Childbearing motivation and its measurement

Miller, Warren B.

doi:10.1017/s0021932000023087

Cited by 119 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a series of papers, Miller and Pasta (Miller 1994(Miller , 1995Miller and Pasta 1993, 1994 present and apply a detailed theoretical model in which ''childbearing motivations'' affect fertility desires, intentions and behaviour. In turn, childbearing motivations are influenced by biologically based dispositions that may be partially inherited as well as influenced by early life-course experiences.…”

Section: Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Miller and Pasta assume that motivations affect both the intensity of desire for children and the number of children desired; together with attitudes and beliefs concerning child timing, these factors translate into actual child-timing desires and intentions. The ''Childbearing Questionnaire'' originally proposed by Miller (1995) measures childbearing motivation by separating ''Positive Childbearing Motivation'' and ''Negative Childbearing Motivation''. Among the positive childbearing motivation some subscales are identified concerning ''(1) joys of pregnancy, birth and infancy; (2) traditional parenthood; (3) satisfaction of child rearing; (4) feeling needed and connected; (5) instrumental values of children'', among the negative childbearing motivation the subscales identified concern ''(1) discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth; (2) fears and worries of parenthood; (3) negatives of child care; (4) parental stress'' (Miller 1995, p. 476).…”

Section: Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attitudes, Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control: Explaining Fertility Intentions in Bulgaria

Billari¹,

Philipov²,

Testa³

2009

Eur J Population

204

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we study fertility decision-making through timing parity-progression intentions. The theoretical framework builds on Ajzen's socialpsychological ''Theory of Planned Behavior'': intentions are seen as directly dependent on three components: attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control. We study the case of Bulgaria, a ''lowest-low'' fertility country. In 2002, a sample survey containing a specially designed module was conducted. This module included an implementation of our framework, with a special attention to the links between normative pressure and the social network of respondents. Results show that the three components are broadly predictive of fertility intentions. More specifically, attitudes are more relevant than norms for higher parities. Socio-economic, ideational, psychological and social capital-based factors are relevant background determinants.Keywords Fertility intentions Á Theory of planned behavior Á Bulgaria Á Lowest-low fertility Á Norms Résumé Dans cet article, nous étudions les décisions en matière de fécondité à l'aide des intentions d'agrandissement avec référence temporelle. Le cadre conceptuel est celui de la théorie psychosociologique du comportement prévu d'Ajzen, selon laquelle les intentions dépendent de façon directe de trois éléments : les attitudes, les normes et le contrôle perçu du comportement. L'étude concerne la Bulgarie, un pays dont la fécondité est des plus basses. En 2002, une enquête par sondage comportant un module de questions construit à cette fin a été menée. Ce 123Eur J Population (2009( ) 25:439-465 DOI 10.1007 module comprenait les éléments pour mettre en oeuvre notre cadre conceptuel, en accordant une attention particulière aux liens entre la pression normative et le réseau social des enquêtés. Les résultats montrent que les trois éléments de la théorie sont des facteurs de prédiction des intentions de fécondité. Plus spécifiquement, les attitudes sont plus pertinentes que les normes pour le passage au deuxième enfant. Les facteurs socio-économiques, idéationnels, psychologiques et ceux basés sur le capital social sont pertinents comme déterminants de contexte.

show abstract

Section: Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes, Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control: Explaining Fertility Intentions in Bulgaria

Billari¹,

Philipov²,

Testa³

2009

Eur J Population

204

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These affects, together with those that motivate the non-reproductive domains that compete with the bearing and rearing of children, constitute the principal motivational substrate for childbearing. I have developed a Childbearing Questionnaire (CBQ) that measures the positive and negative components as separate traits (Miller 1995) and have used the subscales of these two measures to successfully predict childbearing desires (Miller 1994) and child-number desires (Miller and Pasta 1993).…”

Section: Motivational Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the TPB and the T-D-I-B framework

Miller¹

2012

Populationyearbook

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere is little doubt that the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has been one of the most successful of social and behavioural science theories in the prediction of psychological and behavioural phenomena across all behavioural domains. Its domain-general success, however, suggests that the TPB may have limitations when it comes to specific domains such as human reproductive behaviour. An important reason for such limitations is that we as behavioural scientists want more than prediction; because we are relatively youthful as a science, we want constructs and hypotheses that take us beyond prediction to the generation of new understanding. I believe one way that this can best be accomplished is by linking the unique domain-specific phenomena we study to constructs from other domains, especially those that operate at different levels of organisation such as the biological and the social levels.In my own work I have developed a theoretical framework for understanding human reproductive behaviour that shares many generic features with the TPB. This Traits-Desires-Intentions-Behaviour or T-D-I-B framework is built around the sequence of motivational dispositions and conscious states that lead humans to behave so as to have or avoid having children. The sequence begins with both positive and negative childbearing motivational traits; these traits lead to various desires for or against having children, which in turn contribute to various corresponding fertility intentions. The sequence concludes with behaviours that are oriented either to the achievement or avoidance of pregnancy and childbearing. The TPB has a similar four-step sequence. First, there are beliefs about the outcomes of a specific behaviour, how others feel about that behaviour, and whether certain factors affecting the behaviour are present; second, these beliefs are shaped by evaluation processes to produce attitudes and subjective norms with regard to the behaviour as well as one's perceived degree of control over it; third, there are intentions to perform the behaviour; and finally there is the behaviour itself. I will structure my commentary below so as to compare these two frameworks across each of their corresponding four steps. Although this debate is about the TPB, I am far more conversant with the T-D-I-B framework. I will therefore focus on the T-D-I-B perspective in my discussion with the goal of

show abstract

“…Childbearing motivations involve two dimensions, known as positive and negative childbearing motivations (Miller, 1995). These dimensions are distinct, not simply opposites of each other and manifest themselves through multiple subdimensions that propel individuals towards or away childbearing (Miller, 1994), such as enjoying the experience of childbirth or experiencing parental stress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These instruments have provided some understanding about the subdimensions of positive childbearing motivations, categorizing them as intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (i.e., based on the internal or external rewards of having a child; Gauthier et al, 2007;O'Laughlin & Anderson, 2001) or organizing them into more specific subdimensions (i.e., 4, 5 or 6), such as marital completion, social pressure, or continuity (Cassidy & Sintrovani, 2008;Newton et al, 1992;Van Balen & TrimbosKemper, 1995). However, these instruments have failed to measure negative childbearing motivations that distinguish themselves from positive childbearing motivations and also influence reproductive behaviors (Miller, 1995). Given its relevance, several instruments have attempted to assess positive and negative childbearing motivations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childbearing Motivations Scale: Construction of a New Measure and its Preliminary Psychometric Properties

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given recent shifts in fertility patterns, the assessment of childbearing motivations is important for understanding reproductive decision-making. To overcome previous methodological and conceptual flaws, a self-report scale was developed to assess positive and negative childbearing motivations and their respective subdimensions. The present study aimed to construct the final version of the Childbearing Motivations Scale (CMS) and examine its factorial structure and preliminary psychometric properties. A

show abstract

Childbearing motivation and its measurement

Cited by 119 publications

References 14 publications

Attitudes, Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control: Explaining Fertility Intentions in Bulgaria

Attitudes, Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control: Explaining Fertility Intentions in Bulgaria

Comparing the TPB and the T-D-I-B framework

Childbearing Motivations Scale: Construction of a New Measure and its Preliminary Psychometric Properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About