Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 45(4): 635–649

doi: 10.1111/jmft.12362
© 2018 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

BLACK–WHITE MARRIAGES: THE MODERATING ROLE

OF OPENNESS ON EXPERIENCE OF COUPLE
DISCRIMINATION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION
Joyce Baptist, Brianna Craig, and Bornell Nicholson
Kansas State University

This study examined how open communication between spouses may buffer against discrimi-
nation experienced by Black–White couples. Results from 178 couples analyzed using a com-
bination of common-fate and actor–partner interdependence models, indicated that for
Black partners, marital satisfaction was not contingent on the level of openness when experi-
ences of couple discrimination were low. When experiences of couple discrimination were
high, levels of marital satisfaction were maintained among partners who reported high open-
ness and reduced among partners who reported low openness. Moderation effects were not
found for White partners. The results suggest that because Black partners are more aware of
and sensitized to discrimination, White partners’ abilities to attune to their partners’ needs
for support could help enhance their relationships.

Interracial couples are at risk for discrimination. A recent study found that interracial
romance elicited disgust, a form of emotional bias that can lead to discrimination and dehumaniza-
tion (Skinner & Hudac, 2017). These couples risk institutionalized discrimination, negative reac-
tions and isolation from family and kinship networks (e.g., Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008)
that can reduce marital satisfaction and precipitate marital conflict (Root, 1990). Across racial
groups, Whites (12%) and Blacks (9%) were found to be more likely than Hispanics (3%) to
oppose familial interracial relationships (Livingston & Brown, 2017).
Of all interracial mixes, Black–White couples appear to garner the most negative attention
and stigma (Reiter, Krause, & Stirlen, 2005). Dainton (1999) reported that 64% of Black–White
couples experience negative public reactions with Black partners more severely affected by acts of
discrimination. White partners may experience discrimination, due not to their race, but because
they are married to persons of color (Leslie & Letiecq, 2004). Racial discrimination, perceived and
anticipated, can adversely affect one’s physical and mental health. Perceived racial discrimination
has been linked to health issues such as high blood pressure (e.g., Orom, Sharma, Homish, Under-
wood, & Homish, 2017), hypertension (Dolezsar, McGrath, Herzig, & Miller, 2014), unfavorable
cancer outcomes (Merluzzi, Philip, Zhang, & Sullivan, 2015), and even death (Barnes et al., 2008).
Conditions such as psychosis (Oh, Yang, Anglin, & DeVylder, 2014), depression and anxiety (e.g.,
English, Lambert, Evans, & Zonderman, 2014), and binge eating (Durso, Latner, & Hayashi,
2012) have also been linked to racial discrimination. Studies further suggest that health can be
adversely affected by simply anticipating discrimination (Sawyer, Major, Casad, Townsend, &
Mendes, 2012) or being self-conscious of one’s stigmatized status (Orom et al., 2017).
Because of the lack of societal and familial support, interracial couples often have to rely on
their partner for support. Having space within the relationship to openly discuss experiences of dis-
crimination can help ease the stress and contribute to the couples’ physical and mental health.
Openness, or the ability to freely share thoughts and feelings, is an important contributor to

Joyce Baptist, PhD, Associate Professor, is a graduate students in Couple and Family Therapy, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS; Brianna Craig, BS, is a graduate students in Couple and Family Therapy, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS; Bornell Nicholson, MA, is a graduate students in Couple and Family Therapy, Kansas
State University, Manhattan, KS.
Address correspondence to Joyce Baptist, 303 Justin Hall, 1324 Lovers Lane, FSHS, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS 66506; E-mail: jbaptist@ksu.edu

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 635

relationship maintenance for couples in the United States. (Canary & Stafford, 1992). Freely shar-
ing and expressing thoughts and feelings within the privacy of one’s marriage may serve as a buffer
to discrimination. Whether a routine occurrence or done strategically with the intent to enhance
the relationship, openness can help with relationship maintenance (Canary & Stafford, 1992).
Studies on interracial relationships have primarily focused on factors that impede marital
longevity rather than on factors that build resilience. This study proposes that open communica-
tion with one’s partner not only enhances the relationship, but may buffer the impact of perceived
discrimination routinely experienced by interracial couples. Using a combination of the Common-
Fate (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012) and Actor–Partner Interdependence models (Kashy & Kenny,
2000), this study tested a Latent Moderation model presented in Figure 1 with a sample of Black–
White couples.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND SUPPORT

One of the most common ways discrimination affects interracial relationships is in the lack of
social support the couples receive (Bratter & King, 2008). Diminished social support can lead to
isolation social groups within the community and workplace (Killian, 2002). Considering the lack
of social support for interracial relationships, the need for family support is crucial for these cou-
ples that experience stress throughout the course of their relationships. Due to their limited social
networks, the lack of family support can be especially detrimental to these couples (Hohmann-
Marriott & Amato, 2008). Social support can act as a buffer against outside stressors, while the
lack of support can contribute to decreased marital quality. For Black–White couples, family and
social support (Killian, 2002) play a major role in buffering external stressors to maintain marital
stability and satisfaction. Because of the lack of external support, Black–White couples are left to
fend for themselves to manage any stress generated from racial discrimination.

OPENNESS AS A BUFFER OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

An awareness of the prevalence of racial discrimination and an environment that invites open
communication could facilitate couples’ abilities to confide in each other. However, because Black
partners often feel that their White partners were not aware of the degree of discrimination Blacks
face in society, Black partners have had to respond by pointing out cases of discrimination (e.g.,
Killian, 2002). Frequently, persons in Black–White marriages may be reluctant to freely share
thoughts and feelings about race for fear of offending their partner; which in turn, can undermine

Figure 1. Proposed model of openness moderating the relationship between shared discrimination
and marital satisfaction.
Note. Control variables include group, age, number of children, duration of marriage, income and
exposure to diversity.

636 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

relationship trust. Consequently, many interracial couples learn to suppress their true feelings in
order to maintain their relationships (Rosenblatt, Karis, & Powell, 1995). For Black partners,
silence can be detrimental. The longer Black persons are exposed to the stress of racism, the more
susceptible they are to feelings of hopelessness, anger, and distrust (Clark, Anderson, Clark, &
Williams, 1999) and other mental and physical health consequences of discrimination.
Conversely, if both partners can lean on one another, they will be better equipped to cope with
the detrimental effects of discrimination. McNeil, Fincham, and Beach (2014) found that spousal
support moderated the effects of racial discrimination for Black men. Persons that feel supported
by their partners also grow to depend upon them more. Perceived dependency can enhance rela-
tionship commitment (e.g., Canary & Stafford, 1992) and consequently, trust that can lead to more
openness. Openness in communication creates better attachment (Adams & Baptist, 2012) and
commitment in marriages (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Finkel, VanderDrift, & Luchies, 2014; Givertz,
Woszidlo, Segrin, & Jia, 2016). For Black–White couples to become more resilient to discrimina-
tion, they need to feel like they can attach to, and depend upon, each other which in turn can
enhance their relationships (Gaines et al., 1999).
Openness, a relationship maintenance strategy (Canary & Stafford, 1992) contributes to the
resilience and longevity of relationships. Openness is the direct and explicit discussion of feelings
about the relationship that requires couples to be vulnerable. Because relationship quality and sat-
isfaction are dependent upon the amount of work put in by both partners in maintaining open
communication (Canary & Stafford, 1992), it can helpful if couples are strategic about routinely
practicing open communication. Opportunities to openly share with one’s partner can reduce rela-
tional distress (Reiter & Gee, 2008). For Black–White couples, openly discussing issues related to
race and culture can be bonding.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

Given how openness can maintain relationships, this study seeks to examine the role of open-
ness in moderating the effects of shared experiences of couple discrimination (henceforth referred
to as couple discrimination) on marital satisfaction for Black–White couples. The model, presented
in Figure 1 tested the following hypotheses:
H1: Shared couple discrimination will be negatively linked to marital satisfaction for both
partners.
H2: Openness will moderate the relationship between shared couple discrimination and
marital satisfaction.

METHOD

Participants
This study included participants born in the United States to minimize the variability in expe-
riences of discrimination. The final number included in this study was 178 couples, married for an
average of 6.63 years (SD = 4.57; Range = 1 month to 21.4 years). Each couple had an average of
2.88 (SD = 1.25; Range = 1–6) children. Included in the 178 couples were 93 Black men married
to White women and 85 Black women married to White men. The average ages of participants
were 31.78 (SD = 4.38) for Black partners and 31.94 (SD = 4.13) for White partners. The average
income for each partner was between $60,000 and $69,999 per year.

Data Collection
This study utilized data collected for a study on interracial relationships (Kansas State Univer-
sity, 2016). These cross sectional data were collected online using a Qualtrics Panel at one time
point. Participants were recruited only from the U.S. based on the following criteria: (a) heterosex-
ual married Black–White couples, (b) aged from 18 to 40 years old, and (c) both partners were will-
ing and able to complete the online survey. The age restriction was to minimize the variability in
experiences of institutionalized racism. Age 40 was chosen as the cut off because in 1991, when

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 637

40 year olds would have been 15 years old and entering romantic relationships, more U.S. resi-
dents approved (48%) interracial relationships than disapproved (42%) (Carroll, 2017). In 1983,
the reverse was true (50% disapproved and 43% approved). The online survey included scales that
measured demographics, racial identity, values and beliefs, relationship processes and outcomes.

Measures
The following measures assessed openness, marital satisfaction, experiences of individual and
couple discrimination, racial identity and exposure to diversity.
Openness. The six-item openness subscale from the Relationship Maintenance Strategies
Measure (RMSM, Canary & Stafford, 1992) measured self-disclosure. Participants reflected upon
the last 2 weeks and responded to statements such as, “I have encouraged my partner to disclose
his/her thoughts and feelings to me” using a Likert scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree). A mean summary ranging from 1 to 5 was constructed, with higher scores reflecting more
openness in the relationship. This Openness scale has been found to have good reliability
(a = .82–.84) (Baptist, Norton, Aducci, Thompson, & Cook, 2012) and convergent construct
validity with greater happiness (Chonody, Killian, Gabb, & Dunk-West, 2016). The Cronbach’s
alpha for this study demonstrated the scale’s reliability (Black partners = .88; White part-
ners = .92).
Marital satisfaction. The four-item Couple Satisfaction Inventory (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge,
2007) measured marital satisfaction. Participants rated how true each statement was for their rela-
tionship using a Likert scale of 1 (Not at all true) to 7 (Completely true). Sample statements
included, “I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner.” A mean summary rang-
ing from 1 to 7 was constructed, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The CSI was
found to demonstrate strong convergent and construct validity with other satisfaction measures
and good reliability (a = .94) (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Cronbach’s alpha indicated the scale’s relia-
bility (Black and White partners = .92).
Experiences of individual discrimination. The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS, Williams,
Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) modified by Trail, Goff, Bradbury, and Karney (2012) in their
study on couples was used in this study. The modified scale included six of the nine original items.
Participants were asked “How often have you experienced the following examples of discrimina-
tion based on your race?: (a) being treated as inferior, (b) people acting fearful of you, (c) being
treated with less respect than others, (d) people treating you as if you have been dishonest, (e) being
insulted or received name-calling, and (f) being threatened or harassed” based on a Likert scale of
1 (Never) to 4 (Often). A mean summary score of 1–4 was constructed with higher scores indicating
higher frequency of experiencing discrimination. This six-item scale’s Cronbach’s alphas were .75
(husbands) and .69 (wives) (Trail et al., 2012). The original nine-item scale demonstrated strong
convergent validity with distress, anger and hostility scales (coefficients of .17 to .19, p < .001;
Gonzales et al., 2016). Cronbach’s alphas for this study of .94 and .93 for Black and White part-
ners respectively reflects the scale’s reliability.
Experiences of couple discrimination. The above six-item scale was modified to assess couple
discrimination. Participants were asked “How often have you experienced the following types of
discrimination because you were in an interracial marriage?: (a) treated as inferior, (b) people acting
fearful of you, (c) treated with less respect than others, (d) people treating you as if you have been
dishonest, (e) insulted or received name-calling, and (f) threatened or harassed” based on the same
4-point Likert scale above. Higher mean summary score (1–4) indicated higher frequency of expe-
riencing couple discrimination. Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated the scales’ reliability (.93 and .90
for Black and White partners respectively).
Racial identity. The degree to which participants identified with their racial heritage was mea-
sured using six items from the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised scale (MEIM-R; Phin-
ney & Ong, 2007). The scale was tested for structural, factorial, and construct validity, and was
found to measure two related constructs of racial identity: exploration and commitment. Partici-
pants were asked the extent to which they agreed to a series of statements regarding their racial
identity. Sample statements included, “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own racial group.”
Participants responded using a Likert scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). A mean
summary score of 1–5 was constructed, with higher scores indicating stronger racial identity. The

638 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

scale has been widely used across multiple racial groups and can be used to measure and compare
racial identity across multiple racial groups (Brown et al., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha of this 6-item
scale was .81 (Phinney & Ong, 2007) and .91 (Black partners) and .86 (White partners) in this
study.
Exposure to diversity. Exposure to racial diversity growing up was measured using three
items adapted from Phinney, Ferguson, and Tate (1997). Participants rated exposure to racial
diversity as a child in their neighborhoods, schools and friendship networks using a four-point Lik-
ert scale from 1 (Nearly everyone was from my racial group) to 4 (Most of the people were from
different of racial groups). A mean summary score of 1–4 was constructed, with higher scores indi-
cating more exposure to racial diversity as a child. Cronbach’s alpha of .90 and .89 for Black and
White partners respectively demonstrated the scale’s reliability.

Data Analysis
H1 and H2 were tested using a common-fate latent moderation structural equation model in
Figure 1. Preliminary analysis and group differences were analyzed using SPSS V.25 (IBM Corp.,
2017) followed by MPlus 8 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2017) to analyze the model presented in Fig-
ure 1. Given the interdependence between partners, it was anticipated that reports on experiences
related to being a couple would be highly correlated. This was the case with couple discrimination,
r = .71, p < .001. In order to capture the shared variance of couple discrimination, a common-
fate variable was created (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012). This process entailed using a latent variable
to capture the shared reports of couple discrimination where the factor loadings indicate the por-
tion of the shared variance contributed by each partner. Referring to Figure 1, partners’ shared
couple discrimination was modeled to relate to partners’ individual reports of marital satisfaction
and how partners’ own reports of openness moderated this relationship. All dependent and
independent variables were mean centered to avoid probability of high multicollinearity with the
interaction variable (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991).
Analysis began with estimating a measurement model to ensure model fit. Evidence of accept-
able fit between the model and the observed data can be determined by a non-significant Chi-
square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values of above 0.95, and
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of below 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). This
was followed with the estimation of the structural model without the latent interaction terms
(Model 1) and comparing it with the structural model with latent interaction terms (Model 2)
(Satorra & Bentler, 2010). Because latent moderation structural equations do not generate model
fit indices such as RMSEA, CFI, and TLI, overall model fit was measured using a chi-square differ-
ence test (TRd) based on log-likelihood values and scaling correction factors obtained with the
robust maximum likelihood estimator. Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian informa-
tion criterion (BIC) indices were also used to determine model fit, whereby lower AIC and BIC val-
ues indicate better fit of the model to the data (Little, Bovaird, & Widaman, 2006).
Control variables. Age (in years), income level (in increments of $10,000), number of children,
duration of marriage (in months), racial identity, exposure to diversity and individual discrimina-
tion were included as continuous variables. Racial identity, exposure to diversity, age, income
level, number of children, and length of marriage, are all associated with marital satisfaction and
instability (Amato, 2010).
Racial identity, a measure of feelings towards one’s racial group and heritage, can serve as a
psychological buffer against prejudice and discrimination for Black persons married to White per-
sons (Phinney, 1996). White persons, who in general spend less time thinking about their race
(Rosenblatt et al., 1995), when married to a partner of a different race are forced to deal with the
meaning of their own racial identity. A lack of strong connection with one’s racial identity may
mean more uncertainty and poorer marital quality (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). Exposure
to a racially diverse social context (i.e., neighborhood, school and friendship networks) influences
racial attitudes and the consequent openness to interracial unions (Pauker, Carpinella, Meyers,
Young, & Sanchez, 2017) and reduced racial stereotyping (Pauker, Xu, Williams, & Biddle, 2016).
The potential correlation between individual discrimination and couple discrimination informed
the need to control the potential influence of individual discrimination on marital satisfaction.

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 639

 The insufficient sample size of each interracial marital composition (i.e., White husbands with
Black wives and Black husbands with White wives) did not facilitate group comparisons. Hence,
both groups were combined for analysis and differences in the type of Black–White marital compo-
sition was included in the analysis as a control variable. Group 1 consisted of White husband/
Black wife couples, and Group 2 consisted of Black husband/White wife couples.
Alternative model. To confirm the proposed latent moderation model, an alternative model
that examined cross partner influence on marital satisfaction was examined. In addition to one’s
own openness to discussing issues with one’s partner, partner’s openness could influence marital
satisfaction (Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999), and in this study, buffer any negative effects from dis-
crimination. Consequently, two additional moderators were tested. The first was Black partners’
openness moderating the relationship between shared couple discrimination and White partners’
marital satisfaction and the second was White partners’ openness moderating the relationship
between shared couple discrimination and Black partners’ marital satisfaction. The alternative
model essentially tested if cross partner openness influenced marital satisfaction and if this path
was stronger than the influence of own partners’ openness on satisfaction. In order to determine if
the alternative model was a better fit for the observed data, TRd (Satorra & Bentler, 2010), AIC
and BIC values were examined.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analysis
Analysis of differences using t-tests indicated that overall, wives reported more couple discrim-
ination than husbands (t(269) = 2.29, p = .023, M difference = 0.22). While White and Black
wives did not differ in couple discrimination, Black men reported experiencing more discrimination
compared to White men (t(95) = 2.02, p = .046, M difference = 0.42). Compared to White men,
White women reported experiencing more discrimination (t(164) = 2.87, p = .005, M differ-
ence = 0.50) while no differences were indicated between Black men and women. Unlike discrimi-
nation, openness and marital satisfaction did not differ across sex and race.
Bivariate correlations presented in Table 1 indicated significant relationships between couple
discrimination (r = .71, p < .001), openness (r = .57, p < .001), and marital satisfaction
(r = .67, p < .001) that reflect interdependence between partners. Couple discrimination for both
partners was negatively related to marital satisfaction of self and that of one’s partner. These
results suggested that when either partner experienced discrimination for being in a Black–White
marriage, both partners experienced decreased marital satisfaction.
A significant relationship was found between individual and couple discrimination (Black
partner: r = .78, p < .001; White partners: r = .49, p < .001), supporting the need to control
for individual discrimination. Examination of experiences of discrimination across regions in the
United States (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northwest and Southwest) was conducted using
one-way ANOVAs. Welch tests found no significant differences between group means for
individuals (Black partners: F(4,78.42) = 1.26, p = .29; White partners: F(4,78.91) = 1.46,
p = .22) and couple discrimination (Black partners: F(4,63.21) = 1.15, p = .36; White partners: F
(4,79.91) = 1.96, p = .11) suggesting experiences of discrimination did not differ across geographi-
cal regions.
Although a positive relationship between one’s own openness and marital satisfaction (Black
partners, r = .24, p = .002; White partners, r = .34, p < .001) was indicated, only for Black
partners did their level of openness contribute to their partners’ marital satisfaction (r = .18,
p = .019). Finally, openness was not influenced by discrimination, reflecting its enduring charac-
teristic.

Measurement Model
Results of the analysis estimating the model fit of the measurement model (with no interaction
terms) controlling for group, age, income levels, number of children, duration of marriage, expo-
sure to diversity, racial identity, and individual discrimination indicated poor model fit
(CFI = 0.54, TLI = 0.30, Chi-square = 203.79, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.16). Subsequently, control
variables were sequentially removed to improve model fit. Model fit improved after removing only

640 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

 Table 1
Summary of Intercorrelations Between Study Variables

October 2019
Model
variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. B Discrim. –
2. W Discrim. .71* –
3. B Openness .11 .07 –
4. W Openness .14 .05 .57* –
5. B Satisfac. .22# .24# .24* .12 –
6. W Satisfac. .20# .22# .18+ .34* .67* –
7. Group .19+ .16+ .07 .02 .03 .09 –
8. Children .06 .10 .12 .01 .16+ .04 .01 –
9. Marital yrs. .08 .11 .03 .04 .14 .13 .14 .33* –
10. B Age .06 .03 .12 .13 .05 .00 .31* .08 .25* –
11. W Age .07 .07 .08 .07 .03 .02 .10 .20# .40* .65* –
12. B Income .02 .08 .11 .03 .01 .06 .01 .05 .17+ .17+ .97+ –
13. W Income .04 .09 .10 .01 .03 .09 .01 .07 .19+ .15+ .18+ .98* –
14. B Diver. .13 .14 .06 .01 .18+ .21# .09 .08 .07 .01 .07 .10 .06 –
15. W Diver. .08 .11 .19+ .13 .13 .03 .06 .06 .06 .05 .12 .15 .16+ .11 –
16. B Rac. Iden. .28* .19+ .24# .29* .06 .08 .02 .02 .04 .01 .10 .19 .10 .13 .10 –
17. W Rac. Iden. .22 .03 .07 .17+ .01 .04 .16+ .05 .04 .06 .14 .10 .10 .05 .22# .42* –
18. B Ind. Disc. .78* .67* .08 .06 .15 .11 .31* .06 .11 .09 .02 .002 .10 .09 .03 .22# .10 –
19. W Ind. Disc .41* .49* .11 .04 .13 .12 .06 .02 .06 .10 .002 .07 .09 .11 .21# .12 .25* .36* –

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

M 2.14 2.04 3.07 3.08 5.13 5.04 2.88 79.62 31.78 31.94 6.11 6.11 2.51 2.11 3.72 3.36 2.41 1.66
SD 0.81 0.74 0.18 0.19 1.05 1.03 1.25 54.86 4.38 4.13 2.54 2.55 0.91 0.85 0.86 0.79 0.83 0.70
Range 1–4 1–4 1–5 1–5 1–7 1–7 1–6 1–257 22–40 19–41 1–10 1–10 1–4 1–4 1–5 1–5 1–4 1–4

Notes. B = Black partner, W = White partner, Discrim. = Couple Discrimination, Satisfac. = Satisfaction, Marital yrs. = Length of Marriage,
Diver. = Exposure to Diversity, Rac. Iden. = Racial Identity, Ind. Disc. = Individual Discrimination.
+
p < .05. #p < .01. *p < .001. (two-tailed).

641
individual discrimination (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.90, Chi-square = 53.42, p = .06, RMSEA = 0.05).
To improve model fit further, racial identity, and individual discrimination were removed from the
model, resulting in the following fit indices that suggested that the model fit was a good fit for the
observed data: CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, Chi-square = 37.12, p = .28, RMSEA = 0.03. This model
that controlled for group, age, income levels, number of children, duration of marriage, and expo-
sure to diversity served as the structural model (Model 1).

Structural Model
Model 1 (with no interaction terms) was compared with Model 2 (with interaction terms as
presented in Figure 1). TRd was computed using the log-likelihood values of 620.69 (Model 1)
and 612.27 (Model 2), scaling correction factors of 1.21 (Model 1) and 1.14 (Model 2) and free
parameters of 25 (Model 1) and 27 (Model 2). The TRd of 8.42 for 2 df was statistically significant
at the .05 level, suggesting that Model 2 better fit the observed data compared to Model 1 making
Model 2 the final structural model. Hence, Model 2 with openness moderating the effect of couple
discrimination on satisfaction explained more of the variance in satisfaction for Black [R2
increased from 19 (Model 1) to 25 (Model 2)] but not White partners [that remained at .19 for both
models]. Table 2 presents the unstandardized and standardized results of both models.
H1: Shared couple discrimination will be negatively linked to marital satisfaction for both part-
ners. H1 was fully supported for Black (b = 0.55, p < .001) and White partners (b = 0.37,
p = .036). One unit increase in couple discrimination reduced marital satisfaction by .55 units for
Black partners and .37 for white partners. Regardless of one’s race, shared couple discrimination
by virtue of being in a relationship with either a Black or White partner was negatively linked to
marital satisfaction.
H2: Openness will moderate the relationship between shared couple discrimination and marital
satisfaction. H2 was partially supported. Level of openness moderated the effect of shared couple
discrimination on satisfaction for Black partners (b = 0.43, p = .002) but not for White partners
(b = 0.18, p = .24). Only for Black partners (Figure 2) did openness buffer shared couple discrim-
ination on marital satisfaction. This moderating effect suggests that marital satisfaction was not
contingent on the level of openness when couple discrimination was low. However, when couple
discrimination was high, levels of marital satisfaction were maintained among partners who
reported high openness and reduced among partners who reported low openness. Conversely,
White partners’ (Figure 3) marital satisfaction reduced when couple discrimination was high
regardless of level of openness.

Alternative Model
The alternative model that examined if cross partner openness influenced marital satisfaction
did not improve Model 2. The alternative model’s log-likelihood = 611.26, scale correction fac-
tor = 1.16 and free parameters = 31. When compared with Model 2, the computed TRd of 1.01
and df of 4 was not statistically significant at the .05 level. In addition, AIC (1,284.53) and BIC
(1,377.86) increased in value indicating the alternative model was not an improvement to Model 2.
Results further indicated that Black partners’ openness did not moderate the relationship between
shared couple discrimination and White partners’ marital satisfaction (b = 0.11, p = 0.47) and
White partners’ openness did not moderate the relationship between shared couple discrimination
and Black partners’ marital satisfaction (b = 0.23, p = .25). Given these results, Model 2 was
retained.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the role of openness as a moderator of couple discrimination on marital
satisfaction in Black–White interracial relationships. First, as expected, openness in marriage can
benefit marital satisfaction for both partners regardless of race. These results are consistent with
past research demonstrating how openness creates better attachment in marriage (Adams & Bap-
tist, 2012) and in turn higher commitment (e.g., Arriaga et al., 2014; Givertz et al., 2016). Next,
partners’ satisfaction with their marriages suffers when they experience discrimination as an

642 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

 Table 2
Summary of Unstandardized and Standardized Results of Model Predicting Marital
Satisfaction

Model 1 Model 2
b SE b b SE b

Shared couple discrimination

Black partner 1.12 0.21 .88*** 1.22 0.07 .88***
White partner 1.00 0.00 .84*** 1.00 0.00 .83***
Dependent variable: black marital satisfaction
R2 = .19, p = .007 R2 = .25, p = .002
Shared couple discrimination 0.51 0.17 .29*** 0.55 0.14 .31***
Black openness 0.20 0.09 .20* 0.18 0.07 .19**
Black openness 9 Shared couple 0.43 0.14 .26***
discrimination
Group 0.26 0.16 .13 0.24 0.16 .12
Age 0.03 0.02 .14 0.03 0.02 .14*
Number of children 0.11 0.06 .13 0.09 0.06 .11
Duration of marriage 0.002 0.002 .10 0.002 0.002 .12
Income 0.02 0.03 .05 0.02 0.03 .04
Exposure to diversity 0.01 0.07 .01 0.01 0.07 .01
Dependent variable: white marital satisfaction
R2 = .19, p = .003 R2 = .19, p = .013
Shared couple discrimination 0.31 0.14 .18* 0.37 0.18 .21*
White openness 0.38 0.08 .38*** 0.36 0.07 .36***
White openness 9 Shared couple 0.18 0.16 .11
discrimination
Group 0.08 0.17 .04 0.08 0.17 .04
Age 0.003 0.02 .01 0.002 0.02 .01
Number of children 0.04 0.07 .05 0.04 0.07 .05
Duration of marriage 0.002 0.002 .10 0.002 0.002 .10
Income 0.01 0.03 .03 0.01 0.03 .02
Exposure to diversity 0.08 0.06 .07 0.06 0.05 .05

Fit indices:
Log-likelihood H0 value 620.69 612.27
AIC 1,291.38 1,278.83
BIC 1,366.64 1,359.38
Chi-square 37.12 (p = .28)
RMSEA 0.03
CFI 0.98
TLI 0.97

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

interracial couple, a finding consistent with Root (1990). This was true for both Black and White
partners.
Next, for interracial relationships that often lack familial and social support (e.g., Root,
1990), being open with one’s partner can protect marital satisfaction. This moderating effect of
openness supports previous findings (e.g., Reiter & Gee, 2008). However, this was true for only

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 643

Figure 2. Openness moderating experiences of couple discrimination and marital satisfaction for
black partners.
Note. Dependent variable = Marital satisfaction.

Figure 3. Openness moderating experiences of couple discrimination and marital satisfaction for
white partners.
Note. Dependent variable = Marital satisfaction.

Black partners, not White. This difference may be related to the findings that Black partners expe-
rience more discrimination (Dainton, 1999). Black partners may also be more aware of discrimina-
tion (Killian, 2002). Familiarity with discrimination and perhaps having had experience discussing
these issues may facilitate Black partners’ ability to openly address discrimination within the mar-
riage. White partners who do not experience discrimination to the same degree as their Black part-
ners (Leslie & Letiecq, 2004), may not be as aware of discrimination when it happens and if they
are, may not know how to utilize their relationship to manage these experiences. Not openly dis-
cussing these difficult experiences with their partners may further reflect White partners’ discom-
fort with bringing up discriminatory acts committed by fellow White citizens. Feeling guilty for
belonging to a group that discriminates against race may also serve as an impediment for White
partners to confide in their partners. White partners may not feel permitted to complain about an
issue that they have not grown up with or on which their Black partners have a better grasp.

644 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

Influencing Factors
The results from the analysis of group differences provide insight into the role of gender in
interracial relationships. Both Black husbands and their White wives reported experiencing dis-
crimination more frequently than White husbands and their Black wives. These findings reflect the
intolerance for Black men marrying White women. The myth of Black men as rapists, that can be
traced back to the time of slavery (Epstein & Langenbaum, 1994) could be perpetuating this intol-
erance and explain the contempt for Black men marrying White women. The phenomenon that
“White is right” can also contribute to the belief that Black–White couples intermixing in marriage
is tainting the White race (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).
Heightened racial identity may explain partners’ awareness of discriminatory acts, hence the
need to process these experiences with their significant other. The results suggest that Black part-
ners are more aware of racial identity compared to White partners and White wives of Black men
more aware than White husbands of Black women. Compared to White men, White women are
probably more accustomed and sensitized to discrimination due to their gender and race of their
husbands, which in turn, contribute to questions about racial identity. This process of questioning
and self-reflection may contribute to heightened racial affiliation.

Clinical Implications
The results from this study have implications for enhancing Black–White relationships espe-
cially couples that seek therapy for communication skills and preparing for marriage. First, assess-
ment of couples’ relational well-being should include an assessment of the level of family and
social support and experiences of discrimination. Normalizing the prevalence and occurrence of
discrimination experienced by Black–White couples could help couples feel safe to disclose and
share their experiences. This discussion should extend beyond disclosure and include the opportu-
nity to express concerns and feelings pertaining to discrimination. Facilitating these discussions
should be performed with the intention of helping couples improve their ability to communicate
openly and to elicit and provide mutual support. Techniques such as the Imago Dialogue from
Imago Relationship Therapy (Hendrix, Hunt, Hannah, & Luquet, 2005), that begins with mirror-
ing, followed by validation and empathy can help with increasing attunement and building deeper
connections.
Discussions could include topics beyond experiences of discrimination from family and exter-
nal sources. The goal should be to provide couples the opportunity to develop open and safe com-
munication skills that in turn can help enhance overall satisfaction. The meaning of discrimination
should also be explored as partners may attribute diverse meanings to different forms and sources
of discriminatory acts that can influence how they perceive the intention of the act and inform their
reactions. Communication dialogue could begin with sharing their understanding of what it feels
like to be discriminated against by virtue of being married to their partner of a different race.
Receiving validation from one’s partner for this act of violence over which they have no control
could naturally lead to expressions of empathy and mutual support.
In addition, social constructionist interventions from Narrative Therapy that honor multiple
perspectives and different meanings (Gergen, 1994) could help couples be more in-tune with their
partners’ experiences if they perceive discriminatory acts and messages differently. Exploring fam-
ily-of-origin issues related to race and discrimination could help illuminate and provide insight into
couples’ perceptions and responses to racial discrimination. The process of understanding acts of
discrimination should extend to messages that could directly or indirectly influence couples.
Sociopolitical messages have the potential to propagate divisiveness among groups. How these
messages influence each partner personally and the couple as a unit needs to be explored and dis-
cussed with the intention of providing a safe place to express and normalize reactions.
Because Black partners will likely be more aware of and sensitized to discrimination, it would
be important to assess for and even help White partners develop an increased capacity for empathy
and to attend to their partners’ need for support. This is especially crucial since open communica-
tion appears to be an important coping mechanism for Black but not White partners. White part-
ners may feel ashamed and uncomfortable discussing discrimination especially if the source of
these acts are from fellow White citizens. Therapists could help White partners process any mixed
feelings that may interfere with their ability to both seek and provide support in their relationship.

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 645

It is possible that White partners may feel guilty for the privileges gained as a White person and as
such do not feel permitted to complain about being discriminated against. Fears related to dis-
cussing issues of discrimination and being vulnerable with feelings should be normalized and
addressed in order to create a safe therapy environment.
The next step would be to help couples develop strategies to counter and cope with discrimina-
tory acts and messages. Solution-focused techniques (Berg & de Dolan, 2001) that elicit skills that
couples are using or have used in the past remind couples of their innate strengths and build confi-
dence. The more united couples are in how they cope with discrimination, the more dependent they
can be on each other for support that in turn could promote the emotional intimacy and attach-
ment that are important for stability in interracial relationships (Gaines et al., 1999). Openly shar-
ing and confiding thoughts and feelings, an effective coping strategy for Black partners, should be
encouraged. In addition to open communication, it would be ideal for couples to share strategies
for overcoming the discrimination that may threaten the health of their relationships. These could
include signals or codes that indicate the need to remove themselves from compromising or unsafe
situations, identifying specific persons or social circles that the couple will avoid, and to agree to
not discuss race-related topics on which the couple disagrees.
The results of this study have implications for Black–White couples preparing to enter mar-
riage. Preparing these couples for the possible discrimination they may face and equipping them
with coping strategies could help build resilience. Couples need to be informed of what they could
expect from being in a mixed-race union and provided the opportunity to process, discuss and
explore ways to cope with discrimination. In addition to the ability to confide and rely on each
other, building a strong and reliable support network would be crucial. What it means to commu-
nicate openly and the role of sharing and confiding needs to be discussed to help couples prepare
for their roles as confidants and protectors for their partners.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Although this study breaks new ground in terms of its focus on how to build resilience in
Black–White couples, there are limitations that need to be considered when interpreting and apply-
ing the results. First, the small group sizes of Black husbands/White wives and White husbands/
Black wives disallowed group comparisons. Future studies with larger participant numbers are
needed to replicate this study and tease out group differences. The sample participants were not a
clinical sample, meaning the above clinical implications may not completely transfer when working
with Black–White couples in therapy.
Second, additional relationship factors other than openness need to be explored. Open-
ness was found to be an important coping mechanism for Black but not White partners.
How White partners cope with discrimination experienced by virtue of having a Black part-
ner is unknown. Third, the long-term implications of discrimination cannot be determined
given the cross-sectional nature of the data available. Longitudinal data will allow the pro-
gression of marital satisfaction to be analyzed over time, as well as how discrimination
influences interracial relationships over time. The average years of marriage where marital
satisfaction is most severely perturbed by discrimination can be determined with longitudinal
data. Such information can facilitate timely interventions to minimize stress on relationships
and enhance marital stability.
Fourth, while the items that measured marital satisfaction had good reliability, there was no
baseline measure for clinical distress with which to compare reports of martial satisfaction. Fur-
thermore, even though all measurement scales had good reliability (a > .88) the validity of these
scales for the participants in this study is unknown. Thus, this study should be replicated in future
research with a larger clinical sample. A final limitation is that of participants’ mere perception or
awareness of discrimination. Partners who are more oblivious to acts of couple discrimination may
minimize or dismiss their partner’s experience of discrimination. This may hinder their partner’s
openness in the relationship.

646 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

 CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the role of openness as a moderator of couple discrimination on marital
satisfaction in Black–White interracial relationships. Results indicated that for Black partners,
marital satisfaction was not contingent on the level of openness when couple discrimination was
low. However, when couple discrimination was high, levels of marital satisfaction were maintained
among partners who reported high openness and reduced among partners who reported low open-
ness. Conversely, for White partners, marital satisfaction was reduced when couple discrimination
was high regardless of level of openness. Because Black partners may be more aware of and sensi-
tized to discrimination, White partners’ abilities to attune to their partners’ needs for support
could help enhance their relationships.

REFERENCES

Adams, R.D., & Baptist, J.A. (2012). Relationship maintenance behavior and adult attachment: An analysis of the
actor-partner interdependence model. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(3), 230–244. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01926187.2011.605047.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York:
Sage.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Fam-
ily, 72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x.
Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Filling the void: Bolstering
attachment security in committed relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 398–406.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613509287.
Baptist, J., Norton, A., Aducci, C.J., Thompson, D.E., & Cook, A. (2012). Relationship maintenance behaviors: A
cross-cultural examination of emerging adults in romantic relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship
Therapy, 11(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2012.639703.
Barnes, L. L., De Leon, C. F. M., Lewis, T. T., Bienias, J. L., Wilson, R. S., & Evans, D. A. (2008). Perceived discrim-
ination and mortality in a population-based study of older adults. American Journal of Public Health, 98(7),
1241–1247. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2007.114397
Berg, I. K., & de Dolan, Y. (2001). Tales of solutions. New York: Norton.
Bradbury, T.N., Fincham, F.D., & Beach, S.R. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfac-
tion: A decade in review. Journal of marriage and family, 62(4), 964–980.
Bratter, J. L., & King, R. B. (2008). “But Will It Last?”: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples.
Family Relations, 57(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00491.x.
Brown, S. D., Unger, K., Mevi, A., Hedderson, M. M., Shan, J., Quesenberry, C. P., et al. (2014). The multigroup
ethnic identity measure-revised: Measurement invariance across racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 61, 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034749.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Mono-
graphs, 59, 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268.
Carroll, J. (2017). Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages. Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.c
om/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
Chonody, J. M., Killian, M., Gabb, J., & Dunk-West, P. (2016). Understanding everyday relationship work: The
development of a relationship maintenance scale. Advances in Social Work, 17(2), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.
18060/21155.
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A
biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10), 805. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.54.10.805.
Dainton, M. (1999). African American, European American, and biracial couple’s meanings for and experiences in
marriage. In R. C. Diggs & T. J. Socha (Eds.), Communication, race, and family: Exploring communication in
black, white, and biracial families (pp. 147–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dolezsar, C. M., McGrath, J. J., Herzig, A. J., & Miller, S. B. (2014). Perceived racial discrimination and hyperten-
sion: A comprehensive systematic review. Health Psychology, 33(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033718.
Durso, L. E., Latner, J. D., & Hayashi, K. (2012). Perceived discrimination is associated with binge eating in a com-
munity sample of non-overweight, overweight, and obese adults. Obesity Facts, 5(6), 869–880. https://doi.org/
10.1159/000345931.
English, D., Lambert, S. F., Evans, M. K., & Zonderman, A. B. (2014). Neighborhood racial composition, racial dis-
crimination, and depressive symptoms in African Americans. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54
(3–4), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9666-y.

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 647

Epstein, J., & Langenbaum, S. (1994). The criminal justice and community response to rape. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Ferguson, P. V. (1896). 163 US 537. Jurisdiction: United States of America, Supreme Court Date of Decision, 18.
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement
for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572.
Gaines, S. O., Jr, Granrose, C. S., Rios, D. I., Garcia, B. F., Youn, M. S. P., Farris, K. R., et al. (1999). Patterns of
attachment and responses to accommodative dilemmas among interethnic/interracial couples. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599162009.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Givertz, M., Woszidlo, A., Segrin, C., & Jia, Q. (2016). Direct and indirect effects of attachment orientation on rela-
tionship quality and constraint commitment in married couples. Journal of Family Studies, 23, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407513482445.
Gonzales, K. L., Noonan, C., Goins, R. T., Henderson, W. G., Beals, J., Manson, S. M., et al. (2016). Assessing the
everyday discrimination scale among American Indians and Alaska Natives. Psychological Assessment, 28(1),
51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039337.
Hendrix, H., Hunt, H. L., Hannah, M. T., & Luquet, W. (2005). Imago relationship therapy: Perspectives on theory.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hohmann-Marriott, B. E., & Amato, P. (2008). Relationship quality in interethnic marriages and cohabitations.
Social Forces, 87(2), 825–855. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0151.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional crite-
ria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kansas State University. (2016). Relationship Success in Interracial Marriages Dataset [Unpublished raw data].
School of Family Studies and Human Services. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Rice & C. M. Rudd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451–477). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Killian, K. D. (2002). Dominant and marginalized discourses in interracial couples’ narratives: Implications for fam-
ily therapists. Family Process, 41, 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00603.x.
Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoreti-
cally important but underutilized model. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 140. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0026624.
Leslie, A. L., & Letiecq, L. B. (2004). Marital quality of African American and White partners in interracial couples.
Personal Relationships, 11, 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00098.x.
Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms:
Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 497–519.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1304_1.
Livingston, G., & Brown, A. (2017). Trends and Patterns in Intermarriage. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
McNeil, S. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2014). Does spousal support moderate the association between per-
ceived racial discrimination and depressive symptoms among African American couples? Family Process, 53(1),
109–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12054.
Merluzzi, T. V., Philip, E. J., Zhang, Z., & Sullivan, C. (2015). Perceived discrimination, coping, and quality of life
for African-American and Caucasian persons with cancer. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
21(3), 337. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037543.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Oh, H., Yang, L. H., Anglin, D. M., & DeVylder, J. E. (2014). Perceived discrimination and psychotic experiences
across multiple ethnic groups in the United States. Schizophrenia Research, 157(1–3), 259–265. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.schres.2014.04.036.
Orom, H., Sharma, C., Homish, G. G., Underwood, W., & Homish, D. L. (2017). Racial discrimination and stigma
consciousness are associated with higher blood pressure and hypertension in minority men. Journal of Racial
and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(5), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-016-0284-2.
Pauker, K., Carpinella, C., Meyers, C., Young, D. M., & Sanchez, D. T. (2017). The role of diversity exposure in
whites’ reduction in race essentialism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550617731496.
Pauker, K., Xu, Y., Williams, A., & Biddle, A. M. (2016). Race essentialism and social contextual differences in chil-
dren’s racial stereotyping. Child Development, 87, 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12592.

648 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2019

Phinney, J. S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40
(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764296040002005.
Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minority adolescents: A cau-
sal model. Child Development, 68(5), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01973.x.
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future
directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271.
Reiter, M. J., & Gee, C. B. (2008). Open communication and partner support in intercultural and interfaith romantic
relationships: A relational maintenance approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(4), 539–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508090872.
Reiter, M. D., Krause, J. M., & Stirlen, A. (2005). Intercouple dating on a college campus. College Student Journal,
39(3), 449–454.
Root, M. P. (1990). Resolving “other” status: Identity development of biracial individuals. In L. Brown & M. P. P.
Root (Eds.), Complexity and diversity in feminist theory and therapy (pp. 185–205). New York: Haworth.
Rosenblatt, P. C., Karis, T. A., & Powell, R. D. (1995). Multiracial couples: Black and white voices. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychome-
trika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y.
Sawyer, P. J., Major, B., Casad, B. J., Townsend, S. S. M., & Mendes, W. B. (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. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300620.
Skinner, A. L., & Hudac, C. M. (2017). “Yuck, you disgust me!” Affective bias against interracial couples. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jesp.2016.05.008.
Trail, T. E., Goff, P. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2012). The costs of racism for marriage: How racial dis-
crimination hurts, and ethnic identity protects, newlywed marriages among Latinos. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 38(4), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211429450.
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). How couples maintain marriages: A closer look at self and partner
influences upon the use of maintenance behaviors in marriages. Family Relations, 48, 263–269. https://doi.org/
10.2307/585635.
Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health:
Socioeconomic status, stress, and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351.

October 2019 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 649

Copyright of Journal of Marital & Family Therapy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.