Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

Predictors of depression among non-HispanicWhites, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans: A look atrace/ethnicity as a reflection of social relations

Rosalie Torres Stonea,∗, Fernando I. Riverab, Terceira Berdahlc

a University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Sociology, 711 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USAb University of Central Florida, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Orlando, FL 32816, USA

c University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Sociology, 703 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA

Abstract

Although there have been a number of studies examining depression among Latinos, and MexicanAmericans in particular, there is still a modest understanding of Latino subgroup variation. Researchon Latinos and depression typically focuses on clinical samples or nonrandom samples in specificcities. Using 1994 data from the National Survey of Family and Households, we evaluate whetherfactors typically associated with depression operate similarly for a nationally representative sample ofPuerto Ricans, Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites. Our multivariate analyses reveal that ethnic groupmembership moderates the relationship between nativity, gender and depression. Being born in theContinental U.S. has a negative effect on depression for Puerto Ricans. For Mexicans, it has a positiveeffect on depression. For all racial/ethnic groups, men are less depressed than women. However, theresults reveal that the gender gap in depression is greater for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans than it isfor non-Hispanic whites.© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Latinos comprise one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States in thepast decade (Ramirez & Patricia de la Cruz, 2002). In 2002, there were 37.4 million Latinosin the civilian non-institutional population. Of the total U.S. Latino population, the largest

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 402 472 6057; fax: +1 402 472 6070.E-mail address: rstone2@unl.edu (R. Torres Stone).

1090-9524/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.racsoc.2005.05.003

80 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

group is Mexican (66.9%) followed by Puerto Rican (8.6%), Cuban (3.7%). The remaininggroups combine into Central and South American (14.3%) and other Hispanic (6.5%)(Schmidley, 2003). Although there have been a number of studies examining depressionamong Latinos, and Mexican Americans in particular (Golding, Burnam, & Wells, 1990;Roberts & Sobhan, 1992; Vernon & Roberts, 1982; Cuellar & Roberts, 1997; La Roche,1999), there is still a modest understanding of Latino subgroup variations (Rogler, 1989;Vega & Rumbaut, 1991; Shrout, Canino, Bird, & Rubio-Stipec, 1992). Studies on Latinosand depression have typically focused on clinical or nonrandom samples in specific citiesand have not been representative of the general U.S. population. In addition, much of theresearch continues to use ‘Hispanic’ as a predictor variable ignoring the diversity of thegroup.

Although Latino subgroups may share a common language, they differ in ways thatmay impact their risk of depression. It is well known that their modes of incorporation andmigration status are distinctly different for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans (Bean & Tienda,1987). Some Mexicans are U.S. natives while others are descendants from Mexico. UnlikeMexicans, Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship status in 1917 under the JonesAct. This is important given the research that has found that migration status influencesdepression outcomes (Vega, Kolody, Valle, & Weir, 1991). The current study evaluateswhether factors typically associated with depression operate similarly for a cross-nationalprobability sample of Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites.

2. Current study

Although there is no consensus on the depression patterns among Hispanics, even lessis known about whether factors typically associated with depression (e.g. acculturativestress, social support and socioeconomic status) operate similarly for all racial/ethnicgroups. Evidence for large epidemiologic studies provides some ethnic group differences inmental health status. For example, the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(HHANES) revealed that Puerto Ricans reported higher rates of depression symptomswhen compared to Cuban and Mexican Americans (Moscicki, Locke, Rar, & Boyd, 1987).Studies in Puerto Rico revealed more disorders for Puerto Ricans living in New York thanthose living in Puerto Rico (Canino, Bird, Shrout, & Rubio-Stipec, 1987). Overall, Cubansshow low levels of distress in comparison to other Latino groups. However, evidence from astudy of Mariel Cuban refugees showed that this group had high rates of Major Depression(Portes, Kyle, & Eaton, 1992) similar to the rates of Puerto Ricans in New York and poorPuerto Ricans on the Island. Despite all this evidence, there is still a modest understandingof Latino subgroup variations in depression (Rogler, 1989; Vega & Rumbaut, 1991). Isit possible that given the possibility of differential exposure to acculturation processes,socioeconomic status, family and friend support and gender relations, non-Hispanic whites,Mexicans and Puerto Ricans will respond differently to predictors of depressions (e.g.acculturation, social support and socioeconomic status). Using multivariate stepwise linearregression, we examine the impact of various independent variables on the prevalence ofdepression for all three groups and test interactions of these effects by race/ethnic groupmembership.

R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94 81

3. Factors associated with depression

3.1. Migration status

The literature suggests that migration in and of itself is associated with psychologicaldistress (Vega et al., 1991). Escobar, Nervi, & Gara (2000)found that despite significantsocioeconomic disadvantages, Mexican immigrants have better mental profiles than do U.S.born Mexican Americans. One explanation lies in their social networks, that is,Vega et al.(1991) found that the presence of both family and friendship interaction networks evenin the early years after immigration and the frequency of interaction with these networkresources remains stable over time.Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, & Telles (1987)alsofound that Mexicans born in the United States had higher rates of depression than thoseborn in Mexico. The authors suggest that possible explanations for the better mental healthprofile of Mexican immigrants include research artifacts such as selection bias, a protectiveeffect of traditional family networks, and a lower set of expectations about what constitutes“success” in America.Vega & Rumbaut (1991)found that Cuban and Mexican immigrantshave better mental health profiles than non-Hispanic Whites; however, the opposite wastrue of Puerto Rican immigrants.

3.2. Acculturation

Studies examining the effect of acculturation on the prevalence of depression amongLatinos remain mixed.1 Vega & Amaro (1994)reported that the mental health of Hispanicimmigrants seems to deteriorate with length of stay in the U.S. due to increased accultura-tion. Further, they reported that some forms of cultural “adaptation” or acculturation harmthe health of Hispanics. For example, higher acculturation was related to risky behaviorssuch as: teenage pregnancy, illicit drug and cigarette use.Kail & Zayas (2000)analyzedalcohol use among a sample of young Colombian, Dominican, and Puerto Rican men andfound that for Puerto Rican males depression and acculturation predicted alcohol use torelieve psychological distress. Other researchers have suggested that factors such as genderand socioeconomic status significantly influence mental health symptoms more than accul-turation alone. Assimilated Mexican Americans reported significantly fewer symptomsof depression compared to their more traditional counterparts (Cuellar & Roberts, 1997;Canabal & Quiles, 1995). It must be noted that these findings are based on a proxy measureof acculturation (e.g., length of stay in U.S. and place of birth). As a result, it is impossibleto identify the aspects of acculturation that identify a clear and constant pattern betweenacculturation and prevalence rates of mental health (seeRogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991fora review).2

1 Acculturation refers to cultural changes that result from two distinct cultural groups coming in contact withone another. More often, if refers to the process by which members of minority groups assimilate and take onas many characteristics of the dominant culture as possible (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Samaniego andGonzales, 1999).

2 In our paper, we use language spoken at interview as a proxy for acculturation. Previous studies have consis-tently demonstrated that language preference is one of the best indicators of acculturation (Rogler et al., 1991).

82 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

3.3. Social support

Social support has been defined as “information belonging to one or more of thefollowing three classes: (1) information leading the subject to believe that he (she) is caredfor and loved; (2) information leading the subject to believe that he (she) is esteemed andvalued; and (3) information leading the subject to believe that he (she) belongs to a networkof communication and mutual obligation” (Cobb, 1976, p. 300). Past studies indicate thatlow levels of social support are related to an increased risk for mental distress (Turner,1981), particularly depression (Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Monroe, Bromet, Connell, &Steiner, 1986). In a review of the social support literatureHenderson (1992)analyzed 35studies and supported the hypothesis that low levels of social support increase the risk fordepression.

The examination of this hypothesis among Latino groups has received some attention.Among Latino groups it is generally assumed that social support particularly family supporthas a differing effect (Vega & Kolody, 1985; Vega et al., 1991). For example,Vega &Kolody (1985)andVega et al. (1991)analyzed a sample of Mexican Americans and foundthat satisfaction with support was associated with lower levels of distress. However,Vega etal. (1991)found that social networks per se are not related to depression, rather emotionalsupport is dependent on the type of role providers within immigrant interaction networks.This provides some insight as to why Mexican immigrants may not be at a greater risk formental disorders compared to non-Hispanic Whites or native-born Mexican Americans.Since Mexican immigrants have smaller interaction networks than subsequent generations,they are more likely to rely on family for emotional support (Griffith & Villavicencio,1985; Vega & Kolody, 1985). Vega et al. (1991)found that the presence of both family andfriendship interaction remains stable over time among Mexican immigrants (Vega et al.,1991). La Roche (1999)found that for low income Dominicans living in the U.S., higherlevels of social support were negatively related with depression. Similarly specific forms ofsocial support such as marital satisfaction (Saenz, Goudy, & Lorenz, 1989), social networks(Vega et al., 1991), spousal support (among females) and support outside from the family(among males) (Aranda, Castaneda, Lee, & Sobel, 2001)were related to lower levels ofdepression.

3.4. Socioeconomic status

The effects of socioeconomic status on the prevalence of mental illness for Latinoshave been well documented (Ross & Huber, 1985; Aneshensel, 1992; Felner et al.,1995; Cuellar & Roberts, 1997). Cuellar & Roberts (1997)investigated the relationshipsamong depression, acculturation, and socioeconomic status of a young-adult Latinosample. They found that variance in depression scores was influenced more by genderand socioeconomic status than by acculturation or ethnic identity status alone.Cuellar &Roberts (1997)reported that acculturation did not lessen the increased risk for depression,but economic status associated with ethnicity was found to directly affect depression scores.Similarly, Canabal & Quiles (1995)found that socioeconomic variables such as povertystatus and unemployment have a much stronger impact than acculturation on depressionsymptoms.

R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94 83

3.5. Gender and mental health outcomes

The research shows that women suffer from higher depression levels compared to theirmale counterparts (Mirowski & Ross, 1986, Canino et al., 1987). In their study of 876women and 675 men of Puerto Rico,Canino et al. (1987)found that after controlling fordemographic, health, marital and employment status, Puerto Rican women have a higher riskof depression compared to Puerto Rican men. Similarly,Vega & Rumbaut (1991)andKoss-Chioino (1999)find that ethnic women suffer two to three times the amount of depressioncompared to men and that ethnic women suffer more than their white female counterparts.Koss-Chioino (1999)examined Puerto Rican women in Puerto Rico and found that women’sincreased risk of depression vis-a-vis their male counterparts is higher among native PuertoRicans compared to non-Latinos in the United Status.Koss-Chioino (1999)concluded thatcultural constructions regarding women’s roles and status, reproductive events, and negativelife events assisted in particularizing our approach to the causes of depression in women.

4. Hypotheses

Based on previous studies, we expect that for all racial/ethnic groups, migration status,acculturation, family and friend support, socioeconomic status and gender will be significantpredictors of depression. However, given the possibility of moderating effects of thesefactors, we expect racial/ethnic groups will respond differently to predictors of depression.

5. Data

The present study is based on data from the 1994 National Survey of Families andHouseholds (NSFH-2). The NSFH-2 is a five year panel study. The original NSFH surveyconsists of a cross-national probability sample of 13,017 respondents, including a mainsample of 9463 respondents and an over-sampling of 3374 blacks, Puerto Ricans, MexicanAmericans, single-parent families, families with step-children, cohabiting couples andrecently married persons. The overall response for this survey was 74% (seeSweet,Bumpass, & Call, 1988for more details). Along with the main interviews, the spouses ofmarried or cohabiting respondents completed a written questionnaire. The NSFH-2 surveyincluded personal interviews with the original respondents (N = 10,007) and personalinterviews with current spouses and cohabiting partners. For more details seeSweetet al. (1988)The National Survey of Families and Households—Waves 1 and 2: DataDescription and Documentation. Center for Demography and Ecology, University ofWisconsin-Madison (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/home.htm), 1996.

6. Sample

For the purpose of this paper, we restricted our sample to two Latino subgroups andnon-Hispanic Whites (629 Mexicans, 191 Puerto Ricans, 9413 non-Hispanic Whites).

84 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

We excluded Cubans and Central/South Americans because once we disaggregrated thebroad category Central/South Americans, we ended up with few numbers of Nicaraguans,Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Chileans, etc. Grouping Central and South Americans into onecategory assumes these groups are homogeneous. We also have too few Cubans toanalyze.

7. Method and measures

Using multivariate stepwise linear regression analyses, we estimate depression as afunction of ethnic group membership, age, nativity, English proficiency, social support, edu-cational attainment, sex of respondent, income, occupation and marital status. We presentthe descriptive and correlation results followed by results from our multivariate analysesand a discussion of interaction effects.

8. Dependent variable

A depression scale was created using 15 items from the original CES-D scale (Radloff,1977). Depression symptoms include questions about: days respondent felt bothered bythings, had poor appetite, could not shake the blues, had trouble concentrating, feltdepressed, felt everything was an effort, felt fearful, slept restless, talked less, felt lonely,felt sad, could not get going, felt irritable, felt like telling off, and felt angry several hours.Responses ranged from 0 (less than 1 day) 1 (1–2 days) 2 (3–4 days) and 3 (5–7 days). Thescale revealed good reliability with an alpha of 0.93. The range of the summed depressionscale is 0–45.

8.1. Independent variables

8.1.1. EnglishUsed as a proxy for acculturation, this variable measured whether the respondent’s inter-

view was conducted in English (1) or Spanish (0).3

8.1.2. Country bornThis variable was coded 1 if the respondent was born in the Continental United States;

otherwise 0. (Note: Due to the unique nature of U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico, Island BornPuerto Ricans were coded as born outside of the Continental United States.)

8.1.3. Family and friend supportRespondents were asked who they would call for social support in three specific sit-

uations: an emergency in the middle of the night, needing money for an emergency, andneeding advice because of depression/confusion. The response categories for these three

3 The question on speaking English was not available in NSFH 1994. We used the 1988 question on speakingEnglish for the analysis.

R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94 85

variables were none, friend/neighbor/co-worker, mother, father, sister, brother, and morethan one. A computed variable was created from these variables called “Friend Support.”This variable is a count of the number of questions the respondent indicated that they wouldcall a friend in each of these three situations. The variable ranges from 0 (did not specificallysay friend) or more than 1–3 (said friend in each situation). Family support was createdusing the same procedure, where the value 0 (did not specifically indicate a family member)to more than 1–3 (said family member in each situation). Because the 1994 data does nothave a perceived support measure, we used questions from the 1988 NSFH on perceivedsupport.

8.1.4. Socioeconomic statusSES controls include total income based on wages and salary, education (measured from

(0) no formal education to (20) doctorate or professional degree) and occupation coded asseven dummy codes reflecting occupations (e.g. technical, service, craft, operator, hand-cleaner and transportation). Professional/managerial is the excluded occupational category.

8.1.5. EthnicityRacial/ethnic groups were dummy coded into three principal groups, Mexicans, Puerto

Ricans and non-Hispanic whites. Mexicans are the excluded category in the regressionmodels presented inTable 3.

8.1.6. Control variablesSeveral control variables were used in the analysis, including age, gender coded as (0)

for females and (1) for males, household size and marital status (coded (1) for married and(0) if not married).

9. Results

9.1. Descriptive results

The results inTable 1are weighted figures and reveal that the average depression levelfor all groups combined is 9.73. Of the total sample 91% are U.S. born. On average allgroups report relying more on family (1.79) for support than on friends (0.83). The averageearnings for the sample are $17,061.27. The average education is 12.96 years. The averageage of the sample is 48 with a range of 22–97 years old. Out of the total sample 53% aremarried and 40% are males. Average household size is 1.87 persons. Thirty-seven percentof the respondents held professional/managerial jobs compared to technical (29%), service(10%), farmer (2%), craft (10%), operator (5%), transportation (3%) and hand cleaner jobs(2%).

In order to get a clear picture of Latino subgroup differences, inTable 1, we report descrip-tive data for Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites separately. The averagedepression level for non-Hispanic whites is 9.50, 11.97 for Mexicans and 12.20 for PuertoRicans. Of Mexicans, 52% are U.S. born compared to non-Hispanic whites (94%), andPuerto Ricans (41%). Average income from wages and salary is higher for non-Hispanic

86 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

Table 1Descriptive statistics for study variablesa

Non-Hispanic White Mexican Puerto Rican Total

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Depression 9.50 ab 8.92 11.97 a 11.09 12.20 b 10.33 9.73 9.06English 1.00 abc 0.02 0.79 abc 0.41 0.87 abc 0.34 0.99 0.10Number of

people inhousehold

1.81 abc 1.40 3.11 abc 2.11 2.24 abc 1.43 1.87 1.47

Born in the U.S. 0.94 abc 0.24 0.52 abc 0.50 0.41 abc 0.49 0.91 0.28Income from

wages andsalary

17316.01 a 23434.40 11727.88 a 13249.63 16177.25 18330.55 17061.27 23064.79

Family support 1.80 1.05 1.75 1.15 1.60 1.17 1.79 1.06Friend support 0.83 0.94 0.81 1.00 0.85 1.05 0.83 0.95Education 13.11 ab 2.78 10.20 a 3.75 11.02 b 4.00 12.96 2.91Married 0.54 abc 0.50 0.43 abc 0.49 0.30 abc 0.46 0.53 0.50Male 0.40 0.49 0.39 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.40 0.49Age 48.40 ab 16.63 43.88 14.45 42.44 b 13.43 48.14 16.54Professional 0.38 ab 0.49 0.20 a 0.40 0.19 b 0.39 0.37 0.48Technical 0.30 0.46 0.27 0.44 0.34 0.47 0.29 0.46Service 0.10 ab 0.30 0.18 a 0.38 0.18 b 0.39 0.10 0.31Farming 0.02 a 0.14 0.06 a 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15Craft 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.29 0.10 0.30Operator 0.05 abc 0.21 0.09 abc 0.29 0.12 abc 0.32 0.05 0.22Transportation 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.18Hand cleaner 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.22 0.02 0.15

Note: Mean values with the same letter (a, b, c) indicates significantly different atp < 0.05.a Data are weighted.

whites ($17,316.01) than for Puerto Ricans and Mexicans ($16,177.25 and $11,727.88).The average level of education for non-Hispanic whites is (13.11), compared to Mexicans(10.20) and Puerto Ricans (11.02). The average household size for Mexicans is 3.11 com-pared to Puerto Ricans (2.24) and non-Hispanic whites (1.81). Non-Hispanic whites aremore likely to be married (54%) followed by Mexicans (43%) and Puerto Ricans (30%)(seeTable 1).

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in means.Sheffe’s test for multiple comparisons (Table 1) revealed that average levels of Englishlanguage proficiency, nativity, percent married and percent in operator jobs are signifi-cantly different between all three groups. The average income levels for Whites and PuertoRicans are similar, while Mexicans reported lower levels of income. Mexicans and PuertoRicans do not differ significantly in average levels of education, age and in all occupationsexcept for percent in operator occupations. The percent of workers in operator occupationsis significantly higher for Puerto Ricans compared to Mexicans. There is no significantmean difference in depression between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. The average level ofdepression for non-Hispanic whites is significantly lower compared to both Mexicans andPuerto Ricans.

R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94 87

9.2. Bivariate results

Table 2provides the correlation matrix between for all study variables. Bivariate findingsindicate that race/ethnicity is significantly associated with depression. Whites are signif-icantly less likely to be depressed compared to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Depressionis negatively associated with socioeconomic status (education). Other demographic vari-ables such being married, being male, and age are negatively associated with depression.The results also indicate that respondents in professional occupations have lower levelsof depression. Higher levels of depression were found in every other occupation, but theonly significant positive relationship is for workers in service occupations. Mexicans andPuerto Ricans are overrepresented in service jobs and are less likely to hold professionaljobs compared to non-Hispanic whites.

9.3. Multivariate results

Table 3presents stepwise multiple linear regression models for predictors of depression(Mexicans are the excluded category). In Model 1, race/ethnicity is significantly associ-ated with depression indicating that non-Hispanic whites (−2.43) have significantly lowerlevels of depression compared to their Mexican counterparts. Levels of depression are notsignificantly different for Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. Variables were subsequently addedin blocks to test the effects of social support, acculturation, socioeconomic status and othercontrols on depression.

In Model 2 (Table 3), English language proficiency, number of people in the householdand nativity are not significantly associated with depression and these variables do notaccount for the lower levels of depression among Whites (b =−2.78) compared to Mexi-cans. Next, social support is added to the model (Model 3,Table 3). The results indicate thatfriend support (b =−0.51) is negatively associated with depression. Family support is notsignificantly associated with depression. That is, as support from friends increase levels ofreported depression decrease. However, this factor does not account for all of the variance;depression levels among whites (b =−2.70) is still lower than Mexicans. In Model 4, edu-cation (b =−0.30) is negatively associated with depression indicating that those with highereducational attainment report lower levels of depression. However, even after controllingfor education and income levels, whites (b =−2.27) still report lower levels of depressioncompared to Mexicans.

In Model 5, marital status (b =−2.20), gender (b =−2.13) and age (−0.09) are nega-tively associated with depression. Married respondents, men and older individuals reportlower levels of depression compared to their non-married, female and younger counterparts.Similar to the previous models, these variables do not account for all of the variance, that is,the gap in depression levels for whites and Mexicans remains significant (whiteb =−1.72).After controlling for gender, family support is negatively related to depression (b =−0.67).Next, occupation variables were added as controls (Model 6). The results reveal that respon-dents in all occupations except for technical are significantly less depressed than those inprofessional occupations. However, even after controlling for occupational status, whites(b =−1.73) are significantly less depressed than Mexicans.

88R

.TorresStone

etal./Race

andSociety

7(2004)

79–94

Table 2Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 221. Depression 1.002. Non-Hispanic White −.07** 1.003. Mexican 0.06** −0.90** 1.004. Puerto Rican 0.04* −0.41** −0.02 1.005. English −0.01 0.34** −0.33** −0.09** 1.006. # of people in household 0.01 −0.16** 0.17** 0.01 −0.13** 1.007. U.S. born −0.01 0.35** −0.29** −0.19** 0.35** −0.05** 1.008. Family support 0.01 0.00 0.00 −0.01 −0.01 0.08** 0.04* 1.009. Friend support −0.03 0.04* −0.04* −0.01 0.03* −0.08** −0.02 −0.81** 1.0010. Income (logged) 0.00 0.01 −0.01 0.01 0.06** −0.01 0.04** 0.03 −0.01 1.0011. Education −0.10** 0.20** −0.20** −0.04** 0.22** −0.09** 0.13** −0.11** 0.17** 0.08** 1.0012. Married −0.13** 0.04* −0.03 −0.04** −0.03 0.41** 0.01 0.08** −0.09** −0.03* 0.05** 1.0013. Male −0.14** 0.01 −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.03 −0.03 −0.05** 0.02 0.00 0.07** 0.12** 1.0014. Age −0.11** 0.03 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 −0.26** 0.01 −0.07** 0.00 −0.12** −0.03* −0.02 −0.04** 1.0015. Professional −0.10** 0.08** −0.07** −0.03* 0.05** −0.06** 0.04* −0.11** 0.13** 0.05** 0.50** 0.04* 0.01 0.04* 1.0016. Technical 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03* −0.01 0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.01 −0.10** −0.03 −0.20** 0.00 −0.50** 1.0017. Service 0.08** −0.07** 0.06** 0.03* −0.05** 0.05** −0.01 0.04* −0.05** −0.08** −0.21** −0.04** −0.13** 0.02 −0.27** −0.24** 1.0018. Farming 0.01 −0.03 0.04* −0.01 −0.06** 0.02 −0.05** 0.03* −0.04** −0.13** −0.08** 0.02 0.09** 0.01 −0.11** −0.10** −0.05** 1.0019. Craft 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 −0.03 −0.01 −0.16** 0.02 0.26** −0.05** −0.24** −0.22** −0.12** −0.05** 1.0020. Operator 0.03 −0.06** 0.03* 0.06** −0.06** 0.02 −0.05** 0.06** −0.07** 0.05** −0.17** −0.02 0.02 −0.03 −0.17** −0.15** −0.08** −0.03* −0.08** 1.0021. Transportation 0.01 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 −0.04* 0.01 −0.10** 0.01 0.15** −0.02 −0.14** −0.12** −0.07** −0.03 −0.06** −0.04** 1.0022. Hand cleaner 0.02 −0.02 0.02 0.01 −0.02 0.03* −0.03* 0.01 −0.02 0.02 −0.08** 0.00 0.07** −0.02 −0.11** −0.10** −0.05** −0.02 −0.05** −0.03* −0.03 1.00

* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

R.Torres

Stoneetal./R

aceand

Society7

(2004)79–94

89

Table 3Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors for predictors of depression

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Constant 11.88** (0.54) 10.22** (1.42) 11.11** (1.50) 12.99** (1.54) 19.89** (1.67) 17.49** (1.74) 24.07** (2.97)White −2.43** (0.56) −2.78** (0.61) −2.70** (0.61) −2.27** (0.62) −1.72** (0.60) −1.73** (0.60) −7.00** (2.66)Puerto Rican 0.81 (1.31) 0.82 (1.32) 0.83 (1.32) 1.09 (1.31) 0.94 (1.28) 0.81 (1.28) 6.61 (7.03)English 1.47 (1.52) 1.59 (1.52) 2.92 (1.54) 2.03 (1.50) 1.70 (1.50) 0.25 (1.67)Number of people

in household0.02 (0.09) 0.02 (0.09) 0.00 (0.09) 0.15 (0.10) 0.13 (0.10) 0.13 (0.10)

U.S. born 0.51 (0.56) 0.48 (0.56) 0.61 (0.56) 0.49** (0.55) 0.46** (0.54) 2.40** (1.28)Family support −0.32 (0.20) −0.29 (0.20) −0.56** (0.20) −0.58** (0.20) −0.58** (0.20)Friend support −0.51** (0.22) −0.35 (0.22) −0.67** (0.22) −0.64** (0.22) −0.63** (0.22)ln (income) 0.02 (0.04) −0.03 (0.04) −0.01 (0.04) −0.01 (0.04)Education −0.30** (0.05) −0.25** (0.05) −0.10 (0.06) −0.10 (0.06)Married −2.20** (0.28) −2.13** (0.28) −2.10** (0.28)Gender (1 = male) −2.13** (0.24) −2.41** (0.26) −6.26** (1.10)Age −0.09** (0.01) −0.09** (0.01) −0.21** (0.05)Technical 0.53 (0.32) 0.57 (0.32)Service 1.86** (0.45) 1.91** (0.44)Farming 1.93** (0.89) 2.16** (0.89)Craft 1.74** (0.48) 1.75** (0.48)Operator 1.38** (0.60) 1.29** (0.60)Transportation 1.96** (0.72) 2.03** (0.72)Handcleaner 2.03** (0.85) 2.08** (0.85)White× U.S. born −2.21 (1.42)PR× U.S. born −9.29** (3.05)White× male 4.06** (1.12)PR× male 4.12 (2.67)PR× age −0.07 (0.15)White× age 0.13** (0.06)AdjustedR square 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07

** p < .05.

90 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

Table 4Coefficients for conditional effects of predictors of depression by race/ethnicity

Puerto Rican Mexican Non-Hispanic white

English ability −4.11 2.33 6.58Number of people in household 0.36 −1.19 0.17U.S. born −4.85 a 3.15 a 0.18Family support 0.97 −1.81 −.63 aFriend support −1.38 −1.03 −.60 aln (income) from w and s −0.24 0.09 −0.02Education 0.02 0.17 −.13 aMarried −5.05 a −3.78 a −1.99 aMale −3.6 −6.29 a −2.20 aAge −0.08 −0.19 a −0.09 aTechnical −3.58 0.63 0.63Service −1.86 a 2.5 1.86 aCraft 1.31 1.94 1.73 aOperator 9.87 a 3.53 0.89Transportation 2.18 a −0.95 2.18 aHandcleaner 18.95 a 2.34 1.63

Note: (a) indicates significant atp < .05.

In order to test whether race/ethnicity moderates the effect of the independent variableson depression, we added 32 multiplicative terms in pairs (e.g. white× US Born and PuertoRican× US Born) one at a time for each measure controlled in (Model 6,Table 3) and thensignificant interactions were entered together (Model 7). The comparisons are between Mex-icans and Puerto Ricans and Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites. The results (not shown)revealed three significant interactions (see Model 7,Table 3). For Puerto Ricans the effect ofU.S. born and age on depression differs significantly compared to Mexicans. The effect ofbeing male on depression for whites is significantly different from Mexicans. To help inter-pret the interactions, we ran the regression models three times, once with each of the threegroups omitted. With the appropriate interaction terms in the model, the coefficient for “U.S.born” is the effect of U.S. born for the omitted group (natives). The level and significance forall conditional effects for predictors of depression are reported inTable 4(Aiken & West,1991).

Although there is no significant difference in levels of depression between Mex-icans and Puerto Ricans, the results inTable 4 indicate that there are within groupdifferences in the effects of nativity, age and gender on depression. Being born in theContinental U.S. has a negative effect on depression for Puerto Ricans. For Mexi-cans, being U.S. born has a positive effect on depression. Being older has a negativeeffect on depression for Mexicans and whites and has no effect for Puerto Ricans. Fornon-Hispanic whites, family and friend support have negative effects on depression.For non-Hispanic whites, education is negatively related to depression. For all groups,males are significantly less depressed than their female counterparts; however, thegender gap in depression for whites is much smaller compared to Mexicans and PuertoRicans.

R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94 91

10. Discussion

Using a sample of Latinos from the National Survey of Families and Households,we examined differences in depression levels among Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, andnon-Hispanic whites. Our results are consistent with the literature that suggests migrationstatus (Vega et al., 1991; Burnam et al., 1987) and social support (Cutrona & Troutman,1986; Monroe et al., 1986; Vega et al., 1991) are positively associated with depressionand that socioeconomic status (Cuellar & Roberts, 1997), marital status (Saenz et al.,1989) and being male are all negatively associated with depression. However, results fromour multiplicative terms reveal that these factors operate differently for Puerto Ricans,Mexicans and non-Hispanic Whites.

Even though the results from the main effects model reveal that being older is negativelyassociated with depression, the “conditional effects” reveal that race/ethnicity moderatesthis relationship. For Puerto Ricans age has no effect on depression. Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites report lower levels of depression as they get older. Moreover, we foundthat depression levels respond differently to nativity across the groups. Mexicans born inthe U.S. report higher levels of depression compared to their foreign born counterparts. It ispossible that ethnically dependent expectations of what constitutes “success” in the UnitedStates may be attributing to these differences. The literature suggest that stronger and morefrequent social networks during the early years of immigration may be attributed to thelower depression levels of non-U.S. born Mexicans. The case of non-continental U.S. bornPuerto Ricans is a particular one. It contrasts evidence suggesting that island born PuertoRicans have lower mental health disorders compared to Puerto Ricans living in New York(Canino et al., 1987). Speculatively, the stress of the migration process might account forthe differences in depression levels between Continental U.S. born Puerto Ricans and theirisland born Puerto Rican counterparts. It could be that the unique process of migrationof Puerto Ricans in which travel between the island and the Continental U.S. is readilyavailable, provides a different experience from the migration processes of other groups(e.g. Mexicans).

For all racial/ethnic groups, men are less depressed than women. However, the resultsreveal that the gender gap in depression is greater for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans than it isfor Whites. It is possible that cultural constructions regarding women’s roles and status mayaccount for these differences.Koss-Chioino (1999)concluded that cultural constructionsregarding women’s roles and status, reproductive events, and negative life events assist inparticularizing our approach to the causes of depression in women. Other studies (Arandaet al., 2001) have found that higher levels of support were negatively associated withdepression, specifically spousal support (among females) and support outside the family(among males) for women. Among men, Puerto Ricans have the highest level of depression(closest to white women’s average level of depression). Furthermore, our findingssuggest higher levels of vulnerability to depressive symptoms for Latina women. BothMexican and Puerto Ricans women have the highest level of depression of all race/gendersubgroups. Future research should examine gender patterns within and across racial/ethnicgroups.

Our work has several implications. By moving away from pan ethnic categories, wewere able to show how different factors affect the prevalence of depression for Mexicans

92 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

and Puerto Ricans relative to non-Hispanic Whites. Even though they are part of the samepan ethnic category, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are affected by different types of socialprocesses. First, our findings imply that differences in migration processes (migration tothe United States) and gender processes regarding women’s roles may be important inunderstanding depression across race/gender groups. Second, if we had used pan ethnic cat-egories we would not have been able to discern the relative difference in factors that appearto affect depression levels. Our work suggests the need to rethink how we model depressionand race/ethnicity. In the current study, empirically assessing whether ethno-racial groupmembership interacts with other factors to influence depression provided evidence that theeffects of ethnicity/race may be a reflection of social processes rather than characteristics ofgroups.

There are several other reasons to move beyond the pan ethno-racial categories. When ourmodels of depression focus on groups such as “Hispanic” much of the variation within thegroup is lost: the more generalized the group, the less valuable it is for answering questionsabout depression. Here we show that despite being of the same “ethnic” group, depressionamong Mexicans and Puerto Ricans is being affected in different ways by predictor variablessuch as nativity, age, and gender.

In this paper, we suggested one way for looking at the effects of ethnicity on depressionof three different groups. Our work clearly indicates that using generalized categories canconfound important differences that may help explain mental health outcomes for Latinosub-groups.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,California: Sage Publications.

Aneshensel, C. S. (1992). Social stress: theory and research.Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 15–38.Aranda, M. P., Castaneda, I., Lee, P.-J., & Sobel, E. (2001). Stress, social support, and coping as predictors

of depressive symptoms: Gender differences among Mexican Americans.Social Work Research, 25, 37–49.

Bean, F. D., & Tienda, M. (1987).The Hispanic population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foun-dation.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress.InternationalMigration Review, 21, 491–511.

Burnam, A. M., Hough, R. L., Karno, M., Escobar, J. I., & Telles, C. A. (1987). Acculturation and lifetimeprevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican American in Los Angeles.Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 28, 89–102.

Canabal, M. E., & Quiles, J. A. (1995). Acculturation and socioeconomic factors as determinants of depressionamong Puerto Ricans in the United States.Social Behavior and Personality, 23(3), 235–246.

Canino, G. J., Bird, H., Shrout, P., & Rubio-Stipec, M. (1987). The prevalence of specific psychiatric disorders inPuerto Rico.Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 727–735.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress.Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300–314.Cutrona, C. C., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and parenting self-efficacy: A

mediational model of postpartum depression.Child Development, 57, 1507–1518.Cuellar, I., & Roberts, R. E. (1997). Relations of depression, acculturation, and socioeconomic status in a Latino

sample.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 230–239.Escobar, J. I., Nervi, C. H., & Gara, M. A. (2000). Immigration and mental health: Mexican Americans in the

United States.Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 8(2), 64–72.

R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94 93

Felner, R. D., Brand, S., DuBois, D. L., Adan, A. M., Mulhall, P., & Evans, E. G. (1995). Socioeconomic disadvan-tage, proximal environmental experiences, and socioemotional and academic adjustment in early adolescence:investigation of a mediated effects model.Child Development, 66(3), 774–792.

Golding, J. M., Burnam, A., & Wells, K. B. (1990). Alcohol use and depressive symptoms among MexicanAmericans and non-Hispanic Whites.Alcohol and Alcoholism, 25(4), 421–432.

Griffith, J. E., & Villavicencio, S. (1985). Relationships among acculturation, sociodemographic characteristicsand social supports in Mexican American adults.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 7(1), 75–92.

Henderson, A. S. (1992). Social support and depression. In Hans O. F. Veil, & Urs. Baumann (Eds.),The meaningand measurement of social support (pp. 85–92). New York: Hemisphere.

Kail, B., & Zayas, L. H. (2000). Depression, acculturation, and motivations for alcohol use among young Colom-bian, Dominican, and Puerto Rican men.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 64–77.

Koss-Chioino, J. (1999). Depression among Puerto Rican women: Culture, etiology and diagnosis.HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 21(3), 330–350 (Special issue: The psychology of Latina women).

La Roche, M. J. (1999). The association of social relations and depression levels among Dominicans in the UnitedStates.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 420–431.

Mirowski, John., & Ross, Catherine E. (1986). Social patterns of distress.Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 23–45.

Monroe, S. M., Bromet, E. J., Connell, M. M., & Steiner, S. C. (1986). Social support, life events, and depres-sive symptoms: A one-year prospective study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 424–431.

Moscicki, E., Locke, B., Rar, D. S., & Boyd, J. H. (1987) The Hispanic health and nutrition examination survey:Depression among Mexican-Americans, Cuban Americans and Puerto Ricans. In M. Gaviria, & J. D. Arana(Eds.),Health and behavior: Research agenda for Hispanics (Simon Bolivar Research Monograph Series 1.)(pp. 145–159). Chicago: University of Illiniois at Chicago.

Portes, A., Kyle, D., & Eaton, W. W. (1992). Mental illness and help-seeking behavior among Mariel Cuban andHaitian refugees in South Florida.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(4), 283–298.

Roberts, R. E., & Sobhan, M. (1992). Symptoms of depression in adolescence: A comparison of Anglo, African,and Hispanic Americans.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21(6), 639–651.

Rogler, L. H. (1989). The meaning of culturally sensitive research in mental health.American Journal of Psychiatry,146, 296–303.

Rogler, Lloyd H., Cortes, Dharma E., & Malgady, Robert G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health status amongHispanics: Convergence and new directions for research.American Psychologist, 46(6), 585–597.

Ross, C. E., & Huber, J. (1985). Hardship and depression.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 161–178.Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.Ramirez, R. R., & Patricia de la Cruz, E. (2002).The Hispanic Population in the United States: March 2002,

Current Population Reports (pp. 20–545). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Saenz, R., Goudy, W. J., & Lorenz, F. O. (1989). The effects of employment and marital relations on depression

among Mexican American women.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 239–251.Samaniego, R. Y., & Gonzales, N. A. (1999). Multiple mediators of the effects of acculturation status on delinquency

for Mexican American adolescents.American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 189–210.Schmidley, A. D. (2003).The Foreign-born population in the United States: March 2002, Current Population

Reports (pp. 20–539). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Shrout, P., Canino, G. J., Bird, H., & Rubio-Stipec, M. (1992). Mental health status among Puerto Ricans, Mexican

Americans, and non-Hispanic Whites.American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 729–752.Sweet, J. A., Bumpass, L. L., & Vaugh, C. (1988).The design and content of the National Survey of Families

and Households (Working paper NSFH-1). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography andEcology.

Turner, J. R. (1981). Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being.Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 22, 357–367.

Vega, W. A., & Kolody, B. (1985). The meaning of social support and the mediation of stress across cultures. InW. A. Vega, & M. R. Miranda (Eds.),Stress and Hispanic mental health: Relating research to service delivery(pp. 48–75). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

94 R. Torres Stone et al. / Race and Society 7 (2004) 79–94

Vega, W. A., & Amaro, H. (1994). Latino outlook: Good health, uncertain prognosis.Annual Review Public Health,15, 39–67.

Vega, W. A., & Rumbaut, R. (1991). Ethnic minorities and mental health.Annual Review of Sociology,17, 351–383.Vega, W., Kolody, B., Valle, R., & Weir, J. (1991). Social networks, social support, and their relationship to

depression among immigrant Mexican women.Human Organization, 50, 154–162.Vernon, S. W., & Roberts, R. E. (1982). Prevalence of treated and untreated psychiatric disorders in three ethnic

groups.Social Science and Medicine, 16(17), 1575–1582.