IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpstxx/v67y2013i1p25-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of ambivalent fertility desires on pregnancy risk in young women in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Warren B. Miller
  • Jennifer S. Barber
  • Heather H. Gatny

Abstract

Many different definitions of the construct of motivational ambivalence have appeared in the literature on reproductive health. Using a theoretical framework in which motivational ambivalence is defined as an interaction between positive and negative pregnancy desires, we propose two hypotheses. The first is that positive and negative pregnancy desires independently predict the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. The second is that ambivalence and three related constructs that are also based on the interaction between positive and negative desires are each important predictors of pregnancy risk. We use weekly journal data collected from a US sample of 1,003 women aged 18-19 years and conduct hazard model analysis to test our hypotheses. Using both dummy and continuous predictors, we report results that confirm both hypotheses. The proposed interaction framework has demonstrated validity, compares favourably with previously reported alternative approaches, and incorporates a set of constructs that have potential importance for further research directed at the prevention of unplanned pregnancy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpstxx:v:67:y:2013:i:1:p:25-38
    DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2012.738823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00324728.2012.738823
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00324728.2012.738823?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Daniel Schneider & Orestes Hastings, 2015. "Socioeconomic Variation in the Effect of Economic Conditions on Marriage and Nonmarital Fertility in the United States: Evidence From the Great Recession," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(6), pages 1893-1915, December.
    2. Michael S. Rendall & Eowna Young Harrison & Mónica L. Caudillo, 2020. "Intentionally or Ambivalently Risking a Short Interpregnancy Interval: Reproductive-Readiness Factors in Women’s Postpartum Non-Use of Contraception," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(3), pages 821-841, June.
    3. Zsolt Spéder & Lajos Bálint, 2024. "Realization of Short-Term Fertility Intentions in a Comparative Perspective: Which Macro-Level Conditions Matter?," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(5), pages 1-49, October.
    4. Megan Sweeney & Teresa Castro Martín & Melinda Mills, 2015. "The reproductive context of cohabitation in comparative perspective," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(5), pages 147-182.
    5. Aiken, Abigail R.A. & Dillaway, Chloe & Mevs-Korff, Natasha, 2015. "A blessing I can't afford: Factors underlying the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 149-155.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Heather Gatny & Yasamin Kusunoki & Jennifer Barber, 2014. "Pregnancy scares and subsequent unintended pregnancy," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(40), pages 1229-1242.

    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. Eva Beaujouan & Caroline Berghammer, 2019. "The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(4), pages 507-535, August.
    2. Anna Rotkirch & Heini Väisänen & Markus Jokela & Stuart Basten, 2011. "Baby longing and men’s reproductive motivation," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 283-306.
    3. 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.
    4. Monika Mynarska & Zuzanna Brzozowska, 2022. "Things to Gain, Things to Lose: Perceived Costs and Benefits of Children and Intention to Remain Childless in Poland," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 160-171.
    5. 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.
    6. Elisabeth K. Kraus & Teresa Castro-Martín, 2018. "Does Migrant Background Matter for Adolescents’ Fertility Preferences? The Latin American 1.5 Generation in Spain," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 277-312, August.
    7. Yining Milly Yang & Grace Kao, 2024. "Do Resources Blunt the Impact of COVID-19 on Fertility Desires in the United States?," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(1), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Xiana Bueno & Ignacio Pardo, 2023. "Gender-role attitudes and fertility ideals in Latin America," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Zheng Shen & Derek S. Brown & Xiaodong Zheng & Hualei Yang, 2022. "Women’s Off-Farm Work Participation and Son Preference in Rural China," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 899-928, June.
    10. Kuhnt, Anne-Kristin & Buhr, Petra, 2016. "Biographical risks and their impact on uncertainty in fertility expectations: A gender-specific study based on the German Family Panel," Duisburger Beiträge zur soziologischen Forschung 2016-03, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Sociology.
    11. Colleen Ray & Sela Harcey & Arthur Greil & Stacy Tiemeyer & Julia McQuillan, 2018. "Stability and change in personal fertility ideals among U.S. women in heterosexual relationships," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(16), pages 459-486.
    12. Maria Rita Testa, 2012. "Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behaviour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(3), pages 63-98.
    13. Maria Rita Testa & Valeria Bordone & Beata Osiewalska & Vegard Skirbekk, 2016. "Are daughters’ childbearing intentions related to their mothers’ socio-economic status?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(21), pages 581-616.
    14. Heather M. Rackin & Christine A. Bachrach, 2016. "Assessing the Predictive Value of Fertility Expectations Through a Cognitive–Social Model," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 35(4), pages 527-551, August.
    15. Sarah R. Brauner-Otto & Claudia Geist, 2018. "Uncertainty, Doubts, and Delays: Economic Circumstances and Childbearing Expectations Among Emerging Adults," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 88-102, March.
    16. Christine A. Bachrach & S. Philip Morgan, 2013. "A Cognitive–Social Model of Fertility Intentions," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 459-485, September.
    17. James Raymo & Fumiya Uchikoshi & Shohei Yoda, 2021. "Marriage intentions, desires, and pathways to later and less marriage in Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(3), pages 67-98.
    18. Mengni Chen & Paul S. F. Yip, 2017. "The Discrepancy Between Ideal and Actual Parity in Hong Kong: Fertility Desire, Intention, and Behavior," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(4), pages 583-605, August.
    19. Maria Rita Testa & Danilo Bolano, 2021. "When partners’ disagreement prevents childbearing: A couple-level analysis in Australia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(33), pages 811-838.
    20. Maria Rita Testa & Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Rosina, 2014. "The Effect of Couple Disagreement about Child-Timing Intentions: A Parity-Specific Approach," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 31-53, March.

    More about this item

    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:taf:rpstxx:v:67:y:2013:i:1:p:25-38. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpst20 .

    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.