ASSESSING MOTIVATION 'mR PARENTHOOD: THE
I EXPECTED REWARDS AND COSTS OF CHILDREN

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FREDERICK W. SILVER
. 1975

 

I III IIIIIIIII I III IIII III I II I

I”.
‘{<?
.1 "
.1" I

I'LL)
5.1))
L ABSTRACT
fo ASSESSING MOTIVATION FOR PARENTHOOD:
THE EXPECTED REWARDS AND COSTS OF CHILDREN

BY

Frederick W. Silver

The purpose of the present study was to develop a com-
prehensive instrument to measure motivations for having or
not having children. This was accomplished in four phases.

The initial phase of the study was the creation of an
instrument. Following some fruitless experimentation with
projective techniques it was decided to use a self-report,
Likert methodology. In creating a Likert instrument it was
necessary to operationalize motivational constructs. This
was done in terms of expectations and attitudes towards the
rewards and costs of children. The resulting instrument was
called the Parenthood Inventory. After several revisions the
inventory was pretested. Results were promising and so a
final revision was made. The final version of the inventory
consisted of 104 Likert items, 76 focusing on expectations
and 28 focusing on current attitudes.

In order to collect data to evaluate the construct
validity of the inventory a questionnaire was constructed.
It included two sections in addition to the inventory:

Biographic Information, and Childhood Information. The

Frederick W. Silver

biographic section consisted of 25 questions on standard
demographic and personal variables. The childhood section
contained a series of 22 scales on which subjects rated

the quality of their childhood experiences and relationships
with parents.

The second phase of the study was the pilot testing of
the inventory. A door-to-door survey was conducted in a
large apartment complex housing married students. In keeping
with the aim of the present study--to measure what actually
motivates having or not having children--only childless
(nulliparous) couples were canvassed. Approximately 80 per—
cent of the eligible couples who agreed to participate in
the survey filled out and returned questionnaires. The final
sample consisted of 205 couples.

The third phase of the study was the analysis of
results obtained from pilot testing the inventory. Two major
analyses were conducted: a hierarchical cluster analysis of
the inventory, and an analysis of construct validity of the
inventory.

The hierarchical cluster analysis identified 18 first-
order clusters, representing 18 dimensions of motivation for
and against parenthood, and three higher-order clusters.
These two sets of clusters were evaluated for homogeneity
of content, internal homogeneity, external parallelism, and
reliability. Items that were questionable or clusters that

needed improvement were noted.

Frederick W. Silver

In order to evaluate the construct validity of the
inventory, scores on the 18 first-order clusters were corre-
lated with the biographic and childhood variables; for a
group of four nominal biographic variables, however, corre-
lations were inappropriate and one-way analyses of variance
were computed instead.

Very few relationships between the first-order clusters
and the biographic and childhood variables were significant
and so the evaluation of construct validity was based almost
entirely on three of these external variables. This did not
provide a very precise test of whether the dimensions of the
inventory measured exactly what they were construed to measure.
It did, however, provide some evidence that the dimensions
were appropriately tapping motives for or against having
children. It was concluded from this analysis that the
inventory and itsrdimensions have good potential for develop-
ment into a valid instrument.

As part of this analysis of construct validity the
variable, sex, was correlated with each of the first-order
clusters. Seven statistically significant relationships
were obtained. None of these seven, however, were parti-
cularly strong.

The fourth and final phase of the study was the develop-
ment of a set of specifications for an instrument to be used
in future research. Five general specifications were

offered. Also, 12 modifications of the individual dimensions

Frederick W. Silver

of the Parenthood Inventory were proposed, and it was
recommended that five new dimensions be added to a future

inventory. Finally, some suggestions for future research

were offered.

ASSESSING MOTIVATION FOR PARENTHOOD:
THE EXPECTED REWARDS AND COSTS OF CHILDREN

BY

Frederick W. Silver

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1975

To my grandfather, Louis--
for his generosity

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to those individuals
who made significant contributions to the research reported
in this thesis. First, I would like to thank the members of

my thesis committee:

--Dr. A. I. Rabin, chairman of the committee, who
allowed this research to be truly exploratory.

—-Dr. Dave Kallen, whose thoroughness and challenging
questions led to the refinement of the inventory and

questionnaire.

--Dr. Ralph Levine, who graciously joined the committee
at a crucial point in time, and who was invaluable
during the statistical analysis phase of the study.

I would also like to thank the students, too numerous

to mention by name, who helped in the collection of data.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Ms.

Susanne Sommers and Ms. Barbara Leviton for their help with

various statistical and computer techniques.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three Major Demographic Studies . . . . . . .

The Indianapolis Study . . . . . . . . .

The Princeton Study . . . . . . . .

The Growth of American Families Studies
Motivation for Parenthood Studies . . . . . .
Miscellaneous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Biological Motivation . . . . . . . . . . .
METHOD 0 O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0

Creation of the Parenthood Inventory . . . .

The Parenthood Inventory . . . . . . . .
The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . .

Pilot Testing the Instrument . . . . . . . .

The Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of the PI . . .
The Cluster Analysis of Items . . . . .

The First-Order Clusters . . . . . . . .
The Super-Clusters . . . . . . . . . . .

Construct Validity of the PI . . . . . . . .

Ideal and Expected Family Size . . . . .
Interval. Before Birth of First Child .

iv

Page
vi

ix

22

22
23

26
26
27

29
53

58

6O
61

“0 Religion variables I O O O O O O O O 0
Sex Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Summary of Construct Validity . . . . .
DISCUSSION O O O C I O I I O O O O O C O O O O O O 0

General Specifications for a Future Instrument.
Suggested Modifications of the PI Dimensions .

Modification of the Individual Dimensions.

Five New Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . .

A Tentative Set of Scales . . . . . . . . .
Directions for Future Research . . . . . . . .
SUMRY O I O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O I 0
LIST OF REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX A O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Page
63
63
65
67

67
68

68
72
74
75
77
81
85

100

Table

10

ll

12

13

LIST OF TABLES

Percentage of Males, Females, and Total Sample
that Responded to Each Category of Biographical
Questions Questions on Education, Religion,

Income, and Family Size Preferences . . . . . .

Number of Items, Alpha Coefficients of Relia-
bility, and Intercorrelations for the First-
Order Clusters O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Contact Needs Cluster: Items and Item
AnaIYSj-s I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

Fun-Stimulation—Novelty Cluster: Items and
IteIn AnalYSiS O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O

Vicarious Satisfaction Cluster: Items and
Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prove Own Worth Cluster: Items and Item
AnaIYSiS O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O 0

Marital Unity-Stability Cluster: Items and
Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital Disunity Cluster: Items and Item
AnalYSis O O O O C O O C O O O O O I O O O O O

Status-Respectability Cluster: Items and
Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morality-Religion Cluster: Items and Item
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs Cluster: Items
and Item AnalYSi S D O O O O O O O O I I I O O O

Generative-Creative Needs Cluster: Items and
Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nurture-Protect Cluster: Items and Item
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

24

30

32

33

35

36

38

39

40

41

41

43

44

Table Page

14 Recognition-Respect and Importance Cluster:
Items and Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

15 Social Catalyst Cluster: Items and Item
AnaIYSj-S 0 O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O 46

16 Companionship Cluster: Items and Item Analysis 47

17 Too Many Demands-Sacrifices Cluster: Items and
Item AnaIYSj-S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 49

18 Economic Costs Cluster: Items and Item
maIYSiS . O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 51

19 Inadequacy Cluster: Items and Item Analysis . 52
20 Anxiety-Fear Cluster: Items and Item Analysis. 53

21 Residual Cluster: Items and Correlations
with the First-Order Clusters . . . . . . . . . 54

22 Intercorrelations Among the Super-Clusters . . 56

23 Positive I Super—Cluster: Constituent Clusters
and Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

24 Negative Super-Cluster: Constituent Clusters
and Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

25 Positive II Super-Cluster: Constituent
Clusters and Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . 57

26 Predicted and Actual Correlations between the
Dimensions of the PI and Family Size Preferences 60

27 Predicted and Actual Correlations Between the
Dimensions of the PI and Expected Interval before
Birth Of First Child O I O O I O O O O O O I O 62

28 F-Ratios and F-Probabilities for Religious
Orientation, and Correlations for Unimportance
of Religion, for the Dimensions of the PI . . . 64

29 Correlations Between the Biographic Variables
and the Dimensions of the PI . . . . . . . . . 100

30 Correlations between the Childhood Variables
and the Dimensions of the PI . . . . . . . . . 101

31 F—Ratios for the One-Way Analyses of Variance

Between Four Nominal Biographic Variables and
the Dimensions of the PI . . . . . . . . . . . 102

vii

Table Page
32 Eta-Squared for the One-Way Analyses of

Variance Between Four Nominal Biographic
Variables and the Dimensions of the PI . . . . 103

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B Additional Statistical Tables . . . . . . . 100

ix

INTRODUCTION

The dual question of why couples have or abstain from
having children is a very basic one. It is only very
recently, however, that psychologists have turned their
attention to it.

Those who have posed this question have translated it
into different terminology. Pohlman (1969) has called it
motivations in wanting conceptions, and costs of children.
Rabin (1965) has coined the term, motivation for parenthood.
Hoffman and Hoffman (1973) conceptualize it as the value
and costs of children to parents.

There are four major reasons for studying why couples
have or do not have children (Hoffman and Hoffman, 1973).
Three of these are related to demography and population
planning. They are: to predict fertility and population
trends; to affect motivations for having children; and to
discover substitutes or compensations for the needs that
children satisfy in parents. The fourth reason is to de-
termine the ramifications of different motivations on parent-
child relationships and the psychological development of
children.

On the nature and solution of the overpopulation problem,
scientists fall into two basic schools of thought (Stycos,

1974). In one camp are those who advocate birth control

as the panacea for our swelling population. The family
planners, as this group is called, believe that the elimina-
tion of all unwanted pregnancies would suffice to stabilize
the size of our population.

The second group is referred to as the population
planners. They believe that a large scale change in repro-
ductive behavior is necessary if population growth is to
be halted. Advocates of this approach claim that even if
all unwanted pregnancies were to be eliminated, current
family size goals are significantly larger than that which
would lead to zero population growth. Blake, a staunch
proponent of this view, emphasizes the importance of changing
the coercive pronatalist incentives built into our social
institutions. She believes that any "antinatalist policy
must deal both with the reward system and costs involved in
parenthood" (1971, p. 219).

Very little is known about the rewards and costs that
motivate having or not having children. Two factors are
responsible for this lack of knowledge in such a critical
area of research. One is the relatively recent arrival of
psychologists to the study of population. The other is the
difficulty involved in measuring these complex motivations.

The purpose of the present study was to develop a
comprehensive instrument to measure motivations for having
or not having children. This was accomplished in four phases:

1. The creation and pretesting of a new instrument,
the Parenthood Inventory.

2. The pilot testing of this inventory.

3. Analysis of results of this pilot testing.

4. The development of a set of specifications or
modifications for a more permanent instrument
to be used in future research.

The instrument designed for the purposes of this study

operationalizes motivation in terms of expectations and

attitudes toward the different rewards and costs of children.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A review of the literature reveals a complete absence
of comprehensive investigations of the motivations for having
or not having children. Pohlman (1969), in his exhaustive
review, has assembled fragments of relevant information
from a tremendous variety of empirical and nonempirical
sources. No attempt is made here to duplicate his extensive
coverage. Instead, the present review takes an in-depth

look at the relevant empirical and conceptual literature.

Three Major Demographic Studies

 

Some of the earliest empirical work relevant to motives
for having or not having children comes from the field of

demography. The emphasis in these studies is sociological.

The Indianapolis Study

 

The Indianapolis Study (Whelpton and Kiser, 1946-1958)
was the first large-scale investigation of fertility in this
country. Organized in the years 1938-1940, it reflected a
concern over the low birth rate of the Depression era.
Indianapolis was chosen as the site of the study, and a large
sample of native, white, Protestant couples married during
1927-1929 was interviewed. This included a moderate sized
group of voluntarily childless couples.

The five psychological variables investigated as part

of this study were: feelings of personal inadequacy (Westoff
and Kiser, 1952), ego-centered or narcissistic interest in
children (Swain and Kiser, 1954), fear of pregnancy and
childbirth (Schacter and Kiser, 1954), interest in and liking
for children (Pratt and Whelpton, 1958), and attitudes toward
restriction of personal freedom (Riemer and Whelpton, 1958).
These were measured by five different series of multiple-
choice questions, and analyzed in relation to the two major
dependent variables, effectiveness of fertility planning

and fertility.

The significant relationships obtained between these
five independent variables and the two dependent measures
were for the most part restricted to those couples that were
effective fertility planners. In many of these cases,
significant relationships turned out to be essentially a
function of differences between deliberately childless couples
and fertile couples. Childless couples comprised a large
part of the effective fertility planning group.

For example, Swain and Kiser (1954) found equivocal
support for an inverse relationship between ego-centered
interest in children and fertility, but only in the effective
family planning group. They also found that childless
couples reported a greater ego-centered interest in children
than did fertile couples.

Schacter and Kiser (1954) found that all significant
relationships between fear of pregnancy and childbirth, and

the two dependent variables were eliminated when childless

couples were removed from the statistical analysis. Childless
couples did report greater fear of pregnancy and childbirth
than did fertile couples.

Pratt and Whelpton (1958) found no significant rela-
tionships between interest in and liking for children and the
two dependent variables; but fertile couples did score higher
on this variable than did childless couples.

Riemer and Whelpton (1958) found a stronger feeling
that children restrict personal freedom among childless
couples than among couples with children. Unfortunately,
the items that formed the basis of this comparison were
slightly different in wording and meaning for these two
groups, making valid comparisons questionable. Also, because
all couples in this study were interviewed after 12 to 14
years of marriage no conclusions could be reached as to
whether these feelings had actually motivated childlessness.

Westoff and Kiser (1952) found a significant inverse
relationship between feelings of personal inadequacy and
effectiveness of fertility planning. This was for all levels
of planning effectiveness. Also, there was a tendency for
personal inadequacy to be related to low fertility, primarily
among the effective planning group of couples. This was true
even when childless couples were excluded from the analysis.

The Indianapolis Study investigated five isolated
psychological variables in relation to effectiveness of
fertility planning and fertility. The design of the study
was such that no conclusions could be drawn about motivations

for and against having children.

The Princeton Study

 

The Princeton Study (Westoff, Potter, Sagi, and Mishler,
1961) with its longitudinal follow-up (Westoff, Potter, and
Sagi, 1963), was an attempt to refine and explore more
thoroughly some of the findings of the Indianapolis Study.

Its sample consisted of over 1000 couples each with two
children and residing in the large metropolitan areas of the
country.

Nine psychological variables were included in this
investigation. Eight of these were personality dimensions:
manifest anxiety, need to nurture, ability to defer gratifi-
cation, self-awareness, compulsiveness, tolerance for ambiguity,
cooperativeness, and need for achievement. The ninth was
liking for children. With one trivial exception no signi-
ficant correlations were obtained between these nine vari-
ables and the major dependent variables, fertility, fecundity,
family size preferences, contraceptive practices,.and birth-
spacing. In the follow-up study there were also no signi-
ficant relationships obtained between the psychological
variables and the major dependent variable, in this case,
differences in fertility occurring during the three and
one-half year interval between studies.

Hoffman and Hoffman (1973) have leveled three criticisms
at the design incorporated by the Princeton Study in its
attempt to relate psychological variables to fertility.

First, they believe that the dependent variables were poorly

selected in light of the nature and homogeneity of the sample.
Second, the psychological concepts embodied by the person-
ality variables studied were oversimplified.‘ Third, the
standard sociological subgroups were used to statistically
analyze the data. No attempt was made to select subgroups
which might be relevant to the hypothesized relationships

between the psychological variables and fertility.

The Growth of American Families Studies

 

The Growth of American Families Studies, conducted
in 1955 (Freedman, Whelpton, and Campbell, 1959) and 1960
(Whelpton, Campbell, and Patterson, 1966), were two very
similar investigations of national population and family
planning trends. In part the two studies sought to investi-
gate the post-World War II upsurge in births.

The 1955 study inquired about reasons for being in
favor or against family limitation. Among the over 2,000
women of childbearing age sampled, the major reasons in
favor were: to allow for adequate financial resources for
each child; to protect wife's health; to insure adequate
time for each child's care; and to make for a happier family
life. The one major reason for being against family limita-
tion was religious beliefs.

In the 1960 study each respondent was asked "What their
reasons were for (1) not wanting a smaller family and
(2) not expecting a larger family" (p. 53). The reasons

given for not wanting a smaller family included: the

happiness and welfare of the children; not wanting an only
child; parents great liking for children; desire for happier
and fuller family life; the avoidance of loneliness; the
desire for balanced number of boys and girls; and religious
and moral beliefs. The major reasons given for not expecting
a larger family were: subfecundity (sterility, miscarriage);
economic factors; poor health; unpleasantness of pregnancy;
not enough time to provide adequate care of more children;

and husband's desires for smaller family.

Motivation for Parenthood Studies

 

In a series of studies, most of which remain unpublished,
Rabin and his students have investigated motivation for
parenthood (Rabin, 1965; Greene, 1967; Major, 1967; Rabin
and Greene, 1968; Carter, 1968; Rhodes, 1974). The orienta-
tion of this research is toward understanding the influence
of different motivations on parent-child relationships, and
not toward population issues or fertility.

Investigators in this area have experimented with a
number of projective and semi-projective instruments in
their attempts to measure the more covert levels of motiva-
tion. Rabin, and Carter used open-ended sentence and story
completion instruments in their respective studies. Greene,
Major, and Rhodes used similar sentence and story completion
formats, except that for each of their story or sentence
stems a series of four endings were provided. The endings

were designed such that the four choices corresponded to

10

the four basic categories of motivation for parenthood.
Carter in her study also used a nonprojective, Likert
instrument.

The various instruments used in these studies focused
on categorizing motivations for having children. Greene,
and Major used a scheme with four classes of motivations:
altruistic, fatalistic, narcissistic, and instrumental.

To these four Rhodes added a fifth category, conformity
motives. Carter used three general categories: parent-
need oriented, child-need oriented, and non-need oriented.
Parent-need orientation included narcissistic, instrumental,
and parent-centered motives. Child-need orientation in-
cluded nurturant, and chi1d~centered motives. Non-need
orientation consisted of humanitarian, fatalistic, and by-
product (of another need or goal) motives.

The subjects in each of these studies received a score
for each motive category. In studies conducted by Greene,
Major, and Carter, parents of normal and emotionally dis—
turbed children served as subjects. In Rhodes' study, and
Rabin's exPloratory work, college students were the subjects.

The motivation for parenthood studies have had, at
best, only modest success in relating different motive
categories to child's mental health (Greene; Major; and
Carter). They have had little success in relating these
categories to manifest psychological needs (Greene), and

attitudes towards parents and family (Rhodes).

11

Miscellaneous Studies

 

Popenoe (1936) investigated motivations for remaining
childless by analyzing histories of 862 childless couples.
The histories were supplied by 100 students who reported on
childless marriages among close friends and relatives.
Seven major reasons for remaining childless were reported:
self-centered attitudes, e.g., social climbing, freedom to
travel, children spoil beautiful marriage; wife's career;
inability to afford children; health; dislike of children
and fear of childbearing; eugenic concerns, e.g., mental
illness prevalent among ancestry; and marital discord. The
only other study to have examined childless couples is the
Indianapolis Study.

Flanagan (1942) examined a great variety of social,
psychological and economic factors in relation to family
size. His sample was a small, homogenous occupational
group-~400 U.S. Army Air Corp officers and their wives.
Unfortunately, much of the wealth of data collected is
presented only in tabular form without adequate statistical
analysis and exposition.

The study included an investigation of the different
factors responsible for the limitation of family size to
less than what had been indicated as ideal. These factors,
which in part represent reasons for not having children,
fell into six categories: physical factors (sterility,

contraception, late marriage); wife's health; marital factors;

12

social factors; economic factors; and uncertainty about the
future (the occupational hazards of flying). There is no
indication in the study that these factors are statistically
related to actual limitation of family size among the couples
surveyed.

Flanagan also collected data on some psychological
factors that were potentially related to ideal family size.
This came primarily from a portion of the questionnaire
designed specifically to get at reasons for having children.
Many of its items, however, are too general or trivial, and
they do not come close to covering the entire spectrum of
possible reasons.

The eight most important reasons for having children,
according to Flanagan's tabularized data, are: "A family
is not complete without children," ". . .in order to have
companionship of young children," "Children tend to make the
family more stable," "Being married to a person who wants
children," "Watching children grow up is a lot of fun,"
"Children assist the parents in maintaining a youthful point
of View," "Having children around is a lot of fun," and
"Good stock ought to reproduce itself" (pp. 91-94).

Based on a variety of psychoanalytic, demographic,
and sociological sources, Hoffman and Wyatt (1960) offer an
explanation for how social changes may have increased moti-
vations for having larger families. According to the authors,
the increase in family size since World War II reflects

women's increased motivation for having larger families.

13

The social changes that have contributed to this increased

motivation are:
--changes in the woman's traditional role as house-
wife. Because housework has become much duller and
less time consuming, the contemporary housewife--in
order to avoid being idle--is faced with the choice
of having additional children or finding employment.
--changes in the nature of the parent's role. As
a result of the popularization of psychology, and its
emphasis on parental behavior as the primary factor
in child development, childrearing has become a more
challenging and creative endeavor.

—-the growth of loneliness and alienation in modern
society.

Hoffman and Wyatt see these social changes as general
influences on the value of large families to parents,
especially mothers. Social changes may be more or less
influential for individuals with different personalities, or
for different subgroups in society.

In addition to the reasons for having large families
which are related to social changes, Hoffman and Wyatt de-
scribe many other reasons for having children. These are
all included in a comprehensive model presented in a later
article (Hoffman and Hoffman, 1973).

Rainwater (1965) focused on two general aspects of
family planning: factors influencing family size preferences;
and factors influencing contraceptive practices and achieve-
ment of desired family size. Using loosely structured inter-
views, one of the specific areas he explored was reasons
for having families of different sizes.

Rainwater's sociological orientation resulted in an

14

almost exclusive emphasis on life-style and role-organization
variables. Also, his analysis and presentation of data is
very nonstatistical and qualitative. Information about
motivations for having children is embedded in a series of
long quotations excerpted from the interviews. There are,
however, some statistical summaries of reasons for having
small or large families. These are not summaries of personal
reasons, but of reasons why people in general might want
large or small families.

Flapan (1969) developed a paradigm to describe the
childbearing motivations of married women who had not yet
conceived a child. The data on which this scheme was based
consisted of content analyses of focused interviews with 82
women. The interviews elicited many private thoughts,
feelings, and fantasies about childbearing which were then
interpreted by the author to bring into relief their under-
lying meanings. The paradigm that resulted from these inter-
pretations consisted of 13 loosely structured and overlapping
categories:

1. Social expectations of childbearing and motherhood

2. Childbearing among peers

3. Identity implications of childbearing and motherhood

4. Identification with a fantasized child

5. Childhood memories of family life experiences and

identification with own mother

6. Childbearing anticipations and expected relation-

ship with children

7. Marital context of childbearing
8. Relationship with own parents as a childbearing
consideration
9. Age and years childless as a childbearing consid—
eration
10. Expected fertility as a childbearing consideration

15

11. Pregnancy anticipations

12. Childbirth anticipations

l3. Fantasies pertaining to the newborn infant (p. 417)

Flapan's interview procedure provides a rich, if not
unwieldy, amount of data about women's motivations for
having children. The implicit and faulty assumption of this
approach is that wives alone make decisions about having or
not having children. There is no mention of husband's moti-
vations, whatsoever. One unique aspect of this study is
that its subjects were women who had not yet borne children,
but who were close to doing so. This methodology makes it
possible to investigate what actually motivates couples to

have children. Most other studies have attempted to estab-

lish motivation on the basis of retrospective evidence.

A Conceptual Model

 

The most comprehensive conceptual model for predicting
fertility is that of Hoffman and Hoffman (1973). It consists
of five major classes of variables: (1) the value of children
to parents; (2) alternative sources of these values; (3) the
costs of children to parents; (4) barriers; and (5) facilita-
tors. Alternative sources are sources other than children
for gaining the values that children usually provide.
Barriers and facilitators are factors which affect the
difficulty or ease of attaining a particular value through
children.

Based on their review of the literature, Hoffman and

Hoffman (1973) have constructed a scheme of the value of

16

children. Its nine categories are:

1. Adult status and social identity

2. Expansion of the self, tie to a larger entity,
"immortality"

3. Morality: religion; altruism; good of the group;

norms regarding sexuality, impulsivity, virtue

Primary group ties, affiliation

Stimulation, novelty, fun

Creativity, accomplishment, competence

Power, influence, effectance

. Social comparison, competition

. Economic utility (pp. 46-47)

\OCOxlmUIb
0

There is no comparable classification of the costs of
children. The two costs noted by the Hoffman's are loss of
freedom and economic costs. This is not a comprehensive

classification, and is the only weak part in their model.

A Biological Motivation

 

No review of the motivations for having children is
complete without some discussion of the theories propounding
a biological drive to reproduce and parent. Benedek (1970b,
1970c), for one, believes that there is a biological drive
toward motherhood and another toward fatherhood. The drive
toward motherhood derives from the endocrine and concomitant
emotional changes that are associated with the menstrual
cycle (Benedek, 1970a). The drive toward a fatherhood de-
rives from the instinct for survival.

Bardwick (1974) proposes that the universality of
special sensitivities to infants across cultures and species
as well as the universality of social bonding between infants
and parents, reflects an innate capacity to parent. She

further posits that this capacity implies a biological need.

17

While there is at present no conclusive evidence to
show a biological organization within the motivation to have
children, there are some promising lines of investigation.

Lorenz (1943, 1950) was the first to propose that
babyishness or cuteness is intrinsically pleasurable to adults
and that the physical features and behaviors that comprise
this quality are found in the young of many species. These
features--a small, plump body; a large head with prominent
forehead and large eyes; short limbs; soft skin or fur; and
clumsy movements--serve as an innate releasing mechanism for
eliciting physical contact, fondling, and caregiving from
adults (Hess, 1970). Adult reactions to babyishness have
been investigated by measuring pupillary dilation (Hess,
1970), attractiveness (Sternglanz, et al., 1974) and prefer-
ences (Fullard, et al., 1975) for pictures or line drawings
of babies. There is some evidence to suggest that parents
of cuter babies hold, kiss, and have greater eye-to-eye
contact with their infants than do parents of less cute
babies (Parke and Sawin, 1975).

A second promising line of investigation focuses on
the reactions of parents to the birth of their children.
Greenberg and Morris (1974) studied the reaction of fathers
to the birth of their first child. They described this
reaction as one of "engrossment." The term engrossment was
used to convey the "absorption, preoccupation, and interest

in the infant" (p. 521). Greenberg and Morris speculated

18

that there is an innate potential for engrossment that is
released by contact with the infant.

All of those who propose the existence of innate
factors in the motivation to have children believe that these
inherited capacities are subject to modification by experi—
ence and learning. According to Bardwick (1974), a biologi—
cal need to have children "will not be like organic needs to
eat or sleep or defecate but will be more 'human,‘ that is,
socialized, learned, value-laden, more embedded in cognitive
and emotional experiences, choices, and judgments" (p. 58).

Regardless of whether one accepts the plausibility of
a biological drive to have children, it should be clear that
for most adults young children offer a very unique and
powerful source of gratification. It is very likely that
the anticipation of this gratification contributes to the

motivation for parenthood.

METHOD

The initial phase of this study was the creation of a
comprehensive instrument to measure the motivations to have
or abstain from having children. A review of the literature

revealed that no such instrument existed.

Creation of the Parenthood Inventory

 

The first instrument developed for this purpose was
a story completion test devised by the author. Story stems
were designed to elicit feelings and expectations about
having children, pregnancy, and remaining childless. A set
of nine stems, differing slightly for males and females,
was created_and pretested on a small group of college
students. The results were discouraging. Stories were
short, general and vague, and revealed little of the more
covert motivations they had been designed to elicit. It
seemed that these students had only vague notions about why
they wanted or didn't want children, and that putting these
feelings or expectations into words required a very unusual
degree of self-awareness and insight into one's motives and
feelings. As a result of this pretesting, the projective
methodology was abandoned in favor of a self-report, Likert
methodology.

The less covert Likert methodology was adopted in the

19

20

hope that presenting a large number of items representing
potential motives for and against having children would
allow for a comprehensive assessment of an individual's
motivations as well as make possible a determination of the
major dimensions of motivation. Information on these di-
mensions was deemed vital to the development of a set of
specifications for a more complete instrument to be used

in future research.

In creating a self-report, Likert instrument it became
necessary to develop a scheme to operationalize the hypo-
thetical motivation for parenthood constructs. Based heavily
on the work of Hoffman and Hoffman (1973), Carter (1968),
and Blake (1971), it was decided to do this in terms of the
expected rewards and costs of children. The focus on expec-
tations was in keeping with the aim of the present study, to
measure what actually motivates having or not having children,
as opposed to what satisfying or dissatisfying experiences
couples have after they become parents.

A large number of items were written, some based on
Carter's Family Opinion Survey (1968), and others on the
conceptual models reported in the literature. The result
was the Parenthood Inventory (PI). The PI was revised
several times and then pretested on a small number of married
graduate students without children. Results were quite

promising and so a final reviSion was made.

21

The Parenthood Inventory

 

The final revision of the PI consists of 104 Likert
items organized into two parts (see Appendix A). Part I of
the PI focuses on expectations of the rewards and costs of
children. Most of the 76 items in this section are conju-
gated in the first person and reflect experiences that
different parents might have with their children. Subjects
are instructed to indicate how likely or unlikely it would
be for the experience described in each item to happen to
them, if and when they were to become a parent. This is
done on a four-point scale ranging from very likely to very
unlikely.

The 28 items in Part II of the PI focus on current
attitudes towards the rewards and costs of children. This
section contains items that subjects can respond to without
projecting themselves into the role of being a parent.
Responses to these items are on a four-point scale ranging

from strong disagreement to strong agreement.

The Questionnaire

 

In order to collect data to evaluate the construct
validity of the PI, and its component dimensions, a question-
naire was constructed (see Appendix A). It consists of two
sections in addition to the PI: Biographic Information, and
Childhood Information. The Biographic Information section
includes multiple-choice questions on education, length and

happiness of marriage, religion, income, parents, and

22

pregnancy history. The Childhood Information section consists
of 22 five-point scales on which subjects rate the quality

of their childhood experiences and relationships with parents.

Pilot Testing the Instrument

 

Most of the research on motivations for and against
parenthood has been carried out with couples who already
have children. While this may provide information on the
rewards and costs of children, it does not establish actual
motivation. For this reason the present study sampled only
childless married couples. The second phase of the present

study--pilot testing the PI--was to obtain such a sample.

The Survey

 

In order to gather a moderate sized sample of childless
couples, a door-to-door survey was conducted in Michigan
State University's Spartan Village, a large apartment complex
housing married students.

The survey was conducted with the help of a number of
field assistants. Each assistant was assigned an area of
buildings within which to canvass. The canvassing procedure
involved knocking on doors and making a personal introduction
as well as an introduction of the study. Before enlisting
the voluntary cooperation of residents, assistants had to
determine whether the couple met the eligibility requirements
of the study. Only childless couples were eligible, and

both spouses had to agree to participate. Couples where the

23

wife was pregnant were not considered eligible. Foreign
students were also ineligible.

For those eligible couples who agreed to participate
a set of two questionnaires was left. Spouses were instructed
to complete their separate questionnaires independently.
Finally, assistants made arrangements to return at a later
time to pick up the completed questionnaires.

Approximately 80 percent of the eligible couples who
agreed to participate filled out and returned questionnaires.
The remaining 20 percent were either not at home or had not
filled out the questionnaire when assistants made their

return visits.

The Sample

 

Several couples had to be eliminated from the sample
because they returned questionnaires with significant
amounts of missing data. The final sample, after these
exclusions, consisted of 205 couples. The data from question-
naires of these subjects was then transferred to computer
punch cards.

The mean age of the 410 respondents in the final sample
was 23.42 years (S.D. = 2.72). The mean length of marriage
was 1.90 years (S.D. = 1.53). The average expected interval
before the birth of a first child was 3.45 years (S.D. = 1.75).
Responses to questions on education, religion, income, and

family size preferences are presented in Table 1.

24

Table 1. Percentage of Males, Females, and Total Sample that Responded
to Each CategorycxfBiographical Questions on Education, Religion,
Income, and Family Size Preferences

 

 

Males Females Total
(N=205) (N=205) (N=410)

 

4. If you are a student, what is your cur-
rent grade level?

Freshman 1.0 .5 .7
Sophomore 5.9 1.5 3.7
Junior 14.1 8.3 11.2
Senior 21.5 21.5 21.5
Professional or graduate student 45.9 12.2 29.0
Other 2.0 4.9 3.4
No response 9.8 51.2 30.5

5. If you are not currently a student, what

is the highest grade you have completed?

Less than high school 0.0 0.0 0.0
High school graduate .5 12.2 6.3
Some college 2.4 13.7 8.0
College graduate 5.9 22.4 14.1
Some post—graduate 1.5 3.4 2.4
Post-graduate degree 3.4 4.4 3.9
No response 86.3 43.9 65.1

9. With what religious orientation do you

most closely identify?

Atheist or Agnostic 15.6 11.2 13.4
Protestant 48.8 53.7 51.2
Catholic 22.4 24.9 23.7
Jewish 2.9 2.9 2.9
Hindu, Moslem, or Buddhist 2.4 2.4 2.4
Other 7.8 3.4 5.6
No response 0.0 1.5 .7

10. How important is religion to you?
Very important 24.4 33.7 29.0
Fairly important 32.2 33.2 32.7
Not so important 25.9 22.4 24.1
Not at all important 17.1 10.2 13.7

No response .5 .5 .5

25

Table 1. (Continued)

 

 

Total
(N=410)

Females
(N=205)

Males
(N=205)

 

11. What was your parents' combined gross
income for 1974 (or 1973, whichever
is higher)?

Less than $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000 1
$10,001 - $15,000 2
$15,001 - $25,000 3
$25,001 - $50,000 2
$50,001 or more

No response

12. For 1974, what was the combined gross
income earned by both you and your
spouse?

Less than $3,000
$31001 - $61000
$6.001 - $9,000

12.2
35.1
23.4
16.6

$12,001 - $15,000 6
$15,001 or more 5.
No response 1

l-‘O‘b
01004:.

16. How large a family would you like
to have, if you were going to have
the ideal number of children?

children

child

children 6
children 1
children

or more children

No response .

UTDWNII-‘O

17. How large a family do you real-
istically expect to have?

children 7
child . 4
children 66.
children 14
children 5
or more children .
No response 1.

mwaF-‘O

 

RESULTS

The third phase of the current study was the analysis
of results obtained from pilot testing the PI. This analysis
is presented in two major sections: Hierarchical Cluster

Analysis of the PI, and Construct Validity of the PI.

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of the PI
The hierarchical cluster analysis of the inventory
involved two basic operations. The first was a cluster
analysis of the items. The second was a cluster analysis
of these first—order clusters, which yielded higher-order
or super-clusters.

In the correlation matrices that form the basis of

both of these analyses, correlations have been corrected

for the attenuation caused by measurement error. This is
done to provide an estimate of what the true correlation
would be if the variables were perfectly reliable (Nunnally,
1967). Three different corrections for attenuation are
needed for a cluster analysis (Gillmore, 1970):

1. Intercorrelations among clusters need to be
corrected so as to eliminate the distortions
caused by having clusters of different sizes,
i.e., with different amounts of measurement
error.

2. The correlations between an item and the cluster
to which it belongs--the part-whole correlations--

must be corrected downward to eliminate the
inflation caused by a common error of measurement.

26

27

3. The correlations between an item and a cluster
to which it does not belong are spuriously low
because of the error associated with each cluster.
Correction for attenuation removes this and in
doing so eliminates the distortion caused by
having clusters with different amounts of error.
These three corrections were performed by a system of
computer routines devised by Hunter and Cohen (1969). In
all the correlation matrices to follow, appropriate correc-

tions for attenuation have been made.

The Cluster Analysis of Items

 

The purpose of the cluster analysis of items was to
identify the major dimensions that comprise the PI. As
in any cluster analysis, the first step is a partitioning
of items or variables into clusters. Each cluster is then
evaluated to determine if all of its items are equivalent
to one another, that is, are measures of the same under-
lying dimension. There are three primary criteria for
evaluating equivalence among any given cluster of items:

1. Homogeneity of item content.

2. Internal homogeneity-~moderate to high positive

intercorrelations among items, i.e., coefficients

of .25 or higher.

3. External parallelism--a similar or parallel
pattern of correlations to the external variables.

The first attempt at grouping the items used a blind
multiple groups method based on a varimax rotation of a
principal axes factor analysis. The factor analysis was
done with the largest correlation for each variable as its

communality. In this method the set of items that had

28

their highest loading on a given varimax factor were
grouped together. Thus, the number of groups or clusters
was equal to the number of factors.

The factor analysis and blind multiple groups proce-
dure was performed three times, once using only the male
subjects, once using only the female subjects, and once
using the total sample. The factors and blind groups of
items were very similar in all three analyses, suggesting
that the pattern of relationships among the items was very
similar for the male and female subgroups. This was con-
sidered strong enough evidence to make unnecessary separate
cluster analyses for males and females. The hierarchical
cluster analysis reported below was done using the total
sample.

The factor analysis and blind grouping of the PI
resulted in 12 clusters. Most of these were so diverse in
content that it proved impossible to arrive at meaningful
names for them. The blind clusters grossly violated the
first and foremost criterion for evaluating clusters--homo-
geneity of content--and as is often the case, they had to
be completely abandoned.

The second attempt at grouping the items into clusters
used the so-called "rational" method (Tryon and Bailey, 1970).
Here items were grouped solely on the basis of their similar—
ity in content, though theoretical biases determined which

items were perceived to be similar. Following this grouping,

29

the clusters were evaluated according to the usual criteria.
What then followed wasa series of trial and error modifi-
cations and subsequent evaluations of an evolving set of
clusters. This ended when it became apparent that the

clusters could not be further improved.

The First-Order Clusters

 

The cluster analysis identified 18 clusters:

1. Content Needs (CN)

2. Fun-Stimulation-Novelty (FSN)

3. Vicarious Satisfaction (VS)

. Prove Own Worth (POW)

. Marital Unity-Stability (MUS)

. Marital Disunity (MD)

. Status-Respectability (SR)

. Morality-Religion (MR)

Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs (LGA)
10. Generative-Creative Needs (GCN)

11. Nurture-Protect (NP)

12. Recognition-Respect and Importance (RRI)
13. Social Catalyst (SC)

14. Companionship (C)

15. Too Many Demands and Sacrifices (MDS)
16. Economic Costs (EC)

17. Inadequacy (I)

18. Anxiety-Fear (AF)

Some of the characteristics of the first-order clusters are
presented in Table 2. These include number of items, Alpha
coefficients of reliability, and intercorrelations.

The intercorrelation matrix of clusters reveals a
tremendous range in the magnitude of correlations. This is
a result of correction for attenuation.

At first glance the Alpha coefficients of reliability
for several of the clusters appear quite low. It should be

remembered, however, that Alpha coefficients are moderately

.OOH >9 pmHHmHuHSE unawaowmwmoo ucoeoeluospoum comummm pumpcmum on» .poommo cw .mum ooucmmoum
mumnfioc one .mucwom HMEHomp unonufl3 concomwum mum meowumeHHoo .3oHHom 0p mmofluume Ham ca Ode

 

30

 

 

OOH mm mm Om mm Om Hm mm NO ON 5H 5H me mm mm Om OO mm 50. m OH .OH
mm OOH mm “O OO- OH- mm- Om- Om- mm- mm- HO OO Om he Om- OO- OO- OH. O H .sH
mm mm OOH OO no mo- OO OO- mm- Om- mm- 5H he OO OO OO- Om- mm- mm. m om .OH
Om 5O OO OOH Hm Om OO OO NH- mO- OH- mm HO on O» OH mm- OH- ms. O was .OH
mm OO- mO Hm OOH 5O OO 5O 5O 5O HO NO mm ms mv Om Om OO mm. m o .OH
on OH- NO- ON sO OOH ms Hm OO Hp Ov Om Hm me Om HO Om OO OO. O .OO .OH
HO mm- OO OO OO Os OOH Om Om Om OO OO OO ON Om OO ms up On. O Hmm .NH
mm Om- OO- OO hm Hm Om OOH us me HO mO- HO- OH HO Os ms Nb nO. O m2 .HH
mm OO- mm- NH- sO OO «O ms OOH ms OO no so- Om Om On NO OO H». O zoo .OH
Om mm- Om- NO- hm Hp Om OO O» OOH Os Om HO- sO Om hm Om HO OO. N OOH .O
5H Om- mm- OH- HO Ov Ov HO OO Os OOH OH OO- OO NH he be me OO. O m2..m
5H HO 5H mm NO ON OO NO- NO ON OH OOH mm hm hm OO Hm- OO- OO. O mm .5
me Om be HO mm Hm OO HO- hO- HO- OO- mm OOH Om OO HH Om- sH- OO. m as .O
ON ON OO Om O» OO ON mm mm nO OO pm On OOH mm mm OO OH 50. n was .O
OO be me On me Om Om Hm ON mm «H hm OO mm OOH OO OH- NH BO. m 30m .O
ON ON- OO- OH Om HO am Oh Oh hm nO OO HH pm me OOH Os ms HO. O m> .m
OO OO- Om- mm- Om mm m» ms NO Om he Hm- Om- OO OH- Os OOH «O OO. OH 2mm .m
mm OO- mm- OH- OO OO up N» «O HO mo OO- nH- OH NH ms Om OOH Os. m 20 .H
mm H on mos o om Hmm mz zoo «OH m2 mm as was zom m> zOm zo
. suHHHn msmuH mo
mcowumHmuuooHOUCH Inflamm Hmnfidz

 

 

 

 

 

«mumumnao Hmpuolumuam
may now mcoflumeHHooumucH can .>uwaflanHmm mo mugmHOHMMOOU mnmdc .mEmuH mo Hmnasz .N manna

31

affected by the number of items in a cluster (Cronbach,

1951). An Alpha coefficient of .45 for a two item cluster,

or .52 for a three item cluster is actually quite respectable.
With the addition of just a few good items to each of these
clusters, Alpha coefficients should reach acceptable levels.

In order to make sense out of the complex network of
relationships between clusters, a higher-order cluster
analysis was performed. This is reported following the
presentation of the first-order clusters.

The items making up the Contact Needs Cluster are
presented in Table 3 along with an item analysis. This is
a very tight and homogeneous cluster measuring the expecta-
tion that children will satisfy the need for affectionate
physical contact. The Contact Needs Cluster is an excellent
one according to the three criteria for evaluating clusters.

The items and item analysis for the Fun-Stimulation-
Novelty Cluster are presented in Table 4. This cluster
is identical to the value category of a similar name pro-
posed by Hoffman and Hoffman (1973). It is a large, some-
what diverse cluster which measures the expectation that
children will provide fun, stimulation, and novel experi-
ences for a parent. The cluster is a good one according
to the three criteria for evaluating clusters. It is also
highly reliable (.88).

Two of the items in this cluster could have been

assigned to other clusters. Item 85 might have been assigned

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Contact Needs Cluster: Items and Item Analysis
Item Item
Number
7. Cuddling a baby gives me a wonderful sensation.
58. I really enjoy hugging my children.
26. I love it when the baby clings to me.
Item Analysis
Item Intercorrelations
Number
7 58 26 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR
7 100 58 51 79 61 52 04 00 ~21 -O6 35
58 58 100 45 64 51 42 17 21 -02 02 25
26 51 45 100 72 69 63 05 07 -14 -04 33
LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
7 46 61 48 51 47 28 -l3 -18 -40 13
58 33 52 53 53 37 38 -O9 -10 -27 16
26 52 67 54 63 47 30 -11 —21 -40 19

 

 

to Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs. But on all three
criteria it seemed to fit much better in Fun-Stimulation-
Novelty. Perhaps the word "exciting" overshadowed the
"challenge" aspect of the item. Item 70 seemed to fit
equally well in the Contact Needs Cluster. This would be
in keeping with Lorenz's (1943, 1950) theory that the
adult reaction to babyishness or cuteness is to want to
caress or fondle the infant. As the item is presently
worded there is no mention of such physical contact, and for
this reason its content was judged to be more homogeneous
with the content of the Fun-Stimulation—Novelty Cluster,

to which it was assigned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HO NO Om mO OOH Nm Om mm Nm Om mm mO Om hm H
wO Om Om NO Nm OOH Om Hm mm om mO OO mm OO on
NO- Om NO mO Om om OOH Om mm OO mO Hm OO OO mm
OHI mO OO om mm Hm Om OOH OO HO mm Om HO OO OO
mO- mO OO OO Nm mm mm 5O OOH mm OO OO mO mO mm
HHI OO OO Om Om Om OO HO Om OOH HO NO mO hm OH
mO- NO NO NO mm mO mO mm 5O HO OOH HO mm OO mm
OH- OO OO Om mO mO Hm Om OO NO HO OOH Om OO HO
OOI OO mu OO Om Om OO HO mO mO mm mm OOH Om NOH
OHI Nm Oh am pm OO OO mO OO hm 5O OO Om OOH mO
30m. m> 2mm. ,20 H on . mm OO Om OH mm HO NOH OO
Hmnfisz
chHumHouuoououcH EmuH
mHthMSN EmuH
3
3 .mHm>HH whoa msos Moo mxme ameHHno mzs .H
.muoo paw mHQmHopm ow OH oHHno H50 .Oh
.cmupHHno OCHOHOH :H mmmcmHHmno OCHuHoxm hams mum whens .mm
.mE CH mmuocm can EOOHmonucm mo NOH m mpmumcmm cmeHHno >2 .OO
.cmeHHno we :HH3 thm on m>OH H .mm
.OCHmmmHumm >H0> mH mon>mp one 30mm cprHHno H50 mcHnoumz .OH
.nuHB mmHm on cam mo muoH mum mmHamm .mm
.cmuoHHno mg» nuH3 wmsn >Hm> maHmn >0ncm H .Hh
.cmeHHno
OCHOHOH paw mcH>mn :uH3 msoo umnu mmocmHHmmxm OCHuHoxm can 3m: mama mum whose .NOH
.moHo>mp can 30Hm cmeHHno we mHms on com mH pH .mO
Hwnfidz
EmuH EmuH

 

 

 

mHmmHMCN EmuH can mEmuH "kumsHO huHm>OZIc0HHMHSEHumIG5m

.O OHQMB

34

 

 

 

 

 

mo mml OHI OHI Hm Om OO OO om mO Om OOI OHI OH H
OH ONI mHI NOI NN NO Om Om Om Om ON NOI OOI HH OO
mo Om- mHI OHI ON mO OO HO Om mO Om NHI OHI HO- mO
OO NOI mNI ONI HN Nm mm Hm Hm mm Hm OOI mNI mO OO
OH mml OHI HNI ON Hm OO Om OO Om ON OOI mNI mo mm
OOI HOI ONI Oml OH ON mO NO mm ON ON HNI HNI OOI OH
No le MN! mHI ON om 0O OO mm ON ON OH! MN! Oo Om
OO HOI Oml oml ON mm Om Om Hm Om Om OOI ONI mo HO
OO mml ON- ONI ON mm OO HO mm HO mm mmu mHI HOI NOH
HOI mml oml Hml mH OO Om om Om HO Nm ONI ONI OOI mO
m4 H 0m mQZ U Um Hmm m2 200 40H m: Mm OZ mDZ HODESZ
EOUH
HpmscHucoov .O mHnme

35

The items and item analyses for the Vicarious Satis-
faction Cluster and Prove Own Worth Cluster are presented
in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. The two clusters are
similar in that they both are concerned with the expectation
that children will provide a means for enhancing a parent's
self-esteem. The difference between the two is largely one
of degree and need. The Prove Own Worth Cluster reflects a
strong need to shore up a shaky sense of self-esteem and
adequacy through being a parent. The Vicarious Satisfaction
Cluster reflects a weak need to enhance one's self-esteem
by feeling successful as a parent. Both are good clusters,

though Vicarious Satisfaction is tighter and more homogeneous.

Table 5. Vicarious Satisfaction Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item ' Item
Number
5. The successes of my children make me feel like a success, too.
74. I like to talk to other parents about the successes of my
children.
54. I am quite proud when one of my children does well in school.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number
5 74 54 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR
5 100 37 34 44 41 65 35 20 08 11 38
74 37 100 30 45 38 58 35 22 07 11 23
54 34 30 100 39 42 53 16 05 03 -16 22

 

LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS BC I AF

5 34 53 47 59 so 36 11 ~05 -16 20
74 39 43 46 58 62 35 14 ~07 -13 09
54 27 43 47 S6 31 23 08 ~03 -21 17

 

 

36

Table 6. Prove Own Worth Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
42. I feel bad if one of my friends' children does something
better than one of my children.
16. My preschooler does things in public that make me feel ashamed.
9. I feel powerful when my children do what I tell them to.
24. I am ashamed if one of my kids does poorly in school.
2. I am always comparing my children to my friends' children.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number

 

42 16 9 24 2 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR

 

42 100 33 29 38 27 06 -07 24 61 30 38 26
16 33 100 32 30 26 -06 -19 10 S7 19 36 16
9 29 32 100 29 26 17 -02 31 54 38 33 22
24 38 30 29 100 17 -02 -11 23 53 28 36 30
2 27 26 26 17 100 17 11 42 42 27 28 06

 

MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF

 

42 12 20 13 12 16 32 35 46 27 29 27
16 04 ' 06 -02 -01 04 23 18 48 28 34 27
9 02 19 17 20 24 30 25 42 23 22 29
24 01 04 04 09 12 26 10 36 26 32 31
2 13 25 20 18 36 40 28 33 16 08 34

 

 

Three of the five items in the Prove Own Worth Cluster
seem to be measuring the negative expectation that children
will fail a parent in his need to bolster self-esteem. The
other two suggest the more positive expectation that children
will succeed in satisfying this need. In order to make
this cluster reflect a more homogeneous and relevant moti-
vational dimension all items should be worded to reflect
the positive expectation that being a parent will provide

a means for enhancing self-esteem. With this change it is

37

very possible that the Vicarious Satisfaction and Prove Own
Worth Clusters will collapse into one cluster.

The items and item analyses for the Marital Unity-
Stability Cluster and the Marital Disunity Cluster are
given in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. The two
clusters measure expectations that children will have either
a positive or negative effect on a marriage. According to
the criteria for evaluating clusters, these two clusters
are good, but not great. They both seem to be tapping broad
and multifaceted motivational domains.

The Status-Respectability Cluster measures the expec-
tation that children will provide a parent with social
status and respectability as defined by the social norms of
society. Items and an item analysis are presented in Table
9. The Status-Respectability Cluster is basically a good
one, though in terms of the more statistical criteria for
evaluating clusters, one of its items--item 3--is weak.

The content of item 3, however, is central to the dimen—
sion measured by this cluster. An examination of the
ferquency distribution for this item reveals that it is
highly skewed. This probably accounts for its only modest
correlations with the other items in the cluster, and the
other first-order clusters. Item 3 should be kept in this
cluster but its wording should be softened.

Items and an item analysis for the Morality-Religion
Cluster are given in Table 10. This is a small and incom-

plete cluster with good potential for expansion. In a

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Marital Unity-Stability Cluster: Items and Item Analysis
Item Item
Number
80. I hope that having children will settle our marital differences.
77. Having children will insure that our marriage lasts a long time.
12. The most important part of our marriage is the children.
11. When my spouse and I are not getting along, I am thankful that
the kids are around.
20. Now that we have children, I don't have to worry so much about
my spouse's needs.
100. Our marriage is boring without children.
94. People with young children should not get divorced.
Item Analysis
Item Intercorrelations
Number
80 77 12 11 20 100 94 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD
80 100 26 26 26 27 29 17 O9 01 16 26 54 26
77 26 100 27 22 21 22 25 ll 13 19 21 51 12
12 26 27 100 27 17 17 24 22 19 26 20 48 10
11 26 22 27 100 15 21 24 19 12 25 29 47 15
20 27 21 17 15 100 30 20 -14 -20 -06 34 45 33
100 29 22 17 21 30 100 12 -01 -14 02 24 45 15
94 17 ' 25 24 24 20 12 100 -03 03 07 20 42 19
SR MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
80 29 16 4O 19 12 13 23 33 17 00 14 13
77 20 33 42 26 19 21 31 39 04 06 -O4 17
12 20 23 42 32 24 21 27 50 10 -08 -09 13
ll 29 17 36 3O 24 22 33 46 10 O3 07 19
20 32 01 12 -05 -O9 -01 08 24 27 14 31 12
100 38 17 28 05 02 05 13 29 17 O4 18 15
94 22 26 23 08 10 13 14 29 14 08 O7 05

 

 

39

Table 8. Marital Disunity Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
22. Because of the children my spouse and I do not spend very
much time alone with each other.
67. Since we had children my spouse and I have become less intimate.
15. My spouse seems to pay more attention,to the children than t0-
me.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number
22 67 15 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR
22 100 46 34 ~04 ~14 11 46 19 70 03 ~05
67 46 100 31 ~21 ~27 02 40 27 65 23 ~11
15 34 31 100 ~06 ~12 O6 32 26 49 16 05
LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
22 05 ~04 08 10 24 19 56 3O 26 34
67 ~10 ~15 ~09 ~03 17 08 52 27 44 21
15 O4 06 00 09 16 15 41 30 33 25

 

 

completed form it should measure the extent to which deci-
sions to have children are made within a moral and reli-
gious context, that is, to satisfy personal convictions or
to avoid social disapprobation. The Hoffman's (1973) have
a morality category in their scheme of values. The present
Morality-Religion Cluster could benefit from the inclusion
of some of the components of their category.

Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs is another small
and incomplete cluster with excellent potential for expan-
sion. The dimension measured by this cluster is the

expectation that raising a family and being a parent will

40

Table 9. Status-Respectability Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
99. You only become an adult when you have your own children.
76. Until we had children, the people at work didn't respect me.
62. Until I had children of my own, my parents did not treat me
like an adult.
103. A woman without children is seen as barren or infertile.
3. My parents, brother, and sisters didn't respect me until I
had children.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number

 

99 76 62 103 3 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR

 

99 100 46 35 42 15 06 ~09 05 20 41 10 68
76 46 100 38 32 19 ~13 ~21 ~11 25 31 16 66
62 35 38 100 22 22 ~03 ~07 06 24 34 18 55
103 42 32 22 100 13 02 ~13 15 30 39 16 50

3 15 19 22 13 100 ~02 ~07 ~05 00 07 01 29

 

MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS BC I AF

 

99 12 ’ 25 14 04 04 16 35 15 -01 21 09
76 09 12 -1o -10 -11 09 26 25 10 32 10
62 09 22 03 05 O6 23 32 24 18 16 11
103 13 25 06 07 09 19 25 24 09 26 17

3 -04 -17 -07 -11 ~08 03 -05 oo 10 15 -02

 

 

provide a lifelong existential goal and provide an area in
which competence and a sense of accomplishment can be attained.
This cluster is very similar to the Hoffman's (1973) category
of Creativity, Accomplishment, Competence. Items and an
item analysis for the Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs
Cluster are presented in Table 11.

Closely related to Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs

is the Generative-Creative Needs Cluster. The dimension

41

Table 10. Morality-Religion Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
78. Not wanting a pregnancy is an insufficient reason to justify
having an abortion.
91. It is a sign of God's blessing when children are born.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number

 

78 91 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR

 

 

 

78 100 32 18 20 18 07 18 ~01 13 59
91 32 100 32 35 38 07 29 ~05 O4 59

LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
78 35 26 16 21 17 31 ~06 ~09 ~15 11
91 58 51 33 32 37 42 ~12 ~28 ~26 09

 

 

Table 11. Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs Cluster: Items and Item

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis
Item Item
Number
93. I don't know what I will do with my life if I do not raise a
family.
95. One of my most important goals in life is to be a good and
skillful parent.
Item Analysis
Item Intercorrelations
Number
93 95 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR
93 100 29 22 13 20 - 23 49 10 31 39
95 29 100 46 52 43 08 26 ~11 ~03 49
LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
93 56 28 20 23 33 56 11 ~01 ~03 14
95 56 56 35 43 46 52 ~14 ~21 ~34 13

 

 

42

that this cluster is tapping is the need to bring something
new into existence, or to engender something. For Erikson
(1963), who centered a developmental stage around it, this
need is directly related to children, though not necessarily
one's own. Erikson defines generativity as the need to
establish, to guide and to teach a new generation. Having
and raising one's own children seems to be the most likely
means for satisfying not only generative-creative needs,

but accomplishment-competence needs as well.

The Generative-Creative Cluster, presented in Table
12, is a good cluster that needs one modification. Item
89 should be reworded to make it more homogeneous with
the rest of the cluster.

Items and an item analysis for the Nurture-Protect
Cluster are presented in Table 13. This cluster seems to
be measuring the expectation that nurturing and protecting
children will feel satisfying. This is a good cluster
that could probably be greatly improved by minor changes in
the wording of several items. Items 38, 64, and 65 have
highly skewed frequency distributions. They seem to be
items with which very few individuals could disagree. Items
30 and 63 have more evenly spread frequency distributions,
probably because they are worded: "It feels good. . ." or
“It's a good feeling. . ." It is recommended that items 38,
64 and 65 be similarly worded so as to make each of them
reflect the satisfaction or pleasure that results from nur-

turance and protection of children.

43

Table 12. Generative-Creative Needs Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
57. I feel so pleased about my part in bringing new life into
this world.
35. The birth of our baby made me feel proud.
28. It is good to know that my children will carry on the family
when I die.
89. I want children of both sexes.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number
57 35 28 89 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR
57 100 47 44 37 6O 57 50 03 25 ~15 01
35 47 100 36 37 66 64 63 07 15 ~05 ~07
28 44 36 100 28 42 34 , 48 26 32 01 16
89 37 37 28 100 40 47 35 12 15 00 ~05
MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS BC I AF
57 46 55 73 48 54 45 43 ~16 ~22 ~39 15
35 38- 42 66 59 66 50 40 ~08 ~13 ~38 19
28 42 43 57 53 50 40 52 ~05 ~05 ~19 O7
89 37 45 52 29 37 36 32 00 ~16 ~28 15

 

 

The Recognition-Respect and Importance Cluster measures
the expectation that children will respect and admire a
parent. The underlying dimension is the need to be recog-
nized-~the satisfaction of being needed and of being impor~
tant and special in someone else's life. It is the closest
the present PI comes to measuring the need for affection
that the Hoffman's (1973) include in their value category,
Primary Group Ties, Affiliation. Because the need to be
recognized as important seems to be distinct from the need
for affection, it is recommended that a separate Need for

Affection scale be included in a future inventory.

44

 

 

 

Table 13. Nurture-Protect Cluster: Items and Item Analysis
Item Item
Number
64. I want my children to always be able to come to me for help

 

and guidance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

65. I want my children to always feel loved and cared for.
30. It feels good when my children depend on me to take care
of them.
38. I want my children to always feel safe and secure.
63. It is a good feeling to know that my children need me to
protect them from dangerous situations.
Item Analysis
Item Intercorrelations
Number
64 65 30 38 63 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR
64 100 64 20 23 2O 36 52 39 01 ~01 ~06 ~17
65 64 100 14 32 12 4O 51 41 ~05 ~03 ~11 ~20
30 20 14 100 27 51 49 32 48 29 34 12 19
38 23 32 27 100 21 3O 30 38 O9 02 ~01 ~03
63 20 12 51 21 100 37 32 46 22 34 05 17
MRI LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
64 16 24 34 62 45 21 16 ~08 ~07 ~27 O9
65 23 23 38 59 43 22 12 ~13 ~08 ~29 02
3O 26 35 54 52 58 45 52 ll 08 ~07 22
38 15 16 33 48 32 12 28 O6 00 ~09 19
63 29 34 47 48 46 35 46 05 ~06 ~07 O8

 

 

and Importance Cluster are provided in Table 14.

Items and an item analysis for the Recognition-Respect

Based on

the criteria for evaluating clusters, it is evident that

this cluster needs improvement.

Items 29 and 73 should

probably be dropped because their content is somewhat dif—

ferent from that of the other four items.

should be written to replace these two.

Several new items

45

Table 14. Recognition-Respect and Importance Cluster: Items and
Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
33. Being respected by my children makes me feel good.
14. I feel good when my children admire and look up to me.
51. It makes me happy when my family tells me how much they
appreciate all the work I do for them.
46. When I am at home with the kids I feel like an important
person.
29. I get a real charge when my kids say things they have heard
me say.
73. When I die, my children will not forget me.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations

 

Number
33 14 51 46 29 73 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD

 

33 100 47 36 35 21 23 54 52 66 14 14 04
14 47 100 30 23 30 29 45 43 59 14 00 03
51 36 30 100 32 28 21 36 32 54 23 12 12
46 35 23 32 100 23 20 45 44 49 14 36 02
29 21 30 28 23 100 16 31 26 44 42 31 18
73 23' 29 21 20 16 100 34 43 43 02 ~03 ~09

 

SR MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF

 

33 ~04 36 36 59 54 64 43 31 01 ~07 ~22 23
14 ~11 18 24 47 47 63 37 19 ~03 00 ~19 14
51 00 20 31 40 4O 57 42 39 14 13 ~15 26
46 12 38 50 52 47 50 44 52 ~01 ~03 ~15 17
29 15 20 28 37 46 43 42 32 13 10 ~01 23

 

73 ~13 12 18 30 31 40 31 15 ~08 02 ~33 ~03

 

46

The Social Catalyst Cluster measures the expectation
that having children will help in social activities.
According to the usual criteria it is a good cluster.

The only questionable item in the cluster is item 60.
Statistically item 60 would fit equally well in the Vicari-
ous Satisfaction Cluster. Its content, however, is closer
to that of the Social Catalyst Cluster, where it was
ultimately assigned. Items and an item analysis for the

cluster are presented in Table 15.

Table 15. Social Catalyst Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
32. Having children helps me make friends in the neighborhood.
31. It is easier to find things to talk about with adults who
have children of their own than with adults who don't have
children.
25. Our children provide a basis for social contacts.
60. I enjoy talking to other parents about my children.
75. A major topic of conversation between my spouse and me is
our children.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number
32 31 25 6O 75 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR
32 100 41 43 37 19 30 27 43 35 34 22 23
31 41 100 32 22 23 24 17 38 47 33 24 25
25 43 32 100 19 18 18 13 27 32 22 20 23
60 ‘ 37 22 19 100 28 55 52 70 21 12 ~01 ~03
75 19 23 18 28 100 33 39 39 15 18 18 01
MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS BC I AF
32 24 47 40 24 41 71 47 20 01 ~10 33
31 25 38 31 28 34 56 43 30 05 02 26
25 19 27 25 17 29 52 35 21 05 02 15
6O 29 43 51 38 58 49 28 01 ~14 ~30 13
75 26 34 38 28 39 39 27 05 00 ~15 19

 

 

47

Items and an item analysis for the Companionship
Cluster are given in Table 16. With the exception of item
52, this is a tight cluster measuring the expectation that
children will help combat loneliness. The unstated need
here is one for companionship. Item 52 seems to be tapping
some other need in addition to that of companionship. For
this reason, it should either be dropped from the cluster,
or reworded to make it more homogeneous with the other two
items. The Companionship Cluster has only modest reliability

(.52) and it is recommended that more items be added to it.

Table 16. Companionship Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
44. Without my children I am a pretty lonely person.
52. I want a large family so there will be children around the
house for a long time.
61. I am lonely when I am not at home with my family.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations
Nmmmr

 

44 52 61 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR

 

 

 

44 100 32 28 27 15 31 43 56 24 27 28

52 32 100 20 26 18 22 16 37 02 24 41

61 28 20 100 18 24 31 09 26 09 15 27
LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF

44 53 36 27 34 43 65 31 13 08 24

52 56 36 22 24 29. 49 O3 -11 ~12 16

61 43 33 41 35 33 43 14 03 ~03 12

 

 

48

The Too Many Demands-Sacrifices Cluster is a large
and broad-based cluster measuring the expectation that
children present too many demandsand require too many sacri-
fices of parents. It is one of the five clusters measuring
the anticipated costs of children. Attempts at breaking it
into smaller, more homogeneous components proved unsuccess-
ful, suggesting that when children are perceived as being a
burden, they are perceived as being a general drain on a
parent's time and energy. The only questionable item in
the cluster is item 56, which seems to be partially tapping
a recognition need in addition to an expectation of great
sacrifice. This item should be reworded to eliminate the
recognition aspects of it. Items and an item analysis for
this cluster are presented in Table 17.

Another cluster measuring the expected costs of
children is the Economic Costs Cluster. Items and an
item analysis for this cluster are presented in Table 18.
This is a small and tight cluster measuring the expecta-
tion that having children lowers a couple's standard of
living. The Economic Costs Cluster could benefit from a
few additional items that would hopefully raise its modest
reliability (.57).

The Inadequacy Cluster measures the belief that one is
emotionally incapable of taking care of children and being
a good parent. The dimension represented in this cluster
is one of the major motivations for not having children.

The only questionable item in the cluster is item 50.

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH Om OH NHI OH- OOH OH mH NN OH OH OH ON Hm HO
NOI NN OHI ONI ONI OH OOH HN HN OH OH ON OH mm OO
OH OO ON OHI OO mH HN OOH ON ON OH OH om Om OO
OH NO NOI ON- NNI NN HN ON OOH ON ON HN Hm om OO
mN OO OH OH- OO- OH OH ON ON OOH OO ON ON ON mH
ON Om OH OHI HOI OH OH OH ON OO OOH ON ON om ON
OH mm OH HO- OH OH ON OH HN ON ON OOH om HO O
OH Om OH OO- OOI ON OH Om Hm ON ON om OOH Om OO
OH OO OO OHI NHI Hm mm Om om ON om HO Om OOH Om
ODS 30m m> 2mm 20 HO OO OO OO mH ON O OO Om
HmnEsz
mCOHumHmHHoonucH EmuH
mHmOngm EmuH
.OO on swan HHmu H pass on cmumHH nm>mc OOHOHHOO as .HO
.Hmmumo m momusm on me How uHsonme pH mmme cmupHHno OCH>mm .OO
.Emzu How op H xuo3 mo HGDOEO may mumHomHmmm u.:oc mpHx OE cm£3 uH ucmmmn H .OO
.mpcmHHm OE nuH3 mm on mEHu amsocm m>m£ u.com H .ugmumm m mcHaoomQ moch .OO
.Em OHHmmH H can» HmpHo Hmmm mE mme mm: ameHHno OchHmn mam OGH>mm .mH
.mOm OE mHmomm Hmnuo cmnu HmpHo xooH mE mme was cmHmHHzo OGHOHMH can OGH>mm .ON
.pmumsmsxm OHHmuou Em H smeHHno may £DH3 ucmmm Omp O OO cam ms» um .O
.mE How m>Huom can OmHoc oou mum cmHUHHno OE gmn3 mmEHu mo mHOH mum mamas .OO
.OHHmcoHHOEm uso mE mHHu gmeHHno Oz .Om
Hmnasz
EmuH EmUH
mHmOHmcm EmuH cam mEmuH "HmumsHO mmonHHomm-mpcmama mam: 009 .OH mHnt

50

 

 

 

 

 

OH Om ON Om OH OH HO- NH- OO- OO HH- OH on HO
ON Om Om HO OO OO- ON- OH- ON- OH- OO- OO NN OO
Om ON ON OO NN ON NN OH OO OH HO OH. OO Om
NN Om Om OO OH OH NO HO- HH- OO- OH- OH NO OO
NH OO ON OO OO NH OO OO OO- OO- NH- ON Om OH
ON Om Om HO HN NN OO OO OO- OO NO- ON NO ON
mm ON NO Hm ON OH OH OH OH OO OO HH OH O
NO Om om Om OH OH OO OO OO- HO- OH- OH OO Om
ON OO OO OO OH OH OO- OO- OO- OO- OH- OH OO OH
OH H om mas o oO Hmm Oz ZOO OOH ms mm as Hmnssz
Emu H
HOOOOHHOOOO .OH OHHOH

51

Table 18. Economic Costs Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

Item Item
Number

 

36. If we didn't have children we would be able to afford
more of the luxuries of life.

43. We don't want any more children because it would
lower our standard of living.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations
Number

 

36 43 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR

 

36 100 40 ~10 ~17 02 33 01 34 08 ~18

 

 

43 40 100 ~20 ~30 ~12 25 O9 27 15 ~24

LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
36 ~07 ~09 07 10 04 10 48 65 30 23
43 ~18 ~20 ~14 ~04 ~06 -06 36 65 38 13

 

 

Statistically it seems to fit with the rest of the cluster,
but its content is somewhat at odds with the personal in-
adequacy dimension being tapped. For this reason it should
probably be dropped from the cluster. Items and an item
analysis for the Inadequacy Cluster are given in Table 19.
The last of the 18 first-order clusters is the Anxiety-
Fear Cluster. It is a small and unusually reliable (.67)
cluster considering its size. The cluster concerns the
expectation or fear that something catastropic will happen
to a couple's child. Items and an item analysis are presented
in Table 20.
There are 22 items that could not be fit into any of

the first-order clusters. These are either of poor quality

52

Table 19. Inadequacy Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
90. I don't think I am capable of being a good parent.
96. I don't have the patience being a parent requires.
82. I am too reckless a person to be involved with children.
86. I don't know the first thing about taking care of children.
50. My children bring me more unhappiness than pleasure.
10. I get nervous being responsible for the welfare of the children.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations

 

Number -
90 96 82 86 50 10 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD

 

90 100 50 52 43 35 29 ~33 ~51 ~26 22 O3 32
96 50 100 40 32 34 31 ~35 ~48 ~22 29 O9 34
82 52 40 100 28 35 29 ~31 ~38 ~21 20 24 30
86 43 32 28 100 24 26 ~28 ~30 ~04 22 09 23
50 35 34 35 24 100 23 ~37 ~50 ~31 34 05 34
10 29 31 29 26 23 100 ~10 ~17 02 37 20 43

 

SR MR LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF

 

90 37 ~19 ~27 ~41 ~24 ~29 ~18 ~10 32 26 75 05
96 13 ~20 ~25 ~33 ~19 ~26 ~19 ~13 47 38 65 17
82 26 ~18 ~09 ~34 ~19 ~25 ~15 ~02 33 25 64 ~03
86 27 ~22 ~23 ~20 ~12 ~06 ~03 02 34 31 51 10
50 18 ~33 ~29 ~39 ~22 ~29 ~19 ~09 36 35 50 10

10 22 ~09 ~03 ~10 ~08 ~01 07 15 53 30 45 42

 

 

53

Table 20. Anxiety-Fear Cluster: Items and Item Analysis

 

 

 

Item Item
Number
23. Sometimes I have this terrible fear that if we have
another child, he or she will be born defective.
53. I am sometimes afraid that something terrible will
happen to our baby.

 

 

Item Analysis

 

Item Intercorrelations

 

Number
23 53 CN FSN VS POW MUS MD SR MR

 

 

 

23 100 51 12 00 13 39 13 34 07 11
53 51 100 20 12 25 41 27 29 17 14

LGA GCN NP RRI SC C MDS EC I AF
23 O9 13 10 17 22 16 42 23 15 72
53 26 19 22 28 35 32 39 17 18 72

 

 

or are too unique to be grouped with any other items. They
were perforce assigned to a residual cluster. Residual
items and their correlations with the first-order clusters
are presented in Table 21.

Some of the residual items have the potential for
forming the core of new clusters or scales in a future
inventory. For example, a cluster measuring the need to
.please or satisfy one's parents by having children might

be constructed using item 79 as its starting point.

The Super Clusters

 

In order to make some sense out of the complex network

of intercorrelations among the first-order clusters, an

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HN OO ON om Om ON Nm Om ON OH mH OO ON ON Om Om mH OH O
NH NO ON ON OO- mO- OO- OO- ON- NO- OO- OH Om mH ON OH: Om- ON- mO
OO Om ON mN Non NO- OO- OO- OH- HN- OHI. OO ON HH ON OOI mm- ON- OO
OH Hm OH Om OH HO OH- OO- mO- OO OO HN OH NN OH OO- OO- HO- OO
OOI OH- OH- OH- ON OH HN mH HN OH ON OH OH- NH OO- OH mN OH NO
HOI OO NO HO OO NN OH OO OH Nm HO OH HH OH OO NH OO OH OO
OO OH NO HO- Hm OH OH OH OH Om ON Om mH Nm OH OO NO- OO NO
NO ON OO OO HH mO- OO- mH- OO- OO OO- OO NO OO OO HH- OH- OH- OOH
OO OO HO- OO OO ON OH HH OH Om ON Om OH OO ON OH NO mO OO
No OH OOI OO OO HH OO- OH- Oo- NH HO ON OH ON NN OO- mH- NH- OH
mH ON- OH- HO- ON Om Om Om OO mm ON NO mO ON OH HO NO NO O
OH Oo OO OH Om ON ON OH OH NO ON Nm OH HO ON OH NO mH HOH
OO HN OO mH ON OO mO- mO- HO- OO OO ON mH ON ON OOI mH- OO- Om
HH NH- OO- Oo ON Nm Om ON ON OH OO OO NO mH mH Om om Om OO
OH ON HN Om NO OO OO- OO- OH- HO OO- OH ON mO- OO NO OH- OH- HN
OO HHI HH- OO Om ON ON ON Hm Om ON OO mo NN OH HN OH OH OH
Oct Nm OO NH OO OO- OO- OO- HH- OO- mO- Om Om Om HN OO- Om- ON- OO
mO ONI NH- OO- ON ON Nm ON NO OO mO OH- OO OH HH mN ON mN OO
OO mH HH OH OO OO OO- mO- mO- HO- OO- ON ON NH OO OOu OH- NH- HO
mH NN OH ON OO OH NO OO NO OH- OO- ON NN OO OH mH OO- OO- OO
OO OO OOI OH Om HH OO OO OH ON ON OH OH mN OH OH OO- NO- OO
mO NH OO OH mN OH HH OO Oo OH Oo OH OH ON Om OO NO- NO OO
m¢ H um mo: 0 Um Hum m2 ZUU (UH m2 mm a: ma: 30m m> 2mm 20
Honesz
mcoHumHmHHOU EmuH
.Emnu H0O umnu 06 H0 OHS» on 0» me OCmem Hm>mH0m mum cmeHHno O! .O
.m>HuomHuum nmmH xooH :meo: m mmxme cmeHHno OCH>O= .mO
.HQOHp m.>nmn m mchcmno Ho xcHnu H ems: msomwsm: umm H .OO
.mE mxHH mm Cu as 30HO.HHH3 :mHmHHnm >5 H0 mco umau pHMHHm Em H .OO
.pHo OcHuumO Em H umnu Hmmu u.c03 H pHHcm Hmnuocm m>mz m3 OH .NO
.mE 0H mums mucmumm OE :mzu cmHuHHno OS on usmumm Hmuumn n mm Cu new! H .OO
.cmHUHHno m>mn Hm>mc mHQOmQ vaHHmE anmem OHCO .NO
.pHHno m m>Hmocoo Cu OGHOH» u.:mum :0» HH xmm m>mz ou Oc0H3 OH uH .OOH
.mHHHH> OHHmsxmm OH :mE m umnu mm>oua :meHHco OGH>O= .OO
.Onmn H50 m0 :uHHn mcu HHucn pmamnmm uHmm H .OH
.Oocmcmmum Ho mnucoe mcH: mzu OCHHSO Hmono :mmn mm: me can mmsoam OE cmm3umn mHzmcoHumHmH mca .O
.00u .cmeHHzo m>mn ou ucmz HHH3 m3 .cmeHHno OCH>mn uumum HHm mucmHHu H50 OH .HOH
.uusn Hmmw HH.H coHummsmoo OE CH 3OHH0H u.:wmou cmeHHSU OE m0 mco HH .Om
.chOm uHHso a mxHH Hmmu cmo H cmHUHHnm OE :uHs Em H con: .OO
.nHmuanxnmn chu Ou uHsoHumHu OHm> mH uH .HN
.mHnmmw 0cm pHo Em H ems: mE Ho mumo mxmu HHHB :mHuHHno O! .OH
.uH pmucmfimp mmsomm >8 mmsmomn cmeHHno mcH>mz mum m3 .OO
.HmumHm H0 Hmnuoun m m>ms pHsonm uHHno OHco cc .OO
.HmHucmumnsm mmeoomn cmHmHHzo m>HuomOmp OCHODQOHQ no meu mg» SUHSB um mmm ma» 0» mmoHu OCHuumO mum m3 .HO
.cmeHHnopcmHm Emzu m>Hm Cu m: OCHusmmmHm mmmx mucmumm O! .OO
.pmuommxmcs OHHmmH Ho: 2050:» .pmccmHmcs .Ocon memo cmeHHno mze .OO
.cmHoHHcm OE H0 mmHsHHmu mcu usonm mucmumm Hmnuo 0u meu 0» mxHH H .OO
Hmnssz
Emu H 53 H
mumumaHU Hmpuo-umHHm mcu nqu mcoHumHmuuou 0cm mamuH "HmumsHo HmspHmmm .HN mHnms

55

attempt was made to identify higher-order clusters. It was
hoped that this would isolate some general dimensions under-
lying the motivations to have or not have children.

The operations used to generate a set of higher-order
clusters were identical to those used in the blind clustering
of individual items. Input for the factor analysis and the
blind multiple groups procedure was the matrix of intercorre-
lations among clusters, corrected for attenuation. This is
the matrix presented in Table 2.

The factor analysis and blind grouping of the clusters
resulted in three super-clusters. As was the case for the
blind grouping of individual items, the blind grouping of the
first-order clusters resulted in super-clusters that proved
impossible to name. Several attempts were made to modify
these blind super-clusters to make them comprehensible, but
to no avail. All modified groupings were found to be in-
ferior statistically, despite the fact that they made more
sense conceptually. Several abortive attempts were made to
group the first-order clusters using the rational method,
which had proved successful with the individual items.
Ultimately the blind super—clusters were left intact.

The first and third super-clusters seem to reflect
positive aspects of having children. The second reflects
negative aspects or costs. Thus, they were named Positive
I, Negative, Positive II.

Intercorrelations among the super-clusters are pre-

sented in Table 22. The two positive super-clusters are

56

highly correlated with each other. The Negative Super-Cluster

is uncorrelated
with Positive II
super-clusters,
tions with each

23, 24, and 25,

Tabl

with Positive I and modestly correlated

. The clusters comprising each of the three
their intercorrelations, and their correla-
of the super-clusters are presented in Tables
respectively.

e 22. Intercorrelations Among
the Super-Clusters

 

 

 

POS I NEG POS II
POS I 100 -01 58
NEG -01 100 25
P08 II 58 25 100

 

Table 23. Positive

I Super-Cluster: Constituent Clusters and

Intercorrelations

 

 

Clusters

 

Recognition-Respect and Importance
Vicarious Satisfaction
Fun-Stimulation-Novelty

Contact Needs

Generative-Creative Needs
Nurture-Protect

Social Catalyst

 

 

 

Cluster Intercorrelations
RRI VS FSN CN GCN NP SC POSI NEG POSII
RRI 100 99 75 77 84 84 75 97 12 51
VS 99 100 70 73 79 79 81 93 15 50
FSN 75 70 100 84 82 73 55 84 -37 33
CN 77 73 84 100 84 72 60 86 -16 42
GCN 84 79 82 84 100 77 69 92 -11 65
NP 84 79 73 72 77 100 51 83. 02 45
SC 75 81 55 6O 69 51 100 73 31 67

 

 

57

Table 24. Negative Super-Cluster: Constituent Clusters and
Intercorrelations

 

 

Clusters

 

Too Many Demands-Sacrifices
Marital Disunity

Prove Own Worth

Economic Costs

Inadequacy

Anxiety-Fear

 

 

 

Cluster Intercorrelations
MDS MD POW EC I AF POSI NEG POSII
MDS 100 81 76 65 67 56 -01 101 20
MD 81 100 64 47 56 43 -01 81 21
POW 76 64 100 45 47 55 30 79 46
EC 65 47 45 100 53 28 -15 63 -06
I 67 56 47 53 100 23 -45 65 -03
AF 56 43 55 28 23 100 28 53 31

 

 

Table 25. Positive II Super-Cluster: Constituent Clusters
and Intercorrelations

 

 

Clusters

 

Companionship

Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs
Marital Unity-Stability
Morality-Religion
Status-Respectability

 

Cluster Intercorrelations

 

C LGA MUS MR SR POSI NEG POSII

 

C 100 97 75 61 42 63 29 99
LGA 97 100 67 79 25 71 -01 95
MUS 75 67 100 40 57 29 40 81
MR 61 79 40 100 15 55 -13 62

SR 42 25 57 15 100 01 38 41

 

 

58

Construct Validity of the PI

 

One of the fundamental questions about any new instru-
ment is whether or not it measures what it is construed
to measure. This is the question of validity. For an
instrument such as the PI, which purports to measure a
set of inferred motivational dimensions, the type of validity
sought is construct validity. The usual strategy for
establishing this validity is to correlate the constructs
in question with unequivocal measures of theoretically
related constructs. These external constructs are selected
so that the nature of their relationships to the constructs
in question are indisputable. The more these relationships
are uncertain the more difficult it is to make logical
inferences about the construct validity of the instrument
in question (Nunnally, 1967).

Because the dimensions of the PI were not known at
the time the questionnaire was constructed, itvnusimpossible
to include items measuring meaningful and appropriate
external constructs. Instead, a quick and easy group of
biographical and demographic variables were selected and
incorporated into the questionnaire. In this somewhat
haphazard group are two variables that were more systema-
tically chosen. These are the variables measuring family
size preferences. They were included because their rela-
tionships to any possible set of motivational dimensions

was expected to be easily specified.

59

In order to evaluate the construct validity of the PI,
scores on the 18 first-order clusters were correlated with
all but six of the biographic and childhood variables (see
Appendix B). Four of these six exceptions are nominal
variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to deter-
mine the extent of relationships between each of these
four and the first-order clusters (see Appendix B). The
other two exceptions were open-ended variables which were
never coded or analyzed. These are the variables measuring
current and future occupation.

Very few relationships of any consequence emerged
from the correlations and analyses of variance. Of those
moderate to strong relationships that did emerge, many were
useless for evaluating construct validity because they
involved variables whose theoretical relationships to the
PI dimensions were unknown. The evaluation of construct
validity, then, is based primarily on three external
variables, two which measure family size preferences, and
a third measuring the expected interval before birth of a
first child. The two religion variables are also considered,
but only in relation to the Morality-Religion dimension of
the PI. Finally, a discussion of sex differences on the
dimensions is presented. This is done to illustrate how
an important demographic variable proved to be of little

use in the evaluation of contruct validity.

60

Ideal and Expected Family Size

 

Questions 16 and 17 of the Biographic Information
section of the questionnaire concern ideal and expected
family size goals. It was predicted that these two vari-
ables would correlate positively with dimensions of the
PI reflecting the rewards of children, and negatively with
those reflecting the costs of children. Table 26 presents
the predicted and actual correlations between the PI dimen-
sions and the two family size variables.

Table 26. Predicted and Actual Correlations between the
Dimensions of the PI and Family Size Preferences

 

 

 

 

Ideal Family Size Expected Family Size
(N=407) (N=404)

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual

Correlation Correlation Correlation Correlation
CN Positive 32** Positive 31**
FSN Positive 28** Positive 29**
VS Positive 18** Positive 26**
POW Positive 05 Positive 09
MUS Positive 21** Positive 23**
MD Negative 02 Negative 00
SR Positive 00 Positive 01
MR Positive 32** Positive 32**
LGA Positive 38** Positive 39**
GCN Positive 42** Positive 45**
NP Positive 13* Positive 14*
RRI Positive 27** Positive 31**
SC Positive 27** Positive 23**
C Positive 37** Positive 26**
MDS Negative -09 Negative -19**
EC Negative -18** Negative -22**
I Negative —23** Negative -30**
AF Negative 09 Negative 01

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .01 level or better.
**Significant at the .001 level or better.

61

Most of these predictions were confirmed. Exceptions
are the Prove Own Worth and Status-Respectability dimensions
which were predicted to correlate positively with the
two family size variables. Neither did. Also, the pre-
dicted negative correlation between the Marital Disunity
and Anxiety-Fear dimensions, and the two family size variables

was not obtained.

Interval Before Birth of First Child

 

It was predicted that the expected interval before the
birth of the first child would correlate negatively with
the 13 dimensions reflecting the rewards of children, and
positively with the five dimensions reflecting the costs of
children. The anticipated relationships, however, were not
expected to be as strong and consistent as those between
the PI dimensions and the family size variables. Two
factors were expected to confound these relationships.

For one, extraneous considerations such as age and educa-
tional aspirations differentially affect couples' plans for
having a first child. Second, subjects who thought that
they would remain childless could not respond to this item,
leaving a somewhat truncated distribution of scores on the
PI dimensions for the remaining group of respondents.

The predicted and actual correlations between the PI
dimensions and the expected interval before birth of a
first child are presented in Table 27. Nine of the 18

predictions were confirmed. Exceptions are the Fun—

62

Stimulation-Novelty, Vicarious Satisfaction, Prove Own Worth,
Marital Disunity, Nurture-Protect, Recognition-Respect and
Importance, Too Many Demands-Sacrifices, Economic Costs,
and Anxiety-Fear dimensions. Of these, Fun-Stimulation-
Novelty, Prove Own Worth, Recognition-Respect and Importance,
and Economic Costs have correlations in the predicted
direction. The correlation obtained for Anxiety-Fear is
in the opposite direction from what was predicted for it.
Table 27” Predicted and Actual
Correlations between
the Dimensions of the

PI and Expected Interval
before Birth of First

 

 

 

 

Child
Expected Interval Before
First Child (N=377)
Predicted Actual
Correlation Correlation
CN Negative -14*
FSN Negative ~12
VS Negative -O4
POW Negative -09
MUS Negative -15**
MD Positive 01
SR Negative -l4*
MR Negative -25**
LGA Negative -30**
GCN Negative -17**
NP Negative -04
RRI Negative -11
SC Negative -18**
C Negative -21**
MDS Positive 06
EC Positive 11
I Positive 13*
AF Positive -10

 

 

 

* Significant at the .01 level or
better.

** Significant at the .001 level or
better.

63

Two Religion Variables

 

The two religion variables, religious orientation,
and unimportance of religion, show a desultory pattern of
relationships to the PI dimensions. But they both show a
clear and outstanding relationship to the Morality-Religion
dimension. This is fairly strong evidence of the validity
of this dimension.

The F-Ratios and F-Probabilities for the analysis
of variance of religious orientation, and the correlations
for unimportance of religion, are presented in Table 28
(cf., Eta-Squared for religious orientation, Table 32). A
comparison of these F-Ratios and correlations reveals that
religious orientation and unimportance of religion have a
much stronger relationship to the Morality-Religion dimension

than to any of the other PI dimensions.

Sex Differences

 

As part of the analysis of construct validity of the
PI, the variable, sex, was correlated with each of the 18
first-order clusters (see Table 29). Seven statistically
significant relationships were obtained. None of these
seven, however, were particularly strong. Males as a
group scored higher on the Marital Unity-Stability (r = -.15).
Marital Disunity (r = -.12), and Economic Costs (r = -.l4)
dimensions. Females scored higher on the Contact Needs
(r = .14), Fun-Stimulation-Novelty (r = .14), Life's Goal-

Accomplishment Needs (r = .12), and Anxiety-Fear (r = .19)

64

Table 28. F-Ratiosl and F-Probabilities for
Religious Orientation, and Correla-
tions for Unimportance of Religion,
for the Dimensions of the PI

 

 

 

 

Religious Orientation Unimportance
of Religion
(N=407) (N=408)
F-Ratio F-Probability 1 Correlation
CN 1.476 .196 -16*
FSN 2.546 .028 -18*
VS 5.237 .000** -15*
POW 4.084 .001 -03
MUS 4.457 .001 -04
MD 1.759 .120 01
SR 3.509 .004 -05
MR 17.760 .000** -53*
LGA 4.996 .000** -22*
GCN 4.359 .001 -22*
NP 3.836 .002 ~12
RRI 4.776 .000** -15*
SC .578 .717 -13
C 4.087 .001 -l7*
MDS .556 .734 01
EC .865 .504 09
I 1.748 .123 12
AF .958 .443 -07

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .001 level or better
**Negligible probability of occurring due to chance.

lFrom One-way Analyses of Variance (df = 5,401).

dimensions. All these differences were significant at the
.007 level or better.

The demographic variable, sex, proved to be of little
use in the evaluation of construct validity. This was
because its relationships to the PI dimensions were, with
two exceptions, either unknown or in the realm of speculation.
Given the speculative nature of any hypothesized relationships
between sex and the PI dimensions, it was impossible to make

logical inferences about construct validity.

65

The theoretical relationship of sex to Life's Goal-
Accomplishment Needs and Economic Costs was not as highly
speculative as its relationship to the other 16 dimensions.
It was hypothesized with some degree of confidence that
sex (female status) would correlate positively with Life's
Goal-Accomplishment Needs and negatively with Economic Costs.
Both predictions were in fact confirmed, though neither
relationship was particularly strong. These confirmed
hypotheses provide some validation of the Life's Goal-

Accomplishment Needs and Economic Costs dimensions.

A Summary of Construct Validity

 

The present attempt to establish construct validity
for the dimensions of the PI was not really a test of whether
the dimensions measure exactly what they have been construed
to measure. This would have required a much more precisely
chosen set of external variables. However, the variables
measuring family size goals and interval before birth of
a first child do provide some evidence that the dimensions
are appropriately tapping reasons for or against having
children.

One dimension, the Anxiety-Fear dimension, received no
validation at all; and the Prove Own Worth dimension received
very little corroboration. The other 16 dimensions received
varying degrees of validation, with the Morality—Religion

dimension receiving the greatest confirmation. While the

66

need for more precise validation of the PI is indisputable,
results of the present study do suggest that the instrument
and its component dimensions have good potential as valid

measures of motivation for and against parenthood.

DISCUSSION

The fourth and final phase of the current study was
the development of a set of specifications for a comprehen-
sive instrument to measure motivations for having or not
having children. The discussion of these specifications is
presented in two major sections: General Specifications
for a Future Inventory, and Suggested Modifications of the
PI Dimensions. Following these is a discussion of directions

for future research with the inventory.

General Specifications for a Future Instrument
Based on the experience of pilot testing the PI, five
general specifications are offered as recommendations for
a future instrument:

1. A self-report, Likert format should be used.
The analysis of construct validity and the estimates
of reliability for each of the PI dimensions
suggest that this format has excellent potential
for development into a valid and accurate measure-
ment instrument.

2. A future inventory should consist of a series of
20-30 reliable scales or dimensions, each with
from three to ten items. Only important dimen-
sions should be included as scales. This is
because it would be impossible to reliably measure
every possible major and minor motivation without
creating an inventory too lengthy for general use.
All the dimensions of the present inventory,
except Anxiety-Fear, seem important enough to be
included as scales in a future instrument.

3. Items should be clearly and simply worded, and
should focus exclusively on the dimension being

67

68

measured even to the point of having a set of
somewhat redundant items.

4. In order to keep a future inventory as simple as
possible, the two sections of the present PI,
with their different instructions and response
categories, should be eliminated. All items
should be worded so that responses can be made on
a scale ranging from strong disagreement to strong
agreement. For those items in the first section
of the present PI, which attempt to get a future
expectations, this will mean rewording to include
the future time orientation within the item itself.
For example, item 1 might be changed to: "Having
children will make our home more lively."

5. A special additional section for women only should
be developed. This would be to measure aspects
of having children unique to women, i.e., expecta-
tions of pregnancy and childbirth. This additional
section should be placed at the end of the inven-
tory after the items appropriate for males and
females.

Suggested Modifications of the PI Dimensions
The purpose of this section is to present recommenda-
tion for modifying the individual dimensions of the PI and

to develop a set of tentative dimensions or scales for a

future inventory.

Modification of the Individual Dimensions
Of the 18 PI dimensions, only five do not need any
modification. These are the Contact Needs, Vicarious Satis-
faction, Marital Unity-Stability, Marital-Disunity, and
Social Catalyst dimensions. All of the other dimensions,
with the exception of Anxiety-Fear, need only minor changes.
The following modifications of the individual dimen-

sions should be incorporated into a future inventory:

69

1. Item 70 should be removed from Fun-Stimulation-
Novelty and placed in the Cuteness dimension--one of five
new dimensions to be proposed below.

2. Item 42, 16, and 24 of Prove Own Worth should be
made to reflect the positive expectation that having children
will bolster a parent's self-esteem. For example, item 42
might be changed to: "You feel good about yourself if one
of your children does something better than one of your
friends' children." Item 24 might be changed to: "I would
be real proud if one of my kids did well in school." Two
additional items that might be added to this dimension are:
"If you feel like you have done a good job as a parent it
makes you feel a lot better about yourself as a person,"
and "You feel good about yourself as a parent if one of your
kids excels at some activity."

3. The wording of items 3 and 76 of the Status-
Respectability dimension should be softened. Also, the
wording of item 3 should be changed from "parents, brothers,
and sisters" to "family." Item 3 might be changed to:

"My family will respect me more when my spouse and I have
children." An item concerning childlessness should be

added to this dimension. One possibility is: "One of the
reasons we want children is because childlessness is frowned
upon today."

4. Two changes are recommended for the Morality-

Religion dimension. One, item 78 is awkwardly worded and

7O

somewhat ambiguous. The item should be rewritten. Two,
items concerning sexual morality, impulsivity, virtue, and
selfishness should be added to this dimension. These are
some of the elements of the Morality category proposed by
Hoffman and Hoffman (1973).

5. Several new items should be added to the Life's
Goal-Accomplishment Needs dimension. Some of these should
concern competence needs. One new item might be concerned
with the challenging and imaginative aspects of parenthood.

6. Item 89 of the Generative-Creative Needs dimen-
sion should be rewritten. It should be changed so that it
reflects the different satisfactions of bringing children
of different sexes into the world, i.e., "Once you have
brought a child of one sex into the world it is really
satisfying to bring into this world a child of the opposite
sex," or "Bringing both male and female children into this
world provides two different rewards and satisfactions."

Also, several items concerning the pleasures of guiding
and teaching children to become mature adults should be
added to this dimension. These would be items based on
Erikson's (1963) conception of generativity, and would be
tentatively attached to the Generative-Creative Needs dimen-
sion.

7. Items 38, 64, and 65 of the Nurture-Protect dimen-
sion should all be modified to include: "It would make me
feel good. . . ." For example, item 38 might be changed to:

"It would make me feel good to provide a safe and secure

71

environment for my children." Several additional items
should be added to help complete this very important dimen-
sion. One such item might be: "I really look forward to
being warm and affectionate with my children."

8. Items 29 and 73 of the Recognition-Respect and
Importance dimension should be discarded and new items
written to replace them. One such item might be: "I look
forward to the time when our baby will respond to me as a
special person and not just another face in the crowd."

9. Item 56 of the Too Many Demands-Sacrifices dimen-
sion should be changed to: "I'm sure I would resent the
tremendous amount of work that children would require of
me as a parent." This should eliminate the recognition
aspect of the current item.

Several new items concerning loss of the freedom to
travel and be mobile should be added to this dimension.
Possible additions are: "Taking care of a baby restricts a
parent to being at home all the time," and "Having children
will make it very difficult for us to get away and travel."

10. Several new items should be added to the Economic
Costs dimension. The following two items are potential
additions: "Children are a tremendous financial burden on
a young couple," and "It is very expensive to adequately
provide for a child from infancy through young adulthood."

11. Item 50 in the Inadequacy dimension should be

discarded.

72

12. The Anxiety-Fear dimension should be discarded.
There are two reasons for this recommendation. One, the
dimension seems to be a relatively minor one. Two, the di-
mension received no validation, whatsoever. Item 23,
however, should be saved and placed in the Fear of Pregnancy

and Childbirth dimension--one of five new dimensions.

Five New Dimensions

 

In addition to these 12 recommendations for changes
in the existing PI dimensions, it is recommended that five
new dimensions be added to a future inventory. These five
are:

1. Need for Affection

2. Cuteness

3. Conformity

4. Fear of Pregnancy and Childbirth

5. Pleasure of Pregnancy and Childbirth

The recommendation to develop a separate Need for
Affection dimension was first made in the discussion of the
Recognition-Respect and Importance Cluster. It was concluded
in that discussion that the need for affection is distinct
from the need for recognition and respect, and that it merited
being developed into a separate dimension. The proposed
Need for Affection dimension should measure the expectation
that children will satisfy the need to be loved and the need

for affection.

73

The recommendation to include a Cuteness dimension is
based on the theory that the anticipated gratification asso-
ciated with an infant's being cute or babyish is an important
motivation for having children. Item 70 of the Fun-Stimula-
tion-Novelty Cluster appears to measure one facet of this
anticipated gratification, and as was already proposed, it
should become part of this new dimension. Another item
which might be assigned to the Cuteness dimension is: "When
I see a cute baby I have a strong desire to have a child of
my own."

An attempt should be made to develop a Conformity
dimension based on two items in the residual cluster of
the PI. The proposed Conformity dimension should measure
the need to please other people and to conform to other
people's expectations concerning parenthood. Item 101
should be assigned to this dimension. Item 79 should also
be assigned to the Conformity dimension, but only after it
is modified to: "It is important to me to please my parents
by giving them grandchildren." A third possible item for
this dimension is: "We will have children because that is
what is expected of married couples." .

The proposed Fear of Pregnancy and Childbirth, and
Pleasure of Pregnancy and Childbirth dimensions were con-
sidered for but not used in the current PI because it was
felt that creating a separate section for women only would

unnecessarily complicate an already complicated instrument.

74

Recommendations have been proposed above, which if followed,
would result in a greatly simplified future inventory. This
would make it feasible to include these two potentially
important dimensions.

The Fear of Pregnancy and Childbirth and Pleasure of
Pregnancy and Childbirth dimensions should measure all the
negative and positive expectations of childbirth and preg-
nancy. Item 23 of the defunct Anxiety-Fear dimension should

be placed in the Fear of Pregnancy and Childbirth dimension.

A Tentative Set of Scales

 

Based on all the recommendations for changes in the
PI, a future instrument for measuring the expected rewards
and costs of parenthood should contain the following 22
scales:

Expected Rewards

 

l. Contact Needs

2. Fun-Stimulation-Novelty

3. Vicarious Satisfaction

4. Prove Own Worth

5. Marital Unity-Stability

6 Status-Respectability

7 Morality-Religion

8. Life's Goal-Accomplishment Needs
9. Generative-Creative Needs

10. Nurture-Protect

ll. Recognition-Respect and Importance
12. Social Catalyst

13. Companionship

14. Need for Affection

15. Cuteness

16. Conformity

l7. Pleasure of Pregnancy and Childbirth (women only)

Expected'Costs

 

18. Marital Disunity
19. Too Many Demands-Sacrifices

75

20. Economic Costs
21. Inadequacy
22. Fear of Pregnancy and Childbirth (women only)

Directions for Future Research

 

There is a critical need for a comprehensive instru-
ment to measure motivations for having or not having children.
The inventory developed in the present study is one step in
the direction of filling this need. But much work remains
before the present inventory will be ready for applied use.

At the present stage of its development, the inventory
and its dimensions are still very much in need of validation.
This should be a primary goal of future research. One strategy
to precisely establish construct validity for the inventory
would be to take specific scales or items from relevant
personality instruments, such as the Edwards Personal Pre-
ference Scale or the Interpersonal Checklist, and correlate
them with the appropriate dimensions. For specialized scales
such as Cuteness or Fun-Stimulation-Novelty, where it is
very unlikely if not impossible that relevant instruments
can be found, it will be necessary to create these external
scales or items.

Perhaps the most glaring limitation of the present
'study was its very homogeneous Sample. A primary goal of
future research with the inventory should be to rectify
this shortcoming. What is needed is a more representative
sample of childless married couples. Such a sample would

provide data for: (l) a second cluster analysis, which could

76

serve as a check on the completeness and accuracy of the
first one; (2) a typal analysis; (3) an analysis of group
differences for various segments of the population sampled.

An ideal future study, then, would distribute the
revised inventory along with an extensive group of external
measures to a representative sample of married couples without
children. Such a study would provide a definitive test of
construct validity as well as provide data for a re-evalua-
tion of the motivational dimensions.

In their discussion of possibilities for future re-
search, Hoffman and Hoffman (1973) observe that in addition
to the need for instrumentation, there is also a need for
testing hypotheses concerning the relationship of socio-
cultural variables to the values of children. Future
research with the inventory developed in the current study
need not be confined to the goal of constructing reliable
and valid instrumentation. Even in its present stage of
development the inventory might be used to test hypotheses
about how sociocultural factors affect motivations for having
or not having children.

The possibilities for research on the motivations for
and against parenthood are virtually limitless. An extensive
discussion of these possibilities can be found in Hoffman

and Hoffman (1973).

S UMMA RY

The purpose of the present study was to develop a
comprehensive instrument to measure motivations for having
or not having children. This was accomplished in four
phases.

The initial phase of the study was the creation of an
instrument. The first instrument created was a story comple-
tion test with stems designed to elicit feelings and expec-
tations about having children, pregnancy, and remaining
childless. Results of the pretesting with the story comple-
tion test was discouraging and the instrument was discarded.

The second attempt at creating a comprehensive instru-
ment used a self-report,Idkemt methodology. In creating this
instrument it was necessary to operationalize motivational
constructs. This was done in terms of expectations and
attitudes towards the rewards and costs of children. The
resulting instrument was called the Parenthood Inventory.
After several revisions the inventory was pretested. Results
were promising and so a final revision was made. The final
‘version of the inventory consisted of 104 Likert items,

76 focusing on expectations and 28 focusing on current
attitudes.

In order to collect data to evaluate the construct

validity of the inventory a questionnaire was constructed.

77

78

It included two sections in addition to the inventory:
Biographic Information, and Childhood Information. The
biographic section consisted of 25 questions on standard
demographic and personal variables. The childhood section
contained a series of 22 scales on which subjects rated

the quality of their childhood experiences and relationships
with parents.

The second phase of the study was the pilot testing
of the inventory. A door—to-door survey was conducted in
a large apartment complex housing married students. In
keeping with the aim of the present study--to measure what
actually motivates having or not having children--only
childless couples were canvassed. Foreign students, couples
where the wife was pregnant, and couples where one spouse
did not wish to participate, were considered ineligible for
the survey. Participation in the study was completely
voluntary. Couples who agreed to participate were given a
set of two questionnaires and instructed to complete them
independently. Questionnaires were picked up at a later time.
Approximately 80 percent of the eligible couples who agreed
to participate filled out and returned questionnaires.

The final sample consisted of 205 couples. The data
from questionnaires of these respondents was transferred to
computer punch cards for statistical analysis.

The third phase of the study was the analysis of results
obtained from pilot testing the inventory. Two major analyses

were conducted: a hierarchical cluster analysis of the

79

inventory, and an analysis of construct validity of the
inventory.

The hierarchical cluster analysis identified 18 first-
order clusters, representing 18 dimensions of motivation for
and against parenthood, and three higher-order clusters.
These two sets of clusters were evaluated forhomogeneity
of content, internal homogeneity, external parallelism, and
reliability. Items that were questionable or clusters that
needed improvement were noted. For the most part, the 18
first-order clusters that were identified are of good quality.
The three higher-order clusters are of poor quality and for
this reason they were not used in the analysis of construct
validity.

In order to evaluate the construct validity of the
inventory, scores on the 18 first-order clusters were
correlated with the biographic and childhood variables, or
for a group of four nominal biographic variables, one-way
analyses of variance were computed.

Very few relationships of any consequence emerged from
these correlations and analyses of variance, and so the
evaluation of construct validity was based almost entirely
on three external variables. This did not provide a very
precise test of whether the dimensions of the inventory
measured exactly what they were construed to measure. It
did, however, provide some evidence that the dimensions

were appropriately tapping motives for or against having

80

children. It was concluded from this analysis that the
inventory and its dimensions have good potential for
development into a valid instrument.

The fourth and final phase of the study was the
development of a set of specifications for an instrument to
be used in future research. Five general specifications
were offered. One of these was that the Likert format of
the inventory remain the same. Also, 12 modifications of
the individual dimensions of the current inventory were
proposed, and it was recommended that five new dimensions
be added to a future inventory. Finally, some suggestions

for future research were offered.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bardwick, J.M. Evolution and parenting. Journal of Social
Issues, 1974, 39 (4), 39-62.

 

Benedek, T. The psychobiology of pregnancy. In E. J.
Anthony and T. Benedek, (Eds.), Parenthood: Its
psychology and psychopathology. Boston: Little
Brown, 1970a. Pp. 137-152.

 

 

Benedek, T. Motherhood and nurturing. In E. J. Anthony
and T. Benedek, (Eds.), Parenthood: Its psychology
and psychopathology. Boston: Little Brown, 1970b.
Pp. 153-166. '

 

Benedek, T. Fatherhood and providing. In E. J. Anthony
and T. Benedek, (Eds.), Parenthood: Its psychology
and psychopathology. Boston: Little Brown, 1970c.
Pp. l67-lv4.

 

Blake, J. Reproductive motivation and population policy.
BioScience, 1971, 21, 215-220.

 

Carter, C. A. Motivation for parenthood and parental
behavior as_perceived by disturbed and normal children.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1968.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-
ture of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334.

 

Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: Norton,
1963.

 

Flanagan, J. C. A study of factors determining family size
in a selected professional group. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 1942, 2;, 3-99.

 

Flapan, M. A paradigm for the analysis of childbearing
motivations of married women prior to the birth of
the first child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1969, 39, 402-417.

Freedman, R., Whelpton, P.K., and Campbell, A.A. Family
planning, sterility, and populationygrowth. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

81

82

Fullard, W. Reiling, A., Love, C., and Shaw, F. An inves-
tigation of Lorenz's "babyness." Paper presented
at the 1975 meetings of the Society for Research in

Child Development, Denver»

Gillmore, G. M. Legalism, antinomianism, situationalism:
Three moral decision-making orientations. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.

Greenberg, M. and Morris, N. Engrossment: The newborn's
impact upon the father. American Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry, 1974, 44, 520—531.

 

Greene, R. J. Motivations for_parenthood in mothers of
disturbed and mothers of normal children: An explora-
togy study. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State
University, 1967.

 

Hess, E. H. Ethology and developmental psychology. In
P. H. Mussen, (Ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child
Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1970. Pp. 1-38.

Hoffman, L. W. and Hoffman, M. L. The value of children
to parents. In J. T. Fawcett, (Ed.), Psychological
perspectives on population. New York: Basic Books,
1973- Pp. 19-76.

 

Hoffman, L. W. and Wyatt, F. Social change and motivations
for having larger families: Some theoretical consid-
erations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,1960,_6_, 235-244.

Hunter, J. E. and Cohen, S. H. Package: A system of
computer routines for the analysis of correlational
data. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
1969, 29, 697-700.

Lorenz, K. Die angeborenen Formen moglicher Erfahrung.
Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 1943, 5, 235-409.

Lorenz, K. The comparative method in studying innate
behaviour patterns. In Physiological mechanisms in
animal behaviour, Symposia of the Society for Experi-
mental Biology, No. IV. \New York: Academic Press,
1950. Pp. 221-268.

 

Major, M. A. Assessment of motivation for parenthood in
parents of disturbed and normal children. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Nunnally, J.C. Psychometic theory. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1967. ‘

83

Parke, R. D. and Sawin, D. B. Infant characteristics and
behavior as elicitors of maternal and paternal
responsivity in the newborn period. Paper presented
at the 1975 meetings of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Denver.

Pohlman, E. The psychology of birth planning. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Schenkman, 1969.

 

Popenoe, P. Motivations of childless marriages. Journal
of Heredity, 1936, 91, 469-472.

 

Pratt, L. and Whelpton, P. K. Interest in and liking for
children in relation to fertility planning and size
of planned family. In P. K. Whelpton and C. V.
Kiser, (Eds.), Social and psychological factors
affecting fertility, Vol. 4. New York: Milbank
Memorial Fund, 1958, Pp. 1211-1244.

 

 

Rabin, A. I. Motivation for parenthood. Journal of
Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment,
1965, 99, 405-411.

 

 

Rabin, A. I. and Greene, R. J. Assessing motivation for
parenthood. Journal of Psychology, 1968, 99, 39-46.

 

Rainwater, L. Family design: Marital sexuality, family,
size, and family planning. Chicago: Aldine, 1965.

 

 

Rhodes, G. L. Attitudes to parents and family and moti-
vation for parenthood: An exploratory study.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University,
1974.

 

Riemer, R. and Whelpton, P.K. Attitudes toward restriction
of personal freedom in relation to fertility planning
and fertility. In P. K. Whelpton and C. V. Kiser,
(Eds.), Social and psychological factors affecting
fertility, Vol. 5. New York: Milbank Memorial
Fund, 1958. Pp. 1139-1187.

 

Schacter, N. and Kiser, C. V. Fear of pregnancy and
childbirth in relation to fertility-planning status
and fertility. In P. K. Whelpton and C. V. Kiser,
(Eds.), Social and psychological factors affecting
fertility, Vol. 4. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund,
1954. Pp. 835-884.

 

Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J., and Murakami, M. An etho-
logical approach to adult preferences for infantile
facial features. Paper presented at the 1974 meetings
of the Animal Behavior Society, University of Illinois.

84

Stycos, J. M. Some dimensions of population and family
planning: Goals and means. Journal of Social
Issues, 1974, 99 (4), 1-29.

Swain, M. D. and Kiser, C. V. The interrelation of fertility,
fertility planning, and ego-centered interest in
children. In P. K. Whelpton and C. V. Kiser, (Eds.)
Social andgpsychological factors affectingifertility,
Vol. 4. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1954.

Pp. 801-834.

Tryon, R. C. and Bailey, D. E. Cluster analysis. New York:
McGraw—Hill, 1970.

 

Westoff, C. F. and Kiser, C. V. The interrelation of
fertility, fertility planning and feeling of personal
inadequacy. In P. K. Whelpton and C. V. Kiser,
(Eds.), Social and psychological factors affecting
fertility, Vol. 3. New York: Milbank Memorial
Fund, 1952. Pp. 741-799.

 

Westoff, C. F., Potter, R. G., Jr., and Sagi, P. C. The
third child. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1963.

 

Westoff, C. F., Potter, R. G., Jr., Sagi, P. C., and
Mishler, E. G. Family growth in metropolitan America.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.

Whelpton, P. K., Campbell, A. A., and Patterson, J.
Fertility and family_p1anning in the United States.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.

Whelpton, P. K. and Kiser, C. V., (Eds.). Social and
psychological factors affectipg fertility (5 vols.).
New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1946-1958.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

The Questionnaire

PARENTHOOD STUDY

The Parenthood Study is a survey of married students' attitudes toward
and expectations of parenthood. The study is being coordinated by
Frederick Silver, graduate student in the Department of Psychology,
and sponsored by Dr. A. I. Rabin, Professor of Psychology.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. For those individ-
uals who elect to complete the questionnaire, we thank you very much
for your help.

All information you give in this study will remain strictly confidential
and will be used for scientific purposes only. No one but the people
working directly on the study will see the questionnaire after you

have filled it out.

We do ask that husbands and wives complete their separate questionnaires
independently. All questionnaires are divided into three sections:
Biographic Information, Childhood Information, and the Parenthood
Inventory.

Name Today's Date

 

 

Address Phone No

 

 

BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1. Age:
2. Sex:

3. Current Occupation:

 

4. If you are a student, what is your current grade level (circle one)?
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
0. Junior
d. Senior
e. Professional or graduate student
f. Other

5. If you are not currently a student, what is the highest grade you
have completed (circle one)? '
a. less than high school
b. high school graduate
c. some college
d. college graduate
e. some post-graduate
f. post-graduate degree
85

10.

11.

12.

13.

86

What is the primary occupation you expect to have for the majority
of your lifetime?

 

How long have you been married (in years and months)?

 

How happily are you married?

a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.

very happily married
moderately happily married
somewhat happily married
somewhat unhappily married
moderately unhappily married
very unhappily married

With what religious orientation do you most closely identify?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Atheist or Agnostic
Protestant

Catholic

Jewish

Hindu, Moslem, or Buddhist
Other

How important is religion to you?

a.
b.
c.
d.

very important
fairly important

not so important

not at all important

What was your parents' combined gross income for 1974 (or 1973,
whichever is higher)?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

less than $5,000

$5,000 - $10,000

$10,001 - $15,000
$15,001 - $25,000
$25,001 - $50,000
$50,001 or more

For 1974, what was the combined gross income earned by both you
and your spouse?

a.
b.
c.
d.

e.
f.

Where
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9.

less than $3,000
$3,001 - $6,000
$6,001 - $9,000
$9.001 - $12,000
$12,001 - $15,000
$15,001 or more

did you live most of the time you were growing up?

rural area

village or town in a rural area (less than 100,000 population)
small city (100,000 to 1,000,000 population)

suburb of a small city

large city (1,000,000 or more)

suburb of a large city

grew up outside the United States

87

14. How many brothers and sisters do you have?

 

15. What is your birth order;that is, are you. . .
a. an only child
b. the oldest child
c. the second oldest
d. closer to the oldest than to the youngest
e. in the middle
f. closer to the youngest than to the oldest
9. next to the youngest
h. the youngest

16. How large a family would you like to have, if you were going to
have the ideal number of children?

a. 0 children

b. 1 child

C. 2 children

d. 3 children

e. 4 children

f. 5 or more children

17. How large a family do you realistically expect to have?
a. 0 Children

b. 1 child

0. 2 children

d. 3 children

e. 4 children

f. 5 or more children

18. If you plan on having children, how many years from now do you
think it will be before you have your first child?

 

19. Are your parents. . .
a. your original or adoptive parents and still living
b. one or both dead with no remarriage
c. one dead, the other remarried
d. separated
e. divorced, neither remarried
f. divorced, one remarried
g. divorced, both remarried
h. other

20. Who did you live with most of the time you were growing up?
a. your original or adoptive parents
b. a single parent, mother
c. a single parent, father
d. a parent and step-parent
e. other relatives
f. institution
g. other

88

Questions 21-25 are for women only. Men skip to CHILDHOOD INFORMATION
21. Are you currently pregnant?

22. How many times have you been pregnant, if any?

23. How many abortions have you had, if any?

24. How many miscarriages have you had, if any?

25. Have you ever given birth? If yes, what happened to the baby?

 

89

CHI LDHOOD INFORMATION

The following 22 questions are to be answered by circling one of the
numbers along the scale that is below each question. Each of the

scales is a line that has been divided into five numbered parts.

The phrase at the left of the scale defines the meaning of #1, while

the phrase at the right of the scale defines the meaning of #5. Parts
#2, #3, #4, can be assumed to cover the range between these two extremes.

For example, Question 1 below asks about how happy or sad your childhood
was. The scale below it goes from very haPPY. at one extreme, to very
sad, at the other. Circle #1 if you think your childhood was very
happy. Or, circle #2 if your childhood was more often happy than sad.
Circle #3 if it was equally happy and sad. Circle #4 if it was more
often sad than happy. And circle #5 if your childhood was very sad.

After you answer Question 1, go ahead and complete the other 21 questions
in a similar manner. Please note that the 22 questions below refer

to both your childhood and adolescence, even though they do not specify
this in many cases. Also, some of these questions may not be appli-
cable for individuals who only have one parent. If a question is not
applicable to you, indicate this by placing the abbreviations N.A.

along side that particular question.

1. How happy or sad was your childhood and adolescence?
very happy 1 / 2 / 3 [_4 / 5 very sad

2. How safe and secure, or unsafe and insecure did you feel as a child?
very safe & secure 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 very unsafe & insecure

 

3. Was your father bossy and strict, or easy and permissive with you
as you were growing up?
very bossy and strict l / 2 / 3 / 44/ 5 very easy and permissive

 

4. Was your mother bossy and strict, or easy and permissive with you
as you were growing up?
very bossy and strict 1 / 2 / 3 / 4y/ 5 very easy and permissive

 

5. How much help and guidance did your father offer you as you were
growing up?
a great deal 1 / 2 / 3 / 4q/ 5 very little

 

6. How much help and guidance did your mother offer you as you were
growing up?
a great deal 1 / 2_/ 3 / 4y/ 5 very little

 

7. How much freedom did your father allow you as you were growing up?
very little freedom 1 / 24/ 3y/ 44/ 5 complete freedom

 

8. How much freedom did your mother allow you as you were growing up?
very little freedom 19/ 2 / 3 / 441 5 complete freedom

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

90

How reliable was your father in taking care of your material and
emotional needs?

very unreliable l [,2 / 3 / 4 [_5 very reliable

 

How reliable was your mother in taking care of your material and
emotional needs?
very unreliable l / 2_Z_3 / 4 / 5 very reliable

 

How much did your father encourage you to be independent as you
were growing up?
very much 1 / 2 [7391»4 / 5 very little «

 

How much did your mother encourage you to be independent as you
were growing up? -
very much 14/ 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 very little

 

How often was your father angry with you as you were growing up?
very often 1 / 2g] 3 / 4 / 5 very rarely

 

How often was your mother angry with you as you were growing up?
very often 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 very rarely

 

How generous or stingy was your father with you?
very stingy l / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 very generous

 

How generous or stingy was your mother with you?
very stingy lg/ 2_[y3_[y4g/ 5 very generous

How often was your father demanding of you?
very often 1 / 2_/ 34/ 4 / 5 very rarely

 

How often was your mother demanding of you?
very often 1 / 2_/ 3y/ 4 / 5 very rarely

 

How warm and close, or cold and distant was your father?
very warm and close 1 Z_2 [y3 / 4 / 5 very cold and distant

How warm and close, or cold and distant was your mother?
very warm and close 1 / 2 / 3y/ 4 / 5 very cold and distant

How protective of you was your father?
not at all 1 / 2 [>3 / 4 / 5 very

 

How protective of you was your mother?
not at all 1 / 2 / 3 / 44/ 5 very

91

PARENTHOOD INVENTORY
Part I: Expectations

DIRECTIONS:

Every potential parent has certain expectations about what being a parent
is like. In order to find out just what you expect it would be like

to be a parent we have collected statements which describe the experi-
ences—-the thoughts and feelings-~of parents.

Below are a number of these statements. We want to know whether the
experience described in each statement is one which you expect would
happen to you if and when you were to become a parent. Actually, we
want to know whether the experience is one which you think would be
quite likely or not at all likely to happen to you.

To the left of each statement are four columns. Place a check mark in
the column that most accurately indicates how certain you are that the
experience described in the statement would happen to you. Do not skip
any statements.

 

 

DO NOT BASE YOUR JUDGMENTS ON WHAT YOU THINK OUGHT TO HAPPEN BUT ON
WHAT YOU PERSONALLY EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN DURING THE YEARS WHEN YOU
WOULD BE A PARENT.

In making judgments for some statements, it might be helpful if you

were to imagine yourself as a parent 5, 10, or even 15 years from now.
Then,try to imagine what the experience described in the statement would
be like for you. This may help you determine whether it is something
that would or would not happen to you.

Place a check here if the experience is one that would be VERY
UNLIKELY to happen to you.

2: Check here if it would be UNLIKELY to happen to you.

* 3: Check here if it would be LIKELY to happen to you.

. Check here if it would be VERY LIKELY to happen to you.

“H O O * O » *tH
IN O w »
Iw w s »
lb * *.O

Examples:
(_) (_) (_) (_) a. It is really a lot of fun thinking of names for the
baby.

If you think it is VERY UNLIKELY that you would have a
lot of fun thinking of names for the baby, place a check
in column 1. If you think it is UNLIKELY that you
would feel this way, place a check in column 2. If it
would be LIKELY, place a check in column 3. And if it
would be VERY LIKELY that you feel this way place a
check in column 4.

92

VERY UNLIKELY

* UNLIKELY
* * LIKELY
**
****
12.3.4

«—

(_) <_) (_> <_

(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) <_>

<_) <_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (__)

<_> (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) <_)

(_) (_> <_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) <_) (_) (_)

<_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_>

(_) (__) (_> (_)

<_) (_) (_) <_)

* VERY LIKELY

b. My friends are all excited about our new baby.

In this example you have to decide how likely or unlikely
it is that your friends would get excited if you were
actually to have a baby. Then you have to place a

check in the appropriate column.

1. The children make our home more lively.

2. I am always comparing my children to my friends'
children.

3. My parents, brothers, and sisters didn't respect
me until I had children.

4. The relationship between my spouse and me has been
closer during the nine months of pregnancy.

5. The successes of my children make me feel like a
success, too.

6. My children are forever asking me to do this or do
that for them.
7. Cuddling a baby gives me a wonderful sensation.

8. At the end of a day spent with the children I am
totally exhausted.

9. I feel powerful when my children do what I tell
them to.

10. I get nervous being responsible for the welfare of
the children.

11. When my spouse and I are not getting along, I am
thankful that the kids are around.

12. The most important part of our marriage is the
children.

13. Having and raising children has made me feel older
than I really am.

14. I feel good when my children admire and look up to me.

VERY UNLIKELY

<_) (_) <_> <_>

(__) (__) (___) (_)

<_) (_) (___) <_)
(___) (____) (__) (__)
(_) (_) (_) <_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) <_)
(_) <_) (_) <_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (__) (__)
(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) (_) <_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)

(__) (_) (_) (__)

<_) (__) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) <__)

* UNLIKELY
* * LIKELY
* * *

* * * *
1 Z 2 i

15.

16.

30.

31.

93

VERY LIKELY

My spouse seems to pay more attention to the children
than to me.

My preschooler does things in public that make me feel
ashamed.

I felt ashamed until the birth of our baby.
Watching our children grow and develop is very satisfying.
My children will take care of me when I am old and feeble.

Now that we have children, I don't have to worry so
much about my spouse's needs.

It is very difficult to find babysitters.

Because of the children my spouse and I do not spend
very much time alone with each other.

Sometimes I have this terrible fear that if we have
another child, he or she will be born defective.

I am ashamed if one of my kids does poorly in school.
Our children provide a basis for social contacts.
I love it when the baby clings to me.

Having and raising children has made me look older
than other people my age.

It is good to know that my children will carry on the
family when I die.

I get a real charge when my kids say things they have
heard me say.

It feels good when my children depend on me to take
care of them.

It is easier to find things to talk about with adults
who have children of their own than with adults who
don't have children.

Having children helps me make friends in the neighborhood.

94

VERY UNLIKELY

* UNLIKELY

* * LIKELY

* * * VERY LIKELY
* * '1' *

l .2. 2 fl

(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (__) <__) (_)
(__) (_) (_) (_)
(_) <_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) <_) (__) (_)

(_) <_) (_) (__)

(__) (_> (_) (_)

(_) <_) (_) (_)

(_) <_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_> (_)
(_> (_) (_) (_)

(_) (__) (_) (_)

<_) (_) (_) (_)

<_) (_) (__) (_)

(_) (_) (_> (_)

(__) <_) (_) (_)
(__) (_) (_) (_)

33.

49.

Being respected by my children makes me feel good.
My children tire me out emotionally.
The birth of our baby made me feel proud.

If we didn't have children we would be able to afford

more of the luxuries of life.

If one of my children doesn't follow in my occupation

I'll feel hurt.
I want my children to always feel safe and secure.
I love to play with my children.

I am afraid that one of my children will grow up to be
like me.

My children never listen to what I tell them to do.

I feel bad if one of my friends' children does something
better than one of my children.

We don't want any more children because it would lower
our standard of living.

Without my children I am a pretty lonely person.

Having children makes it difficult for me to pursue a
career.

When I am home with the kids I feel like an important person.

I like to talk to other parents about the failures of
my children.

Since become a parent, I don't have enough time to be
with my friends.

The children came along, unplanned, though not really
unexpected.

My children bring me more unhappiness than pleasure.

It makes me happy when my family tells me how much they
appreciate all the work I do for them.

VERY UNLIKELY

(__) (__) (_) (_)

(_) (__) (_) (_)

(_) <_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_> (_) (_) <_)

(_) (__) (_) <_)

(_) (_) (_) (__)
(_) (_) (_) <__)
(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)
(__) <_) (_) (_)

(_) <_) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (__)

<_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) (_> (_) <_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) <_) (_)
(__) (_) (_) (_)

* UNLIKELY
* * LIKELY
**
****
1224

52.

53.

57.

95

* VERY LIKELY

I want a large family so there will be children around
the house for a long time.

I am sometimes afraid that something terrible will happen
to our baby.

I am quite proud when one of my children does well in
school.

There are lots of times when my children are too noise
and active for me.

I resent it when my kids don't appreciate the amount of
work I do for them.

I feel so pleased about my part in bringing new life
into this world.

I really enjoy hugging my children.

When I am with my children I can feel like a child again.
I enjoy talking to other parents about my children.

I am lonely when I am not at home with my family.

Until I had children of my own, my parents did not
treat me like an adult.

It is a good feeling to know that my children need me to
protect them from dangerous situations.

I want my children to always be able to come to me for
help and guidance.

I want my children to always feel loved and cared for.
me.

My children generate a lot of enthusiasm and energy in

Since we had children my spouse and I have become less
intimate.

We are having children because my spouse demanded it.
It is fun to help my children grow and develop.

Our child is so adorable and cute.

96

VERY UNLIKELY

* UNLIKELY

* * LIKELY

* * * VERY LIKELY
****
1.2.24

(_)(_)(_)(:) 71. I enjoy being very busy with the children.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 72. If we have another child I won't feel that I am
getting old.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 73. When I die, my children will not forget me.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 74. I like to talk to other parents about the successes
of my children.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 75. A major topic of conversation between my spouse and
me is our children.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 76. Until we had children, the people at work didn't
respect me.

DIRECTIONS:

97

PARENTHOOD INVENTORY
Part II: Attitudes

For the following statements we want to know how you feel right now
about the opinion or belief being expressed. That is, we want to know
the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Place
a check in one of the four columns to the left of each statement to
indicate how you feel about the opinion being expressed.

l:
*
*
*
*
*
1

IN * fi » *tv

3
*
*
*
2

In » ».b

Place a check here if you DISAGREE VERY MUCH with the statement.
: Place a check here if you DISAGREESOMEWHAT with the statement.
Place a check here if you AGREE SOMEWHAT with the statement.

Place a check here if you AGREE VERY MUCH with the statement.

(_) (_) (_) (_) 77.

(_) <_) (_) (_) 78.

(_) (__) (_) (_)

(_) (_) (__) (_)

79.

80.

Having children will insure that our marriage lasts
a long time.

If you believe very strongly that fer your marriage
children will insure that it lasts a long time, then
place a check in column 4. This will indicate that
you agree very much with the statement. Or if, for
example,you believe that children will insure that
your marriage lasts a long time but you do not believe
this very strongly, then place a check in column 3,
indicating mild agreement with the statement. Etc.

Not wanting a pregnancy is an insufficient reason to
justify having an abortion.

Note that this item is different from the previous
one in that it is an impersonal statement of an
opinion. Please indicate whether you agree or dis-
agree with this opinion by placing a check in one of
the four columns to the left.

My parents keep pressuring us to give them grandchildren.

If your parent(s) do indeed keep pressuring you and
your spouse to have children, then indicate you
agree very much with the statement. If it seems

like they are pressuring you but you are not entirely
sure of this, of if they have only pressured you a
couple of times, then indicate that you agree only
somewhat with the statement. Etc.

I hope that having children will settle our marital
differences.

98

DISAGREE VERY MUCH

*

i

'k *

i * i 'k
l 2 2 fl
(__) (_) (_) (_)
(__) (_) <__) (_)
<_) (__) (_) <_)
<_) (_) (_) (_>
(_) (_) <_) (_)

(_) (_) <__) (__)

<_) (_) (__) (_)
<_) (_) <_) (_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) <_) (_)
<_) (__) (_) (_)
<_) (__) <_) (_)
<_) (_) <_) (_)

(_) (_) (_) (_)
(_) (_) (_) (_)

(_) <_) (__> (_)
(__) (_) (_) (_)

<__) (__) (___) (_)
(_) <_) (_) (_)

81.

98.

99.

(__) (_) (_) <_) 100.

DISAGREE SOMEWHAT
* AGREE SOMEWHAT
* AGREE VERY MUCH

We are getting close to the age at which the risk of
producing defective children becomes substantial.

I am too reckless a person to be involved with children.
Having children makes a woman look less attractive.

An onLychild.should have a brother or sister.

There are many exciting challenges in raising children.

I don't know the first thing about taking care of
children.

Having children proves that a man is sexually virile.

I get nauseous when I think of changing a baby's diaper.
I want children of both sexes.

I don't think I am capable of being a good parent.

It is a sign of God's blessing when children are born.
Only selfish married people never have children.

I don't know what I will do with my life if I do not
raise a family.

People with young children should not get divorced.

One of my most important goals in life is to be a good
and skillful parent.

I don't have the patience being a parent requires.

I want to be a better parent to my children than my
parents were to me.

Babies are lots of fun to play with.
You only become an adult when you have your own children.

Our marriage is boring without children.

99

DISAGREE VERY MUCH
DISAGREE SOMEWHAT
AGREE SOMEWHAT

* AGREE VERY MUCH
* *
2 5.
(_)(_)(_)(_) 101. If our friends all start having children, we will

want to have children, too.

(Hutu-Oat-

*
t
'k
3

(_)(_)(_)(_) 102. There are many new and exciting experiences that come
with having and raising children.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 103. A woman without children is seen as barren or infertile.

(_)(_)(_)(_) 104. It is wrong to have sex if you aren't trying to
conceive a child.

APPENDIX B

ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL TABLES

.soHumscwuum pow owuowuuoo ammo poo w>mn mcoHumHmuuou .Hw>wH Hoo. wnu um unmoHOHcon mH OH. O0 ucwHoHOHwoo coHumHouuoo m pom .Hw>mH
Ho. ecu um unmoHuHcmHm mH HH. mo ucwHonmwoo coHumHmuuou m .OOO n z :uHB .mwmmcucmumm :H pmumHH mH mcoHumHmuuoo mo :EsHoo comm New 2 .«
.N u mHmEmm .H n mHmz "Umpoo mm3 N mHLmHHm> .wuHmccoHummso ecu :H Hones: HHozu On pmuchHme mum meanum> oHnamuoon .

 

100

 

 

00 m0 mH OH! H0 00 v0 0H! O0 v0 O0! NO 00 m0! m0! 0H 0H! Ed
00 mo mo OH on! MN! VH HH! No NH! NH N0 O0 HH 00 50! 00 H
HO H0 H0 HH NN! mH! m0 OH! O0 H0 00 m0 b0 0N O0 OH! OH Om
mo Ho mo 00 OH! 00! 00 OH! m0 OH! HO O0 m0 N0 O0 m0 v0 mo:
00 00! N0! HN! ON Om N0! H0! v0 m0! OH! v0! MH! OH! H0 H0! O0! U
m0 H0 m0 mH! ON ON N0! NH! HH 00 MHI H0! NO! ON! 00 m0 m0! Um
HO m0! v0! HH! Hm ON N0! H0! mo N0 OH! HO! v0! OH! NO! 00! OH! Hmm
00 mo 00 O0! OH OH H0 H0! NO m0! NH! 00 NO! ON! OH! HO NH! 02
NO #0 O0 OH! Ov NO m0! mo 00 m0 NN! OOI NH! ON! 00! #0 OH! 200
mH HH! H0! 0M! mm mm OO! v0 v0 m0 NN! 00 HH! OH! m0! NH O0! <QH
v0! HH! NH! ON! NM Nm 00 MH m0 m0! mm! m0! 00! MN! OH! OH 0H! m2
m0 MO! 00 OH! H0 00 mo 00! m0 OH! m0! mo 90 m0! v0 m0! 0H mm
MH O0 OH H0 .00 H0 O0 OH! 00 OH! HO ON 00 OH v0 NH! HH 0:
00 00! m0! mH! MN HN N0! O0! MH m0 v0! OH v0! m0! v0! OH! HO! m3:
m0! NH O0 00! mo m0 MH $0! 00 m0! m0! v0 H0! 00! 00 v0! N0! 30m
O0 H0! H0 O0! ON wH m0! H0! HH N0! OH! #0! m0! 00! m0! m0 NH! m>
m0 v0! H0 HH! ON ON NH! no mo N0 0H! 00! N0! OH! m0! vH HH! 2mm
00 mo O0 OH! Hm Nm MO! 50 m0 N0 0H! O0! m0! 0H! 00! OH OH! 20
AVONV HOONV HvoNv Hhhmv Avovv HOOOV Hova HOHvV Hmovv Hmmmv Hmovv Hova Hova HMOHV HmmNV AoHvV HOva
vN . MN NN OH OH OH OH OH NH HH 0H 0 O m v N H

 

 

 

.OHm Gnu mo mconcoEHo 0:» 02m amoHanHm> UHEQmumon on» :mmBDOm mcoHumHmuuoo .ON ande

.GOHumscmuum

How Omuomuuoo cmmn no: m>ms mconmHmuuoo .Hm>mH H00. 0:» um unmoHMHQOHm mH OH. NO uanOHmmwoo
:oHHMkuHoo cam .Hm>mH Ho. 0:» pm uGMOHchmHm mH HH. mo ucmHOHmmmoo GOHHMHmuHoo m .OOOuz :qu ««
.muHmncoHummsv may CH umnfisc uHmnu On OwuchHmwO mum mmHAMHHm> OOOSUHHQU «

 

101

O0 O0! O0! H0! O0 O0 OH OH 0N O0 O0 H0! H0! HH 00 OH OH O0 OOO NN
O0 O0! HH! H0 NH O0 OH O0 OH NH HH O0! OH! O0 O0! OH OH OH OOO HN
N0! OH NO O0 OH! HO OH! OH! OH! OH! OH! O0 NH O0! 00 O0! O0! O0! OOO 0N
O0 N0 O0 00 O0! N0! O0! O0! NO! NO O0! OH O0 N0! HO O0! O0! O0! OOO OH
HO! N0 H0! N0! O0 O0 O0 N0 H0! H0 O0 O0 O0 0H O0! O0 H0! N0! NOO OH
NO! H0! O0! O0! N0 O0 O0! O0 O0! O0! O0 O0! O0 H0 00 H0 O0! H0 OOO OH
O0! O0! N0! 0H! O0 O0! O0 O0 O0 H0 HH O0! OH! 00 OH! O0 O0 00 OOO OH
O0! O0! O0! O0! O0! N0! O0 H0 N0 N0 O0 O0! NH! O0! OH! HH HH O0 H0O OH
HO! O0! HO! O0! H0! 00 N0 O0! O0! O0 O0 O0 O0! O0 O0! O0! N0! O0! OOO OH
O0! OH! HO! O0! O0! 00 O0 O0! O0! O0 O0 O0! O0! O0! 00 00 H0! NO! OOO OH
O0 OH OH OH NO 00 O0! O0 00 N0 O0! HN OH HH O0 N0! O0! O0! OOO NH
N0! O0 NO O0 O0 0H! O0! O0 O0 O0 HO OH HO! O0 00 O0! O0! O0! H0O HH
N0 NH! O0 O0! NH O0 NH OH O0 OH OH NO! O0! N0 O0! O0 OH HH OOO 0
O0! HH! O0 O0! O0 O0 O0 O0 00 MO O0 O0! O0! O0! O0! 00 O0 O0 OOO
O0! O0! O0 HH! N0 HO! O0 H0! H0! 00 H0 00 O0! O0 N0 H0 N0 00 OOO
O0! O0 O0 N0! O0! 00 O0 O0! O0! HH! O0! O0! O0 O0 O0 O0! O0! 00 OOO
O0! OH O0 O0 O0! O0 O0! N0! O0! HH! OH! OH OH O0 O0 O0! O0! O0! OOO
N0! O0 H0! 00 O0! O0! OH! O0! N0! O0! O0! HH O0 00 O0! O0! O0! O0! OOO
O0 N0! O0! O0! O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 N0 N0 O0 HO! OH O0 O0 O0 O0 OOO
O0 O0 O0 O0 H0! N0 O0 HO! O0! O0! O0! O0! O0 O0 NH O0 N0! O0 OOO
O0 OH O0 NH H0 O0 O0! 00 N0! N0! O0! OH O0 00 O0 H0! O0! O0! OOO
O0 HN O0 O0 O0! 00 O0! N0! O0! O0 0H! NH OH NO O0 O0! HH! O0! OHO

HNMQ‘LnOl‘mmv-i

 

 

md H 0m OQZ U DO Hmm m2 200 OOH MS mm 02 ODS 30m m> 2mm 20 z

 

 

«*Hm mcu mo mconcmEHD wzu cam «mmHQdHHm> OOOQUHHLU an» cmwzumn mCOHumHmuHOU .OO mHnma

102

Table 31. F—Ratios for the One-Way Analyses of Variance1
Between Four Nominal Biographic Variables2
and the Dimensions of the PI

 

 

 

9 13 19 20
(5,401) (6,402) (7,401) (4,404)

CN 1.476 1.120 .756 .767
FSN 2.546 1.611 .652 .675
VS 5.237** 1.542 1.079 .623
POW 4.084** .651 .374 1.194
MUS 4.457** 1.994 .824 .622
MD 1.759 .705 .903 1.380
SR 3.509* 1.376 2.483 .410
MR 17.760** 1.686 .829 1.071
LGA 4.996** .997 .777 .722
GCN 4.359** 1.728 .964 .716
NP 3.836* .804 .920 .604
RRI 4.776** .627 .500 .940
SC .578 .571 1.284 1.661
C 4.087** .728 .854 .295
MDS .556 1.225 1.165 .856
EC .865 2.016 .633 1.255
I 1.748 1.661 .985 1.571
AF .958 .223 .980 1.584

 

 

1Degrees of freedom for each column are listed in
parentheses.

2Biographic variables are designated by their number
in the questionnaire.

* Significant at the .01 level or better.
** Significant at the .001 level or better.

103

 

 

 

Table 32. Eta-Squared for the One-
Way Analyses of Variance
Between Four Nominal Bio-
graphic Variables1 and
the Dimensions of the PI
9 13 19 20
CN .02 .02 .Ol .01
FSN .03 .02 .01 .01
VS .06 .02 .02 .Ol
POW .05 .01 .01 .01
MUS .05 .03 .01 .01
MD .02 .01 .02 .01
SR .04 .02 .04 .00
MR .18 .02 .Ol .01
LGA .06 .01 .01 .01
GCN .05 .03 .02 .01
NP .05 .01 .02 .Ol
RRI .06 .01 .Ol .01
SC .01 .01 .02 .02
C .05 .01 .01 .00
MDS .01 .02 .02 .01
EC .01 .03 .Ol .01
I .02 .02 .02 .02
AF .01 .OO .02 .02

 

 

lBiographic variables are

designated by their number in the

questionnaire.

 

"‘lluiuilwlimwlllflIf