Latinos’ mate selection: national origin, racial, and nativity differences

Social

Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Science

RESEARCH

www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch

LatinosÕ mate selection: national origin, racial, and nativity differences Zhenchao Qiana,* and Jose A. Cobasb a

Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 300 Bricker Hall, 190 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA b Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract We use 1990 Census data to examine how mate selection patterns differ by LatinosÕ national origin, race, and nativity. We compare their propensity to marry within their own groups, with non-Latino Whites and Blacks and with other Latino Whites and Nonwhites. LatinosÕ race plays an important role in assimilation to American society. Latino Whites are more likely than Latino Nonwhites to marry non-Latinos; US-born Latino Whites are more likely than their foreign-born counterparts to marry non-Latino Whites; and US-born Mexican Whites, with a long history in the US, are more likely to intermarry than other US-born Latino Whites. Mate selection patterns of Latino Whites closely follow the predictions of classical assimilation theory. Latino Nonwhites, however, exhibit a different pattern: the US-born are less likely to intermarry than the foreign-born. Racial barrier also is strong within each national-origin group. When Latinos marry outside their own national-origin groups, Whites tend to marry non-Latino Whites, but Nonwhites tend to marry other Latino Nonwhites. This may imply two paths of integration in American society: Latino WhitesÕ assimilation into American society and Latino NonwhitesÕ formation of Latino pan-ethnicity. Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The history of immigration to the United States has been captured in memorable phrases. The mass migration from Europe at the turn of the 20th century brought * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Qian).

0049-089X/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00055-3

226

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

about the expression ‘‘the American melting pot.’’ Since the 1970s, Latin America and other non-European regions have become the major origins of immigration to the United States, giving rise to the phrase ‘‘the browning of America.’’ As part of the brown wave, Latinos have come close to be the largest minority population in the US, constituting 12.5% of the US population in 2000 (Grieco and Cassidy, 2001). The rapid growth of the Latino population has led to consternation about the meaning of the increasing visibility of the Latino population and the paths that the new immigrants might follow in their adaptation to American society (Massey, 1995). Latinos are diverse in national origin, comprising persons rooted in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, or other Latin American countries, as well as in racial identification, comprising persons of White, Amerindian, Black, and other races. In addition, they also differ in terms of how long they have lived in the United States. Some, like Mexican-Americans, have a long history in America, while others, like Cuban exiles, began arriving only recently. An examination of the adaptation of the Latino community in American society needs to take into account the strong diversity within this population. In this paper, we examine LatinosÕ mate selection patterns in order to understand how national origin, race, and nativity mix within the Latino communities and how this diversity contributes to different patterns of adaptation in American society. Numerous studies have examined intermarriage patterns for either one Latino national-origin group or for Latinos combined (Anderson and Saenz, 1994; Gurak, 1987; Landale, 1994; Qian and Lichter, 2001). Studies comparing national-origin differences in mate selection are scarce and the ones making comparisons are limited to metropolitan areas such as New York (Edmonston and Passel, 1999; Gilbertson et al., 1996; Gurak and Fitzpatrick, 1982). While intermarriage patterns within one metropolitan area can reflect local marriage market conditions (Rosenfeld, 2001), an examination of national-origin differences in intermarriage at the national level can provide a more complete picture of diversity in patterns of assimilation and integration. Race remains a strong barrier to marriage in the United States (Blackwell and Lichter, 2000; Kalmijn, 1998; Merton, 1941; Qian, 1997). However, the literature on Latino intermarriage has not addressed the role of race in LatinosÕ mate selection patterns. In Latin America, race is more fluidly defined, ranging from White, Mulatto, to Black in the Caribbean such as Puerto Rico and Cuba and from White, Mestizo, to Amerindian in Mexico and Central America (Bonilla, 1961; Graham, 1990). This may imply that racial barriers may be more permeable in Latin America than in the United States, where the main racial division is White/Nonwhite. Including racial dimension in studying mate selection patterns for Latinos sheds light on how race plays a role in patterns of assimilation and integration. We analyze LatinosÕ mate selection patterns by national origin, race, and nativity using 1990 Census data. We include four national-origin groups in our study: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central Americans. We use multivariate log-linear models to compare roles of national origin, race, and nativity in mate selection. Specifically, we compare how members of each national-origin group, further classified by race and nativity, differ in their propensity to marry within their own

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

227

national-origin, racial, and nativity groups. We pay special attention to national-origin, racial, and nativity differences in marriage with non-Latino Whites and Blacks.

2. Assimilation and assortative mating The tendency for individuals to marry partners of similar social characteristics is well established. Husbands and wives tend to have similar educational attainment (Kalmijn, 1991a; Mare, 1991), race and ethnicity (Fu, 2001; Pagnini and Morgan, 1990; Qian, 1997; Rosenfeld, 2001), nativity (Qian and Lichter, 2001), and religion (Johnson, 1980). Endogamy—like marries like—contributes to similarity of culture, values, and behaviors and expectations among husbands and wives, which enhances mutual understanding and marital stability (DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Jacobs and Furstenberg, 1986). While similarity on these characteristics is generally strong, it is unrealistic for the population of married people to match in every characteristic. For Latinos, national origin, race, and nativity are important dimensions in mate selection. Finding a spouse similar in one characteristic may indicate dissimilarity in another characteristic. How they make choices in marriage markets reflects on how well they integrate in American society. Many European immigrants who came to the United States at the turn of the 20th century did not speak English and were disadvantaged in education, occupation, and income, but they quickly reached equity in educational and labor market opportunities and eventually intermarried with the majority population (Alba, 1990; Lieberson, 1980). Assimilation theory emerged based on the experiences of European immigrants. Assimilation is ‘‘a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons and groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them a common cultural life’’ (Park and Burgess, 1969, p. 735). The final stage of assimilation is intermarriage (Gordon, 1964). European AmericansÕ experience shows that nativity is a strong predictor of intermarriage: Second- or later-generations are much more likely to be intermarried than immigrants (Pagnini and Morgan, 1990). Assimilation theory, derived from the experiences of European immigrants, is ethnicity-based, and thus cannot be simply extended to racial minorities (Omi and Winant, 1994). White immigrants and their descendants could become part of American society through ‘‘de-emphasis of their distinctive cultural characteristics and avoidance of the strange elements of their social structures’’ (Lieberson, 1980, 34). This de-emphasis would not work for racial minorities. Racial minorities such as African Americans and Asian Americans fared far worse discrimination and obstacles than White immigrants at the turn of the 20th century (Barringer et al., 1993; Lieberson, 1980). Skin-color being a major marker, race remains an important source of social inequality. Although interracial marriage is gradually increasing, it is still rare (Qian, 1997). Latinos may share similar experiences with other racial minorities, but their patterns of integration and intermarriage in the

228

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

US may be diverse as a result of racial complexity and their unique racial experiences in Latin America. Although Latinos are seen in the US as one minority group that differs from other racial groups, they are racially heterogeneous and may be White, Black, Asian, Amerindian, or some combination thereof. Race, in Latin America, is seen as a continuum from White to Black or from White to Amerindian as a result of extensive racial intermarriage. The Spanish colonial experience encouraged the blending of the races because of frequent interactions of the Spanish with other racial groups and legal rights given to slaves in Latin America (Denton and Massey, 1989). In Puerto Rico, a scarcity of Spanish women and a need to increase the number of plantation workers increased interracial marriage between Whites and Blacks (Gordon, 1950). Racial intermarriage, however, was not so pronounced in Cuba because of CubaÕs stricter law against interracial marriage (Knight, 1974). In Mexico and Central America, mixed race marriage was also common, but Nonwhites were mostly Amerindians and the racial continuum goes from White to Amerindian. About 90% of Mexicans fall into the middle of the continuum and are seen as Mestizos (Riding, 1985). Although race is not as rigidly defined in Latin America as in the United States, somatic and cultural features remain important. Darker-color individuals who manifest Indian cultural traits often experience employment discrimination and are associated with lower social classes (Graham, 1990; Telles and Murguia, 1990). Children are encouraged to adelantar la raza (‘‘to advance the race’’ or ‘‘marry whiter’’) (Jorge, 1979). Racial experience in Latin America shapes LatinosÕ racial identification in the United States. It is especially so for foreign-born Latinos who may have brought with them attitudes reflecting racial dynamics existing in their countries of origin. However, these attitudes are not shared with non-Latinos. Thus, intermarriage with non-Latinos is likely to be low for foreign-born Latinos. Instead, Latinos of different national origins may have similar attitudes. Given that most Latino immigrants speak Spanish and are Roman Catholic, Latino immigrants may marry other Latinos of different racial groups or national origins. Indeed, foreign-born Latinos are more likely to cross national-origin boundaries to marry other Latinos than their US-born counterparts (Rosenfeld, 2001). How race plays a role in nativity difference is unclear, but given that racial barrier is not as strong in Latin America as in the US, we may expect to see more interracial marriage among foreign-born Latinos than among US-born Latinos. US-born Latinos are more familiar with the racial climate in the US than in Latin America, which implies that US-born Latinos tend not to marry Latinos who belong to a different racial or national-origin group. Length of stay in the US may indicate a fuller integration into American society—intermarriage with non-Latinos. On the other side, US-born LatinosÕ awareness of racial divisions in the US may shape and strengthen their Latino pan-ethnic identity (Lopez and Espiritu, 1990). They may seek to marry Latinos of a different racial or national-origin group. However, Latino Whites and Nonwhites are likely to have different racial experiences due to skin color and socioeconomic differences. Consequently, they may have different levels of pan-ethnicity and different mate selection patterns.

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

229

US-born Latino Whites may behave similarly to European immigrants at the turn of the 20th century in assimilation patterns and have a relatively high level of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. Being a White makes it possible to have a choice to de-emphasize their cultural roots and becomes more acceptable in American society. In contrast, although US-born Latino Nonwhites are more likely to be Mestizos or Mulattos than Blacks (Bean and Tienda, 1987; Graham, 1990; Massey and Denton, 1992), these distinctions are not often made based on the racial concept of the United States. US-born Latino Nonwhites may be similar to other racial minorities in adaptation and do not integrate into American society as much as their White counterparts. Their interracial marriage with non-Latino Whites would be lower than their White counterparts. On the other hand, their lighter skin color and cultural emphasis ‘‘to advance the race’’ may indicate a lower level of intermarriage with non-Latino Blacks than with non-Latino Whites (Waters, 1999). Little integration to non-Latino communities may make Latino Nonwhites to expand the marriage pool to include Latino Nonwhites of other national origins. In this regard, we expect Latino pan-ethnicity to be stronger for Latino Nonwhites than for Latino Whites. In summary, the assimilation theory discussed above has provided us with the following hypotheses on racial and nativity differences in LatinosÕ mate selection patterns: (1) foreign-born Latinos are more likely to cross racial and national-origin boundaries to marry other Latinos than US-born Latinos; (2) US-born Latino Whites are more likely to marry non-Latinos than US-born Latino Nonwhites; and (3) US-born Latino Nonwhites are more likely to form Latino pan-ethnicity by marrying other Latinos than their White counterparts.

3. National origin differences in assortative mating The hypotheses have not addressed national-origin differences in mate selection. Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Central Americans have different histories in the United States. They differ by educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and mode of economic adaptation, settle in different destinations, and confront diverse reactions from the United States (Bean and Tienda, 1987; Portes and Bach, 1985). Somatic characteristics associated with race also differ by national origin (Helg, 1990; Knight, 1990; Massey and Denton, 1992). These differences can contribute to national-origin differences in mate selection. Mexicans settled in the Southwest long before Anglo Americans arrived and Mexico was a major sending country early in the 20th century (del Pinal and Singer, 1997). Many US-born Mexicans are later generation Americans, who have improved their socioeconomic status in American society, while their immigrant counterparts, some of whom are undocumented, lag behind in educational attainment, income, and occupational skills (Bean and Tienda, 1987; Ortiz, 1996; Portes and Rumbaut, 1996). This suggests substantial social distance between US- and foreign-born Mexicans. The long history of Mexican Americans in the US also implies that US-born Mexicans, when compared with other Latino national-origin groups, are most likely to be intermarried with non-Latino Whites.

230

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Puerto Rico became a colony of the United States in 1898 and Puerto Ricans became US citizens 19 years later. This unique status makes it possible for Puerto Ricans in the mainland to keep close relationships with the island and its culture. They may not have strong desires to assimilate because many do not plan to settle permanently in America (Padilla, 1987). As a result, they tend to possess a stronger attachment to the island than other Latinos have to their countries of origin and tend to choose partners within their own national-origin group. Although the Cubans who arrived in the United States in the 1960s had much higher educational attainment and fared better in socioeconomic achievement than other Latinos (Bean and Tienda, 1987; Portes and Bach, 1985), their children born in the US, most of whom are White, may not necessarily be better assimilated in terms of intermarriage. The majority of Cuban Americans live in predominantly Cuban neighborhoods where ethnic economy is strong (Portes and Zhou, 1992). Living in ethnic neighborhoods and working in ethnic economy limit opportunities of Cuban Americans to establish social contact with mainstream society as well as with other Latinos. Marriage between US- and foreign-born Cubans may be low as a result of socioeconomic differences between the two groups because many recent immigrants from Cuba are Nonwhite and tend to have low educational attainment (Portes and Bach, 1985). Most Central Americans, consisting people from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and El Salvador, came to the United States in the last 20 years. Many of them arrive in the United States clandestinely (Portes and Rumbaut, 1996). Although divergent in terms of national origin, culture, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status, they immigrated for two reasons: a search for economic opportunities and flight from war and political turmoil (Menjivar, 2000; Repak, 1995). Most recent immigrants, especially from Guatemala and El Salvador, are at the lower end of occupational ladder (Lopez et al., 1996; Wallace, 1989). Compared to Mexican or Puerto Rican immigrants, the difficult journey to the United States impels many Central Americans to settle permanently and motivates them to do well in the United States (Menjivar, 2000). They tend to do so by integrating into other Latino communities rather than into mainstream society (Lopez et al., 1996; Portes and Rumbaut, 1996). In summary, US-born Mexican Americans are most familiar with mainstream society, given their long history in the United States, and are expected to be most likely to marry non-Latinos. The likelihood to marry non-Latinos may be similar between the US- and the foreign-born for Cubans and Central Americans due to close distance between the two nativity groups because the US-born are mostly second-generation natives. Puerto Ricans, many of whom are encapsulated into their own communities in the United States and move to and from Puerto Rico, are hypothesized to be least likely to marry outside their own national-origin group.

4. Data and methods The data for this study come from the state Public Use Microdata (PUMS) 5% samples of the 1990 Census. Latinos include White, Black, or Other, but must

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

231

identify themselves as of Spanish origin. Latinos included in the analysis are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central Americans.1 We also include Non-Latino Whites and African Americans in our sample so we can examine LatinosÕ marriage with non-Latinos and use the level of marriage between non-Latino Whites and Blacks as a benchmark for our study. The 1990 Census did not ask questions about the date of the first marriage or the order of the current marriage. Therefore, we are only able to obtain a sample of currently married couples of varying marriage durations and orders. The sample may be biased because marital disruption differs by marriage duration and order (Jacobs and Furstenberg, 1986; Kitano et al., 1984). To reduce potential bias, we include only married couples aged 20–34 at the time of the Census. Couples in this age range are likely to have married recently and not to have experienced marital disruption. This selection, on the other hand, may underestimate the level of interracial marriage because men or women first married at older ages are more likely to be interracially married than those first married at young ages (Porterfield, 1982). Our objective is to examine marriages contracted in the United States. The 1990 Census, however, does not allow us to distinguish marriages contracted within the US from those contracted overseas. To reduce the number of marriages contracted overseas, we limit the sample to persons who immigrated to the US under age 20. These immigrants were likely to be single when they came to the United States.2 The 1990 Census asks respondents their race, whether they are of Spanish origin, and which Latino national origin they are from. Table 1 shows how our married Latino sample classifies race. Over 80% of Cubans are identified as White, the highest percentage among Latinos. Fewer foreign-born Latinos classify themselves as White than do US-born Latinos. A small proportion of Latinos classify themselves as Black. A substantial proportion of Latinos classify their race as Other. More immigrants do so than their US-born counterparts. This may be related to our earlier discussions that immigrants are less comfortable with the North American concept of race than their US-born counterparts. We exclude Latinos who classify themselves as Asians or American Indians because of an insufficient number of cases. The meaning of the ‘‘Other’’ category has been the subject of debate. Denton and Massey (1989) adduce that the ‘‘Other’’ category probably includes respondents who saw themselves outside the American Black/White dichotomy, namely Mestizos and Mulattos. Rodriguez (1992, p. 936) takes a divergent perspective, proposing that the choice of ‘‘Other’’ reflects ‘‘a widespread view among Latinos that race is a cultural, social, and/or political concept.’’ However, she fails to address the two issues: (1)

1 Central Americans include persons whose national origins are Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, or El Salvador. This aggregation is necessary to provide enough cases for the analysis. We did not include other Latino groups because there were very few cases. 2 The majority of Latino women are not married by age 20, according to United Nations statistics (2000). Less than 20% of women get married before age 20 in Latin America. Latino immigrants who came to US before age 20 may be even less likely to get married in their countries of origin given that only a little over one third of recent Latinos immigrants aged 18–27 were married at the time of the 1990 census (D avila and Mora, 2001).

232

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Table 1 Percentage distributions of race by Latino national origin and nativity National origin

White

Black

Asian/ Pacific

American Indian

Other

Total

US-born Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central American

51.2 51.4 83.9 62.6

0.5 3.8 2.9 7.4

0.3 0.7 0.3 1.0

0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0

47.2 43.9 12.8 29.0

31,516 4351 932 297

Foreign-born Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central American

41.0 41.7 82.0 40.6

0.4 2.5 0.8 2.9

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3

58.2 55.4 16.9 55.7

17,600 2006 2238 1991

why about half of Latino respondents select ‘‘White’’ if ‘‘Other’’ best captures the complexities of race in the Latino culture and (2) why more immigrants than natives choose ‘‘Other’’ if ‘‘Other’’ reflects a political concept which should be more acceptable among natives. Denton and Massey (1989, p. 793) point out that ‘‘the coding change [in the census] allows Hispanics, for the first time, to place themselves in a racial classification outside the strict Black–White dichotomy.’’ Because the number of Blacks in the sample is too small to be classified as a separate group, we combine them with the ‘‘Other’’ group. The other alternative, eliminating them from the analysis, would have resulted in the loss of important information. Although the differences between Whites and Nonwhites are not as sharp among Latinos as they are among Non-Latinos, they still exist. Thus, the combination, ‘‘Other’’ and ‘‘Black,’’ includes Latinos with different shades of darker skin colors—a Nonwhite racial group. As a result, there are two racial categories for Latinos: Whites and Nonwhites. This racial classification differs from non-LatinosÕ race, which is classified into White and Black. In summary, we study married couples age 20–34 in 1990 and predict marriage counts by race, national origin, and nativity of husbands and wives. Race is classified as White and Black for non-Latinos, and White and Nonwhite for Latinos; National origin is classified as Non-Latino, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central American; and Nativity is classified as US-born and foreign-born. We use log-linear models to study the association between husbands and wives by race, national origin, and nativity combinations. Log-linear models have been used in studies of intermarriage across religious, racial/ethnic, and educational boundaries (Blackwell and Lichter, 2000; Kalmijn, 1991b; Pagnini and Morgan, 1990; Qian, 1997). These models can examine the associations between spousesÕ different characteristics independent of the marginal distributions of these characteristics. For this study, log-linear models control for marginal distributions of spousesÕ national origin, race, and nativity so that we can examine the relative importance of these characteristics in mate selection. For ease of presentation, we have combined national origin and race into one variable.

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

233

There are 10 national-origin/racial combinations for husbands and wives, respectively. These combinations include non-Latino White, non-Latino Black, Mexican White, Mexican Nonwhite, Puerto Rican White, Puerto Rican Nonwhite, Cuban White, Cuban Nonwhite, Central American White, and Central American Nonwhite. We analyze the number of marriages by husbandsÕ and wivesÕ nationalorigin/race and nativity. There are two categories for nativity status: US-born and foreign-born. Thus, the cross-tabulation of husbands and wives has a total of 400 cells (10
2
10
2). The basic log-linear model takes the following form: WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN ; i j m þ bn im jn

ð1Þ

where Fijmn is the expected number of marriages between husbands in national origin and race i and nativity m, and wives in national origin and race j and nativity n; b0 is WR the constant; bHR i ðbj Þ denotes husbandsÕ (wivesÕ) national origin and race (i or j ¼ non-Latino White, Mexican White, Puerto Rican White, Cuban White, Central American White, non-Latino Black, Mexican Nonwhite, Puerto Rican Nonwhite, WN Cuban Nonwhite, and Central American Nonwhite); bHN m ðbn Þ denotes husbandsÕ (wivesÕ) nativity (m or n ¼ US- and foreign-born). In addition to controlling for marginal distributions of these characteristics, we also account for the two-way interaction between national-origin/race and nativity for husbands and wives, WRN respectively ðbHRN Þ. im ; bjn

5. Findings Table 2 displays, by sex, national origin, and nativity, the percentage of each Latino national-origin group married to non-Latinos of the same or different racial groups and to Latinos of the same or different national-origin or racial groups. Results suggest the following observations: (1) Most Mexican and Puerto Rican men and women marry within their own national-origin and racial groups. Nonwhites are more likely to do so than Whites. (2) Marriages crossing racial boundaries are rare within each nationalorigin group. (3) When marrying non-Latinos, not only do Latino Whites marry nonLatino Whites (racial endogamy), but also do Latino Nonwhites (racial exogamy). (4) Racial endogamy is very strong for marriages crossing Latino national-origin boundaries. (5) In accordance with the negative relationship between group size and intergroup marriage (Blau, 1977), Central Americans are most likely to marry nonLatinos and other Latinos, followed by Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans. (6) For each national-origin group, immigrants are much more likely to marry persons of the same national origin than their US-born counterparts. Results in Table 2 are informative, but these comparisons are confounded by large differences in population size by sex, national origin, race, and nativity. To control for these differences, we build two series of models and seek to find out the models that best fit the data. Our selections of the models aim to test the hypotheses based on the assimilation theory. Table 3 shows the likelihood ratios L2 and BIC

234

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Table 2 Percentage of marriages by Latino national origin, race, and nativity for men and women Total

Married to

US-born Mexican Male

Same national origin

Non-Latinos

Other Latinos

Same race

Same race

Different race

Same race

Different race

Different race

White Nonwhite White Nonwhite

65.9 70.3 61.9 75.2

1.3 1.5 2.1 0.9

32.0 0.7 34.1 1.9

0.1 26.4 0.8 20.3

0.8 1.0 1.1 1.7

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

7536 7254 8580 7707

Puerto Rican Male White Nonwhite Female White Nonwhite

40.4 57.8 41.2 62.1

1.6 2.1 2.4 1.2

49.1 9.0 47.4 11.0

1.6 22.2 1.9 17.1

6.9 8.3 6.5 8.5

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.1

1073 1041 1159 1027

White Nonwhite White Nonwhite

35.2 22.1 43.7 26.9

2.5 1.5 0.7 0.0

52.0 10.3 46.9 19.2

0.5 33.8 0.0 43.6

9.3 27.9 8.5 10.3

0.5 4.4 0.2 0.0

367 68 414 78

Central American Male White Nonwhite Female White Nonwhite

18.3 20.0 10.4 19.0

1.4 2.0 0.9 0.0

67.6 12.0 73.0 17.2

0.0 40.0 0.9 39.7

12.7 18.0 14.8 24.1

0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0

71 50 115 58

Foreign-born Mexican Male White Nonwhite Female White Nonwhite

89.9 86.9 88.7 90.8

0.9 2.1 1.5 1.3

7.1 0.3 7.6 0.6

0.1 8.2 0.2 4.9

1.9 2.4 1.9 2.5

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

3772 5645 3434 4637

Puerto Rican Male White Nonwhite Female White Nonwhite

59.2 69.4 54.8 75.3

0.9 2.4 2.3 1.7

29.3 4.5 31.1 4.5

1.4 16.6 1.5 10.7

9.3 7.2 10.1 7.3

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4

441 628 396 531

White Nonwhite White Nonwhite

62.8 42.3 66.8 46.2

0.3 5.2 1.1 6.6

28.4 2.8 26.5 4.4

0.0 31.0 0.2 28.6

8.4 17.8 5.1 14.3

0.1 0.9 0.4 0.0

984 213 848 182

Central American Male White Nonwhite Female White Nonwhite

55.6 56.5 46.9 57.1

1.4 0.3 0.5 1.0

16.3 2.4 27.3 3.8

0.3 13.3 0.5 12.5

26.3 26.6 23.5 24.9

0.3 0.9 1.4 0.7

369 586 439 578

Female

Cuban Male Female

Cuban Male Female

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

235

Table 3 Likelihood-ratio v2 statistics for selected models of assortative mating on national origin, race, and nativity, 1990 Modelsa

L2

df

BIC

Baseline Model. Marginal + interactions of national origin, race, and nativity for husbands and wives, respectively Model A1. Baseline Model + Non-LatinosÕ White endogamy and Black endogamy Model A2. Model A1 + same national-origin homogamy Model A3. Model A2 + variable national-origin homogamy Model A4. Model A3 + White endogamy and Nonwhite endogamy by national origin Model A5. Model A4 + White and Nonwhite exogamy by national origin Model A6. Model A5 + US-born homogamy and mixed-nativity heterogamyb Model A7. Model A6 + interactions (racial endogamy and exogamy parameters
nativity parameters)

374,825

361

370,097

71,397

359

66,695

22,997 22,408 21,948

358 355 351

18,308 17,758 17,350

21,802

346

17,270

5428

344

922

4002

317

)150

18,620

316

14,481

2556

314

)1557

1483

225

)1464

Model B1. Baseline Model + national-origin and racial quasi-symmetry Model B2. Model B1 + US-born homogamy and mixed-nativity heterogamyb Model B3. Model B2 + interactions (quasi-symmetry parameters
nativity parameters) a

Models of assortative mating by national origin, race, and nativity are shown in Appendix A. Mixed-nativity combination limits foreign-born spouses to be Latinos. Thus, mixed-nativity couples include foreign-born Latino and US-born Latino couples and foreign-born Latino and US-born nonLatino couples. b

statistics for the two series of models.3 The baseline model described in Eq. (1) includes marginal distributions of husbandsÕ and wivesÕ national-origin/race and nativity and the interactions of husbandsÕ and wivesÕ national-origin/race and nativity. This model, which assumes no association between husbands and wives by these characteristics, results in a large likelihood-ratio v2 statistic, L2 , indicating a poor fit. In order to find a model that fits the data well, we proceed to fit two series of models to explore the nature of the association between spousesÕ characteristics. The first series introduces national-origin and racial variable diagonal models to examine the extent of national-origin homogamy (spouses of the same national origin) and racial endogamy (spouses of the same race). Because racial endogamy is strong for non-Latino Whites and Blacks (Fu, 2001; Kalmijn, 1993; Qian, 1997), we distinguish in Model A1 marriages in which both spouses are either non-Latino White or Black from marriages in which spouses have other national-origin/racial combinations, with an assumption that marriages of other national-origin/racial combinations 3

The smaller the L2 , the better the model fit. The BIC statistic adjusts the L2 for sample size. BIC ¼ L2  ðdfÞ logðN Þ. If the value of BIC becomes negative, the model is actually preferred to the saturated model (Raftery, 1986).

236

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

are randomly distributed. The considerable decline in L2 from 374,825 to 71,397 indicates strong non-Latino White endogamy and Black endogamy. In Model A2, of those with other national-origin/racial combinations in Model A1, we further differentiate marriages in which couples belong to the same national-origin groups from marriages across national-origin boundaries. This model relaxes the assumption of Model A1 and assumes strong Latino national-origin endogamy. L2 declines significantly, indicating that same national-origin homogamy is indeed strong. Given divergent Latino national-origin histories in the United States, we further relax the assumption to permit different levels of national origin homogamy for Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central Americans. As a result, the fit improves once again as shown in Model A3. So far, we assume that mate selections are random across racial boundaries within any national-origin group. This assumption is unrealistic because race is always an important factor in mate selection. Differentiating White endogamy from Nonwhite endogamy for each Latino national-origin group in Model A4 further improves the model fit, indicating the existence of racial barrier in mate selection among Latinos. In Model A5, we take into account intermarriage between Whites and Nonwhites within each national-origin group. The decline in L2 is significant, but the decline is not as strong as the previous decline, indicating higher levels of racial endogamy than racial exogamy for each national-origin group. We then include nativity parameters in Model A6 so we can explore nativity differences in mate selection. These parameters contribute to a sharp decline in L2 , indicating that nativity combination of husbands and wives explains a significant variation in the model. Finally, we include the interactions between national-origin/racial parameters and nativity parameters in Model A7. The BIC statistic becomes negative ()150), an indication of the model to be preferred to the saturated model—the best-fit model in the series. This result suggests that the impact of nativity effect on mate selection is not the same across national-origin and racial groups. The second series of the models aims to examine marriages across racial, nationalorigin, and nativity groups. Model B1 introduces sex quasi-symmetry models to examine marriages across national-origin and racial boundaries (with an assumption that the expected number of marriages between husbands of one group i and wives of another group j equals the expected number of marriages between wives of one group i and husbands of another group j). Model fit improves when nativity parameters are introduced in Model B2. Interactions of these parameters are then included in Model B3 to examine how quasi-symmetry parameters may differ by nativity combination. The BIC statistic in Model 3 ()1464) is greater than in Model 2 ()1557), indicating Model B2 fits better than Model B3. Overall, Models A6 and B2 have the best fit in their respective series when only the main effects are considered and Model A7 has the best fit when interactions with nativity combinations are included. The parameters of Model A6 compare levels of national-origin homogamy and racial endogamy and the parameters of Model B2 examine marriages across national-origin and racial boundaries. Model A7 presents how national-origin homogamy and racial endogamy differ by couplesÕ nativity combination. Below we examine the parameter estimates of these models, which indicate the strengths of

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

237

race, national-origin, and nativity boundaries in mate selection, but at the same time, suggest different levels of barriers to these boundaries by race, national origin and nativity of husbands and wives. In Table 4, we present results from Model A6 to show national-origin homogamy and racial endogamy and exogamy. Each number in the table is a predicted number of marriages in which couples have the same race and national origin relative to marriages in which couples have different national origins. For example, there are 13.1 predicted marriages in which couples are both White and non-Latino relative to every one marriage in which couples have different national origins. Because the numbers in the table are relative to the same reference group (couples of different national origins), they are comparable to each other—a large number meaning strong endogamy and a smaller number meaning weaker endogamy. Results in Table 4 show very strong endogamy for non-Latino Blacks: Blacks are 364 times as likely to marry among themselves than to marry those crossing national-origin boundaries. In contrast, non-Latino White endogamy is the weakest: Whites are only 13 times as likely to marry among themselves than to marry those crossing national-origin boundaries. For Latinos, racial endogamy is lower for Whites than for Nonwhites. This pattern shows clearly that Latino Whites are more likely to intermarry than their Nonwhite counterparts. Although Latino Nonwhites are not as likely to intermarry than their White counterparts, they are more likely to do so than non-Latino Blacks. The results in the table, however, do not tell us whom they are intermarried to—a question we explore in detail in Table 6. Perhaps due to different histories in the US for Latino national-origin groups, their levels of endogamy are indeed different. Mexicans have the weakest White endogamy (29.4) while Cubans have the strongest (56.4). A long history for Mexicans in the US and a strong residential segregation of Cubans may have explained the difference. Among Latinos, Puerto Ricans have the highest Nonwhite endogamy and also show the strongest racial difference. LatinosÕ racial barriers are strong: Interracial marriage for Mexicans and Central Americans (0.8 and 0.7, respectively) is about the same as the one between non-Latino Whites and Blacks (0.7). Interracial marriage is also infrequent for Puerto Ricans and Cubans, but is about three times as likely as marriages crossing racial boundaries for Mexicans, Central Americans, and Non-Latinos. A relatively high level of interracial marriage along with a high level of Table 4 National-origin homogamy and racial endogamy and exogamy from Model A6a

Racial combination Both Whites Both Nonwhites Mixed race a

Both Non-Latinos

Both Mexicans

Both Puerto Ricans

Both Cubans

Both Central Americans

13.1 364.0 0.7

29.4 53.2 0.8

46.2 144.9 2.8

56.4 82.0 2.9

42.9 43.8 0.7

The figures in the table are the exponents of the selected parameter estimates from Model A6. The reference category is all marriages crossing national-origin boundaries. All the coefficients are significant at the .01 level, except for mixed-race Central American couples.

238

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

White and Nonwhite endogamy for Puerto Ricans and Cubans implies stronger national boundaries for these two groups than for other Latino national-origin groups. We then proceed to examine how racial endogamy differs by nativity parameter for each national-origin group. Table 5 is similar to Table 4, but adds a nativity dimension, which presents the exponents of the parameter estimates showing different levels of endogamy parameters by nativity combination. There are three nativity combinations: both US-born, both foreign-born, and mixed-nativity. Mixed-nativity couples constrain the foreign-born to be Latinos so there are no valid cases for foreign- and US-born non-Latino couples. White endogamy is 6% (17.6/16:6  1) more likely for US-born non-Latinos than for their foreign-born counterparts. For Latinos, however, White endogamy is much weaker for the US-born than for the foreign-born. For Mexicans, White endogamy for the foreign-born is 9.8 times (170.9/17.5) as likely as for the US-born. Thus, generational replacement promotes intermarriage, given that US-born Mexicans are more likely to come from later-generations than other US-born Latinos. On the other hand, given that most US-born Cubans are likely to be children of immigrants and live in ethnic neighborhoods, White endogamy is about the same between the US- and the foreign-born. A shorter generational distance between US- and foreign-born Cubans also increases the likelihood of marriage across nativity boundaries for Cubans. Mixed-nativity marriages are common for Puerto Ricans, possibly as a result of the little meaning of nativity because of Puerto RicansÕ US citizen status. There are few US-born Central Americans (see Table 2), who are typically the children of the earliest-wave immigrants Table 5 National-origin homogamy and racial endogamy and exogamy by nativity combination from model A7a Both Non-Latinos Racial combination Both Whites Both US-born Mixed nativityb Both foreign-born

Both Mexicans

Both Puerto Ricans

Both Cubans

Both Central Americans

17.6 — 16.6

17.5 29.4 170.9

33.6 50.6 45.9

52.6 62.1 53.5

13.9 37.9 54.7

Both Nonwhites Both US-born Mixed nativityb Both foreign-born

557.8 — 168.0

36.6 39.3 115.9

110.7 161.7 106.9

104.8 109.7 77.6

112.8 27.6 54.6

Mixed race Both US-born Mixed nativityb Both foreign-born

0.9 — 1.2

0.5 1.1 1.7

2.2 3.6 1.4

0.0 8.6 1.8

6.2 1.0 0.7

a The figures in the table are the exponents of the selected parameter estimates from Model A7 and are relative to all marriages crossing national-origin boundaries. These coefficients for same-race couples are all significant at the .01 level. The coefficients for mixed-race Puerto Rican and Central American couples are insignificant at the .1 level. b Because we constrain the foreign-born to be a Latino for couples of mixed-nativity, the cells in which one spouse is foreign-born non-Latino are invalid.

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

239

with high socioeconomic status (Menjivar, 2000). Their US-born children are likely to be fully assimilated and thus have very low endogamy. In contrast, Nonwhite endogamy is stronger for the US-born than for the foreignborn. Black endogamy is 2.3 times (557.8/168:0  1) greater for the US-born than for the foreign-born. Latino Nonwhites have patterns similar to those of non-Latino Blacks, but show much smaller nativity differences in Nonwhite endogamy than do non-Latino Blacks. The stronger Nonwhite endogamy for US-born same-nationalorigin couples than for their foreign-born counterparts is likely caused at least in part by their different racial experiences in the United States. US-born Latino Nonwhites are more aware of racial discrimination in the US than their foreign-born counterparts (Waters, 1999). Mexican Nonwhites are the exception, in which the US-born have lower endogamy than the foreign-born. The contributing factors for this exception could be later generations among the US-born and a large share of the foreignborn who have very low socioeconomic status. As a result of generational differences, mixed-nativity marriage is relatively low for Mexican Nonwhites, but it is more common for Puerto Rican and Cuban Nonwhites. Interracial marriage for same-nativity Puerto Ricans and Cubans is much less likely than for their mixed-nativity counterparts. This may be due to the fact that these two groups are more residentially concentrated than the other two groups. The results described above suggest different mate selection patterns between Latino Whites and Nonwhites. Same-national-origin racial endogamy for Nonwhites is much stronger than for Whites. A comparison of nativity differences in racial endogamy shows that US-born Whites have lower same-national-origin racial endogamy than their foreign-born counterparts while native-born Nonwhites have higher same-national-origin racial endogamy than their foreign-born counterparts. In addition, marriages crossing nativity boundaries are more common for Nonwhites than for Whites. These results indicate that Latino Whites are more likely to marry outside their national-origin groups and be more assimilated into mainstream society than Latino Nonwhites. Latino Nonwhites tend to marry within their racial and national-origin groups, regardless of nativity status. After examining racial endogamy and exogamy within each national-origin group by nativity status, we now turn to sex quasi-symmetry parameters to examine the extent of marriages across national-origin and racial groups. Nativity parameter interactions with racial and national-origin parameters are not included because Model B3 in Table 3, with the interactions, does not improve the model fit, which implies that nativity variations are smaller than national-origin and racial variations in mate selection. Table 6 presents the exponents of the parameter estimates from Model B2. Because the estimates are sex quasi-symmetrical, assuming marriages between husbands of one national-origin and racial group (i) and wives of another (j) are equal to marriages between wives of one national-origin and racial group (i) and husbands of another (j), we only present the coefficients for each (i; j) combination. The reference category is all endogamous marriages in the main diagonal (1.000), so relative to these endogamous marriages, the numbers are all smaller than 1, indicating a much lower likelihood of marriage across national-origin and racial groups.

240

Husband

Wife White

White Non-Latino Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central American Nonwhite Non-Latino Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central American

Nonwhite

NonLatino

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Central American

NonLatino

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Central American

1.000b

0.054 1.000b

0.043 0.020 1.000b

0.043 0.012 0.074 1.000b

0.035 0.062 0.065 0.057 1.000b

0.010 0.003 0.006 0.001 0.001

0.037 0.019 0.002 0.000 0.003

0.015 0.001 0.033 0.002 0.000

0.024 0.001 0.006 0.043 0.000

0.020 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.015

1.000b

0.008 1.000b

0.027 0.025 1.000b

0.018 0.015 0.083 1.000b

0.019 0.086 0.050 0.043 1.000b

a The coefficients in the table are the exponents of the parameter estimates. These parameter estimates are from the national-origin symmetry models. The coefficient for (i; j) is the same as the coefficient for (j; i). Only the coefficients for each (i; j) are presented. b Reference categories. All the coefficients (off-diagonals) are significantly different from the reference categories (1.000).

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Table 6 Parameter estimates for interethnic marriage controlling for marginal distributions of husbandsÕ and wivesÕ race/ethnicity and nativity status, from Model B2a

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

241

The results of the table show clearly different patterns of intermarriage between Latino Whites and Nonwhites. Latino Whites, on average, are less likely to marry other Latino Whites of different national origins than Latino Nonwhites are to other Latino Nonwhites of different national origins (.020 between Mexican and Puerto Rican Whites vs. .025 between Mexican and Puerto Rican Nonwhites, for example). The former group tends to marry non-Latino Whites (.054 between Mexican Whites and Non-Latino Whites, for example), an indication of assimilation into mainstream society. On the other hand, Latino Nonwhites, mostly identified as ‘‘Other’’ rather than ‘‘Black,’’ have little likelihood of marrying non-Latino Blacks (.008 between Mexican Nonwhites and non-Latino Blacks, for example). Mexican and Cuban Nonwhites, in fact, are more likely to marry non-Latino Whites than non-Latino Blacks, although the level of marriage with non-Latino Whites is much lower than for their White counterparts. Puerto Rican Nonwhites are the exception, showing greater likelihood of marriage with non-Latino Blacks than with non-Latino Whites (.027 vs. .015). Puerto Rican Nonwhites, who are either Mulatto or Black, are likely to share neighborhoods with Blacks in large cities and marry non-Latino Blacks than to marry non-Latino Whites. To summarize, these results suggest stronger assimilation into mainstream society through intermarriage for Latino Whites than for Latino Nonwhites. Latino Nonwhites tend to marry across Latino national-origin groups when they marry outside their national-origin groups. Racial barriers are indeed strong for each Latino national-origin group. Whites are more likely to marry Non-Latino Whites than their Nonwhite counterparts. Mexican Whites are 2.84 times (.054/.019) as likely to marry non-Latino Whites as their Nonwhite counterparts. The differences are smaller for Puerto Ricans and Central Americans. One exception is that Cuban Whites are as likely to marry non-Latino Whites as to marry Cuban Nonwhites (.043). This may relate to the fact that Cubans of different races tend to live in the same ethnic neighborhoods (Portes, 1984). LatinosÕ intermarriage with non-Latinos is generally low. For example, out of one same-national-origin marriage, there are only .054 marriages between Mexican Americans and non-Latino Whites. However, marriage with non-Latino Whites for each national-origin group (ranging from .015 to .054), regardless of race, is more likely than marriage between non-Latino Whites and Blacks (.010). This implies shorter social distance between Latinos and non-Latino Whites than between non-Latino Whites and Blacks. Furthermore, we also observe Latino national-origin differences in intermarriage with non-Latinos. Mexican Americans, with the longest history in the United States, are most likely to marry non-Latinos, followed by Cubans and then Puerto Ricans. Central Americans are shown to have more marriages with other Latinos of the same race than marriages with non-Latino Whites.

6. Summary and conclusion The rapid growth of the Latino population has raised concerns over how Latinos integrate into American society. LatinosÕ mate selection patterns provide an

242

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

important picture of their assimilation processes in American society: whether they tend to marry non-Latinos, Latinos of other national origins, or spouses within their own national origins. This pattern could be further complicated by their race and nativity status. Using 1990 census data, we examine the relative importance of national origin, race, and nativity status in mate selection among Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central Americans. Our results have shown the importance of these three dimensions in LatinosÕ spouse choices. Latinos tend to marry within their national origins, their own racial groups, and their own nativity groups. However, national origin, race, and nativity status affects strongly their intermarriage patterns. Of all the groups we have considered, non-Latino Whites have the lowest endogamy, most likely to intermarry, while non-Latino Blacks have the strongest endogamy, least likely to intermarry. Endogamy for Latino Whites is stronger than for non-Latino Whites. Mexican Whites with the longest history in the US have the endogamy closest to that of non-Latino Whites while Cuban Whites, though highly educated, have the strongest endogamy. Although educational attainment increases intermarriage, the fact that Cuban Americans tend to live in ethnic neighborhoods and work in ethnic economy may narrow their marriage pools in mate selection. Endogamy for Latino Nonwhites is not as strong as for non-Latino Blacks. Despite being a Nonwhite and a Latino, social distance with other groups for Latino Nonwhites is not as great as the one for non-Latino Blacks. In fact, Nonwhites of every Latino national origin are more likely to marry non-Latino Whites than non-Latino Blacks. This may suggest that social barriers that exist between nonLatino Whites and Blacks may not exist between non-Latino Whites and Latinos (Rosenfeld, 2002). However, skin color of Latinos matters. Puerto Rican Nonwhites who are mostly Mulatto are less likely to marry non-Latino Whites than other Latino Nonwhites who have higher percentages of Mestizos. Social distance between Puerto Rican Nonwhites and non-Latino Blacks is not as great. While other Latino Nonwhites are more likely to marry non-Latino Whites than non-Latino Blacks, Puerto Rican Nonwhites are more likely to marry non-Latino Blacks than nonLatino Whites. Closeness in skin color between Puerto Rican Nonwhites and nonLatino Blacks increases the likelihood that they share the same neighborhoods, which increases the opportunities for intermarriage. Race remains a strong barrier for Latinos of every national origin. Even though racial concept may differ in North America and Latin America and interracial marriage is more common in Latin America than in North America, marriages contracted in the US are highly racially endogamous for Latinos. Foreign-born Latinos do not show consistently greater likelihood of interracial marriage than US-born Latinos. Race affects whom they marry outside their national-origin groups. Latino Whites tend to marry non-Latino Whites. US-born Latino Whites are more likely to do so than their foreign-born counterparts. Mexican Whites who tend to be later generation Americans are most likely to marry non-Latino Whites than other Latino Whites. These patterns fit into classical assimilation theory: intermarriage with non-Latino Whites increases with length of residence in the United States and over successive generations for Latino Whites.

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

243

The pattern, however, is different for Latino Nonwhites, who tend to have strong racial endogamy compared to Latino Whites. The impact of nativity status is contrary to the predictions based on classical assimilation theory: foreign-born Latino Nonwhites have lower racial endogamy than their US-born counterparts, suggesting stronger racial barrier for US-born than for foreign-born Latino Nonwhites. NonwhitesÕ experiences may be similar to those of West Indians: immigrants tend to integrate into American society with their knowledge of English, their skills, and their optimistic assessment of American race relations while the US-born are aware of racial barriers in American society (Waters, 1999). Mexican Nonwhites are the exception, which show greater racial endogamy for the foreign-born than for the US-born. This may be related to the fact that US-born Mexican Nonwhites are mostly Mestizo and later generation Americans. Racial barriers between American Indians and Whites are not strong (Eschbach, 1995; Sandefur and Trudy, 1986). Another notable pattern is that US-born Latino Nonwhites are more likely to marry their foreign-born counterparts and Latinos of different national origins than their White counterparts. Because most Latino Nonwhites choose ‘‘Other’’ as their racial category, who are likely to be Mestizo or Mulatto, they have low rate of intermarriage with non-Latino Blacks. Instead, US-born Latino Nonwhites turn to their fellow immigrants, suggesting that the supply of immigrants in the marriage market slows the process of assimilation into mainstream society for US-born Latino Nonwhites (Massey, 1995). At the same time, Latino Nonwhites may be a primary force for building Latino pan-ethnicity, being prone to marry persons of the same race in another Latino national-origin group. Thus, race, an important dimension in American society, affects how Latinos assimilate into American society. US-born Latino Whites tend to assimilate into mainstream society by intermarrying with non-Latino Whites while US-born Latino Nonwhites tend to marry their fellow immigrants and Latino Nonwhites of other national-origin groups.

Acknowledgments Zhenchao Qian gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grants HD 043035-01). We thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

Appendix A. Assortative mating models by national origin, race, and nativity from Table 3 Baseline Model. Marginal + interactions of national origin, race, and nativity for husbands and wives, respectively WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN ; i j m þ bn im jn WR where bHR i ðbj Þ denotes husbandsÕ (wivesÕ) national origin and race [i or j ¼ nonLatino White (1), Mexican White (2), Puerto Rican White (3), Cuban White (4),

244

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Central American White (5), non-Latino Black (6), Mexican Nonwhite (7), Puerto Rican Nonwhite (8), Cuban Nonwhite (9), and Central American Nonwhite (10)]. WN bHN m ðbn Þ denotes husbandsÕ (wivesÕ) nativity status [m or n ¼ native-born (0) and WRN foreign-born (1)]; bHRN Þ accounts for the two-way interaction between naim ðbjn tional-origin/race and nativity for husbands (wives). Model A1. Baseline Model + non-Latino White endogamy and non-Latino Black endogamy WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ pdR i j m þ bn im jn ij ;

where p ¼ 1 if i ¼ j ¼ 1 or i ¼ j ¼ 6 (p ¼ 0 otherwise). Model A2. Model A1 + Latino endogamy WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ pdR i j m þ bn im jn ij ;

where p ¼ 1 if i ¼ j ¼ 1, i ¼ j ¼ 6, or i ¼ j and i 6¼ 1 and i 6¼ 6 (p ¼ 0 otherwise). Model A3. Model A2 + Latino national-origin endogamy WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ pdR i j m þ bn im jn ij ;

where p ¼ 1 if i ¼ j ¼ 1, i ¼ j ¼ 6, (i ¼ j ¼ 2 or i ¼ j ¼ 7), (i ¼ j ¼ 3 or i ¼ j ¼ 8), (i ¼ j ¼ 4 or i ¼ j ¼ 9), or (i ¼ j ¼ 5 or i ¼ j ¼ 10) (p ¼ 0 otherwise). Model A4. Model A3 + Latino same-race race-specific national-origin endogamy WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ pdR i j m þ bn im jn ij ;

where p ¼ 1 if i ¼ j (p ¼ 0 otherwise). Model A5. Model A4 + Latino mixed-race national-origin endogamy WN M log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ pdR i j m þ bn im jn ij þ qkij ;

where q ¼ 1 if (i ¼ 2 and j ¼ 7, or i ¼ 7 and j ¼ 2), (i ¼ 3 and j ¼ 8, or i ¼ 8 and j ¼ 3), (i ¼ 4 and j ¼ 9, or i ¼ 9 and j ¼ 4), or (i ¼ 5 and j ¼ 10, or i ¼ 10 and j ¼ 5 (q ¼ 0 otherwise). Model A6. Model A5 + native-born endogamy and mixed-nativity endogamy WN M N log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ pdR i j m þ bn im jn ij þ qkij þ rmmn ;

where r ¼ 1 if (m ¼ n ¼ 0) or (m ¼ 1, n ¼ 0, and i 6¼ 1, or m ¼ 0, n ¼ 1, and j 6¼ 1) (r ¼ 0 otherwise). Model A7. Model A6 + interactions between national-origin and racial parameters and nativity parameters WN M log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ ðpdR i j m þ bn im jn ij þ qkij Þ


rmNmn ; Model B1. Baseline Model + national-origin and racial quasi-symmetry WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ ssSij ; i j m þ bn im jn

where s ¼ 1 if ij ¼ ji and i 6¼ j (else s ¼ 0).

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

245

Model B2. Model B1 + nativity WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ ssSij þ rmNmn ; i j m þ bn im jn

Model B3. Model B2 + interactions between national-origin and racial quasi-symmetry and nativity parameters WN log Fijmn ¼ b0 þ bHR þ bWR þ bHN þ bHRN þ bWRN þ ssSij
rmNmn : i j m þ bn im jn

References Alba, R.D., 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. Yale University Press, New Haven. Anderson, R.N., Saenz, R., 1994. Structural determinants of mexican american intermarriage, 1975–1980. Social Science Quarterly 75, 414–430. Barringer, H.R., Gardner, R.W., Levin, M.J., 1993. Asians Pacific Islanders in the United States. Russell Sage Foundations, New York. Bean, F.D., Tienda, M., 1987. The Hispanic Population of the United States. Russell Sage Foundations, New York. Blackwell, D.L., Lichter, D.T., 2000. Mate selection among married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues 21, 275–302. Blau, P.M., 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. Free Press, New York. Bonilla, E.S., 1961. Social structure and race relations. Social Forces 40, 141–148. D avila, A., Mora, M.T., 2001. The marital status of recent immigrants in the United States in 1980 and 1990. International Migration Review 35, 506–524. del Pinal, J., Singer, A., 1997. Generations of diversity: Latinos in the United States. Population Bulletin 52. Denton, N.A., Massey, D.S., 1989. Racial identity among Caribbean Hispanics: the effect of double minority status on residential segregation. American Sociological Review 54, 790–808. DiMaggio, P., Mohr, J., 1985. Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology 90, 1231–1261. Edmonston, B., Passel, J.S., 1999. How immigration and intermarriage affect the racial and ethnic composition on the U.S. Population. In: Bean, F.D., Bell-Rose, S. (Eds.), Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity and Employment in the United States. Russell Sage Foundations, New York, pp. 373–414. Eschbach, K., 1995. The enduring and vanishing American Indian: American Indian population growth and intermarriage in 1990. Ethnic and Racial Studies 18, 89–108. Fu, V.K., 2001. Racial intermarriage pairings. Demography 38, 147–159. Gilbertson, G.A., Fitzpatrick, J.P., Yang, L., 1996. Hispanic intermarriage in New York city: new evidence from 1991. International Migration Review 30, 445–459. Gordon, M.W., 1950. Cultural aspects of Puerto RicoÕs race problem. American Sociological Review 15, 382–392. Gordon, M.M., 1964. Assimilation in American Life. Oxford University Press, New York. Graham, R., 1990. Introduction. In: Graham, R. (Ed.), The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 1–5. Grieco, E.M., Cassidy, R.C., 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Gurak, D.T., 1987. Family formation and marital selectivity among Colombian and Dominican immigrants in New York city. International Migration Review 21, 275–295. Gurak, D.T., Fitzpatrick, J.P., 1982. Intermarriage among Hispanic ethnic groups in New York City. American Journal of Sociology 87, 921–934.

246

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

Helg, A., 1990. Race in Agentina and Cuba 1880–1930. In: Graham, R. (Ed.), The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 37–69. Jacobs, J.A., Furstenberg Jr., F.F., 1986. Changing places: conjugal careers and womenÕs marital mobility. Social Forces 64, 714–732. Johnson, R.A., 1980. Religious assortative marriage in the United States. Academic Press, New York. Jorge, A., 1979. The black Puerto Rican woman in contemporary American society. In: Acosta-Belen, E. (Ed.), The Puerto Rican Woman. Praeger, New York, pp. 134–141. Kalmijn, M., 1991a. Shifting boundaries: trends in religious and educational homogamy. American Sociological Review 56, 786–800. Kalmijn, M., 1991b. Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 97, 496–523. Kalmijn, M., 1993. Trends in black/white intermarriage. Social Forces 72, 119–146. Kalmijn, M., 1998. Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 395–421. Kitano, H.H.L., Yeung, W.-T., Chai, L., Hatanaka, H., 1984. Asian–American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46, 179–190. Knight, F.W., 1974. Slavery, race and social structure in Cuba during the nineteenth century. In: Toplin, R.B. (Ed.), Slavery and Race Relations in Latin America. Greenwood, Westport, CT, pp. 204–227. Knight, A., 1990. Racism revolution and indigenismo: Mexico, 1910–1940. In: Graham, R. (Ed.), The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 71–113. Landale, N.S., 1994. Migration and the Latino family: the union formation behavior of Puerto Rican women. Demography 31, 133–158. Lieberson, S., 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lopez, D., Espiritu, Y., 1990. Panethnicity in the United States: a theoretical framework. Ethnic and Racial Studies 13, 198–224. Lopez, D.E., Popkin, E., Telles, E., 1996. Central Americans: at the bottom, struggling to get ahead. In: Waldinger, R., Bozorgmehr, M. (Eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles. Russell Sage Foundations, New York, pp. 279–304. Mare, R.D., 1991. Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review 56, 15– 32. Massey, D.S., 1995. The new immigration and ethnicity in the United States. Population and Development Review 21, 631–652. Massey, D.S., Denton, N.A., 1992. Racial identity and the spatial assimilation of Mexicans in the United States. Social Science Research 21, 235–260. Menjivar, C., 2000. Fragmented Ties: Salvadoran Immigrant Networks in America. University of California Press, Berkeley. Merton, R.K., 1941. Intermarriage and the social structure: fact and theory. Psychiatry 4, 361–374. Omi, M., Winant, H., 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. Routledge, New York. Ortiz, V., 1996. The Mexican-origin population: permanent working class of emerging middle class. In: Waldinger, R., Bozorgmehr, M. (Eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles. Russell Sage Foundations, New York, pp. 247–277. Padilla, F.M., 1987. Puerto Rican Chicago. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. Pagnini, D.L., Morgan, S.P., 1990. Intermarriage and social distance among U.S. immigrants at the turn of the century. American Journal of Sociology 96, 405–432. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W., 1969. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. 1921 Reprint. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Porterfield, E., 1982. Black-American intermarriage in the United States. Marriage and Family Review 5, 17–34. Portes, A., 1984. The rise of ethnicity: determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami. American Sociological Review 49, 387–397. Portes, A., Bach, R., 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Z. Qian, J.A. Cobas / Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247

247

Portes, A., Rumbaut, R.G., 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. University of California Press, Berkeley. Portes, A., Zhou, M., 1992. Gaining the upper hand: economic mobility among immigrant and domestic minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15, 491–522. Qian, Z., 1997. Breaking the racial barriers: variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990. Demography 34, 478–500. Qian, Z., Lichter, D.T., 2001. Measuring marital assimilation: intermarriage among natives and immigrants. Social Science Research 30, 289–312. Raftery, A.E., 1986. Choosing models for cross-classifications. American Sociological Review 51, 145–146. Repak, T.A., 1995. Waiting on Washington: Central American workers in the NationÕs Capital. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Riding, A., 1985. Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans. Knopf, New York. Rodriguez, C.E., 1992. Race, culture, and Latino ÔothernessÕ in the 1980 census. Social Science Quarterly 73, 930–937. Rosenfeld, M.J., 2001. The salience of Pan-National Hispanic and Asian identities in U.S. marriage markets. Demography 38, 161–175. Rosenfeld, M.J., 2002. Measures of Assimilation in the Marriage Market: Mexican Americans 1970–1990. Journal of Marriage and the Family 64, 152–162. Sandefur, G.D., Trudy, M., 1986. American Indian intermarriage. Social Science Research 15, 347–371. Telles, E.E., Murguia, E., 1990. Phenotypic discrimination and income differences among Mexican Americans. Social Science Quarterly 71, 682–696. United Nations Statistics Division, 2000. The WorldÕs Women 2000: Trends and Statistics. United Nations Publications, New York. Wallace, S.P., 1989. The new urban Latinos: Central Americans in a Mexican immigrant environment. Urban Affairs Quartely 25, 239–264. Waters, M.C., 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Russell Sage Foundations, New York.