1963
DOI: 10.2307/349040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interracial Marriage in California

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
4
1

Year Published

1978
1978
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Before we probe that issue in more depth, however, a consideration of the meaning and implications of the correlates that emerged for both groups is in order. The fact that interracially married blacks were more likely to be younger and previously married supports findings of earlier times and other places (Barnett, 1963;Burma, 1963;Monahan, 1971). The spousal age difference in both directions among both men and women has not been reported elsewhere.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Before we probe that issue in more depth, however, a consideration of the meaning and implications of the correlates that emerged for both groups is in order. The fact that interracially married blacks were more likely to be younger and previously married supports findings of earlier times and other places (Barnett, 1963;Burma, 1963;Monahan, 1971). The spousal age difference in both directions among both men and women has not been reported elsewhere.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Over the years, males accounted for between 41 % and 90% of all black mixed marriages. These results are supported by numerous studies conducted in other locations (e.g., Annella, 1967;Barnett, 1963;Burma, 1963;Merton, 1941;Monahan, 1976Monahan, , 1977Porterfield, 1982). There are some noteworthy exceptions to this trend, however.…”
Section: Patterns Of Black Interracial Marriagecontrasting
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…More specifically, depending on the nature of the contextual boundaries as mentioned above and listed in brackets in Figure 1, marriages across borders may be referred to as “international” (Jones and Shen, 2008; Piper, 1997), “binational” (Irastorza and DeVoretz, 2015; Koelet and de Valk, 2014), “transnational” (Charsley, 2012; Williams, 2012), “cross-national” (Baker, 1990; Cretser, 1999), “cross-border” (e.g. Constable, 2012; Lee, 2012; Wang and Chang, 2002), “intercultural” (Cools, 2006; Sharaievska et al., 2013), “cross-cultural” (Falicov, 1995), “interethnic” (Bizman, 1987; Burma, 1963; Furtado and Theodoropoulos, 2011; Lee et al., 1974), “interracial” (Barnett, 1963; Gevrek, 2014; Monahan, 1970), “interreligious” (Burchinal and Chancellor, 1963; Chancellor and Monahan, 1955), or “interfaith” (Cila and Lalonde, 2014).…”
Section: Different Conceptualizations and Measures Of “Intermarriage”mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1999), 'cross-border' (e.g. Constable, 2012;Lee, 2012;Wang and Chang, 2002) 'intercultural' (Cools, 2006;Sharaievska et al, 2013), 'cross-cultural' (Falicov, 1995), 'interethnic' (Burma, 1963;Bizman, 1987;Furtado and Theodoropoulos, 2011;Lee et al, 1974), 'interracial' (Barnett, 1963;Gevrek, 2014;Monahan, 1970), 'interreligious' (Burchinal and Chancellor, 1963;Chancellor and Monahan, 1955) or 'interfaith' (Cila and Lalonde, 2014).…”
Section: Different Conceptualizations and Measures Of 'Intermarriage'mentioning
confidence: 99%