ABSTRACT mostly White couples, and less is€¦ · Interracial Relationships Benefit Both Partners:...

1

THE CASE FOR INTERRACIAL UNIONS?

INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DEPRESSION

Jaclyn S. Wong, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago

Andrew M. Penner, Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine

ABSTRACT

Previous research shows that partnered individuals are happier and enjoy greater levels of

psychological well-being than single individuals. However, most research examining the

benefits of partnering relies on data from intra-racial – mostly White – couples, and less is

known about the emotional health outcomes of individuals in interracial partnerships. This study

uses fixed effects regression to examine depressive symptoms among those transitioning into

same-race and interracial relationships in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult

Health (Add Health). We estimate models separately by gender and race, and find that although

Whites in same-race relationships enjoy the psychological health benefits traditionally associated

with union formation, a more complex pattern characterizes these benefits for Blacks, other non-

Whites, and those in interracial relationships. These findings suggest that though Americans

enter increasingly diverse romantic relationships, union formation might not equally benefit all.

Key Words: cohabitation, marriage, depression, family formation, multiracial families

2

INTRODUCTION

Scholars have found numerous benefits associated with being married and romantically

partnered (cf. Ross, 1995; Simon & Barrett, 2010; Waite & Gallagher, 2001). In particular,

research shows that partnered individuals are happier and enjoy greater levels of psychological

well-being than unmarried individuals (Coombs, 1991; Ross, 1995; Waite & Gallagher, 2001;

Wood, Goesling, & Avellar, 2007). However, most research examining the benefits of

partnership is based on data from intra-racial couples – and more specifically, White couples –

and less is known about the emotional health outcomes of individuals in interracial partnerships

(but see Bratter & Esbach, 2006), even as interracial unions are becoming increasingly common

in American society.

Even though a voluminous literature considers the reasons why people choose to enter

into interracial relationships, and the demographic characteristics of the people who do (e.g.,

Hou & Myles, 2013; Qian & Lichter, 2011), few studies examine whether the emotional benefits

traditionally associated with union formation accrue equally to individuals in interracial

marriages. Given that partners generally provide emotional and social support to each other

(Waite & Gallagher, 2001), one might expect widespread psychosocial benefits. However, given

the history of anti-miscegenation laws and norms against interracial marriage (Fryer, Jr., 2007;

Qian, 1999), one may also expect that members of interracial couples could be stigmatized, so

that they might even have worse outcomes than their single counterparts. It is also possible that

the effects of interracial marriage vary within the couple: interracial marriage may be beneficial

(or disadvantageous) for one partner but not the other, depending on each partner’s race and

gender.

3

The current study seeks to better understand the potentially heterogeneous relationship

between partnership formation and mental health outcomes by using fixed effects regression

models to examine depression among individuals transitioning into same-race and interracial

relationships. We examine these relationships among a nationally representative cohort of U.S.

young adults using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health).

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. date back to the British colonial era. Beginning in

the late 1700s individual states began to repeal these laws. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia

the U.S. Supreme Court declared all bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional, and rates of

interracial partnerships and marriages increased in the following decades. For example,

intermarriages increased from less than seven percent of all new marriages in 1980 to about 15

percent in 2010 (Pew Research Center, 2012). In 2010, interracial marriages accounted for 10%

of all current opposite-sex married couples, and 18% of current unmarried opposite-sex couples

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

The increasing rate of interracial partnerships has been interpreted as a reflection of

Americans’ greater acceptance of racial diversity, and decline in racism in U.S. society. Though

the number of interracial unions has traditionally served as a marker for racial tolerance (Lee &

Bean, 2010; Yancey & Lewis, 2009), we suggest that assessing the outcomes of racially

exogamous couples provides additional insight into race relations in the U.S. In proceeding, we

discuss the theories and evidence informing our expectations of whether the emotional health of

individuals in interracial partnerships will be better or worse than that of being single.

Interracial Relationships Benefit Both Partners: Partnership as a Resource

4

The resource model of marriage and partnership (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2001) suggests

that being partnered is linked to better psychological health because it brings material and

emotional resources to the dyad. Partnered individuals tend to have greater financial resources,

which can reduce their exposure to risks and stressors, and also increase their ability to weather

adverse events. Additionally, partnered individuals are more likely to have a companion and a

confidant who is concerned with their well-being than single individuals. Having a partner who

listens to problems and offers advice reduces stress and supports psychological health (Thoits,

2011). According to the resource model, union formation benefits all individuals.

Consistent with this theoretical idea, a large body of empirical literature shows that

partnered individuals have better mental health than single individuals (Lamb, Lee, & DeMaris,

2003). Partnered individuals are happier (Easterlin, 2003; Musick & Bumpass, 2012), less

anxious (DeKlyen, Brooks-Gunn, McLanahan, & Knab, 2006), and less depressed (Musick &

Bumpass, 2012; Simon, 2002) than their single counterparts. Most of this work controls for race,

which implies that union formation benefits individuals regardless of their race. However, fewer

studies considers the race of one’s partner so it is unclear how having a partner of the same or of

a different race might matter. Nevertheless, based on the resource model, we hypothesize that:

H1. Being partnered is associated with fewer depressive symptoms relative to being

single, regardless of the couple’s racial composition

Interracial Relationships Disadvantage Both Partners: Homogamy Hypothesis

Though the resource model predicts that all individuals will benefit from union

formation, other theories suggest otherwise. The homogamy hypothesis posits that individuals

tend to choose romantic partners like themselves (Kalmijn, 1998; Rosenfeld, 2005), and when

couples are not matched in educational attainment, religion, or other important status

5

characteristics, conflicts are more likely to occur and can result in psychological distress (Joyner

& Kao, 2005; Pasley, Kerpelman, & Gilbert, 2001).

Indeed, empirical research suggests that greater similarity between partners is associated

with better relationship quality (Luo & Klohnen, 2005), higher levels of relationship satisfaction,

and lower levels of negative affect (Gaunt, 2006), all of which support psychological well-being

(see Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007, for a meta-analysis). Conversely, dissimilar partners face

more conflict and have lower relationship quality (Pasley, Kerpelman, & Gilbert, 2001), and are

more likely to dissolve than better-matched couples (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Joyner & Kao,

2005). Thus, there is reason to believe that racially dissimilar partners may report higher levels

of psychological distress than when they were single, and compared to their counterparts in

same-race relationships. According to the homogamy perspective, then, we hypothesize:

H2. Being interracially partnered is associated with more depressive symptoms relative

to being single, or being partnered with someone of the same race

Interracial Relationships Affect Each Partner Differently: “His” and “Her” Marriages Theory

and the Critical Race Feminist Perspective

The benefits and disadvantages associated with interracial relationships may also differ

depending on the characteristics of each individual in the union. For example, the theory of

“his” and “her” marriages (Bernard, 1972; Gove 1972) suggests that the psychological benefits

of partnering vary by gender because men and women occupy different relationship roles. This

theory posits that women are more likely to assume the frustrating and devalued roles in a

relationship, and thus benefit emotionally from union formation less than men do. In support of

this hypothesis, research from the 2000s finds that, even though men and women’s relationship

roles have changed, partnered men continue to experience increases in emotional well-being, but

6

partnered women’s increase in psychological health is less pronounced (Simon & Barrett, 2010;

Williams, 2003). The theory of his and her marriages, then, suggests that women’s emotional

well-being will benefit less from union formation than that of men, regardless of the racial

composition of the couple. We hypothesize:

H3. For men but not women, being partnered is associated with fewer depressive

symptoms relative to being single, regardless of the couple’s racial composition

Lastly, the critical race feminist perspective that draws on theories of intersectionality

(Collins, 2000; Crenshaw et al., 1995) suggests that gender interacts with race to produce

variations in the association between partnership status and psychological well-being. This

perspective posits that examining race and gender together is imperative for understanding

individual mental health outcomes in romantic relationships. Status exchange theory (Davis,

1941; Merton, 1941) offers a useful starting point to make gender-and-race-specific predictions.

Exchange theory posits that White women of low socioeconomic status (SES) may trade their

racial status for the earnings of high-SES Black partners. According to this model, White

women gain from their Black partners’ financial assets, and Black men gain from their White

partners’ racial status (Hou & Myles, 2013). As this exchange improves the status of both

partners of an interracial union, it is plausible that both might subsequently experience increases

in psychological well-being.

However, given the salience of race in the contemporary U.S. we theorize that the loss of

racial status associated with interracial partnering results in worse psychological health for White

women. High-SES Black men partnering with low-SES White women gain racial status at the

expense of SES, but these losses may not be consequential – it is relatively common in the

United States for high-SES men to partner with low-SES women (Esteve, Garcia-Roman, &

7

Permanyer, 2012; Schoen & Cheng, 2006). Therefore, compared to an intra-racial partnership or

being single, an interracial partnership may not affect declines in psychological health. Research

from the 2000s offers preliminary empirical support for our proposition (Bratter & Esbach, 2006;

Kroeger & Williams, 2011). Bratter and Esbach (2006), for example, found that interracial

marriages are associated with increases in distress for White women, but not for Black men.

Black men, as well as Black women, do not appear to experience changes in distress when they

marry interracially.

In sum, the critical race feminist perspective suggests that the benefits associated with

partnering may depend on the race and the gender of the individual in the partnership.

Specifically, interracial relationships might be a disadvantage for White women, but might not

matter for the mental health of Black men and women, leading us to posit that:

H4. For White women, being interracially partnered is associated with more depressive

symptoms relative to being single, or being partnered with someone of the same race

H5. For Black respondents, being interracially partnered is not associated with depressive

symptoms relative to being single, or being partnered with another Black individual

Because status exchange theory does not offer any insights about couples of other racial

combinations (e.g., Asian and White), we do not formulate specific hypotheses for other races.

In testing these hypotheses, we replicate previous work examining the outcomes

associated with interracial relationships (Bratter & Esbach 2006, Kroeger & Williams, 2011).

We also extend previous findings by using fixed-effect models. This method allows us to better

account for baseline levels of depression and selection into interracial relationships by

controlling for all time-invariant characteristics of an individual.

DATA

8

To examine the relationship between interracial unions and psychological well-being, we

use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Add

Health is a nationally representative, longitudinal study of nearly 20,000 adolescents in grades 7-

12 in the 1994-95 school year in the United States. The study participants were re-interviewed in

1996, 2000-01, and most recently in 2007-08, at which time the respondents were aged 24-32

and settling into adult roles. Our analyses use data from Waves 3 and 4, when respondents were

aged 18-26 and 24-32, respectively, and had begun establishing romantic partnerships and

transitioning into marriages and cohabitations.

Our analytic sample includes respondents who are single, married, or cohabiting with a

partner in each wave. We chose to exclude those in dating relationships, those who report a

pregnancy without marriage or cohabitation, and those in multiple concurrent relationships to

focus on the psychological benefits associated with intra- and interracial marriages and

cohabiting relationships compared to being single. These restrictions leave 6,640 respondents

who had complete information on all key variables in both waves.

The outcome variable of interest is depression, which is measured by a 9-item version of

the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale (Radloff, 1977). Respondents

were asked, “How often was each of the following things true during the past seven days:”

1. “You were bothered by things that don’t usually bother you”

2. “You could not shake off the blues, even with help from your family and your friends”

3. “You felt you were just as good as other people”

4. “You had trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing”

5. “You felt depressed”

6. “You felt that you were too tired to do things”

9

7. “You enjoyed life”

8. “You felt sad”

9. “You felt that people disliked you”

Responses ranged from 0 (never or rarely) to 3 (most of the time or all of the time).

Items 3 and 7 were reverse coded. Summing the answers produces the respondent’s score on the

Add Health CES-D scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 27, and higher scores indicate a greater

burden of depressive symptoms. Descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the average CES-D

score in the sample is 4.43 in Wave 3 and 5.10 in Wave 4. In both waves, the average CES-D

score is lowest among those married to someone of the same race (4.26 in Wave 3 and 4.80 in

Wave 4). In Wave 3, the highest average CES-D score is seen in those married interracially

(4.84), but in Wave 4, single respondents have the highest average CES-D score (5.55).

[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

The key predictor variable, which we call “relationship type,” was constructed using

respondents’ self-reported race from Wave 3 and the rich relationship data available in Waves 3

and 4. In the Wave 3 interview, respondents were first asked whether they were Hispanic, and

then asked whether they identified with any of the following racial groups: White, Black, Native

American, or Asian. Respondents reporting multiple race categories were asked to choose one

race that best described their racial background. With these data, we constructed a race variable

for respondents with five mutually exclusive categories: Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Native American, Asian, and Hispanic.

Then, respondents reported on their relationships. In each wave, respondents indicated

whether their current relationship was a marriage, a cohabitation, or something else.

Respondents also identified their partners’ racial and ethnic background. They were first asked

10

whether their partner was Hispanic, and then asked to select one race to describe their partners’

background. Respondents could choose White, Black, Asian, Native American, or Other.

Because respondents who indicated their partners’ ethnicity was Hispanic often proceeded to

indicate their partners’ race was “Other,” we constructed a similar race variable for partners

containing the same mutually exclusive categories of Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black,

Asian, Native American, and Hispanic.

Using this combination of information we categorized each respondent’s relationship as

interracial if his or her race differed from that of his or her partner. For example, a Non-Hispanic

Black respondent is in an interracial relationship if her partner is Non-Hispanic White, Hispanic,

Asian, or Native American. The final relationship type variable has three categories indicating

whether a respondent was single, in a same-race marriage or cohabiting relationship, or in an

interracial marriage or cohabiting relationship, at each interview wave. Although cohabitation

possibly differs from legal marriage in its level of perceived stability (Smock, 2000), and

differences in perceived union stability could have an effect on discrimination and psychological

well-being (Brown, 2000), we found similar patterns when comparing marriages and

cohabitations separately (results available upon request). Given this result, we combined these

different relationship types to allow us to better estimate differences across racial groups. In

Wave 3, 67.6% of the sample was single, 27.7% was in a same-race relationship, and 4.7% was

in an interracial relationship. In Wave 4, 35% of respondents were single, 55.4% were in a

same-race relationship, and 9.6% were in an interracial relationship (see Table 1).

Finally, all regression models include controls for age and education. Respondents were

on average 22-years-old in Wave 3, and 29-years-old in Wave 4. Most respondents reported

having completed high school (31.6%) or some college (42.1%) in Wave 3. In Wave 4, 36.6%

11

of respondents had completed some college, and over a quarter of respondents had finished

college (27.5%).

METHODS

Taking advantage of the longitudinal nature of the data, we use fixed effects regression to

model the relationship between interracial partnership formation and depression. Fixed effects

regression accounts for each person’s baseline levels of depressive symptoms, as well as his or

her propensity to form intra- and interracial partnerships. These analyses allow us to compare

individuals to themselves when they were single, to see for example, whether respondents who

enter same-race or interracial partnerships experience greater changes in depressive symptoms.

We estimate a set of three regression models for this study: one for all respondents, one

for male respondents, and one for female respondents. We separate the analyses by gender to

examine how the emotional health outcomes associated with interracial marriage might vary by

gender (Bernard, 1972; Gove 1972; Williams, 2003). We also estimate this set of models

separately for White, Black, and Asian respondents to examine whether the effect of forming an

interracial relationship on depression differs by race (Bratter & Esbach, 2006; Kroeger &

Williams, 2011). We omit results for Native American respondents due to small sample size.

We also omit the results for Hispanic respondents because they were sensitive to category

definition – classifying all respondents who reported that they were Hispanic, regardless of race,

as Hispanic, or restricting the Hispanic category to include only non-White Hispanics (either by

excluding White Hispanics from analyses or including them as White), yields a different pattern

of results. These results are available upon request.

We supplement these regression models by interacting gender with relationship type, and

race with relationship type, to identify statistically significant differences in the effect of

12

relationship type on depression across gender and racial groups. In addition to testing whether

respondents in interracial partnerships differ from their single counterparts in the number of

depressive symptoms they report, we also test whether the effect of being in an interracial union

differs from being in a racially endogamous one in each model.

To add nuance to our analysis of interracial relationships, we model changes in

depression scores among individuals transitioning into Black-White relationships (N=2607) and

Asian-White relationships (N=2403). These regressions allow us to begin identifying whether

forming unions of specific race combinations is especially related to changes in depression.

Although we estimated these models for Hispanic-White relationships (N=2795), we do not

discuss the results because of the ambiguity in categorizing Hispanic respondents and partners.

We are unable to estimate models for couples of other race combinations (e.g., Black-Asian)

because of small sample size. Additionally, given the relatively small sample sizes in some of

the groups, many of the results discussed are not statistically significant, warranting caution in

interpreting them. We have highlighted points where the number of cases is particularly limiting.

Nevertheless, absence of evidence of a difference (p>0.05) is not the same as no difference (β=0)

(Altman & Bland, 1995), and given the limited data that exist on this question, our discussion of

the results focuses on the point estimates.

RESULTS

Our results are presented in Figures 1-6. Tables containing coefficients from the models

underlying these figures, as well as tests of gender and race interaction effects appear in the

appendix. To facilitate the interpretation of results, we rescale our figures so that large

coefficients correspond to better mental health (fewer depressive systems).

13

Figure 1 compares the direction and size of the coefficients for each relationship type

among all respondents, all men, and all women. The first set of bars shows that transitioning into

a same-race union (black bar) is associated with the greatest reduction in CES-D scores. On

average, individuals entering into a same-race marriage score 0.64 points lower on the CES-D

scale than when they were single. Transitioning into an interracial relationship is also associated

with reductions in depressive symptoms compared to being single, but the benefit is not as great

as it is for entering a same-race partnership (grey bar). Those who enter an interracial union

show a 0.24-point reduction in CES-D score. This pattern suggests that forming an interracial

relationship may provide some, but not all, of the benefits associated with entering a same-race

partnership. It is also possible that transitioning into an interracial union confers the same

benefits to partners as same-race relationships do, but also include some disadvantages that

same-race partners do not face, which in turn results in a smaller net positive effect on emotional

health for interracial couples.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

This general pattern holds for men (the second set of bars in Figure 1), with CES-D

scores falling by 0.68 points for men who form a same-race relationship, and scores falling 0.45

points for those who form an interracial union. Looking across genders, forming interracial

partnerships might be more advantageous for men than women. Among women (third set of

bars), only forming a same-race union is associated with reductions in depressive symptoms

(0.63 points). The effect of transitioning into an interracial union is small (0.08 points).

Although the gender X relationship type interaction effect if not statistically significant (p=.45),

these results are suggestive of gender differences in the benefits associated with entering an

14

interracial relationship: men may benefit more from entering an interracial partnership than

women.

Wald tests show marginally statistically significant differences between the coefficients

on same-race unions and interracial partnerships among all respondents (p=.10), and among

female respondents (p=.09). These tests are suggestive of a difference between the effect of

forming an interracial union, and that of entering a same-race union, on CES-D scores. Taken

together, the results in Figure 1 provide support for our hypothesis that partnered respondents

will have fewer depressive symptoms than single respondents (H1). However, we add nuance to

this general pattern by showing that whereas those who transition into an interracial relationship

appear to experience some psychological benefits compared to being single, they appear not to

benefit as much as those who form intra-racial partnerships (H2). Consistent with our third

hypothesis, the data are suggestive of gender differences in the psychological benefits associated

with marriage, with women benefitting less from interracial marriage than men.

Figure 2 displays the results for White respondents only. Among all White respondents

(first set of bars), transitioning into a relationship with a White partner is associated with the

greatest benefits (black bar), though entering an interracial relationship also appears to provide

some advantages relative to remaining single (grey bar). White respondents who form a

relationship with a White partner score 0.72 points lower on the CES-D scale than being single,

and White respondents who transition into interracial marriages or interracial cohabitations show

a 0.35-point reduction in CES-D scores.


The second set of bars shows that for White men, transitioning into a same-race union is

associated with smaller reductions in depressive symptoms than among White respondents

15

overall (β=-0.61), but forming an interracial partnership is associated with greater reductions in

CES-D score (β=-0.44) than among all Whites. Among White women (third set of bars),

transitioning into a relationship with a White partner appears especially beneficial for depressive

symptoms: forming a same-race partnership is associated with a 0.86-point decrease in CES-D

scores. The effect of entering an interracial marriage for White women is similar to that of the

whole sample of White respondents (β=0.32).

As Wald tests comparing the coefficients for each relationship type show no significant

differences across same-race or interracial relationships, we cannot conclude that entering a

same-race relationship is different than entering an interracial one for depression scores among

White respondents. Given that our race-specific samples are smaller than that for the whole

sample (Figure 1), this null finding is perhaps not surprising.

In sum, these results for White respondents support our hypothesis that partnered

respondents have fewer depressive symptoms than when they were single (H1). However, these

findings do not support our hypothesis that those in interracial partnerships have worse

depressive symptoms than when they were single (H2), nor do these findings suggest gender

differences in psychological health benefits associated with union formation (H3). Specifically,

we do not find that White women who form interracial relationships have more depressive

symptoms than when they were single (H4): White women may not benefit as much from

having non-White spouses, but they do not have worse psychological health than they did when

they were single.

We present the results for Black respondents in Figure 3. The first set of bars shows that

forming a same-race partnership is associated with better emotional health relative to being

single (black bar), but forming an interracial relationship is related to worse psychological health

16

(grey bar). Black respondents who partner with other Blacks show a 0.62-point reduction in

CES-D scores, and those who form relationships with non-Black partners show a 0.67-point

increase in depression scores. However, the effect of forming a same-race relationship is only

marginally significant (p=.07), and the effect of forming an interracial relationship is not

statistically significant (p=.27). This lack of a significant difference is congruent with our

hypothesis that Black respondents in any type of relationship are not different from their single

counterparts (H5), but the magnitude of the differences suggests that additional work with larger

samples would potentially be helpful.


The second and third set of bars examine this association for Black men and Black

women, respectively. Forming same-race relationships appears beneficial for Black men:

transitioning into a same-race partnership is associated with a 1.48-point reduction in CES-D

score relative to being single. However, forming interracial unions is associated with increased

CES-D scores (β=0.69). Wald tests confirm that Black men who form unions with Black

partners have better psychological health than their counterparts who enter interracial

relationships (see Appendix Table A1). Thus, entering a same-race relationship seems to be

especially beneficial for Black men’s mental health. In contrast, same-race union formation

seems to benefit Black women less: for Black women, the effect of entering a same-race union

is smaller than the effect for Black men (β=-0.15), and an interaction effect suggests this gender

difference is marginally statistically significant (p=0.08; see Appendix Table A2). Interestingly,

the effect of entering an interracial relationship is associated with smaller increases in depressive

symptoms for Black women than for Black men (β=0.28), though gender differences here are not

statistically significant.

17

The findings for Black respondents suggest that the relationship between union formation

and emotional health has a different, more complicated pattern among Black respondents

compared to White respondents. Black men appear to benefit more from same race relationships

than black women, and neither Black men nor Black women benefit from interracial partnering,

though the negative effect of interracial union formation may be smaller for Black women.

Although models interacting relationship type with race produce few statistically significant

effects (Appendix Table A3), we do find two notable patterns. First, we find a marginally

statistically significant difference in the effect of transitioning into an interracial relationship for

Black men: compared to the small emotional benefit among White men who enter an interracial

union (β=-0.42), Black men who form a relationship with a non-Black partner experience 1.04-

point increases in CES-D score (-0.42+1.46=1.04). Second, we find a significant interaction

between same-race union formation and race among female respondents: whereas entering a

same-race relationship decreases CES-D scores for White women (β=-0.85), entering a same-

race partnership does not offer the same magnitude of benefit for Black women (-

0.85+0.80=0.05). These results provide preliminary support for the critical race feminist

perspective that the effects of marriage and partnership differ by race and gender.

In sum, entering a romantic union does not seem to provide psychological health benefits

to Black respondents in the same way that it does for White respondents. This finding

contradicts our first hypothesis that marriage confers psychological health benefits to all who

form these relationships. We also find some evidence that Blacks who enter interracial

partnerships fare worse than their counterparts who form same-race unions (H2), and some

evidence that this association varies by race and gender (H3-H5). However, given the relatively

small samples, it is important to interpret these results with caution.

18

Next we briefly discuss our findings for Asian respondents in Figure 4. Among all Asian

respondents, we find that entering same-race unions is associated with greater reductions in CES-

D symptoms (black bar), and entering interracial ones is related to increases in depression (grey

bar). In contrast to other groups here, we see little evidence of gender differences. Entering a

same-race relationship is associated with a 0.78-point reduction in CES-D score among all Asian

respondents, a 0.76-point reduction for Asian men, and a 0.59-point reduction for Asian women.

In contrast, forming a same-race partnership is associated with a 0.45-point increase in

depressive symptoms scores for all Asian respondents, a 1.07-point increase for Asian men, and

a 0.34-point increase for Asian women. Again, we caution that none of the coefficients reach

statistical significance so these results should be interpreted carefully.


Up to this point we have discussed depression outcomes among respondents transitioning

into interracial relationships without examining whether the specific racial combination of the

couple matters. Figure 5 presents results for White-Black couples. These models compare the

change in CES-D score for White respondents who form relationships with White partners,

Black respondents who form relationships with Black partners, White respondents who form

relationships with Black partners, and Black respondents who form relationships with White

respondents (see Appendix Table A4 for coefficients).

The first set of bars shows that those who form a same-race relationship – White

respondents who partner with other Whites, and Black respondents who partner with other

Blacks – show reductions in depressive symptoms compared to when they were single. White

respondents who partner with other Whites show a 0.76-point reduction in CES-D scores, and

Black respondents who form a relationship with other Blacks show a 0.92-point reduction.

19

White respondents who partner with Blacks experience few changes in psychological well-being

(β=-0.08). Black respondents who partner with Whites, however, show increases in

psychological distress. Transitioning into a relationship with a White partner is associated with a

3.41-point increase on the CES-D scale for Black respondents. Additionally, Wald tests show

that this change in CES-D scores significantly differs from that among White respondents with

White partners, and from that among Black respondents with Black partners. In other words,

White respondents experience psychological benefits when they enter a relationship with a White

partner, and Black respondents benefit when they partner with other Blacks, but Black

respondents who partner with Whites do not receive the same benefits, reporting increased levels

of depressive symptoms.


The second and third set of bars in Figure 5 suggest some gender differences among

White-Black couples. White men benefit from partnering regardless of the race of their partner

(black and medium grey bars), but Black men only benefit from entering same-race relationships

(dark grey bar). Black men who partner with White women experience declines in emotional

health (light grey bar). This change in CES-D score is also statistically significantly different

from that of White and Black men who partner with someone of the same race. For women, on

the other hand, better psychological health appears only for White women who partner with

other Whites. White women who partner with Black men and Black women who partner with

someone of any race show little difference in depressive symptomology relative to when they

were single. To summarize, White men benefit from union formation regardless of the race of

their partner; Black men only benefit from unions with Black partners; White women only

20

benefit from relationships with White partners; and Black women do not benefit from union

formation.

Figure 6 displays results from an analysis of Asian-White couples. Similar to the figure

for Black-White couples, this figure compares changes in CES-D score among White

respondents who couple with White partners, Asian respondents who partner with other Asians,

White respondents who form a relationship with Asian partners, and Asian respondents who

enter a relationship with White partners. The first set of bars suggests that White and Asian

respondents who form relationships with White or Asian partners generally experience

reductions in depressive symptoms. Specifically, White respondents who partner with Whites

show a 0.74-point reduction in CES-D score; Asian respondents who form a same-race union

show a 0.14-point decrease in CES-D score; White respondents who transition into a relationship

with an Asian partner show a 0.70-point reduction in CES-D score; and Asian respondents who

partner with Whites experience a 0.34-point decrease in CES-D score.


The second and third set of bars suggest that the benefits associated with Asian-White

partnerships might be more nuanced when men and women are analyzed separately. The middle

set of bars shows that Asian men who partner with Whites may experience the greatest

reductions in depressive symptomology (β=-1.43), followed by White men who form a same-

race partnership (β=-0.54). White men who partner with Asians, on the other hand, show little

change in CES-D score (β=-0.06). It seems that for Asian and White men, partnering with a

White woman is associated with better psychological health. Turning to the last set of bars,

White women who enter a relationship with an Asian partner show a 2.6-point decrease in CES-

D score, and those who form a relationship with a White partner show a 1.01-point reduction in

21

CES-D score. Asian women show little change in depressive symptoms regardless of whether

they couple with Whites (β=0.07) or Asians (β=0.08). Contrary to our hypothesis that White

women in interracial relationships would show more depressive symptoms (H4), these results

suggest that not only do White women benefit psychologically from union formation in general,

but they benefit especially from partnering with Asians.

DISCUSSION

Taken together, we find that individuals who form same-race relationships have lower

levels of depressive symptomology than when they were single, which is consistent with

previous research (Coombs, 1991; Waite & Gallagher, 2001; Simon, 2002; Wood, Goesling, &

Avellar, 2007; Musick & Bumpass, 2012). We also find that in general those who form

interracial partnerships have fewer symptoms of depression, but that their reductions in CES-D

scores are not as great as among those who form same-race relationships. These results are

consistent with our first hypothesis that being partnered is associated with fewer depressive

symptoms relative to being single, regardless of the couple’s racial composition, and our second

hypothesis that being interracially partnered is associated with more depressive symptoms

relative to being partnered intra-racially. We might see such a pattern because forming an

interracial relationship may provide some, but not all, of the psychological health benefits

associated with entering same-race partnerships. Another explanation for this finding is that

entering an interracial union confers the same benefits to partners as entering a same-race

relationship does, but also includes some disadvantages that same-race partners do not face. The

simultaneous advantages and disadvantages in turn, might result in a smaller net positive effects

on emotional health for interracial couples. For example, the psychological stresses of

22

discrimination and racism might “spill over” into racial and ethnic minorities’ relationships and

weaken any emotional benefits generally associated with partnership (Lincoln & Chae, 2010).

There are also some gender and race differences in the association between union

formation and emotional well-being. Overall, men benefit from union formation regardless of

the race of their partner, which is consistent with our third hypothesis. However, this general

pattern becomes more varied when examining men in different racial categories. White men

experience some decreases in depression when they enter any type of relationship compared to

being single, but Black and Asian men show better psychological health only when they form

same-race relationships. Black and Asian men show increases in depressive symptoms when

they enter interracial unions. The psychological benefits of partnership are even more varied

among women. White women experience better psychological health when they partner with

other Whites, and, contrary to H4, show some decrease in depressive symptoms when they

partner interracially. Asian women show some improvements in psychological health when they

form a relationship with other Asians, but experience little change in depressive symptoms when

they transition into an interracial union. Consistent with H5, Black women do not show any

changes associated with entering any kind of relationship. A possible explanation for the

variation in the association between union formation and psychological health among non-White

respondents – and Black women in particular – is that these individuals depend less on marriage

and cohabiting relationships for emotional support because they are more likely to draw on other

resources such as extended family and friends (Williams, Takeuchi, & Adair 1992).

These patterns become even more nuanced when we examine the specific race

combinations of these romantic relationships. One striking finding is that Black men who

partner with White women show increases in depressive symptomology whereas Asian men

23

show better psychological health when they do the same. This pattern for Asian men is actually

the opposite of what we found for Asian men who partner interracially, suggesting that Asian

men benefit from partnering with White women, but not from partnering with non-Asians from

other groups. We found a similarly contradictory pattern among White women. On average

White women who partner interracially show some improvement in psychological health, but

they show little change in depressive symptoms when they partner with Black men, and

experience relatively large reductions in distress when they partner with Asian men. These

patterns suggest that specifying the race of each partner matters when we talk about interracial

relationships and depression.

The present study has several implications for theoretical models of union formation,

race, and psychological health. Our results suggest that the resource model of partnership (Waite

& Gallagher, 2001) might only apply to intra-racial couples. Forming a partnership does not

consistently confer psychological health benefits upon its entrants. This framework may have

been developed at a time in which interracial marriages were uncommon, so it can only reflect

the experiences of intra-racial couples. To better describe how marriage produces psychological

health, the resource model could emphasize variation in the kinds of resources partners bring to

the relationship, and consider the strains partners bring to the union.

We do find some support for the homogamy hypothesis. Although the association

between forming an interracial relationship and depression is inconsistent, we find that

transitioning into a same-race relationship is generally beneficial. This theory holds particularly

for White men and women, and less so for Black women.

Our study perhaps best demonstrates the usefulness of the critical race feminist

perspective, which argues for an explicit examination of the intersection of race and gender in

24

understanding social processes. We find that White men who form any type of union experience

better psychological health, but Black men may only benefit from entering same-race

relationships. Further, where White women benefit in particular from same-race marriage and

cohabitation, but also to a lesser extent from interracial relationships, Black women’s

psychological well-being is not strongly linked to marriage and union formation. Data

limitations prevent us from making strong conclusions about Asian respondents, but results

suggest that the link between union formation and psychological health varies by gender, and

depends on the characteristics of the partner.

This study is limited by small sample sizes that reduced statistical power, precluding

more definitive statements about the relationship between interracial partnering and

psychological health, and how this relationship might vary by race and gender. Further, we are

unable to test structural reasons that interracial couples might have worse emotional health. That

is, although people state global acceptance for interracial marriage, they less often prefer it for

themselves or their family members (Golebiowska, 2007; Herman & Campbell, 2012), so that

those in interracial couples might face discrimination in society. This discrimination could

increase depressive symptoms among those in interracial unions above and beyond the stress

normally encountered as a single person (Yancey, 2007; LeBlanc, Frost, & Wight, 2015). Future

research might fruitfully explore whether changes in relationship status are associated with

changes in social support from family members, friends, and others, which could in turn impact

depressive symptoms. Understanding the social context of interracial partnerships would

augment the resource model of marriage by providing information about the psychosocial

supports and burdens partners bring to a relationship.

25

In sum, our findings suggest that the experience of relationship formation differs by

gender, race, and whether the partnership is intra- or interracial. We find that the type of

relationship most clearly associated with psychological health benefits remains that between a

White man and a White woman. This pattern suggests that although Americans enter

increasingly diverse romantic relationships, union formation may not equally benefit all. On a

theoretical level, if romantic relationships do not always provide benefits to its participants,

using interracial unions to study racial tolerance and race relations may have limitations.

REFERENCES

Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1995). Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence. The British Medical Journal, 311, 485.

Bernard, J. (1972). The Future of Marriage. Yale University Press; New Haven, CT.

Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married

couples. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719–37.

Bratter, J. L., & Eschbach, K. (2006). “What about the couple?” Interracial marriage and

psychological distress. Social Science Research, 35, 1025-1047.

Brown, S. L. (2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among

cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 241-255.

Bumpass, L. & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family

contexts in the United States. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 54, 29-41,

DOI: 10.1080/713779060.

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of

empowerment. New York: Routledge

Coombs, R. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family

26

Relations, 40, 97-102.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Pellar, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory. New

York: New Press.

Davis, K. 1941. “Intermarriage in Caste Societies.” American Anthropologist 43:376–95.

DeKlyen, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., McLanahan, S., & Knab, J. (2006). The mental health of

married, cohabiting, and non-coresident parents with infants. American Journal of Public

Health, 96, 1836-1841.

Easterlin, R. A., (2003). Explaining happiness. PNAS, 100, 11176-11183.

Esteve, A., Garcia-Roman, J., & Permanyer, I. (2012). The gender-gap reversal in education and

its effect on union formation: The end of hypergamy? Population and Development

Review, 38, 535-546.

Fryer, Jr., R. G. (2007). Guess who's been coming to dinner? Trends in interracial marriage over

the 20th century. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 71-90

Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier?

Journal of Personality, 74, 1401-1420.

Golebiowska, E. A. (2007). The countours and etiology of Whites’ attitudes toward Black-White

interracial marriage. Journal of Black Studies, 38, 268-287.

Gove, W. R. (1972). The relationship between sex roles, marital status and mental illness. Social

Forces, 51, 34–44

Herman, M. R. & Campbell, M. E. (2012). I wouldn’t, but you can: Attitudes toward interracial

relationships. Social Science Research, 41, 343-358.

Hou, F. & Myles, J. (2013). Interracial marriage and status-caste exchange in Canada and the

United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36, 75-96.

27

Joyner, K., & Kao, G. (2005). Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood. American

Sociological Review, 70, 563–81.

Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of

Sociology, 24, 395–421.

Kroeger, R. A. & Williams, K. (2011). Consequences of black exceptionalism? Interracial unions

with blacks, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction. The Sociological

Quarterly, 52, 400-420.

Lamb, K. A., Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: Selection and

relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 953-962.

LeBlanc, A. J., Frost, D. M., & Wight, R. G. (2015). Minority stress and stress proliferation

among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77,

40-59. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12160.

Lee, J., & Bean, F. D. (2010). The diversity paradox: Immigration and the color line in 21st

century America. New York: Russell Sage.

Lincoln, K. D. & Chae, D. H. (2010). Stress, marital satisfaction, and psychological distress

among African Americans. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 1081–1105.

Luo, S. & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A

couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304-326.

Merton, R. 1941. “Intermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory.” Psychiatry: A

Journal of the Biology and the Pathology of Interpersonal Relations 4:361–74.

Musick, K. & Bumpass, L. (2012). Re-examining the case for marriage: union formation and

changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1-18.

Pasley, K., Kerpelman, J., & Gilbert, D. E. (2001). Gendered conflict, identity disruption, and

28

marital instability: Expanding Gottman’s model. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 18, 5-27.

Pew Research Center. (2012). The Rise of Intermarriage: Rates, Characteristics Vary by Race

and Gender. Washington, DC: Wendy Wang.

Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 576-593.

Qian, Z. (1999). Who intermarries? Education, nativity, region, and interracial marriage, 1980

and 1990. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 579-597

Qian, Z. & Lichter, D. T. (2011). Changing patterns of interracial marriage in a multiracial

society. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 1065-1084.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange theory in mate selection. American Journal of

Sociology, 110, 1284-1325.

Ross, C. E. (1995). Reconceptualizing marital status as a continuum of social attachment.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 129-1440.

Schoen, R. & Cheng, Y. A. (2006). Partner choice and the differential retreat from marriage.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00229.x.

Simon, R. W. (2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental

health. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1065-1095

Simon, R. W., & Barrett, A. E. (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health in

early adulthood: Does the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 51, 168-182.

29

Smock, P.J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: an appraisal of research, themes, findings,

and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1–20.

Thoits, Peggy A. 2011. Mechanisms Linking Social Ties and Support to Physical and Mental

Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 52(2): 145-161.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Households and families: 2010. (C2010BR-14). Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf.

Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2001). The Case for Marriage. New York City, NY: Doubleday,

Random House.

Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender,

marriage, and psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 470-

487. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018193/ 10 June

2015.

Williams, D. R., Takeuchi, D. T., & Adair, R. K. (1992). Marital status and psychiatric disorders

among Blacks and Whites. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 140-157.

Wood, R. G., Goesling, B., & Avellar S. (2007). The effects of marriage on health:

A synthesis of recent research evidence. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Yancey, G. (2007). Experiencing racism: Differences in the experiences of Whites married to

Blacks and Non-Black racial minorities. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 38, 197-

213. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41604142 10 June 2015.

Yancey, G., & Lewis, R. (2009). Interracial families: Current concepts and controversies. New

York: Routledge.

TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

30

Wave 3 Wave 4

% / Mean (SD) N % / Mean (SD) N

CES-D Score (0-27) 4.43 (3.9) 6640 5.10 (4.0) 6630

Single 4.48 (3.9) 4501 5.55 (4.0) 2331

Married or Cohabiting, Same Race 4.26 (3.9) 1925 4.80 (4.0) 3610

Married or Cohabiting, Interracial 4.84 (4.2) 390 5.21 (4.0) 699

Relationship Type

Single 67.6% 4501 35.0% 2331

Married or Cohabiting, Same Race 27.7% 1788 55.4% 3610

Married or Cohabiting, Interracial 4.7% 351 9.6% 699

Respondent Race

Non-Hispanic White 72.8% 4032 71.7% 4032

Non-Hispanic White 12.2% 1148 12.6% 1148

Native American 0.7% 51 0.8% 51

Asian 3.0% 393 3.1% 393

Hispanic 11.4% 1013 11.8% 1013

Female 53.1% 3752 51.9% 3752

Age 22 (1.7) 6640 29 (1.6) 6640

Education

Less than High School 14.0% 750 8.0% 447

High School 31.6% 2073 15.6% 943

Some College/Vocational School 42.1% 2819 36.6% 2433

Finished College/Vocational School 11.0% 897 27.5% 1896

More than College 1.4% 101 12.4% 921

Note: Means and percentages are survey-weighted.

FIGURES

FIGURE 1. REDUCTION IN CES-D SCORE BY RELATIONSHIP TYPE AMONG ALL

RESPONDENTS

Note: Non-Hispanic Whites are categorized as White, and all Hispanics regardless of race are

categorized as Hispanic.

FIGURE 2. REDUCTION IN CES-D SCORE BY RELATIONSHIP TYPE AMONG WHITE

RESPONDENTS

31

Note: Non-Hispanic Whites are categorized as White, and all Hispanics regardless of race are


FIGURE 3. REDUCTION IN CES-D SCORE BY RELATIONSHIP TYPE AMONG BLACK

RESPONDENTS

Note: Non-Hispanic Blacks are categorized as Black, and all Hispanics regardless of race are


FIGURE 4. REDUCTION IN CES-D SCORE BY RELATIONSHIP TYPE AMONG ASIAN

RESPONDENTS

Note: Non-Hispanic Asians are categorized as Asian, and all Hispanics regardless of race are


FIGURE 5. REDUCTION IN CES-D SCORE AMONG BLACK-WHITE COUPLES

[CELLRANGE

] [CELLRANGE

]

[CELLRANGE

]

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

All Male Female

Mag

nit

ue

of

CE

S-D

Red

uct

ion

Same Race Marriage or Cohabitation Interracial Marriage or Cohabitation

32

Note: Non-Hispanic Whites are categorized as White, and Non-Hispanic Blacks are categorized

as Black.

FIGURE 6. REDUCTION IN CES-D SCORE AMONG ASIAN-WHITE COUPLES

Note: Non-Hispanic Whites are categorized as White, and Non-Hispanic Asians are categorized

as Asian.

APPENDIX TABLES

Table A1. Fixed Effects Regression Predicting CES-D Score by Race

All Male Female

B SE B SE B SE

ALL RESPONDENTS

Type of Relationship (Ref. Single)

Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -0.64 *** 0.13 -0.68 *** 0.17 -0.63 ** 0.19

Interracial Marriage/Cohabitation -0.24

0.23 -0.45

0.34 -0.08

0.31

Constant 1.90 *** 0.36 1.38 ** 0.49 2.27 *** 0.55

Sigma u 3.36

3.06

3.53

N 6640

2888

3752

33

R-Squared (overall) .01 .02

.02

WHITE RESPONDENTS


Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -0.72 *** 0.15 -0.61 ** 0.19 -0.86 *** 0.23


0.29 -0.44

0.45 -0.32

0.38

Constant 1.50 ** 0.45 0.85

0.59 2.06 ** 0.69

Sigma u 3.29

2.97

3.48

N 4032

1805

2227


.02

BLACK RESPONDENTS


Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -0.62 + 0.34 -1.48 **ᵃ 0.50 -0.15

0.43

Interracial Marriage/Cohabitation 0.67

0.61 0.69 a 0.68 0.28

1.10

Constant 2.46 * 0.99 2.25

1.32 2.52

1.48

Sigma u 3.46

3.38

3.52

N 1148

417

731


.01

ASIAN RESPONDENTS


Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -0.78

0.88 -0.76

1.43 -0.59

0.90


0.70 1.07

1.10 0.34

0.87

Constant 9.63 *** 2.48 15.99 *** 3.34 5.55 ** 2.12

Sigma u 3.27

3.10

3.51

N 393

188

205

R-Squared (overall) .00

.00

.00

HISPANIC RESPONDENTS


Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation 0.05

0.42 -0.63

0.54 0.62

0.62


0.50 -0.65

0.66 0.45

0.72

Constant 2.87 ** 0.85 1.78

1.18 3.62 ** 1.22

Sigma u 3.52

3.17

3.76

N 1013

455

558


.00

Note: Models control for age and education. aSuperscripts indicate statistically significant differences between coefficients.

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table A2. Fixed Effect Regression Predicting CES-D Score with Gender and Relationship Type

Interaction

All White Black Asian Hispanic

B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE

Type of Relationship

(Ref. Single)

Same Race Marriage/

Cohabitation -0.66 *** 0.15 -0.60 ** 0.17 -1.30 ** 0.49 -1.21

1.48 -0.50

0.52

34

Interracial Marriage/

Cohabitation -0.42

0.34 -0.42

0.44 0.85

0.68 0.46

1.19 -0.63

0.64

Female x Type of

Relationship

Same Race Marriage/

Cohabitation 0.03

0.22 -0.24

0.25 1.07

0.61 0.84

1.79 1.10

0.81

Interracial Marriage/

Cohabitation 0.34

0.45 0.12

0.58 -0.65

1.27 -0.03

1.43 1.04

0.94

Constant 1.89 *** 0.36 1.52 ** 0.45 2.50 * 0.99 9.40 *** 2.39 2.76 ** 0.85

Sigma u 3.36

3.30

3.46

3.25

3.50

N 6640

4032

1148

393

1013

R-Squared (overall) .02 .01 .02 .00 .01

Note: Models control for age and education.

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table A3. Fixed Effect Regression Predicting CES-D Score with Race and Relationship Type

Interaction

All Male Female

B SE B SE B SE


Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -0.70 *** 0.14 -0.60 ** 0.18 -0.85 ** 0.22


0.29 -0.42

0.45 -0.30

0.38

Black*Type of Relationship (Ref. Single)


0.34 -0.56

0.51 0.80

0.44


1.03 1.46

3.05 0.72

0.64

Hispanic*Type of Relationship (Ref. Single)


0.92 -0.17

1.52 1.14

1.00


0.44 -0.66

0.51 0.45

0.69

Asian*Type of Relationship (Ref. Single)

Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -0.39

0.70 -1.07

0.85 0.36

1.15


1.72 0.46

3.34 0.29

0.90

Native American*Type of Relationship (Ref. Single)

Same Race Marriage/Cohabitation -2.07 * 0.67 -1.65

1.25 -3.24 *** 0.82


0.57 -2.42

0.80 0.70

0.81

Constant 1.89 *** 0.36 1.36 ** 0.48 2.27 *** 0.55

Sigma u 3.36

3.07

3.53

N 6637

2886

3751

R-Squared (overall) .01 .01 .02

Note: Models control for age and education.

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table A4. Fixed Effect Regression Predicting CES-D Score among Black-White Couples

All Male Female

B SE B SE B SE

35


White R - White Partner -0.76 **ᵃ 0.22 -0.56 *ᵃᵇ 0.26 -1.05 ** 0.39

Black R - Black Partner -0.92 *ᵇ 0.44 -1.87 **ᵃᶜ 0.56 -0.01

0.60

White R - Black Partner -0.08

1.41 -1.28

3.66 0.01

1.50

Black R - White Partner 3.41 **ᵃᵇ 1.19 4.44 ***ᵇᶜ 1.21 0.11

1.69

Constant 1.93 *** 0.53 1.46 * 0.69 2.46 ** 0.82

Sigma u 3.40

3.24

3.52

N 2607

1163

1444



*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table A5. Fixed Effect Regression Predicting CES-D Score among Asian-White Couples

All Male Female

B SE B SE B SE


White R - White Partner -0.74 ** 0.22 -0.54 * 0.26 -1.01 *ᵃ 0.40

Asian R - Asian Partner -0.14

0.82 -0.30

1.41 0.07 ᵇ 0.93

White R - Asian Partner -0.70

0.72 -0.06

0.72 -2.60 ***ᵃᵇ 0.53

Asian R - White Partner -0.34

1.25 -1.43

1.89 0.08

1.73

Constant 1.85 ** 0.55 1.16

0.72 2.58 ** 0.87

Sigma u 3.38

3.16

3.52

N 2403

1095

1308



*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ABSTRACT mostly White couples, and less is€¦ · Interracial Relationships Benefit Both Partners:...

Documents