Conceptualizing Childbearing Ambivalence: A Social and Dynamic Perspective

• Author: Sara Yeatman,Christie Sennott
• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12489
• Published date: 01 August 2018

C S Purdue University

S Y University of Colorado Denver∗

Conceptualizing Childbearing Ambivalence:

A Social and Dynamic Perspective

Childbearing ambivalence is often concep-

tualized as a state of conicting desires about

having a child that is characteristic of particular

individuals or life stages. This study proposes

that childbearing ambivalence is dynamic

and situational, resulting from the multiple

sociocultural frames surrounding childbearing.

Using eight waves of prospective data from a

population-based sample of young adults in

Malawi, results show that 41% of women and

48% of men are ambivalent about childbearing

at some point in the 2.5-year study. There is

limited evidence that ambivalence is related

to individual sociodemographic or psychoso-

cial characteristics aside from gender; rather,

ambivalence is tied to life course markers such

as school enrollment and age. In addition, life

course transitions and changes in relationships,

health, and economic factors are associated

with the onset of ambivalence, supporting the

theory that ambivalence is a dynamic state that

men and women frequently pass through as their

lives and circumstances change.

B

Childbearing ambivalence—often dened as

conicting desires about having a baby (Higgins,

Purdue University,Department of Sociology, 700 W. State

St., West Lafayette, IN 47906 (csennott@purdue.edu).

∗University of Colorado Denver,Department of Health and

Behavioral Sciences, Campus Box 188, PO Box 173364,

Denver,CO 80217-3364.

This article was edited by Pamela J. Smock.

Key Words: ambivalence, fertility, longitudinal research,

pregnancy,young adulthood.

Popkin, & Santelli, 2012; Yoo, Guzzo, & Hay-

ford, 2014)—has gained traction among scholars

of sexual and reproductive health as a useful tool

for explaining inconsistencies in reproductive

desires and behaviors. The majority of this

research has focused on the health implica-

tions of ambivalence. Studies have shown, for

example, that ambivalence about childbearing is

linked to reduced and inconsistent contraceptive

use (Campo, Askelson, Spies, & Losch, 2012;

Frost, Lindberg, & Finer, 2012; Higgins et al.,

2012; Huber, Esber, Garver, Banda, & Norris,

2017; Miller, Trend, & Chung, 2014; Yoo et al.,

2014), low birth weight for the resulting child

(Mohllajee, Curtis, Morrow, & Marchbanks,

2007), and a higher likelihood of miscarriage

(Santelli, Lindberg, Orr, Finer, & Speizer,

2009). In an effort to identify those most likely

to express ambivalence about childbearing,

much of this research has implicitly treated

ambivalence as a static state that is associ-

ated with an individual’s sociodemographic or

psychosocial characteristics or with particular

stages of life (e.g., Higgins et al., 2012; Layte,

McGee, Rundle, & Leigh, 2006; Miller, Jones,

& Pasta, 2016; Schwarz, Lohr, Gold, & Gerbert,

2007; Withers, Tavrow, & Adinata, 2011; Yoo

et al., 2014).

In this article, we step back from using

ambivalence as a way to understand health

behaviors and outcomes and apply a sociolog-

ical lens to better make sense of childbearing

ambivalence. We start by asking whether it is

appropriate to characterize ambivalence as static

or whether it is instead a state that men and

women frequently pass through over time as

their lives and relationships change. We then

888 Journal of Marriage and Family 80 (August 2018): 888–901

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12489