havior a strong same-race/ethnicity preference.

Finally, Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, and Si-

monson (2008) in a study of speed dating like-

wise provided evidence of a preference for

one’s own race/ethnicity that was stronger in

women than in men. The observed gender dif-

ferences in these studies are consistent with

evolutionary theory, which predicts that women

will be more selective in choosing a mate than

will men (Buss, 2005;Trivers, 1972).

Together, the above studies suggest that (1)

individuals’ decisions about who interests them

as a potential date are strongly inﬂuenced by

considerations of race/ethnicity, and (2) what

individuals say they want can differ from what

their behavior reveals about their preferences.

This distinction between stated and revealed

preferences will be of central concern in the

current research. Since the classic studies of

LaPiere (1934), the discrepancy between atti-

tudes and behavior has been amply documented

in the social psychological literature (Fiske,

2004;Kraus, 1995;Wicker, 1969). With respect

to online dating, it is what participants say they

are interested in that has been most readily

accessible to researchers. As yet, we know little

about what they actually do, about what choices

they make when initiating contacts and when

responding to contacts they have received. The

particular strength of the data set we analyzed is

that we have available for each participant in-

formation on both stated preferences and on two

forms of revealed preference, contacts initiated

and contacts reciprocated. Results for each form

of preference are important in their own right,

but to have all three available permits an exam-

ination of the consistencies and inconsistencies

among them. Will, for example, the widespread

acceptance of interracial dating and marriage by

young people documented in recent attitude sur-

veys (Jones, 2011;Keeter & Taylor, 2011)be

manifest in their stated and in their revealed

preferences online?

The goal of the current research was to fur-

ther our knowledge of interracial dating by ex-

amining concurrently the stated and revealed

preferences of Black and White users of a major

online dating site. The study is based on a

nationwide sample of more than a million par-

ticipants who were seeking a date with a mem-

ber of the opposite sex. Whites predominated in

the sample, but there was substantial represen-

tation as well of other racial/ethnic groups,

including Blacks. Given the historical signif-

icance of relations between White and Black

people in the United States and the marked

changes, legal and attitudinal, they have un-

dergone in the last half century, it is on

Black–White dating that we will focus this

initial report. The major questions to be ad-

dressed follow:

1. To what extent do Black and White daters

state an interest in dating (a) members of

their own race, and (b) members of a

race/ethnicity other than their own?

2. To what extent do Black and White daters

initiate contact with persons of their own

race and of a race/ethnicity other than

their own? In particular, what are the rel-

ative rates of Black–Black, Black–White,

White–White, and White–Black contacts

initiated by participants?

3. To what extent do Black and White daters

reciprocate contacts they have received

online from Black and from White per-

sons?

4. For each of the questions (1), (2) and (3),

do the results vary as a function of the age

and gender of the participant?

Note that by comparing the answer to the ﬁrst

question to the answers to questions 2 and 3 we

can reach some conclusions about the consis-

4 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tency of stated preferences and preferences as

revealed by actual behavior.

We predicted on empirical and theoretical

grounds that greater stated and revealed prefer-

ences for same-race partners will be found (a)

for White than for Black participants, (b) for

women than for men, and (c) for older than for

younger online daters.

Method

We collected online dating proﬁles and re-

cords of messages exchanged among the owners

of those proﬁles from a major American online

dating site from February 2009 to February

2010. Through a cooperative agreement with

the dating site, the researchers obtained permis-

sion to parse, store, and aggregate proﬁle con-

tents and message records on a secure server

made available by the dating site. The records

were linked by anonymous ID numbers, which

we used to record sender ID number, recipient

ID number, date, and time for exchanged mes-

sages. At no time were the contents of any

messages available to the researchers.

The proﬁles contained demographic charac-

teristics, including age, sex, race, religion, edu-

cation, and so forth, both sought and offered,

that is, proﬁle owners described their own char-

acteristics and those desired in an ideal mate.

For each characteristic, online daters could pick

only one value for themselves (i.e., choose one

race/ethnicity from a list) but they could specify

more than one value that would be acceptable in

an ideal mate (i.e., they could select one or

several races/ethnicities and could also select

none from the list). Proﬁles also included other

information not analyzed in the present work,

including photos and textual self-descriptions

written by the proﬁle owners (see Fiore, Shaw

Taylor, Mendelsohn, & Hearst, 2008).

Sample Characteristics

We report data for Black and White hetero-

sexual users of the site. The sample comprised

more than one million users. The mean age of

the users in this sample was 40.5 years, and the

median was 40 years. Whites constituted 72%

and Blacks 12% of the site’s heterosexual users;

the remaining 16% of users were of other races

or ethnicities, of which the most prevalent

group was Hispanic/Latino (7%).

In the Results section, all data are organized

according to the race (Black vs. White), gender,

and age (young: 20 –39 years, middle: 40 –59

years, or old: ⱖ60 years) of the online daters in

our sample.

Variables of Interest

From the data to which we were granted

access on the site logs, we report the following:

Race. As part of their personal proﬁle, us-

ers indicated their own racial/ethnic identiﬁca-

tion by selecting one from among a list of labels

provided by the site. For this article, we selected

only those who self-identiﬁed as African Amer-

ican/Black or Caucasian/White.

Stated preferences. Users also speciﬁed in

their proﬁles the race(s)/ethnicity(ies) of their

ideal matches. We divided users into four pos-

sible categories based on their selections: (1)

those who speciﬁed only their own race (only

same); (2) those who speciﬁed only a group or

groups other than their own (only different); (3)

those who speciﬁed more than one race or eth-

nicity, including their own (same and other);

and (4) those who indicated no preferences

(any). Any was the default; users who did not

specify a preference were automatically as-

signed this label. Note that stated preferences

are based on the entire array of racial/ethnic

categories in the proﬁles, so White users who

are categorized as only different might have

indicated interest in any number of non-White

races/ethnicities, and mutatis mutandis for

Black users.

Contacts initiated. We used the site’s mes-

saging records in conjunction with the personal

proﬁles to extract data on the racial/ethnic iden-

tiﬁcation of each unique person with whom a

given user initiated contact. Then we simply

counted the number of times a Black or White

user sent an initial message to a Black or White

recipient. This count included only the ﬁrst

message sent by a user to a recipient, not any

replies or subsequent messages. We then aggre-

gated the data across all users in each Race ⫻

Gender ⫻Age ⫻Stated Preference category.

The data reported below are presented as per-

centages, that is, the percent of all the contacts

initiated by users in a Race ⫻Gender ⫻Age ⫻

Stated Preference category that went to Black

and to White recipients. This measure allowed

us to examine, for example, whether young

5BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Black women whose stated preference was any

initiated contacts (i.e., sent unsolicited mes-

sages) to Black men more or less often than they

initiated contacts to White men.

Messages reciprocated. We also used the

site’s messaging records to calculate the per-

centage of contacts received from Black and

from White users to which users replied. Rates

of reciprocation were obtained for each Race ⫻

Gender ⫻Age ⫻Stated Preference subgroup of

users. Counts of contacts reciprocated, as for

contacts received, were based only on the ﬁrst

contact between users; subsequent messaging

was not included in the totals. This measure

allowed us to determine whether, for example,

young Black males whose stated preference was

only others replied more or less often to Black

than to White users who contacted them.

Results

The results for stated and revealed prefer-

ences are shown in Tables 1–3. Note that in the

text, the term “cross-race” refers speciﬁcally to

contacts between White and Black participants.

Stated Preferences

We begin the presentation of results by show-

ing in Table 1 the distribution of stated prefer-

ences for a potential partner’s race or ethnicity.

To orient readers to the table, the entry in the

upper left cell shows that 21% of White men

aged 20 to 39 years stated a preference for only

same. Note that for each Race ⫻Gender ⫻Age

group, for example, young White males, the

percentages summed across preference catego-

ries total to 100%.

We conducted a series of chi-square analyses

on the data presented in Table 1. The ﬁrst, and

most general, evaluated a 4 ⫻4 contingency

table in which one dimension consisted of the

four gender by race/ethnicity groups (Black fe-

males, White males, etc.) and the second of the

four categories of stated preference (only same,

only different, etc.). A ␹

of 135,799 (df ⫽4,

p⬍.001) was obtained. Subsequent tests like-

wise yielded large ␹

s. In all the comparisons

that follow in the text below, differences were

signiﬁcant at p⬍.001 or beyond. We found

gender, Black–White, and age differences.

Women (48%) more than men (20%) stated a

preference for a partner of the same race/

Table 1

Stated Preferences (in Percents)

Stated preference Age White males White females Black males Black females

Only same Young 21 43 8 32

Middle 21 53 12 41

Old 29 63 13 40

Across age 21 50 10 36

Across age and gender 32 19

Same and other Young 26 19 25 31

Middle 33 22 30 31

Old 35 20 29 32

Across age 30 21 27 31

Across age and gender 26 28

Only different Young 01 03 06 04

Middle 02 02 08 03

Old 01 00 08 02

Across age 01 02 07 04

Across age and gender 02 06

Any Young 53 35 60 34

Middle 45 24 51 24

Old 35 17 50 26

Across age 48 28 56 30

Across age and gender 40 46

Note. Young ⫽20 –39 years, Middle ⫽40–59 years, Old ⫽ⱖ60 years. For each Race ⫻Gender ⫻Age group, for

example, young White males, the percentages summed across stated preference categories total to 100%.

6 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ethnicity, so, too, did Whites (32%) more than

Blacks (19%) and older more than younger par-

ticipants (young ⫽27%, middle ⫽32%, and

old ⫽43%).

Just 2% of White users stated a

preference for only different. Though still low,

the percentage was higher for Blacks (6%), par-

ticularly for Black men, whose percentage (7%)

was higher than that for Black women (4%).

The difference between genders for White us-

ers, though statistically signiﬁcant, was ⬍1%. A

higher percentage of Black (46%) than White

(40%) users, of men (49%) than women (28%),

and of young than old users (young ⫽47%,

middle ⫽37%, old ⫽27%) were in the cate-

gory any.

In sum, Whites more than Blacks and women

more than men stated a preference for a partner

of their own race/ethnicity. Black males were

least selective in the sense that the majority of

them stated no preference in regard to the race/

ethnicity of a potential partner. White females,

half of whom sought a partner of their own

race/ethnicity, were the most selective of the

four Race ⫻Gender groups.

Contacts Initiated

With the second table, we move from prefer-

ences as stated to preferences as revealed in

behavior. Table 2 shows the percent of contacts

initiated to Black and to White recipients by

people seeking a date. The table is organized by

stated preference, age, race/ethnicity, and gen-

der of the user who initiated the contact. Thus,

for example, the entries in the two upper left

cells indicate that 95% of the contacts initiated

by young White males whose stated preference

was for only same were to White women and

1% to Black women.

The most striking feature of the table is the

difference between the behavior of the White

and the Black users. An overwhelming majority

(85% for females and males combined) of the

When males did indicate an interest in a partner of the

same race/ethnicity, it was less likely to be their only choice

than one of multiple possibilities. The reverse was the case

for females. This gender difference held for both Blacks and

Whites and at all ages.

Table 2

Percent of Contacts Initiated by Black and White Users to Black and White Recipients

Stated preference

of initiator Age of initiator

White male

initiators

White female

initiators

Black male

initiators

Black female

initiators

White

recip.

Black

recip.

White

recip.

Black

recip.

White

recip.

Black

recip.

White

recip.

Black

recip.

Only same Young 95 01 97 01 07 85 03 94

Middle 95 01 98 00 07 87 03 94

Old 97 00 98 00 07 86 06 92

Across age 95 01 98 01 07 86 04 94

Same and other Young 84 01 85 06 25 54 14 76

Middle 84 01 90 04 26 54 14 79

Old 88 01 95 01 33 54 26 68

Across age 84 01 89 04 26 54 15 77

Only different Young 19 19 13 72 66 07 79 08

Middle 22 18 14 74 72 06 77 09

Old 24 09 46 42 82 06 80 15

Across age 21 18 14 71 70 06 78 09

Any Young 80 03 81 08 45 31 43 44

Middle 80 04 89 05 49 29 31 61

Old 86 03 94 03 56 27 52 41

Across age 80 04 84 07 47 30 40 49

Across age and pref. 83 03 90 05 40 39 22 70

Note. “Recip.” ⫽recipients. All percents were calculated within cell: The denominators were the total number of contacts

initiated by each Gender ⫻Age ⫻Stated preference group and the numerators were the number of those contacts that were

directed to White or Black recipients. Columns in bold type show same-race contacts. Values in the bottom row show the

overall proportions of White and Black men’s and women’s contacts that were sent to White and Black recipients,

collapsing across age and stated preference. Collapsing across gender as well, 85% of the contacts initiated by White

participants were to Whites and 3% were to Blacks; 39% of the contacts initiated by Black participants were to Whites and

48% were to Blacks.

7BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

contacts initiated by Whites were to Whites and

a correspondingly small percent (3%) were to

Blacks. In contrast, fewer than half (45%) the

contacts initiated by Blacks were to other

Blacks, and the percent of cross-race (Black to

White) contacts was 37%. Blacks, that is,

were ⬎10 times as likely to contact a White

person as Whites were to contact a Black per-

son. A 2 ⫻2␹

analysis in which the ﬁrst

dimension was the race/ethnicity (Black/White)

of the user initiating the message and the second

was the race/ethnicity (Black/White) of the re-

cipient of the contact produced ␹

⫽3,050,466,

p⬍.001. Chi-squares of great magnitude were

obtained in separate analyses of the data of the

men and of the women in the sample, as they

were for all of the comparisons cited in the text.

Note that because in the calculation of the chi-

squares, the expected cell frequencies were

based on the marginal values, the greater repre-

sentation of Whites than Blacks in the sample

was taken into account by these analyses. This

is a point of importance because there is a

plausible, but incorrect, explanation of the dif-

ferences between Black and White users based

on the composition of the sample. If, that is,

contacts had been made on a random basis,

White-to-White contacts would necessarily

have predominated and White-to-Black con-

tacts would have been relatively uncommon. By

the same token, however, Black-to-White con-

tacts would have been far more frequent than

Black-to-Black contacts, and that was not the

case. Further, a comparison of obtained and

expected frequencies within cells shows that the

number of messages sent by White users to

White recipients was above the expected values,

and the number sent to Black recipients well

below the expected values. Black users sent

fewer messages than expected to White recipi-

ents and more than expected to Black recipients.

While the distribution of ethnic groups and the

differing range of opportunities available to

Black and White users in the sample probably

ﬁgure to some degree in the revealed prefer-

ences reported above, they cannot serve as an

adequate explanation of the ﬁndings.

Table 3

Percent of Contacts Reciprocated by Black and White Recipients to Black and White Initiators

Stated preference

of initiator Age of initiator

White male

initiators

White female

initiators

Black male

initiators

Black female

initiators

White

recip.

Black

recip.

White

recip.

Black

recip.

White

recip.

Black

recip.

White

recip.

Black

recip.

Only same Young 20 10 13 07 14 24 08 15

Middle 24 15 18 11 15 24 10 21

Old 27 18 28 13 13 26 15 27

Across age 23 13 16 09 15 24 09 17

Same and other Young 20 14 14 13 21 21 13 15

Middle 24 18 20 17 23 24 18 22

Old 26 21 30 19 32 30 23 30

Across age 23 17 18 15 22 23 15 17

Only different Young 15 32 06 21 28 11 22 9

Middle 17 29 09 27 31 15 26 13

Old 17 31 23 35 42 28 17 19

Across age 16 30 08 23 30 14 23 10

Any Young 20 16 21 18 25 20 21 16

Middle 24 23 19 15 28 22 21 20

Old 27 25 29 19 31 23 28 28

Across age 23 20 21 17 26 21 21 17

Across age and pref. 23 19 18 16 25 22 17 17

Note. “Recip.” ⫽recipients. All percents are calculated within cell by dividing the number of reciprocations by the

number of contacts received for each subgroup. Columns in bold type show reciprocations to same-race senders. Values in

the bottom row show the overall reciprocation rates for White and Black men and women to White and Black initiators,

collapsing across age and stated preference. Collapsing across gender as well, White participants reciprocated 19% of the

contacts received from Whites and 16 percent of the contacts received from Blacks; Black participants reciprocated 20%

of the contacts received from Whites and 19% of the contacts received from Blacks.

8 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Twelve percent of the contacts initiated by

White and 19% by Black users were to mem-

bers of races or ethnicities other than Black or

White (hereafter referred to as “other”). Here,

too, there was a difference in the behavior of

White and Black users. When White users did

initiate a contact to someone not of their own

race, it was more often to another (12%) than to

a Black person (3%), but when Black users did

so, chances were about two to one that it would

be to a White person. The direction of the

difference was the same across genders for both

Black and White participants, but the effect was

far stronger for White males than for White

females.

For both Blacks and Whites, the percentages

shown in Table 2 vary as a function of gender

and age, but they do not vary in the same

direction. For Black women, same-race contacts

exceeded cross-race contacts (70% vs. 22%);

there was scarcely any difference for Black men

(39% vs. 40%). Among Whites, the strong pre-

ponderance of same-race to cross-race contacts

held for both genders. With respect to age, the

percentage of same-race contacts was higher for

old (91%) than for young (84%) Whites, but

among Black participants, same-race contacts

were higher for young (44%) than old (42%)

users, and younger Blacks were more likely to

initiate contact to a same- than to a cross-race

recipient.

Inspection of Table 2 shows that patterns of

revealed preferences varied across the four cat-

egories of stated preference. Users whose stated

preference was for same only were true to their

word. In this group of online daters, the per-

centage of same-race contacts initiated by

White women was 98%, by White men 95%, by

Black women 94%, and by Black men 86%.

Users whose stated preference was for different

only were likewise true to their word. In this

group, cross-race (Black–White) contacts were

the choice of Black females (78%), White fe-

males (72%), and Black males (70%), but not of

White males (18%) who instead initiated the

majority (61%) of their contacts to members of

races or ethnicities other than Black or White.

Of the four categories of stated preference,

the greatest interest, we think, attaches to the

behavior of the users in the category any, the

users who, in effect, indicated an indifference to

race. Although they gave no stated prefer-

ence(s), White users in this category revealed in

their behavior a strong preference for members

of their own race. The percentages of same-race

contacts were 84% for women and 80% for

men, and cross-race contacts were, respectively,

7% and 4%. The percentages of same- and

cross-race contacts initiated by Blacks who

speciﬁed any were not nearly as discrepant.

Black women were more likely to contact

a Black than a White man (49% vs. 40%), but

for Black men cross-race contacts were more

frequent than same-race contacts (47% vs.

30%). Overall in the category any, Black users

were seven times more likely to contact a White

person than White users were to contact a Black

person.

To evaluate these differences, we formed a

4⫻2 contingency table in which one dimen-

sion was the race/ethnicity by gender group

(Black female, etc.) of the user who initiated the

contact and the second was the classiﬁcation of

the recipient of the contact as same- or cross-

race. The analysis of the frequency data in the

table produced a ␹

of greater than one million,

p⬍.0001. A comparison of the expected and

obtained frequencies within cells shows that

cross-race contacts were lower than expected

for White and higher than expected for Black

participants, while same-race contacts were

higher than expected for White and lower than

expected for Black participants. This pattern of

results was the case for both genders in both

racial/ethnic groups.

Inspection of Table 2 makes it clear that the

disinclination of Whites to contact members of

other races or ethnicities, in particular Blacks,

was true at all ages, including among young

users. Summing across categories of stated pref-

erence and gender, 4% of the contacts initiated

by younger White users were to Black recipi-

ents. This is higher than the percent initiated by

older users, but by only 2%.

The analyses of the data on contacts initiated

leads to these conclusions: In the sample as a

whole, same-race contacts predominated, but

with marked differences between the behavior

of White and Black users. The probability of

initiating a cross-race contact was substantially

greater for Blacks than for Whites. Further,

whereas White men and White women behaved

in a similar fashion, Black men and women did

not. A distinct majority of Black women fa-

vored same- over cross-race contacts, while,

in contrast, Black men favored cross- over

9BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

same-race contacts by a small margin. There

are sound empirical grounds for having con-

ﬁdence that these conclusions are not an ar-

tifact of the preponderance of White users and

proﬁles in the population under study.

Messages Reciprocated

In Table 3, we present a second and equally

important measure of revealed preferences—

reciprocation data. Initiating a contact is, in

effect, an invitation to which one may or may

not receive a response; the communication is

unidirectional. It is with a reciprocation that the

communication becomes personalized and bidi-

rectional, that a relationship, whatever its dura-

tion, has begun. Thus, this second measure of

revealed preferences builds on the ﬁrst, contacts

initiated, in that it indexes behavior at a differ-

ent, subsequent stage of the relationship. It is a

point of some interest, consequently, whether

the patterns of White–Black reciprocation differ

in any important ways from the pattern ob-

served for the data on the initiation of contact.

Table 3 shows the percent of contacts received

by users to which they responded. The entry in

the upper left cell, for example, indicates that

young White males who stated a preference for

only same reciprocated 20% of the contacts

initiated to them by White women. Note that

because of the way this measure was derived,

that is, as a percentage of messages received,

differences in the representation of Whites and

Blacks in the study population could not have

affected its calculation.

Before examining the data entered in Table 3,

it is useful to establish a point of reference: the

rate of reciprocation in the population as a

whole was 0.19. Two general results should also

be noted. First, women reciprocated contacts at

a lower rate than men (17% vs. 23%) and sec-

ond, rates of reciprocation increased with age

(young ⫽17%, middle ⫽19%, and old ⫽

27%), the rate rising more sharply for women

than for men. These results held for both Black

and White users. Black men were a bit more

likely than White men to reply to a contact

(24% vs. 23%) but the rates of Black and White

women differed by a negligible 0.1%.

The analysis of the ﬁrst measure of revealed

preferences, contacts initiated, showed that

White users by a large margin preferred a part-

ner of their own race to a partner of a race or

ethnicity other than their own; White-to-Black

contacts, in particular, were rare. Black users by

a smaller margin were also more likely to con-

tact someone of their own than of another eth-

nicity, but cross-race (Black to White) contacts

were much more probable for Black than for

White users. The reciprocation data parallel the

initiation data for White participants. They re-

ciprocated 19% of the messages received from

Whites and 16% of the messages received from

Blacks. The difference between proportions was

signiﬁcant at z⫽59.66, p⬍.001. Unless oth-

erwise noted, large, highly signiﬁcant zscores

were obtained for all the comparisons that fol-

low. The two measures of revealed preference,

contacts initiated and contacts reciprocated, did

not, as they did for Whites, vary in the same

direction for Blacks: in contrast to their behav-

ior in the initiation of contacts (same race ⬎

cross race), Black users reciprocated a higher

percent of the messages received from Whites

(20%) than from Blacks (19%). This result was

due to Black men, who reciprocated 25% of the

messages from White and 22% of the messages

from Black women; the difference between

same- and cross-race reciprocations for Black

women was miniscule and statistically insignif-

icant. The ﬁnding that cross-race reciprocations

were more probable for Blacks (19%) than for

Whites (16%), a ﬁnding that holds for both

genders, is consistent in direction with the data

on the initiation of contacts. Although there was

consistency in direction across the two mea-

sures, a comparison of Table 3 to Table 2 shows

that the effect was stronger for contacts initiated

than for contacts reciprocated: Whites were

26.5 times more likely to contact a White than a

Black person, but only 1.2 times more likely to

reciprocate to a White than to a Black person.

Black users not only reciprocated to Whites

more than Whites did to Blacks, they also re-

ciprocated more to others (20%) than did

Whites (17%). Here, too, the direction of dif-

ference is the same for reciprocations as for

initiations and the effect is less strong for the

former than for the latter.

Inspection of Table 3 shows that reciproca-

tions were to some extent a function of stated

preferences. Users who stated a preference for

same only or different only were, as with con-

tacts initiated, true to their word, and this was

the case for Blacks and for Whites of both

genders and at all ages. Again, the behavior of

10 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the users who indicated an indifference to the

race or ethnicity of a partner is of particular

interest. For White users of both genders whose

stated preference was any, same-race exceeded

cross-race reciprocations, including for the

young. That is consistent with the data for con-

tacts initiated, though the differences were more

moderate in the reciprocation than in the contact

data. There was less consistency between the

two measures of revealed preference for Blacks

of either gender whose stated preference cate-

gory was any. Black women reciprocated more

to Whites (21%) than to others (19%) and least

to Blacks (17%) even though they initiated con-

tacts more to Blacks than to Whites and least to

others. In one important regard, the pattern of

reciprocations for Black men, other (29%)

greater than White (26%) greater than Black

(21%), does resemble the pattern of contacts

initiated: On both measures the percent for

cross-race was greater than the percent for

same-race.

To summarize, on both measures of revealed

preference, Black users showed more interest in

cross-race dating than did White users. This was

the case for men and women, for the young and

even for those (in the category any) whose

stated preferences indicated an indifference to a

partner’s ethnicity. The size of the differences

between White and Black participants was

much greater in the initiation than in the recip-

rocation data.

Discussion

The primary source of systematic quantita-

tive data on romantic relationships between

Blacks and Whites in the United States has been

the decennial reports of the U.S. Census Bu-

reau. By their nature, Census data are informa-

tive about the later stages of relationship forma-

tion, marriage, and/or cohabitation, but are mute

with respect to the events that preceded them. A

number of researchers have pointed out that

marriage and dating differ in several ways, of

which the most important is that dating does not

entail the serious and public commitment that

marriage does (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004;Gar-

cia & Rivera, 1999;Liu, Campbell, & Condie,

1995;McClintock, 2010;Sweeney & Borden,

2009;Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1995;Wil-

son, McIntosh, & Insana, 2007;Yancey, 2002).

There is a literature, not an extensive one, on

interethnic dating that is based primarily on

retrospection and self-report. The samples in

these studies are typically of modest size, nar-

rowly localized, and limited to young people.

They do suggest that ethnocentrism is charac-

teristic of dating, but that interethnic dating is

not uncommon, especially among men; there is

little speciﬁcally about Black/White dating

(Clark-Ibanez & Felmlee, 2004;Firmin & Fire-

baugh, 2008;Knox, Zusman, Bufﬁngton, &

Hemphill, 2000;Levin, Taylor, & Caudle,

2007;Liu et al., 1995;Martin, Bradford, Drze-

wiecka, & Chitgopekar, 2003;McClintock,

2010;Todd, McKinney, Harris, Chadderton, &

Small, 1992;Yancey & Yancey, 1998). The

increasingly widespread use of online dating

services, however, has provided a new source of

data that can, as in this study, be used to sub-

stantially expand our knowledge of interracial

courtship.

To establish context, we should brieﬂy re-

view the main ﬁndings in regard to patterns of

interracial and interethnic marriage by Whites

and Blacks. Blacks are more likely than Whites

to be married to a spouse of a different race or

ethnicity (U. S. Census, cited in Lee & Edmon-

ston, 2005), and the recent Pew Research Center

report previously cited (Passel, Wang, & Tay-

lor, 2010) indicates that this historical trend

continues to be the case. Rates of intermarriage

for White men and women are nearly the same,

but there is an important gender difference

among Blacks; Black men are much more likely

than Black women to be married to someone of

a race or ethnicity not their own. And with

respect speciﬁcally to Black/White marriages,

the ratio of Black husband/White wife to White

husband/Black wife couples approaches two to

one (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

Though marriage could perhaps be regarded

as the ultimate measure of revealed preference,

marriage as it is currently practiced in the

United States depends on a joint decision, the

coming together of two chains of preference

that play out sequentially and interactively.

The links in the chain are of many kinds—

physical appearance, education, religion, and so

forth—and, as our data show, race. The se-

quence begins with decisions about the charac-

teristics of the partner sought, represented in

this study by the statements of racial and ethnic

preferences in the proﬁles posted by the users.

The predictions that Whites more than Blacks,

11BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

women more than men, and older more than

younger users would show a preference for dat-

ing partners of their own race were conﬁrmed

by the results for stated preferences.

The pre-

dictions were based on the census data, results

of the available studies of interethnic dating,

and the well-established ﬁnding in the evolu-

tionary literature that women are more selective

than men in their choice of a mate (Buss, 2005;

Trivers, 1972).

The predictions were conﬁrmed as well by

the results for the ﬁrst measure of revealed

preferences, contacts initiated. The direction of

the differences between White and Black users

is not at all surprising. It is, rather, the magni-

tude of the differences that is impressive. A

White contacting a Black was a low probability

event—just 3 of a 100 contacts initiated by

Whites were to Blacks, though Blacks consti-

tuted 12% of the sample. In contrast, more than

a third of the contacts initiated by Blacks went

to Whites. Those are not minor effects. Evi-

dently, Whites are just not interested in dating

Blacks. The data reveal that this was true at all

age levels. That members of the generation that

came to maturity after the successes of the civil

rights movement and after the demise of anti-

miscegenation laws were so little different in

their preferences (both stated and revealed)

from the generations that preceded them was

not necessarily expectable. Whatever surveys

may show about the attitudes of millenials and

members of Generation X (Jones, 2011;Keeter

& Taylor, 2011), the evidence from both mar-

riage and online data suggest that in contrast to

what they say, they are like their predecessors in

what they do.

What about users who stated no racial or

ethnic preferences? Was their stated indiffer-

ence to race and ethnicity reﬂected in their

behavior? The answer for Whites is that it was

not, for even among those who speciﬁed no

preference, contacts to Whites predominated

greatly and contacts to Blacks were at a low

level irrespective of age. In contrast, a majority

of the contacts initiated by Black users in the

category any were to members of races or eth-

nicities other than their own, including Whites.

Finally, it should be noted that the gender dif-

ferences among Black users—men being less

likely than women to initiate same-race con-

tacts—are consistent with the marriage data

summarized above.

White users not only initiated a higher per-

centage of their contacts to members of their

own race, they were also more likely to recip-

rocate a contact from a White than from a Black

initiator. The difference in the rates of same-

and cross-race reciprocations was not, however,

nearly as extreme as the difference obtained for

contacts initiated. Black users, in fact, were as a

group more likely to reciprocate a message from

a White person than from a Black person,

though this overall effect was due to the males.

White users who stated an indifference to race

and ethnicity nevertheless reciprocated at a

higher rate to Whites than to Blacks or others,

but Blacks, both male and female whose stated

preference was any reciprocated at a higher rate

to Whites and others than to Blacks. This was

for the women a reversal of the pattern for

messages initiated.

For those who believe that increased rates of

intermarriage would be a social gain, an impor-

tant step in overcoming centuries of racism, the

results of this study bring both encouraging and

discouraging news. A substantial percentage of

Blacks, it is clear, was open to and interested in

romantic relationships with Whites. Whites,

however, both in their stated and revealed pref-

erences did not show a comparable interest in

dating Blacks. True, their reluctance to initiate

contacts to Blacks was more extreme than their

reciprocation behavior, which though also fa-

voring Whites over Blacks did so at a more

moderate level. One might have assumed from

examining the initiation data that the probability

of a White user reciprocating a contact from a

Black person would be low but that proved not

to be the case. There is, it seems, an important

psychological difference between deciding to

initiate a cross-race contact and deciding

whether or not to respond to one: The former

requires actively crossing a boundary, but the

latter does not, for the boundary has already

been crossed. Instead of the potentially inhibit-

ing uncertainty about how a cross-race message

will be received, it is clear that a cross-race

relationship, speciﬁcally with you, the recipient,

is of interest to the person who made the con-

tact. To step across the boundary, that is, is

Note in this regard that a signiﬁcantly higher percent of

men than women indicated an indifference to the ethnicity

of a partner, that is, were in the category any.

12 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

more difﬁcult than to respond to someone who

has already done so. Nevertheless, because us-

ers received many more same-race than interra-

cial contacts, when both contacts received and

rates of reciprocation were taken into account,

we found that the percentage of all reciproca-

tions by Whites that went to Blacks was about

5%. The percent of reciprocations from Blacks

to Whites was about 30%, and, overall, just 7%

of reciprocations involved a Black/White pair.

The direction of the major difference between

Black and White users—Whites more than

Blacks were interested in dating members of

their own race—was found for all three of the

measures of preference. At the same time, there

were discrepancies among the measures both in

magnitude and direction that raise an important

methodological point for studies of dating,

namely that stated preferences, contacts initi-

ated, and contacts reciprocated are related but

not interchangeable measures. For example,

young White individuals who stated an indiffer-

ence to the race or ethnicity of a partner were, in

fact, highly selective in their revealed prefer-

ences; 85% of the contacts they initiated were to

Whites and 3% to Blacks. Were they hypocrit-

ical, alert to the realities of the social world,

striving for political correctness, attempting an

optimizing strategy of self-presentation? Our

data do not permit us to choose among those

alternatives, but the disparity between what was

said and what was done make predictions about

the future difﬁcult. Judging from their stated

preferences, the younger generation will be a bit

more open to intermarriage than their predeces-

sors. Judging from their behavior, change is

likely to be a slow process.

Because, as we have seen, preferences vary

as a function of race, age, and gender and dif-

ferent measures of preference do not necessarily

yield the same results, it is difﬁcult to compare

our ﬁndings with those of studies that do not

take account of those distinctions. Is there, for

example, a same-race preference, stronger in

women than in men, as suggested by some

previous research? In our data, yes and no.

Whites initiated a large majority of their con-

tacts to members of their own race, but with

only a minor difference between men and wom-

en. Black men, however, initiated a higher per-

centage of their contacts to Whites than to

Blacks. Meanwhile, a majority of young men

and a third of young women stated no racial or

ethnic preferences, while older users, women

more than men, did state a same-race prefer-

ence. There is a devil lurking in the details. It is,

perhaps for that reason, that our ﬁndings do not

support the conclusions about the dating behav-

ior of White and Black users published on the

OkCupid blog. The dismal portrait of the situ-

ation of Black women presented by OkCupid,

for example, “every race—including other

Blacks—singles them out for the cold shoulder”

(Rudder, 2009, italics original), has received a

good deal of public notice (see, e.g., Coates,

2010). But our data paint a different picture;

more than half the reciprocations of Black men

were to Black women, and that was true in all

age groups. That White men show little interest

in dating Black women is not a point of con-

tention.

Generalizability

Access to the Internet has continued to rise

among all social groups in the past several

years (Jones & Fox, 2009;Pew Internet &

American Life Project, 2010) and social net-

working has become a commonplace. Online

dating is now a well-established mode of

ﬁnding a romantic partner (Rosenfeld &

Thomas, 2012); testimony to its role in the

formation of long-term relationships is plen-

tiful. Rosenfeld and Thomas report that in

2010, 21% of heterosexual partners in their

sample met on the Internet, a percentage ap-

proaching that of the leader, met through

friends. This is all to say that it is increasingly

reasonable to have conﬁdence in the general-

izability to ofﬂine behavior of ﬁndings from a

large sample of users of an online dating site

such as ours. We must acknowledge some

problems, however. As we pointed out, the

ﬁndings of the present study are not always in

agreement with the ﬁndings of other studies

of online dating sites. That is, in part, because

of differences in methodology and sampling,

but undoubtedly differences among online

sites also contribute. Some sites cater to spe-

ciﬁc populations, some attempt to use a

matching algorithm to pair users or to assess

compatibility. On almost every dating site,

the pool of proﬁles the site makes most read-

ily visible to a user is at least somewhat

inﬂuenced by the user’s stated preferences.

This may make exposure to out-group mem-

13BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

bers less likely unless the user explicitly

seeks it. Some, like eHarmony, present only

the top matches as determined by the site, not

allowing users to search freely for other pro-

ﬁles. The site from which our data come

included both searching and matching func-

tionality but put little emphasis on metrics of

compatibility and did not constrain users from

freely searching or browsing proﬁles. Thus,

relative to other sites, it provides a service

that is more like an open market for potential

dating partners than a guided tour of the pos-

sibilities. Moreover, the sample is nation-

wide, with no restrictions of city, state, or

region. Still, the question remains of the ex-

tent to which our results can be generalized to

ofﬂine behavior. A direct empirical compari-

son between dating online and in the ﬂesh

might be useful, but note that in their overall

outlines our preference data, stated and re-

vealed, are similar to the census data on

Black/White marriage and cohabitation and to

the available data from ofﬂine studies of in-

terracial dating. All show, for example, that

Blacks, men especially, are far more willing

than Whites to form interracial romantic re-

lationships. The similarity of the ﬁndings

across these three sources of data gives reason

to believe that the results of the present study

of online dating are informative about the

contemporary state of interracial courtship

more generally.

The observed similarity between online and

ofﬂine behavior has another important impli-

cation. We pointed out in the introduction that

because of segregation, the proximity of

Whites and Blacks is sharply limited, but that

in the social environment of the Internet, seg-

regation, at least in its physical sense, is not a

factor. To ﬁnd, then, that the patterning of

romantic relationships between Whites and

Blacks is so similar in these two different

social environments suggests that, in effect,

segregation is as much a psychological phe-

nomenon, a state of mind, as it is a physical

reality.

Theoretical Implications

Despite the recognition that there are impor-

tant differences between dating and marriage, it

remains the case, as Tucker and Mitchell-

Kerman observed in 1995, that we lack theories

of interracial/ethnic dating as such. Instead, the

theoretical questions and approaches character-

istic of studies of interracial dating have been

imported from the literature on interracial mar-

riage. That theorizing has generally followed an

exchange approach to the explanation of inter-

marriage. The core assumption of exchange ap-

proaches is that during courtship members of

each race trade resources (power, money, good

looks, education, etc.) in an effort to maintain

and enhance social position. However, the

validity of this assumption and its empirical

standing have recently been questioned by re-

searchers. Rosenfeld (2005,2010) argues that

the predominant exchange-based interpretive

framework, status-exchange theory (Davis,

1941;Merton, 1941), is not empirically well-

supported. But it does seem to be the case that

in a structural sense, Blacks proﬁt more from an

interracial relationship than do Whites. Robnett

and Felciano (2011) observe, “Whites . . . have

little to gain by dating minorities unless the

latter can elevate their economic status” (p.

808), which given the income and educational

disparities in the United States, they are un-

likely to do on average. It is not clear, then, just

what is being exchanged for the higher status of

Whites. And it is likewise puzzling, given the

evidence that Black women are having difﬁ-

culty ﬁnding suitable mates of their own race

(Banks, 2011;Dixon, 2009), that it is Black

men rather than Black women who show the

stronger preference for interracial dating (and

marriage). Theoretically, the gender experienc-

ing a shortage of marriageable in-group mem-

bers should be more, not less, inclined toward

outmarriage (Blau & Schwartz, 1984;Craig-

Henderson, 2006;Kalmijn & Van Tubergen,

2010).

Yancey (2009) takes the position that since

African Americans “are not allowed to partici-

pate in the majority culture” (p. 121), their

alienation leads to a rejection of dating exoge-

nously. However, our data, particularly the re-

ciprocation data, do not conﬁrm his argument.

To the extent that assimilation theory (like Gor-

don, 1964) assumes that “assimilation is inevi-

table for all minority groups, regardless of

whether minorities are racially or ethnically de-

ﬁned” (Qian, 2002, p. 44), it, too, is not well

supported by our data or by others’ evidence on

Black/White marriage or dating. Perhaps that

should not be surprising. Studies of assimilation

14 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

have, until recently, focused primarily on im-

migrants of European origin. The ancestors of

African Americans, however, did not come to

this country voluntarily to seek freedom or eco-

nomic improvement. Our current conceptions of

assimilation may be of limited relevance to a

population originally enslaved, chronically den-

igrated, and for most of its history systemati-

cally excluded from political and economic

power. If the formation of intimate relationships

is a key marker of assimilation, the evidence

suggests that the “inevitable” is not yet happen-

ing with respect to revealed preferences, even

though attitudes and stated preferences have

clearly become more inclusive. In sum, we con-

clude that there is not a good ﬁt between the

data and extant theories of interracial dating.

Robnett and Felciano (2011) reach a similar

conclusion and point to “the need for better

understanding of the ways in which racialized

masculinities and femininities are constructed

(p. 819)”.

Whatever the state of the theoretical liter-

ature on interracial dating, empirically one

ﬁnding stands out: A substantial percentage

of Black daters are open to a relationship with

someone of a different race or ethnicity, but

the great majority of White daters are not.

Perhaps “with little to gain” and a good deal

to risk in the reaction of third parties

(Kalmijn, 1998), particularly family and

friends (Bratter & King, 2008;Childs, 2005;

Craig-Henderson, 2006;Harris & Kalbﬂeisch,

2000;Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006;Levin et al.,

2007;Lewis, 1994;Miller, Olson, & Fazio,

2004;Troy, Lewis-Smith, & Laurenceau,

2006;Wang, Kao, & Joyner, 2006;Yancey,

2007a), endogamy is much the easier course

for a White person to follow. But the question

of why Whites, even as their stated prefer-

ences become more open, are unwilling to

venture away from a partner of their own

race, particularly to a Black person, is not one

about which we have much empirical infor-

mation. Theories of social identity, in-group

favoritism, and racism (e.g., Devine, 1989;

Dovidio, 2001;Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998;

Tajfel, 1982;Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Fla-

ment, 1971) might well be relevant but there

is to date little application of such theories to

courtship behavior. A desire to maintain the

power and status relationships that work to

their advantage (Fang, Sidanius, & Pratto,

1998) may play a role as well. A better un-

derstanding of the revealed preferences of

Whites is, however, a matter of some impor-

tance because the dominant group in society

is effectively the gatekeeper whose choices

can promote or impede intermarriage. Assim-

ilation requires the cooperation of what is

conventionally called in the assimilation lit-

erature the “host society,” and that has not

been forthcoming. Despite the changes in the

law and in attitudes during the past half cen-

tury, it would be premature to conclude that

we have entered the postracial era; if our data

are any indication, it appears that waiting for

its arrival will take some patience.

References

Banks, R. R. (2011). Is marriage for white people?:

How the African American marriage decline af-

fects everyone. New York, NY: Dutton.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and

close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &

G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology

(Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 193–281). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homog-

amy among dating, cohabiting and married cou-

ples. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719 –737.

doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02311.x

Blau, P. M., & Schwartz, J. E. (1984). Crosscutting

social circles: Testing a macrostructural theory of

intergroup relations. New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Bratter, J. L., & King, R. B. (2008). But will it last?:

Marital instability among interracial and same-race

couples. Family Relations, 57, 160 –171. doi:

10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00491.x

Buss, D. M. (2005). The handbook of evolutionary

psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Carroll, J. (2007, August 16). Most Americans ap-

prove of interracial marriages. Retrieved from http://

www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-

approve-interracial-marriages.aspx

Childs, E. C. (2005). Navigating interracial borders.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Clark-Ibanez, M., & Felmlee, D. (2004). Interethnic

relationships: The role of social network diversity.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 293–305.

Coates, T. (2010, March 5). The black damsel in

dating distress. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://

www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/03/the-

black-damsel-in-dating-distress/37085/

Craig-Henderson, K. M. (2006). Black men in inter-

racial relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-

action Publishers.

15BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste societies.

American Anthropologist, 43, 376 –395. doi:

10.1525/aa.1941.43.3.02a00030

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice:

Their automatic and controlled components. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,

5–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5

Dixon, P. (2009). Marriage among African Ameri-

cans: What does the research reveal? Journal of

African American Studies, 13, 29 – 46. doi:

10.1007/s12111-008-9062-5

Dovidio, J. F. (2001). One the nature of contempo-

rary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social

Issues, 57, 829 – 849. doi:10.1111/0022-4537

.00244

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the

nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes,

consequences, and challenges of aversive racism.

In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Racism:

The problem and the response (pp. 3–32). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fang, C. Y., Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1998). Ro-

mance across the social status continuum: Interra-

cial marriage and the ideological asymmetry ef-

fect. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29,

290 –305. doi:10.1177/0022022198292002

Feliciano, C., Lee, R., & Robnett, B. (2011). Racial

boundaries among Latinos: Evidence from internet

daters’ racial preferences. Social Problems, 58,

189 –212. doi:10.1525/sp.2011.58.2.189

Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. (2009).

Gendered racial exclusion among white internet

daters. Social Science Research, 38, 39 –54. doi:

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.09.004

Fiore, A. T., Shaw Taylor, L. Mendelsohn, G. A., &

Hearst, M. (2008). Assessing Attractiveness in On-

line Dating Proﬁles. In Proceeding of the Twenty-

sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac-

tors in Computing Systems (pp. 797– 806). New

York, NY: ACM.

Firmin, M. W., & Firebaugh, S. (2008). Historical

analysis of college campus interracial dating. Col-

lege Student Journal, 42, 782–788.

Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings. New York, NY:

Wiley.

Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simon-

son, I. (2008). Racial preferences in dating. Review

of Economic Studies, 75, 117–132. doi:10.1111/j

.1467-937X.2007.00465.x

Garcia, S. D., & Rivera, S. M. (1999). Perception of

Hispanic and African American couples at the

friendship or engagement stage of a relationship.

Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 16,

65– 86. doi:10.1177/0265407599161004

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Harris, T. M., & Kalbﬂeisch, P. J. (2000). Interra-

cial dating: The implications of race for initiat-

ing a romantic relationship. Howard Journal of

Communications, 11, 49 – 64. doi:10.1080/

106461700246715

Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, A. (2010).

Matching and sorting in online dating. American

Economic Review, 100, 130 –163. doi:10.1257/aer

.100.1.130

Jones, J. M. (2011). Record-high 86% approve of

black-white marriages. Retrieved from http://www

.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-

black-whitemarriages.aspx

Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009, January 28). Generations

Online in 2009. Retrieved from http://pewresearch

.org/pubs/1093/generations-online.

Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy:

Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociol-

ogy, 24, 395– 421. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1

.395

Kalmijn, M., & Van Tubergen, F. (2010). A compar-

ative perspective on intermarriage: Exploring dif-

ferences among national-origin groups in the

United States. Demography, 47, 459 – 479. doi:

10.1353/dem.0.0103

Keeter, S., & Taylor, P. (2011). The millenials.A

portrait of generation next. Retrieved from http://

pewresearch.org/pubs/millenials-proﬁle

Knox, D., Zusman, M. E., Bufﬁngton, C., & Hemp-

hill, G. (2000). Interracial dating attitudes among

college students. College Student Journal, 34, 69 –

72.

Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of

behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical litera-

ture. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

21, 58 –75. doi:10.1177/0146167295211007

LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social

Forces, 13, 230 –237. doi:10.2307/2570339

Lee, S. M., & Edmonston, B. (2005). New marriages,

new families: U.S. racial and Hispanic intermar-

riage. Population Bulletin, 60, 1–36.

Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Margin-

alized relationships: The impact of social disap-

proval on romantic relationship commitment.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,

40 –51. doi:10.1177/0146167205278710

Levin, S., Taylor, P. L., & Caudle, E. (2007). Intereth-

nic and interracial dating in college: A longitudinal

study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

24, 323–341. doi:10.1177/0265407507077225

Lewis, R., Jr. (1994). Racial discrimination encoun-

tered by individuals who are interracially married.

Diversity: A Journal of Multicultural Issues, 1,

46 – 61.

Liu, J. H., Campbell, S. M., & Condie, H. (1995).

Ethnocentrism in dating preferences for an Amer-

ican sample: The ingroup bias in a social context.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 95–

115. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250108

16 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Martin, J. N., Bradford, L. J. M., Drzewiecka, J. A.,

& Chitgopekar, A. S. (2003). Intercultural dating

patterns among young white U.S. Americans:

Have they changed in the past 20 years? Howard

Journal of Communications, 14, 53–73. doi:

10.1080/10646170304270

McClintock, E. A. (2010). When does race matter?

Race, sex and dating at an elite university. Mar-

riage and the Family, 72, 45–72. doi:10.1111/j

.1741-3737.2009.00683.x

Merton, R. (1941). Intermarriage and the social struc-

ture. Psychiatry, 4, 361–374.

Miller, S. C., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2004).

Perceived reactions to interracial romantic rela-

tionships: When race is used as a cue to status.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7,

354 –369. doi:10.1177/1368430204046143

Passel, J. S., Wang, W., & Taylor, P. (2010, June 4).

Marrying out. Retrieved from http://pewresearch

.org/pubs/1616/american-marriage-interracial-

interethnic.

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2010). Inter-

net adoption over time. Retrieved from http://

pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Internet-

Adoption.aspx

Qian, Z. (2002). Race and social distance: Intermar-

riage with non-Latino Whites. Race and Society 5

33– 47. doi:10.1016/j.racsoc.2003.12.003

Robnett, B., & Felciano, C. (2011). Patterns of racial-

ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Social Forces,

89, 807– 828.

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2002). Measurement of assimila-

tion in the marriage market: Mexican Americans

1970 –1990. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

64, 152–162.

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange

theory in mate selection. American Journal of So-

ciology, 110, 1284 –1325. doi:10.1086/428441

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2008). Racial, educational, and

religious endogamy in the United States: A com-

parative historical perspective. Social Forces, 87,

1–32. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0077

Rosenfeld, M. (2010). Still weak support for status-

caste exchange: A reply to critics. American Jour-

nal of Sociology, 115, 1264 –1276. doi:10.1086/

649051

Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching

for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social

intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77,

523–547. doi:10.1177/0003122412448050

Rudder, C. (2009, October 5). How your race affects

the messages you get. Retrieved from http://blog

.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-

people-write-you-back/

Sweeney, K. A., & Borden, A. L. (2009). Crossing

the line online: Racial preferences of internet dat-

ers. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 740 –760.

doi:10.1080/01494920903224335

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and inter-

group relations. London, UK: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C.

(1971). Social categorization and intergroup be-

havior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1,

149 –178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Todd, J., McKinney, J. L., Harris, R., Chadderton, R.,

& Small, L. (1992). Attitudes toward interracial

dating: Effects of age, sex, and race. Journal of

Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20,

202–208.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual

selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection

and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136 –179).

Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Troy, A. B., Lewis-Smith, A. B., & Laurenceau, J.-P.

(2006). Interracial and intraracial romantic rela-

tionships: The search for differences. Journal of

Personal and Social Relationships, 23, 65– 80. doi:

10.1177/0265407506060178

Tucker, M. B., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1995). So-

cial structural and psychological correlates of

interethnic dating. Journal of Social and Per-

sonal Relationships, 12, 341–361. doi:10.1177/

0265407595123002

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Statistical abstract of the

United States. Table 60, Married couples by race and

Hispanic origin of spouses: 1980 –2009. Retrieved

from http://www.census.gov/ compendia/statab/2011/

tables/11s0060.pdf

Wang, H., Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2006). Stability of

interracial and intraracial romantic relationships

among adolescents. Social Science Research, 35,

435– 453. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.10.001

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs. actions: The

relationship of verbal and overt behavioral re-

sponses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Is-

sues, 25, 41–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969

.tb00619.x

Wilson, S. B., McIntosh, W. D., & Insana, S. P., II

(2007). Dating across race. An examination of

African American internet personal advertise-

ments. Journal of Black Studies, 37, 964 –982.

doi:10.1177/0021934705282375

Yancey, G. (2002). Who interracially dates: An ex-

amination of the characteristics of those who have

interracially dated. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 33, 179 –190.

Yancey, G. (2007a). Experiencing racism: Differ-

ences in the experiences of whites married to

blacks and non-black racial minorities. Journal of

Comparative Family Studies, 38, 197–213.

Yancey, G. (2007b). Homogamy over the net:

Using internet advertisements to discover who

interracially dates. Journal of Personal and So-

cial Relationships, 24, 913–930. doi:10.1177/

0265407507084190

17BLACK/WHITE DATING ONLINE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Yancey, G. (2009). Crossracial differences in the

racial preferences of potential dating partners: A

test of the alienation of African Americans and

social dominance orientation. The Sociological

Quarterly, 50 121–143. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525

.2008.01135.x

Yancey, G., & Yancey, S. (1998). Interracial dating:

Evidence from personal advertisements. Journal

of Family Issues, 19, 334 –348. doi:10.1177/

019251398019003006

Received September 18, 2012

Revision received August 6, 2013

Accepted August 20, 2013 䡲

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and

Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the

publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C

Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate

more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.

Please note the following importantpoints:

•To be selected as a reviewer,you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The

experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective

review.

•To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the ﬁve to six empirical journals that are most

central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently

published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission

within the context of existing research.

•To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.

Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you

are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as speciﬁc as possible. For example,

“social psychology” is not sufﬁcient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude

change” as well.

•Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to

review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript

thoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn

more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-

manuscript-ce-video.aspx.

18 MENDELSOHN, SHAW TAYLOR, FIORE, AND CHESHIRE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Studying mate choice using digital trace data from online dating

Chapter

Full-text available

Mar 2023

Jan Skopek

Online dating - once being a niche - has become a significant social-digital technology and a major venue for couple formation today. While some social research has been busy with understanding the individual and societal impact of online dating, other research sought to exploit ‘big data’ generated through the process of online dating usage to gain new scientific insights into aspects of mate search and choice. Treating the latter, this chapter takes stock of social science studies that have collected and used digital trace data from online dating to examine micro-mechanisms of assortative mating between men and women. After a brief methodological analysis of digital trace data, the chapter surveys peer-reviewed material from the past 15 years of research and organises study findings into (1) general mate seeking and contacting behaviour, (2) the social structure of digital dating markets, and, in interaction with gender, the role of the social stratification dimensions of (3) education, (4) age, and (5) race. Furthermore, the chapter illustrates arguments with some first-hand empirical data from online dating. Finally, the consequences of online dating for union formation and assortative mating are addressed. The chapter concludes with an outlook for future online dating research.

Rethinking the Knowledge Economy of e-Dating in Romance Stories: Hypertexting G. Homans’ Social Exchange Theory

Article

Nov 2020

Alfred Ndi

Millions of single adults use dating websites like eHarmony, Anastasiadate.com, Match.com, Chemistry.com and technologies like the mobile dating app Tinder to seek out online partners. Some daters succeed, but most of them fail in the end and become dissatisfied. The online technology presents with many advantages such as easy access to multitudes of potential dates; however, the problematic is that, as a metanarrative of dating power, ICTs do not function in a virtual vacuum but are constructed by the social experience of people in love and sexuality, for example, in African indigenous and modern societies ǎ la longue durée. The online dating industry often disembeds this social experience from its services and this constitutes, paradoxically, its major flaw. Consequently, the industry is designed narrowly to rationalize romanticism as a scientific algorithm that follows particular rules and regulations instead of proposing the complex character of knowledge about dating to prospective daters and this constitutes a serious menace to its long term sustainability. These technodigital flaws have to do with the paradox of virtual rationalism, lack of commitment in online daters, who do not meet offline; shallowness and fatigue in the mindset of online singles, scamming, lies telling, identity theft and stalking, mismatching from algorithms between singles and so on. Drawing critical insights from the structuralist positionality of George Homans’ social exchange theory and from critiques of romance stories, the paper suggests that, in this age of the knowledge economy, e-dating should become a productive service that minimizes the artificiality of economic rationalism embedded in digital contacts, profile browsing, algorithmic matching, the reading of love by apps and tread lightly on all forms of economic determinism. e-Dating should prioritize tacit knowledge from critical literature narratives that can enable us to suggest new humanistic functionalities for skype, ch

Intersections of Sexuality, Power and e-Dating in the political Economy of Dystopian Artistic Writings: A post-Foucauldian Reading of The History of Sexuality

Article

Jan 2022

Alfred Ndi

This paper was premised on the hypothesis that human sexuality is not a monolithic metanarrative that is self-contained; it is a social construction at multiple levels. After a review of the literature on radical feminism and with the aid of the critical version of hypertext theory, it came up with the proposition that to capture the full and living image of sexuality in intergenerational relationships, a post-Foucauldian reading of selected dystopian texts would yield a de-centered, inter-textual and anti-hierarchical network of its dynamics. Deploying insights from both oral and written works of art, it arrived at the conclusion that sexuality intersects with power, capitalism, knowledge and prospective networks in complex ways. Whether in pre-modern, modern or post-modern contexts, inter-generational relationships have existed and have taken extremely complex forms that were understood narrowly by radical feminists and Foucauldian scholars. A post-Foucauldian reading was able to overcome some of the limitations of these approaches and digital technology was shown to present with its own gaps when it came to evaluating the grammatology of the sexuality in context. This paper opens up new perspectives for evolving the study of sexuality as an undecidable, multi-focused and networked discourse.

The Changing Meaning Of “No” In Canadian Sex Work

Preprint

Full-text available

Jun 2023

Lynn Kennedy

This study considers how Canadian contact sex workers communicate limits by examining how the word “no” was used by over one hundred thousand online advertisers over a 15 year period. Source materials consisted of three collections of online advertising representing 214456 advertisers: 385729 ads collected between April 2007 and April 2009 (7939 advertisers), 2951642 ads collected between November 2014 and December 2016 (167539 advertisers), and 887698 ads collected between September 2021 and September 2022 (38978 advertisers). Advertisers and demographic variables were identified from ad metadata. Common terms surrounding the word "no" were used to identify themes. The word “no” was used by 115127 advertisers. Five major themes were identified: peace of mind (54084 advertisers), communication (47130 advertisers), client race (32612 advertisers), client behavior (23863 advertisers), and service restrictions (8545 advertisers). The likelihood of there being an association between an advertiser and a major theme was found to vary in response to several variables, including: time period, region, advertiser gender, and advertiser ethnicity. Collectives, those advertising in multiple regions, and cis-female identified advertisers were more likely to use "no". Over time, the themes of client behavior, service restrictions, and client race became more prominent.

Gendered Anti-Bisexual Bias: Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Gay/Lesbian People's Willingness to Date Sexual Orientation Ingroup and Outgroup Members

Article

Feb 2022
J HOMOSEXUAL

Bisexual people may appear to have more potential romantic partners than people only attracted to one gender (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian people). However, bisexual people's dating choices are limited by non-bisexual people's reluctance to date bisexual people. Studies have indicated that some heterosexual, gay, and lesbian people are reluctant to date bisexual people, particularly bisexual men. We extend current understandings of gendered anti-bisexual bias through investigating heterosexual, bisexual, gay, and lesbian people's reported willingness to date within and outside of their sexual orientation groups. Participants (n = 1823) varying in sexual orientation completed measures regarding their willingness to engage in a romantic relationship with heterosexual, bisexual, gay, and lesbian individuals. Heterosexual and gay/lesbian people were less willing to date bisexual people than bisexual people were to date them, consistent with anti-bisexual bias rather than mere in-group preference. Preferences against dating bisexual men appeared particularly strong, even among bisexual women.

Tinder: A Game with Gendered Rules and Consequences

Article

Full-text available

May 2021

The popularity of Mobile Dating Applications has increased in recent years, with Tinder transforming the dating landscape for college students. Drawing upon 249 peer-facilitated interviews with college-age men and women, we explore how this population uses Tinder. Informed by social-psychological theory and research on impression management and stereotyping, we show how Tinder’s marketing strategy and game-like platform appeal to college students’ desires to reduce uncertainty and risk in forming romantic and intimate connections. However, by upending existing interaction norms, the Tinder environment creates new forms of ambiguity, which, in turn, incentivizes conformity to traditional heterogender norms and encourages racist and classist swiping behavior. Our study advances the literature on inequality and intimate marketplaces by generating insight about how contemporary dating and sexual scripts are constructed, accomplished, and negotiated when new technologies disrupt established patterns of interaction.

“As an Asian”: Sticky Rice Politics as a Logic of Desirability in Queer Asian Women’s Sexual Field

Article

Jun 2023

Barbara Truc Pham

This paper explores how queer Asian American women negotiate their racial and political identities through racial dating preferences. I investigate a pattern of desire that has been consistently found in previous studies: Why are queer Asian American women more likely to prefer Asian women over white women? The analysis draws from 192 US-based online surveys and 22 interviews with queer Asian women ages 18–30. The participants were asked about their various preferences for female and (if applicable) male partners. I contribute to the racial dating preferences literature empirically by (1) extending the scope of analysis to queer Asian American women and (2) analyzing bisexuals’ preferences for both male and female partners. I contribute theoretically by (1) testing sexual fields theory against the gender white advantage hypothesis and (2) finding evidence to suggest that homonormativity, as a logic of desirability, is less operative in queer Asian American women’s sexual field. Rather, their sexual fields are defined by an alternative logic of desirability, “sticky rice” politics, that prioritizes dating Asian partners and avoiding white partners to resist and distance oneself from white supremacy. This was clear in Asian American respondents’ overwhelming preference for Asian American partners, even Asian American men, over white partners.

11 - Black Women’s Romantic and Intimate Relationships

Chapter

Jun 2023

Black women’s romantic and intimate relationships are explored in both heterosexual and queer unions. We discuss the strengths of Black women’s romantic unions and examine conditions that create stress and distress for Black women in marriage, cohabitation, and sexual and dating relationships. We discuss cultural, structural, and historical dynamics that drive Black women’s relationship stereotypes and challenges. We also address conditions that create unusual relational risks for Black women, including sexually transmitted infections and intimate partner violence.

Part III - Core Themes in Black Women’s Stress and Distress

Chapter

Jun 2023

Promoting Black Women's Mental Health celebrates the strengths and complexities of Black women in American life. Many misunderstand and mis-characterize Black women and underappreciate their important contributions to families, communities, and the nation. In this book, a team of Black women mental health practitioners and scholars discuss a range of conditions that impact Black women's self-concepts and mental health. Drawing on a study of Black women across the United States, authors explore the social determinants of Black women's mental health and wellness and Black women's girlhood experiences. The book also explores Black women's stereotypes, their traumas, how they shift in relationships, and images that affect their racial and gender identity development. The book draws on scholarly and popular sources to present Black women's strength and challenges. Authors include commentary, case examples, reﬂection questions, and resources to improve practitioners' capacities to help Black women clients to recover, heal, and thrive.

Is Sexual Racism Still Really Racism? Revisiting Callander et al. (2015) in the USA

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2022
ARCH SEX BEHAV

As research on race and racism in the USA has suggested that it now takes a more subtle and neoliberal form, one of the areas in which race and racism are most explicit is in dating and sex. When finding dating and sexual partners, people tend to be explicit about their rejection of potential mates along racial lines while claiming that these preferences have no connection with racism. Callander et al.’s (2015) study was the first to provide the evidence that these expressions of sexual racism, or race-based rejections of partners in sexual contexts, were in fact related to cultural racism perpetuated in society at large. Despite all of this, the study has never been replicated. We aimed to partially replicate the study in the USA, using a sample of 616 gay, bisexual, and heterosexual men. Using the Quick Discrimination Index and online sexual racism surveys referenced in the original paper, we find a correlation of − 0.129, between the two measures. This suggests that respondents who demonstrate more openness and less racist beliefs in general are also less likely to be accepting of forms of online sexual racism, a finding that is consistent with prior research. Still, the correlation between these measures is not nearly as strong as that observed in Australia in the original paper (− 0.56), raising questions that require further exploration.

Experiencing Racism: Differences in the Experiences of Whites Married to Blacks and Non-Black Racial Minorities

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2007

George Yancey

Interracial marriages between blacks and majority group members often face higher social sanctions than other types of interracial marriages. Therefore, majority group members in interracial marriages with a black partner may learn to conceptualize racial issues differently than those without black partners. This paper conducts a preliminary investigation into whether the racial perspectives of white spouses in interracial marriages with blacks are different from the perspectives of whites in interracial marriages with non-blacks. White partners of twenty-one interracial marriages are interviewed. While whites married to non-blacks alter their racial perspectives, they do not experience racism as do whites married to blacks. These experiences of racism may change white perspectives on specific racial issues such as affirmative action and racial profiling. This research suggests the experiences of whites in interracial marriages vary depending on the race of their marital partners.

Parental Investment and Sexual Selection

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 1972

Robert Trivers

Interracial Dating: The Implications of Race for Initiating a Romantic Relationship

Article

Jan 2000

The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.

'Attitudes versus Actions'

Article

Jan 1934

R. T. LaPiere

Navigating interracial borders: Black-white couples and their social worlds

Article

Jan 2005

Erica Chito Childs

Asians have settled in every country in the Western Hemisphere; some are recent arrivals, other descendents of immigrants who arrived centuries ago. Bringing together essays by thirteen scholars from the humanities and social sciences, Displacements and Diasporas explores this genuinely transnational Asian American experience-one that crosses the Pacific and traverses the Americas from Canada to Brazil, from New York to the Caribbean. With an emphasis on anthropological and historical contexts, the essays show how the experiences of Asians across the Americas have been shaped by the social dynamics and politics of settlement locations as much as by transnational connections and the economic forces of globalization. Contributors bring new insights to the unique situations of Asian communities previously overlooked by scholars, such as Vietnamese Canadians and the Lao living in Rhode Island. Other topics include Chinese laborers and merchants in Latin America and the Caribbean, Japanese immigrants and their descendants in Brazil, Afro-Amerasians in America, and the politics of second-generation Indian American youth culture. Together the essays provide a valuable comparative portrait of Asians across the Americas. Engaging issues of diaspora, transnational social practice and community building, gender, identity, institutionalized racism, and deterritoriality, this volume presents fresh perspectives on displacement, opening the topic up to a wider, more interdisciplinary terrain of inquiry and teaching.

Still Weak Support for Status‐Caste Exchange: A Reply to Critics1

Article

Jan 2010

Michael J. Rosenfeld

Historical Analysis of College Campus Interracial Dating

Article

Jan 2008
Coll Student J

Interracial dating on American campuses has had a relatively stormy past. Until the past three decades or so, it was outlawed in some states. Southern institutions, in particular, such as the infamous Bob Jones University have made this issue divisive even among their own constituencies. Age and generation seem to be cogent factors with younger people and succeeding generations more open than older and preceding ones. Researchers need to distinguish literature on interracial dating from interracial marriage and the two phenomena possess significantly different psychology. Given the surprising paucity of literature in this area, we call for a new line of research dedicated to this domain.

Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components

Article

Jan 1989
J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

Patricia G. Devine

Three studies tested basic assumptions derived from a theoretical model based on the dissociation of automatic and controlled processes involved in prejudice. Study 1 supported the model's assumption that high- and low-prejudice persons are equally knowledgeable of the cultural stereotype. The model suggests that the stereotype is automatically activated in the presence of a member (or some symbolic equivalent) of the stereotyped group and that low-prejudice responses require controlled inhibition of the automatically activated stereotype. Study 2, which examined the effects of automatic stereotype activation on the evaluation of ambiguous stereotype-relevant behaviors performed by a race-unspecified person, suggested that when subjects' ability to consciously monitor stereotype activation is precluded, both high- and low-prejudice subjects produce stereotype-congruent evaluations of ambiguous behaviors. Study 3 examined high- and low-prejudice subjects' responses in a consciously directed thought-listing task. Consistent with the model, only low-prejudice subjects inhibited the automatically activated stereotype-congruent thoughts and replaced them with thoughts reflecting equality and negations of the stereotype. The relation between stereotypes and prejudice and implications for prejudice reduction are discussed.

Intermarriage and Social Structure: Fact and Theory

Article

Aug 1941

Robert K Merton

Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary

Article

Jul 2012

This article explores how the efficiency of Internet search is changing the way Americans find romantic partners. We use a new data source, the How Couples Meet and Stay Together survey. Results show that for 60 years, family and grade school have been steadily declining in their influence over the dating market. In the past 15 years, the rise of the Internet has partly displaced not only family and school, but also neighborhood, friends, and the workplace as venues for meeting partners. The Internet increasingly allows Americans to meet and form relationships with perfect strangers, that is, people with whom they had no previous social tie. Individuals who face a thin market for potential partners, such as gays, lesbians, and middle-aged heterosexuals, are especially likely to meet partners online. One result of the increasing importance of the Internet in meeting partners is that adults with Internet access at home are substantially more likely to have partners, even after controlling for other factors. Partnership rate has increased during the Internet era (consistent with Internet efficiency of search) for same-sex couples, but the heterosexual partnership rate has been flat.

Black/White dating online: Interracial courtship in the 21st century.

Abstract and Figures

Recommendations

Oral retinoids in the treatment of pityriasis lichenoides

Gender as a criteria for group membership and prejudicial attribution

Gender and Ethnic Differences in Obesity‐Related Behaviors and Attitudes In a College Sample

Understanding Couple Shared Reality: The Case of Combined Couple Versus Discrepancy Assessments in U...

Exploring Moderators of Gender Differences: Contextual Differences in Door‐Hoiding Behavior1