POLINA LEVCHENKO AND CATHERINE SOLHEIM University of Minnesota

International Marriages Between Eastern

European-Born Women and U.S.-Born Men

Globalization has increased the occurrence of‘‘international marriages’’ due to expandedmarriage markets resulting from increasedtravel and communication avenues. AlthoughEastern Europe is one of the top three regions oforigin for marriage migrants, little is knownabout who chooses this type of marriagearrangement. This study describes demographiccharacteristics of Eastern European-U.S. inter-national marriages using a nationally represen-tative sample ( N = 442) from the AmericanCommunity Survey, 2008 – 2009. Paired t test,chi-square, and ANOVA analyses were usedto assess within-couple and between-coupledifferences. Spouses in Eastern-European-U.S.couples were found to differ significantly byage, income, education, and number of previ-ous marriages. Results showed that marriagesbetween Eastern European wives and U.S. hus-bands differed in important ways from marriagesbetween U.S. citizens. Findings support both sta-tus homogamy and status exchange theories ofinternational mate selection.

The prevalence of international marriages in theUnited States, that is, marriages between native-born and foreign-born spouses, has been on therise since the passage of the 1965 immigrationlegislation that allowed for family reunification

Department of Family and Social Science, University ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 (shel0237@umn.edu).

Key Words: Eastern European, exchange, homogamy,international marriages, marriage migrants.

(when U.S. citizens and permanent residentsmay sponsor relatives for immigration). By theend of the 20th century, the increase in travelfor tourism, business, and study, as well as thedevelopment of communication technologies,supported in-person and technology-mediatedcontacts between citizens of different countries.As a result, over the past two decades, thenumber of nonimmigrant visas issued annuallyto spouses of U.S. citizens who were born incountries other than the United States increasedfivefold.

Despite this increase, little research has beendone on characteristics of individuals fromEastern Europe who marry U.S. citizens andsettle down in the United States (also arereferred as marriage migrants or foreign-bornspouses). Studies that examine this phenomenonare mainly qualitative. Although studies usingqualitative designs allow the voices of women tobe heard, the larger scale picture of internationalmarriages is missing in this body of literature.Using a nationally representative sample, ourstudy employed a quantitative approach toexplore characteristics of individuals who arein international marriages in the United States.Moreover, studies on international marriagestend to focus only on the foreign-born spousesand specifically on those who have experiencedabuse in their marriage relationship. Ourstudy explored couple-level characteristics tounderstand differences and similarities betweeninternational marriage partners.

Finally, Eastern European immigrants ingeneral are an often overlooked group becausetheir ‘‘Whiteness’’ masks differences (Robila,

30 Family Relations 62 (February 2013): 30 – 41DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00746.x

Eastern European-U.S. Marriages 31

2007). This study focused on women who wereborn in Eastern Europe (EE born) and moved tothe United States as marriage migrants. Becausethese women are White and are married to WhiteU.S. citizens, we explored how internationalfamilies with marriage migrants from EasternEurope are compared to non-Hispanic WhiteU.S. marriages. Although there are studieson international marriages with foreign-bornspouses from regions other than Eastern Europe,EE-U.S. spouses have not been specificallycompared to U.S.-U.S. spouses.

Our research builds on previous internationalmarriage studies, adding to the scholarlyliterature in three ways. First, we used nationallyrepresentative data from the Integrated PublicUse Microdata Series, that is, 2008 and 2009American Community Survey (ACS; Ruggleset al., 2010). This data set contains demographiccharacteristics of international marriages in theUnited States and includes couples with EE-born female marriage migrants married to U.S.-born citizens (N = 442). Second, we exploreddifferences and similarities between spousesin EE-U.S. couples from the top four EasternEuropean countries (Russia, Ukraine, Poland,and Romania) to account for within-groupvariability. Finally, we examined differencesand similarities between EE-U.S. and U.S.-U.S. couples. This study fills a gap in theinternational marriage literature by using anationally representative data set to exploreindividual and couple characteristics of EE-U.S.international marriages.

Literature Review

Theoretical framework. Mate selection re-search, which strives to explain why twounmarried individuals choose to marry indi-viduals from other cultural groups (interracial,interethnic, interreligious marriages), is primar-ily grounded in two competing sociologicaltheories: status exchange and status homogamy.These two theoretical lenses guide the currentstudy in examining similarities and differences inspouses’ sociodemographic characteristics suchas age, marital history, education, and income.

Status exchange theory. According to Edwards(1969), unmarried individuals seek partnerswho would maximize their rewards. Severalexamples of status exchanges in interracial,interethnic, and interreligious marriages are

found in the literature. Davis (1941) and Merton(1941) introduced the status-caste exchangehypothesis. They proposed that Blacks with highsocioeconomic status will marry Whites withlow socioeconomic status. Similarly, in a studyon intermarriage in Hawaii, spousal exchangeswere made between male education and femaleethnicity (Schoen & Thomas, 1989). Evidencefrom studies on intermarriages between EasternEuropean women and Western men posited thateither wives’ European White ethnic culturalcapital or their metropolitan origin, fluency inEnglish, and attractiveness were exchanged forhusbands’ foreign country citizenship (Lomsky-Feder & Leibovitz, 2010; Sahib, Koning, & vanWitteloostuijn, 2006).

Status homogamy theory. Some researchershave criticized the status exchange theoryand have emphasized that individuals chooseeach other based on solidarity and similarities(homogamy) in ethnicity, race, religion, educa-tional attainment, and leisure interests (Jo-Pei,Buharuddin, Juhari, & Krauss, 2008; Spickard1989). Status homogamy directly indicates thedegree to which members of two different socialgroups accept each other as equal in the socialhierarchy.

Over time, there has been a change in impor-tance of some characteristics over others, thatis, demographic characteristics like ethnicity,religion affiliation, and race have become lessimportant. At the same time, education hasnot lost its salience (Kalmijn, 1998). The ten-dency for mates to have similar educationalbackgrounds appears to be the dominant mar-riage pattern, regardless of either spouse’s race(Celikaksoy, Nielsen, & Verner, 2006; Jo-Peiet al., 2008; Rosenfeld, 2005).

International marriages: Historical and policycontexts. During the 20th century, historicalevents supported the practice of choosing bridesvia mail order. In the early 1900s, mail-orderbrides were common. After male immigrantsto the United States settled down, they soughtwomen to marry from their home countries. Overtime, men used the mail-order bride business tosearch for specific characteristics in prospectivespouses (Vergara, 2002).

International marriages were not commonin U.S. society until the passage of the AlienFiancees and Fiances Act (1946) that facilitatedalien fiances of U.S. armed forces members’

32 Family Relations

admission into the United States. This resultedin international marriages between U.S.-bornand foreign-born citizens primarily due to thepresence of men in foreign countries who wereemployed by the U.S. citizen foreign service(hence the term ‘‘war brides’’).

The next international marriage wave tookplace in the 1970s after the passage of theImmigration and Nationality Act (1965). Thislegislation replaced a quota system with apreference system and, along with the focuson immigrants’ skills, allowed for familyreunification with U.S. citizens or residents.

Contemporary marriage migrants of the pasttwo decades show a different pattern. Theyare primarily women from less economicallydeveloped countries; they are drawn to the inter-national marriage market because of economic,social, and marriage market challenges in theirhome countries (Jackson, 2007). At the sametime in the United States, there is a ‘‘demand’’for marriage migrants. One group who seekinternational marriage partners are individu-als from U.S.-based immigrant groups with acultural tradition of arranged marriages, andyoung male migrant workers who have settledin the United States and seek brides from theirnative countries. A second group includes thenon-immigrant U.S. population who seek thosewives who are perceived as either ‘‘exotic’’ ormore ‘‘traditional’’ than those available to themlocally (Champion, 1994; Jackson, 2007).

Additionally, later decades of the 20thcentury are characterized by the development oftravel and communication technologies as wellas increased travel for tourism and business,thus offering more opportunities for direct(in-person) and indirect (technology-mediated)contacts between citizens of different countries.As a result, the number of visas issued annuallyto foreign-born fiance(e)s of U.S. citizens (K1)and children of fiance(e)s of U.S. citizens (K2)has increased. In fact, there were five times moreK1 visas issued in 2008 (29,916) than in 1989(5,856; U.S. Department of Homeland Security,2009).

International marriages with EE-born wives.Marriages from Eastern Europe constitute oneof the top three regions of origin for marriagemigrants: 47% come from Asia, 27% fromLatin America, and 8% from Eastern Europe(U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009).The current problem-focused literature on

international marriages between EE-born andU.S.-born spouses emerged as a response to theviolent stories that appeared in the media andwere brought to the public’s attention by socialworkers. Studies primarily used qualitativeapproaches to understand EE-U.S. internationalmarriages and EE-born marriage migrants whohad experienced violence in their internationalmarriage relationships. Feminist researchersattempted to document these marriage migrants’experiences, specifically studying women whowere in the initial stage of matchmaking andsearching for a spouse through an internationalmarriage broker agency (Hughes, 2004; Patico,2009; Sahib et al., 2006) and women whohad rehabilitated themselves after abusiverelationships (Crandall, Senturia, Sullivan, &Shiu-Thorton, 2005).

Push factors. Studies on EE-U.S. marriagesdocument certain push factors that driveEE-born women away from local marriagemarkets to seek international relationships: lackof marital opportunities in local communitiesbecause of gender imbalance and lack of ‘‘goodhusbands’’; women’s age socially perceived as‘‘old’’ after she reaches 30, thus making themless competitive in the marriage market; historyof previous marriages and divorce; presence ofchildren; and lack of safety and poor livingconditions (Heyse, 2010; Patico, 2009; Rossiter,2005).

Pull factors. EE-born women searching formarriage partners are also ‘‘pulled’’ towardWestern marriage markets. For some, that pullinvolves international marriage brokers whofacilitate these types of marriages. One studysuggested that this industry ‘‘prosper[s] byexploiting the power disparities between menand women, the rich and the poor, those fromdeveloped countries and those from developingeconomies’’ (Lloyd, 2000, p. 341). Typically,women’s perceptions of Western men are thatthey are family oriented, more egalitarian, andable to provide a stable economic future. Theyperceive a Western lifestyle to be desirablebecause it is ‘‘modern’’ compared to the livingconditions in their home country (Heyse, 2010;Patico, 2009).

Adaptation obstacles. Although research on EE-born spouses is limited, some studies havedocumented common obstacles typical for

Eastern European-U.S. Marriages 33

immigrants, that is, finding a job, obtainingofficial recognition of their diploma, learninga new language, and networking. Marriagemigrants, however, face additional adaptationobstacles. Across several studies (Crandallet al., 2005; Hass, Ammar, & Orloff, 2006;Heyse, 2010; Rossiter, 2005), marriage migrantshave reported partner inequalities, financialdependency, and difficulty finding a job becauseof their husband’s expectations for a traditionalfamily with a housewife. Additionally, socialdependency was identified as an obstacle,particularly in rural areas where migrants can beisolated from their ethnic communities. Legaldependency because of a lack of knowledgeof rights and lack of knowledge about theirpartner’s interpersonal behavior and relationshiphistory has also been noted.

Although separation from their ethnic com-munity was reported as an obstacle, beingembedded in their ethnic community was alsoreported to perpetuate abusive relationships. Thecombination of a community norm of familysecrecy and lack of information about their legalrights led to prolonged experiences of abuse(Crandall et al., 2005).

Building on the limited qualitative litera-ture on international marriages between EE-bornwomen and Western men, this study examinedthese marriages in three new ways. First, weexplored demographic characteristics of spousesinvolved in EE-U.S. marriages from the topfour Eastern European countries to accountfor any ethnic variability: (a) What are thesociodemographic characteristics of wives inRussian-, Ukrainian-, Romanian-, and Polish-U.S. marriages? (b) Are individual charac-teristics of wives similar or different acrossRussian-, Ukrainian-, Romanian-, and Polish-U.S. marriages? (c) Are spousal characteristicssimilar or different across Russian-, Ukrainian-,Romanian-, or Polish-U.S. marriages? Second,we compared EE-U.S. couples to U.S.-U.S.couples: (d) Are individual characteristics ofspouses of EE-U.S. marriages similar or differ-ent from individual characteristics of spousesof U.S.-U.S. marriages? (e) Are spousal char-acteristics in EE-U.S. marriages similar or dif-ferent from spousal characteristics of U.S.-U.S.marriages?

To answer these research questions, weused the nationally representative AmericanCommunity Survey data set from 2008 and2009 (Ruggles et al., 2010). The ACS draws

high-precision samples of the U.S. population.Therefore, use of ACS data will enhance thegeneralizability of results found in this study.

METHOD

Data

The 2008 – 2009 ACS is a 1% representativesample of the Integrated Public Use MicrodataSeries (IPUMS; Ruggles et al., 2010). The ACS2008 – 2009 includes information obtained fromspouses who can be paired to create couple-level analysis. Data from other IPUMS sampleshave been used by other researchers to studyintermarriages (e.g., Crowder & Tolnay, 2000;Hidalgo & Bankston, 2008) because the datainclude important demographic information onimmigration, marriage, and other characteristicsof immigrants.

One disadvantage of this data set is that itincludes only individuals who were marriedduring the data collection time frame of 2008and 2009. There are no data available to examineinternational marriage couples who divorced andare therefore not included in the sample. As aresult, the national rate on marital disruptionwithin international couples remains unknown.

Sample

The targeted population for this study wasEastern European-born wives between theages of 18 and 70 and their U.S.-bornspouses identified in ACS 2008 and 2009. Forcomparison purposes, married U.S.-born non-Hispanic White spouses were included in theanalysis. The decision to include only those U.S.-U.S. marriages in which both spouses are non-Hispanic White was made to reduce variabilitywithin the sample of U.S.-U.S. marriages andmake it comparable with EE-U.S. spouses whoare also predominantly non-Hispanic White.

Marriage migrants in this study are non-U.S.-born wives who come to the United States onK1 visas, that is, as a fiance(e) of a U.S. citizen.Because the ACS does not directly identifymarriage migrants, we selected EE-born womenmarried to U.S.-born citizens. Next, we selectedjust those foreign-born women who came to theUnited States between 1991 and 2008 – 2009and who were married to a U.S.-born husbandduring the same year that they immigrated.Foreign-born individuals who immigrated to

34 Family Relations

the United States in the same year as theirmarriage to U.S. citizens are highly likely tohave immigrated with a K1 fiance type of visabecause this visa type requires a couple to getmarried within 90 days of the fiance arriving inthe United States.

Of the participants in the 2008 – 2009 ACSdata base, 442 couples were identified as EE-U.S. married couples with a wife from EasternEurope. Countries of origin for the majority ofthe 352 (or 79.6%) EE-born wives examinedin this study were Russia (39.8%), Ukraine(18.1%), Romania (10.9%), and Poland (10.8%).The U.S.-U.S. comparison group included 7,773couples with an 18- to 70-year-old non-HispanicWhite U.S.-born wife and a non-Hispanic WhiteU.S.-born husband.

Variables

On the basis of the literature and availability ofvariables in the ACS data set, several importantsociodemographic characteristics of foreign-born spouses were identified: age, maritalstatus, age at marriage, time in the UnitedStates, citizenship, marital history, education,employment, and personal earned income (seeTable 1). For couple comparisons using meandifferences across four Eastern European-U.S.marriage groups (Russian-U.S., Ukrainian-U.S., Romanian-U.S., Polish-U.S.) and U.S.-U.S., mean difference scores for age, income,education, and marital history were calculatedby subtracting husband’s values from wife’svalues on each variable (see Table 2).

For within-couple mean age differences, thespousal difference variables (used for inferentialanalysis) were put into categories for descriptivepurpose. For within-couple mean income, twomean differences were calculated: Absolutemean difference was used for descriptivepurposes and relative mean difference was usedfor inferential analysis.

To assess within-couple differences in edu-cation, education was divided into four groups(no schooling or regular high school diploma,some college or associate degree, Bachelor’sdegree, Master’s or Doctoral degree). Thenhusband’s values were subtracted from wife’svalues, resulting in the following three cate-gories: husband’s education level greater thanwife’s, spouses’ education level equal, wife’seducation level greater than husband’s.

Similar procedures were used to assesswithin-couple differences in marital history.Within-couple differences in the number oftimes married were measured with the followingthree categories: husband’s previous marriagesgreater than wife’s, husbands and wives previousmarriages equal, wife’s previous marriagesgreater than husband’s.

Analytical Procedures

Because the ACS 2008 – 2009 data set is basedon a 1-in-100 national random sample of thepopulation, person weights were applied to makethe initially unweighted sample representative.For this study, initial person weights wererecalculated in the following way: (a) meanfor the person weight in a specific group wasobtained (e.g., mean weight for spouses in EE-U.S. marriages), (b) initial group weight wasdivided by each group mean. This procedurekept the initial sample size, which is importantto avoid Type I errors (false positives) whileallowing for greater sample representativeness.In this study we used recalculated group weightsfor both the descriptive statistics and inferentialanalysis.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyzethe overall marginal frequency distributions ofeach variable included in the study. Paired ttests and chi-square tests were computed toexplore differences and similarities of spousalcharacteristics within marriage. Analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests wereused to compare the mean differences ofspousal characteristic variables among the fourEE-U.S. marriage groups. Significant ANOVAresults were followed by a Bonferroni post hoccomparison when homogeneity of variances wasassumed. A Games-Howell post hoc comparisonwas used when homogeneity of variances wasviolated to determine the specific differencesbetween couples and, more specifically, toanswer the research question of whether spousesin EE-U.S. marriages were similar or differentfrom spouses in U.S.-U.S. marriages.

RESULTS

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Wivesin Eastern European-U.S. Marriages

Origin and settlement. The largest group(39.8%) of EE-born wives in this study were

Eastern European-U.S. Marriages 35

Table 1. Summary of Variables, Individual Level (M, (SD)) From the ACS 2008 – 2009 (nRussian = 176, nUkrainian = 80,nPolish = 48, nRomanian = 48, nU.S. = 7,773)

Foreign-born

Variable U.S.-born Russia Ukraine Poland Romania

AgeAge, w (years) 47.21

(12.45)37.08(9.59)

36.92(8.78)

35.49(8.71)

33.12(6.90)

Age, h (years) 49.54(13.16)

47.67(11.57)

48.13(11.27)

42.70(10.43)

39.09(8.57)

Age married, w (years) 26.88(8.71)

30.74(8.62)

31.38(8.17)

28.28(8.88)

25.63(5.37)

Age married, h (years) 29.21(9.64)

41.33(10.70)

42.59(10.80)

35.49(11.31)

31.60(7.47)

U.S. statusIn the United States, w (years) NA 6.34

(3.94)5.54

(2.97)7.21

(4.77)7.49

(4.08)Citizenship, w (%) NA 36.6 33.3 37.9 33.3

Marital historyRemarriages, w (%) 26.1 38.7 43.2 23.5 26.8Remarriages, h (%) 26.8 49.1 64.9 27.1 32.0

EducationBachelor’s & more, w (%) 32.9 74.4 60.2 63.0 62.2Bachelor’s & more, h (%) 34.9 51.7 54.7 43.9 49.4

School attendanceAt school, w (%) 4.6 17.9 17.5 3.7 13.8

English proficiencyDoes not speak or speaks not well, w (%) NA 2.0 2.8 1.5 3.6

EmploymentAt work, w (%) 63.1 54.8 53.7 49.6 61.3

Personal earned incomeIncome, w ($) 26,265.14

(17,750.58)19,055.38

(28,967.64)20,614.99

(46,616,60)18,725.82

(22,066,41)30,552.67

(47,549.22)Income, h ($) 56,544.83

(69,767.16)64,903.93

(79,286.82)61,562.43

(58,293.38)62,734.57

(59,894.80)64,202.36

(57,775.00)

Notes. Variables on wives’ characteristics are denoted as ‘‘w’’ and husbands’ as ‘‘h.’’ Greater means or percentages areboldface.

from Russia, followed by 18.1% from theUkraine, 10.9% from Romania, and 10.8% fromPoland. After joining their U.S. husbands, theysettled across 46 states; the highest number(n = 59) lived in California. Eighty-one per-cent of EE-U.S. families resided in metropolitanareas.

Race. The vast majority of EE-born wives (n =438 or 99.4%) and their spouses (n = 422 or95.2%) identified themselves as non-HispanicWhite. Thus the vast majority of these marriageswere not interracial. Additionally, 19% of U.S.husbands who married EE-born wives (n = 83)reported Eastern European ancestry.

U.S. status. Among EE-born women, 35.8%were naturalized U.S. citizens in 2008 and2009. Among the 64.2% of those who were notcitizens, however, about half had already spentmore than 5 years in the United States. Overallthe mean number of years EE-born women hadspent in the United States was 6.41 years; 50%of the women had been in the United States formore than 5 years.

Employment. Fifty-four percent of EE-bornwives and 82.8% of their U.S. spouses wereemployed. For the 45.9% (n = 203) of couplesin which the EE-born wife did not work, the

36 Family Relations

Table 2. Summary of Variables, Couple Level (M, (SD)) From the ACS 2008 – 2009 (nRussian = 176, nUkrainian = 80,nPolish = 48, nRomanian = 48, nU.S. = 7,773)

Foreign-born

Variable U.S.-born Russia Ukraine Poland Romania

AgeAge difference (years) −2.33

(4.72)−10.59(8.71)

−11.21(7.70)

−7.21(6.17)

−5.97(5.19)

Marital historyMore marriages, w (%) 9.1 13.5 5.1 3.0 19.3More marriages, h (%) 9.8 23.9 26.9 6.7 24.5

EducationMore education, w (%) 5.7 16.9 14.9 22.1 12.3More education, h (%) 6.6 6.8 8.5 7.2 6.5

Notes. Variables on wives’ characteristics are denoted as ‘‘w’’ and husbands’ as ‘‘h.’’ Greater means or percentages areboldface.

average number of years the EE-born wife hadbeen in the United States was 6 years.

School attendance. Eighteen percent of EE-born wives were attending school at the timeof the survey. Of those who attended school,41% were 30 years or younger and another 41%were age 31 – 40.

Country of Origin Comparisons Across EasternEuropean-U.S. Marriages

Individual-level comparison of Russian-,Ukrainian-, Polish- and Romanian-U.S. wives.We conducted a series of ANOVAs andchi-square tests to assess differences andsimilarities in time in the United States, age,marital history, education, and income betweenwomen from the top four EE countries.

Time in the United States. There were nosignificant mean differences for number of yearsspent in the United States. Women from all fourcountries had spent on average 6 or 7 years inthe United States, which means that, on average,they had immigrated between 2000 and 2002.

Age. Mean differences were significant forwomen’s age, F(3, 129.292) = 5.954, p =.001, R2 = .037, and age at marriage to acurrent spouse, F(3, 347) = 7.474, p < .001,R2 = .006, yet the effect sizes were very small.We computed post hoc comparisons (Bonferronior Games-Howell) for significant results tofurther determine the specific group differences.The significant difference were for mean age

(M = 32.57) and age when married (M =25.33) for women from Romania. They wereon average 5 years younger than women fromRussia (p < .001) and 4.5 years younger thanwomen from Ukraine (p = .010). Women fromRomania married their U.S. husbands when theywere 6 years younger than women from Russia(p < .001) and from Ukraine (p < .001). Womenfrom Russia, Ukraine, and Poland were similarin age and age at time of marriage.

Marital history. EE wives differed by region oforigin in marital history, χ2(3, n = 351) = 8.190,p < .042. Wives from Russia (observed count 68vs. expected count 62) and Ukraine (34 vs. 29)were especially likely to be remarried comparedto wives from Poland (37 vs. 31) and Romania(36 vs. 31). Wives from the latter two countrieswere more likely to be in their first marriage.

Education. EE wives also differed by region oforigin in their educational level, χ2(9, n = 351)= 45.105, p < .001. Wives from Poland weremore likely than other EE-born wives to haveadvanced degrees (23 vs. 16), and wives fromRomania were least likely to have those degrees(7 vs. 16).

Income. Differences were also significant foraverage personal income, F(3, 242) = 3.03,p = .030. We computed post hoc comparisons(Bonferroni) to further determine the specificgroup differences. They showed that wives fromRomania earned significantly more personalincome (p = .026) compared to wives fromRussia.

Eastern European-U.S. Marriages 37

Couple-level comparisons of Russian-,Ukrainian-, Polish-, and Romanian-U.S.marriages. Additionally paired t tests and chi-square tests were used to assess within-coupledifferences of EE-U.S. marriages from the fourEastern European countries.

Age difference. For all four marriage groupsfrom Eastern Europe, the difference betweenspouses’ ages was significant. The greatestspousal age difference was in Ukrainian-U.S. marriages, t(79) = −14.368, p < .001.Ukrainian-born wives tended to be, on average,12 years younger than their U.S.-born husbands.They were followed by Russian-born wives, whotended to be, on average, 11 years younger thantheir U.S.-born husbands, t(176) = −16.790, p< .001. Polish-born wives, t(47) = −8.586, p <.001, tended to be, on average, 7.5 years youngerand Romanian-born wives, t(47) = −8.288, p <.001, tended to be, on average, 6 years youngerthan their U.S.-born husbands.

Marital history difference. Spouses in Polish-U.S., χ2(1, n = 48) = 29.437, p < .001,Russian-U.S., χ2(1, n = 176) = 12.544, p <.001, and Ukrainian-U.S., χ2(1, n = 80) =13.108, p < .001, marriages tended to be similarin their marital history. On the basis of cross-tabulations, EE-born women who were in theirfirst marriage were especially likely to marryU.S.-born men in their first marriage (e.g., inPolish-U.S. marriages: observed count 34 vs.expected count 27). Similarly those EE-bornwomen who were remarried were especiallylikely to be with spouses of remarried U.S.-bornmen (e.g., in Russian-U.S. marriages: 46 vs. 35).In the case of Romanian-U.S. marriages, chi-square results were not significant, χ2(1, n =48) = .500, p = .480, indicating that there wasno pattern in spouses’ marital history difference.

Education difference. Chi-square tests werenonsignificant for education levels of spousesin Polish-U.S., Romanian-U.S., and Ukrainian-U.S. marriages. For Russian-U.S. marriages,however, the chi-square test of spousal educationdifference was significant, χ2(9, n = 178) =28.636, p = .001. Russian-born women withadvanced degrees were especially more likelyto marry U.S.-born men with similar levelsof education (observed count 22 vs. expectedcount 14). In addition, Russian-born womenwith advanced degrees were especially likely to

marry U.S.-born men with Bachelor’s degrees(28 vs. 24).

Income difference. Paired t tests showed sig-nificant spousal differences in personal earnedincome. The greatest differences in spousalearned income were in Polish-U.S. marriages,t(29) = −5.197, p < .001, and Russian-U.S. marriages, t(111) = −6.578, p < .001.Polish-born wives tended to earn, on aver-age, $37,964 less than their U.S.-born hus-bands, and Russian-born wives tended to earn,on average, $37,477 less than their U.S.-born husbands. For Ukrainian-born wives,this difference was $36,500, t(45) = −.3078,p = .004. And in Romanian-U.S. marriages,t(28) = −4.319, p < .001, this differencewas the smallest for this sample, that is,$25,014.

Eastern European-U.S. and U.S.-U.S. MarriageComparisons

Because the literature tends to compare inter-national marriages across regions of the world,the following section aggregates spousal andcouple characteristics across all EE-U.S. mar-riages and compares them to spousal and couplecharacteristics of U.S.-U.S. marriages.

Individual-level comparison of EE-born wivesand U.S.-born wives. Independent sample t testand chi-square results showed several significantdifferences in sociodemographic characteristicsbetween EE-born and U.S.-born wives. EE-born wives were, on average, 11 years youngerthan U.S.-born wives, t(1111.42) = −19.67,p < .001, yet they married their U.S. spousessignificantly later in their lives, t(1440) = 5.65,p < .001, than did the U.S.-born wives. Therewas also a significant effect for marriage groupon wives’ personal income, t(5829) = −3.07,p = .002; EE-born wives earned, on average,$6,561 less than U.S.-born wives. Additionally,the number of previous marriages differedbetween EE-born and U.S.-born wives, χ2(1,n = 8215) = 8.29, p = .004. EE-born wives hadmore previous marriages than expected (143 vs.117). The educational level of wives differedby their EE or U.S. origin, χ2(3, n = 8215) =224.835, p < .001. EE-born wives were morelikely to have advanced degrees (134 vs. 56)than their U.S. counterparts.

38 Family Relations

Independent sample t test and chi-squareresults showed several significant differencesin sociodemographic characteristics betweenhusbands. Husbands of EE-born wives were,on average, 4 years younger than husbands ofU.S.-born wives, t(912.3) = −5.99, p < .001,but they married their current EE-born wivessignificantly later in life than husbands of U.S.-born wives, t(730.65) = 16.21, p < .001. Theyalso differed in number of marriages, χ2(4, n =8215) = 59.19, p < .001, and were especiallylikely to be remarried (193 vs. 123). Husbands ofEE-born wives differed from husbands of U.S.-born wives in education level, χ2(3, n = 8217) =76.08, p < .001. Compared to husbands in U.S.-U.S. marriages, husbands in EE-U.S. marriageswere especially likely to have advanced degrees(100 vs. 61). Finally, husbands of EE-born wivesdid not differ in personal income from husbandsof U.S.-born wives, t(936.52) = −0.564,p = .573.

Couple-level comparison of EE-U.S. and U.S.-U.S. marriages. There was a significant effectfor group on spousal age difference, t(594.73) =−18.22, p < .001. Spouses in EE-U.S. marriageshad, on average, greater age differences (9.44years) than spouses in U.S.-U.S. marriages (2.19years). The spousal difference in number ofprevious marriages also differed by group, χ2(2,n = 8216) = 89.15, p < .001. Compared toU.S.-U.S. couples, there were a greater numberof EE-U.S. couples with husbands who hadmore previous marriages (124 vs. 59). Therewas a significant difference in educational levelby group, χ2(2, n = 8215) = 61.13, p <.001. Compared to U.S.-U.S. couples, EE-U.S.couples were especially likely to have wiveswith a higher educational level than that of theirhusbands (65 vs. 27). There was, however, nosignificant effect for groups on average relativespousal income difference, t(1231) = −0.535,p = .592.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this article was to use nation-ally representative data to provide the missingpicture of the sociodemographic characteristicsof spouses in Eastern European-U.S. interna-tional marriages. Specifically, the study’s aimwas to explore (a) similarities or differencesamong wives and husbands across EE-U.S. mar-riages, and (b) compare individual and couple

characteristics of EE-U.S. marriages to similarcharacteristics of U.S.-U.S. marriages. Resultsshowed that two common mate selection theo-ries, status homogamy and status exchange, canbe used to describe these international marriages.

Status Homogamy

Three sociodemographic characteristics—race,education, and marital status—revealedwithin-couple similarities. This supports statushomogamy theory, which posits that there is atendency for marriage partners to have similarbackgrounds (Jo-Pei et al., 2008; Kalmijn,1998; Rosenfeld, 2005).

EE-U.S. couples were racially similar; themajority of both EE-born wives and their U.S.-born husbands identified as non-Hispanic White.Additionally, although educational levels ofEastern European-born wives as a group werehigher than those of their U.S.-born husbands,there was a tendency toward within-couplesimilarity in educational levels.

Another within-couple similarity wasobserved in the case of marital history. Bothspouses in these marriages were likely tobe remarried. When compared to U.S. non-Hispanic White marriages, there were moreEE-U.S. couples with both wives and husbandswho had more previous marriages. Some studiessuggest that divorced women from EasternEurope have more difficulty finding potentialmates in their local marriage markets and thusseek a marriage partner elsewhere (Crandallet al., 2005; Patico, 2009). Research findingshave also suggested that U.S.-born husbandsturn away from their local marriage marketbecause they experience ‘‘unfair treatment atthe hands of self-centered American women’’(Patico, 2009, p. 323) and seek a more tradi-tional wife in the international marriage market(Jackson, 2007; Remennick, 2005). Althoughthe study cannot determine if this is true forthis sample, it is a plausible explanation for thegreater number of previously married spousesin EE-U.S. marriages.

Status Exchange

There were within-couple differences in ageand income observed among EE-U.S. couplesthat provided support for the status exchangetheory. The average age difference between EE-U.S. spouses was 9 years. This difference in

Eastern European-U.S. Marriages 39

spouses’ ages was four times greater than inU.S.-U.S. marriages. Although previous studieson international marriages have found thatspouses’ age difference was not significant andeven proposed that similarity in age would be adesirable goal (e.g., Sahib et al., 2006), this studyfound that older U.S. husbands chose youngerEE-born wives.

More evidence that supports the statusexchange theory is the spousal difference inpersonal earned income. EE-born wives tendedto earn less than their U.S.-born husbands.Further, EE-born women earned less than theirU.S.-born counterparts. This could be attributedto difficulties that immigrants experience inthe U.S. job market, often due to limitedemployment prospects and the need to recertifyor upgrade the degrees earned in their homecountries (Rossiter, 2005). Moreover, previousstudies have proposed that foreign-born wivesintentionally seek husbands who are competitivein the job market and thus earn higher incomes(Patico, 2009).

Limitations and Application

There are certain limitations to this study. First,although the random sample from ACS providesdesirable generalizability, a disadvantage of thisdata set is that it includes only individuals whowere married during the data collection periodin 2008 and 2009. There is no information aboutinternationally married couples who divorcedand are thus not included in the sample. Second,the data set included only sociodemographiccharacteristics of international marriages anddid not allow for the examination of qualitativeaspects of these marriages, such as maritalsatisfaction or psychological dependencies,which could have contributed to an analysis ofpower imbalance. This is an area that warrantsfuture research. Finally, certain measures werenot time specific. For example, when anindividual completed her or his education wasnot available. This is an important factor forforeign-born individuals because a degree ordiploma attained in their home country mightnot be equivalent to one received in the UnitedStates.

Findings from the present study have impli-cations for future research on international mar-riages. Questions that could be explored includethe following: What are the characteristics thatpredict U.S.-born men will seek wives in the

international market? Conversely, what are thecharacteristics of foreign-born women that pre-dict that they will seek nonnative husbands?What motivates women and men to seek mar-riage outside their local marriage markets? Howdo those motivations contribute to marriagequality and marital satisfaction?

Another interesting area of study relates tothe effect of fairly recent immigration policy(IMBRA, 2005) that introduced guidelinesfor international marriage broker agencies toensure that foreign-born women have moreinformation and control in their decision-makingprocess. Research could examine if foreign-born women are making informed decisionsabout their prospective marriages, how theyhave or have not used the resources availableto them after 2005, and if a more informeddecision has impacted their marital quality andsafety.

As international marriages continue toincrease, family practitioners would benefit froma greater understanding of the characteristics ofthe spouses within these couples and the cou-ple dynamics that could ensue. For example,within-couple differences in age and incomelike those that were found in EE-U.S. couplesin this study might introduce power imbalancesbetween spouses. In addition, EE-U.S. couples inthis study did not reside in states with high East-ern European populations. Half of them werealso unemployed. These factors could combineto limit social contacts or even isolate foreign-born women in international marriages from acommunity that could provide important socialsupport in the process of adaptation. Previousqualitative research has established a connec-tion between spousal differences that createdfinancial dependency and social isolation forthe foreign-born wives and power-related issues(Crandall et al., 2005; Heyse, 2010; Rossiter,2005). In turn, social isolation and dependencyof the foreign-born spouse on her U.S.-born hus-band has been linked to varying forms of abuse,emotional, physical violence, and so forth (Hasset al., 2006).

Conclusion

This study contributes to our understandingof international marriages, an increasinglycommon family configuration in an era ofglobalization; the Worldwide Web, whichallows for social interactions from a great

40 Family Relations

distance; and blurred national boundaries. Ituses a nationally representative data set todescribe individual and couple characteristicsof marriages between Eastern European-bornwomen and U.S.-born men. It draws the attentionof social science researchers and practitionersto an often overlooked minority group ofEastern European immigrants. As the numberof international marriages in the United Statesgrows, it is important for family practitioners tohave a better understanding of the characteristicsof these types of unions.

NOTE

This research was conducted while the primary author was anInterdisciplinary Doctoral Fellow, funded by the Universityof Minnesota and housed at the Minnesota Population Center.A version of this research was presented at the 2011 Societyof Cross-Cultural Research Conference in Charleston, SouthCarolina, and at the 2011 National Council on FamilyRelations in Orlando, Florida. I thank Dr. Carolyn Lieblerfor extensive guidance during data analysis.

REFERENCES

Alien Fiancees and Fiances Act of 1946, S. 2122;Pub. L. 79-471; 60 stat. 339.

Celikaksoy, A., Nielsen, H. S., & Verner, M. (2006).Marriage migration: Just another case of positiveassortative matching? Review of Economics of theHousehold, 4, 271 – 293.

Champion, A. (1994). International migration anddemographic change in the developed world.Urban Studies, 31, 1 – 49. doi:10.1080/00420989420080621

Crandall, M., Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2005). ‘‘No way out’’: Russian-speaking women’s experiences with domesticviolence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20,941 – 958. doi:10.1177/0886260505277679

Crowder, K. D., & Tolnay, S. E. (2000). A newmarriage squeeze for Black women: The rolefor racial intermarriage by Black men. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 62, 792 – 807.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00792.x

Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste soci-eties. American Anthropologist, 43, 376 – 395.doi:10.1525/aa.1941.43.3.02a00030

Edwards, J. N. (1969). Familial behavior as socialexchange. Journal of Marriage and the Family,31, 518 – 533.

Hass, G. A., Ammar, N., Orloff, L. (2006).Battered immigrants and U.S. citizen spouses.Washington, DC: Legal Momentum, Immi-grant Women Program. Retrieved from http://legalmomentum.org/legalmomentum/files/dvusc.pdf

Heyse, P. (2010). Deconstructing fixed identities:An intersectional analysis of Russian-speakingfemale marriage migrants’ self-representations.Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31, 65 – 80.doi:10.1080/07256860903487661

Hidalgo, D. A., & Bankston, C. L. (2008). Militarybrides and refugees: Vietnamese American wivesand shifting links to the military, 1980 –2000. International Migration, 46, 168 – 185.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2008.00448.x

Hughes, D. M. (2004). The role of ‘‘marriageagencies’’ in the sexual exploitation and traffickingof women from the former Soviet Union.International Review of Victimology, 11, 49 – 71.doi:10.1177/026975800401100104.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, H.R. 2580;Pub. L. 89-236; 79 Stat. 911.

Jackson, S. H. (2007). Marriages of conve-nience: International marriage brokers, ‘‘mail-order brides,’’ and domestic servitude. Universityof Toledo Law Review, 38, 895 – 923.

Jo-Pei, T., Buharuddin, R., Juhari, R., & Krauss,S. E. (2008). Socio-demographic characteristicsof intercultural marriage: A study of a multi-ethnic community in Malaysia. European Journalof Social Sciences, 5, 30 – 44.

Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy:Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review ofSociology, 24, 395 – 421. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395

Lloyd, K. A. (2000). Wives for sale: The modern inter-national mail-order bride industry. NorthwesternJournal of International Law and Business, 20,341 – 367.

Lomsky-Feder, E., & Leibovitz, T. (2010). Inter-ethnic encounters within the family: Competingcultural models and social exchange. Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies, 36, 107 – 124.doi:10.1080/13691830903123278

Merton, R. K. (1941). Intermarriage and thesocial structure: Fact and theory. Psychiatry, 4,361 – 374.

Patico, J. (2009). For love, money, or normalcy:Meanings of strategy and sentiment in the Russian-American matchmaking industry. Ethnos, 74,307 – 330. doi:10.1080/00141840903053097

Remennick, L. (2005). Cross-cultural dating patternson an Israeli campus: Why are Russian immigrantwomen more popular than men? Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 22, 435 – 454.doi:10.1177/0265407505052445

Robila, M. (2007). Eastern European immigrants inthe United States: A socio-demographic profile.The Social Science Journal, 44, 113 – 125.doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2006.12.025

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange theoryin mate selection. American Journal of Sociology,110, 1284 – 1325. doi:10.1086/428441

Eastern European-U.S. Marriages 41

Rossiter, M. J. (2005). Slavic brides in ruralAlberta. Journal of International Migration andIntegration, 6, 493 – 512. doi:10.1007/s12134-005-1023-4

Ruggles, S., Alexander, J. T., Genadek, K., Goeken,R., Schroeder, M. B., & Sobek, M. (2010).Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota.

Sahib, P. R., Koning, R. H., & van Witteloostuijn,A. (2006). Putting your best cyber identityforward: An analysis of ‘success stories’ froma Russian Internet marriage agency. InternationalSociology, 21, 61 – 82. doi:10.1177/0268580906059291

Schoen, R., & Thomas, B. (1989). Intergroupmarriage in Hawaii, 1969 – 1971 and 1978 – 1981.Sociological Perspectives, 32, 365 – 382.

Spickard, P. (1989). Mixed blood: Intermarriageand ethnic identity in twentieth-century America.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2009).Nonimmigrants admitted by class of admission:Selected fiscal years 1981 – 2004. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/immigration.shtm

Vergara, V. B. M. (2000). Abusive mail-order bridemarriage and the thirteenth amendment. North-western University Law Review, 94, 1547 – 1600.