IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v34y2016i7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An implicit ambivalence-indifference dimension of childbearing desires in the National Survey of Family Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Warren Miller

    (Transnational Family Research Institute (TFRI))

  • Jo Jones

    (Independent researcher)

  • David Pasta

    (DMA Corporation)

Abstract

Background: It is common in fertility surveys to ask women to retrospectively rate on a bipolar scale how much they wanted a pregnancy right before they became pregnant. Using a theoretical framework based on the interaction between positive and negative desires for pregnancy, we argue that the mid-point response to a bipolar survey question about preconception childbearing desires implicitly measures an ambivalence/indifference dimension of their preconception motivation. Objective: We create a variable that measures this dimension and examine its construct validity by testing hypotheses about how scores on this dimension predict the postconception wantedness of a pregnancy and how certain social and demographic contexts influence that prediction. Methods: Using data from the 2006−2010 National Survey of Family Growth, we use linear regression analyses to test these hypotheses on over 5,000 pregnancies that occurred in the 3 years prior to the survey interview. Results: The results confirm our general hypothesis that women who endorse the bipolar scale at or near the mid-point, and thus are high scorers on the proposed ambivalent/indifferent dimension, tend to resolve their preconception mixed feelings in the direction of wanting their pregnancies after they have occurred. The results also confirm that whether or not preconception mixed feelings are resolved in the direction of postconception wantedness depends upon the woman’s relationship status at the time of conception, her age at conception, her income, and -within certain racial/ethnic groups, her level of education and income. Conclusions: We conclude that the dimension of ambivalent/indifferent desires provides additional explanatory power for the construct of postconception pregnancy wantedness and that our findings support the development of measures of positive and negative desires for pregnancy so that the constructs of ambivalent and indifferent childbearing desires may be directly measured in future fertility surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Warren Miller & Jo Jones & David Pasta, 2016. "An implicit ambivalence-indifference dimension of childbearing desires in the National Survey of Family Growth," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(7), pages 203-242.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:34:y:2016:i:7
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol34/7/34-7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warren B. Miller & Jennifer S. Barber & Heather H. Gatny, 2013. "The effects of ambivalent fertility desires on pregnancy risk in young women in the USA," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(1), pages 25-38, March.
    2. Linda Waite, 1995. "Does marriage matter?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(4), pages 483-507, November.
    3. Ted Joyce & Robert Kaestner & Sanders Korenman, 2002. "On the validity of retrospective assessments of pregnancy intention," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(1), pages 199-213, February.
    4. Warren B. Miller, 2011. "REFEREED ARTICLES - Differences between fertility desires and intentions: implications for theory, research and policy," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 75-98.
    5. Dawn Upchurch & Lee Lillard & Constantijn Panis, 2002. "Nonmarital childbearing: Influences of education, marriage, and fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(2), pages 311-329, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eman Almaghaslah & Roger Rochat & Ghada Farhat, 2017. "Validation of a pregnancy planning measure for Arabic-speaking women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kelly Musick, 2007. "Cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and the marriage process," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 16(9), pages 249-286.
    2. Patrick Ishizuka, 2018. "The Economic Foundations of Cohabiting Couples’ Union Transitions," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(2), pages 535-557, April.
    3. Jennifer Barber & Heather Gatny, 2021. "The social context of retrospective-prospective changes in pregnancy desire during the transition to adulthood: The role of fathers and intimate relationships," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(38), pages 899-940.
    4. Silvia Meggiolaro, 2010. "The importance of intentions in the mechanism of reproductive behaviour formation," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 19(1), pages 107-125, March.
    5. Miriam Marcén & Marina Morales, 2019. "Live together: does culture matter?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 671-713, June.
    6. Audrey Light & Yoshiaki Omori, 2009. "Economic Incentives and Family Formation," Working Papers 09-08, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Missinne, Sarah & Colman, Elien & Bracke, Piet, 2013. "Spousal influence on mammography screening: A life course perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 63-70.
    8. Davi B. Costa, 2021. "Benefits of marriage as a search strategy," Papers 2108.04885, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    9. Júlia Mikolai & Ann Berrington & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2018. "The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(27), pages 753-794.
    10. Lijun Chen & Di Qi & Dali Yang, 2020. "The Urbanization Paradox: Parental Absence and Child Development in China - an Empirical Analysis Based on the China Family Panel Studies Survey," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 13(2), pages 593-608, April.
    11. O’Leary, Nigel & Li, Ian W. & Gupta, Prashant & Blackaby, David, 2020. "Wellbeing trajectories around life events in Australia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 499-509.
    12. Rita Holm Adzovie, 2020. "Attaining Satisfaction in Marriage: A Study of Marital Satisfaction Levels of Married Christians in a Developing Country," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 12(1), pages 160-172, October.
    13. World Bank, 2008. "World Development Report 2007 Development and the Next Generation," Working Papers id:1755, eSocialSciences.
    14. Jennifer Barber & Jennifer Yarger & Heather Gatny, 2015. "Black-White Differences in Attitudes Related to Pregnancy Among Young Women," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(3), pages 751-786, June.
    15. Arnstein Aassve & Letizia Mencarini & Elena Pirani & Daniele Vignoli, 2023. "The last bastion is falling: Survey evidence of the new demographic reality in Italy," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2023_04, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    16. Richard Lucas & Andrew Clark, 2006. "Do People Really Adapt To Marriage?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 405-426, November.
    17. H. Benitez-Silva & F. Heiland, 2008. "Early claiming of social security benefits and labour supply behaviour of older Americans," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(23), pages 2969-2985.
    18. Warren B. Miller, 2011. "Comparing the TPB and the T-D-I-B framework," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 19-29.
    19. Nancy E. Reichman & Hope Corman & Kelly Noonan & Dhaval Dave, 2006. "Typically Unobserved Variables (TUVs) and Selection into Prenatal Inputs: Implications for Estimating Infant Health Production Functions," NBER Working Papers 12004, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Francesca Marchetta & David E. Sahn, 2016. "The Role of Education and Family Background in Marriage, Childbearing, and Labor Market Participation in Senegal," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(2), pages 369-403.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ambivalence; contextual effects; preconception pregnancy desires; indifference; unwanted pregnancy; racial/ethnic moderation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:34:y:2016:i:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.