Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Issues. 2023 Jan 12;45(2):303–325. doi: 10.1177/0192513x221150994

Interracial Couples at Risk: Discrimination, Well-Being, and Health

Patricia S Pittman 1, Claire Kamp Dush 2, Keeley J Pratt 1, Jen D Wong 1
PMCID: PMC12346691  NIHMSID: NIHMS2050914  PMID: 40809512

Abstract

As the number of interracial couples in the U.S. continues to grow, it is important to examine stressors that may lead to decreased well-being and self-rated health due to stigma. Using AddHealth, we conducted ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to test if individuals in Black/White interracial couples experience (1) higher stress and discriminatory experiences, (2) worse depression and self-rated health, and (3) if depression and self-rated health vary as a function of perceived stress and experiences of discrimination. Biological sex differences were assessed as well. Compared to White couples, interracial couples were, on average, more likely to experience discrimination, and higher perceived stress, more depressive symptoms, and worse overall self-rated health. Our findings suggest a potential mechanism underlying these associations might be through increased stress and discrimination. Future research should further assess additional stressors to understand if interracial couples experience worse health outcomes due to being in a stigmatized relationship.

Keywords: interracial romantic relationships, Black–White, psychological well-being, physical health, discrimination

Introduction

Interracial romantic relationships refer to relationships in which the partners come from different racial groups (Wong, 2009). In the 50 years since laws criminalizing relationships between members of different racial groups were deemed unconstitutional in the United States (US), the rates of interracial marriages have more than quintupled from 3% to over 17% according to Pew research center (Livingston & Brown, 2017); and 8% of these interracial marriages are between Black and White spouses (Johnson & Kreider, 2013). Individuals in interracial relationships historically have faced discrimination, and many studies report that these couples still encounter marginalization (Skinner & Hudac, 2017). Experiencing discrimination is associated with worse mental health outcomes, such as stress and depression, which can lead to worse physical health (Priest et al., 2013). Because racial minority groups face increased discrimination, racial minority status has been associated with poorer physical and well-being outcomes (Thorsteinsson & James, 1999; Williams et al., 2003). Romantic partners affect each other’s health (Totenhagen et al., 2017). When an individual has a partner that is from a racial minority group, experiences of marginalization may affect the health and well-being of both partners. Although being in a romantic relationship is beneficial to an individual’s health (Simon & Barrett, 2010), having a partner may be less beneficial if they are not the same race (Joyner & Kao, 2005). This may be especially true for Black-White couples, who have faced the most opposition toward their relationships (Golebiowska, 2007). Due to past and current discrimination against those in interracial relationships, particularly for Black–White couples, the risks and benefits of having a partner of a different race are unclear.

Although the rates of interracial romantic relationships are projected to increase (Qian & Lichter, 2011), we know little about the mental and physical health outcomes of the individual partners in these relationships. This study utilizes a national sample of young adults in romantic relationships from AddHealth to examine: (1) whether individuals in interracial couples are more likely to endorse higher perceived stress and discriminatory experiences than single-race couples, (2) the extent to which individuals in interracial romantic relationships experience increased depressive symptoms and poorer self-rated health compared to those in single-race relationships, and (3) the degree to which the links between interracial relationship status, feelings of depression, and poor self-rated health vary as a function of perceived stress and experiences of discrimination. This study tests the intersection between Black/White racial pairings and biological sex to assess if these hypotheses vary by the composition of the couple. Taken together, findings from this study expand an existing framework, specifically the Couple Minority Stress Theory (LeBlanc et al., 2015) about how partners in interracial relationships manage both common (e.g. stress, depression) and unique (e.g. discrimination) obstacles.

Couple Level Minority Stress Hypothesis

Being a minority (e.g. racial, gender, sexual) is associated with poorer health (Frost et al., 2015), yet some processes that underlie these health disparities remain elusive. Minority stress theory posits that the unique stressors (e.g. discrimination) experienced by individuals in marginalized groups negatively impact their health and well-being (Meyer & Frost, 2013). Racial minorities experience increased rates of stress and depression compared to their White counterparts (Gonzales & Kim, 1997). Further, many studies suggest that, because of cultural or spiritual beliefs, strong negative perceptions exist toward depression and stress among individuals in Black communities, which may contribute to the underreporting of psychological distress (Alvidrez et al., 2009; Rose et al., 2011). Racial minorities also face increased instances of prejudice and discrimination (Pew Research Center, 2019). Discrimination has been shown to be associated with poorer well-being outcomes, such as depression and anxiety (Priest et al., 2013), and even the anticipation of negative treatment from others can contribute to feeling more stressed (Sawyer et al., 2012). The internalization of prejudice and oppression increases stress and leads to worse health at the individual (Clark et al., 1999; Meyer, 2003) and, potentially, the couple level.

Even if an individual is not a member of a marginalized group, their partner’s experiences of marginalization have been theorized to be associated with both their own and their partner’s health (LeBlanc et al., 2015). In a Black–White couple, for instance, the stress of being a racial minority would theoretically affect the well-being of the partner who is White as well. This framework examines both the unique stressors that a couple with minority status faces as well as common couple stressors. Further, it lends itself well to how minority stress can affect an interracial couple’s relationship as well as the health of each partner. This effect has been shown to be strongest in married couples, whereby the stress and depression of an individual affects their partner’s well-being (Neff & Karney, 2007; Thompson & Bolger, 1999).

Having a partner is more psychologically beneficial than not having a partner (Simon & Barrett, 2010). For instance, those who are married or cohabiting experience health benefits from the ability to combine financial resources (Umberson et al., 2013; Waite et al., 2002), and having a companion to share problems with, which reduces stress (Thoits, 2011). People in relationships also experience fewer depressive symptoms and more positive health outcomes (eg less stress as well as better physical health) than those who are not partnered (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). However, the benefits of being in a relationship might not be as strong for racial minorities. The homogamy hypothesis suggests that when romantic partners differ in an important characteristic (i.e. religion, educational attainment, race) they are more likely to experience conflict and psychological distress (Joyner & Kao, 2005; Schwartz, 2013). When partners are not the same race, they might experience more conflict due to different cultural upbringing experiences and expectations for the relationship (for example, differences in sexual scripts and raising children; Gurung & Duong, 1999; Usita & Poulsen, 2003). These inconsistencies may destabilize and eventually lead to divorce or a breakup (Gottman, 1993).

Black–White Interracial Couples

We focus on Black–White couples because this couple composition has traditionally faced the most opposition, especially from those who identify as White (Golebiowska, 2007; Perry & Whitehead, 2015). We examine biological sex differences as well because sex and race stigmas are deeply imbedded into the perception of interracial relationships (Gullickson, 2006). It has been shown in nationally representative studies that the highest rate of divorce with a White wife and non-White husband are between partners where the husband is Black, while White husband/Black wife marriages are significantly less likely to divorce than White couples (Bratter & King, 2008). Additionally, we focus on young adult relationships (ages 24–34) because findings on emerging adults who explore interracial relationships are mixed. Some studies cite that emerging adults in interracial relationships are less satisfied with their relationships (Kroeger & Williams, 2011), while others have found no differences in relationship satisfaction between those that date within or outside of their race (Shibazaki & Brennan, 1998). As a whole, understanding interracial relationships in the Black–White context might provide insight into the growing acceptance of interracial relationships.

The Current Study

It is unclear if membership in interracial relationships may offset the benefits of being in a relationship because of the stress that comes with racial minority status. The few studies that have focused on the health and well-being of individuals in interracial relationships suggest that interracial relationships were tied to increased depression in both adolescence and emerging adulthood, regardless of the race of the respondent (Tillman & Miller, 2017; Wong & Penner, 2018). The increase in the rates of interracial marriage and cohabitation is theorized to be an indication that the social distance between racial groups is shrinking (Bogardus, 1933; Lee & Bean, 2010). While it is true that romantic relationships are associated with positive health outcomes and racial minority status is associated with worse health outcomes, investigation into the health and well-being of those in interracial relationships has been overlooked. To expand the research on the health and well-being of individuals in interracial romantic relationships as well as examine potential mediators that affect health in these couples (such as discrimination), this research will test three hypotheses. (1) Individuals in a Black–White interracial relationship are more likely to experience increased discrimination and stress compared to White couples and these effects will vary by sex, (2) individuals in Black-White interracial couples will experience increased depressive symptoms and poorer self-rated health compared to White couples and these effects will vary by sex, and (3) discrimination and perceived stress will mediate the association between interracial relationship status and depressive symptoms and self-rated heath.

Methods

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), initiated in 1994, is a nationally representative study that followed youth in the US from grades 7–12 into adulthood. Data were collected in five waves (1995, 1996, 2001–02, 2008, and 2016–18). The present study utilized data from the Waves I and IV In-Home sample. The schools were selected using systematic sampling methods and implicit stratification so that the selected schools would be representative of all U.S. schools (region, urbanicity, size, type, and ethnicity). The final sample consisted of 52 middle schools and 80 high schools from across the United States, for a total of 132 schools in the study. From these schools, a subgroup of 20,745 students who completed the in-school questionnaire were eligible for selection into the in-home sample.

Analytic Sample

Due to attrition, the in-home sample at Wave IV was 15,701. Only participants who reported being in a current, different sex relationship at Wave IV were included in the analyses (n = 12,437). Participants not in a current relationship were dropped; for those that reported multiple relationships, the relationships with the longest duration were chosen to be in the sample. Respondents who indicated that they or their partner were Hispanic and White, or Hispanic and Black were dropped (n = 1218). Because of small cell sizes, analyses were limited to respondents that identified as non-Hispanic White or non-Hispanic Black and indicated that their partner was non-Hispanic White or non-Hispanic Black (n = 8410). If respondents identified as more than one race, a follow-up question asked what race they most identified with, and they were coded as that race (3.4% of White and 6.3% of Black respondents, respectively). As a result of missing data in the population weight variable, the final sample was n = 7928.

Measures

Predictors.

Participant’s race was reported at Wave I and was coded as non-Hispanic White or non-Hispanic Black. Respondents also identified their partner’s race at Wave IV. Interracial relationships were categorized as individuals who identified that they were non-Hispanic Black, and their partner was non-Hispanic White, or they were non-Hispanic White, and their partner was non-Hispanic Black. To assess sex differences, interracial relationships were divided into male and female respondents. Biological sex at Wave I was coded as male or female.

Outcomes.

Depressive symptoms were measured with a subset of items from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977)), whereby respondents indicated if they experienced a series of symptoms related to depressive symptoms in the last 2 weeks. Response options were 0 (never/rarely), 1 (sometimes), 2 (a lot of the time), and 3 (most or all of the time). The 10 items were summed for an overall score (α = .84). Self-rated health at Wave IV was a 1 item measure, “In general, how is your health?” Response options were reverse coded, and included 5 (excellent), 4 (very good), 3 (good), 2 (fair), and 1 (poor).

Mediators.

Experiences of discrimination were based on a one item measure that asked respondents to indicate: “In your day-to-day life, how often do you feel you have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?” Response options included 0 (never), 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), and 3 (often). Perceived stress was measured using a brief version of Cohen et al. (1994) perceived stress scale. Respondents indicated in the past month: “how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle personal problems? how often have you felt that things were going your way? how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?” Response options included 0 (never/rarely), 1 (sometimes), 2 (a lot of the time), and 3 (most or all of the time). The four items were summed (α = .72).

Controls.

All models controlled for relationship status, relationship length, age, education, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, and parental status. Relationship type at Wave IV was coded as marriage, cohabiting (living with a partner when they were unmarried), or dating. Relationship length at Wave IV was coded in years. Age at Wave IV was coded in years. Respondent’s college education at Wave IV was reported by the respondent and coded as if they completed college. Foreign born at Wave I was coded as the adolescent reported that they were born outside the US. For those not born in the US, perceptions of discrimination may vary based on the place of birth, time in the US as well as acculturation (Brondolo et al., 2015). Parental status was coded as whether the respondent reported having children in the home.

Analytic Strategy

All data were weighted based on AddHealth guidelines (Harris et al., 2009). A total of three Models were carried out; including additional models to assess sex differences. Model 1 tested hypothesis one where we conducted a linear OLS regression testing the association between being in an interracial relationship with the outcomes for discrimination and perceived stress (Table 1; sex differences are shown in Appendix Table A1 with the outcomes for discrimination, and perceived stress with White males/White females and White females/White males as the reference group respectively). Table 1 shows results for a linear OLS regression predicting depressive symptoms in Model 1 (Hypothesis 2). Model 2 tested hypothesis three where the mediating variables of discrimination and perceived stress were added. To assess sex differences, Appendix Table A2 shows depressive symptoms as the outcomes in Model 1 and discrimination and perceived stress as mediators in Model 2, with White males/White females and White females/White males as the reference groups. Finally, Table 1 shows model 3, where we conducted a linear OLS regression predicting self-rated health among those with membership in an interracial relationship to address Hypothesis 3 in Model 1; in Model 2, discrimination and perceived stress were added as mediators. Appendix Table A3 shows results for predicting self-rated health in Model 1, and the mediating variables of discrimination and perceived stress in Model 2 to assess sex differences. Mediation analyses were guided by the Baron & Kenny (1986) four step approach. Data were weighted based on AddHealth criteria (Chen & Chantala, 2014).

Table 1.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results for Interracial Relationship Membership Predicting Discrimination, Stress, Depression, and Self-Rated Health.

Discrimination Perceived stress Depression Self-rated health
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE
RaceXSexa
 White female/white male 0 0.03 0.68*** 0.09 1.27*** 0.13 0.61*** 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
 White female/black male 0.14 0.09 0.89* 0.4 2.21*** 0.66 1.24*** 0.36 0.35** 0.11 0.27** 0.09
 Black male/white female 0.25*** 0.12 0.22 0.39 1.23 0.75 0.8 0.52 −0.09 0.12 0.05 0.12
 Black male/black female 0.04 0.05 0.75*** 0.21 1.33*** 0.31 0.57** 0.21 0.11* 0.05 −0.05 0.05
 Black female/black male 0.09 0.05 0.9*** 0.17 2.09*** 0.31 1.14*** 0.21 0.25*** 0.04 0.18*** 0.04
 Black female/white male 0.3 0.17 1.78* 0.87 3.07* 1.24 1.09 0.73 0.34 0.22 0.2 0.17
 White male/black female 0.2 0.23 0.57 0.68 0.02 0.81 0.7 0.78 0.4** 0.13 0.45** 0.15
Relationship status (married reference group)
 Cohabiting 0.1** 0.03 0.56*** 0.11 0.59*** 0.16 −0.04 0.13 0.08* 0.04 −0.04 0.04
 Dating 0.1* 0.04 0.9*** 0.14 0.99*** 0.21 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04
Relationship length 0.01 0.01 0.05** 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.004 0.004 0 0.004
Age 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02** 0.01 0.02* 0.01
College education 0.16*** 0.03 −1.1*** 0.09 1.67*** 0.12 0.47*** 0.1 0.44*** 0.03 0.35*** 0.03
Foreign born 0.14 0.14 0.82* 0.39 0.97* 0.5 0.06 0.44 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.13
Childless 0.05 0.03 −0.13 0.1 0.18 0.15 0.26* 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03
Discrimination — — — — — 0.85*** 0.07 — — 0.07*** 0.02
Perceived stress — — — — — 0.97*** 0.02 — — 0.07*** 0.004
N 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928
F 5 24.61 41.32 225.36 24.73 43.8
R2 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.5 0.07 0.14
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

a

White couples (White male/White female) reference group.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

A total of 4.11% percent of the sample was in an interracial relationship (Black/White). Most of the sample was White males paired with White females (33.35%), followed by Black males paired with Black females (9.61%). Seventy-four percent of the sample identified as White, and 26.5% of the sample identified as Black. The respondents identified the race of thier partners as 74% White and 26% Black. A majority of the sample was married (54%), followed by cohabiting (24.25%) and dating (21.77%). The analytic sample was significantly different from the full Wave IV sample. They were more educated, younger, and were more likely to be born inside the United States than the full sample (Table 2). See Table 3 for complete descriptive statistics.

Table 2.

Correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1. Self-rated health 1
2. Depressive symptoms −.29** 1
3. Discrimination −.15** .34** 1
4. Perceived stress −.29** .68** .3** 1
5. WM/WF 03** −.13** −0.02 −.11** 1
6. WF/WM .05** 03** −.04** 0.02 −.56** 1
7. BM/BF 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 −.23** −.26** 1
8. BF/BM −.09** 09** 04** .08** −.29** −.33** −.14** 1
9. WM/BF 02** 0 0.01 0.01 −.04** −.04** −0.02 −.02* 1
10. BF/WM −.04* 0.02 .03* 0.01 −.1** −.1** −.04** −.03** 0 1
11. BM/WF −.02* 0.17 .03* 0.01 −.09** −.1** −.04** −.05** −0.01 −0.01 1
12. WF/BM −.02* .03* .02* .02* −.09** −.1** −.04** −.05** −0.01 −0.01 −0.02 1
13. Married .04** −.08** −.06** −.09** 04** .19** −.13** −.06** −0.02 −.02* −.06** −.05** 1
14. Cohabiting −.05** .05** .04** .06** −0.02 −.06** .04** .04** 0 0.01 .04** .05** −.61** 1
15. Dating 0 .05** .03* .04** −.02* −.18** .11** .16** 0.02 0.01 03** 0.01 −.57** −.3** 1
16. Age −.03* 0.01 0.02 0.01 .05** −.05** 04** −.03* 0.01 0 0 −0.02 .16** −.1** −.09** 1
17. College education .23** −.18** −.01** −.18** −.04** .11** −.07** −0.01 −.03* 0 −.05** −.4** .06** −.1** 03** −.04** 1
18. Relationship length −.05** .03* 0.01 .03* −.06** .15** −.06** −.04** 0 −0.01 −.05** −0.01 .5** −.21** −.38** .24** −.14** 1
19. Foreign born 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 −.02** −0.01 0.01 .02* .03* 03** 03** −0.01 −.02* 0.01 0.02 .03* 0.02 −.02*
20. Childless .09** −.05** 0.01 −.06** .13** −.1** .09** −.11** 0.05 0 .03** −.05** −34** .1** .31** −.15** .25** −.41** 0.01 1
Open in a new tab

Notes: WM = White Male, WF = White Female, BM = Black Males, BF = Black Female;

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01.

Table 3.

Outcome Scores and Descriptive Statistics.

Full sample (n = 14,790) Analytic sample (n = 7928)
M (SD) or %
RaceXSex
 Male respondent
  White males/white females 17.87% 33.35%
  Black males/black females 5.15% 9.61%
  White males/black females 0.17% 0.32%
  Black males/white females 0.87% 1.62%
 Female respondent
  White females/White males 20.50% 38.26%
  Black females/Black males 7.86% 14.67%
  White females/Black males 0.33% 0.61%
  Black females/White males 0.84% 1.57%
Interracial 4.11%
Depression (W IV) 6.14 (4.69) 5.86 (4.65)
Self-rated health (W IV) 3.65 (0.92) 3.71 (0.89)
Discrimination (W IV) 0.97 (0.83) 0.96 (0.82)
Perceived stress (W IV) 4.84 (2.96) 4.68 (2.98)
Race
 Respondent (W I)
  White 54.52% 73.49%
  Black 21.84% 26.51%
 Partner (W IV)
  White 55.23% 73.83%
  Black 15.43% 26.17%
Sex
 Respondent (W I)
  Male 46.83% 44.49%
  Female 53.17% 55.11%
 Partner (W IV)
  Male 42.82% 55.11%
  Female 36.26% 44.89%
Relationship status (W IV)
  Married 41.67% 53.98%
  Cohabiting 19.17% 24.25%
  Dating 18.37% 21.77%
Relationship length (W IV) 4.42 (3.46) 4.42 (3.43)
Childless 53.38% 46.30%
Age (W IV) 29.02 (1.76) 28.97 (1.74)
Mother’s college (W I)
 No college 76.43% 75.59%
 College 23.57% 24.14%
Foreign born (W I) 7.93% 1.49%
Open in a new tab

In support of Hypothesis 1, Black males paired with White females were significantly more likely to endorse experiences of discrimination (β = 0.254, p < .001) in comparison to individuals in White male/White female couples. When analyzed separately by sex, compared to White female/White male couples, women in interracial couples were more likely to experience instances of discrimination, although not as strongly as the males (β = 0.239, p < .05). On average, being in an interracial relationship was a significant predictor of perceived stress. Individuals in White female/Black male couples (β = .0885, p < .05), and Black female/White male couples (β = 1.779, p < .05) both had higher perceived stress than individuals in White male/White female couples. Individuals in Black couples (both Black male/Black female, β = 0.751, p < .001; and Black female/Black male, β = .897, p < .001) also had higher perceived stress compared to individuals in White couples (both White male/White female and White female/White male). Black women paired with Black men also experienced higher perceived stress than White women partnered with White men (β = 0.503, p < .01).

In support of Hypothesis 2, results from Model 1 showed that individuals in White female/Black male (β = 2.208, p < .001), and Black female/White male (β = 2.089, p < .05) exhibited higher depressive symptoms than White male/White female couples. For individuals in interracial couples, White female/White male (β = 1.269, p < .001), Black male/Black female (β = 1.325, p < .001), and Black female/Black male couples β = 2.089, p < .001) were also significantly more likely to experience increased depressive symptoms compared to White male/White female couples. When analyzed separately by sex, Black women with Black men (β = 1.35, p < .001) and White women with Black men (β = 1.47, p < .05) remained significant compared to White women with White men.

White female/Black male (β = 0.345, p < .01) and White male/Black female (β = 0.395, p < .01) couples had significantly better self-rated health than White male/White female couples. Black male/Black female (β = 0.107, p < .05) and Black female/Black male (β = 0.253, p < .001) couples also had better self-rated health than White male/White female. When divided by sex, White males paired with Black females (β = 0.439, p < .05) had significantly better self-rated health than White male/White female couples. However, White females paired with Black males (β = −0.322, p < .01) and Black females paired with Black males (β = −0.229, p < .001) had significantly worse self-rated health than White females paired with White males. Findings suggest that the association between depressive symptoms and those in interracial relationships was partially mediated by discrimination and perceived stress for Black men. The associations between depressive symptoms and Black women in interracial relationships with White men was fully mediated by discrimination and perceived stress.

The association between self-rated health and Black male/Black female couples was partially mediated by discrimination and perceived stress. When divided by sex, the association between depressive symptoms and White males paired with Black females was partially mediated by discrimination and perceived stress. The association between self-rated health and Black male/Black female couples was no longer significant after discrimination and perceived stress were added. When divided by sex, the association for White males paired with Black females the association weakened (β = 0.466, p < .01) after discrimination and perceived stress were added. These results suggest that a potential mediator underlying the association between interracial relationship membership and depressive symptoms and self-rated health is through an increased experience of discrimination, and stress due to being a member of a marginalized relationship.

Discussion

We tested three hypotheses about the links between membership in an interracial relationship, self-rated health, depression, discrimination, and perceived stress. Although more people are accepting of interracial relationships today, only four percent of our sample reported being in an interracial relationship. Given the history of anti-miscegenation laws and norms prohibiting interracial unions (Black, 2003), we hypothesized that individuals in interracial relationships would experience higher rates of discrimination. This study may help to modify existing frameworks to understand how partners in interracial relationships manage both common and unique obstacles, and how this affects their physical health and psychological well-being.

Consistent with the Couple Level Minority Stress Hypothesis (LeBlanc et al., 2015), we found that Black males paired with White females reported higher discrimination than White males paired with White females. This may harken back to anti-miscegenation laws when relationships between Black men and White women were opposed due to the depiction of Black men as sexual dangers, as is the case of Emmett Till, where a young Black male was accused of whistling at a White women, and was lynched (Crowe, 2018). We did not find that other interracial couples experienced higher discrimination, even after examining the associations separately by sex. For White male/Black female interracial couples, the elevated societal status of the White male may buffer the Black female from stress, which is consistent with the Couple Level Minority Stress Hypothesis. Having a partner that is White may be protecting Black females but not Black males from experiencing discrimination and stress. Alternatively, Black men might be underreporting their negative mental well-being symptoms because they are socialized to control their emotions and show no stress (Block, 1981). Franklin (1999) posits that Black men, despite their achievements and accomplishments, tend to be reduced to negative stereotypes, which contributes to race-related stress. It has also been shown that Black men underutilize healthcare for their mental well-being (Jackson and Volkens, 1998), and discrimination in the healthcare setting may be further contributing to this discrepancy. Black men are also at risk of the impacts of structural racism in other institutions (ie education and the criminal justice system), which is a significant source of stress (Jackson & Volckens, 1998).

Due to being in a marginalized relationship, we hypothesized that individuals in interracial relationships also would experience increased levels of perceived stress, which was partially supported. Individuals in couples where both partners were Black experienced more perceived stress than White male/White female couples, as well as individuals in interracial couples. However, when separated by gender, only Black females paired with Black males were significantly more stressed. It is possible that we did not find significant differences in our interracial sample because they have a White partner to counteract their stress. The Couple Level Minority Stress Hypothesis says that individuals influence the health of their partner, and it may be that having a White partner is positively influencing the health of the Black partner. Individuals in White couples do not have to provide social support to a partner that experiences racial discrimination and are not experiencing the negative spillover effects of that stress. Higher scores on the perceived stress scale were related to worse overall stress, and the trend of stress in all groups indicated that all groups are experiencing higher levels of stress than White couples. Further, the perceived stress measure asked participants to consider their stress levels over the last 30 days. Black females were significantly and chronically more stressed and dealing with this stress more frequently (past month). This high level of stress may be affecting the relationship as well as the health of both partners.

We hypothesized that individuals in interracial couples would experience higher rates of depressive symptoms. The depression scores of the couples in this sample trended toward more depressive symptoms compared to individuals in all White couples. The individuals in interracial couples in our sample experienced worse depressive symptoms compared to individuals in White male/White female couples. However, when divided by sex, White females paired with Black men experienced more depressive symptoms even after discrimination and perceived stress were added. Individuals in Black couples (both Black male/Black female and Black female/Black male) did experience more depressive symptoms, even after perceived stress and discrimination were added. This provided support to the Couple Level Minority Stress Hypothesis, in that being paired with a partner who experiences increased stress and discrimination affects the well-being of the partner who is White.

We hypothesized that being in an interracial romantic relationship would negatively affect health. White males paired with Black females, and White females paired with Black males experienced better self-rated health, even after accounting for discrimination and perceived stress. This might show that the health of White individuals in this sample is not as strongly affected by a partner who is a racial minority. The remaining couples trended toward having better self-rated health compared to White couples. When the analysis was separated by gender, only White males paired with Black females had better self-rated health than White males paired with White females. For the female analysis, all couples experienced worse health compared to White female/White male couples. White females paired with Black males experienced worse self-rated health, even after discrimination and perceived stress were added. This might be evidence for Minority Stress Theory, in that the stress and discrimination that Black males are experiencing may spill over and affect the health of White females in our sample. The significance of Black females paired with Black males did not disappear after discrimination and perceived stress were added to the model, indicating that the added stress of being a woman in addition to being Black might be worsening their health, providing evidence for the Minority Stress Hypothesis. White and Black females paired with Black males experienced poorer self-rated health, and this trend continued even after perceived stress and discrimination were added. This supported Hypothesis 3, by providing a potential mechanism through which interracial couples experienced worse self-rated health due to higher rates of discrimination and perceived stress resulting from being in a marginalized relationship. These results suggest that a potential mediator underlying the association between interracial relationship membership and depressive symptoms and self-rated health is through an increased experience of discrimination, and stress due to being a member of a marginalized relationship.

Limitations and Strengths

This study has several limitations. First, the discrimination measure in AddHealth consisted of one item, and due to small sample size, we could not assess what part of the individual’s identity was the subject of discrimination (ie race, gender, interracial couple status). Having the source of discrimination (i.e. race, gender, etc.) could help to determine if respondents felt that their interracial relationships were stigmatized. Further, we were not able to assess the severity of discrimination. Unlike the depression and perceived stress measures (last 2 weeks and last month respectively), the discrimination measure was not time bound, so it is unclear when the discrimination incident occurred. Another limitation was that we only included different sex partners in this study. However, because this study was focused on interracial couples, we chose to only look at discrimination due to being in an interracial couple, not the added marginalization that an individual may face being in a same-gender interracial couple.

Despite these limitations, this study is strengthened in that it draws from a nationally representative sample, which can improve generalizability to the growing population of interracial couples. Second, this study expands the literature to examine how the experiences of being a racial minority affect their partner’s well-being which, to the authors’ knowledge, has not been examined in the context of interracial couples. We also expand the limited literature on the health and well-being of Black–White interracial couples. Additionally, Black women paired with White men seem to fare better than White couples or Black men paired with White women in terms of relationship quality and stability, and this study extends that literature to show that they are healthier as well.

Conclusion

It is surprising how little scientific evidence we have about the mental and physical health of individuals in interracial romantic relationships. This study fills gaps in the literature by showing that individuals in interracial relationships experience worse health and well-being outcomes; further, we show that a potential mechanism through which these couples experience worse outcomes is due to additional discrimination and stress. This study may help individuals in interracial romantic relationships, as well as practitioners and policymakers who seek to support them, by advancing our understanding of the benefits and risks of being in interracial relationships in a time where racial lines are becoming increasingly porous, but also increasingly divisive. Interracial couples are subjected to the added stress of being in a marginalized relationship, which puts their health at risk. It is crucial as this work develops, to examine potential protective factors, especially for Black men. Because the rates of interracial couples are projected to continue increasing, this study is important to have a better understanding of the unique stressors that interracial couples face.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author was supported by funds from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and the Lucile and Roland Kennedy Scholarship Fund in Human Ecology.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table A1.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results separately for Male and Female Interracial Relationship Membership predicting Perceived Stress and Discrimination.

Discrimination Perceived stress Discrimination Perceived stress
Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE
RaceXSex
 Male respondentsa
  Black males/black females 0.02 0.05 0.36 0.21
  White males/black females 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.67
  Black males/white females 0.24* 0.12 −0.15 0.39
 Female respondentsb
  Black females/black males 0.08 0.05 0.50** 0.16
  White females/black males 0.13 0.09 0.49 0.40
  Black females/white males 0.29 0.17 1.39 0.85
Relationship status (married reference group)
 Cohabiting 0.11*** 0.03 0.64*** 0.11 0.10** 0.03 0.59*** 0.11
 Dating 0.12*** 0.04 1.01*** 0.03 0.11** 0.04 0.92*** 0.14
Relationship length 0.01 0.01 0.06*** 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06*** 0.02
Age 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
College education −0.16*** 0.03 −1.01*** 0.09 −0.16*** 0.03 −1.03*** 0.09
Foreign born 0.14 0.14 0.95* 0.40 0.14 0.14 0.92* 0.39
Childless 0.04 0.03 −0.30** 0.10 0.05 0.03 −0.22* 0.10
N 7928 7928 7928 7928
F 5.83 28.28 6.78 31.16
R 2 0.02 0.05 0.016 0.053
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

a

White couples (white male/White female) reference group.

b

White couples (white female/White male) reference group.

Appendix 2

Table A2.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results Separately for Male and Female Interracial Relationship Membership predicting Depression.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE
RaceXSex
 Male respondentsa
  Black males/black females 0.53 0.31 0.16 0.20
  White males/black females −0.73 0.79 −1.08 0.78
  Black males/white females 0.48 0.74 0.43 0.51
 Female respondentsb
  Black females/Black males 1.35*** 0.31 0.79*** 0.20
  White females/Black males 1.47* 0.66 0.88** 0.36
  Black females/White males 2.35 1.24 0.73 0.73
Relationship status (married reference group)
 Cohabiting 0.80*** 0.17 0.07 0.14 0.65*** .165 −0.02 0.14
 Dating 1.29*** 0.21 0.20 0.17 1.04*** 0.20 0.05 0.17
Relationship length 0.08** 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08** 0.03 0.01 0.02
Age 0.01 0.04 −0.01 0.03 0.02 0.04 −0.01 0.03
College education −1.50*** 0.13 −0.37*** 0.10 −1.53*** 0.12 −0.39*** 0.10
Childless −0.20 0.14 0.07 0.12 1.14* 0.48 0.12 0.44
Foreign born 1.22* 0.51 0.17 0.44 0.01 0.15 0.18 0.12
Discrimination 0.85*** 0.07 0.83*** 0.07
Perceived stress 0.98*** 0.02 0.98*** 0.02
N 7928 7928 7928 7928
F 32.56 291.52 36.99 304.38
R 2 0.04 0.49 0.05 0.50
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

a

White couples (white male/White female) reference group.

b

White couples (white female/White male) reference group.

Appendix 3

Table A3.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results Separately for Male and Female Interracial Relationship Membership predicting Self-Rated Health.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE
RaceXSex
 Male respondentsa
  Black males/Black females −0.06 0.04 −0.03 0.04
  White males/Black females 0.44*** 0.13 0.47** 0.15
  Black males/White females −0.04 0.12 −0.03 0.12
 Female respondentsb
  Black females/Black males −0.23*** 0.042 −0.19*** 0.04
  White females/Black males −0.32** 0.108 −0.3** 0.09
  Black females/White males −0.32 0.223 −0.2 0.17
Relationship status (married reference group)
 Cohabiting −0.12** 0.04 −0.06 0.04 −0.09* 0.04 −0.04 0.04
 Dating −0.12*** 0.04 −0.04 0.04 −0.07* 0.04 0.00 0.04
Relationship length −0.02* 0.01 −0.02* 0.01 −0.02* 0.01 −0.02* 0.01
Age 0.43*** 0.03 0.35*** 0.03 0.44*** 0.03 0.35*** 0.03
College education −0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Childless 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.03
Foreign born 0.06* 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.004
Discrimination −0.07*** 0.02 7928 7928
Perceived stress −0.07*** 0.004 32.72 58.18
N 7928 7928 0.07 0.14
F 30.83 53.59 −0.09* 0.04 −0.04 0.04
R2 0.07 0.13 −0.07* 0.04 0.00 0.04
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

a

White couples (white male/White female) reference group.

b

White couples (white female/White male) reference group.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Alvidrez J, Snowden LR, Rao SM, & Boccellari A (2009). Psychoeducation to address stigma in black adults referred for mental health treatment: A randomized pilot study. Community Mental Health Journal, 45(2), 127–136. 10.1007/s10597-008-9169-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron RM, & Kenny DA (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6). https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Black E (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race. Dialog Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Block CB (1981). Black American and the cross-cultural counseling and psychotherapy experience. In Marsella AJ & Pederson PB (Eds.), Cross cultural counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 177–194). Pergamon. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bogardus E (1933). A social-distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265–271. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1933-03965-001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bratter JL, & King RB (2008). But will it last?”: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57(2), 160–171. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00491.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brondolo E, Rahim R, Grimaldi SJ, Ashraf A, Bui N, & Schwartz JC (2015). Place of birth effects on self-reported discrimination: Variations by type of discrimination. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 212–222. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.10.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen P, & Chantala K (2014). Guidelines for analyzing Add health data. Carolina Population Center; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark R, Anderson NB, Clark VR, & Williams DR (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10), 805–816. 10.1037/0003-066x.54.10.805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen S, Kamarck T, & Mermelstein R (1994). Perceived stress scale. Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists, 10(2), 1–2. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2136404 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crowe C (2018). Getting away with murder: The true story of the Emmett till case. Penguin. [Google Scholar]
  12. Franklin AJ (1999). Invisibility syndrome and racial identity development in psychotherapy and counseling African American men. The Counseling Psychologist, 27(6), 761–793. 10.1177/0011000099276002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Frost DM, Lehavot K, & Meyer IH (2015). Minority stress and physical health among sexual minority individuals. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), 1–8. 10.1007/s10865-013-9523-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Golebiowska EA (2007). The contours and etiology of Whites’ attitudes toward Black White interracial marriage. Journal of Black Studies, 38(2), 268–287. 10.1177/0021934705285961 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gonzales NA, & Kim LS (1997). Stress and coping in an ethnic minority context. In Handbook of children’s coping (pp. 481–511). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gottman JM (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 57–75. 10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gullickson A (2006). Black/White interracial marriage trends, 1850–2000. Journal of Family History, 31(3), 289–312. 10.1177/0363199006288393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gurung RA, & Duong T (1999). Mixing and matching: Assessing the concomitants of mixed-ethnic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(5), 639–657. 10.1177/0265407599165005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Whitsel E, Hussey J, Tabor J, Entzel P, & Udry JR (2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent to adult health. Research design. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design (accessed 9 April 2019). [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackson JS, & Volckens J (1998). Community stressors and racism: Structural and individual perspectives on racial bias. In Arriaga XB & Oskamp S (Eds.), The Clarement Symposium on applied social psychology. Addressing community problems: Psychological research and interventions (pp. 19–51). Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson TD, & Kreider RM (2013, April). Mapping interracial/interethnic married-couple households in the United States: 2010 [Conference presentation]. Population Association of America Annual Meetings, New Orleans, LA, United States, April, 2013. https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2013/demo/sehsd-2013-19.html [Google Scholar]
  22. Joyner K, & Kao G (2005). Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 563–581. 10.1177/000312240507000402 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kroeger RA, & Williams K (2011). Consequences of Black Exceptionalism? Interracial Unions with Blacks, Depressive Symptoms, and Relationship Satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3). https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01212.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, & Wight RG (2015). Minority stress and stress proliferation among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 40–59. 10.1111/jomf.12160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee J, & Bean FD (2010). The diversity paradox: Immigration and the color line in twenty-first century America. Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  26. Livingston G, & Brown A (2017. May 18). Intermarriage in the US 50 years after loving v. Pew Research Center report. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/Intermarriage-May-2017-Full-Report.pdf
  27. Meyer IH (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and well-being in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Meyer IH, & Frost DM (2013). Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. In Patterson CJ & D’Augelli AR (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 252–266). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Musick K, & Bumpass L (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 1–18. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00873.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 594–607. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00394.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Pew Research Center. (2019). “Key findings on Americans’ views of race in 2019”. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/09/key-findings-on-americans-views-of-race-in-2019/ [Google Scholar]
  32. Perry SL, & Whitehead AL (2015). Christian nationalism and White racial boundaries: examining Whites’ opposition to interracial marriage. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(10), 1671–1689. 10.1080/01419870.2015.1015584 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Priest N, Paradies Y, Trenerry B, Truong M, Karlsen S, & Kelly Y (2013). A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for children and young people. Social Science & Medicine, 95, 115–127. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Qian Z, & Lichter DT (2011). Changing patterns of interracial marriage in a multiracial society. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 1065–1084. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00866.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Radloff LS (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied psychological measurement, 1(3), 385–401. 10.1177/014662167700100306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rose T, Joe S, & Lindsey M (2011). Perceived stigma and depression among Black adolescents in outpatient treatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 161–166. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sawyer PJ, Major B, Casad BJ, Townsend SS, & Mendes WB (2012). Discrimination and the stress response: psychological and physiological consequences of anticipating prejudice in interethnic interactions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 1020–1026. 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwartz CR (2013). Trends and Variation in Assortative Mating: Causes and Consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 451–470. 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Simon RW, & Barrett AE (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and well-being in early adulthood: Does the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(2), 168–182. 10.1177/0022146510372343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Skinner AL, & Hudac CM (2017). Yuck, you disgust me!” Affective bias against interracial couples. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 68–77. 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Thoits PA (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. 10.1177/0022146510395592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson A, & Bolger N (1999). Emotional transmission in couples under stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 38–48. 10.2307/353881 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Thorsteinsson EB, & James JE (1999). A meta-analysis of the effects of experimental manipulations of social support during laboratory stress. Psychology & Health, 14(5), 869–886. 10.1080/08870449908407353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tillman KH, & Miller B (2017). The role of family relationships in the psychological well-being of interracially dating adolescents. Social Science Research, 65, 240–252. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Totenhagen CJ, Randall AK, Cooper AN, Tao C, & Walsh KJ (2017). Stress spillover and crossover in same-sex couples: Concurrent and lagged daily effects. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13(3), 236–256. 10.1080/1550428X.2016.1203273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Umberson D, Thomeer MB, & Williams K (2013). Family status and mental health: Recent advances and future directions. In Aneshensel CS, Phelan JC, & Bierman A (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health. Handbooks of sociology and social Research. Springer. 10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_20 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Usita PM, & Poulsen S (2003). Interracial relationships in Hawaii: Issues, benefits, and therapeutic interventions. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 2(2–3), 73–83. 10.1300/J398v02n02_06 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Waite LJ, Browning D, Doherty WJ, Gallagher M, Luo Y, & Stanley SM (2002). Does divorce make people happy. In: Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages (32, pp. 495–503). Institute for American Values. [Google Scholar]
  49. Williams DR, Neighbors HW, & Jackson JS (2003). Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 200–208. 10.2105/AJPH.93.2.200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wong MK (2009). Strengthening connections in interracial marriages through pre-marital inventories: A critical literature review. Contemporary Family Therapy, 31(4), 251–261. 10.1007/s10591-009-9099-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wong JS, & Penner AM (2018). Better together? Interracial relationships and depressive symptoms. Socius, 4. 10.1177/2378023118814610 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES