IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v45y1997i11p1679-1704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Infertility and psychological distress: A critical review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Greil, Arthur L.

Abstract

This essay reviews the literature on the social psychological impact of infertility, paying special attention to the relationship between gender and the infertility experience. It is convenient to divide the literature into articles which explore the possibility that infertility may have psychological causes (Psychogenic Hypothesis) and those which examine the psychological consequences of infertility (Psychological Consequences Hypothesis). The psychogenic hypothesis is now rejected by most researchers, but a related hypothesis, which states that stress may be a causal factor in infertility, is worthy of exploration. The descriptive literature on the psychological consequences of infertility presents infertility as a devastating experience, especially for women. Attempts to test the psychological consequences hypothesis have produced more equivocal results. In general, studies which look for psychopathology have not found significant differences between the infertile and others. Studies which employ measures of stress and self-esteem have found significant differences. The psychological consequences literature is characterized by a number of flaws, including over sampling of women, small sample size, non-representative samples, failure to study those who have not sought treatment, primitive statistical techniques, and an over-reliance on self-reports. Studies on infertility and psychological distress need to take into consideration both the duration of infertility and the duration of treatment. Finding an appropriate set of "controls" is a particularly intractable problem for this area of research. In general, the psychological distress literature shows little regard for the social construction of infertility. By taking what should be understood as a characteristic of a social situation and transforming it into an individual trait, the literature presents what is essentially a medical model of the psycho-social impact of infertility. Most researchers conclude that infertility is a more stressful experience for women than it is for men. Most studies have found that the relationship between gender and infertility distress is not affected by which partner has the reproductive impairment. Future research needs to be better informed by theoretical considerations. Scholars need to pay more attention to the way the experience of infertility is conditioned by social structural realities. New ways need to be developed for better taking into account the processual nature of the infertility experience. Efforts need to be make to include under-studied portions of the infertile population. Finally, more effort needs to be made to better integrate the empirical study of the experience of infertility with important social policy questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Greil, Arthur L., 1997. "Infertility and psychological distress: A critical review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 1679-1704, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:11:p:1679-1704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(97)00102-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandra Santona & Laura Vismara & Laura Gorla & Giacomo Tognasso & Carolina Ambrosini & Anisa Luli & Luca Rollè, 2023. "The Relationship between Attachment, Dyadic Adjustment, and Sexuality: A Comparison between Infertile Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Eun Jung Kim & Min Jung Cho, 2021. "The Association between Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) and Social Perception of Childbearing Deadline Ages: A Cross-Country Examination of Selected EU Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Johanna Etner & Natacha Raffin & Thomas Seegmuller, 2020. "Reproductive health, fairness, and optimal policies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1244, September.
    4. Johanna Etner & Natacha Raffin & Thomas Seegmuller, 2018. "Male Reproductive Health, Fairness and Optimal Policies," Working Papers halshs-01798983, HAL.
    5. Esmée Hanna & Brendan Gough, 2015. "Experiencing Male Infertility," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, October.
    6. Greil, Arthur L. & McQuillan, Julia & Lowry, Michele & Shreffler, Karina M., 2011. "Infertility treatment and fertility-specific distress: A longitudinal analysis of a population-based sample of U.S. women," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 87-94, July.
    7. Abdullahi Fido & Muhammad Ajmal Zahid, 2004. "Coping with Infertility among Kuwaiti Women: Cultural Perspectives," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 50(4), pages 294-300, December.
    8. Fabrizio Bernardi & Marco Cozzani, 2021. "Soccer Scores, Short-Term Mood and Fertility," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 37(3), pages 625-641, July.
    9. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, Jennifer & Busso, Cheyanne & Moyer, Anne & Lobel, Marci, 2018. "Just relax and you'll get pregnant? Meta-analysis examining women's emotional distress and the outcome of assisted reproductive technology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 54-62.
    10. Hershberger, Patricia E. & Gallo, Agatha M. & Kavanaugh, Karen & Olshansky, Ellen & Schwartz, Alan & Tur-Kaspa, Ilan, 2012. "The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Initial findings from a grounded theory study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1536-1543.
    11. Sweeny, Kate & Andrews, Sara E. & Nelson, S. Katherine & Robbins, Megan L., 2015. "Waiting for a baby: Navigating uncertainty in recollections of trying to conceive," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 123-132.
    12. Carlson, Daniel L., 2011. "Explaining the curvilinear relationship between age at first birth and depression among women," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 494-503, February.
    13. Jansen, Natalie Anne & Saint Onge, Jarron M., 2015. "An internet forum analysis of stigma power perceptions among women seeking fertility treatment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 184-189.
    14. Ester Lazzari & Edith Gray & Bernard Baffour, 2022. "A dyadic approach to the study of perceived subfecundity and contraceptive use," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(1), pages 1-36.
    15. Katherine M. Johnson & Arthur L. Greil & Karina M. Shreffler & Julia McQuillan, 2018. "Fertility and Infertility: Toward an Integrative Research Agenda," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(5), pages 641-666, October.
    16. Johnson, Katherine M. & Fledderjohann, Jasmine, 2012. "Revisiting “her” infertility: Medicalized embodiment, self-identification and distress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 883-891.
    17. Maximova, Katerina & Quesnel-Vallée, Amélie, 2009. "Mental health consequences of unintended childlessness and unplanned births: Gender differences and life course dynamics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 850-857, March.
    18. Alexandra Fernandes & Lotte-Lise Skotnes & Maria Major & Pedro Fontes Falcão, 2020. "Clinicians’ Perceptions of Norwegian Women’s Experiences of Infertility Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-12, February.

    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:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:11:p:1679-1704. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.