Jamaican Immigrant Union Formation Patterns: a Test of Assimilation Theories

JAMAICAN IMMIGRANT UNION FORMATION PATTERNS: A TEST OF ASSIMILATION THEORIES

Natalee Alecia Marilyn Gooden

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 2011

Committee:

Kara Joyner, Advisor

Susana Peña Graduate Faculty Representative

Alfred DeMaris

Gary Oates

Laura Sanchez

ABSTRACT

Kara Joyner, Advisor

This study tested competing theories of assimilation by examining the patterns of union formation (i.e. marriage, cohabitation, single, ethnic / racial intermarriage and ethnic / racial inter-cohabitation) among non-Hispanic American whites, non-Hispanic African Americans and Jamaican women aged 18 – 44 years in the year 2000. The study also examined how union formation patterns differ across groups of Jamaican women (i.e. born and living in Jamaica, 1st generation Jamaican immigrants, 1.5 generation Jamaicans, 2nd generation, and beyond). It is important to study West Indian union formation patterns since the West Indian immigration rate has been increasing. The black West Indian population in the U.S. grew by about 67% between 1990 and 2000. The growth rate of the black West Indian population is greater than that of other established groups such as the Cubans and Koreans (Logan & Deane, 2003). This study focused specifically on Jamaicans since the bulk of the West Indian migrants is from Jamaica (Peach, 1995). Moreover, they represent both the diversity of modes of incorporation in the U.S. and the range of occupational backgrounds and immigrant status among contemporary immigrants (from professionals and entrepreneurs to laborers, refugees and unauthorized migrants). I used the Reproductive Health Survey 2002 for the analysis of the Jamaican women in Jamaica and the Census 2000 (5% PUMS) for the analysis of non-Hispanic white American and non-Hispanic African women. I also used the National Survey of Family Growth 2002 (NSFG 2002) to assess data quality and for purposes of comparison. I found that Jamaican women’s union formation patterns followed the segmented assimilation model where marriage rates tended to decline across generation and cohabitation rates tended to increase across generation that resembled more the union formation patterns of non-Hispanic African American women. Also, I found that out partnership increased across generation where Jamaican women had much greater odds of out partnering with a non-Hispanic African American partner compared to partnering with a non-Hispanic white American partner.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Kara Joyner for guiding this project. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members: Gary Oates and Laura Sanchez for their detailed and useful comments on this dissertation. I would like to thank my other committee members: Alfred

DeMaris and Susana Peña for their valuable comments during the oral defenses. I would also like to thank Jean Gerard for sitting in as the graduate faculty representative during the oral proposal defense.

I would like to thank the Integrated Public Use Microdata Sample -USA database

Census team. I am grateful to have had access to the 5% Census 2000 dataset and I thank the

Census team for teaching me how to use and analyze the 5% Census 2000 dataset. I would also like to thank The Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of the

West Indies, Mona branch in allowing me to use the Jamaican Reproductive Health Survey 2002 for the analysis of the women in Jamaica. This research was also supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Finally, I would like to thank my Aunt, Hilary Gooden for helping me with the editing of this dissertation, my mother and sister Sylvia and Rachel Gooden, husband Keith

Burkard, friend Sarah Burgoyne for moral support.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… 1

Assimilation and the Jamaican Diaspora………………………………..………… 2 Union Formation………………………………………………..………… 4 Inter-racial / Inter-ethnic Union Formation …………………...…………... 7 Descriptive Results…………………………………………..….……..…... 9 An Overview of the Samples………………………..……...……… 9 Research Goals………………………………………… …………………. 11 Study Contribution………………………………….……………………… 18 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW....……………………………………………… . 21

Marriage…………………………………………………………………… 21 Cohabitation……………………………………………………………….. 34 Inter racial / Inter ethnic Union Formation………………………………… 39 CHAPTER III. DATA AND METHODS ...... 47

CHAPTER IV. MARRIAGE ...... 61

Introduction………………………………………………………………… 61 Descriptive Results……………………………………………………….… 62 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….. 63 Multivariate Results……………………………………………………….... 64 Conclusion………………………………………………………………… 68 CHAPTER V. COHABITATION ...... 69

Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 69 Descriptive Results………………………………………………………… 71 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….. 72 Multivariate Results…………………………………………………………... 73 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………. 79

CHAPTER VI. INTER-RACIAL / INTER-ETHNIC UNION FORMATION...... 81

Introduction………………………………………………………………… 81 Descriptive Results………………………………………………………….. 85 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….. 85 Multivariate Results………………………………………………………… 86 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 89 CHAPTER VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 90

APPENDIX …………. ...………………...... 98

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 135

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which ethnic / racial

group differences (i.e. non-Hispanic American whites, non-Hispanic African Americans and

the Jamaican ethnic group of women aged 18 – 44) affect union-status outcomes and race of

partner outcomes. The union-status outcomes are: marriage, cohabitation and single. Race of

partner outcome is only assessed for the Jamaican women and looks on the race and ethnicity

of their male partners (whether married or cohabiting). By looking at the type of union and

inter-racial / inter-ethnic marriages and cohabitation, I will better map out the assimilation

process of Jamaicans living in the U.S. Also, the study of inter-ethnic unions is a good measure of assimilation since it reveals that intimate relations between ethnic groups are to some degree sociably acceptable (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990; Qian et al, 2005).

Union-formation is created as a social means in order to provide functions that society deems important (Espenshade, 1985). The formation of unions is important since it is associated with such positive outcomes as child-protection and the reduction of depression, and it is thought to be economically advantageous. Child protection is evident since the procreation and socialization of children is generally done within unions (Espenshade, 1985).

Symptoms of depression are reduced through shared recreational activities of members within the family (Espenshade, 1985). Marriage is the main form of union-formation and it serves society's main function of encouraging childbearing and rearing (Espenshade, 1985).

Marriage unions are also economically advantageous as their earning capacity is far greater than that of non-marital unions. According to Green & Welniak (1982), the median income for whites between 1970 and 1980 increased by 0.8% would have increased to 3.3% if marriage had not declined. The picture is even more dramatic for African Americans; real income would have increased by 11.3% instead of declining by 4.9% over the same period.

Thus, the decline of marriage unions has also widened the earning gap between African

Americans and white Americans.

There is a general consensus that marriages have positive outcomes on children and child care as they provide a model of how to be successful in society (Sassler et al, 2009).

Children who are raised in two-parent biological families have higher self-esteem, academic success and lower levels of teenage pregnancies than children who are raised in single- and cohabiting-parent families (Teachman, 2002; Sassler et al, 2009).

It is also important to study cohabitation since it is on the rise and has taken on some of the roles of marriage. Since its growth would be inversely proportional to the decline in marriage, it naturally coincides with the decline in marriage. The numbers of unmarried couples have tripled over the period 1970 to 1982 (Espenshade, 1985). Cohabitation has also been discussed as being a prelude to marriage and its growth has been thought to cause the decline in marriage - especially for young people (Espenshade, 1985). The following sections below will give a summary on how assimilation is normally measured and how this study measures assimilation of the Jamaican Diaspora.

Assimilation and the Jamaican Diaspora

Classic assimilation theory states that as duration of stay and residence in the host country increases, immigrant groups tend to mimic and exhibit characteristics similar to those of the natives of the host country (Hirschman, 1983). On the other hand, segmented assimilation theory states that there are multiple reference groups to which immigrants assimilate rather than just one. While some groups assimilate toward the mainstream, it is possible that a group may actually fare worse across generations as they come to resemble other marginalized groups within the U.S., such as African Americans (Wildsmith, 2004).

The first sets of migrants were Europeans who came from different ethnic groups.

Today's new set of migrants are not only ethnically different, but also racially diverse (Qian

et al, 2005). There is an increasing flow of immigrants from Asia, the West Indian and Latin

America which clearly affects and diversifies the current marriage market in the U.S (Portes

& Zhou, 1993; Qian et al, 2005). The main source of the black immigrant group in the U.S. is

from the West Indian (Deaux et al, 2007). The West Indian portion of the West Indian has

been of particular interest to scholars looking at immigrant adaptation (Deaux et al, 2007), the

reason being that these immigrants are English speakers and thus their successful adaptation

into the American society should be easier than that of non-English-speaking immigrants

(Deaux et al, 2007). However, they are mainly black, and their skin color could cause them to be discriminated against (Deaux et al, 2007).

The ‘segmented’ approach to assimilation theory and other revisions to the assimilation theory try to capture the other potential paths of immigrant incorporation into the society (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Qian et al, 2005). This revision to the assimilation theory is especially applied to this new wave of non – white immigrants. Recent research, however, has been mostly based on the experiences of Asians and Hispanic immigrants (Kalmijn,

1998). Hardly any research has been done on the growing immigrant black population.

Most studies that focus on assimilation of the West Indian and Jamaican populations tend to focus on socio-economic outcomes. Model (1991) finds that, at the bivariate and multivariate level, West Indian men fare worse (in terms of net income earnings) than

African American and white American men. However, Jamaican men show no significant difference in their net earnings compared to African American men. On the other hand,

Model (1991) finds that West Indian and Jamaican women fare better compared to white

American and African American women. Dodoo (1997) finds the reverse, when assessing the earnings achievement of male African and West Indian immigrants, alongside native born

African Americans. In the base-line model, Africans earned significantly more than West

Indian blacks and African Americans. However, after adding basic controls to the model,

West Indian blacks earn the most. Finally, Deaux et al (2007) find that West Indian

immigrants outperform their second generation counterparts as well as African Americans in educational and occupational attainments. All these studies, although of mixed results, have

recognized the importance of studying West Indians, since they have been labeled as black

immigrants with a success story (Model, 2008). This sends a message that racism alone is not

an adequate explanation for African Americans' lack of achievement (Sowell, 1978); and, it is

also possible for Black immigrants to follow the straight line assimilation model. However,

not all West Indian or black immigrants are as successful:- the ones from Africa, Haiti and

the non-English-speaking West Indian fare worse than the English-speaking West Indians.

This is so since the language and the culture of the English-speaking West Indian group is

closer to American culture than that of other groups (Model, 2008). The success of West

Indians in comparison with African Americans has been explained by culture (the difference

in slavery hypothesis, living in a predominantly black society hypothesis) (Sowell, 1978),

selectivity, and favoritism (Model, 2008).

There is little research that measures assimilation via union formation among West

Indian immigrants (Model and Fisher, 2001; Waters, 2007). Studies have looked at inter- racial / inter-ethnic union formation of West Indian immigrants and have found that African

Americans are more likely to be in an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union than West Indians

(Batson et al, 2006). Others that looked at generational effects find the reverse (Model &

Fisher, 2001). This study will add to our knowledge of union formation since it takes into account generational effects and focuses on a specific group: Jamaican women.

Union Formation

There is a growing number of studies of family-formation patterns in the U.S. (e.g.

Musick, 2002; Toulemon & Testa, 2005; Manning, 1993; Quesnel – Vallee & Morgan, 2003;

Barber & Axinn, 2005; Bongaarts, 2001) but there are few and dated studies in Jamaica (e.g.

Herskovits, 1966; Blake, 1961). Studies that examine the implications of exposure of migrants to U.S. race-relations are based exclusively on U.S. data. There are few studies that examine immigrants and their generation in the U.S. and compare them to non – immigrants in their county of origin (Landale & Oropesa, 2002). Few researchers look at the host country when studying assimilation processes of immigrants in the U.S. It is important to look at the host country in assessing union-formation patterns of immigrants in the U.S. (Landale, 1994) especially since their behavior may be altered with increased duration of stay. Landale (1994) finds that Puerto Rican women are more likely to enter informal unions as well as to enter them at earlier ages when they live in the U.S. compared to those living in Puerto Rico. This study provides such a comparison with the inclusion of the 2002 Jamaican Reproductive

Health Survey dataset to further understand union formation behavior by also looking at non- immigrant Jamaican women in their country of origin. This research will therefore assess assimilation more stringently since it incorporates looking at the union formation patterns of the Jamaican native population and then comparing it to the Jamaican migrants in the U.S.

There is need not only to look at marriage, but also to look at cohabitation when studying assimilation into the U.S. society, since union formation patterns are dynamic, and cohabitation unions are on the rise (Brown et al, 2008). These researchers find that inter- ethnic marriages exhibit a curvilinear relationship while inter-ethnic cohabitation appears to rise with each new generation. However, these patterns are different by ethnic group. Thus, when measuring assimilation via union formation, it is always important to distinguish between marriage and cohabitation, and to focus on ethnic groups separately.

It is also important to look at duration of stay when studying assimilation of immigrants in a country (Ford, 1990). By looking at Jamaican immigrant union formation patterns, I will be better able to understand the effects of assimilation, and selective processes that affect union formation patterns. I plan to test these theories to see to what extent each of

them is followed by female Jamaican immigrants. By comparing the sending country and the

receiving country, I am able to see how union formation changes with duration of residence

in the U.S. Carter (2000) used this type of analysis to explain fertility behavior of Mexican

immigrants in the U.S. but, to date, there is no study that analyzes Jamaican immigrants

similarly. This will be done via a three-way comparison with three datasets, i.e. looking at union formation behavior of Jamaican women (in their home country), migrant Jamaican women’s union formation behavior, and the union formation behavior of American women.

Furthermore, existing research suggests that there is an unclear link between migration and union formation pattern assimilation (Qian & Lichter, 2007; Model & Fisher, 2001; Batson et al, 2006). This study attempts to clarify this link. Studying a smaller sub-population of immigrants in society will also better our understanding of behavioral differences in ethnic

and racial union formation.

Native Jamaican union formation patterns are far different from the union formation

patterns of Americans. Jamaicans are more likely to cohabit in earlier years and then

eventually marry at late ages. The Jamaican 1943 census shows that about 66% of men and

women were married or had been married by age 50. By ages 65 and over 74.7% of males

and 66.7% of females have been married (Jamaica, Central Bureau of Statistics, 1945).

Although Jamaicans would ideally like to form more stable marriage unions, they do not do

so since the family is more disorganized and cohabitation is deeply rooted in the Jamaican

history and culture (Blake et al, 1961). In 1943 a higher proportion of men aged 35 – 39 and

women aged 30 – 34 were living in cohabiting unions rather than marriage unions.

Arguments postulated: 1. The preference for cohabitation over marriage can be said to be

rooted in slavery. Slavery gave women their independence from men in raising and rearing

children, while creating in men the tendency of not wanting to settle down with one woman.

2. Jamaicans use cohabitation as a form of trial marriage which is independent of their

economic background (Blake et al, 1961). Nevertheless, most Jamaicans' ideal union is

marriage. At times, marriage may not occur because of a lack of financial resources required

for a traditional wedding. If a wedding falls short of such basic prerequisites as a gold ring for

the wife, and a lavish reception following the wedding, then the couple is deemed a failure

(Blake et al, 1961). Cohabiting unions are approved more in Jamaica than in the United

States; the proof of this is their prevalence rate (Blake et al, 1961). This study therefore

focuses on Jamaican immigrants since their initial unions are far different from the unions in

the U.S. and their assimilation process (if it exists) will be easily identifiable. This study will

also make a contribution since it looks at cultural, contextual, and demographic differences

between American and Jamaican women to explain variations seen in their behavior.

Inter-racial / Inter-ethnic Union formation

This chapter of the dissertation is a very important addition. Studying inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions is the most direct test of assimilation as it gets at social distance between the racial / ethnic groups. Gordon (1964) has been repeatedly cited when studying inter-racial

marriage and assimilation. In his book ‘Assimilation in American Life’, he states that inter-

racial marriage is the final stage of a particular racial group's integration into the host

country. This is so since marriage represents not only social acceptance but moves beyond to

an intimate acceptance and brings evidence that discrimination and prejudice against racial

groups have diminished (Burton et al, 2010). Most research on inter-racial marriage has

focused on white and non-white marriages as these marriages have been increasing over the past decade (Burton et al, 2010). Inter-racial marriages have risen significantly from 150,000

marriages in 1960 to 3.1 million in 2000 (Burton et al, 2010). Currently, approximately 13%

of American married couples are inter-racial couples (Burton et al, 2010). Qian and Lichter

(2007) find that African Americans, although least likely to marry white Americans, are the most likely to enter into mixed-race cohabitations. It becomes important to study inter-racial /

Inter-ethnic Union formation patterns because these unions are on the rise in the U.S., and

because such a study is also useful in measuring assimilation of immigrants.

With the immigration – assimilation process, diversity is infused into the society.

Racially different groups may eventually integrate and the American culture will constantly

change as new practices are being absorbed into its core. Through immigration, new elements

(such as language, dress, and food) are brought into the American culture (Edmonston &

Passel, 1999). Eventually, with each generation, intermarriage increases and different ethnic cultures are incorporated into the American society (Edmonston & Passel, 1999). It therefore

becomes important to study intermarriage of specific groups of immigrants in order to

understand more fully the changing dynamics of the American society. This study further

adds to the current literature since it looks at inter-racial / inter-ethnic marriage as well as

inter-racial / inter-ethnic cohabitation in studying assimilation.

Previous studies have shown that inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions are associated with

gender. Black men are more likely to marry white women, compared to black women

marrying white men (Kalmijn 1993; Schoen & Wooldredge 1989; Kalmijn, 1998). Therefore,

men have different experiences of inter-racial family formation behavior from women (Jones,

2010). It is important to focus on a single group of people as well as on a single sex, since

sexes, groups and generations may not share the same experiences.

My study examines the union-formation patterns of six groups of women aged

between 18 and 44 years: non-Hispanic white Americans, non-Hispanic African Americans,

1st Generation Jamaicans, 1.5 Generation Jamaicans, 2nd Generation and beyond Jamaicans

and native Jamaicans living in Jamaica. Below, I have presented some basic descriptive

statistics relating to these groups.

Descriptive Results

An Overview of the Samples

[Table 1 here]

White American women are born in the U.S. and are non-Hispanic. Slightly more

than half of the non-Hispanic white women are married, while approximately 7% are cohabiting. The NSFG married sample is not statistically different from the Census sample, but the NSFG cohabiting sample is statistically higher than the Census sample. The average age of white women is 32 years and close to 50% of them report having no children. These results are not statistically different from the NSFG sample. A little more than half of the white women live in other towns and fewer than 20% of them reside in urban areas. Those results for women who live in other towns are not statistically different from the NSFG sample, but those women in the Census sample who live in urban areas are statistically fewer than those women in the NSFG sample who live in urban areas. A little fewer than 30% of the white women have at least a college degree and approximately 70% of these women are employed. These results are not statistically different from the NSFG sample.

African American women are non-Hispanic blacks and are born in the U.S.

Approximately 30% of African American women are married while about 6% of them are cohabiting. The NSFG married sample is not statistically different from the Census sample, but the NSFG cohabiting sample is statistically higher than the Census sample. The reasoning behind this is that the census is giving an under estimation of cohabitation since it only reports cohabitation in relation to the head of the household. Cohabitation between other members of the household (that excludes the household head) is not reported in the Census while cohabitation is reported on an individual basis in the NSFG 2002. Therefore, the

Census data is statistically under estimating cohabitation for the non-Hispanic African

American women sampled.

The average age of non-Hispanic African American women is 31 years and a little

over 40% of them report having no children. The number of children a woman has is

statistically lower in the Census sample compared to the NSFG sample for non-Hispanic

African American women. This Approximately a third of the non-Hispanic African American

women live in other towns and a little over half live in urban areas. These results are not statistically different from the results in the NSFG sample. Approximately 14% of the non-

Hispanic African American women have at least a college degree and approximately 63% of these women are employed. These results are statistically lower than the results in the NSFG sample.

First generation Jamaican women are defined as those who report a birthplace in

Jamaica and are residing in the U.S. Approximately 40% of 1st generation Jamaican women

are married while about 5% of them are cohabiting. The average age of 1st generation

Jamaican women is 32 years, and a little less than half of them report having no children.

Approximately 45% of the 1st generation Jamaican women live in other towns and a little

over half live in urban areas. Approximately one-fifth of the 1st generation Jamaican women

have at least a college degree and approximately 70% of these women are employed.

Second generation Jamaican women are defined as those who are native born (i.e. born in the U.S.) and report at least one Jamaican ancestor. Approximately a quarter of 2nd

generation Jamaican women are married while almost 7% of them are cohabiting. The

average age of 2nd generation Jamaican women is 28 years and about 60% of them report

having no children. Approximately 40% of the 2nd generation Jamaican women live in other

towns and a little over half of them live in urban areas. Close to 30% of the 2nd generation

Jamaican women have at least a college degree and approximately 70% of these women are

employed.

Non–immigrant Jamaican women are defined as those who are Jamaican natives and are currently residing in Jamaica. Approximately one-fifth of non-immigrant Jamaican

women are married while a little over one-fifth of them are cohabiting. The average age of

non-immigrant Jamaican women is 30 years, and fewer than 30% of them report having no

children. Approximately one–third of the non-immigrant Jamaican women live in other towns

and a little over one-fifth live in urban areas. Approximately 11% of the non-immigrant

Jamaican women have at least a college degree and approximately 41% of these women are

employed.

The following sections of the introduction will outline my research goals, and then I

will explain how this research contributes to the current literature.

Research Goals

This dissertation has three research goals. The first goal of the study, examined in

Chapter 4, is to measure assimilation by investigating the factors that predict Jamaican and

American women’s marriage patterns. Logistic regression modeling is used to analyze both

the American and the Jamaican datasets. The first set of logistic regressions is only done on

the Census 2000. This model regresses marriage (i.e. being married compared to not being

married) on the Jamaican racial ethnic groups (i.e. Jamaican 1st generation, Jamaican 1.5

generation and Jamaican 2nd generation and beyond) as well as the non-Hispanic white

American and non-Hispanic African American groups. It is expected that, in the baseline model, white American women will have greater odds of marrying compared to the other

groups since not marrying is associated with belonging to a minority race (Guzzo &

Furstenberg, 2007; Graefe & Lichter, 2007). Also, owing to the selection process of

migration, Jamaican 1st generation immigrants should have higher odds of marrying

compared to African Americans. It is also expected due to downward assimilation (or

reverting back to the Jamaican cultural norms) that the 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaicans' odds of marrying should not be significantly different than those of African Americans.

The other path for the 2nd Generation in the segmented model is the maintenance of

the West Indian ethnic group culture. On this path, the 1st generation parents are able to migrate with stronger ethnic networks and ties, higher social and human capital and are less likely to be influenced by the poor minority group culture of the United States (Waters,

1994). This group is more likely to assimilate upward as their networks teach them the importance of education and as they improve their chances of acquiring jobs. The strong network and the bonds within the ethnic community reinforce the parents’ values and also allow them to be less vulnerable in adopting the poor sub-culture of the minority group

(Waters, 1994).

The segmented assimilation variant is complicated for the children of the 1st

generation: those who are able to maintain the culture of the 1st generation are more likely to

be successful and upwardly mobile in society, while those who identify with the poor African

American culture will assimilate downwards (Waters, 1994). It should be noted that this poor

African American sub-culture is not used to define all African Americans in the U.S. neither

is it stated that all non-Hispanic whites are of the middle- to upper class. However, the

segmented variant states that when children are reared in societies of impoverishment,

joblessness and high teenaged pregnancies, these children are the most likely to also be poor,

jobless and become teenaged parents. If 1st generation Jamaican immigrants migrate in these

areas, it is thus possible that their offspring may assimilate along this path, since children are

also socialized and affected by their living environment. This assimilation path is known as

downward assimilation. Based on the segmented approach to assimilation, I hypothesize that

marriage rates will be higher among the 1st generation (due to the selectivity of migration)

and then start to decline towards the African American rates. Ghazal & Emerson (2005),

13 although studying a different outcome (i.e. health disparity), show results which are also in line with this hypothesis. They found that the longer black immigrants remain in the United

States, the more likely it is that they will come to resemble the racial minority group.

The second set of regression models adds age, age squared, and parity to the previous model. This model will also be carried out on the JRHS 2002 in order to compare the results of the census of Jamaicans in the U.S. and the native Jamaicans living in Jamaica. Controlling for birth parity is important since women who are married are expected to desire more children compared to women who are not (Toulemon & Testa, 2005). Controlling for age and age squared is also important, since the link between union formation and race and ethnicity is strongly correlated with age and age squared (Joyner & Kao, 2005). The same expectations above hold for these models. Additionally, because of the cultural norm of not marrying and / or marrying much later in life, it is expected that the average Jamaican in the JRHS 2002 (i.e. average age, high school graduate, employed and living in an urban area) will have the lowest percentage chance of marrying compared to all other groups in the Census 2000.

The third and final set of regression models adds the other covariates to the Census

2000 as well as the JRHS 2002: area of residence, race specific sex ratio, ethnic group size, population size, education and employment status. It is expected that the above results will still hold if the segmented assimilation model is followed. It is expected that marriage rates will increase from the 1st to the 2nd generation and beyond if the straight line assimilation model is followed. All these models are weighted and take into account the design effects.

The second goal of the study, examined in Chapter 5, is to measure assimilation by investigating the factors that predict Jamaican and American women’s union formation patterns. Multinomial regression modeling is used to analyze both the American (the Census

2000) and the Jamaican (JRHS 2002) datasets. The first set of multinomial regression models regresses union status (i.e. married, cohabiting and single) on the Jamaican racial ethnic

14 groups (i.e. 1st generation, 1.5 generation Jamaican and 2nd and beyond generation Jamaican) as well as the non-Hispanic white American and African American groups. The Jamaican group's union- formation patterns should assimilate or look more like the American women's, since this society is easily adapted to compare to the non-English speaking West Indian

(Deaux et al, 2007). Therefore, it is expected that there will be segmented assimilation into the population since, although fertility rates will be lower, the culture of late marriages will be maintained (Vickerman, 2005). Marriage rates will be significantly lower than the non-

Hispanic white American population since the culture of cohabitation and late marriage in the

Jamaican population will be maintained. It is therefore expected that in the baseline model, non-Hispanic white American women will have greater odds of marrying compared to the other groups. Also, because of the selection process of migration, 1st generation Jamaican immigrants should have higher odds of marrying and cohabiting than non-Hispanic African

Americans. It is also expected, owing to downward assimilation (or reverting to the Jamaican cultural norms) that the 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaicans' odds of marrying should not be significantly different from the odds for African Americans. However, their odds of cohabiting should be significantly greater than those of non-Hispanic African Americans and white Americans.

The second set of regression models adds age, age squared and parity to the previous model. This model will also be carried out in the JRHS 2002 in order to compare the results of the census for immigrant Jamaicans with the results for native Jamaicans living in Jamaica.

The same reasons discussed in my first research goal for adding these controls are also applied. The same expectations also hold for these models. Additionally, because of the cultural norm of not marrying and / or marrying much later in life, it is expected that the average Jamaican in the JRHS 2002 (i.e. average age, high school graduate, employed and

living in an urban area) will have the lowest percentage chance of marrying and the highest

percentage chance of cohabiting, compared to all other groups in the Census 2000.

The third and final set of regression models adds the other covariates to the Census

2000 as well as the JRHS 2002: area of residence, race-specific sex ratio, ethnic group size,

population size, education and employment status. It is expected that the above results will

still hold, which is in line with the first research goal. All these models are weighted and take

into account the design effects.

The third and final goal of the study, examined in Chapter 6, is to measure

assimilation by investigating the factors that predict Jamaican and American women’s inter

racial / ethnic union formation patterns. In explaining the assimilation process, I also control

for number of children in the household / parity. This is important since looking at the

Jamaican (i.e. immigrant, native and U.S.-born) childbearing contexts, certain aspects of the

U.S. population childbearing phenomena are quite similar to the Jamaican context. For

example, childbearing among African American and Hispanic women is more likely to occur

in non-marital unions than for white American women (Osborne et al, 2004; Loomis &

Landale, 1994). Jamaican women are similar to minority women of the U.S. in that they are

also likely to bear children within non-marital unions. However, these non-marital unions in

which minority women in the U.S. produce children, tend to occur mostly among the

economically disadvantaged. (Osborne et al, 2004; Loomis & Landale, 1994). This is not the

case in Jamaica. The non-marital unions in Jamaica are more normative and are culturally

accepted (Blake, 1961; McKenzie, 1993).

I expect 2nd generation Jamaican women to be more likely to form an inter-ethnic / inter-racial / inter-ethnic union than 1st generation Jamaican immigrant women and non-

Hispanic white or African American women. I anticipate that women in married and

16 cohabiting unions in Jamaica will have similar qualities when compared to adult immigrant women who will view marriage differently from cohabitation.

Looking at inter- and intra- relationship patterns, studies have focused on why subgroups marry out, with whom they are most likely to marry out, given that they do marry out (Kalmijn, 1998). Therefore, I would also like to address these research questions to a sub- group that is growing and where limited assimilation studies with unions have been addressed. I hypothesize that, with generation, Jamaican women will be more likely to form an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union. I also hypothesize that Jamaican 2nd generation and beyond will be more likely to marry out, compared to non-Hispanic whites and African

Americans. I hypothesize that this will be due to their smaller group size (Chiswick &

Houseworth, 2008; Pagnini & Morgan, 1990).

Straight-line assimilation theory predicts that union formation patterns should assimilate to that of the white middle class American population (Rumbaut, 1997). The assimilation perspective suggests that, with generation, the Jamaican immigrant group looks more and more like Americans (the white middle class). However, the Jamaican immigrant group will exhibit a more complex picture than just straight-line assimilation. With generation, those Jamaicans that identify themselves as African Americans will see more racial discrimination and will perceive themselves at a disadvantage; while the 1.5 generation and beyond who still identify themselves as Jamaicans will witness the opposite (Waters,

1994). I therefore hypothesize that inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation will be highly influenced by race, class and their interaction (Waters, 1994; Kalmijn, 1998; Lichter & Qian,

2001; Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). Those individuals who live in non-segregated areas will be more likely to form an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union than those Jamaicans who live in segregated areas. Those Jamaicans who are more educated will be more likely to form inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions. Hence, it is important to control for ethnic group size in an

area and education when studying inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation. Furthermore,

intermarriage should be more common among the younger generation since if a woman

migrates before or during the life-cycle stage of bearing children, she may adopt the norms of

the receiving country (Kahn, 1988).

My main hypotheses are that: (1) current immigrant union formation patterns are

positively related to the union formation patterns of the receiving country (adaptation and

selectivity); (2) duration of stay is positively related to inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formations; and (3) sending country union formation patterns will have a weaker impact on immigrant union formation patterns as integration into the American society increases

(adaptation). My goal is to compare 1st generation Jamaicans with 1.5 generation Jamaicans

defined as those arriving to the U.S. as children before age 13 (see Rumbaut et al, 2006) and

2nd generation and beyond Jamaicans (those who were born in the U.S. with parent(s) of

Jamaican ancestry). According to assimilation perspectives, the 2nd generation and beyond

should be more likely to have an exogenous union formation when compared to the 1st

generation (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990). This comparison will see (with duration,) towards

whom the Jamaican immigrants are assimilating: non-Hispanic African Americans, non-

Hispanic white Americans, or both.

In chapter 6, multinomial regression modeling is used to analyze the American

Census 2000 5% dataset. The first set of multinomial regression models regresses the race

and ethnic group of the race of the partner as the dependent variable (i.e. non-Hispanic white

partner, non-Hispanic black partner, Jamaican 1st generation partner (reference group),

Jamaican ancestry 2nd generation and above partner) on Jamaican 1st generation (reference

group), Jamaican 1.5 generation and Jamaican 2nd generation and beyond. The second set of regression models adds age, age2 and parity which are in line with the first two research

18 goals. The final regression models control for additional covariates: sex ratio, ethnic group size, education and employment status.

Study Contribution

This study looks at the assimilation of a growing group of people in the U.S. It is important to study West Indian migrant behavior since the West Indian immigration rate has been increasing. West Indian migrants to the U.S. increased from 3.8% in 1970 to 6.7% in

1980 (Ford, 1990). The West Indian foreign born population makes up about 60% of blacks who are foreign born (Lincoln, 2008). Moreover, West Indian blacks make up 25% of the black American population in major cities such as Boston, New York, Miami, and Fort

Lauderdale (Logan & Deane, 2003). The black West Indian population in the U.S. grew by about 67% between 1990 and 2000. The growth rate of the Black West Indian population is greater than that of other established groups such as the Cubans and Koreans (Logan &

Deane, 2003). The rapid growth rate of black West Indian migrants in the U.S. makes it important to study their union formation patterns separately since they have distinctively different socio-cultural contexts (Bryant et al 2008). This study focuses specifically on

Jamaicans, since the bulk of Afro–West Indian migrants are from Jamaica (Peach, 1995).

Over the period 1980 – 1990, approximately 60% of Afro–West Indian immigrants were

Jamaicans (Peach, 1995). Jamaicans account for about half of all West Indian immigrants in the U.S. Taking their population size into account, the Jamaican emigration rate to the U.S. for 2001 is second only to that of the Bosnians (Vickerman, 2007). Therefore, it is important to study assimilation of this group of immigrants to see how well they have adapted into the

American society.

This study contributes to prior work because it examines how women in different cultural contexts behave in their union formation patterns. It also contributes by studying the assimilation patterns of a growing group of people (Jamaicans) in the U.S. This study will

contribute to the understanding of union formation patterns. Most Jamaican research is dated,

descriptive, focusing on trends and patterns. This work will move beyond the descriptive by

providing a deeper understanding of union formation patterns. Seltzer et al (2005) affirms

that there needs to be grounded theory in the explanation of different types of family

formation patterns. They state that, while studying union formation and dissolution, a

childbearing family’s effect on the next generation should be examined. Hence the

importance of further investigating this topic as it sets out the contexts of initial union-

formation patterns and explains how they are influenced when the societal contexts change.

This study adds to our limited knowledge of racial and ethnic variation in union- formation patterns by taking into account the marriage formation patterns of migrant

Jamaican women in the U.S. Furthermore, when most studies look at racial / ethnic

differences in union formation, they compare non-Hispanic whites with blacks and hispanics

(e.g. Harknett & McLanahan, 2004; Harknett, 2008; Lichter et al, 1992; Loomis & Landale,

1994). They fail to mention how the foreign born were treated and have incorporated all the

black ethnic groups together. It is important to separate these groups since the black

population in the U.S. has doubled over the period 1980 – 2000 (Ghazel & Emerson 2005).

This study creates a new category for one of the biggest and fastest-growing black ethnic

groups (i.e. the Jamaican ethnic group) and contributes since it reveals differences of

behavior between black ethnic groups.

Measuring immigrant and their generation assimilation via cohabitation has been

hardly done. Brown et al (2008) are among the first to do this type of analysis and thus are

used as a guide for this chapter. However, this paper is one of the first to measure Jamaican

assimilation via cohabitation and it compares this ethnic group to the Jamaican native

population as well as Non-Hispanic white and African American population. Furthermore,

most studies, when looking at assimilation, fail to distinguish the different black ethnic

20 groups (Brown et al, 2008; Raley, 2006; Kalmijn & Monden, 2006). This paper is also one of the first to not lump all foreign born Blacks together when looking at assimilation since it looks at a specific Black ethnic group: Jamaicans.

Marriage is discussed in Chapter 4, cohabitation in Chapter 5, intra– and inter–racial / ethnic union formation in Chapter 6. Then, finally in Chapter 7, I give a summary and discussion of the main findings.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Marriage

Theories of Marriage (Assimilation, Segmented / Downward Assimilation and Selectivity)

Classic assimilation theory states that as duration of stay and residence in the host country increases, immigrant groups tend to mimic and exhibit characteristics similar to those of the natives of the host country (Hirschman, 1983). By taking on the characteristics of the host country, immigrants are more likely to be more successful socially and economically

(Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). This theory was used to explain the transition of non-Hispanic whites into the American culture during a time of ‘affluence’ and ‘economic optimism’

(Gans, 1992). However, immigrants after the 1965 era have encountered a far different economy where social and economic mobility now come with significantly more challenges

(Gans, 1992). The straight-line assimilation theory does not work well for these new sets of immigrants as they have maintained their ethnic niches and have acculturated less readily than the 2nd and 3rd generation European immigrants prior to 1965 (Gans, 1992; Sears et al,

2003). The segmented assimilation theory proposed by Portes & Zhou (1993) is a better fit for explaining the experiences of this new immigrant group. It highlights different modes of immigrant incorporation that are alternative to the classical assimilation model (Portes &

Zhou, 1993). It states that the environmental and social contexts are important in shaping the outcomes of the 2nd and beyond generations. As children, the 1.5 and 2nd generations would

face conflicting views and dilemmas, for to maintain their cultural identities would mean they

might face social ridicule at school, and become socially and economically immobile by

embracing the poor minority culture (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Waters, 1994). In the classic

assimilation model, adapting the culture of the native (in this case the minority culture) would

not allow this generation to be socially and economically mobile, but the reverse (Portes &

Zhou, 1993). On the other hand, members of the 1.5 and the 2nd generations who maintain

22 their native culture and do not adopt the culture of the American minority have better chances of economic and social success in the U.S. (Portes & Zhou, 1993). By virtue of embracing the values of their ethnic communities, they would have access to social and human capital that would better enable them to succeed in the U.S. (Portes & Zhou, 1993).

The segmented assimilation model thus asks the question: into which sector of society will the immigrant group assimilate? (Portes & Zhou, 1993). The three main paths outlined by Portes & Zhou (1993) are: assimilating into the mainstream white middle class culture which the straight-line classical model dictates; assimilating into the poor under-class minority culture which leads to a path of ‘permanent poverty’ and joblessness; and, finally, maintaining the immigrant culture and values and the tight solidarity of living within the ethnic community, and which leads to economic advancement.

Black immigrants are most vulnerable when assimilating into the poor under-class minority culture, also called "downward assimilation" (Portes & Zhou, 1993). They are vulnerable because of their race and because of the housing they are likely to occupy. They are more likely to live in poor minority group housing which may lead their children to be more likely socialized into a less educated and jobless culture. As a result of these factors, they are less likely to take advantage of opportunities for economic advancement (Portes &

Zhou, 1993).

Furthermore, there are significant differences in the reports of racial discrimination made by immigrants and native African Americans (Waters, 1994). Therefore, a major part of becoming African American is becoming more perceptive and gaining an awareness of being discriminated against racially (Waters, 1994). As a result, the children of these West Indian immigrants will be socialized into becoming more aware of the existence and practice of racial discrimination and are then more likely to adapt the ‘adversarial stance’ of the poor minority group sub-culture. This sub-culture not only makes the 1.5 and 2nd generation more

aware of being discriminated against, but it also devalues education as a mode of upward

social mobility (Waters, 1994). Thus, the offspring of this set of immigrants will be

socialized to be defensive and negative in their interaction with the white middle class

(Waters, 1994).

As discussed above, West Indian immigrant groups tend to live in central cities which

also source the high vulnerability to the poor native - minority group culture (Portes & Zhou,

1993). Therefore, immigrants who share the same skin tone as the minority group will be

treated and viewed in the same way by the rest of society (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Waters,

1994). Because they do not have the protection of a large group to provide social support, the

small size of their ethnic group within these larger communities puts them at further risk of

losing their cultural distinctiveness as they embrace the poor minority underclass sub-culture

(Portes & Zhou, 1993). These immigrant children, - as well as the second generation -

without the social support of a larger ethnic group, see little advantage in maintaining their

ethnic identity within a society mainly comprising poor native born African Americans

(Waters, 1994). If the 1.5 and 2nd generations maintain their ethnic identity, they are at a

greater risk of being ridiculed and labeled as ‘acting white’ (Waters, 1994). Therefore, their

geographical location is also important, since, if immigrants and their children live within

predominantly black American neighborhoods, the 1.5 and 2nd generations are pressured to

adapt this sub-culture (Waters, 1994).

Also, children of these immigrants (i.e. the 1.5 and the 2nd generations and beyond) are more prone to losing the accents that their 1st generation parents. If they retain their parents' speech patterns, they will more likely be discriminated against by the rest of society

(since they are considered to be belonging to the native minority group) (Portes & Zhou,

1993; Waters, 1994). As a result, the 1.5 and 2nd generations and beyond, if identified with

this sub–culture of poverty and joblessness will have little hope of upward mobility and will

naturally assimilate downward. Downward assimilation can also take place even if the 1st

generation is seen to be advancing economically, for their children may still be learning the

sub-culture through constant interaction with the native minority group (Portes & Zhou,

1993).

The other path for the 2nd Generation in the segmented model is the maintenance of

(Waters, 1994).

The segmented assimilation variant is complicated for the children of the 1st

generation: those who are able to maintain the culture of the 1st generation are more likely to

be successful and upwardly mobile in society, while those who identify with the poor African

American culture will assimilate downwards (Waters, 1994). Based on the segmented

approach to assimilation, I hypothesize that marriage rates will be higher among the 1st

generation (due to the selectivity of migration) and then start to decline towards the African

American rates. Ghazal & Emerson (2005), although studying a different outcome (i.e. health

disparity), show results which are also in line with this hypothesis. They found that the longer

black immigrants remain in the United States, the more likely it is that they will come to

resemble the racial minority group.

The social structures available to immigrants within these contexts are also important

in predicting how successfully their generation will assimilate (Arias, 2001). Arias (2001)

explains this via example stating that the individual will be more successful if his ethnic

community is ‘rich and vibrant’ than if his community lacks certain resources. Furthermore,

immigrants who are dispersed around the country may find it difficult to teach their culture to

their offspring. Those who can cling to cultural niches are better able to maintain and pass on

their ethnic identity (Arias, 2001). This is important, since the 2nd generation and beyond will tend to assimilate into the culture of their environment, and it will be difficult for them to marry someone that shares their ethnicity if they are dispersed around the country (Arias,

2001). On the other hand, those immigrants who live in ethnic enclaves are able to maintain their old social and cultural identities, and it will be easier for their children to marry within their ethnicity (Arias, 2001). Those who are not able to maintain their ethnic ties may acculturate into a life of joblessness and poverty, as they assimilate downwards into the under-privileged sector of society (Gans, 1992). When looking at assimilation, it is therefore important to take the community contexts into account (Arias, 2001). I measure this by using two variables that are discussed further in chapter three: ethnic group size and ethnic-specific sex ratio.

Due to the increase in immigration, research has been focused on how immigrants and their offspring are adjusting based on several outcomes (Brown et al, 2008). Most of these outcomes are socioeconomic (Sowell, 1979; Model, 1991; Deaux et al, 2007; Dodoo, 1997) and hardly focus on union formation (Brown et al, 2008; Qian & Lichter, 2007). The particular outcomes that are studied in these chapters are emerging tests of the assimilation theory. The question that arises is the extent to which immigrants' family-formation patterns adapt to that of the receiving country (Brown et al, 2008). These researchers find that this

adaptation is normally measured at times by generational differences in marriage. The

children of immigrant parents may be more likely to postpone or even forgo marriage (the

second generation) in pursuit of obtaining higher levels of education than their parents (Glick

et al, 2006). However, marriage-rate differences may also occur within the first generation

and the 1.5 generation. Immigrants who have entered the United States as children (the 1.5

generation) are more socialized into the American culture and may exhibit marriage rates

nd closer to the 2 generation and beyond (Glick et al, 2006). For this set of immigrants post

1965, the assimilation process is complex and it is hard to decipher the extent to which family

behavior is being influenced by the American culture, the immigrant culture or a mixture of

both (Brown et al, 2008).

Another aspect of the assimilation theory is the selection process. Through the processes of selection, those individuals with the resources to migrate will do so. They

benefit from a higher level of socioeconomic status than the rest of their native population

(Mossakowski, 2007). These people are generally from the middle class and are relatively

richer than the average population (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). This explains why, on average,

immigrants hold qualifications and skills that compete with native born Americans (Portes &

Rumbaut, 2006). In 2003, 26.5% of the immigrants in the United States had a college degree

compared to 26.8% of the native born. The earning gap was also similar where the median

earning of the foreign born was the same as that of the native born at approximately $32,000

(Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Therefore, based on the selectivity of migration, the Jamaican

women who migrate will be more economically stable, more likely to be employed, more

educated and thus more likely to be married. Hence, they should have a higher propensity for

marriage compared to African Americans and the second generation Jamaicans. If adult

immigrants have significantly higher odds of marriage than immigrants who migrated as

children, then this could be interpreted as selective migration. Mossakowski (2007)

determined selectivity of migration similarly; however, the outcome was mental health

instead of marriage. These migrant children are defined as the 1.5 generation (Mossakowski,

2007). They are 1.5 since they migrated in their pre teens and cannot be defined in the same

category as their parents – the first generation. They cannot be included in the 2nd generation

category either since they were not born in the U.S. to their 1st Generation parents

(Mossakowski, 2007).

However, because of downward assimilation (or reverting back to the Jamaican

marital norms, Orum, 2005), the marriage patterns should start to decline to resemble the

African American and / or Jamaican non-immigrant patterns.

Most research that focuses on immigrant assimilation and union formation finds that marriage and marriage stability is highest among the first generation and declines across generations (Brown et al, 2008; Bean et al, 1996). These higher marriage rates for the first generation may be partly explained by the family reunification policies that allow immigrants’ spouses to migrate to the U.S. (Bean & Stevens, 2003). Also, the first generation may find it more economically viable to stay married since those that are married have higher pooled resources (Bean et al, 1996). Both the classical and segmented assimilation theories predict this decline in marriage across generations. However, the predicted decline in these theories is due to sending countries having a lower age at first marriage and lower marital disruption rates compared to the U.S. (Brown et al, 2008). Since migrants are more prone to marriage compared to those who do not migrate (marital selectivity), marriage rates should once again decline across generations. Furthermore, later generations will forgo marriage in the pursuit of higher education and employment (Brown et al, 2008). This can be seen in table 1 as marriage rates decline from the 1st Generation to the 2nd Generation Jamaican

women and as education increases. Immigrants who arrive as children as well as the 2nd

generation and beyond may be more structurally assimilated as they delay marriage in order

to pursue the education which allows them to obtain better jobs and higher incomes (Brown

et al, 2008). They may also delay marriage further due to the difficulties of finding a partner

that they and their family deem acceptable (Brown et al, 2008). Furthermore, the 1.5 and the

2nd generation and beyond may face pressure from parents to marry within their ethnicity.

This becomes increasingly difficult, since co–ethnic contact is reduced across generations and intimate inter-ethnic contact would be easier to develop (Brown et al, 2008). A combination of these factors may cause the 1.5 and the 2nd generations and beyond whom are economically upwardly mobile to be faced with poor marriage prospects (Brown et al, 2008).

Immigrants may also hold onto the marriage patterns of their home country. This is so since immigrants at times hold on to their culture by maintaining their ties to the sending country. These ties have been known to be maintained because of the advances in technology

(such as the internet and transportation) and communication (e.g. cellular phones) (Portes &

Rumbaut, 2006). Immigrants may be so concerned with the happenings of their homeland

(e.g. national political matters) that they have difficulty in following the classic structural model of assimilation (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Therefore, Jamaican women immigrants with strong cultural bonds may also be more influenced by the union formation patterns of

Jamaica. It is thus possible that marriage patterns may also revert to the Jamaican patterns instead of being explained as downward assimilation.

Economic theories of marriage may help in the understanding of Jamaican assimilation patterns into the American society. It is important to look at these theories since marriage patterns of non-Hispanic African American women and non-Hispanic white

American women have been known to be substantially different (Lichter et al 1991). By looking briefly at these theories, one can better understand the direction of Jamaican women's assimilation (i.e. towards marriage rates of non-Hispanic white Americans, non-Hispanic

African Americans or native Jamaican women). Economic theories of marriage assume that individuals make choices based on their associated costs and the benefits that accrue to those choices. Some economists have modeled marriage by measuring the associated marginal costs and marginal benefits (Chiswick & Lehrer, 1991; Lehrer, 1998). The (marginal) costs

associated with marriage are seen with the continued search for a spouse and the delay of

marriage and/or family formation as well as the opportunity cost of marrying the current

partner. The (marginal) benefits of the search would lie in finding a more suitable partner (i.e.

a partner that is more intelligent, more beautiful, more financially stable, and ethnically more

compatible).

Lichter et al (1991) use this theory in explaining the race gap between African

American and white American marriage rates. Costs and benefits are assessed by: family

background and current living arrangements, women’s economic incentives to search in

marriage markets, and the availability of potential marital partners, especially those with

‘suitable’ characteristics. Although these factors help in explaining the race gap, there are still

some unexplained differences after control variables are added to the model (Lichter et al,

1991). Hence, the race gap in marriages of non-Hispanic African American women versus

non-Hispanic white American women may leave room for cultural explanations (Lichter et

al, 1991). It is also possible for the race gap to be explained by structural factors. An example

of this is isolating analysis to just middle to upper class non-Hispanic African Americans and

Jamaicans. With this type of analysis, there could be a possibility that these middle to upper class Blacks’ union formation patterns may resemble the middle to upper class non-Hispanic whites’ union formation patterns. The race gap has been explained by differences in socio economic status (Iceland & Wilkes, 2006). Iceland & Wilkes (2006) find that non-Hispanic

African Americans of higher socio economic status are less segregated from non-Hispanic white Americans than those non-Hispanic African Americans of lower socio economic status.

Also, Batson et al (2006) also find that as educational attainment increased for all minority groups studied (i.e. Puerto Ricans, West Indians, Africans, and non-Hispanic African

Americans), inter-racial marriages with non-Hispanic white Americans also increased.

Therefore, both cultural and structural factors could be ascribed to help explain the racial gap

in marriage.

Similar to Lichter et al (1991), Wilson (1987) identifies increased aggregate

expenditure in public assistance as well as the reduction in the male/female earning gap have

accentuated women’s independence and thus reduced their incentives to marry (Lichter et al,

1991). This independence is more prominent for African American women which helps

explain their lower marriage rate compared to that of white American women (Lichter et al,

1991). Lichter et al, 1991 finds empirical evidence in support of this argument. They find that

areas with greater welfare assistance were also areas where marriage rates were lower.

The shortage of prospective male partners also explains the race gap in marriage rates

between African American and white American women. This is seen in sex ratio imbalances

where there are significantly more economically attractive males for white American women

than for African American women (Lichter et al, 1991). Sex ratio imbalances for African

Americans are reflected in their higher male mortality and male incarceration rates (Wilson,

1987). Lichter et al (1991) find significant but weak support for this argument. They find that

as sex ratio imbalances increase, the numbers of currently married women are more likely to be reduced. Furthermore, they also find that male unemployment rates are negatively associated with ever married, currently married and recently married rates.

Applicable to Becker (1981), economic theory shows that the shortage of

economically attractive African American males creates disincentives for African American

women to enter the marriage market. Also, African American males' lack of finances affects

their demand for marriage as well as their ability to attract eligible African American females

into the marriage market. Wilson (1987) confirms this theory by stating that the gravity of

African American male unemployment contributes significantly to the shortage of marriage

mates for African American females. Lichter et al's (1991) result also support Wilson's

(1987) hypothesis that a shortage of marriageable black males (i.e. economically attractive

black males) in the marriage market may help explain why African American women have

lower marriage rates than white American females.

Family background and current living arrangements have also been used to help

explain the race gap in marriage (Lichter et al, 1991). In other words, the increases in

secularization are noted by the drastic shift of societal norms, attitudes and morals (Dow et al,

1994). This shift comes with the changing value of children and the increase in gender equity.

Because of urbanization, the flow of wealth is reversed since children become more costly to

rear (Friedlander et al, 1999). Gender equity allows for the role of women in society to be different from the role they had before the transition. Women are now taking part in the labor force (which causes them to desire fewer children), causing fertility to decline (Robinson,

1997). Moreover, there is a change of power relations within the family, which also drives the

fertility decline and gives women more independence of men (McDonald, 2000). Incentives

for women to marry decrease (Lichter et al, 1991; Becker, 1981). This is especially the case

for African American women compared to white American women. They are more likely to live in urban areas, are more likely to be in the labor force, and thus are less likely to be married (Lichter et al., 1991; Wilson, 1987). Moreover, since African American women have higher rates of teenage pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births, especially among the urban poor, the meaning of an ‘illegitimate birth’ is not tied to social disgrace, since there is little hope for a better future and marriage prospects are dim (Wilson, 1987). Lichter at al. (1991) find empirical support for this argument. They found that female earnings and available public assistance significantly reduce the proportions of currently married and recently married. Also, in support of the urbanization argument, Lichter et al., 1991 find that the less populated labor market areas and those with higher percentages of farm populations had higher marriage rates.

The next section will give a brief sense of union formation patterns in Jamaica. This is important since marriage patterns, if not assimilating towards that of non-Hispanic white

Americans nor of non-Hispanic African Americans, may be reverting towards native

Jamaican union formation patterns.

Theories of Union formation in Jamaica

In the general Jamaican context, Blake (1961) states that, among the lower classes, there are higher proportions of women in the 30 – 34 age group and men within the 35 – 39 age group that choose to live in a cohabiting union rather than in a married union. The reason for West Indian people not establishing the married union is due to their negative attitudes towards legal marriage. They are more accepting of non-marital unions (Blake, 1961).

Jamaicans more readily accept cohabitation instead of marriage. However, a high proportion of lower–class Jamaicans eventually marry, but at later ages. Thus, it is expected that the marriage rates for the Jamaicans should be lower than the marriage rates for the American women. However, as age increases, this gap should also decrease.

Smith (1961) discusses the culture and ideology of the lower social class. In lower class black populations, it is virtually the norm to find pregnancy and childbearing outside of marriage and these are treated without social disgrace. Rodman (1963) further states that these values may be different across social classes. Lower class women will better adapt to these alternative non–marital unions compared to middle class and upper-class women

(Rodman, 1963). These alternative non-marital unions are more accepted among lower class women within the West Indian context and are not viewed as being ‘deviant patterns’

(Rodman, 1963; Rodman 1966). However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, there has been a shift in these attitudes where men are now playing a bigger part in their children’s upbringing than merely providing financial support (Roopnarine et al. 1996).

These alternative union formation patterns are also evident within the middle class society. Women who are economically independent may opt not to get married and tend to bear at least one child. According to Roberts and Sinclair (1978), such women prefer this status as it affords them more exclusive control over domestic labor than would be required where there was a resident male partner. This is important to discern since the African

American community sees other non–marital unions as alternatives to marriage and childbearing (Manning & Landale, 1996; Osborne et al. 2004); this is also seen in the Jamaican context (JRHS, 1997). Examining these two contexts will give a better understanding of the assimilation process, moving from the Jamaican to the American family contexts.

Immigrants or their offspring may choose to delay their acculturation in order to lose the culture of their ethnicity (Gans, 1992). In the case of West Indians, this may be beneficial since it becomes a means of not assimilating to the culture of the American lower class

(Gans, 1992). Hence, it is possible that the Jamaican marriage formation patterns may not be assimilating to either the white or African American path, but may have ‘delayed acculturation’ and resembles more of the native Jamaican marriage formation pattern. The section below will deal with cohabitation as a union formation pattern specifically. The motivation for studying cohabitation is that it allows the research to give a complete picture of union formation patterns. Since cohabitation is relatively new and the rates are relatively low in the U.S. and it is noted to be long standing and relatively higher in Jamaica, by studying cohabitation, assimilation via union formation will be more complete. If Jamaican women are assimilating to the cohabitation patterns of the U.S., then a decline in the

Jamaican native rates should be observed.

Cohabitation

Theories of Cohabitation

For the U.S. context, the Second Demographic Transition Theory may explain the rise in cohabitation. It is important to look at this theory briefly since it will give us an understanding of cohabitation in the U.S. and how assimilation can be studied via this fairly new union formation. The second demographic transition started around the year 1965. Its primary focus is on fertility declines below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman

(Van de Kaa, 1997). In the second demographic transition there are: reduction in marriage formations, increase in cohabitation unions, increases in childbearing within non-marital unions and an increase in divorce rates (Van de Kaa, 1997; Loomis & Landale, 1994).

It is important to study cohabitation since marriage alone will not adequately measure union formation patterns available to immigrants and their successive generation (Landale &

Fennelly 1992). According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 estimates, cohabitation has risen dramatically from 439,000 couples in 1960 to 5,368,000 couples in 2006. This measure of cohabitation used is a POSSLQ estimate (i.e. Persons (or Partners) of Opposite Sex Sharing

Living Quarters). Therefore cohabitation has increased to be over 12 times greater within a span of 40 years. This increase in cohabitation is evident for both whites and blacks in the

U.S where blacks increase in cohabitation is greater. For the cohort born 1950 – 1954, at age

25, about 6% of white American women were cohabiting compared to 12% of black

American women (Lesthaeghe et al, 2006). For the cohort born 1965 – 1969, at age 25, about

14% of white American women were cohabiting compared to 23% of black American women (Lesthaeghe et al, 2006). Therefore African American women are more likely to forgo marriage and cohabit when compared to white American women.

Cohabitation is also important to study as a union formation pattern since children are being born and reared in these unions. According to Bumpass & Lu (2000), approximately

40% of children under age 16 are expected to spend some part of their lives within these

unions. Furthermore, the contexts that shape a cohabitation union are known to be different

from the contexts that shape marriage (Brown et al, 2008).

Cohabitation studies have been mainly focused on black and white differences with a limited research done on Hispanics (Brown et al, 2008). Not much research has been done on other racial / ethnic group variations moreover, hardly have been done on generational differences (Brown et al, 2008). There is need for this type of research since cohabitation has been known to vary across race and ethnic groups becoming more common among disadvantaged groups (Brown et al, 2008). African Americans are more likely to form cohabiting unions than White Americans while White Americans are more likely to be married than African Americans (Raley, 1996).

Most studies that look at cohabitation as an alternative to marriage tend to look at child outcomes. A finding is that African Americans are less likely to move from cohabiting to marriage after the birth of a child (Manning, 2004) and African American children are more likely to be in cohabiting unions compared to White American children (Bumpass &

Lu, 2000). Therefore, cohabitation seems to be more of an alternate union formation for

African Americans when compared to White Americans (Brown et al, 2008). In the general

U.S. context however, research indicates that cohabitation is an increasing family setting for childbearing (Manning, 1993; Manning & Landale 1996; Bumpass & Lu, 2000). The percentage of births in cohabitating unions increased from 29% to 39% over the periods

1980–84 and 1990–94 (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). Although cohabitation is becoming more prevalent, it still has not attained the same acceptability as marriage (Manning, 1993).

Married women are more likely to plan to have children than cohabiting women which suggest that cohabitation is not a preferred milieu for having children (Manning, 1995;

Musick, 2002). However, the fact that cohabitation and childbearing have been on the rise in

the U.S. indicates that planning status differences between cohabiting and married women are

becoming less distinct (Loomis & Landale, 1994). Therefore, it shows the importance of

measuring both marriage and cohabitation in assessing assimilation via union formation

patterns.

Most cohabitation research looks at the extent to which cohabitation is deemed

comparable to being married (Brown et al, 2008). There is need for research which highlights

racial / ethnic differences in cohabitation since cohabitation does not impact all racial / ethnic

groups to the same extent (Brown et al, 2008). I am therefore looking at cohabitation as it

affects Non–Hispanic Whites, Non–Hispanic African Americans and the Jamaican

generational groups. For Non–Hispanic White women, cohabitation resembles more of a transition to marriage (Loomis & Landale, 1994). For African Americans, cohabitation looks more like an alternate union formation pattern (Manning & Landale, 1996) and for Jamaican native women, cohabitation seems more of an established union formation pattern (Barrow,

1998). It thus becomes important to look at generational differences of the Jamaican groups in the U.S. to see if their assimilation path follows Non–Hispanic Whites, Non–Hispanic

African Americans, native Jamaicans or a combination.

Having children within cohabiting unions is more socially encouraged in Jamaica

than in the U.S. However, these non-marital union forms for childbearing in the U.S. have

increased and are becoming more socially acceptable (Van de Kaa, 1997; Dow et al, 1994;

Sussman et al., 1999; Kathleen Kiernan, 2004; Smock, 2004). In the U.S., childbearing and

being in a marriage union have been increasingly separated (Pagnini & Rinduss, 1993; Abma

et al., 1997). There has been a progressive retreat from marriage and the increased acceptance

of other forms of non – marital unions such as cohabitation (Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Smock,

2004). In Jamaica, these non–marital unions are sometimes alternative family forms for

childbearing. Furthermore, looking at the two settings, suggest that certain aspects of the U.S.

population childbearing phenomenon are more similar to the Jamaican context. For example,

African American women child bearing are more likely to happen in non-marital unions when compared to White American women (Osborne et al, 2004; Loomis & Landale, 1994).

Jamaican women are similar to the minority women of the U.S. since they are also more likely to bear children within non-marital unions. However, where these non-marital unions for bearing children within minority women of the U.S. may be seen among the economically disadvantageous (Osborne et al, 2004; Loomis & Landale, 1994), this is not the case in

Jamaica. These non-marital unions in Jamaica are more normative and are culturally accepted

(Blake, 1961; McKenzie, 1993). Therefore, fertility within unions is based on the changing societal norms in accepting alternative union types (Cherlin, 2004). Unstable unions are socially regarded as being injurious to child well-being since single parent families are more likely to be economically disadvantaged (Brown, 2004; Brown, 2006; Gennetian, 2004;

Thomson, Hanson & McLanahan, 1994). Greater intentions to have children exist within stable unions since they are more socially accepted and more likely to be financially stable

(Kohler et al., 2005); there is a theoretical and strong positive empirical link that exists between a woman’s fertility behavior and her fertility intentions (Bongaarts, 2001; Quesnel –

Vallee & Morgan, 2003). Therefore, single women who intend to have fewer children than women in unions usually are more likely to have fewer children. If this proves to be true, then those Americans who choose to remain single should have lower parity / household children since they are less likely to intend to have (more) children. I hypothesize that although minority women in the U.S. have similar childbearing experiences as Jamaican women, the marital context meaning is different. Jamaican women are more likely to intend to have births within non–marital unions than the U.S. minority women. This is so since Jamaican family life has a longer history of cohabitation (Blake, 1961) and there is fewer stigmas attached to cohabitation in Jamaican than there is in the U.S.

It is important to control for employment and education when studying cohabitation

since cohabitation is more likely to occur in the lower socio-economic strata of societies

(Brown et al, 2008). As education increases, cohabitation tends to decrease within societies

(Landale & Fennelly, 1992). Cohabitation becomes an adaptive strategy for the

disadvantaged groups of society with limited economic resources (Landale & Forste, 1991).

Gibson–Davis et al (2005) found that low-income couples who cohabit may have plans to

marry but are dissuaded from it because they cannot afford the wedding. They have other

financial prerequisites before they marry which, if not affordable to them, also act as barriers

to marriage (Gibson – Davis et al, 2005). Since racial and ethnic minorities are more likely

to cohabit, immigrant groups that are also a minority may also be more likely to cohabit when

compared to White Americans (Brown et al, 2008). Also, immigrants are also affected by the

cohabitation rates of their country of origin

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to cohabit; therefore immigrants may also

be more likely to cohabit (Brown et al, 2008). Also, cohabitation varies by country of origin;

therefore cohabitation may also vary by generational status in the U.S. (Brown et al, 2008). It

thus becomes important to separate the Jamaican ethnic group in the U.S. by generational

status (i.e. 1st generation, 1.5 generation and 2nd and beyond generation) since they are more

likely to exhibit different cohabitation rates.

One may expect the same assimilation patterns of marriage for immigrants if

cohabitation had the same family reunification polices in the United States (Brown et al,

2008). However, there are no family reunification policies for immigrants who are cohabiters;

hence marriage rates may be higher for immigrants than the marriage rates in their native

country and cohabitation may be lower for the 1st generation and then start to increase with generation (Brown et al, 2008). There is little research using cohabitation to measure assimilation. According to Brown et al (2008), the second generation may forgo family

formation in pursuit of higher levels of education and socioeconomic status. Therefore, their

marriage rates are more likely to be lower than the 1st generation. However, since the 2nd

generation is socialized in the American culture, they may have levels of cohabitation closer

to the general U.S. population (Brown et al, 2008).

The following section below will give the relevant literature review for chapter 6.

Chapter 6 of the dissertation is a very important addition. Studying inter-racial / inter-ethnic

unions is the most direct test of assimilation as it addresses social distance between the racial

/ ethnic groups.

Inter-racial / Inter-ethnic Union formation

Theories of Assimilation and Selectivity

The major theory that guides this research is the assimilation theory. The increase of

inter-racial / -ethnic union formation has been explained by this theory (Kalmijn, 1998).

Based on assimilation theory, as duration of stay and residence in the host county increases, immigrant groups tend to exhibit characteristics similar to those of natives of the host society

(Hirschman, 1983). Previous research has found, when applying this theory, that the 2nd

generation and beyond tend to engage in inter -racial / -ethnic union formations to a greater

extent than their immigrant parents (Gilbertson et al 1996; Lee & Yamanaka 1990; Alba

1976). Therefore, as duration of stay in the U.S. increases, ethnic groups become more and

more assimilated into the American culture (Kalmijn, 1998).

For black Caribbean-Americans, the assimilation process is not as clear because, with

the loss of their cultural norms and values, they may assimilate towards the African American

society (Foner, 1985). This would imply that second generation immigrants and beyond will

lose the socioeconomic advantages that their immigrant parents had achieved over African

Americans. This scenario of cultural assimilation occurred with white immigrant groups

assimilating towards the White American society (Hirschman 1983). The question still

remains open for West Indian blacks (Kalmijn, 1996). This paper will therefore address this

issue; do Jamaicans lose their cultural distinctiveness via assimilation and to what segment of

society do their union formation patterns adapt? Kalmijn (1996) shows that the English-

speaking West Indian migrants tended to assimilate to the White middle class American

culture. Furthermore, assimilation theories are based on the notion that immigrants assimilate

to that of the white American middle class population. As immigrants’ duration of stay

increases, their union formation patterns look less and less like those of their original country.

In this case, immigrant Jamaican women over generations should engage in more inter-racial

/ -inter-ethnic union formation. However, segmented assimilation states that there are

multiple reference groups to which immigrants assimilate rather than just one (Wildsmith,

2004). While some groups assimilate toward the mainstream, it is possible that a group may

actually fare worse across generations as they come to resemble other marginalized groups

within the U.S., such as African Americans (Wildsmith, 2004). However, if the Jamaicans do

assimilate towards the general non-Hispanic African American union formation pattern, in

the scope of this study, it would be difficult to state conclusively that they are assimilating

towards non-Hispanic African Americans. There is also a possibility that the 1.5 and 2nd

generation and beyond Jamaicans may be assimilating towards the native Jamaican union

formation pattern. This is so since both the native Jamaican and non-Hispanic African

American marriage rates are lower and cohabitation rates are higher than are the rates of the

1st generation Jamaicans.

The differential union formation patterns among the groups can also be explained by

the selectivity process. Through the processes of selection, the sub-group within the Jamaican population that is most likely to migrate has different norms and values from the rest of

Jamaican society that does not migrate. The sub-group that is most likely to migrate is more educated, more motivated, has greater aspirations, and is more likely to marry (Butcher,

1994). Kalmijin (1996) also shows how higher-educated women who plan to migrate are

more motivated than women who intend to stay in the country. By the process of selection,

the receiving country’s family formation patterns are adopted more rapidly (Kalmijin, 1996).

Therefore, Jamaicans who have migrated to the U.S. will naturally have higher marriage rates

than Jamaicans who do not migrate. The next section below shall apply marriage theories to

measuring assimilation via inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation.

Theories of Marriage Applied to Inter-racial / Inter-ethnic Union formation and Assimilation

Some benefits of marrying within one’s ethnic group include: rearing children with the group’s specific values, joint decision-making regarding the distribution of time and money, and reduced social scrutiny (Becker, 1973; Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008).

However, as stated before, preferences for a partner that shares the same ethnicity can be altered by other factors such as: the same language, higher levels of human capital, and modernization, (Becker, 1973; 1974; Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). Kalmijn (1991) states that, the children of immigrants are more likely to intermarry than their parents, because they have higher levels of US specific human capital. Alba & Golden (1986) also find that with increased generation in the U.S., ethnic groups become more likely to intermarry. Studies based on the earlier European immigrants also show that, as generations increase, their outmarriage rates also increase (Perlmann & Waters, 2007). Hence I expect that later generation

Jamaican women will be more likely to form inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions.

Structural Union- formation Patterns

The assimilation theory does not take into account structural factors that are important when measuring inter-racial / -ethnic union formation (Hwang & Aguirre, 1994). These factors are important since the community where an individual resides will influence the exogamy rate. As the ethnic group size increases, the chances of forming an inter-racial / - ethnic union should decrease since homogeneity hinders opportunity for intermarriage

(Hwang & Aguirre, 1994). Therefore I control for ethnic group size using two variables:

generation specific sex ratio and Jamaican ethnic group population in an area.

Structural factors associated with forming an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union deal with

the size and segregation of an ethnic group, since this influences the individual’s opportunity

to meet potential partners (Kalmijn & Van Tubergen, 2010). Another structural factor is the

sex ratio of the group. Sex ratios influence the opportunity to meet potential partners; skewed

sex ratios will more likely be associated with out-marriage (Kalmijn & Van Tubergen, 2010).

These factors are discussed below in greater detail in the data and methods chapter.

One signal of assimilation is an individual’s economic status, such as education, earnings, or occupation (Joyner & Kao, 2005; Qian et al, 2005). Many studies have focused on measuring assimilation by using these outcomes (Hirshman & Kraly, 1990; Butcher,

1994; Dodoo, 1997). However, another signal of assimilation is the extent of intermarriage by the foreign born, where marriages among individuals of different ethnic groups are commonly referred to as ethnic intermarriages (Joyner & Kao, 2005; Qian et al, 2005).

Research is lacking when assessing assimilation via inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation. Possible reasons for the lack of assimilation research in this area are that the flow of non–European immigrants increased markedly in 1965 and that, until 1967, inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions were banned in the U.S.

Intermarriage for the purpose of this study is the process by which two people of different races / ethnic groups marry. According to Perlmann & Waters (2007) it is also the

process by which racial groups are increasingly crossing a ‘recognized boundary’ that with

time and frequency causes this boundary to disappear or become blurred. Due to the fact that

this boundary is being crossed so frequently, American social scientists have used

intermarriage in the study of assimilation. The boundaries become blurred as groups

recognize each other as social equals and are willing to interact with each other at the most

intimate level – within a sexual union (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990; Kalmijn, 1998; Qian et al,

2005; Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). It is evident that ethnic attachment is measured by

intra-group marriage and is the result of being involved in larger ethnic group sizes.

However, Furtado & Theodoropoulous (2007) state that this relationship could also go in the

reverse direction since larger ethnic group sizes ‘cause’ more intra-group marriages.

However, an individual who assimilates faster into a culture would be more likely to live in more conducive areas. These individuals are thought to be less attached to their community and are not ‘shunned’ by other racial groups (Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). Gordon (1964) states that engaging in inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation is the ‘final step’ in the immigrant assimilation process.

Also, the newly-arrived foreign born immigrant is associated with lower levels of intermarriage. This could be owing to the fact that adult immigrants have lower levels of acculturation compared to younger immigrants (Edmonston & Passel, 1999). Another potential argument is that these immigrants are already involved in a union upon arrival

(Edmonston & Passel, 1999). The age of the immigrant is therefore important in explaining inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation. Immigrants who arrive at younger ages are more likely to intermarry than immigrants who arrive as adults. This clearly reflects higher degrees of assimilation with duration of stay in the United States. I therefore separate the Jamaican immigrant groups by generation.

It is important to separate the Jamaican immigrant groups by generation since research has shown that those who migrate before the age of 14 are more likely to intermarry than those who migrate at older ages (Chiswick and Houseworth, 2008). Immigrants that arrive before the age of 14 have longer exposure to the U.S. marriage market than immigrants who arrive at later ages (Furtado & Theodoropoulous, 2008). Although they have high ethnic preferences which are witnessed in all ethnic groups, they face fewer language and cultural

barriers in inter-ethnic marriages than do older migrants (Furtado & Theodoropoulous, 2008).

According to assimilation perspectives, as generations increase, they are more likely to have

an exogenous union formation (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990). Furthermore, the 2nd generation

and beyond are more acculturated than the 1st generation, since they have weaker ethnic identification ties to their country of origin (Wang et al, 2004). It has also been found that there is a relationship between inter-racial dating and generational status (Gurung & Duong,

1999). Later generations are more likely to have inter-racial relationships and are less likely to end these relationships (Gurung & Duong, 1999).

In the United States, studies that focus on inter- racial / -ethnic marriages tend to find an inverse relationship between this type of marriage and age (Heaton & Jacobson, 2004;

Heaton & Jacobson, 2000). Heaton & Jacobson (2000) found that as age increased, the odds of a non-Hispanic African American having a non-Hispanic white American spouse decreased significantly. Their explanation is that younger individuals would be more likely to interact with people of difference races and are less likely to hold negative beliefs about other ethnicities (Heaton & Jacobson, 2000). Furthermore, other studies have stated that younger people are better able to adopt and accept other cultures (Gurak & Fitzpatrick, 1982) especially since the 2nd generation migrants are more assimilated into the U.S. culture

(Heaton & Jacobson, 2004). Therefore, I have also included age as an independent variable

for the models in chapter 6.

Cultural Union formation Patterns

The patterns of intermarriage and acceptance of other racial groups have dramatically changed over the past 40 years (Heaton & Jacobson, 2004). Therefore cultural factors are very important to control for when studying out-partnering. Cultural factors associated with forming an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union deal with all the third-party influences on the individual’s union formation choices (Kalmijn & Van Tubergen, 2010). The degree to which

45 parents, the community and the family are involved in the selection of one’s partner will influence the exogamy rate within the group (Kalmijn & Van Tubergen, 2010). These factors are discussed below in greater detail.

Personal interaction between different groups of people at times results in conflicts that also make cultural differences clearer (Kalmijn, 1998). However, an inter-racial / inter- ethnic union is more intimate and allows for the understanding of a different culture so that stereotypes and prejudices of an ethnic group may be clarified (Kalmijn, 1998; Perlmann &

Waters, 2007). Intermarriage connects not only cultures but also the social circles of the two individuals (Kalmijn, 1998; Perlmann & Waters, 2007). Thus, there are broader ranges of individuals that are able to understand the culture of the other ethnic group. Also, the children of mixed marriages are able to embrace the cultures of both parents and will be less likely to identify as a single ethnic group (Kalmijn, 1998). Immigrants who marry Americans are able to become U.S. citizens and the country’s resources will be more accessible to them than to immigrants who intra-marry (Bean & Stevens, 2003). The stability and increase of inter- ethnic union formation will give us an indicator of present and future race-relations in the U.S

(Wang et al, 2004).

Inter-racial marriage is more intimate than cohabitation because of the greater commitment required (Joyner & Kao, 2005). Marriage is a lifelong commitment where both individuals’ social circles and resources are pooled (Joyner & Kao, 2005). Generally, intermarriage rates are low for immigrants in the U.S (Bean & Stevens, 2003). This would suggest that individuals are more likely to form another type of inter-racial / inter-ethnic union besides an inter-racial marriage, since other unions involve less commitment (Joyner and Kao, 2005). However, since immigrants who intermarry are more likely to earn higher incomes than those who intra-marry, they appear to be better assimilated (Qian et al, 2005;

Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). However, sociologists who advocate the cultural perspective

will argue that individuals tend to prefer their own ethnic / racial groups (Kalmijn, 1998;

Joyner & Kao, 2005). So, inter-racial relationships are once again less likely, since they

garner less support from the individuals’ groups than do intra-racial relationships (Pagnini &

Morgan, 1990; Wang et al, 2004).

It is also especially useful to look at inter-racial / inter-ethnic cohabiting relationships when measuring assimilation. Like inter-racial marriage, other types of intimate inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions also weaken the negative social barriers between racial and ethnic groups

(Kalmijn, 1998). They also allow for the understanding of a different culture and, thus, stereotypes and prejudices against an ethnic group may be broken down (Kalmijn, 1998).

Additionally, fertility within cohabiting unions is on the increase (Raley, 2001) therefore inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions are a source for having mixed-race children who learn both cultures. In measuring assimilation, since cohabitation is on the rise and marriage is on the decline in the U.S., this assimilation should also be reflected in generational differences

(Brown et al, 2008). Also, by studying other types of inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions other than marriage will add to our understanding of intimate inter-racial relationships (Joyner &

Kao, 2005). Inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions demonstrate an intimate link between ethnic and racial groups (Kalmijn, 1998). Hence, apart from looking just at marriage and cohabitation, I also plan to look at inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation of Jamaican women in order to examine the social distances dividing the three racial / ethnic groups (i.e.

Jamaicans, non-Hispanic African Americans and non-Hispanic white Americans).

The chapter below will present the data and methods that I am using throughout the study. Also, most of the variables used in this study and their construction are presented below.

CHAPTER III: DATA AND METHODS

Data

The major goal of this project is to examine how women’s union-formation behavior differs by racial and ethnic groups, in addition to social and economic factors. I am therefore studying women between the ages of 18 – 44 years since they are most likely to be involved in union formation. I am also exploring the role that assimilation plays in reducing marital union formation for Jamaican immigrants. Finally, I would also like to show that, regardless of culture, union formation patterns differ across regions due to selectivity of the immigration process.

This study relies on three datasets: the 2002 Jamaican Reproductive (JRHS) Health

Survey, the U.S. 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and the 2000 U.S. Census

5% PUMS sample. I use the Jamaican Reproductive Health Survey 2002 for the analysis of the Jamaican women in Jamaica, the 5% sample of the Census 2000 (Ruggles et al 2009) dataset to study Jamaican women migrants to the U.S., the 2nd generation and beyond

Jamaican women as well as the non-Hispanic American women. I also use the National

Survey of Family Growth 2002 to assess the data quality of the Census 2000 for the non-

Hispanic white and non-Hispanic African American sub-groups. The NSFG 2002 measures cohabitation at the individual level while the Census 2000 measures it at the household level but only where cohabitation occur in relation to the head of the household. The Census 2000 cohabitation measure therefore underestimates cohabitation since it only polls cohabiters in relation to the head of the household. The NSFG 2002 is thus used to assess the data quality of the Census to see if cohabitation is significantly underestimated.

The JRHS survey is a sample of Jamaican females between the ages of 15 and 49 years. This survey consists of 10,764 Jamaican women sampled from Jamaica's 14 parishes.

The data uses the design adopted for the Continuous Social and Demographic Surveys

conducted by the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. This design is based on a two-stage stratified sample in which the first stage is a selection of geographic areas and the second stage is a selection of dwellings. The mode of administration used in this survey is face-to-face interviews with interviewers recording responses. These data are appropriate because of detailed questions about basic demographic characteristics and union formation behavior.

Moreover, the 2002 Jamaican Reproductive Health Survey is one of the few most recent nationally representative datasets that examine union formation.

The National Survey of Family Growth 2002 is conducted by the National Center for

Health Statistics. The survey interviews both males and females but only the female survey is analyzed. The female sample ranges from 15 to 44 years and it is an area probability representative weights sample of the United States population. There are approximately 7,643 females sampled in the survey. This dataset is appropriate because it reflects recent patterns and includes measures of union formation and basic demographics.

The 2000 U.S. Census used is the five percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS).

It is a weighted sample where one in twenty is randomly sampled from the population. In the selection of the five percent PUMS, a stratified systematic selection procedure with equal probability is used. The majority of the population is enumerated by the mail-back procedure where questionnaires are mailed to the respondent and instructions given on how to return the questionnaire1. This dataset has limited union formation variables. It is one of the few

datasets that allow for union formation analysis across such subgroups as Jamaican

immigrants who are not adequately represented in other national fertility surveys (Kahn,

1988). It is adequate because it allows one to get reasonable and accurate counts of

1 Originally published as "Chapter 5, Sample Design and Estimation," 2000 Census of Population and Housing: Public-use Microdata Samples Technical Documentation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 5-1 to 5-8.

49 immigrants from specific countries, along with other individuals that share their ancestry

(Glazer, 2005).

The Census does not ask questions about current marital status nor does it give the date when unions were established. Therefore, using this data, when studying current union- formation patterns, it is not possible to sample only couples who are in existing unions (Qian

& Cobas, 2004; Lichter et al, 2007). My sample thus contains unions with varying durations and orders (Qian & Cobas, 2004). This sample is potentially biased since disruptions of unions are influenced by the time spent in a union as well as the order of that union (Qian &

Cobas, 2004). In order to reduce this potential bias, Qian & Cobas used couples aged 20 – 34 years in the Census since they are most likely to have recently entered into their union. They also noted that reducing the sample to younger age groups could also potentially under- estimate inter-racial marriage unions since older couples who have entered into a first marriage are more likely to be in such unions than younger couples. Although most studies use age group 20 – 34 years to analyze current union formation and measure assimilation, I am using the age group 18 – 44 years to compensate for inadequate sample size. Furthermore, all model estimates obtained for the 20 – 34 year sample, although not robust, give the same interpretations for the 18 – 44 year sample2.

The analytic sample for all three data samples are adult women, aged 18 – 44 years and who give valid responses on the questions related to the basic demographic variables and union formation. For the NSFG and the 2000 Census, these samples are also limited to women who answered ‘no’ to the following question: ‘Were you born outside of the United

States?’ Therefore the U.S. samples exclude foreign born women without Jamaican ancestry.

The final analytic sample is based on 7,735 women in the JRHS; 3,648 non-Hispanic white

American women in the NSFG; 1,254 non-Hispanic African American women in the NSFG;

2 Models not shown

1,142,992 non-Hispanic white American women in the Census; 222,825 non-Hispanic

African American women in the Census; 1,669 Jamaican women in the Census who were

born in the U.S. (2nd generation and beyond) and 5,687 for Jamaican women in the Census

who were born in Jamaica (1st generation immigrants).

The only dataset used in chapter six (studying inter-racial / inter ethnic union

formation) is the Census 2000 (5% IPUMS data). The sample here only consists of Jamaican

1st, 1.5 and 2nd generation and beyond women. Furthermore, the sample only includes women

who are either married or cohabiting. Single women are excluded. There are 1,740 1st generation Jamaican women, 425 1.5 generation Jamaican woman and 451 2nd generation

Jamaican women who are between the ages 18 – 44 years within this sample.

Measures

Dependent Variables

The dependent variable that is found in the three datasets is current union status

recoded into two groups in chapter 4: ‘married’ and ‘single’ and three groups in chapter 5:

‘married’, ‘cohabiting’ and ‘single’. This variable is only used in chapters 4 and 5. In the

Census 2000, current union status includes six categories: ‘married, spouse present’;

‘married, spouse absent’; ‘separated’; ‘widowed’; ‘divorced’; and ‘never been married /

single’. In Chapter 4, this variable is recoded into two groups: ‘married’ and ‘single’

(incorporating widowed, divorced and never been married). For chapter 5, in the Census

2000, the union status variable further incorporates cohabitation status which is based on the

question “How is the person related to person #1?”. Those householders who identify as

living with an unmarried partner, as well as household heads living with householders who

identify as being an unmarried partner, are coded as cohabiters (Brown et al, 2008). Those

who are neither coded as married nor cohabiting are coded as being single.

In the National Survey of Family Growth, union status includes six categories:

‘married’, ‘not married but living with a partner of the opposite sex’, ‘widowed’, ‘divorced’,

‘separated because you and your spouse were not getting along’ and ‘never been married’. In chapter 4, this variable is recoded into two groups: ‘married’, and ‘single’ (incorporating

‘cohabiting’ - those who are not married but living with a partner of the opposite sex, widowed, divorced and never been married). In Chapter 5, this variable is recoded into three groups: ‘married’, ‘cohabiting’ (i.e. those who are not married but living with a partner of the opposite sex) and ‘single’ (incorporating widowed, divorced and never been married). The purpose of the NSFG 2002 is important in testing the data quality of the cohabitation measure in the Census 2000. In the Census 2000, the cohabitation measure does not take into account any relationships other than the one between the household head and the householder who is cohabiting with the household head. It thus becomes important to use the NSFG 2002 to test to see if there is a significant under-estimation in the cohabitation measure in the Census

2000.

In the Jamaica Reproductive Health Survey the union status variable has four categories: ‘no relationship’, ‘married relationship’, ‘common law relationship’, ‘visiting relationship’. This variable incorporates the following four questions: questions 201, 202, 203 and 204: ‘Are you legally married?’, ‘Are you and your husband living together as man and wife now?’, ‘Are you living with a common-law partner with whom you have sexual relations? and ‘Do you have a visiting partner, that is, a more or less steady partner with whom you have sexual relations?’. These questions allow only 'yes' and 'no' responses. In chapter 4, all the ‘no’ responses to these questions are coded as ‘0’ along with the ‘yes’ responses on question 204 into 'no union.' The ‘yeses’ on questions 201 and 202 are coded as

‘1’ into 'married union.' All other responses are coded as ‘single’. Chapter 5 is similarly

coded. However, the difference is that the ‘yeses’ on question 203 are coded as ‘2’ into

cohabiting and all other responses are coded as ‘single’.

In Chapter 6, the focal dependent variable assesses assimilation via inter-racial / inter- ethnic union formation and can only be analyzed in the Census 2000. The variable used to assess this is: the race of the partner (i.e. either married or cohabiting). The race of the partner variable is coded into six categories: non-Hispanic white partner (i.e. cohabiting or being married to a non-Hispanic white male), non-Hispanic African American partner (i.e. cohabiting or being married to a non-Hispanic African American male), 1st generation

Jamaican partner (i.e. cohabiting or being married to a 1st or 1.5 generation Jamaican male),

2nd generation Jamaican partner (i.e. cohabiting or being married to a 2nd generation and

beyond Jamaican male), other race partner (i.e. cohabiting or being married to male of

another race). The comparison group has a 1st generation Jamaican male partner. For the case

of the Jamaican ethnic group, the race and the Jamaican ancestry of the partner is used. If the

partner has Jamaican ancestry, these men are excluded from being in other racial groups.

Independent Variables

For the U.S. Census 2000 sample, race of the respondent incorporates respondent's

race and ethnicity measured by ancestry. This is the focal independent variable for chapters 4

and 5. The categories include non-Hispanic white (reference group), non-Hispanic black,

Jamaicans living in the U.S. who were born in Jamaica (1st Generation), and those women

who are living in the U.S. who were born in the U.S and who are of Jamaican ancestry (2nd

Generation). The Jamaican immigrant group is further subdivided into two groups: those who

arrived before age 13 (the 1.5 generation) and those who arrived at or above age 13 (the 1st

generation). This subdivision of the 1.5 generation reflects those who migrated during their

pre teen years and have had most of their formal schooling and socialization in the United

Stated (Mossakowski, 2007). It is important to separate the 1st generation from the 1.5

generation since immigrants who migrate as children will be more likely to be socialized in

the union formation patterns of the United States. Immigrants who migrate as adults (the 1st

generation) will be closer to the migration process and will be more influenced by the union

formation patterns of their native country (Brown et al, 2008). Therefore it is expected that

the 1st generation union formation patterns will be closer to that of their native country and

the 2nd generation and beyond will have patterns similar to that of the U.S (Brown et al,

2008). The 1.5 generation patterns should be in between the 1st and 2nd generations and

beyond union formation patterns (Brown et al, 2008). Separating the 1.5 from the 2nd

generation and beyond is also important since those who arrive as children will be closer to

the migration process and may exhibit union formation patterns closer to their native country

compared to those that were born in the U.S. (Brown et al, 2008).

In chapter 6, the focal independent variable - the racial and ethnic groups measured- is

only measured in the Census 2000. This variable incorporates respondent's race and ethnicity

measured by ancestry. The categories are: 1st generation Jamaican women (reference group),

1.5 generation Jamaican women and 2nd generation Jamaican women. The Jamaican

immigrant group is subdivided into two groups: those who arrived before age 13 (the 1.5

generation) and those who arrived at or above age 13 (the 1st generation). In chapter 6, the

non – Hispanic White and non – Hispanic African American women as well as Jamaican

native women living in Jamaica are excluded from these analyses.

Other controls

The link between union formation and race and ethnicity is strongly correlated with

age, age squared (Joyner & Kao, 2005), group population size, area of residence (Pagnini &

Morgan, 1990) and employment status (Butcher, 1994; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999) which makes it important to include these variables in the analysis as other controls. Marriage has been known to impact women’s careers negatively because of the difficulties in

combining full-time employment with family life and child-bearing (Goldin, 1995; Leibowitz

& Klerman 1995). Since cohabitation is new, it is still unclear how this union form may

impact on marriage and / or employment (Casper & Cohen, 1999). Women who are

employed and successful are more likely to be cohabiting than married (Clarkberg,

Stolzenberg & Waite 1995). However, employment seems to improve African American

women's chances of marriage (Manning & Smock, 1995). In all three datasets, employment

Status is coded as ‘1’ for employed and ‘0’ for unemployed.

Educational attainment and employment are important variables to control for when

studying inter-racial / -ethnic union formation. As education increases, the likelihood of an

inter-racial / -ethnic union increases as the group is more likely to move out of their enclaves in pursuit of better jobs and higher levels of education (Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2008). As migrants move into other areas, they become more likely to meet racially and ethnically different romantic partners (Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2008). However, some literature has found that increased educational attainment has no effect on white / black inter-racial marriage formation (although it increases the chances of other white / non -white marriages)

(Qian & Lichter, 2007). The reasoning behind this is that other immeasurable outcomes related to race and class between Whites and Blacks may trump the education effect (Burton et al, 2010).

Education is therefore an important covariate to look at when studying inter- and intra- racial unions. Education has an effect on inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation.

First, those people who have higher levels of education are more likely to meet people from other diverse backgrounds (e.g. via college campuses) (Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008;

Gullickson, 2005). College campuses may increasingly be settings for inter-racial / inter- ethnic union formations as all ethnic groups are integrated in the local marriage pool

(Gullickson, 2005). Increased education may therefore reduce the aversion to other ethnic

groups as well as increase awareness and acceptance of other cultures (Chiswick &

Houseworth, 2008). Furtado (2006) refers to the effect of education on intermarrying as the

“cultural adaptability effect”. Those immigrants with higher levels of education are less

attached to their community of origin since they had to leave their families to pursue

education in the U.S. (Kalmijn, 1998; Gullickson, 2005). Furthermore, they may have a more

cosmopolitan view of life and thus they are more open-minded (since they hold more

democratic values) in forming inter- racial/inter-ethnic unions (Gullickson, 2005; Gordon

1964; Lieberson & Waters 1988; Kalmijn 1998). Previous research has found the same

significant effect between education and intermarriage (Lieberson & Waters, 1988; Schoen &

Wooldredge, 1989; Sandefur & McKinnell, 1986; Meng & Gregory, 2005; Chiswick &

Houseworth, 2008).

According to the cultural adaptability effect, as education increases the chance of an

inter-racial / inter-ethnic union, the likelihood of an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union also increases. With education, one becomes more accepting and tolerant of other cultures.

Immigrants with more human capital are able to adapt to the U.S. culture at a faster rate

(Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2007). The enclave effect also suggest that the highly educated are more likely to move out of their ethnic communities into more diverse settings in search of jobs; this, in turn, exposes them to more diverse marriage-market conditions (Furtado &

Theodoropoulos, 2007). Finally, the assortative matching effect also states that as the educational levels of males and females of the same ethnicity increase, there is a surplus of potential mates in the market (Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2007). From this point of view, the chances of forming an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union increase with education as individuals’ openness towards such relationships increase. Prior research has also found a positive relationship between education, abstract principles or racial equality and opposition to anti-miscegenation laws (Schuman et al, 1997). Similarly, Demo & Hughes (1990) have

found that Blacks feel less close to other Blacks with each increase in their socio-economic

status. It is therefore important to control for education in studying inter- and intra-racial

union formation.

The selection process of migration allows for the more educated and higher Socio

Economic Status (SES) to move (Kahn, 1988; Butcher, 1994; Model, 1991; Waters, 1990;

Waters, 1994). Immigrants are positively selected into the receiving country hence their union formation patterns are more readily adapted to those of the receiving country (Kahn,

1988; Kalmijin, 1998). This increases with duration of stay. Migrants carry with them many distinguishing characteristics from the original country (higher SES, more motivation and aspiration, lower fertility goals, higher education). Kalmijin also shows how higher-educated

women who plan to migrate are more motivated to succeed socioeconomically than are

women who intend to stay in the country. Hence, these migrants will be more likely to marry

and less likely to cohabit than the native born Jamaicans.

Hence, a demographic risk factor associated with not marrying or with forming less

stable unions is: lower levels of education (Qian et al, 2005; Carlson & Furstenberg, 2006;

Musick, 2002; Osborne, 2005; Goldsheider & Sassler, 2006). This risk is reduced with

increased levels of education (Guzzo & Furstenberg, 2007; Carlson & Furstenberg, 2006).

Furthermore, inter-ethnic union formations are more frequently realized by the highly-

educated than by the uneducated (Toulemon & Testa, 2005). Given the nature of social class,

particularly education, in affecting union formation, both the Jamaican and the U.S. models

will be controlled by education. In the Census 2000 sample, education is measured by

educational attainment. This variable has eleven categories: ‘no schooling’, ‘Nursery school

to grade 4’, ‘Grade 5, 6, 7, or 8’, ‘Grade 9’, ‘Grade 10’, ‘Grade 11’, ‘Grade 12’, ‘1 year of

college’, ‘2 years of college’, ‘3 years of college’, ‘4 years of college’ and ‘5+ years of

college’.

In the Jamaican JRHS sample, education is measured by, ‘How many years did you

attend school?’ This variable is coded into eleven categories to be comparable to the

education measure in the Census 2000 data: ‘no schooling’, ‘Nursery school to grade 4’,

‘Grade 5, 6, 7, or 8’, ‘Grade 9’, ‘Grade 10’, ‘Grade 11’, ‘Grade 12’, ‘1 year of college’, ‘2

years of college’, ‘3 years of college’, ‘4 years of college’ and ‘5+ years of college’.

In the U.S. NSFG sample, education is measured by the number of years of schooling.

This variable is coded into eleven categories: ‘no schooling’, ‘Nursery school to grade 4’,

‘Grade 5, 6, 7, or 8’, ‘Grade 9’, ‘Grade 10’, ‘Grade 11’, ‘Grade 12’, ‘1 year of college’, ‘2

years of college’, ‘3 years of college’, ‘4 years of college’ and ‘5+ years of college’.

In the JRHS 2002, NSFG 2002 and the Census 2000, age of the respondent is

measured as a continuous variable and age2 is simply age squared. Age and age2 are also

important indicators when looking at inter- and intra- racial / ethnic unions. Heaton &

Albrecht (1996) found that inter-racial marriages declined significantly with age. One of their

other conclusions is that inter-racial marriages are most likely to occur among the highly-

educated and that social barriers to such unions have weakened in recent years. Joyner &

Kao (2005) also state that inter-racial relationships are expected to decline as age increases,

due to the life-course perspective. These patterns are confirmed from data in the 1990s

showing that inter-racial / inter-ethnic unions decline considerably as one passes through later

stages of the life-course (Joyner & Kao, 2005). It is therefore important to control for age and

age2 when studying union formation patterns between Jamaican and non-Hispanic American

women since union formation and inter-racial / inter-ethnic union formation decrease with

age.

In the JRHS 2002, area of residence is measured by three locations: the Kingston

Metropolitan Area (KMA), other towns and rural areas. Dummy variables are used in the

analysis with the KMA as the reference group. In the NSFG 2002, area of residence is

measured by three locations: MSA, Central City, MSA other and not MSA. Dummy variables

are used in the analysis with MSA, Central City as the reference group.

In the Census 2000, area of residence is measured by three locations: “In metro area,

central city”, “In metro area, outside central city” and “Not in metro area”. Dummy variables

are used where “In metro area, central city” is the reference group. Those who identified as

metro area “Not identifiable” or “Central city status unknown” are deleted from the analysis.

The ethnic group size is also used as an independent variable in the U.S. Census 2000

sample. This variable is important since it measures the ethnic marriage-market conditions

which have a significant effect on the probability of forming an inter-racial / inter-ethnic union (Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008; Pagnini & Morgan, 1990). It is important to code area of residence in terms of concentration of ethnic groups since areas with greater concentration of each group will be less likely to form an inter-racial / -ethnic union with another group and vice versa (Arias, 2001). Furthermore, in order for inter- and intra- racial / -ethnic unions to occur, the opportunity for communication among individuals is important. The opportunity for contact can be measured by the population size of the various ethnic / racial groups in the given area (Kalmijn, 1998; Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2008). Alba & Golden (1986) find that as group size increases, intermarriage decreases among people with European ancestry in the U.S. The other studies mentioned above have also come up with the same or similar conclusions. The coefficient on group size therefore implies that intermarriage is less likely when the pool of potential ethnic partners increases; therefore immigrants are less likely to form an inter-ethnic union if they have more available mates who share the same ethnic background as themselves (Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). Inter-racial / Inter-ethnic union formations are therefore less likely for those living in areas where their ethnicity is well represented (Kalmijn, 1998; Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008).

In the 2000 Census, group-population size is measured by taking the natural logarithm of the ethnic group size in an area. This measure was adopted from Frank van Tubergen &

Ineke Maas (2006) in predicting ethnic endogamy. The log transformation is used to reduce the level of skew in the variable (Tubergen & Maas, 2006). In this study, since there are more than one ethnic groups (i.e. non-Hispanic white Americans, non-Hispanic African Americans,

1st generation Jamaicans and 2nd generation Jamaicans), the measurement of group size is race specific.

In the 2000 Census, sex ratio is also race specific and it is also a measure used to assess group-population size (Okamoto, 2007). This variable measures the number of males of the same race / ethnic group against the number of females of the same race / ethnic group.

This variable is generally employed when studying union formation (Chiswick &

Houseworth, 2008; Frank van Tubergen & Ineke Maas, 2006; Okamoto, 2007). As the ethnic sex ratio increases, women will be less likely to be partnered with men of a different ethnicity

(Okamoto, 2007).

In the 2000 Census, another measure used to assess immigrant integration via union formation is settlement size (Dribe & Lundh, 2008). Thus, population in the geographic area is coded into a categorical variable adapted from Dribe & Lundh, 2008. The categories used are: population in geographic area is between 20,000 - 50,000 individuals (reference group), population in geographic area is between 50,000 - 200,000 individuals, population in geographic area is between 10,000 - 20,000 individuals and population in geographic area is lower than 10,000 individuals.

Controlling for birth parity is also important since women in stable unions will have a greater desire for children (Toulemon & Testa, 2005). Household parity / children under age

18 years, is left as a continuous variable for all analyses. For comparison with the Census

2000 which measures 'own children in the household', this variable based on birth histories in

the NSFG 2002, while the JRHS 2002 only used children 18 years and younger. The rationale

for using 'parity 18 or under' for the NSFG and the JRHS samples is to try and create a close

approximation to 'own children' provided in the Census 2000. This is an accurate assumption

since 'own kids in the household' may be loosely defined as persons between the ages of 0

and 17 (Sobczak & Swicegood, 2005). This group is more likely to also be living in the

household with their parents. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the non-Hispanic white American, non-Hispanic African American and Jamaican sub-samples. The NSFG

2002 samples are presented to assess data quality. The Census 2000 cohabitation measure underestimates cohabitation since it only polls cohabiters in relation to the head of the household. Therefore, the NSFG 2002 assesses the data quality of the Census to see if cohabitation is significantly underestimated.

The following chapters below (i.e. chapters 4, 5 and 6) will present a brief introduction of each chapter then the assimilation theory will be assessed via regression models.

CHAPTER IV: MARRIAGE

Introduction

Straight-line assimilation predicts that acculturation begins from the moment the immigrant enters the country. However, today’s immigrants are different because, long before the entry point, they have already been exposed to American culture through the media and the internet (Gans, 1992). Marriage rates by race have been known to differ significantly in the United States. In 2001, the percentage of ever-married non-Hispanic white women was 79.3% while the percentage of ever-married non-Hispanic African American women was 58.1% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Racial differences in marriage rates are important to understand since marriage is considered to be beneficial to society (Schoen &

Kluegel, 1988) (as discussed earlier in the introduction). According to research, this race gap in marriage may be explained by the differences in family background and current living arrangements, in women’s economic incentives to search in marriage markets, and in the availability of potential marital partners. These, among other factors, will be discussed later.

Marriage rates have also been known to differ among women according to region and ethnic group (Lichter et al, 1992; Pagnini & Morgan, 1996; Raley, 1996; Goldscheider &

Bures, 2003; Gibson-Davis et al, 2005). Understanding marriage dynamics (within different ethnic and racial cultural traditions) requires studying not only the general population but specific sub-groups within the population. Looking at the Jamaican sub-group populations alongside non-Hispanic American sub-group populations will shed more light on the conditions and variations seen in marriage formation patterns. This study adds to our limited knowledge of racial and ethnic variation in union formation patterns by taking into account the marriage- formation patterns of migrant Jamaican women in the U.S. Furthermore, when most studies look at racial / ethnic differences in union formation, they compare non-

Hispanic whites with blacks and hispanics (e.g. Harknett & McLanahan, 2004; Harknett,

2008; Lichter et al, 1992; Loomis & Landale, 1994). They fail to mention how the foreign

born were treated and have incorporated all the black ethnic groups together. It is important

to separate these groups since the black population in the U.S. has doubled over the period

1980 – 2000 (Ghazel & Emerson 2005). This study creates a new category for one of the

biggest growing black ethnic groups (i.e. the Jamaican ethnic group) and contributes since it

reveals differences of behavior between black ethnic groups.

Below I have presented some descriptive statistics followed by marriage models comparing the six groups: non-Hispanic white Americans, non-Hispanic African Americans,

1st generation Jamaican immigrants, 1.5 generation Jamaican immigrants, 2nd generation

Jamaican immigrants and native Jamaican women living in Jamaica.

Descriptive Results

Table 2 and figure 1 present the marriage rates by age groups for the non-Hispanic

white American, non-Hispanic African American and Jamaican sub-samples.

[Table 2 here]

[Figure 1 here]

For all the groups (i.e. non-Hispanic white American, non-Hispanic African

American, Jamaican non-immigrant, Jamaican 1st generation and Jamaican 2nd generation)

marriage rates increase with age. At any age, non-Hispanic white American women have

significantly higher marriage rates than non-Hispanic African American women (as well as all the other groups3). Jamaican non-immigrants have significantly lower marriage rates than

non-Hispanic African American women for all age groups except between 40 to 44 years.

Jamaican 1st generation immigrants have significantly higher marriage rates compared to non-Hispanic African Americans at all ages except for those aged 18 to 24. In all age groups,

Jamaican 1st generation immigrants also have significantly higher marriage rates than non-

3 Significant difference among these groups not shown.

immigrant Jamaican women4. This may indicate a selection effect. Marriage rates for 2nd generation Jamaican women are significantly lower than for non-Hispanic African American women in the age groups 18 – 24 and 25 to 29 years; are not significantly different for the age groups 30 – 34 and 35 to 39 and are significantly higher than for non-Hispanic African

American women at ages 40 – 44. Thus, based on the descriptive results, it is not clear towards which groups the Jamaican women are assimilating (whether non-Hispanic African

Americans or Jamaican non-immigrants) based on generation.

[Table 3 here]

[Figure 2 here]

Table 3 and figure 2 present the marriage rates by age groups for the non-Hispanic

African Americans in the Census 2000 and the NSFG 2002. The NSFG 2002 is used to assess the data quality of marriage rates of non-Hispanic African Americans in the Census 2000. For all age groups, the differences in the marriage rates are not statistically significant. This means that by age group marriage rates in the Census for non-Hispanic African American women are not being significantly under estimated.

[Table 4 here]

[Figure 3 here]

Table 4 and figure 3 present the marriage rates by age groups for the non-Hispanic

white American women in the Census 2000 and the NSFG 2002. The NSFG 2002 is used to

assess the data quality of marriage rates of non-Hispanic white American women in the

Census 2000. For all age groups, the differences in the marriage rates are not statistically

significant. This means that by age group marriage rates in the Census for non-Hispanic

white American women are not being significantly under estimated.

4 Significant difference between these groups not shown.

Data Analysis

Logistic regression modeling is used to analyze both the American and the Jamaican

datasets. The first set of logistic regressions is only done on the Census 2000. This model

regresses marriage (i.e. being married compared to not being married) on the Jamaican racial

ethnic groups (i.e. Jamaican 1st generation, Jamaican 1.5 generation and Jamaican 2nd generation and beyond) as well as the non-Hispanic white American and non-Hispanic

African American groups.

The second set of regression models adds age, age squared, and parity to the previous model. This model will also be carried out in the JRHS 2002 in order to compare the results of the census for immigrant Jamaicans with the results for native Jamaicans living in Jamaica.

The third and final set of regression models adds the other covariates to the Census 2000 as well as the JRHS 2002: area of residence, race specific sex ratio, ethnic group size, population size, education and employment status. Below, I have presented the results of these models.

Multivariate Results:

[Table 10 here]

For model 1 in table 10, not taking any factors into account, there is a significant

67.9% decrease in the odds of being married for non-Hispanic African American women compared to non-Hispanic white American women5. For the 1st generation, there is a

significant 41.9% decrease in the odds of getting married compared to non-Hispanic white

American women. For the 1.5 generation, there is a significant 73.7% decrease in the odds of

getting married compared to non-Hispanic white American women. Finally, for the 2nd

generation, there is a significant 75% decrease in the odds of getting married compared to the

odds of getting married for non-Hispanic white American women. The odds of getting

5 100 (0.321– 1) = -67.9%.

married for the 1.5 generation are not significantly different from those of the 2nd generation

Jamaicans6. For model 2 in table 10, accounting for age and parity, there is a significant 88%

decrease in the odds of being married for non-Hispanic African American women compared

to non-Hispanic white American women7, a 63.9% significant decrease in the odds for 1st

generation Jamaicans, a 72.8% decrease in the odds for the 1.5 generation Jamaicans and a

72.4% decrease in the odds for the 2nd generation Jamaicans. In model 2, the odds of getting married for the 1.5 generation Jamaican women are not significantly different from those of the 2nd generation Jamaican women8. As age and parity increases, the odds of getting married increases. This effect is strongest for non-Hispanic white American women compared to the

other racial / ethnic groups.

In model 3a in table 10, accounting for age, parity, area of residence, education and

employment, there is a significant 73.1% decrease in the odds of being married for non-

Hispanic African American women compared to Non-Hispanic white American women9, a

53.7% significant decrease in the odds for 1st generation Jamaican women, a 68.2% decrease

in the odds for the 1.5 Generation Jamaican women and a 68.1% decrease in the odds for the

2nd generation Jamaican women. In model 3a, the odds of getting married for the 1.5

generation aren’t significantly different from that of the 2nd generation Jamaican women10. As

age and parity increases, the odds of getting married increases. The odds of getting married is

significantly greater in rural areas compared to urban areas, and as education increases, the

odds of getting married also increase significantly, but employment reduces the odds of

getting married for this group of women. Area of residence, education and employment all

6 Models not shown 7 100 (0.22– 1) = -88.0%. 8 Models not shown 9 100 (0.269– 1) = -73.1%. 10 Models not shown

66 combine to reduce the significant difference in marriage rates for non-Hispanic white

American women compared to the other groups. This difference is still not explained away.

In model 3b in table 10, accounting for age, parity, race specific ethnic group sex ratio, population size in the geographic area, race specific population in an area logged, education and employment, there is a significant 71.9% decrease in the odds of being married for non-Hispanic African American women compared to non-Hispanic white American women11, a 36.6% significant decrease in the odds for 1st generation Jamaicans, a 56.8% decrease in the odds for the 1.5 generation Jamaicans and a 63.3% decrease in the odds for the 2nd generation Jamaicans. In model 3b, the odds of getting married for the 1.5 generation are not significantly different from that of the 2nd Generation Jamaicans12. As age, parity, ethnic group sex ratio and education increases the odds of getting married increases. The odds of getting married are significantly reduced if the population in an area is less than

10,000 individuals or the population in an area is between 50,000 - 200,000 individuals compared to 20,000 to 50,000 individuals. The common logarithm function of Race specific population in an Area is positive and significant. Therefore, the odds of getting married increase, but that rate of increase is slowing. Eventually it tapers off as the ethnic group gets larger in size. Employment reduces the odds of getting married for this group of women.

Race specific ethnic group sex ratio, population size in the geographic area, race specific population in an area logged, education and employment combined all contribute to reduce the significant difference in marriage-rates for non-Hispanic whites compared to the other groups. However, this difference is not explained away.

In model 3c in table 10, accounting for age, parity, race specific ethnic group sex ratio, population size in the geographic area, education and employment, there is still a significant decrease in the odds of being married for non-Hispanic African American women,

11 100 (0.281– 1) = -71.91%.

1st, 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaican women compared to non-Hispanic white American

women. In model 3c, the odds of getting married for non-Hispanic African American women

are no different from those of the 2nd generation; however they are different for the other

racial / ethnic groups. The odds of getting married for the 1st generation are significantly

lower than the odds of getting married for non-Hispanic white women and significantly

higher than the odds of getting married for the other racial / ethnic groups. The odds of

getting married for the 1.5 generation are marginally but significantly higher than the odds of

getting married for the 2nd generation Jamaicans13. With the exclusion of the common logarithm function of Race specific population in an area, all the other control variables: age, parity, ethnic group sex ratio, population in an area, education and employment affect the odds of getting married in the same way as they did in model 3b.

[Table 11 here]

In table 11, model 2, accounting for age and parity, as age increases, the odds of getting married increases. Parity has no effect on the odds of getting married. In model 3 in table 11, accounting for age, parity, area of residence, education and employment, as age and parity increases, the odds of getting married increases. The odds of getting married are significantly greater in rural areas than in urban areas. As education increases, the odds of getting married also increase significantly and employment makes little difference in the odds of getting married for this group of women (Jamaican women living in Jamaica).

[Table 12 here]

[Figure 8 here]

Given an overall average age of 30.87 years, average parity of 1.13, and average educational attainment of 7.16 and employed, non-Hispanic white American women have

significantly higher predicted probability of marriage than non-Hispanic African women as

12 Models not shown

well as all the other groups14 at 53.33%. Jamaican non-immigrant women have significantly

lower predicted probabilities of marriage than all the other racial / ethnic groups15. Jamaican

1st generation immigrant women have a significantly higher predicted probability of marriage

compared to non-Hispanic African American women, 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaicans but

significantly lower predicted probability of marriage than non-Hispanic whites16. This may indicate a selection effect that was also evident in the descriptive statistics and graphs of marriage earlier. Jamaican 1.5 and 2nd generations have significantly higher predicted

probabilities of marriage than non-Hispanic African American women and Jamaican non-

immigrant women, significantly lower predicted probabilities of marriage compared to non-

Hispanic white and 1st generation Jamaican women, but marriage probabilities do not differ

significantly between the 1.5 and the 2nd generation women17. Thus, based on the descriptive

and predicted probability results of marriage, it is still not clear towards which groups the

Jamaican women are assimilating (whether non-Hispanic African American or Jamaican non- immigrants) based on generation.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I find a general decline in marriage across generations. This is similar to the findings of Brown et al (2008) since they also find a decrease in marriage up to the 2nd

generation, and then an increase after the 3rd generation. These results are in line with the

segmented assimilation theory as union formation patterns seem to resemble the minority

group’s union formation patterns (non-Hispanic African American women). However, it

could also be possible that these rates are reverting to the native Jamaican rates (since

13 Models not shown 14 Significant difference among these groups not shown. 15 Significant difference among these groups not shown. 16 Significant difference among these groups not shown. 17 Significant difference among these groups not shown.

69 marriage rates are the lowest when compared to the immigrant Jamaican women and

American non-Hispanic whites and blacks in the U.S.).

CHAPTER V: COHABITATION

Introduction

The U.S. has been witnessing reduction in marriage formations, increase in cohabiting unions and an increase in divorce rates (Van de Kaa, 1997; Kalmijn, 1998). Decline in marriage and an increase in cohabitation indicate that studying marriage patterns alone may not be a viable indicator of acculturation (Kalmijn, 1998). There is also an increase of births in cohabiting unions (Manning & Landale, 1996). Furthermore, both the multiracial population and non-marital childbearing are on the increase in the U.S. which makes it necessary for research that moves beyond marriage (Gullickson, 2005). This study therefore is important since it also measures assimilation by including cohabitation as another option in union formation.

Union formation patterns have changed significantly in the United States as cohabitation as an alternate form has been increasing over a few decades (Brown et al, 2008).

There are studies that look at cohabitation as precursors to marriage (Bumpass & Lu 2000;

Smock 2000) while others have compared child-bearing within cohabitation, and have examined its differing influences on marriage for Blacks and Whites (Manning, 1993). Most studies that focus on cohabitation and immigrants and their offspring, fail to take into account that cohabitation patterns in the U.S. are constantly changing (Brown et al, 2008). According to the 2000 census, foreign born Blacks accounted for 6% of the U.S. population and 12% of

st the 1 generation immigrant population (Deaux et al, 2007). It thus becomes difficult to measure immigrant assimilation via cohabitation since the U.S. context is not stable (Brown et al, 2008).

Understanding cohabitation (by studying the different ethnic and racial cultural traditions) requires studying not only the general population but specific sub-groups within the population. By looking at the Jamaican sub-group populations alongside the non-Hispanic

American sub-group populations will shed more light on the conditions and variations seen in

cohabitating formation patterns. This study thus adds to our limited knowledge of racial and

ethnic variation in union formation patterns by taking into account the cohabitation patterns

of migrant Jamaican women in the U.S. Furthermore, most studies, when they look at racial /

ethnic differences in union formation they compare non-Hispanic whites with Blacks and

Hispanics (e.g. Harknett & McLanahan, 2004; Harknett, 2008; Lichter et al, 1992; Loomis &

Landale, 1994). They fail to mention how the foreign born were treated and have incorporated all the black ethnic groups together. This study creates a new category for one of the fastest-growing black ethnic groups (i.e. the Jamaican ethnic group) and contributes since it reveals that not all black ethnic groups behave in the same manner.

Studies that focus on measuring assimilation via cohabitation are limited and thus, the assimilation patterns expected of marriage are used as a guide for the patterns expected of cohabitation (Brown et al, 2008). I therefore hypothesize that as this group of immigrants becomes more assimilated into the American culture, they may accept the American union- formation culture and exhibit similar patterns (Brown et al, 2008). However, this assumption becomes tricky to assert since cohabitation rates are much higher in Jamaica than in the U.S.

Hence, if cohabitation across the Jamaican group of women increases with generation, this may also be explained as their reverting to the Jamaican culture. It could also be the case that the lower incidence of marriage in the 2nd generation is as a result of an increase in

cohabitation instead of a delay in marriage. Younger immigrants and the 2nd generation may delay marriage in order to pursue higher levels of education (Brown et al, 2008). Measuring immigrants and their generation assimilation via cohabitation has been rarely done. Brown et al (2008) are among the first to do this type of analysis and they are used as a guide for this chapter. However, this paper is one of the first to measure Jamaican assimilation via cohabitation and comparing this ethnic group to the Jamaican Native population as well as

Non-Hispanic white and African American population. Furthermore, most studies, when looking at assimilation, fail to distinguish between the different black ethnic groups (Brown et al, 2008; Raley, 2006; Kalmijn & Monden, 2006). This paper is also one of the first to not lump all foreign born Blacks together when looking at assimilation since it looks at a specific black ethnic group: Jamaicans.

Below I have presented some basic descriptive statistics of cohabitation rates by age,

followed by union formation models comparing the six groups: non-Hispanic white

Americans, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st generation Jamaican immigrants, 1.5

generation Jamaican immigrants, 2nd generation Jamaican immigrants and native Jamaican

women living in Jamaica.

Descriptive Results

Table 5 and figure 4 present the cohabitation rates by age groups for the non-Hispanic

white American, non-Hispanic African American and Jamaican sub-samples.

[Table 5 here]

[Figure 4 here]

For all the groups (i.e. non-Hispanic white American, non-Hispanic African

American, non-immigrant Jamaican, 1st generation Jamaican and 2nd generation Jamaican

women) cohabitation rates increase and peak at ages 25 – 29 and then decrease. At any age,

non-immigrant Jamaican women have significantly higher cohabitation rates compared to non-Hispanic African American women (as well as all the other groups18). Non-Hispanic

white American women mostly have lower cohabitation rates than non-Hispanic African

American women. First generation immigrant Jamaican women have lower cohabitation rates

than non-Hispanic African American women but are only significantly different at ages 18 –

24 years. At all age groups, 2nd generation Jamaican women are not significantly different

18 Significant difference among these groups not shown.

from non-Hispanic African American women. Thus, based on the descriptive results, it is not

quite clear where the cohabitation rates of the Jamaican women are assimilating towards (i.e.

either non-Hispanic African American or non-immigrant Jamaican cohabitation rates) based on generation.

[Table 6 here]

[Figure 5 here]

Table 6 and figure 5 present the cohabitation rates by age group for non-Hispanic

African American women in the Census 2000 and the NSFG 2002. The NSFG 2002 is used

to assess the data quality of the cohabitation rate of non-Hispanic African Americans in the

Census 2000. Although the cohabitation rates are lower in the Census, the difference is only

statistically significant at the age group 18 – 24 years. Therefore, it is safe to say that by age

group cohabitation rates in the Census for non-Hispanic African Americans are not being significantly under estimated.

[Table 7 here]

[Figure 6 here]

Table 7 and figure 6 present the cohabitation rates by age group for non-Hispanic

white American women in the Census 2000 and the NSFG 2002. The NSFG 2002 is used to assess the data quality of the cohabitation rate of non-Hispanic white American women in the

Census 2000. Although the cohabitation rates are lower in the Census, the difference is statistically significant at the age groups 18 – 24 years and 25 – 29 years. Therefore, it is safe

to say that by age group cohabitation rates in the Census for non-Hispanic white American

women are not being significantly under estimated.

Data Analysis

Multinomial regression modeling is used to analyze both the American (the Census

2000) and the Jamaican (JRHS 2002) datasets. The first set of multinomial regression models

presents union status (i.e. married, cohabiting and single) on the Jamaican racial ethnic

groups (i.e. 1st generation, 1.5 generation Jamaican and 2nd and beyond generation Jamaican)

as well as the non-Hispanic white American and non-Hispanic African American groups.

Multivariate Results

[Table 13 here]

For model 1 in table 13, (not taking into account any factors,) there is a significant

71.71% decrease in the odds of being married and a 48.65% decrease in the odds of

cohabiting for non-Hispanic African American women compared to the non-Hispanic white

19 American women . There is a significant 47.63% decrease in the odds of being married and

a 46.05% decrease in the odds of cohabiting for 1st generation Jamaicans compared to the

non-Hispanic white American women. There is a significant 77.30% decrease in the odds of

being married and a 57.29% decrease in the odds of cohabiting for 1.5 generation Jamaicans

compared to the non-Hispanic white American women. There is a significant 77.23% decrease in the odds of being married and a 51.39% decrease in the odds of cohabiting for 2nd

Generation Jamaicans compared to the non-Hispanic white American women. There are

significant differences in marriage rates between all race / ethnic groups except between the

19 100 (0.2829– 1) = -71.71%.

20 1.5 and 2nd generations where there is no significant difference in marriage-rates . The non-

Hispanic African American women' odds of cohabiting are not significantly different from

the 1st and 2nd generation and are marginally but significantly different from those of the 1.5

21 generation Jamaican women . The 1st generation's odds of cohabiting are not significantly

different from the 2nd generation's but are marginally different from the 1.5 generation

22 Jamaicans' . The odds of cohabiting are not significantly different for the 1.5 and 2nd

23 generation Jamaican women in model 1 .

For model 2 in table 13, taking into account age and parity, there is a significant

80.24% decrease in the odds of being married and a 50.10% decrease in the odds of

cohabiting for non-Hispanic African American women compared to the non-Hispanic white

24 American women . There is a significant 66.68% decrease in the odds of being married and

a 52.80% decrease in the odds of cohabiting for 1st generation Jamaican women compared to

the non-Hispanic white American women. There is a significant 75.68% decrease in the odds

of being married and a 57.94% decrease in the odds of cohabiting for 1.5 generation

Jamaican women compared to the non-Hispanic white American women. There is a

significant 74.39% decrease in the odds of being married and a 51.64% decrease in the odds

of cohabiting for 2nd Generation Jamaican women compared to the non-Hispanic white

American women. There are significant differences in marriage rates between all race / ethnic

groups except between the 1.5 and 2nd Generation where there is no significant difference in

25 marriage rates . The non-Hispanic African American women's odds of cohabiting are not

20 Models not shown. 21 Models not shown. 22 Models not shown. 23 Models not shown. 24 100 (0.1976– 1) = -80.24%. 25 Models not shown.

26 significantly different from those of the 1st, 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaican women . The 1st

Generation's odds of cohabiting are not significantly different from the 1.5 and the 2nd

27 generation Jamaicans' . The odds of cohabiting are not significantly different between the

28 1.5 and 2nd Generation Jamaicans in model 2 . As age increases (at a decreasing rate), the odds of getting married as well as cohabitating also increase. This effect is strongest for non-

Hispanic white American women compared with the other racial / ethnic groups. As parity increases, the odds of getting married increase while the odds of cohabitation decrease.

[Table 14 here]

In model 3a in table 14, accounting for age, parity, area of residence, education and employment, there is a significant 75.90% decrease in the odds of being married and a

49.27% decrease in the odds of cohabitation for non-Hispanic African American women compared to non-Hispanic white American women29. There is a 56.48% significant decrease

in the odds of marriage and a 49.80 decrease in the odds of cohabitation for 1st generation

Jamaicans compared to non-Hispanic whites. There is a significant 70.79% decrease in the

odds of marriage and a 51.82% decrease in the odds of cohabitation for the 1.5 generation

Jamaican women compared to non-Hispanic white American women. There is a significant

69.77% decrease in the odds of marriage and a 44.74% decrease in the odds of cohabitation

for the 2nd generation Jamaican women compared to non-Hispanic white American women.

In model 3a, the odds of marriage and cohabitation for the 1.5 generation are not significantly

different from those of the 2nd generation Jamaican women30. As age increases (at a

decreasing rate), the odds of getting married as well as cohabitating increase. This effect is

strongest for non-Hispanic white American women compared to the other racial / ethnic

26 Models not shown. 27 Models not shown. 28 Models not shown. 29 100 (0.241– 1) = -75.9%.

groups. As parity increases, the odds of getting married increase while the odds of

cohabitating decrease. The odds of marriage and cohabitation are significantly greater in rural

areas than in urban areas. As education increases, the odds of marriage increase significantly

while the odds of cohabitation decrease. Employment reduces the odds of marriage and

increases the odds of cohabitation. Area of residence, education and employment combined,

all reduce the significant difference in marriage rates for non-Hispanic whites compared to

the other groups but have no major effect on the cohabitation differences.

In model 3b in table 14, accounting for age, parity, race specific ethnic group sex

ratio, population size in the geographic area, race specific population in an area logged,

education and employment, there is a significant 74.26% decrease in the odds of being

married and a 44.63% decrease in the odds of cohabitating for non-Hispanic African

American women compared to non-Hispanic white American women31. There is a 37.38%

significant decrease in the odds of marriage and a 33.45 decrease in the odds of cohabitation

for 1st generation Jamaican women compared to non-Hispanic white American women. There is a significant 58.18% decrease in the odds of marriage and a 36.46% decrease in the odds of cohabitation for the 1.5 generation Jamaicans compared to non-Hispanic white American

women. There is a significant 62.35% decrease in the odds of marriage and a 31.40%

decrease in the odds of cohabitation for the 2nd generation Jamaican women compared to non-

Hispanic white American women. In model 3b, the odds of marriage and cohabitation for the

1.5 generation are not significantly different from that of the 2nd generation Jamaicans32. As

age increases (at a decreasing rate), the odds of getting married and of cohabitating increase.

This effect is strongest for non-Hispanic white American women compared to the other racial

/ ethnic groups. As parity increases, the odds of getting married increase while the odds of

30 Models not shown 31 100 (0.257– 1) = -74.26%. 32 Models not shown

cohabitating decrease. As ethnic group sex ratio increases, the odds of marriage and

cohabitation also increase. The odds of getting married or cohabiting are significantly

reduced if the population in an area is less than 10,000 individuals compared to 20,000 to

50,000 individuals. The odds of getting married are not significantly different (from a

population of 20,000 to 50,000 individuals) at a population of 50,000 - 200,000 individuals

but the odds of cohabiting are significantly increased. The common logarithm function of

race specific population in an area is positive and significant for both marriage and

cohabitation. Therefore, the odds of marriage and cohabitation are increasing at a decreasing

rate before tapering off as ethnic group size in an area increases. As education increases, the

odds of marriage increase significantly while the odds of cohabitation decrease significantly.

Employment reduces the odds of getting married while it increases the odds of cohabiting for

this group of women. Race specific ethnic group sex ratio, population size in the geographic

area, race specific population in an area logged, education and employment combined reduce

the significant difference in marriage and cohabitation rates for non-Hispanic whites compared to the other groups. However, this difference is still not explained away.

[Table 14b here]

In table 14b, accounting for age, parity, race specific ethnic group sex ratio, population size in the geographic area, education and employment, there is a significant decrease in the odds of being married and the odds of cohabitation for all other racial / ethnic groups compared to non-Hispanic white American women. There are significant differences in the odds of getting married between all other racial / ethnic groups; however, the odds of getting married between the 1.5 and the 2nd generation are marginally different from each

other. There are no significant differences in the odds of cohabiting between non-Hispanic

African American women, 1st, 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaican women. With the exclusion of

the common logarithm function of Race specific population in an area, all the other control

variables: age, parity, ethnic group sex ratio, population in an area, education and

employment have similar effects on the odds of marriage and cohabitation as they did in

model 3b table 14.

[Table 15 here]

In table 15, model 2, accounting for age and parity, as age increases (at a decreasing rate), the odds of marriage and cohabitation increase. Parity now has a positive effect on marriage as cohabitation is taken into account (i.e. parity had no effect on marriage in table

11 model 2). Therefore, as parity increases the odds of both marriage and cohabitation increase. In model 3 in table 15, accounting for age, parity, area of residence, education and employment, as age and parity increase, the odds of marriage and cohabitation increase. The odds of getting married are significantly greater in rural areas than in urban areas but have no effect on the odds of cohabiting. Education increases the odds of marriage and reduces the odds of cohabitation. Employment has no significant effect on the odds of marriage and cohabitation for this group of women (Jamaican women living in Jamaica).

[Table 16 here]

[Figure 9 here]

Given an overall average age of 30.87 years, average parity of 1.13, and average

educational attainment of 7.16 and employed, non-Hispanic white American women have

significantly higher predicted probability of marriage than non-Hispanic African American

women as well as all the other groups33 at 54.38%. Non-Hispanic white American women

have a significantly higher predicted probability of cohabitation than do non-Hispanic

African American, 1st generation and 1.5 generation Jamaican women. Non-Hispanic white

American women have significantly lower predicted probability of cohabitation than

Jamaican women living in Jamaica. Non-Hispanic white American women’s cohabitation

33 Significant difference among these groups not shown.

predicted probability is not significantly different from that of 2nd generation Jamaican women. Jamaican non-immigrants have significantly lower predicted probabilities of marriage than all the other racial / ethnic groups34. First generation immigrants have a

significantly higher predicted probability of marriage compared to non-Hispanic African

American women, 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaicans but significantly lower predicted

probability of marriage compared to non-Hispanic white American women35. This may

indicate a selection effect that was also evident in the descriptive statistics and graphs of

marriage. Jamaican 1.5 and 2nd generations have significantly higher predicted probabilities

of marriage compared to non-Hispanic African Americans and non-immigrant Jamaican

women, significantly lower predicted probabilities of marriage compared to non-Hispanic

whites and 1st generation Jamaicans, but marriage probabilities are not significantly different

between the 1.5 and the 2nd generation women36. Thus, based on the descriptive and predicted

probability results of marriage, it is still not clear towards which groups the Jamaican women

are assimilating (whether non-Hispanic African Americans or Jamaican non-immigrants)

based on generation.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I find a general decline in marriage across generation. This is similar

to Brown et al (2008) findings since they also find a decrease in marriage up to the 2nd

generation, and then an increase after the 3rd generation. I do not find a clear cohabitation

pattern across generations. This is not an odd finding since it has been noted that measuring

cohabitation via assimilation may not give a clear pattern since this is a fairly new union

formation pattern in the U.S (Brown et al, 2008). However, Brown et al (2008) find a general

increase in cohabitation across generation. The difference in findings may be due to the fact

34 Significant difference among these groups not shown. 35 Significant difference among these groups not shown. 36 Significant difference among these groups not shown.

81 that immigrants and generational differences are measured differently. Brown el al (2008) looks at generational differences for all women 20 – 34 years while I look at a specific group of Jamaican women 18 – 44 years.

Jamaican women marriage rates are declining across generations and cohabitation rates seems to be increasing (although not clear). These results are in line with the segmented assimilation theory as union formation patterns seem to resemble the minority group’s union- formation patterns (non-Hispanic African American women). However, it could also be possible that these rates are reverting to the native Jamaican rates (since marriage rates are the lowest and cohabitation rates are the highest when compared to the immigrants and

American non-Hispanic whites and blacks in the U.S.).

CHAPTER VI: INTER-RACIAL / INTER-ETHNIC UNION FORMATION

Introduction

The assimilation theory and its variants have been used in the explanation of gradual integration of immigrants into the host society (Dribe & Lundh, 2008). This theory has been used to predict with success the marriage patterns of the earlier immigrants of European origin to the United States (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990). The assimilation theory, as it applies to inter racial / ethnic union, states that immigrants initially come with marriage and cohabitation patterns culturally distinct from the American population (Dribe & Lundh,

2008). With time (generation), immigrants and their offspring become structurally and socially integrated as they learn the native language, culture, customs and means of achieving economic success comparable to the American population (Dribe & Lundh, 2008). Gordon

(1964) states that the process is complete when there are no perceived differences between the immigrant group and the rest of the population. Therefore, as the assimilation process progresses, the ethnic ties of the immigrant group are weakened and the propensity to out - partnering (inter-racial / ethnic marriage and cohabitation) increases (Dribe & Lundh, 2008).

The central variable in measuring assimilation via intermarriage is time (Dribe & Lundh,

2008). I measure time spent in the host country by generational status (i.e. 1st generation, 1.5

generation and 2nd generation and beyond). I thus hypothesize that the 2nd generation

Jamaican women and beyond will be more likely to have a partner of a different ethnic background than the 1st and 1.5 generation women.

Segmented assimilation theory may also apply to some ethnic groups more than to

others (Dribe & Lundh, 2008). I am also using this variant of the assimilation theory since it

is generally applied to ethnic minorities in the United States and the Jamaican population is

seen as an ethnic minority. Basically, the immigrant group that follows this path, instead of

being integrated into the general population, may become marginalized and discriminated

against (Dribe & Lundh, 2008). Segmented assimilation is dependent on the social reception

that the immigrant group obtains on entering the host country (Dribe & Lundh, 2008)

Previous assimilation research of West Indian immigrants has been predominantly

concentrated on residential segregation and socioeconomic status (Duncan & Lieberson,

1959; Peach, 2005; Thomas Sowell, 1979; Model 1991). Where this research is focused on

immigrant Blacks, they are predominantly focused on male earning differences (Butcher,

1994; Dodoo, 1997). This outcome at times is found to be unrelated to residential segregation

(Hirschman & Kraly, 1990). However, there are now a growing number of studies that

measure assimilation via inter-ethnic union formation (Qian et al, 2005; Qian & Lichter,

2007; Model & Fisher, 2001; Batson et al, 2006; Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2007). An

Inter-ethnic marriage formation is the marriage between two people belonging to different

ethnic backgrounds (Furtado & Theodoropoulos, 2007).

The earliest waves of migrants before the 1920s were non-black; they were called the ‘Ethnic Miracle’ since many of their generational offspring became doctors, lawyers, academics and held high positions in society (Waters, 1990). They seemed to assimilate well into the American culture. Structural Assimilation perspectives were used to describe these earlier migrants. These state that, as duration of stay and residence in the host country

increases, immigrant groups tend to exhibit similar characteristics to the natives of the host

country (Hirschman, 1983; Joyner & Kao, 2005; Qian et al, 2005).

Today's new immigrants (after 1965) are non-European and mainly black (Waters,

1990; Portes & Zhou, 1993). Because of the immigrants' non-European background, many

scholars are led to believe that their assimilation into the mainstream is especially challenging

(Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). After World War II, the U.S. adjusted its policies and allowed for

the worldwide flow of immigrants (Waters et al, 2007). The Hart – Celler Immigration Act

was passed in 1965. The passing of this act allowed immigration from a multitude of different

84 countries. These nationalities had previously been discriminated against (Waters et al, 2007).

This new immigration system allowed the flow of immigrants into the country to reach the highest levels by the end of the 20th century (Waters et al, 2007).

The waves of immigrants after 1965 have been getting mixed reviews about their success or lack of success (Waters, 1990). These immigrants were predominantly non-

European and the “segmented assimilation” process best described their experiences (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Segmented assimilation also applies to this present study since it predicts that a significant number of young Jamaican women will engage in more marriage formations and inter-racial / -ethnic union formations. At the same time, they exhibit similar characteristics associated with the disadvantaged culture associated with the American underclass (in this case, having lower marriage rates than non-Hispanic white American women). Chiswick & Houseworth (2008) state that intermarriage is more likely as educational attainment increases and as age of migration in the U.S. decreases. Age at migration is important since those who migrate at younger ages are able to acquire U.S. specific social capital (such as language, customs and traditions) at a faster rate than those who migrate older. Age at migration is used as a proxy for the speed at which an individual may acquire US specific human capital (Chiswick & Houseworth, 2008). Segmented assimilation states that while some groups may assimilate toward the mainstream, it is also possible that other groups may actually fare worse across generations as they come to resemble other marginalized groups within the U.S., such as African Americans (Wildsmith,

2004). It should be noted that not all African Americans are marginalized and are apart of the underclass impoverished society. Iceland & Wilkes (2006) add evidence to this by using spatial assimilation theory to show that residential segregation helps explain socio economic differences between non-Hispanic white and African Americans. By using various indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), they find in 1990 and 2000 that non-Hispanic African

Americans who are of higher SES are significantly less segregated from non-Hispanic white

Americans compared to those non-Hispanic African Americans who are of lower SES. Also,

Batson et al (2006) also find that as educational attainment increased for all minority groups studied (i.e. Puerto Ricans, West Indians, Africans, and non-Hispanic African Americans), inter-racial marriages with non-Hispanic white Americans also increased. Thus, the

differences in socio economic status is partly used to explain why some groups in the U.S. are

marginalized (Iceland & Wilkes, 2006). The downward path of the segmented assimilation

theory refers to assimilating to this marginalized underclass minority segment. William Julius

Wilson (1980) states that this poor underclass segment of the American society has a sub-

culture of being high school drop-outs, pregnant as teenagers, unemployed and prone to

engaging in criminal activities. Model (2008) uses this group in explaining segmented

assimilation. Segmented assimilation indicates that, rather than being successful in school

and jobs as their parents, the children of immigrants may adopt this underclass sub-culture

(Model, 2008). The Jamaican assimilation process appear to be segmented since some

youngsters follow the inner-city culture, while others keep the Jamaican identity of their

parents in order to remain ‘successful’ (Vickerman, 2002; Waters, 1996; Vickerman 2007).

However, in terms of union formation patterns, lower marriage rates and higher cohabitation

rates in the 1.5 and 2nd and beyond generation Jamaicans could also indicate that these

Jamaicans are assimilating towards the native Jamaican culture and thus may not indicate a

lack of ‘success’.

Below I have presented some basic descriptive statistics followed by partnership

models comparing the three groups: 1st generation Jamaican immigrants, 1.5 generation

Jamaican immigrants and 2nd generation Jamaican immigrants.

Descriptive Results

[Table 8 here]

[Figure 7 here]

A marriage or a cohabiting union is defined as a partnership. Table 8 and Figure 7 show the race and ethnicity of women 18 – 44 years, respondents in the Census 2000, and also showing the race and ethnicity of partners of those women currently in a union (i.e. married or cohabiting). The non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women are mostly in endogamous partnerships. The Jamaican ethnic groups, on the other hand, appear to be more diverse in their partnerships (they have fewer endogamous partners than the non-

Hispanic American women). However, with generation (moving from 1st generation to 2nd

generation), these partnerships become more diverse and the Jamaican ethnic groups are

more likely to form exogenous partnerships. Of those 1st generation women who are

partnered, they are more likely to be in endogamous unions, followed by partnering with non-

Hispanic African Americans then with non-Hispanic white American men. The Jamaican 1.5

generation women who are partnered are more likely to be partnered with non-Hispanic

African Americans followed by 1st generation Jamaicans and then by non-Hispanic white

American men. Finally, the 2nd generation and beyond Jamaican women who are partnered

are more likely to be with non-Hispanic African Americans followed by 1st generation

Jamaican and then by non-Hispanic white American men.

Data Analysis

Multinomial regression modeling is used to analyze the American Census 2000 5%

dataset. This is the only dataset used in this chapter. The first set of multinomial regression

models regresses the race and ethnic group of the race of the partner as the dependent

variable (i.e. non-Hispanic white partner, non-Hispanic black partner, Jamaican 1st generation

partner (reference group), Jamaican ancestry 2nd generation and above partner) on Jamaican

1st generation (reference group), Jamaican 1.5 generation and Jamaican 2nd generation and

beyond. The second set of regression models adds age, age2 and parity. The final regression

models control for additional covariates: sex ratio, ethnic group size, education and

employment status.

Multivariate Results:

[Table 17a]

For model 1 in table 17a, (not taking into account any other factors,) the odds are

significantly 2.6 times greater of having a non – Hispanic white American partner,

significantly 3.7 times greater of having a non-Hispanic African American partner,

significantly 2.3 times greater of having a 2nd generation partner and significantly 2.1 times

greater of having another race partner compared to having a 1st generation Jamaican partner

37 for the 1.5 generation Jamaican women compared to the 1st generation Jamaican women .

For the 2nd generation, the odds of having a non-Hispanic white American partner, a non-

Hispanic African American partner, a 2nd generation Jamaican partner and another race

partner is even greater (where the odds are significantly greater by 11.6 times, 10.6 times,

22.8 times and 13.4 times respectively). There is no difference in having a non-Hispanic

white, non-Hispanic African American, another race partner among the Jamaican ethnic

groups38. However, there is a difference in having a Jamaican ethnic group partner where the odds of partnering-out increase with generation.

[Table 17b]

For model 2 in table 17b, taking into account age and parity, the odds are significantly

39 2.7 times greater of having a non – Hispanic White American partner, significantly 3.2

times greater of having a non-Hispanic African American partner, significantly 2.1 times

37 100 (2.645341– 1) = 164.53%. 38 Models not shown 39 100 (2.694735– 1) = 169.47%.

greater of having a 2nd generation partner and significantly 1.9 times greater of having

another race partner compared to having a 1st generation Jamaican partner for the 1.5 generation Jamaican women compared to the 1st generation Jamaican women. For the 2nd generation, the odds of having a non-Hispanic white partner, a non-Hispanic African

American partner, a 2nd generation Jamaican partner and another race partner is even greater

(where the odds are significantly greater by 11.4 times, 9.2 times, 21.0 times and 12.1 times

respectively). Therefore, controlling for age and parity slightly reduces the odds of endogamy

in the 1.5 and 2nd generation Jamaican women. There is no difference in having a non-

Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African American, another race partner among the Jamaican

ethnic groups40. However, there is a difference in having a Jamaican ethnic group partner

where the odds of partnering-out increase with generation. For model 2, age has no effect in

the race of partner choice. However, as the number of children increases, the odds of

partnering-out seem to decrease.

[Table 17c]

For model 3 in table 17c, taking into account age, parity, ethnic-group specific sex

ratio, population size of geographic area, population of Jamaican ethnic group in an area

logged, education and employment status, the odds are significantly 2.4 times41 greater of

having a non – Hispanic White American partner, significantly 3.1 times greater of having a

non-Hispanic African American partner, significantly 1.9 times greater of having a 2nd generation partner and significantly 1.8 times greater in having another race partner compared to having a 1st generation Jamaican partner for the 1.5 generation Jamaican women

compared to the 1st generation Jamaican women. For the 2nd generation, the odds of having a

non-Hispanic white partner, a non-Hispanic African American partner, a 2nd generation

Jamaican partner and another race partner is even greater (where the odds are significantly

40 Models not shown

89 greater by 6.1 times, 6.8 times, 19.1 times and 9.1 times respectively). There is no difference in having a non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African American, another race partner among

42 the Jamaican ethnic groups . However, there is a difference in having a Jamaican ethnic group partner where the odds of partnering-out increase with generation. For model 3, age has no effect on the race of partner choice. However, as the number of children increases, the odds of partnering-out seems to decrease for having a non-Hispanic white partner, non-

Hispanic African American partner and another race partner. Children have no effect on partnering with a 2nd generation Jamaican compared to a 1st generation Jamaican. The population size in an area seems to exert no significant influence in partnering with a non-

Hispanic white American, a 2nd generation Jamaican partner nor another race partner compared to partnering with a 1st generation Jamaican partner. However, where the population in a geographic area is less than 10,000 individuals (compared to it being 20,000 –

50,000 individuals), the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic African American is significantly reduced and where there are between 10,000 to 20,000 individuals in an area, the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic African American is significantly (but marginally) reduced. Hence, as population size within an area is reduced, the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic African American are lower. However, at larger population sizes, the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic African American are unaffected. The common logarithm function of Race specific population of Jamaicans in an Area is significant when partnering with non-Hispanic white Americans and non-Hispanic African Americans compared to partnering with 1st generation Jamaicans. The odds of partnering with non-Hispanic white- and African Americans are decreasing at an increasing rate before tapering off, as the

Jamaican ethnic group population increases. Also, in model 3, education increases the odds of

41 100 (2.377382– 1) = 137.74%. 42 Models not shown

90 partnering-out while employment reduces the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic white-,

African- and another-race-American.

Conclusion:

In this chapter, partnering-out increases with generation, endogamy decreases with generation. Therefore, the odds of partnering with Non-Hispanic whites and Non–Hispanic

African Americans increase with generation. These results are consistent across all models.

These results are also consistent with previous studies that look at inter racial / ethnic marriage. For example, Dribe & Lundh (2008) find that intermarriage increases with generation. Furthermore, this chapter also finds that the choice of partner is important since the odds of partnering with a non- Hispanic African American partner are greater than the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic white American partner. So, since the odds of partnering with a non-Hispanic African American are greater than the odds of partnering with a non – Hispanic White American, it appears that the segmented assimilation theory may have been supported.

CHAPTER VII: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The main purpose of this study was to test competing theories of assimilation by

examining the patterns of union formation (i.e. marriage, cohabitation, single, ethnic / racial

intermarriage and ethnic / racial inter-cohabitation) among non-Hispanic American Whites, non-Hispanic African Americans and Jamaican women aged 18 – 44 years in the year 2000.

A review of the literature led to the expectation that, with generation, union formation patterns should resemble that of the native born American women and that, with generation,

Jamaican women's out- partnership rate should also increase. These expectations were both supported.

In Chapters 4 and 5, I find a general decline in marriage across generations. This is similar to the findings of Brown et al (2008), since they also find a decrease in marriage up to the 2nd generation, and then an increase after the 3rd generation. In Chapter 5, I do not find a clear cohabitation pattern across generations. This is not an odd finding, for it has been noted that measuring cohabitation via assimilation may not give a clear pattern since this is a fairly new union formation pattern in the U.S (Brown et al, 2008). However, Brown et al (2008) find a general increase in cohabitation across generations. The discrepancy in findings may

be due to the fact that immigrants and generational differences are measured differently.

Brown el al (2008), look at generational differences for all women 20 – 34 years, while I look

at a specific group of Jamaican women 18 – 44 years.

Jamaican women's marriage rates are declining across generations and cohabitation

rates seems to be increasing. These results are in line with the segmented assimilation theory

as union formation patterns seem to resemble the minority group’s union formation patterns

(non-Hispanic African American women). However, it could also be possible that these rates

are reverting to the native Jamaican rates (since marriage rates are the lowest and

cohabitation rates are the highest when compared to that of immigrants and non-Hispanic

American non-Hispanic whites and blacks in the U.S.). Orum (2005) states that assimilation

theory only looks at how immigrants adapt to their host country, but it is also possible for

immigrants to influence their host country as well. With the rapid increase in these new non-

European immigrations, there is the development of enclaves and ethnic businesses which

allow these immigrants to maintain some of their ethnic identities (Orum, 2005). Therefore, it

could also be possible that the union formation cultural dynamics are taught to the 1.5 and 2nd

generation where their patterns more closely resemble those of women living in Jamaica. The

assimilation path is thus still unclear in chapters 5 and 6 since Jamaican women are moving away from marriage and toward cohabitation across generations. They are looking like both

African Americans and native Jamaicans which make it difficult to decipher if this is really downward assimilation.

In chapter 6, partnering-out increases with generation, and endogamy decreases with generation. These results are consistent with previous studies that look at intermarriage.

Example Dribe & Lundh (2008) find that intermarriage increases with generation. However, this study also finds that the choice of partner is also important, since the odds of partnering with a non- Hispanic African American partner were greater than the likelihood of partnering with a non-Hispanic white American partner. So, since the odds of partnering with a non-

Hispanic African American are greater than the odds of partnering with a non – Hispanic

White American, it appears that the segmented assimilation theory may have been supported in this chapter.

Although the odds of partnering with a non–Hispanic African American partner are greater for the Jamaican women than the odds of partnering with a non–Hispanic White

American, it was also found that the odds of a Jamaican woman partnering with a non-

Hispanic white American were greater than the odds of a Non-Hispanic African American woman partnering with a non-Hispanic white American man. The odds of partnering with a

non–Hispanic White American increases with generation for the Jamaican women. This

finding is in line with Model & Fisher (2001). They find that the propensity to marry or

cohabit with White American men was greater for Black West Indian women compared to the propensity for Non-Hispanic African American women to marry or cohabit with White

American men. These results were consistent before and after such controls as group size and

education were added to the model.

These results are surprising, especially since ethnographic research (such as Waters,

2007; Model & Fisher, 2002) have shown that Whites prefer Black West Indian immigrants

over African Americans. They distinguish Black West Indian immigrants from African

Americans based on their accents, so 2nd generation West Indian Blacks are viewed and treated as African Americans since they have lost the distinctive accents of their parents

(Waters, 1996; Waters, 1999). Therefore, based on these studies, it would be expected that out- partnership should be greatest among the 1.5 generation since they arrive as youngsters who have retained their accents and are the most likely to arrive in the U.S. without a partner

(Model & Fisher, 2002). However, this is not the case when assimilation via inter-racial marriage is tested (Model & Fisher, 2002; Pagnini & Morgan 1990). People are more likely to form endogamous unions and are more likely to form unions with those who share their nativity (Pagnini and Morgan 1990). Therefore, assimilation theory here is proven as

Jamaican women, with generation and the loss of their distinctive accents, are more likely to form exogenous unions.

My findings and other findings (Model & Fisher, 2002; Waters, 1999) thus suggest that partnerships between the 2nd generation West Indian women and non-Hispanic American

men are more likely to occur than partnerships between immigrant West Indian women and

non-Hispanic American men.

Assimilation via inter-racial / ethnic union formation may not be the objective of non

– white immigrants and their generation (for example Jews who are against it) (Rosenfeld,

2002). Social assimilation into mainstream American culture (i.e. the white middle class) is neither necessarily good nor bad (Rosenfeld, 2002). However, in the U.S. this black and white social division may also signal other types of segregation (such as employment and education) that may add to perpetuating the economic disadvantages that Blacks suffer

(Rosenfeld, 2002). Therefore, if Blacks are known to be the disadvantaged group in the U.S. society, then it is also possible and very likely that black / white unions would not be advantageous to whites (Rosenfeld, 2002).

In the regression models, generational status seems to be related to marriage. That is, in later generations, marriage looks more similar to non-Hispanic African American women than earlier generations. In addition, the level of out-partnership also increases in successive generations. The assimilation process could explain this finding. These results of the analyses also suggest that marital, social distance and ties between the groups are being broken over time (Rosenfeld, 2002).

It would be useful to add ethnographic research in studying assimilation via union formation. By putting this twist to the research, it would be possible to make more definite conclusions into the assimilation direction the Jamaican women are taking (i.e. moving towards Non-Hispanic whites, Non-Hispanic blacks or native born women in Jamaica).

Model and Fisher (2002) uses Waters (1999) ethnographic research to explain why later generation West Indian women are more likely to marry out than the 1st generation. Waters

(1999) states that Whites are more comfortable working with West Indian born Blacks than with African Americans since they are less angry, more cordial and do not come across as having a ‘chip on their shoulders’. Furthermore, according to Waters (1999) they are more

likely to be hard-working and they are willing to work overtime. Their employee referrals are also more likely to be reliable.

By this assessment it can only be speculated that it could carry over to intimate relationships and that Non-Hispanic whites would be more willing to accept West Indian

Blacks as partners (Model & Fisher, 2002). Furthermore, since 1st generation immigrants are

more likely to have intimate relationships with immigrants from their country, their children

would be more likely to form unions exogenously (Model & Fisher, 2002).

Waters (1999) carried out ethnographic research to show why West Indian Blacks

were preferred to African Americans in the work place. However, by specifically applying

this type of analysis to assimilation via union formation, the target population (i.e. samples

from the 1st generation, 1.5 generation and 2nd generation) has now been given a voice.

Ethnographic research would be more crucial to those who are currently in a union.

Questions regarding the type of union and the choice of partner should be asked to further our

understanding into union type and choice of partner with generation. Answers to these

questions would give us a better understanding of where the Jamaican group living in the

U.S. is assimilating: whether to non-Hispanic African American or Jamaican natives living in

Jamaica. My results are in line with the segmented assimilation theory as union formation

patterns seem to resemble the minority group’s union formation patterns (non-Hispanic

African American women). However, answers to these questions would make this conclusion

more definite.

It would also be beneficial in the future to look more closely on the differing U.S.

marriage markets of these Jamaican women. The Jamaicans who arrive as laborers, who live

in the inner cities will enter a different marriage market compared to those who arrive as

university students and graduates. It is likely that the higher human capital associated with

these college graduates will allow them to be more likely to form partnerships with U.S.

African Americans and whites who also share similar characteristics. On the other hand, the

Jamaicans that enter with lower levels of human capital may be more likely to assimilate downward and form partnerships within the inner cities.

There is also the need of a more appropriate dataset available when looking at union formation in the U.S. The Census is the only available American dataset that will give adequate sample sizes for small immigrant groups in the United States. Unfortunately, the

Census does not ask adequate questions in regards to union formation. Firstly, cohabitation is measured on the household level and only where cohabitation occurs in relation to the head of the household. The Census 2000 cohabitation measure therefore underestimates cohabitation since it only polls cohabiters in relation to the head of the household. Secondly, the Census does not ask questions about current marital status nor does it give the date when unions were established. Therefore, using this data, when studying current union-formation patterns, it is not possible to sample only couples who are in existing unions. My sample thus contains unions with varying durations and orders. This sample is potentially biased since disruptions of unions are influenced by the time spent in a union as well as the order of that union. In order to reduce this potential bias, most studies that use the census in studying smaller immigrant groups restrict their sample to 20 – 34 years since this age group is most likely to have recently entered into their union. They also note that reducing the sample to younger age groups could also potentially under- estimate inter-racial marriage unions since older couples who have entered into a first marriage are more likely to be in such unions than younger couples. Although most studies use age group 20 – 34 years to analyze current union formation and measure assimilation, I used the age group 18 – 44 years to compensate for inadequate sample size. Therefore, there is need of a dataset, or a revision of the current census dataset to measure these variables that are critical in carrying out research on union formation.

This study makes an important contribution since it looks at a growing group of

people in the U.S. The West Indian foreign born population makes up about 60% of Blacks

who are foreign born (Lincoln, 2008). This study focuses specifically on Jamaicans, since the

bulk of Afro–West Indian migrants are from Jamaica (Peach, 1995). Studying how this group

of people is being incorporated into society is important, since their growth-rate as members of the U.S. population will affect the social, economic and political realms of society since their votes by their increasing numbers will affect the broader decisions made in the country.

Furthermore, most studies that examine the assimilation of the West Indian and

Jamaican populations tend to focus on socio-economic outcomes (e.g. Model, 1991; Dodoo

1997; Deaux et al, 2007). There is little research that measures assimilation via union formation among West Indian immigrants (Model and Fisher, 2001; Waters, 2007). This study adds to our knowledge of union formation since it takes into account generational effects and focuses on a specific group: Jamaican women.

Another crucial contribution is that this study expands our knowledge on the relatively new union formation pattern in the U.S., namely, cohabitation. Cohabitation studies have been mainly focused on Black and White differences with limited research done on

Hispanics (Brown et al, 2008). Not much research has been done on other racial / ethnic group variations, and very little has been done on generational differences (Brown et al,

2008). There is need for this type of research since cohabitation has been known to vary across race and ethnic groups, becoming more common among disadvantaged groups (Brown et al, 2008). This study provides this type of analysis. Furthermore, when most studies look at racial / ethnic differences in union formation, they compare non-Hispanic whites with

Blacks and Hispanics (e.g. Harknett & McLanahan, 2004; Harknett, 2008; Lichter et al, 1992;

Loomis & Landale, 1994). They fail to mention how the foreign born were treated and have lumped all the black ethnic groups together. It is important to separate these groups since the

98 black population in the U.S. has doubled over the period 1980 – 2000 (Ghazel & Emerson

2005). This study creates a new category for one of the biggest- and fastest-growing black ethnic groups (i.e. the Jamaican ethnic group) and contributes since it reveals differences in the behaviors of black ethnic groups.

Appendix Table 1: Union Formation of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years, Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Census 2000: Descriptive Statistics Census 2000 NSFG Census NSFG Census Census JRHS non- 2002 non- 2000 non- 2002 non- 2000 1st 2000 2nd 2002 Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Genera- Genera- Jamaican white white African African tion tion and Women Women Women American American Jamaican Beyond living in Women Women Women Jamaican Jamaica Women Variables Percentage / Mean Union Status Married 57.49% 55.04% 30.25% 27.90% 39.05% 25.24% 19.24% Opposite 6.61%* 8.85% 6.31%* 10.52% 5.42% 6.92% 22.33% Sex Cohabitation Single 35.90% 36.10% 63.44% 61.59% 55.53% 67.83% 58.43% Age (18 – 44 32.16 31.78 31.37 31.10 32.75 28.52 30.26 years) (7.77) (7.87) (7.82) (7.69) (7.42) (7.51) (18.00) Birth Parity (0 1.08 1.14 1.17* 1.36 1.13 0.75 1.69 – 9+ kids 18 (1.21) (1.14) (1.32) (1.38) (1.27) (1.11) (1.56) and under) No children 45.53% 42.86% 43.48%* 35.40% 44.19% 59.31% 26.93% 18 or under One Child 18 18.78% 21.19% 20.96%* 26.85% 20.50% 18.23% 25.42% or under Two or more 35.69% 35.95% 35.56% 37.74% 35.31% 22.46% 47.65% children 18 or under Area of Residence Other towns 51.72% 51.74% 32.58% 36.02% 45.02% 42.42% 33.40% Rural 29.40% 22.54% 15.87%* 8.46% 1.39% 4.07% 44.32% Urban 18.89%* 25.72% 51.54% 55.52% 53.58% 53.51% 22.28% Education Less than 7.28%* 13.53% 12.83%* 21.65% 10.54% 5.48% 12.25% High School High School 37.92%* 25.36% 45.79%* 31.07% 38.36% 30.33% 45.26% Graduate Some College 26.81%* 32.03% 26.99% 30.49% 29.97% 36.24% 31.16% College 28.00% 29.08% 14.39%* 16.79% 21.14% 27.95% 11.33% Graduate Employment 71.97% 73.21% 63.11%* 69.85% 71.78% 70.71% 41.05% Status (employed = 1) Generation 1 4096 sample Generation 1.5 1591 sample N 1,142,992 3,648 222,825 1,254 5,687 1,669 7,735 Standard deviations are written in parenthesis * p < .05 (where the Census 2000 data is statistically different from the NSFG 2002 data) These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted.

100

Table 1b: Union formation of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years, Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Census 2000: Descriptive Statistics Census NSFG Census NSFG Census Census Census JRHS 2000 2002 2000 2002 2000 1st 2000 1.5 2000 2002 non- non- non- non- Genera- Genera- 2nd Jamaican Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic tion tion Genera- Women white white African- African- Jamaican Jamaican tion and living in Women Women American American Women Women Beyond Jamaica Women Women Jamaican Women Variables Percentage / Mean Union Status Married 57.49% 55.04% 30.25% 27.90% 44.02% 26.19% 25.24% 19.24% Opposite 6.61%* 8.85% 6.31%* 10.52% 5.21% 5.97% 6.92% 22.33% Sex Cohabitation Non - 59.02% 0.91% 1.92% 2.34% 3.51% Hispanic White Partner Non- 0.62% 30.42% 8.26% 12.11% 14.48% Hispanic African- American Partner 1st 0.01% 0.28% 30.89% 11.30% 4.60% Generation Jamaican Partner 2nd 0.01% 0.11% 0.85% 0.61% 2.92% Generation Jamaican Partner Other Race 1.67% 0.52% 0.90% 0.91% 2.01% Partner Single 35.90% 36.10% 63.44% 61.59% 50.77% 67.84% 67.83% 58.43% Age (18 – 32.16 31.78 31.37 31.10 34.37 28.56 28.52 30.26 44 years) (7.77) (7.87) (7.82) (7.69) (6.81) (7.25) (7.51) (18.00)

Birth Parity 1.08 1.14 1.17* 1.36 1.26 0.8 0.75 1.69 (0 – 9+ kids (1.21) (1.14) (1.32) (1.38) (1.28) (1.18) (1.11) (1.56) 18 and under) Area of Residence Other 51.72% 51.74% 32.58% 36.02% 45.35% 44.18% 42.42% 33.40% towns Rural 29.40% 22.54% 15.87%* 8.46% 1.45% 1.24% 4.07% 44.32% Urban 18.89%* 25.72% 51.54% 55.52% 53.19% 54.59% 53.51% 22.28% Standard deviations are written in parenthesis * p < .05 (where the Census 2000 data is statistically different from the NSFG 2002 data) These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted.

101

Table 1b continued: Union formation of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years, Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Census 2000: Descriptive Statistics Census NSFG Census NSFG Census Census Census JRHS 2000 2002 2000 2002 2000 1st 2000 1.5 2000 2002 non- non- non- non- Genera- Genera- 2nd Jamaican Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic tion tion Genera- Women white white African- African- Jamaican Jamaican tion and living in Women Women American American Women Women Beyond Jamaica Women Women Jamaican Women Variables Percentage / Mean Proportion 72.98% 62.45% 52.04% 52.48% 56.52% of Whites in an Area Proportion 11.38% 19.36% 16.60% 16.61% 16.51% of African- Americans in an Area Proportion 0.18% 0.34% 1.50% 1.44% 1.04% of 1st Generation Jamaicans in an Area Proportion 0.09% 0.15% 0.55% 0.53% 0.40% of 2nd Generation and beyond in an Area Proportion 15.37% 17.70% 29.31% 28.93% 25.53% of Other Races in an Area ln(Population 10.11 10.05 10.14 10.14 10.11 in the Super Public Use Microdata Area) Population in 29736 28296 28567 28559 28588 the Super Public Use Microdata Area Total White 293554 174806 110148 107617 119620 population in Metropolitan Area Total Black 31772 37865 40915 39557 36950 population in Metro. Area Total 1st Gen 394.83 837.23 3815.66 3680.83 2753.04 Ja. pop. in Metro. Area Standard deviations are written in parenthesis * p < .05 (where the Census 2000 data is statistically different from the NSFG 2002 data) These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted.

102

Table 1b continued: Union formation of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years, Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Census 2000: Descriptive Statistics Census NSFG Census NSFG Census Census Census JRHS 2000 2002 2000 2002 2000 1st 2000 1.5 2000 2002 non- non- non- non- Genera- Genera- 2nd Jamaican Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic tion tion Genera- Women white white African- African- Jamaican Jamaican tion and living in Women Women American American Women Women Beyond Jamaica Women Women Jamaican Women Variables Percentage / Mean Total 2nd 185.28 350.25 1413.44 1365.25 1040.15 Gen Ja. population in Metro. Area Total other 46495 45565 75637 73627 65192 race population in Metro. Area Total 580.12 1187.48 5229.1 5046.07 3793.19 Jamaican ethnic group population in Metro. Area White Sex- 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.93 Ratio African- 0.97 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.86 American Sex-Ratio 1st 61471454 54458097 0.76 0.77 2839565 Generation Ja. Sex- Ratio 2nd 35708643 44510625 769453 3881844 0.88 Generation Ja. Sex Ratio Jamaican 46103205 16974298 0.78 0.79 0.84 ethnic group sex-ratio Race 0.95 0.87 0.76 0.77 0.88 Specific Sex-Ratio Standard deviations are written in parenthesis * p < .05 (where the Census 2000 data is statistically different from the NSFG 2002 data) These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted.

103

104

Table 2: Proportion of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years Married by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics. NON- NON- JAMAICAN HISPANIC HISPANIC AFRICAN WHITE AMERICAN AMERICAN (REFERENCE) AGE GROUP PUMS PUMS JRHS PUMS BORN IN JA BORN IN THE U.S. 18 – 24 0.1124 0.2191* 0.0302* 0.1032 0.0826* 25 – 29 0.2788 0.5482* 0.1525* 0.3098 0.2150* 30 – 34 0.3653 0.6791* 0.2358* 0.4351* 0.3788 35 – 39 0.3997 0.7135* 0.2642* 0.4978* 0.4284 40 – 44 0.4041 0.7177* 0.3992 0.5187* 0.4777*

*p < .05. These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted.

105

Table 3: Proportion of U.S. Non-Hispanic African American Women 18 – 44 years Married by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics comparing Census 2000 marriage rates to NSFG 2002 marriage rates. Non-Hispanic African American Non-Hispanic African American

AGE GROUP PUMS 2000 NSFG 2002 18 – 24 0.112391 0.079465 25 – 29 0.278824 0.293171 30 – 34 0.365329 0.326307 35 – 39 0.399729 0.327315 40 – 44 0.404133 0.445933

These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted *p < .05

106

Table 4: Proportion of U.S. Non-Hispanic white Women 18 – 44 years Married by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics comparing Census 2000 marriage rates to NSFG 2002 marriage rates. Non-Hispanic white American Non-Hispanic white American AGE GROUP PUMS 2000 NSFG 2002 18 – 24 0.219077 0.170595 25 – 29 0.54822 0.565657 30 – 34 0.679053 0.68289 35 – 39 0.713481 0.702341 40 – 44 0.717672 0.70881 These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted *p < .05

107

Table 5: Proportion of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years Cohabiting by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics. Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic JAMAICAN African white American American (REFERENCE) AGE GROUP PUMS PUMS JRHS PUMS BORN IN JA BORN IN THE U.S. 18 – 24 0.0570 0.0868* 0.1675* 0.0403* 0.0613 25 – 29 0.0974 0.0811* 0.2812* 0.0784 0.1100 30 – 34 0.0688 0.0660 0.2599* 0.0648 0.0551 35 – 39 0.0600 0.0489* 0.2398* 0.0517 0.0540 40 – 44 0.0526 0.0402* 0.1905* 0.0410 0.0574 These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted *p < .05.

108

Table 6: Proportion of U.S. Non-Hispanic African American Women 18 – 44 years Married by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics comparing Census 2000 marriage rates to NSFG 2002 marriage rates. Non-Hispanic African American Non-Hispanic African American

AGE GROUP PUMS 2000 NSFG 2002 18 – 24 0.057017* 0.14506* 25 – 29 0.097418 0.106041 30 – 34 0.068767 0.122171 35 – 39 0.059991 0.061576 40 – 44 0.052603 0.075694 These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted *p < .05

109

Table 7: Proportion of U.S. Non-Hispanic white Women 18 – 44 years Married by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics comparing Census 2000 marriage rates to NSFG 2002 marriage rates. Non-Hispanic white American Non-Hispanic white American

AGE GROUP PUMS 2000 NSFG 2002 18 – 24 0.086794* 0.144709* 25 – 29 0.081133* 0.116618* 30 – 34 0.065995 0.060671 35 – 39 0.048863 0.060619 40 – 44 0.040223 0.05601 These statistics adjust for survey design effects and are weighted *p < .05

110

Table 8: Race of Respondent by Race of Respondent's Partner for Women 18 - 44 years who are currently in any Union, Census 2000 Race of Partner Race of the Respondent Non- Non- Jamaican Jamaican Jamaican Hispanic Hispanic 1st 1.5 2nd white Black Generation Generation Generation and beyond Non-Hispanic white 96.22% 2.82% 4.49% 8.58% 12.75% Non-Hispanic Black 1.02% 94.38% 19.29% 44.40% 52.63% Jamaican 1st Generation 0.02% 0.86% 72.14% 41.46% 16.73% Jamaican 2nd Generation and 0.02% 0.33% 1.98% 2.23% 10.60% beyond Other Race Partner 2.73% 1.61% 2.10% 3.33% 7.30% These statistics are weighted and adjust for survey design effects.

Table 10: Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Model 1 Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b Model 3c Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB B eB Racial Groups (non-Hispanic white American) Non-Hispanic African- -1.137*** 0.321 -1.5163** 0.22 -1.311*** 0.269 -1.271*** 0.281 -1.332*** 0.264 Americanb 1st Generation Jamaicansc -0.543*** 0.581 -1.020*** 0.361 -0.769*** 0.463 -0.456*** 0.634 -0.613*** 0.542 1.5 Generation Jamaicansd -1.337*** 0.263 -1.303*** 0.272 -1.147*** 0.318 -0.840*** 0.432 -1.003*** 0.367 2nd Generation Jamaicanse -1.386*** 0.250 -1.288*** 0.276 -1.143*** 0.319 -1.001*** 0.367 -1.214*** 0.297 Age 0.409*** 1.506 0.381*** 1.464 0.376*** 1.457 0.374*** 1.454 Age squared -0.005*** 0.995 -0.005*** 0.995 -0.005*** 0.995 -0.005*** 0.995 Parity 0.729*** 2.073 0.732*** 2.080 0.745*** 2.106 0.746*** 2.109 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1, 2, 3a and 3b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, 1st Generation and the 1.5 Generation. There is no difference in marriage with the 2nd Generation in model 3c. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1, 2, 3a, b and c. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 1, 2, 3a and b. In model 3c, there is significant difference with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans and a marginal significant difference with the 2nd Generation. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 1, 2, 3a and b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference with non-Hispanic whites and 1st Generation Jamaicans, marginal significant difference with 2nd Generation and no difference with non-Hispanic African Americans.

107

Table 10 continued: Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Model 1 Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b Model 3c Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB B eB Area of Residence (Urban) Rural 0.617*** 1.854 Other Towns 0.470*** 1.6 Race- Specific ethnic-group 1.960*** 7.101 1.979*** 7.233 sex-ratio Population in geographic area (20,000 - 50,000) Population 50,000 - -0.024** 0.977 -0.024*** 0.976 200,000 Population 10,000 - 0.064*** 1.066 0.068*** 1.070 20,000 Population less than 10,000 -0.122*** 0.885 -0.138*** 0.871 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1, 2, 3a and 3b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, 1st Generation and the 1.5 Generation. There is no difference in marriage with the 2nd Generation in model 3c. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1, 2, 3a, b and c. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 1, 2, 3a and b. In model 3c, there is significant difference with Whites, African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans and a marginal significant difference with the 2nd Generation. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 1, 2, 3a and b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference with non-Hispanic whites and 1st Generation Jamaicans, marginal significant difference with 2nd Generation and no difference with non-Hispanic African Americans.

108

Table 10 continued: Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Model 1 Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b Model 3c Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB B eB log(Race specific population in an Area) 0.038*** 1.038 Education (Educational attainment [general version]) 0.117*** 1.124 0.107*** 1.113 0.104*** 1.110 Employment Status

(Unemployed = 0) -0.316*** 0.729 -0.302*** 0.740 -0.303*** 0.738 Constant 0.302*** -7.620*** -8.228*** -9.981*** -9.514*** Wald χ2 42002.034*** 202908.937*** 212595.988*** 9066567.780*** 210329.494*** D.F. 4 7 11 14 13 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1, 2, 3a and 3b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, 1st Generation and the 1.5 Generation. There is no difference in marriage with the 2nd Generation in model 3c. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1, 2, 3a, b and c. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 1, 2, 3a and b. In model 3c, there is significant difference with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans and a marginal significant difference with the 2nd Generation. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 1, 2, 3a and b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference with non-Hispanic whites and 1st Generation Jamaicans, marginal significant difference with 2nd Generation and no difference with non-Hispanic African Americans.

109

110

Table 11: Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage for Women 18 – 44 years, JRHS 2002, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB

Age 0.460*** 1.584 0.462*** 1.587 Age squared -0.005*** 0.995 -0.005*** 0.995 Parity 0.038 1.038 0.054* 1.055 Area of Residence (Urban) Rural 0.641*** 1.899 Other 0.379** 1.461 Towns Education 0.110*** 1.117 (Educational attainment [general version]) Employment 0.0214 1.022 Status (Unemployed = 0) Constant -10.587*** -11.945*** 2 Wald χ 460.445*** 470.004*** D.F. 3 7 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized

111

Table 12: Predicted Probability of Marriage for Race of Respondent Women 18 - 44 years, Census 2000 and JRHS 2002 (Overall Averages) Race of the Respondent Non- Non- Jamaican 1st Jamaican Jamaican Jamaican living Hispanic Hispanic Generation 1.5 2nd in Jamaica white Black Generation Generation and beyond

Married 53.33% 23.54% 34.62% 26.64% 26.72% 14.02% not Married 46.67% 76.46% 65.38% 73.36% 73.28% 85.98%

Table 13: Summary of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage and Cohabitation for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics. Model 1 Model 2 marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Racial Groups (non-Hispanic white American) non-Hispanic -1.263*** 0.283 -0.667*** 0.513 -1.623*** 0.198 -0.695*** 0.499 African Americanb 1st Generation -0.647*** 0.524 -0.617*** 0.540 -1.099*** 0.333 -0.751*** 0.472 Jamaicansc 1.5 Generation -1.483*** 0.227 -0.851*** 0.427 -1.414*** 0.243 -0.866*** 0.421 Jamaicansd 2nd Generation -1.480*** 0.228 -0.721*** 0.486 -1.362*** 0.256 -0.727*** 0.483 Jamaicanse Age 0.463*** 1.588 0.447*** 1.563 Age squared -0.006*** 0.994 -0.007*** 0.993 Parity 0.700*** 2.013 -0.122*** 0.886 Constant 0.511*** -1.678*** -8.205*** -8.406*** 2 likelihood ratio χ . 60060.19*** DF 0 2000 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1 and 2. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites in models 1 and 2 and no significant difference with 1st and 2nd generation Jamaicans in models 1 and 2. In model 1, there is marginal significant difference with 1.5 generation Jamaicans. In model 2, there is no significant difference between cohabitation with 1.5 generation Jamaicans. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other races / ethnic groups in models 1 and 2. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites in models 1 and 2 and no significant difference with non-Hispanic African Americans and 2nd generation Jamaicans in models 1 and 2. There is marginal significant difference with 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 1 and no significant difference between cohabitation with 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 2. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 1 and 2. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites in models 1 and 2. There is marginal significant difference in cohabitation with non-Hispanic African Americans and 1st generation Jamaicans and no significant difference with 2nd generation Jamaicans in model 1. In model 2, there is no significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans and 2nd Generation Jamaicans. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with Whites, African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 1 and 2. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with Whites, no significant difference with African Americans, 1st generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans in models 1 and 2.

112

Table 14: Summary of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage and Cohabitation for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Model 3 Model 3b marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Racial Groups (non- Hispanic white American) Non-Hispanic African -1.423*** 0.241 -0.677*** 0.507 -1.357*** 0.257 -0.591*** 0.554 Americanb 1st Generation Jamaicansc -0.832*** 0.435 -0.689*** 0.502 -0.468*** 0.626 -0.407*** 0.666 1.5 Generation Jamaicansd -1.231*** 0.292 -0.730*** 0.482 -0.872*** 0.418 -0.454*** 0.635 2nd Generation Jamaicanse -1.196*** 0.302 -0.593*** 0.553 -0.977*** 0.377 -0.377*** 0.686 Age 0.445*** 1.560 0.513*** 1.670 0.440*** 1.552 0.508*** 1.662 Age squared -0.006*** 0.994 -0.009*** 0.992 -0.006*** 0.994 -0.008*** 0.992 Parity 0.696*** 2.007 -0.168*** 0.846 0.708*** 2.031 -0.161*** 0.851 Area of Residence (Urban) Rural 0.656*** 1.927 0.318*** 1.374 Other Towns 0.466*** 1.593 0.087*** 1.091 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a and b. In model 3a and b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non- Hispanic whites. In model 3b, there is a significant difference with cohabitation between 1st Generation and 2nd Generation and no significant difference in model 3a. There is no significant difference in cohabitation with the 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a and b. There is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 1, 2 and 3. In Model 3a, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with non-Hispanic African Americans, 2nd generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans. In model 3b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic African Americans and no significant difference with 2nd Generation and the 1.5 generation Jamaicans. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. In Model 3a and b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites but no significant difference between the other race / ethnic groups. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with 1st generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. In model 3a, there is no significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic African Americans but in model 3b, there is a significant difference.

113

Table 14 continued: Summary of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage and Cohabitation for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Model 3 Model 3b marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Race- Specific 2.011*** 7.468 1.143*** 3.135 ethnic-group sex-ratio Population in geographic area (20,000 - 50,000) Population 50,000 - 0.009 1.01 0.123*** 1.131 200,000 Population 10,000 - 0.065*** 1.067 0.069*** 1.071 20,000 Population less than -0.135*** 0.873 -0.024* 0.976 10,000 log(Race- Specific 0.051*** 1.052 0.037*** 1.038 Population in an Area) +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a and b. In model 3a and b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non- Hispanic whites. In model 3b, there is a significant difference with cohabitation between 1st Generation and 2nd Generation and no significant difference in model 3a. There is no significant difference in cohabitation with the 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a and b. There is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 1, 2 and 3. In Model 3a, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with non-Hispanic African Americans, 2nd generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans. In model 3b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic African Americans and no significant difference with 2nd Generation and the 1.5 generation Jamaicans. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. In Model 3a and b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites but no significant difference between the other race / ethnic groups. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with 1st generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. In model 3a, there is no significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic African Americans but in model 3b, there is a significant difference.

114

Table 14 continued: Summary of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage and Cohabitation for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics. Model 3 Model 3b marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Education (Educational 0.102*** 1.108 -0.101*** 0.904 0.093*** 1.097 -0.108*** 0.898 attainment [general version]) Employment Status -0.284*** 0.753 0.094*** 1.098 -0.272*** 0.762 0.095*** 1.100 (Unemployed = 0) Constant -8.920*** -8.888*** -10.840*** -10.163*** likelihood ratio χ2 125854.5*** 485193.2*** D.F. 40000 500000 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a and b. In model 3a and b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non- Hispanic whites. In model 3b, there is a significant difference with cohabitation between 1st Generation and 2nd Generation and no significant difference in model 3a. There is no significant difference in cohabitation with the 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a and b. There is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 1, 2 and 3. In Model 3a, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with non-Hispanic African Americans, 2nd generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans. In model 3b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic African Americans and no significant difference with 2nd Generation and the 1.5 generation Jamaicans. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. In Model 3a and b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites but no significant difference between the other race / ethnic groups. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with 1st generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. In model 3a, there is no significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic African Americans but in model 3b, there is a significant difference.

115 116

Table 14b: Summary of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage and Cohabitation for Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000, Demographic and Economic Characteristics Marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single Predictorsa B eB B eB Racial Groups (non-Hispanic white American) Non-Hispanic African Americanb -1.440*** 0.237 -0.651*** 0.522 1st Generation Jamaicansc -0.675*** 0.509 -0.558*** 0.572 1.5 Generation Jamaicansd -1.088*** 0.337 -0.606*** 0.546 2nd Generation Jamaicanse -1.269*** 0.281 -0.587*** 0.556 Age 0.437*** 1.548 0.506*** 1.659 Age squared -0.006*** 0.994 -0.008*** 0.992 Parity 0.712*** 2.037 -0.159*** 0.853 Race-Specific ethnic- group sex- 2.123*** 8.359 1.213*** 3.365 ratio Population in geographic area (20,000 - 50,000) Population 50,000 - 200,000 0.008 1.008 0.122*** 1.130 Population 10,000 – 20,000 0.070*** 1.072 0.073*** 1.076 Population less than 10,000 -0.161*** 0.851 -0.043*** 0.958 log(Race specific population in an Area) Education (Educational attainment 0.088*** 1.092 -0.1104*** 0.895 [general version]) Employment Status (Unemployed -0.273*** 0.761 0.093*** 1.097 = 0) Constant -10.277*** -9.747*** likelihood ratio χ2 486650.7*** D.F. 500000 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a, b and c. In model 3a, b and c, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites. In model 3b, there is a significant difference with cohabitation between 1st Generation and 2nd Generation and no significant difference in model 3a. There is no significant difference in cohabitation with the 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a and b. In model 3c, there is no difference in cohabitation between 1st Generation, 1.5 Generation and 2nd Generation Jamaicans. cThere is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 3a, b and c. There is a significant difference between marriage with all other race / ethnic groups in models 1, 2 and 3. In Model 3a and c, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with non-Hispanic African Americans, 2nd generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans. In model 3b, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and African Americans and no significant difference with 2nd Generation and the 1.5 generation Jamaicans. dThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans and marginal difference with 2nd Generation Jamaicans. In Model 3a, b and c, there is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites but no significant difference between the other race / ethnic groups. eThere is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans but no difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans in models 3a and b. In model 3c, there is a significant difference between marriage with non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic African Americans, 1st Generation Jamaicans and marginal difference with 1.5 Generation Jamaicans. There is a significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic whites and no significant difference with 1st generation Jamaicans and 1.5 generation Jamaicans in model 3a, b and c. In model 3a and c, there is no significant difference between cohabitation with non-Hispanic African Americans but in model 3b, there is a significant difference.

Table 15: Summary of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Marriage and Cohabitation for Women 18 – 44 years, JRHS 2002, Demographic and Economic Characteristics. Model 2 Model 3 marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single marriage vs. single cohabitation vs. single Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Age 0.523*** 1.687 0.263*** 1.301 0.535*** 1.707 0.291*** 1.338 Age squared -0.006*** 0.994 -0.004*** 0.996 -0.006*** 0.994 -0.004*** 0.996 Parity 0.149*** 1.161 0.296*** 1.345 0.152*** 1.164 0.260*** 1.297 Area of Residence (Urban) Rural 0.681*** 1.976 0.106 1.112 Other Towns 0.319*** 1.376 -0.220** 0.802 Education (Educational 0.091*** 1.096 -0.058*** 0.944 attainment [general version]) Employment Status 0.006 1.006 -0.053 0.948 (Unemployed = 0) Constant -11.363*** -5.491*** -12.698*** -5.411*** likelihood ratio χ2 1342.2*** 1490.1*** DF 6 14 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized

117

Table 16: Predicted Probability of Union type for Race of Respondent Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000 and JRHS 2002 (Overall Averages) Union Type Race of the Respondent Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic Black Jamaican 1st Jamaican 1.5 Jamaican 2nd Jamaican living in Generation Generation Generation and Jamaica beyond Married 0.54 0.24 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.14 Cohabiting 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.25 Single 0.38 0.69 0.58 0.66 0.65 0.61

118

Table 17a:

Multinomial Regression model for predicting Race of Partner (Married or Cohabiting) for Women in an Union 18 - 44, Census 2000 Model 1 (A 1st Generation Jamaican Partner) A non-Hispanic white Partner A non-Hispanic African A 2nd Generation Jamaican Another Race Partner American Partner Partner Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Racial Groups (1st Generation Jamaicans) 1.5 Generation 0.973*** 2.645 1.303*** 3.680 0.849* 2.338 0.765* 2.148 Jamaicansb 43 44 2nd Generation 2.454*** 11.639 2.364*** 10.628 3.127*** 22.815 2.593*** 13.366 Jamaicans Constant -2.621*** -1.286*** -3.656*** -3.484*** likelihood ratioχ2 . D.F. 0 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bIn Model 1,There is a significant difference in having a non-Hispanic white Partner, a non-Hispanic African American Partner, a 2nd Generation Jamaican Partner and another race Partner (compared to having a 1st Generation Jamaican partner) between the 1.5 and the 2nd Generation. The results are similar across the Jamaican ethnic groups when non-Hispanic white and African Americans are included.

43 This number is similar to the calculated odds ratio obtained from the descriptive results in table 8 and figure 7. These calculations are not shown.

44 This number is similar to the calculated odds ratio obtained from the descriptive results in table 8 and figure 7. These calculations are not shown.

119

Table 17b: Multinomial Regression model for predicting Race of Partner (Married or Cohabiting) for Women in an Union 18 - 44, Census 2000 Model 2 (A 1st Generation Jamaican Partner) A non-Hispanic white Partner A non-Hispanic African A 2nd Generation Jamaican Another Race Partner American Partner Partner Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Racial Groups (1st Generation Jamaicans) 1.5 Generation 0.991*** 2.695 1.178*** 3.249 0.758* 2.134 0.647+ 1.909 Jamaicansb 2nd Generation 2.436*** 11.427 2.228*** 9.279 3.046*** 21.035 2.492*** 12.084 Jamaicansc Age 0.010 1.105 -0.034 0.967 0.188 1.207 0.291 1.338 Age squared -0.001 0.999 0.000 1.000 -0.003 0.997 -0.005 0.995 Parity -0.386*** 0.680 -0.181*** 0.834 -0.130 0.878 -0.170+ 0.844 Constant -4.150+ 0.118 -6.046+ -7.363* likelihood ratioχ2 1233.91 D.F. 1000 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bIn M odel 2 ,There i s a s ignificant di fference i n ha ving a non-Hispanic w hite Partner, a n on-Hispanic A frican American P artner, a 2 nd G eneration J amaican Partner and another race Partner (compared to having a 1st Generation Jamaican partner) between the 1.5 and the 2nd Generation. The results are similar across the Jamaican ethnic groups when non-Hispanic white and African Americans are included.

120

Table 17c: Multinomial Regression model for predicting Race of Partner (Married or Cohabiting) for Women in an Union 18 - 44, Census 2000 Model 3 (Contrast 1st generation Jamaican Partner) A non-Hispanic white A non-Hispanic African A 2nd Generation Another Race Partner Partner American Partner Jamaican Partner Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB Racial Groups (1st Generation Jamaicans) 1.5 Generation Jamaicansb 0.866*** 2.378 1.126*** 3.084 0.664 1.942 0.560 1.751 2nd Generation Jamaicansc 1.813*** 6.133 1.928** 6.873 2.950*** 19.110 2.203*** 9.054 Age 0.061 1.063 -0.062 0.940 0.104 1.109 0.245 1.280 Age squared -0.001 0.100 0.000 1.000 -0.002 0.998 -0.004 0.996 Parity -0.416*** 0.660 -0.184** 0.832 -0.100 0.905 -0.167+ 0.846 Race Specific Jamaican ethnic- 0.094 1.098 -0.247 0.781 -0.118 0.889 0.759 2.136 group sex-ratio Population in geographic area (20,000 - 50,000) Population 50,000 - 200,000 0.422 1.525 -0.094 0.910 -1.108 0.330 0.044 1.044 Population 10,000 - 20,000 0.206 1.228 -0.220 0.803 -0.230 0.795 -0.598+ 0.550 Population less than 10,000 0.277 1.319 -0.395* 0.673 -0.095 0.909 -0.029 0.971 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bIn Model 3,There is a significant difference in having a non-Hispanic white Partner, a non-Hispanic African American Partner, a 2nd Generation Jamaican Partner and another race Partner (compared to having a 1st Generation Jamaican partner) between the 1.5 and the 2nd Generation. The results are similar across the Jamaican ethnic groups when non-Hispanic white and African Americans are included.

121

Table 17c continued: Multinomial Regression model for predicting Race of Partner (Married or Cohabiting) for Women in an Union 18 - 44, Census 2000 Model 3 (Contrast 1st generation Jamaican Partner) A non-Hispanic white A non-Hispanic African A 2nd Generation Another Race Partner Partner American Partner Jamaican Partner Predictorsa B eB B eB B eB B eB log(Race specific population of -0.403** 0.669 -0.215** 0.807 -0.023 0.978 -0.087 0.917 Jamaicans in an Area) Education (Educational 0.212** 1.236 0.010* 1.105 0.171* 1.186 0.135* 1.144 attainment [general version]) Employment Status -0.507* 0.602 -0.224+ 0.799 -0.415 0.660 -0.476+ 0.621 (Unemployed = 0) Constant -2.239 1.833 -5.240 -7.091* likelihood ratio χ2 4633.78 D.F. 9000 +p< 10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. aReference groups are parenthesized bIn Model 3,There is a significant difference in having a non-Hispanic white Partner, a non-Hispanic African American Partner, a 2nd Generation Jamaican Partner and another race Partner (compared to having a 1st Generation Jamaican partner) between the 1.5 and the 2nd Generation. The results are similar across the Jamaican ethnic groups when White and African Americans are included.

122 123

Table 18: Race of Respondent by Race of Respondent's Partner for Women 18 - 44 years who are Currently in any Union, Census 2000 Descriptives Race of Partner Race of the Respondent Jamaican 1st Generation Jamaican 1.5 Jamaican 2nd Generation Generation and beyond

Non-Hispanic white 4.49% 8.58% 12.75% Non-Hispanic Black 19.29% 44.40% 52.63% Jamaican 1st Generation 72.14% 41.46% 16.73%

Jamaican 2nd Generation 1.98% 2.23% 10.60% and beyond Other Race Partner 2.10% 3.33% 7.30% N 1740 425 451

124

Table 19: Race of Respondent by Race of Respondent's Partner for Women 18 - 44 years who are Currently in any Union, Census 2000 Predicted Probabilities at 1st Gen Averages Race of Partner Race of the Respondent Jamaican 1st Generation Jamaican 1.5 Generation Jamaican 2nd Generation and beyond Non-Hispanic white 2.96% 4.76% 6.45% Non-Hispanic Black 19.38% 40.39% 47.29% Jamaican 1st Generation 73.42% 49.60% 26.06% Jamaican 2nd Generation 1.84% 2.42% 12.50% and beyond Other Race Partner 2.39% 2.83% 7.70% N 1740 425 451

125

Table 20: Race of Respondent by Race of Respondent's Partner for Women 18 - 44 years who are Currently in any Union, Census 2000 Predicted Probabilities at 2nd Gen Averages Race of Partner Race of the Respondent Jamaican 1st Generation Jamaican 1.5 Jamaican 2nd Generation and Generation beyond Non-Hispanic white 7.38% 12.38% 15.55% Non-Hispanic Black 12.48% 27.16% 29.47% Jamaican 1st 73.42% 51.81% 25.22% Generation Jamaican 2nd 2.56% 3.51% 16.83% Generation and beyond Other Race Partner 4.16% 5.14% 12.94% N 1740 425 451

126

Figure 1: Proportion of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years Married by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics.

0.9

0.8 Non Hispanic African 0.7 American Non Hispanic White American 0.6 Jamaican non immigrant 0.5

0.4 1st Generation Jamaican

PROPORTION MARRIED 0.3 2nd Generation and beyond Jamaican 0.2

0.1

0 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 A GE GR OUP

The reference group is Non-Hispanic African Americans (red line). Significant differences are set at the 95% confidence level. Red squares indicate a significant difference at that age group and the age group of non-Hispanic African Americans. White squares indicate no significant difference at that age group and the age group of non-Hispanic African Americans.

127

Figure 2: Proportion Married for Non-Hispanic African Americans: Census 2000 (PUMS data) vs. NSFG 2002

0.8

0.6 PUMS 0.4 NSFG

0.2 Proportion Married Proportion

0 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 AGE GROUP

Significant differences are set at the 95% confidence level. Red squares indicate a significant difference at that age group. White squares indicate no significant difference at that age group.

128

Figure 3: Proportion Married for Non-Hispanic white Americans: Census 2000 (PUMS data) vs. NSFG 2002

0.8

0.6 PUMS 0.4 NSFG

0.2 Proportion Married Proportion

0 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 AGE GROUP

Significant differences are set at the 95% confidence level. Red squares indicate a significant difference at that age group. White squares indicate no significant difference at that age group.

129

Figure 4: Proportion of U.S. and Jamaican Women 18 – 44 years Cohabiting by Age Group: Descriptive Statistics.

0.3

0.25 African American

0.2 White American

Jamaican non immigrant 0.15

1st Generation Jamaican 0.1 2nd Generation and bey ond

PROPORTION COHABITING Jamaican 0.05

0 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 AGE GROUP

130

Figure 5: Proportion Cohabiting for non – Hispanic African Americans: Census 2000 (PUMS data) vs. NSFG 2002

0.3 0.25 0.2 PUMS 0.15 NSFG 0.1

Proportion Cohabitng Proportion 0.05

0 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 Age Group

Significant differences are set at the 95% confidence level. Red squares indicate a significant difference at that age group. White squares indicate no significant difference at that age group.

131

Figure 6: Proportion Cohabiting for non – Hispanic White Americans: Census 2000 (PUMS data) vs. NSFG 2002

0.3 0.25 0.2 PUMS 0.15 NSFG 0.1 0.05 Proportion Cohabiting Proportion 0 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 A GE GR OUP

Significant differences are set at the 95% confidence level. Red squares indicate a significant difference at that age group. White squares indicate no significant difference at that age group.

132

Figure 7: Race of Respondent by Race of Respondent’s Partner for Women 18 – 44 years who are Currently in any Union, Census 2000

100.00%

90.00%

80.00% Other Race Partner 70.00% Jamaican 2nd Generation and 60.00% beyond Jamaican 1st Generation 50.00%

40.00% Non Hispanic Black

30.00% Non Hispanic White 20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Non Non Jamaican Jamaican Jamaican Hispanic Hispanic 1st 1.5 2nd White Black Generation Generation Generation and beyond

Race of the Respondent

133

Figure 8: Predicted Probabilities of Marriage for Race of Respondent, Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000 and JRHS 2002 (Individual Averages)

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00% not Married 50.00% Married

Union Type Union 40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Non Non Jamaican Jamaican 1.5 Jamaican Jamaican Hispanic Hispanic 1st Generation 2nd living in White Black Generation Generation Jamaica and beyond

Race of the Respondent

134

Figure 9: Predicted Probability of Union Type for Race of Respondent Women 18 – 44 years, Census 2000 and JRHS 2002 (Overall Averages).

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00%

60.00% Single 50.00% Cohabiting 40.00% Married 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Non Hispanic Non Hispanic Jamaican 1st Jamaican 1.5 Jamaican 2nd Jamaican White Black Generation Generation Generation living in and beyond Jamaica

Race of the Respondent Predicted Probability

135

Reference

Abma, J.C., Chandra, A., Mosher, W.D., Peterson, L.S., Piccinino, L.J. 1997. Fertility, family p lanning, and w omen's he alth: ne w dat a f rom t he 1995 N ational Sur vey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat 23:1-114. Agresti, A., 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Second Edition. Wiley Series in probability and statistics. Hoboken, New Jersey. Alba, R. D., Golden, R. M. 1986. Patterns of Ethnic Intermarriage in the United States. Social Forces 65:202-223. Alba, R. 1976. Social Assimilation Among American Catholic National – Origin Groups. American Sociological Review 1976, Vol. 41 (December): 1030 – 1046. Arias, E. 2001. Change in Nuptiality Patterns among Cuban Americans: Evidence of Cultural and Structural Assimilation?. International Migration Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 525-556 Barber, J., B. Axinn. 2005. How Do Attitudes Shape Childbearing in the United States? In A B ooth a nd A . C router ( Eds.), T he N ew P opulation P roblem: Why Families in D eveloped C ountries Are S hrinking a nd What i t Means ( pp. 59 -91). Lawrence Erlbaum: New Jersey. Barrow, C. 1996. Family in the Caribbean: Themes and Perspectives. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle. Barrow, C. 1998. Family In The West Indian Themes And Perspectives. Kingston, Jamaica. Batson, C. Qian, Z. Lichter, D. 2006. Inter-racial and Intraracial Patterns of Mate Selection Among America’s Diverse Black Populations. Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (August 2006): 658–672 Bean, F., Berg, R., Van Hook, J. 1996. Socioeconomic and Cultural Incorporation and Marital Disruption among Mexican Americans. Social Forces, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Dec., 1996), pp. 593-617 Bean F.D. and Stevens G. 2003. America’s newcomers and the dynamics of diversity, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Becker, G.S. 1973. A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, pp. 813-846. Becker, G. S. 1974. A Theory of Marriage. Economics of the Family Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press 299-344, 1974.

136

Blake, J. 1961. Family Structure in Jamaica. New York, U.S.A. Bongaarts, J. 2001. The End of the Fertility Transition in the Developed World. Population and Development Review 28(3): 419 – 443 (September 2002). Brown, S. 2004. Family Structure and Child Well – Being: The Significance of Parental Cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (May 2004): 351 - 367 Brown, S. 2006. Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Well-being. Demography 43:447-461. Brown, S. Van Hook, J. Glick, J. 2008. Generational Differences in Cohabitation and Marriage in the U.S. Population Research Policy Review 27:531-550. Bryant, C. Taylor, R. Lincoln, K. Chatters, L. Jackson, J. 2008. Marital Satisfaction Among African Americans and Black Caribbeans: Findings From the National Survey of American Life. Family Relations, Volume 57 Issue 2, Pages 239 - 253 Bumpass, L., Hsien-Hen Lu. 2000. Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Context in the United States. Population Studies 54:29-41. Burton, L., Bonilla – Silva, E., Ray, V., Buckelew, R., Freeman, E. 2010. Critical Race Theories, Colorism, and the Decade’s Research on Families of Color. Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (June 2010): 440 – 459 Butcher, K. F. (1994). Black immigrants in the United States: A comparison with native Blacks and other immigrants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47, 265 – 284. Carlson, M., Furstenberg, F. 2006. The Prevalence and Correlates of Multipartnered Fertility among U.S. Urban Parents. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:718-732. Carter. 2000. Fertility of Mexican Immigrant Women in the U.S.: A closer look. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 81 No. 4. Casper, M., Cohen, P., Simmons, T. 1999. How Does POSSLQ Measure Up? Historical Estimates of Cohabitation. Paper presented at the Population Association of America. Cherlin, A. 2004. The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:848-861. Chiswick, D. Houseworth, C. 2008. Ethnic Intermarriage among Immigrants: Human Capital and Assortative Mating. IZA DP. No. 3740. Chiswick, C. U. and Lehrer, Evelyn L.: Religious Intermarriage: An Economic Perspective. Contemporary Jewry 12:21-34, 1991. Clarkberk, M., Stolzenberg, R., Waite, L. 1995. Attitudes, Values, and Entrance Into Cohabitational versus Marital Unions. Social Forces 74(2):609-634.

137

Cleland, J., Wilson, C. 1987. Demand Theories of the Fertility Transition: An Iconoclastic View. Population Studies 41: 5 – 30. Deaux, K., Bikmen, N., Gilkes, A., Ventuneac, A., Joseph, K., Payne, Y., Steele, C. 2007. Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in Afro-West Indian Immigrant Groups. Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404. Demo, D. Hughes, M. 1990. Socialization and Racial Identity among Black Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 53. No. 4, 364 - 374 Dodoo, F. N. 1997. Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces, 76, 527 – 546. Dow, T., Shanyisa K., John K. 1994. Wealth Flows and Fertility Decline in Rural Kenya. Population and Development Review. 20(2): 343-364 Dribe, M., Lundh, C. 2008. Intermarriage and Immigrant Integration in Sweden. Acta Sociologica Vol 51(4): 329–354. Duncan, O.D. and Lieberson, S. 1959. Ethnic segregation and assimilation. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 64, pp. 364-374.Edmonston & Passel, 1999 Espenshade, T. 1985. Marriage Trends in America: Estimates, Implications, and Underlying Causes. Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 193- 245. Fitch, K., Goeken, R., Ruggles, S. 2005. The Rise of Cohabitation in the United States: New Historical Estimates. Prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, March 31-April 2 2005. Foner, N. 1985. Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City. International Migration Review, Vol. 19, No. 4. Ford, Kathleen. 1990. Duration of Residence in the United States and the Fertility of U.S. Immigrants. International Migration Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 34-68 Fossett, M. A., Kiecolt, K. J. 1991. A Methodological Review of the Sex Ratio: Alternatives for Comparative Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:941- 957. Friedlander, Dov, Barbara S. Okun, and Sharon Segal. 1999. The demographic transition then and now: Processes, perspectives, and analyses. Journal of Family History 24: 493-533. Fryer, Jr. R.G. 2000. Guess who’s coming to dinner? Trends in inter-racial marriages over the 20th century. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 21, pp. 71-90.

138

Fu, V. K. 2001. Racial intermarriage pairings. Demography, 38, 147 – 159. Furtado, D. Theodoropoulos, N. 2007. Inter-ethnic Marriage: A Choice between Ethnic and Educational Similarities. IZA Working Paper No. 3448 Furtado & Theodoropoulous. 2008. Inter-ethnic Marriage: A Choice between Ethnic and Educational Similarities. IZA DP. No. 3448. Furtado, D. 2006. Human capital and inter-ethnic marriage decisions. IZA DP. No. 1989. Gans, H. 1992. Second generation decline: scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post – 1965 American Immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 15. No. 2. Ghazal, J., Emerson, M. 2005. Racial Context, Black Immigration and the U.S. Black/White Health Disparity. Social Forces, Vol. 84: 181-99. Gennetian, L. Miller, C. 2004. How Welfare Reform Can Affect Marriage:Evidence from an Experimental Study in Minnesota. Review of Economics of the Household Vol.2. No. 3. Gibson-Davis, C., Edin, K., McLanahan, S. 2005. High Hopes but even Higher Expectations: The Retreat from Marriage among Low-Income Couples. Journal of Marriage and Family 67:1301-1312. 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. Goldin, C. 1995. Career and Family: College Women Look to the Past. NBER Working Paper No. w5188. Goldman, N., Westoff, C. F., Hammerslough, C. 1984. Demography of the Marriage Market in the United States. Population Index 50:5-25. Goldscheider, F. Bures, R. 2003. The Racial Crossover in Family Complexity in the United States. Demography, Vol. 40. No. 3, August 2003: 569 - 587 Glazer, N. 2005. American diversity and the 2000 Census. in Ethnicity, Social Mobility and Public Policy: Comparing the U.S. and the UK. Edited by Loury, G.Modood, T and Teles, S. (2005), Cambridge. Goldscheider F., Sassler S. 2006. Creating Stepfamilies: Integrating Children Into the Study of Union Formation . Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (May 2006): 275– 291 Gordon, M. M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. Oxford University Press, New York.

139

Graefe , D. Lichter, D. 2007. When Unwed Mothers Marry. Journal of Family Issues. Vol. 28, No. 5, 595-622. Green, G., Welniak, E. 1982. Changing family composition and income differentials. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Special Demographic Analyses, CDS-80-7. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. Gullickson, A. 2005. Education and Black/White Inter-racial Marriage. Sociology Department, Columbia University. Gurak, D. T., Fitzpatrick, J. 1982. Intermarriage among Hispanic Ethnic Groups in New York City. American Journal of Sociology 87:921-934. Gurung, R. Duong, T. 1999. Mixing and Matching: Assessing the Concomitants of Mixed-Ethnic Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 16, No. 5, 639-657 Guzzo, K. Furstenberg, F. 2007. Multipartnered Fertility Among Young Women With a Nonmarital First Birth: Prevalence and Risk Factors. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol 39, No. 1, 29 – 38. Handa S. 1996. The Determinants of Female Headship in Jamaica: Results from a Structural Model. Economic Development & Cultural Change, Jul96, Vol. 44 Issue 4, p793, 23p, 9 charts; (AN 9607165434) Harknett, K. McLanahan, S. 2004. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Marriage after the Birth of a Child. American Sociological Review, Vol. 69, No. 6 (Dec., 2004), pp. 790-811 Harknett, K. 2008. Mate Availability and Unmarried Parent Relationships. Demography, Volume 45, Number 3: 555-571 Heaton, T., Albrecht, L. 1996. The changing pattern of inter-racial marriage. Soc Biol. 1996 Fall-Winter;43(3-4):203-17. Heaton, T.B., Jacobson, C. 2000. Intergroup Marriage: An Examination of Opportunity Structures. Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 70, No. 1: 30-41 Heaton, T.B., Jacobson, C. 2004. Cross-Cultural Patterns of Inter-racial Marriage. paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50502 Henriques F. 1949. West Indian Family Organization. American Journal of Sociology, Jul1949, Vol. 55 Issue 1, p30-37, 8p; (AN 15478658) Herskovits, M. 1937. African gods and Catholic saints in New World Negro beliefs. American Anthropologist 39, new series, 4635443.

140

Herskovits, M. 1966. The New World Negro. Edited by F. S. Herskovits. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hirschman, C. Kraly, E. 1990. Racial and Ethnic Inequality in the United States, 1940 and 1950: The Impact of Geographic Location and Human Capital. International Migration Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 4-33 Hirschman, C. 1983. America’s Melting Pot Reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 9: 397-423 Hwang, S., Saenz, R., Aguirre, B. 1994. Structural and Individual Determinants of Outmarriage Among Chinese-, Filipino-, and Japanese – Americans in California. Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 64, No. 4: 396 – 414. Iceland, J., Wilkes, R. 2006. Does Socioeconomic Status Matter? Race, Class, and Residential Segregation. Social Problems, Vol. 53, No. 2 (May 2006), pp. 248-273 Jacobs, J. Furstenberg, F. 1986. Changing Places: Conjugal Careers and Women's Marital Mobility. Social Forces, Vol. 64, 1986 Jones, Antwan. 2010. Stability of Men’s Inter-racial First Unions: A Test of Educational Differentials and Cohabitation History. J Fam Econ Iss 31: 241 - 256 Joyner, Kara & Kao, Grace. 2005. Inter-racial Relationships and the Transition to Adulthood. American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Aug., 2005), pp. 563-581 Kalmijn, M. 1998. Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 395-421. Kalmijn, M. 1993. Spouse selection among the children of European immigrants: a comparison of marriage cohorts in the 1960 Census. International Migration Review, Vol. 727, pp. 51-78. Kalmijn, M. 1991. Shifting boundaries: trends in religious and educational homogamy. American Sociological Review, Vol. 56, pp. 786-800. Kalmijn, M. 1996. The Socioeconomic Assimilation of West Indian American Blacks. Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Mar., 1996), pp. 911-930 Kalmijn, M., Monden, C. 2006. Are the Negative Effects of Divorce on Well-Being Dependent on Marital Quality? Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (December 2006): 1197–1213 Kalmijn, M., Van Tubergen, F. 2010. A Comparative Perspective on Intermarriage: Explaining Differences Among National – Origin Groups in the United States. Demography Vol. 47, No. 2 (May 2010), pp. 459 - 479

141

Kahn, J. 1988. Immigrant Selectivity and Fertility Adaptation in the United States. Social Forces, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Sep., 1988), pp. 108-128 Kiernan, K. 2004. Redrawing the Boundaries of Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:980-987. Kent, M. 2007. Immigration and America’s Black Population. Population Bulletin Vol. 62. No. 4. Kitano, H.H.L., W.T. Yeung, L. Chai, and H. Hatanaka. 1984. Asian – American Inter-racial Marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46: 179 – 90. Landale, N. S., & Fennelly, K. 1992. Informal unions among Mainland Puerto Ricans: Cohabitation or an alternative to legal marriage? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 269–280. Landale, N. S. 1994. Migration and the Latino family: The union formation behavior of Puerto Rican women. Demography, 31, 133 – 157. Landale, N., Forste, R. 1991. Patterns of entry into cohabitation and marriage among Mainland Puerto Rican women. Demography, 28: 587–607. Landale and Oropesa. 2002. White, Black, or Puerto Rican? Racial Self-Identification among M ainland and I sland P uerto R icans. Social F orces, S eptember 2002, 81 (1):231-254 Lesthaeghe, R., Neidert, L., Surkyn, J. 2006. Household Formation and the “Second Demographic Transition” in Europe and the US: Insights from Middle Range Models. http://sdt.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/online/rl_romantic_unions_paper.pdf Lee, S.M. Yamanaka, K. 1990. Patterns of Asian American intermarriage and marital assimilation. Comparative Family Studies. Vol 21. No. 2: 287-305. Leibowitz, A., Klerman, J. 1995. Explaining Changes in Married Mothers' Employment over Time. Demography 32(3):365-378. Lehrer, E. L. 1998. Religious Intermarriage in the United States: Determinants and Trends. Social Science Research 27:245-263. Lichter, D., Brown, J., Qian, Z., Carmalt, J. 2007. Marital Assimilation Among Hispanics: Evidence of Declining Cultural and Economic Incorporation? Social Science Quarterly, Volume 88, Number 3, September 2007 Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z. 2001. Measuring Marital Assimilation: Intermarriage Among Natives and Immigrants. Social Science Research 30:289-312.

142

Lichter D.T., McLaughlin, D.K., Kephart, G. and Landry, D.J. 1992. Race and the retreat from marriage: a shortage of marriageable men. American Sociological Review, Vol. 57, pp. 781-799. Lichter D.T., LeClere, F.B., McLaughlin, D.K. 1991. Local Marriage Markets and the Marital Behavior of Black and White Women. AJS, Vol. 96. No. 4: 843 - 67 Lieberson, S. and Waters, M.C. 1988. From many strands: ethnic and racial groups in contemporary America. New York: Russell Stage Foundation. Lightbourne R. E., Singh, S. 1982. Fertility, Union Status and Partners in the WFS Guyana and Jamaica Surveys, 1975-1976. Population Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Jul., 1982), pp. 201-225 Lincoln, K. Taylor, R. Jackson, J. 2008. Romantic Relationships Among Unmarried African Americans and West Indian Blacks: Findings From the National Survey of American Life. Family Relations. Volume 57 Issue 2, Pages 254 - 266 Logan, J., & Deane, G. 2003. Black diversity in metropolitan america. Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research University at Albany. Available at: http://mumfordl.dyndns,org/cen2000/B1ackWhite/B1ackDiversityReport/blackdiversi ty01.htm Logan, J. 2007. Settlement Patterns in Metropolitan America. In Mary C. Waters & Reed Ueda with Helen B. Marrow (2007) The New Americans: A Guide To Immigration Since 1965. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England. Loomis, L., Landale, N. 1994. Nonmarital Cohabitation and Childbearing among Black and White American Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 56, No. 4. (Nov., 1994), pp. 949-962. Manning, W., Landale, N. 1996. Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 58, No. 1. (Feb., 1996), pp. 63-77. Manning, W. 1995. Cohabitation, Marriage, and Entry into Motherhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Feb., 1995), pp. 191-200. Manning, W., Smock, P. 1995. Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage Among Cohabitors. Demography, Vol. 32, No. 4: 509-520. Manning, W. 1993. Marriage and Cohabitation following Premarital Conception. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Nov., 1993), pp. 839-850.

143

Massiah, J. 1983. Women as heads of households in the Caribbean: family structure and feminine status. University of the West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados. McDonald, P. 2000. Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy. Population and Development Review 32 (3): 485 – 510. Meng, X. and Gregory, R.G. 2005. Intermarriage and the economic assimilation of Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 23, 135-175. Merton, R. K. 1941. Intermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory. Psychiatry, Vol. 4, pp. 361–374. Model, S., Fisher, G. 2001. Black-White unions: West Indians and African Americans compared. Demography, 38, 177 – 185. Model, S., Fisher, G. 2002. Unions between Blacks and Whites: England and the US compared. Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 25 No. 5 September 2002 pp. 728–754. Model, Suzanne. 1991. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story?. International Migration Review 25:248–257 Model, S. 2008. West Indian Immigrants: a black success story? New York : Russell Sage Foundation, c2008 Mossakowski, Krysia. 2007. Are Immigrants Healthier? The Case of Depression Among Phillipino Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly 70:290-304. Musick, K. 2002. Planned and Unplanned Childbearing among Unmarried Women. Journal of Marriage and Family 64:915-929. National Family Planning Board, 1998. JRHS 1997, Summary Chartbook of Main Findings. National Family Planning Board, Kingston, Jamaica. National Family Planning Board. 1999. Reproductive Health Survey Jamaica 1997 Final Report. Kingston, Jamaica. Oates, G. 2004. The Color of the Undergraduate Experience and the Occupational Attainment of Blacks and Whites: Evidence from Longitudinal Data. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 45. No. 1, pages 21 – 44. Okamoto, D. 2007. Marrying out: A boundary approach to understanding the marital

Integration of Asian Americans. Social Science Research 36 (2007) 1391–1414. Orum, A. 2005. Circles of Influence and Chains of Command: The Social Processes Whereby Ethnic Communities Influence Host Societies. Social Forces 84:921-39. Osbourne, C. 2005. Marriage Following the Birth of a Child Among Cohabiting and Visiting Partners. Journal of Marriage and Family 67:14-26.

144

Osborne, C., Manning, W., Smock, P. 2004. Instability in Fragile Families: The Role of Race – Ethnicity, Economics, and Relationship Quality. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 2004 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, p1-19, 19p, 3 charts; DOI: asa_proceeding_35269.PDF; (AN 15929758) 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. Pagnini, D. L., Morgan, S.P. 1996. Racial Differences in Marriage and Childbearing: Oral History Evidence from the South in the Early Twentieth Century. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 101. No. 6: 1694 – 1718. Pagnini, D., Rindfuss R. 1993. The Divorce of Marriage and Childbearing: Changing Attitudes and Behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Jun., 1993), pp. 331-347. Peach, C. 1995. Anglophone West Indian Migration to the USA and Canada. In The Cambridge Survey of World Migration by Robin Cohen (Editor). Peach, C. 2005. Social integration and social mobility: spatial segregation and intermarriage of the West Indian population in Britain, in “Ethnicity, Social Mobility and Public Policy: Comparing the U.S. and the UK”, Edited by Loury, G. Modood, T and Teles, S. (2005), Cambridge. Perlmann & Waters. 2007. The New Americans: A Guide To Immigration Since 1965. In Mary C . W aters & R eed U eda w ith H elen B . Mar row. H arvard U niversity P ress. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England. 2007. Portes, A., Zhou, N. 1993. The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 530:74-96. Portes, A., Rumbaut, R. 2006. Immigrant America A Portrait. Third edition. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Qian , Z. Cobas, J. 2004. Latinos_ mate selection: national origin, racial, and nativity differences. Social Science Research 33 (2004) 225–247 Qian , Z. Lichter, D. Mellott, L. 2005. Out – of – Wedlock Childbearing, Marital Prospects and Mate Selection. Social Forces, Vol. 84. No. 1. Qian, Z. and Lichter, D. 2001. Measuring marital assimilation: intermarriage among natives and immigrants. Social Science Research, Vol. 30, pp. 289-312.

145

Qian, Z. and Lichter, D. 2007. Social boundaries and marital assimilation: interpreting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage. American Sociological Review, Vol. 72, pp. 68-94. Quesnel –Vallée, A., Morgan, S. 2003. Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review 22: 497- 525. Raley, R. K. 1996. A shortage of marriageable men? A note on the role of cohabitation in Black-White differences in marriage rates. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 973–983. Raley, R. Kelly. 2001. Increasing Fertility in Cohabitating Unions: Evidence for the Second Demographic Transition in the United States?. Demography 38:59-66. Roberts, G., Sinclair S. 1978. Women in Jamaica: Patterns of Reproduction and Family. Millwood New York: KTO Press. Robinson, W. 1997. The Economic Theory of Fertility Over Three Decades. Population Studies 51: 63 - 74 Rodman, H. 1963. The Lower – Class Value Stretch. Social Forces, Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 205 – 215. Rodman, H. 1963. Illegitimacy in the West Indian Social Structure: A Reconsideration. American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, No. 5. pp. 673 – 683. Rosenfeld, M. 2002. Measures of Assimilation in the Marriage Market: Mexican Americans 1970–1990. Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (February 2002): 152–162 Rubenstein, H. 1980. Conjugal Behavior and parental role flexibility in an Afro – West Indian village. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, Nov80, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p330, 8p; (AN 10609275). Rumbaut, R. Massey, D. Bean, F. 2006. Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California. Population and Development Review, Vol. 32. No. 3: 447 – 460. Rumbaut, Ruben. 1997. Paradoxes (And Orthodoxies) of Assimilation. Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 40, No. 3, Immigration and Incorporation (1997), pp. 483 -511 Sassler, S., Cunningham, A., Lichter, D. 2009. Intergenerational Patterns of Union Formation and Relationship Quality. Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 30. No. 6.: 757 – 786.

146

Sandefur, G. D. and McKinnell, T. 1986. American Indian Intermarriage. Social Science Research 347: 347–48. Schoen, R., Wooldredge, J. 1989. Marriage Choices in North Carolina and Virginia, 1969- 1971 and 1979-1981. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:465-481. Schoen, R. 1997. Why do Americans want children? Population and development review, 23, 333-358. Sears, D., Ming-Ying F., Henry, P., Bui, K. 2003. The Origins and Persistence of Ethnic Identity Among the “New Immigrant” Groups. Social Psychology Quarterly 66:419-37. Seltzer, J., et al. 2005. Explaining Family Change and Variation: Challenges for Family Demographers. Journal of Marriage and Family 67:908-925. Sevak, P., Schmidt, L. 2008. Immigrant-Native Fertility and Mortality Differentials in the United States. University of Michigan Retirement Research Center. Working Paper WP 2008-181 Schoen, R., Kluegel, J. 1988. The Widening Gap in Black and White Marriage Rates: The Impact of Population Composition and Differential Marriage Propensities. American Sociological Review, Vol. 53, No. 6: 895-907. Sowell, Thomas. 1978. Three Black Histories. In Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, edited by Thomas Sowell. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Sowell, Thomas. 1979. American Ethnic Groups. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Sharpe, J. 1996. Mental Health Issues and Family Socialization in the Caribbean. In West Indian Families: Diversity among Ethnic Groups, ed. J. L. Roopnarine and J. Brown. Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Singley, S. Landale, N. 1998. Incorporating Origin and Process in Migration – Fertility Frameworks: the Case of Puerto Rican Women. Social Forces, Vol. 76. No. 4: 1437 - 1464 Smith, R.T. 1961. Social and Cultural Pluralism in the Caribbean. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 1. (Feb., 1961), pp. 155-157. Smock, P. 2004. The Wax and Wane of Marriage: Prospects for Marriage in the 21st Century. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:966-973. Sobczak and Swicegood. 2005. Constructing Fertility Measures with the Own – Children Technique: Old Methods for New Data. Population Association of America 2005 Annual Meeting.

147

South, S. Lloyd, K. 1992. Marriage Opportunities and Family Formation: Further Implication of Imbalanced Sex Ratios. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 54, No. 2: 440 – 451. Steven Ruggles, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander. 2009. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 4.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor]. Sussman, M., Steinmetz, S., Peterson, G. 1999. Handbook of Marriage and the Family. (2nd Edition). New York; Plenum. ISBN 0-306-45754-7. Teachman, J. D. 2002. Childhood living arrangements and the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 717-729. Thomson, E. Hanson, T. McLanahan, S. 1994. Family Structure and Child Well – Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors. Social Forces, Vol. 73. No. 1: 221 – 242. Toulemon, L., Testa, M. 2005. Fertility Intentions and Actual Fertility: A complex relationship. Population and Societies no. 415. ISSN 0184 77 83. The Planning Institute of Jamaica. 1995. A Statement of National Population Policy, Jamaica. Kingston, Jamaica. The Planning Institute of Jamaica. 1993. National Plan of Action on population and development, Jamaica 1995 – 2015, PIOJ, Kingston, Jamaica. Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. 2006. Ethnic intermarriage among immigrants in the Netherlands: An analysis of population data. Social Science Research 36 (2007) 1065–1086 U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). 2001 Panel, Wave 2 Topical Module. U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Chapter 5, Sample Design and Estimation. 2000 Census of Population and Housing: Public-use Microdata Samples Technical Documentation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 5-1 to 5-8. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1960. 1960 Census of Population. PC(2)-4B, Persons by Family Characteristics, Table 15. 1970 Census of Population. 1970. PC(2)-4B, Persons by Family Characteristics, Table 11.

148

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Current Population Survey. March and Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 2010 and earlier. Van de Kaa, D. 1987. Europe’s Second Demographic Transition. Population Bulletin 42(1): 1-57. Vickerman, Milton. 1999. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York: Oxford University Press. Vickerman, M. 2005. Jamaicans in the United States. In Encyclopedia of Diasporas : Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Edited by Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember and Ian Skoggard: pages 894 - 907. Springer US. Vickerman, M. 2002. Second generation West Indian transnationalism. In P. Levitt & M. Waters (Eds.), The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp. 341-366). New York: Russell Sage Vickerman, M. 2007. Jamaica. Mary C. Waters & Reed Ueda with Helen B. Marrow (2007) T he N ew Americans: A G uide T o I mmigration S ince 1965. H arvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England Wang, H., Kao, G., & Joyner, K. 2006. Stability of inter-racial and intra-racial romantic relationships among adolescents. Social Science Research, 35(2), 435–453. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Waters, M. C. 1994. Ethnic and racial identities of second generation Black immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review, 28, 795 – 820. Waters, M. C. 1999. Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Waters, M. 1996. Ethnic and racial identities of second generation immigrants in New York City. In A. Portes (Ed.), The new second generation (pp. 171-196). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Waters, Mary C. 1999. West Indians and African Americans at Work: Structural Differences and Cultural Stereotypes. Pp 194-227 in Immigration And Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, And Employment In The United States, edited by Frank D. Bean, and Stephanie Bell-Rose. New York: Russell Sage Wildsmith, Elizabeth. 2004. Race/Ethnic Differences in Female Headship: Exploring the Assumptions of Assimilation Theory. Social Science Quarterly, Volume 85, Number 1, March 2004

149

Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. In Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, edited by David B. Grusky. 2d E d. Westview Press, 2001. Boulder, Colorado. Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. 2d Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public policy. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London. Wilson, William Julius. 1997. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York : Vintage Books.