Table 3.

Standardized coefficients from reduced path model, presented by race/ethnicity and gender

	Pro- drinking attitudes	Depression	Positive affect	Heavy drinking volume	2+ Negative consequences	Pro- Drinking attitudes	Depression	Positive affect	Heavy drinking volume	2+ Negative consequences
	White Men (N=3,012; weighted N=3,528)					White Women (N=3,021; weighted N=3,571)
Neighborhood Factors
Affluence	0.08**	0.01	−0.01	−0.05*	−0.01	0.03	0.01	−0.04	−0.01	−0.12
Disadvantage	−0.02	0.01	0.01	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.01	−0.03	0.06†	0.08
Immigrant concentration	0.02	0.02	−0.01	−0.04†	−0.01	0.03	0.01	0.01	−0.05†	−0.06
Mediating Factors
Pro-drinking attitudes				0.45**	0.08*				0.36**	0.18**
Depression				0.06†	0.14**				0.12**	0.22**
Positive affect				0.001	−0.02				0.11*	0.06
Heavy drinking volume					0.47**					0.29**
R-square	.20	.06	.05	.38	.56	.15	.06	.05	.25	.48
	Minority Men (N=1,510; weighted N=1,233)					Minority Women (N=1,337; weighted N=967)
Neighborhood Factors
Affluence	0.18**	0.07	0.00	0.04	−0.05	0.04	−0.12*	0.13*	0.01	0.03
Disadvantage	0.13**	0.05	0.04	0.12*	0.12*	0.09	−0.04	0.06	0.05	0.01
Immigrant concentration	−0.09**	−0.03	−0.05	−0.02	−0.11*	−0.05	−0.04	0.02	−0.03	−0.12
Mediating Factors
Pro-drinking attitudes				0.31**	0.11*				0.32**	0.11
Depression				−0.05	0.28**				0.02	0.23†
Positive affect				−0.09*	0.02				−0.03	−0.10
Heavy drinking volume					0.38**					0.30**
R-square	.19	.11	.10	.21	.52	.06	.09	.09	.16	.36

^**p<.01,

^*p<.05,

^†p<.10. Models control for age, income, education, employment, marital status, family history of alcohol problems, and geocode precision. Non-significant paths from the control variables were trimmed to preserve degrees of freedom. Coefficients in bold text varied significantly across the four groups.