IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v34y2016i7.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Warren Miller

    (Transnational Family Research Institute (TFRI))

  • David Pasta

    (DMA Corporation)

  • Jo Jones

    (Independent researcher)

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 & David Pasta & Jo Jones, 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Linda Waite, 1995. "Does marriage matter?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(4), pages 483-507, November.
    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. Adam Looney & Day Manoli, 2016. "Are There Returns to Experience at Low-Skill Jobs? Evidence from Single Mothers in the United States over the 1990s," Upjohn Working Papers 16-255, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Kravdal, Øystein, 2016. "New evidence about effects of reproductive variables on child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa," Memorandum 17/2016, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. G. Miller & Yuriy Pylypchuk, 2014. "Marital Status, Spousal Characteristics, and the Use of Preventive Care," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 323-338, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Miriam Marcén & Marina Morales, 2019. "Live together: does culture matter?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 671-713, June.
    13. Xiana Bueno & Mariona Lozano & Alícia Adserà, 2023. "Advanced or postponed motherhood? Migrants’ and natives’ gap between ideal and actual age at first birth in Spain," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(22), pages 565-600.
    14. Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(1), pages 267-288.
    15. Yung-Yu Tsai & Hsing-Wen Han & Kuang-Ta Lo & Tzu-Ting Yang, 2022. "The Effect of Financial Resources on Fertility: Evidence fromAdministrative Data on Lottery Winners," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 22-A007, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
    16. Bernice Kuang & Ann Berrington & Sindhu Vasireddy & Hill Kulu, 2025. "The changing inter-relationship between partnership dynamics and fertility trends in Europe and the United States: A review," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 52(7), pages 179-228.
    17. Jennifer March Augustine & Timothy Nelson & Kathryn Edin, 2009. "Why Do Poor Men Have Children? Fertility Intentions among Low-Income Unmarried U.S. Fathers," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 624(1), pages 99-117, July.
    18. Audrey Light & Yoshiaki Omori, 2009. "Economic Incentives and Family Formation," Working Papers 09-08, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Richard Dunn, 2015. "Labor supply and household meal production among working adults in the Health and Retirement Survey," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 437-457, June.
    20. Newton, Nicky J. & Ryan, Lindsay H. & King, Rachel T. & Smith, Jacqui, 2014. "Cohort differences in the marriage–health relationship for midlife women," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 64-72.

    More about this item

    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.