2011
Ivana Brown
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE:
CLASS AND RACE DIFFERENCES AMONG NEW MOTHERS
by
IVANA BROWN
A Dissertation submitted to the
Graduate School-New Brunswick
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Program in Sociology
written under the direction of
Professor Judith M. Gerson
and approved by
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
New Brunswick, New Jersey
January 2011
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
A Sociological Analysis of Maternal Ambivalence:
Class and Race Differences among New Mothers
By IVANA BROWN
Dissertation Director:
Professor Judith M. Gerson
The contradictions associated with motherhood have recently received attention in
both academic and popular literatures. My research combines exploratory qualitative
analysis of recently published motherhood memoirs with a quantitative analysis of a large
national random sample of new mothers from the Study on Early Child Care (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development) to explore the character and
prevalence of the conflicted attitudes mothers may have about motherhood.
To do so, I introduce the concept of maternal ambivalence: the coexistence of
positive and negative feelings about a woman’s position as a mother and her relationship
toward the institution of motherhood. I operationalize and measure ambivalence along
four dimensions: being good at mothering, identity, attachment, and combining work and
family, and compare ambivalence outcomes according to mothers’ social class and race.
ii
The findings demonstrate that ambivalence is a multidimensional phenomenon with
distinct presentations and pathways associated within different social groups. Although
mothers feel mostly positive about motherhood and their role as mothers, a significant
proportion of mothers experience ambivalent feelings about motherhood. OLS regression
analyses show that the most significant and consistent class and race differences occur
along identity ambivalence, with white middle-class mothers experiencing the highest
ambivalence. Mothers belonging to other social groups experience more maternal
ambivalence along attachment and combining work and family ambivalence, when,
respectively, black mothers and lower income mothers feel more ambivalent about their
motherhood experiences than white and higher income mothers. I find no class and race
differences among mothers in their ambivalence about being good at mothering. Other
covariates of class and race, such as maternal employment, social support, quality of
intimate relationships, and motherhood experience, are also significant predictors of
maternal ambivalence. The direction of direct and intervening effects varies by
ambivalence dimension studied.
In this research I examine the concept of maternal ambivalence in early motherhood
from the sociological perspective and provide new conceptual and methodological tools
that allow us to simultaneously capture contradictions of the motherhood experience. The
results demonstrate that women experience the transition to motherhood differently
according to their position at the intersection of race and class.
iii
Dedicated to Kedrick, Jacob and Natalie
iv
Acknowledgments
Similar to mothering, dissertation research and writing is only possible with the
help and support of many people. My dissertation is not an exception and I owe deep
gratitude to my family, friends and teachers for their support, guidance and contributions
to my project. I am fully responsible for all of its mistakes and imperfections.
This project began with my reading of maternal memoirs after my son was born. I
read these books to reflect on my own experiences as a mother and I believed that
personal narratives would provide me with perspectives on motherhood that were closer
to what I was experiencing than those in the more traditional advice books. After reading
several of these books, I noticed very similar narratives and themes, indicating that
although each child is unique, motherhood experiences are clearly not. I was surprised
that these authors repeatedly mentioned conflicted feelings associated with their
motherhood transition. As a sociologist, I could not help but notice an emerging pattern
indicating that what they described as private troubles contained elements of a much
broader public issue.
My first paper focusing on gender aspects of the motherhood transition in Judy
Gerson’s Sociology of Gender class led to the theme of ambivalence developed in this
dissertation, which expands far beyond the motherhood memoirs. As Chair of my
dissertation committee, Judy has wholeheartedly supported me and advised me through
every aspect of work on this project. She pushed me when I needed to be pushed, and
gave me space to catch up with life when I needed a break. She provided me with
intellectual guidance and challenged me to look beyond obvious explanations and
v
patterns. I am grateful to Judy for her patience and willingness to read and re-read drafts
of my chapters, question my assumptions, and tirelessly respond to any issues or
concerns. Judy has been a wonderful and invaluable mentor and I will always be grateful
for her support and belief in my abilities. Judy’s impact on this project has been
immense. Furthermore, as a friend, she has made an even stronger impact on me as a
person and on my development as a sociologist. I am very thankful for all she has done.
During my work on this dissertation, I have been fortunate to work with a
supportive, dedicated, and intelligent committee. Professors Debby Carr, Sarah
Rosenfield, Kristen Springer and Andrea O’Reilly each contributed significantly to the
success of this project and together provided the resources, advice and support necessary
for my completion of this dissertation.
I owe my deep gratitude to Debby Carr for her conceptual, methodological, and
statistical guidance on this project from its beginning all the way to the final draft. Debby
was always accessible when I needed guidance on how to progress further and I came to
admire her quick thinking, sociological acumen, sharp pen, and vast knowledge of the
literature. I am very grateful for all the thoughtful feedback and enormous amount of time
and energy Debby put into this project.
I am grateful to Sarah Rosenfield for not only supporting me through my research
and the writing of this dissertation, but also for her advice and guidance throughout the
course of my graduate studies. Sarah taught me one of the first Sociology courses I took
at Rutgers as a visiting student and I have been privileged to work under her mentorship
ever since. Sarah’s own work provided me with examples of creative theoretical and
methodological research, which I strive to emulate in my own work.
vi
I began working with Kristen Springer when I took her Research Methods class
while preparing for the quantitative and data analytic part of my dissertation. Kristen
helped me to navigate through the large data set and taught me how to structure my
statistical analysis, taking valuable time to understand my project. Kristen advised me on
both statistical and conceptual issues, challenging me to look for deeper interpretations
and meanings within my data. I am grateful to Kristen for her keen insights, thoughtful
questions, and practical solutions to many issues I encountered while working on this
project.
My work in the area of motherhood research would have probably taken on a very
different form had I not encountered Dr. Andrea O’Reilly’s amazing work in motherhood
studies. Andrea is an intellectual and organizational force in the field, and the journals
and books on motherhood that she has written and edited, as well as the conferences that
she has organized, have strongly shaped my knowledge of motherhood theories and
research. I am thus very grateful that Andrea found time to serve on my committee and
provide me with feedback and encouragement.
I would also like to thank the many Sociology faculty members who taught me
during my graduate studies and shaped my thinking as a sociologist. My sincere thanks
also to the Department’s leadership for their support while I completed my graduate
studies and to my graduate student colleagues who contributed to my intellectual growth
in numerous ways.
I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the support and
encouragement of my friends and family. My cohort colleagues – Karen Danna-Lynch,
Anna Looney, and King-To Yeung provided support, humor, and an intellectual
vii
community for me during my graduate school years. They offered comments on ideas,
drafts, and chapters, and always stood by me and pushed me to keep going and never give
up. I am very grateful for their continuous friendship.
I am also thankful to my mom-friends in New Jersey and Houston who formed a
much needed web of friendship and support outside school and family. Mothering does
not occur in a vacuum and I had the opportunity to experience first-hand the difference
that social support made in my own motherhood experience.
My family has been an amazing source of support and encouragement and I want
to express my deep gratitude for their unwavering belief in me and my undertakings. My
parents and my sister traveled across continents to help out when things got too busy and
relieved me of my parenting duties when I needed to focus on my work. I do not know
how I could have done this without their help and I am thankful for their unconditional
love and support.
My children grew from babies to grade-schoolers during my time in graduate
school and as I wrote this dissertation. They slowly began to understand that their
Mommy was not just home vacuuming (as they reported once in their preschool when
asked about my job), but that she also took classes and sometimes even taught students of
her own. Today they are proud and relieved that I am at the end of the journey that they
know by the abstract sounding name of “dissertation.” Thank you, Jacob and Natalie for
your sweet love and for cheering on me as I completed this project. Thank you for
teaching me so much about mothering and priorities in life.
Most of all, I would not have been able to persevere and write this dissertation
without the constant support and encouragement of my husband Kedrick, who stood by
viii
me with love and patience through all my years of graduate school. Kedrick believed in
my ability to complete this project and supported me in all the possible ways in my
pursuit. His own perseverance, motivation and ability to overcome obstacles were an
inspiration for me to keep going and reach my goal and I am deeply grateful for all of
this.
Portions of Chapter 1 were previously published as a chapter in the edited volume
Twenty-first Century Motherhood: Experience, Identity, Policy, Agency (edited by
Andrea O’Reilly) under the title “Ambivalence of the Motherhood Experience” and in the
article “Motherhood Memoirs” included in Encyclopedia of Motherhood (edited by
Andrea O’Reilly and Geoffrey J. Golson). Selections from Chapter 2 were also published
in the Encyclopedia of Motherhood in an article titled “Ambivalence, Maternal” and in an
article titled “Motherhood” in the Encyclopedia of the Life Course and Human
Development (edited by Deborah Carr, Robert Crosnoe, M. E. Hughes, and Amy Pienta).
The quantitative part of this project is based on analysis of the publicly available
data set from the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development supported by The
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
through a cooperative agreement (U10) that calls for scientific collaboration between the
grantees and NICHD staff.
ix
Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
ii
v
xi
xv
Introduction
1
1
Maternal Ambivalence in Popular Discourse: Analysis of Motherhood Memoirs
16
2
Ambivalence: Literature Review and Conceptualization of Maternal Ambivalence
58
3
Research Methods: Research Questions, Data, and Measures
114
4
Measuring Maternal Ambivalence: Methods, Measures, and Prevalence of
Ambivalence in the Sample
152
The Social Demography of Maternal Ambivalence: Mean Comparisons and Direct
Effects of Social Structural Characteristics on Ambivalence Outcomes
191
Effects of Strains and Resources on Maternal Ambivalence: Results of Multivariate
Analysis
227
Discussion and Conclusions: Toward A Sociological Understanding of Maternal
Ambivalence
274
5
6
7
Appendix A: Treatment of Missing Data
Appendix B: Overview of the Independent Variables and Their Coding
Appendix C: Complete Wording of the Instruments Measuring Independent
Variables
Appendix D: Descriptions and Distributions of the Original Instruments Measuring
Parenting Experiences
Appendix E: Categorical Measurement of Ambivalence: An Alternative Approach to
Ambivalence Measurement
Appendix F: Approximate Distributions of the Sample on the Positive and Negative
Subscales Measuring Parenting Experiences
Appendix G: Results of the OLS Regression of Parenting Stress and Maternal
Depression on Social Structural Variables and their Covariates
Bibliography
Curriculum Vitae
x
320
322
324
327
335
341
344
351
367
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Description of the books included in the qualitative analysis
Table 3.1. Means (standard deviations) and proportions for social structural and
demographic characteristics, motherhood experience, health, employment status,
relationship characteristics, and personality traits for the analytic sample and subsamples of first-time and repeat mothers
Table 3.2. Correlations between independent variables included in the models
(N=1,160)
Table 4.1. Theoretical results of the Similarity and Intensity of Components
ambivalence computation formula using 5-point positive and negative attitude scales:
A = (P+N)/2-|P -N| + 1
Table 4.2. Theoretical results of the Ratio of Weaker Component Squared to Stronger
Component ambivalence computation formula using 5-point positive and negative
attitude scales: A= W2/S
Table 4.3. Items and factor loadings of the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Sixmonth interview (N=1,160)
Table 4.4. Items and factor loadings of the negative items from the Parenting Stress
Index, Six-month interview (N=1,160)
Table 4.5. Items and factor loadings of the Combining Work and Family instrument,
Six-month interview (N=1,160)
Table 4.6. Overview and wording of positive and negative subscales used to create
maternal ambivalence scales
Table 4.7. Distributions of positive and negative parenting experiences scales (mean,
SD), correlations between positive and negative subscales, and distributions of
ambivalence scales in the sample (mean, SD)
Table 4.8. Correlations between dimensions of maternal ambivalence
Table 4.9. Correlations between newly constructed ambivalence scales and existing
parenting instruments and measures of well-being
Table 5.1. Mean comparisons of ambivalence outcomes according to social structural
characteristics and their combination and tests for the significance of the difference of
the means (N=1,160)
Table 5.2. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household
income, maternal education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence about being good
at mothering (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Table 5.3. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence
about being good at mothering (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors
reported)
Table 5.4. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household
income, maternal education, and occupation) predicting identity ambivalence (z-score,
unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
xi
55
151
152
183
183
184
185
184
187
189
189
190
212
214
215
216
Table 5.5. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting identity
ambivalence (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors)
Table 5.6. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household
income, maternal education, and occupation) predicting attachment ambivalence (zscore, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Table 5.7. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting attachment
ambivalence (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors)
Table 5.8. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household
income, maternal education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence about combining
work and family (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Table 5.9. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence
about combining work and family (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard
errors reported)
Table 5.10. OLS regression predicting ambivalence outcomes using race and social
class variables, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (unstandardized
coefficients and SE)
Table 5.11. OLS regression predicting ambivalence outcomes by class and race variable
(combination of race, income and education), controlling for age, marital status and
school attendance (unstandardized coefficients and SE)
Table 6.1. Results of the OLS regression of the direct relationships between covariate
and pathway variables and ambivalence outcomes
Table 6.2. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about being good at mothering by
composite race and social class categories, motherhood experience, employment status,
relationship resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status
and school attendance (N=1,160)
Table 6.3. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about being good at mothering by
social structural characteristics (race, income and education), motherhood experience,
employment status, relationship resources and personality characteristics, controlling
for age, marital status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Table 6.4. OLS regression predicting identity ambivalence by composite race and social
class categories, motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and
personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance
(N=1,160)
Table 6.5. OLS regression predicting identity ambivalence by social structural
characteristics (race, income and education), motherhood experience, employment
status, relationship resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital
status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Table 6.6. OLS regression predicting attachment ambivalence by composite race and
social class categories, motherhood experience, employment status, relationship
resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school
attendance (N=1,160)
xii
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
264
266
267
268
269
270
Table 6.7. OLS regression predicting attachment ambivalence by social structural
characteristics (race, income and education), motherhood experience, employment
status, relationship resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status
and school attendance (N=1,160)
Table 6.8. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about combining work and family by
composite race and social class categories, motherhood experience, employment status,
relationship resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status
and school attendance (N=728)
Table 6.9. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about combining work and family by
social structural characteristics (race, income and education), motherhood experience,
employment status, relationship resources and personality characteristics, controlling for
age, marital status and school attendance (N=728)
Table 7.1. Summary of the statistical significance and direction of the effects of the
predictors of ambivalence outcomes based on the multivariate regression analyses
Table A.1. Filters applied to original NICHD SECC data set in the process of creating
the analytic sample
Table A.2. Overview of the independent variables with missing values and their
handling in the NICHD SECC data. (6-months, N=1,183)
Table D.1. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Maternal Separation Anxiety
Scale, Six-Month Interview (N=1,160)
Table D.2. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Parenting Stress Index, SixMonth Interview (N=1,160)
Table D.3. Frequency Distributions and Means of Combining Work and Family
Instrument, Six-Month Interview (N=742)
Table E.1. Conceptual model of the categorical ambivalence measure, split by sample
median
Table E.2. Proportions of mothers in the sample according to the ambivalence
categories, split by sample median
Table E.3. Conceptual model of categorical ambivalence measure, split by sample
tertiles
Table E.4. Proportions of mothers in the sample according to ambivalence categories,
split by sample tertiles
Table F.1. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising
ambivalence about being good at mothering (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N=
1,160)
Table F.2. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising the
identity ambivalence (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N= 1,160)
Table F.3. Approximate distributions of positive and negative components comprising
the attachment ambivalence (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N= 1,160)
Table F.4. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising the
ambivalence about combining work and family (rounded frequencies and (%) of total,
N=728)
xiii
270
271
272
319
320
321
331
332
334
339
339
340
340
342
342
343
343
Table G.1. OLS regression models predicting Parenting Stress (PSI) and Maternal
Depression at 6-month using the ambivalence analytic models with composite social
structural variable (unstandardized coefficients, z-scores, N=1,160)
Table G.2. OLS regression models predicting Parenting Stress (PSI) and Maternal
Depression at 6-month using the ambivalence analytic models (unstandardized
coefficients, z-scores, N=1,160)
xiv
347
349
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Front covers of the analyzed motherhood memoirs
Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of direct and indirect effects of independent variables
on maternal ambivalence
Figure 4.1. Bi-dimensional evaluative space
Figure 4.2. Proportions of mothers identified as ambivalent according to the four
ambivalence outcomes
Figure 5.1. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and
education categories
Figure 5.2. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and
occupation prestige categories
Figure 5.3. Differences in maternal ambivalence according to race and household
income levels
xv
57
149
181
182
224
225
226
1
INTRODUCTION
Why Study Maternal Ambivalence?
When you have a new baby, what you get is a whole world; it’s a world filled with
gifts but also with losses. While the gifts new mothers receive are well
documented, the losses are often hidden. This is one truth that we are not told.
(Naomi Wolf, Misconceptions, 2001:7)
...we’re basically given two options for motherhood: good or bad. There is not a
lot of room for ambiguity. ... many moms find that discussing with others their
ambivalence about their children or their parenting abilities results only in
blame, guilt, and in some extreme cases a covert call to child protective services.
(Andrea Buchanan, Baby Shock, 2003:60-61)
I didn’t realize there existed a culture of guilt in motherhood or that some women
felt they had to choose between work and family until I was in my mid-twenties
(Lonnae O’Neal Parker, I’m Every Woman, 2005b:xvi)
Imagine a mother in the middle of the night singing a lullaby to a screaming baby.
Rock-a-bye baby, in the treetop
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
And down will come baby, cradle and all
While the melody is soothing and the mother is lovingly holding the baby, the words
express the contradictions between care and harm to the child (Taylor 1996; Parker
[1995] 2005a). According to psychotherapist Rozsika Parker, author of the treatise on
maternal ambivalence Torn in Two, this scene represents safely contained and creatively
expressed maternal resentment coexisting with the mother’s love for her baby (2005a:73).
While harming the child can be seen as the most extreme expression of maternal
2
negativity and such tragic instances attract news headlines and public attention, for many
women motherhood entails not only conventional images of joy and happiness, but also
conflicts, problems, negativity, and feelings of ambivalence about being a mother. Parker
(1997:3) suggests that most mothers experience such mixed feelings towards their child
and are able to overcome the negative feelings. Nevertheless, in the contemporary
culture, motherhood is largely associated with ultimate happiness and mixed or negative
maternal feelings are seen as temporary, problematic, and even deviant, stemming from a
mental illness with the potential to result in harm to the child.
Despite the generally polarized view of the motherhood as either good or bad, the
end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century have seen more attention given to
the conflicted side of motherhood in both popular culture and academic research. In
popular books, internet chat rooms and blogs, women are looking for ways to tell their
true stories of motherhood, which they do not see covered in the advice books by experts
or in parenting magazines. They admit to having mixed feelings about being mothers,
however, as I argue, their ambivalence about motherhood usually does not come from the
relationship with their child but rather from the social and cultural expectations of
mothering.
I began this project by reading maternal narratives published at the beginning of
the 21st century in the American book market. The authors of these memoirs describe a
combination of positive and negative feelings they experienced once they became
mothers. I became interested in understanding this coexistence of conflicted feelings and
attitudes. Since the motherhood experience is usually viewed as a one-sided experience
being either happy and joyful or uncommonly sad, I found the presence of simultaneous
3
conflicted attitudes particularly intriguing. In this work I attempt to conceptualize
maternal ambivalence, locate it in the motherhood discourse, and examine its
presentations and forms.
While psychologists focus on maternal ambivalence as a coexistence of feelings,
usually defined as love and hate toward the child, I follow the sociological tradition and
study maternal ambivalence as it is located in the social structural position of the mothers
and the social conditions and expectations they face. As most of the authors of the
motherhood memoirs are white, educated and professional women, I also explore
whether the experience of maternal ambivalence that they describe is limited to them or
can be generalized to mothers from other social backgrounds.
A SOCIOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
In this research I propose to study maternal ambivalence from a sociological
perspective and view maternal ambivalence as a largely socially and culturally based
phenomenon. I define maternal ambivalence as the coexistence of positive and negative
feelings and thoughts about a woman’s position as a mother and her relationship toward
the institution of motherhood. According to the earliest sociological writings on
ambivalence, ambivalence stems from conflicting social norms and expectations oriented
toward the same role in particular historical, social and cultural conditions (Merton
1976). As social actors, mothers may experience ambivalence because of conflicting
social norms and expectations about how to be a “good mother”. They may also find their
own expectations about motherhood in conflict with maternal reality, or experience a
4
conflict between the normative standards of motherhood and their own mothering
practices.
Since social and cultural expectations about mothers vary according their social
structural locations, the contradictions they face may also result in different forms of
maternal ambivalence. For example, middle-class mothers may be expected to devote
much of their time and energy to their children but also to remain women with their own
interests or careers, while working-class and poor mothers are expected to be
economically self-sufficient in providing for their children while keeping them safe and
being available to them (Hays 1996; Peskowitz 2005). Mothers may thus experience
ambivalence in a variety of forms.
Conflicting expectations and experiences, however, create not only personal
conflicts but result in more complex social structural contradictions “embedded in sets of
structured social relations (e.g., class, age, race, ethnicity and gender) through which
opportunities, rights, and privileges are differentially distributed” (Connidis and
McMullin 2002: 565; see also Pillemer and Luescher 2004). In other words, social actors
experience ambivalence differently according to their position in social structures and
according to the resources that they have available to resolve it.
In addition to the psychological understanding of maternal ambivalence, which
emerges from contradictions at the subjective level (cognitions, feelings, motivations),
sociologists can then contribute to the knowledge of maternal ambivalence by examining
contradictions at the level of social structures (statuses, roles and norms) and conflicts
arising from mothers’ social structural positions. While maternal ambivalence is usually
studied in the context of the relationship with the child and is characterized by the
5
coexisting feelings of love and hate, I develop a new perspective in my research.
Specifically, I see maternal ambivalence as rooted in the social pressures, constraints, and
expectations mothers experience in structurally and culturally specific settings. I focus on
social structural factors that produce maternal ambivalence and identify patterns of
similarity and difference among mothers with varied social characteristics and structural
positions. I thus view maternal ambivalence as socially and culturally produced, and
shaped by the circumstances that define women’s lives. This sociological understanding
of ambivalence, with the awareness of its psychological component, shapes my approach
to the analysis of maternal ambivalence in the studied memoirs.
MOTHERING AND MOTHERHOOD
My understanding of the social context of maternal ambivalence also builds on
the arguments of feminist writers on motherhood in the 1970s (Lazarre 1976; Rich [1976]
1986; Oakley 1979, among others) who extensively criticized the social and cultural
conditions of mothering that leave mothers solely responsible for the care of the child.
These writers pointed to the conflicted feelings they had about motherhood and the
mothering experience and “identified [an] oppressive and empowering dimension of
maternity,” writes O’Reilly (2004:2) in a collection of essays commemorating Adrienne
Rich. Rich’s classical work, Of Woman Born (1986 [1976]), brought to light negative and
conflicted aspects of motherhood existing in modern patriarchal society, in which
mothers are left to take care of their children in the isolation of nuclear family, without
sufficient structural support systems.
6
Rich and other feminist writers on motherhood felt guilty about the lack of
enjoyment they found in motherhood and child care and their ambivalent feelings about
being a mother. Writing about her life when she was a mother of young children and a
writer, but largely focusing on the social context of mothering, Rich thus distinguished
“between two meanings of motherhood, one superimposed on the other: the potential
relationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction - and to children; and the
institution – which aims at ensuring that that potential – and all women – remain under
male control” (O’Reilly 2004:13).
The distinction between mothering as an experience and practice, and motherhood
as a socially and culturally formed institution remains the basis of much of today’s
maternal theory and research (O’Reilly 2004:2). My analysis of maternal ambivalence
builds on this distinction and in my research I focus on the mother’s experience of the
motherhood role in particular social structural locations framed by particular social
expectations.
Rich’s language of patriarchy and oppression might seem too radical more than
thirty years after her work was first published, but as McCullough (2004:108) concludes
in the analysis of pregnancy and childcare manuals and select maternal writings, “the
ideological message of one of the United States’ best selling and most widely read
pregnancy guides suggests that Rich’s decades-old critique is far from obsolete.” The
achievements of the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s allowed many women
to enter the labor force and find fulfillment outside of home and over 60 percent of
married mothers with children under six years of age worked in 2008 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2009a). At the same time, cultural assumptions about the naturalness of
7
mothering to women and biological mothers in particular, combined with the
requirements of the “ideology of intensive mothering”, which requires mothers to be
central caregivers to their child, follow the advice of experts, always put the child’s needs
ahead of their own, be fully emotionally engaged with their children, and spend
significant time and financial resources for their benefit (Hays 1996:8), make the work of
mothering and the demands of motherhood even more demanding than ever before, and
potentially leading to more ambivalence among mothers. As the corporations and work
environment are still lagging in applications of family-friendly policies, for working
mothers specifically, conflicting demands of mothering and employment may further
contribute to maternal ambivalence.
While the expectations of intensive mothering are based on the model of white
middle-class mothers, the dominance of this ideology affects mothers across all social
layers (Hays 1996). Although mothers may differ in the ways in which they interpret the
expectations of intensive mothering, mothers belonging to different social categories
agree with its assumption that their children come first and dedicate themselves to
providing the best for them, even if their definitions of the “best” vary (Hays 1996:86,
Lareau 2003). At least for middle-class and upper middle-class women, child-centered
intensive mothering “[has become] the ultimate female Olympics” (Douglas and
Michaels 2004:6; O’Reilly 2010:207), creating conditions ripe for contradictions and
ambivalence.
8
MOTHERHOOD MEMOIRS AND THE AMBIVALENCE DISCOURSE
I suggest that the social pressures and requirements to mother in such an
emotionally, physically, financially intensive way as well as the necessity of combining
multiple roles and identities are among possible reasons for the resurgence of interest in
maternal experience and renewed interest in the conflicted nature of motherhood at the
beginning of the 21st century. Contradictory feelings and mixed emotions about being a
mother were clearly one of the main issues addressed by the authors of the motherhood
memoirs published between the years 2000 and 2003, which I analyze in Chapter 1.
Although the language of these memoirs is hardly as socially critical as that of the earlier
writers in the 1970s, these mothers/writers use their narratives to express their
ambivalence about being mothers. Most of their ambivalence stems from a lack of
preparation for motherhood, social isolation, loss of identity, or conflict between their
work and a child. Very little of their ambivalence is located in the relationship with the
child. In fact, it does not show in a combination of love and hate or aggression toward the
child but rather in surprise over the indifference they feel toward the child instead of the
intense love they expected. However, while their goal is to “unmask” the true face of
motherhood (Maushart 1999; Hewett 2006), they do not directly challenge the
constraining expectations of contemporary intensive motherhood (O’Reilly 2010).
The simultaneous appearance of these narratives documents a social trend and the
central place of ambivalence in the experiences of new mothers. It also points to a
perceived need for justification and explanation of the recent maternal experience among
the new generation of women, who generally grew up after the women’s rights
9
movement and assumed gender equality in both their work and family lives. I use the
motherhood memoirs as examples of discourse on motherhood in popular culture. These
descriptions of the motherhood experience combined with the academic research on
motherhood serve as my base for defining and operationalizing of maternal ambivalence.
RACE AND CLASS DIFFERENCES IN THE MOTHERHOOD EXPERIENCE
Most gender and family theorists agree that social class position and
race/ethnicity directly shape everyday activities associated with parenting, childrearing,
family life, and experiences of family roles (for examples of some of these studies see
e.g. Lareau 2003; Edin and Kefalas 2005; Lareau and Conley 2008). Quantitative
research on parenting stress and maternal depression shows that motherhood experiences
vary according to the mother’s socioeconomic status and race (Beck 2002; Benoit et al.
2007; Lee et al. 2009) and depictions of motherhood experiences in current qualitative
research reflect differences in the meaning of motherhood for mothers belonging to
different social groups. Maternal ambivalence is though depicted only in research on
maternal subjectivity, the transition to motherhood or work and family balance conducted
among white, middle-class mothers (see e.g. Lupton 2000, Blair-Loy 2003; Peskowitz
2005; Stone 2007). The published memoirs and essays I analyze are also written mostly
by white professional women, many of whom were writers before they had a child. This
raises questions about the applicability of these experiences to mothers of different social
backgrounds, which I address in this research.
10
Assumptions about higher levels of maternal ambivalence among white middleclass mothers are based on the advantages provided them by material privilege, life
opportunities, and available social support. The resources available to middle-class
women give them the freedom to choose when and whether they become mothers and
how they mother, while at the same time making them susceptible to social pressures of
how to be a “good mother”. After spending years advancing their education and
developing their careers, becoming a mother makes them re-evaluate their lives and
importance of their careers, families, and personal interests (Blair-Loy 2003; Peskowitz
2005, Stone 2007; Gerson 2009), and contributing to their feelings of ambivalence about
motherhood.
Black authors and theorists as well as studies of working-class and poor mothers
argue that motherhood experiences of other than white middle-class mothers are quite
different from those presented in the dominant discourse (Taylor 1996; Parker 2005b;
Edin and Kefalas 2005). Lonnae O’Neal Parker, a black journalist and author of I’m
Every Woman: Remixed Stories of Marriage, Motherhood, and Work (2005b) points out
to the lack of voices of black women in the discussion about motherhood and the
different experiences and goals white and black women have when they become mothers.
Unlike white middle-class mothers, black mothers, working class and poor mothers, and
mothers belonging to other disadvantaged groups were not drawn into the “mommy
wars,” an intense debate of whether to work or stay at home, since they had worked
outside of home for centuries. Black mothers also do not experience the same feelings of
guilt about not being sufficiently devoted to their children. According to Parker, such
11
feelings are for black mothers overshadowed by the history of women who labored under
harsh circumstances and were lucky to see their children briefly in the evenings.
Even today, many women do not have the luxury of choosing between work and
caring for their children, and work to fulfill their families’ and childrens’ basic needs,
making their lives in many respects different from the lives of authors of the memoirs.
Arguments can be thus made that lower class and poor mothers may feel even more
ambivalent about motherhood than middle class mothers because of the higher economic
distress they experience while caring for their children. Maternal ambivalence can also be
affected by the mother’s socioeconomic status. Varying social and cultural definitions of
what constitutes a “good mother” and varying sociocultural contexts thus produce distinct
experiences and meanings of motherhood as well as distinct forms of conflicted
normative expectations and experiences.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT
In my project I therefore examine the social structural conditions that affect
maternal ambivalence. While I use the analysis of the motherhood memoirs in the process
of conceptualization of maternal ambivalence, I move beyond discursive analysis to
explore differences in maternal ambivalence among mothers of different social
backgrounds. The main interest of my research is to evaluate whether maternal
ambivalence is more common among white middle-class mothers than among mothers of
other social backgrounds. To systematically examine these questions I utilize quantitative
analysis to measure differences in multiple types of maternal ambivalence across racial
12
and class divisions in a large sample of American mothers. In order to do so, I develop a
set of measures that tap into conceptually and statistically distinct dimensions of maternal
ambivalence.
The quantitative part of my analysis is based on examination of data collected by
the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development in the Study on Early
Child Care (NICHD SECC). Although this nation-wide study was conducted with the
goal of examining the effects of different child care arrangements on child outcomes, it
also contains detailed data on the experiences, values and beliefs of 1,364 mothers of
different social backgrounds from the time their children were born, thus making it an
excellent data source for study of the transition to motherhood and the motherhood
experience. I use the subset of the data containing interviews with white and black
mothers conducted when their children were six-months old. I provide a detailed
description of the data set and the instruments and variables included in the analysis in
Chapter 3.
As the data set does not include direct or indirect measures of maternal
ambivalence and there are no comparable sociological instruments available, the first
methodological step of the analysis is to create measures of maternal ambivalence.
Conceptually, I use the results of the content analysis of the motherhood memoirs
(Chapter 1) and the research literatures on ambivalence and motherhood (Chapter 2) to
define ambivalence and its components. I operationalize ambivalence along four
conceptually and statistically distinct dimensions as ambivalence about being good at
mothering, identity ambivalence, attachment ambivalence, and ambivalence about
combining work and family.
13
I use methods developed in attitudinal ambivalence research and used in studies
of intergenerational ambivalence to create four measures of maternal ambivalence based
on indicators of parenting experiences included in the data set. For each dimension, I
combine measures of positive and negative parenting experiences into a new measure, an
ambivalence scale incorporating a comparison of the similarity and intensity of the
positive and negative components. I describe this methodological process and analyze the
results of the ambivalence outcomes distributions in Chapter 4.
After establishing the prevalence of maternal ambivalence in the sample, I
analyze racial and social structural differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes first by
comparing mean differences between groups and then by regressing ambivalence scales
on race and social structural characteristics. As social structural predictors are correlated
with other social, cultural and interpersonal characteristics, which may have an
intervening effect on the relationship between social structural variables and maternal
ambivalence, I include these covariates in the next step of the analysis. I examine the
direct effects of these covariates on maternal ambivalence and look to identify factors
linking social structural characteristics and maternal ambivalence outcomes. Specifically,
I examine the effects of strains mothers experience (such as number of children, work
outside of home, health problems, and infant temperament) and relationship resources
they have available (social support and quality of the relationship with a partner) on the
relationship between social structural characteristics and maternal ambivalence according
to each ambivalence outcome. I present the results of direct effects of class and race on
maternal ambivalence in Chapters 5 and analyses including covariate factors in Chapter
6.
14
In summary, I find that maternal ambivalence is a multidimensional experience
with distinct presentations among mothers belonging to different social categories, thus
confirming social structural differences among mothers. While white middle-class
mothers are indeed more ambivalent about motherhood, this is only the case along the
identity ambivalence dimension, which is defined as a conflict between feelings of
restriction caused by mothering responsibilities and enjoyment of the presence of the
child. The presence of social structural differences along all ambivalence dimensions
confirms my understanding of maternal ambivalence as a socially based experience that
cannot be limited to a mother’s relationship with her child.
In the final chapter I summarize the results and discuss the effects of race, social
structural and other predictors across the four ambivalence outcomes. I consider the
conceptual and theoretical implications of studying maternal ambivalence and
ambivalence in general as a concept that moves traditional bimodal thinking in “eitheror” categories toward consideration of experiences that simultaneously include opposing
components.
PROJECT’S CONTRIBUTION
This project is thus significant both for research on the motherhood experience
and the conceptual study of sociological ambivalence. It seeks to contribute to the
growing body of work on sociological ambivalence, where the interest has until now been
primarily applied in the area of intergenerational research (see e.g. Pillemer and Luescher
2005) and focuses specifically on maternal ambivalence and its social predictors. I
15
approach the concept of ambivalence as a structurally based attribute of a person’s
perception of her role, social position, and identity, thus contributing to the theoretical
understanding of sociological ambivalence. From the methodological perspective, I
develop and test new measures assessing maternal ambivalence along four distinct
dimensions. Using the conceptual framework of ambivalence also allows me to
contribute to a better understanding of the maternal experience. Unlike the onedimensional instruments currently used to capture the mothering experience, such as
parenting stress or postnatal depression, the measures of ambivalence created and tested
in this project allow us to quantify the coexistence of positive and negative maternal
attitudes. This approach thus represents a conceptual and methodological innovation in
research on motherhood and mothering.
When women become mothers they have to resolve a variety of internal and
external conflicts, contradictions, and changes. Many mothers oscillate between positive
and negative feelings about motherhood. The concept of maternal ambivalence enables us
to understand and quantify the coexistence of such conflicted feelings by considering
both negative and positive aspects of mothers’ attitudes about motherhood
simultaneously. I begin this analysis with a discussion of the presentations of maternal
ambivalence narratives in popular literature.
16
CHAPTER ONE
Maternal Ambivalence in Popular Discourse:
Analysis of Motherhood Memoirs
When I first left the hospital with my baby, looking at the world for the first time
as a mother, I asked myself, ‘Why does no one really talk about this?’ As I
grappled with my own experience of mother shock I realized why: it is difficult to
discuss the difficulties of mothering without seeming ungrateful, uncaring,
unappreciative, or unbalanced. It is difficult to contradict the conventional
assumption that motherhood is joyous and uncomplicated. ... Having a baby
takes a matter of hours; becoming a mother is a much more gradual transition.
(Andrea Buchanan, Baby Shock, 2003:xix)
It was one thing to experience a loss of self in a prefeminist culture that at least
assigned a positive status to motherhood itself; it is very different to lose a part of
one’s very sense of self to motherhood in a world that often seems to have little
time, patience or appreciation for motherhood or parenting. This is especially
hard for women who have struggled to be independent and self-reliant. (Naomi
Wolf, Misconceptons, 2001:8)
Being a mother is conventionally associated with happiness. For many mothers,
however, mothering is filled with conflict, anxiety and ambivalence. Yet maternal
ambivalence often remains unacknowledged or is mentioned only in a light, humorous
context. Often, it is seen as deviant or problematic, leading to further negative outcomes
for both mother and her child (Parker [1995] 2005a; Hollway and Featherstone 1997).
This attitude somewhat changed toward the end of the 1990s and at the beginning of the
21st century, when ambivalence about motherhood became quite widely explored in
popular culture. I use the analysis of motherhood experience and representations of
maternal ambivalence in published maternal narratives, in particular motherhood
17
memoirs, as a window into expanding public discourse on motherhood and a way to
frame presentation of maternal ambivalence among contemporary mothers.
While the accounts presented in the analyzed books are clearly not representative
of the experiences of all American mothers, their almost simultaneous appearance on the
book market draws our attention to women’s voice in the discussion about maternal
experience and the enactment of the motherhood role. Through their writing, the authors
of the memoirs help to define acceptable forms of maternal ambivalence for their readers.
Authors of these books focus on transcribing their personal experiences of pregnancy,
transition to motherhood and adjustment to the new role of a mother that had to fit into
their already existing set of social roles. For many of these writers, pregnancy and
motherhood becomes a transformative force in their lives, for which they are largely
unprepared. Ambivalence about motherhood and themselves as mothers thus become a
common thread connecting these memoirs.
I begin my analysis of maternal ambivalence with the exploration of the topic in
the popular literature to identify the presence and forms of maternal ambivalence. This
exploratory analysis serves as a first step toward conceptualization of maternal
ambivalence and its quantitative analysis in the second part of this project. Before I
discuss the results of the analysis of the memoirs, I briefly compare the current wave of
motherhood memoirs with earlier writing on motherhood and discuss the significance of
memoirs as a source of data in sociological research. This discussion is important for our
understanding of the authors’ motivations to share their motherhood experiences with the
public audience in light of their ambivalent feelings about motherhood.
18
ANALYSIS OF MOTHERHOOD MEMOIRS
The end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century saw a sharp increase in
the interest in the motherhood experience in both popular and academic literature. Indeed,
over eight hundred books on motherhood were published in the U.S. book market in the
last two decades of the 20th century (Douglas and Michaels 2004:8). These books include
manuals, advice books, parenting books, and academic analyses, as well as books
capturing the writers’ own experiences with motherhood. The non-fiction, first person
narratives are usually referred to as “motherhood memoirs,” “mommy memoirs,” or, even
shorter, “momoirs.” Motherhood memoirs are sometimes included within the “mommy
lit” genre, i.e., fiction and nonfiction writing focused on characters of mothers, their
motherhood experiences and opinions about mothering in contemporary society from the
perspective of mothers as writers and aimed at mothers as readers (Hewett 2006).
In addition to officially published motherhood memoirs, the space for the personal
discussion of the motherhood experiences has more recently opened up on internet blogs
and in chat rooms. In these anonymous spaces, mothers can share their unedited attitudes
and feelings about motherhood and receive immediate feedback and comments from
other members. Mothers can receive support and help with issues they may be dealing
with but may also experience judgment of other mothers and an expectation to mother
according to social norms. In comparison to the online forums, books represent highly
formalized narratives with one-directional communication from the author to the readers
and create a more conventional representation of the motherhood experience. However,
some of the authors of the books included in my analysis maintain their own blogs and
19
internet magazines, and bridge the gap between traditional publishing and open internet
communication. While the analysis of the online discourse of motherhood experience
would without doubt bring additional insights into my project, it is for now beyond its
current scope.
In this chapter I focus on the analysis of “mommy memoirs,” a sub-category of
the “mommy lit” that includes non-fictional essays and memoirs. I analyze nine books
published on the American book market between the years 2000 and 2003 to capture the
essence of motherhood experiences on the verge of the new century. The analyzed books
and their brief descriptions are listed in Table 1.1. I selected the analyzed titles over a two
year period using repeated keyword searches of the on-line bookstores (Amazon.com and
Barnes&Noble.com). I included only books that described the authors’ own motherhood
experiences without offering explicit advice to their readers. While the selected books
differ in length, structure, and method of presentation, their authors mostly write about
pregnancy and the early years of mothering (although some include longer time spans).
Unlike many existing sociological and other academic studies of motherhood, these
books are aimed at wide audiences, written in an accessible language, and emphasize the
authors’ subjectivity and experience.
---Figure 1.1 here---
---Table 1.1 here---
20
Although memoirs and essays I analyze feature the maternal experiences of
women from somewhat varied social backgrounds, with diverse expectations about
motherhood, a majority of the authors are white, college-educated women, giving the
genre specific race and class locations. The only memoir penned solely by an African
American woman was published after the time period selected for the analysis in this
project. Lonnae O’Neal Parker wrote her memoir titled I’m Every Woman: Remixed
Stories of Marriage, Motherhood, and Work (2005b) as a reaction to the lack of presence
of black mothers’ experiences in the popular literature. Parker found it difficult to
connect with the guilt and ambivalence presented in the memoirs written by white
women and felt distant from the debates about motherhood specific to white mothers.
She finds it surprising that the literature on working mothers lacks portrayals and
experiences of black women and hopes “to reclaim a space for black women’s
experience” (2005b:xix):
It is ironic that the voices of black women have not penetrated media and popular
culture discussions of family and work/life balance in a more meaningful way.
After all, significant numbers of middle-class black women have been struggling
to have it all since before their mainstream counterparts even won the vote.
(2005:xvi)
Although Parker’s book is not fully focused on motherhood as the rest of the memoirs
included in this analysis, I turn to it to illustrate some of the differences in the
motherhood experience and ambivalence about motherhood between black and white
women.
Overall, the authors of motherhood memoirs promise their readers refreshing and
honest views on motherhood and the adjustments that women have to make when taking
on this role, a signature trait of the mommy lit genre (Hewett 2006:121).Upon reading
21
these books it became clear to me that an honest view of motherhood meant including
both the joyful and the painful experiences associated with mothering. Ambivalent
feelings about motherhood are thus quite central to these writings. As the issue of
maternal ambivalence is not featured prominently in motherhood advice books and our
society sees maternal ambivalence as problematic (Parker [1995] 2005a; Hollway and
Featherstone 1997), I found these public acknowledgements of maternal ambivalence
particularly intriguing. The admission of ambivalence by several authors within a
relatively short period come also within the socio-cultural context of the high
expectations placed on contemporary mothers (Hays 1996) and the idealization of the
motherhood experience (Douglas and Michaels 2004), which keeps conflicted and
negative aspects of motherhood hidden behind the mask (Maushart 1999). The mask of
motherhood keeps the maternal ambivalence a secret that most women do not usually
reveal until later on in life (Maushart 1999:111).
Motherhood Memoir: A Genre
The memoir genre is characterized as a more personal, less formal life-writing
than autobiography. Memoirs typically focus on personal knowledge and personal history
without attempting to represent an author’s complete history. This allows the writer to
focus on a limited part of her life, usually a particularly intense or significant event.
Becoming a mother and raising a child create significant and life-changing experiences
and mothers-writers use their memoirs to account for past experiences while negotiating
current identities and practices. Memoirs’ confessional form also helps to make private,
hidden events, public. The memoir genre thus offers writers a way to contextualize
22
private experiences within social and cultural conditions. In this way, the genre is well
suited to represent maternal experience.
Memoirs are often regarded as a gender-specific genre (Buss 2003). In the
analysis of women’s life-writing, Buss defines memoirs as life-writing focused on
personal knowledge and personal history, without attempts to represent a complete
history (2003:2). For women, the memoirs’ confessional form and discussion of private,
forbidden knowledge, shameful secret or guilt into public knowledge are particularly
important (2002:12). Memoirs thus allow for establishing connections between the
private and the public, the personal and the political. In revising cultural contexts to
include their experience, memoir writers bring their femininity to bear on the previously
male-gendered narratives of self and culture (Buss 2002:3). Buss argues that as a genre
stemming directly from personal lives and experiences and offering an alternative to the
dominant historical interpretations, memoirs better represent the women’s gendered
writing than autobiographies.
Following this understanding, the term memoir well describes the narratives
included in this study. The authors of these narratives use their writing to “interrogate and
repossess the culture” (Buss 2002:2) and to perform and define their selves as they write
their texts to deal with a trauma or dramatic event (Buss 2002:21-23), in this case
transitioning to and managing motherhood.
History of Motherhood Memoirs
While mothers-writers have been writing poetry and fiction based on their
motherhood experiences since premodern times, the first personal narratives, considered
23
as predecessors of the current motherhood memoirs, appeared in the 1950s. Literary
theorists (see, e.g., Horn 2003; Hewett 2006) remind us that descriptions of motherhood
through the lens of humor originated in the first wave of the non-fictional motherhood
writing. Authors such as Erma Bombeck, Shirley Jackson, Jean Kerr and others wrote
essays, columns and books featuring their experiences as middle-class suburban
housewives and mothers – in that order of importance – to connect with their readers.
They used humor and satire, stemming from everyday life situations, not only to describe
their own lives, but also to probe and uncover the dissatisfaction and the lack of
fulfillment many women felt in these roles. Their writing thus gained popularity and mass
appeal.
Motherhood memoirs took a serious and socially critical tone in the 1970s. The
second wave of feminist movement often took an ambivalent approach toward
motherhood, seeing it as a source of either women’s power or oppression. Feminist
writers, drawing on their personal experiences with mothering, used motherhood
memoirs to criticize the social conditions of mothering in a patriarchal society and the
isolation of mothers in the nuclear family. Being a mother politicized the memoir writers
of this era who wrote about their experience of motherhood in order to contribute to
social change and break the silence about the realities and challenges of motherhood
(Hewett 2006). These authors expressed deeply conflicted feelings about motherhood, an
institution they believed was restricted and controlled by the patriarchal order of the
society, but found joy in the relationships with their children. They also reflected on the
identity conflicts they experienced as being both mothers and writers, torn between their
passion for writing and their children. Books written by Adrienne Rich (Of Woman Born,
24
1976), Ann Oakley (Becoming a Mother, 1978), and Jane Lazarre (Mother Knot, 1976)
thus focus more on the social, historical, and political aspects of mothering than the dayto-day descriptions of the authors’ mothering moments. Although this generation of
writers is sometimes criticized for being focused narrowly on the struggles of middleclass white women, today these memoirs represent essential readings for motherhood
studies.
The current wave of the motherhood memoirs began almost twenty years later
with the publication of Anne Lamott’s Operating Instructions (1993). This book became
a national bestseller and sensation because of its honest and humorous description of the
trials of motherhood Lamott experienced. Her success opened the space and gave
direction to a new generation of writers on motherhood and the genre only continued to
expand in the following decade. While the motherhood memoirs are sometimes included
in the category of light – as opposed to serious – women’s literature referred to as “chick
lit” or “mommy lit,” the generation of motherhood memoir writers also builds on the
socially critical tradition of motherhood narratives put down by their predecessors. Many
modern memoirs continue to combine humor with social criticism aimed at conditions of
mothering. In most cases, however, their writing is less politically radical and more
personal than that of earlier writers (O’Reilly 2010).
In addition to the books analyzed here, the motherhood memoirs at the turn of the
21st century period include works by Louise Erdrich (The Bluejay's Dance: A Birth Year,
1995); Anne Roiphe (Fruitful: Living The Contradictions: A Memoir of Modern
Motherhood, 1997); Ayun Halliday (The Big Rumpus: A Mother’s Tale from the
Trenches, 2002), Adrienne Martini (Hillbilly Gothic: A Memoir of Madness and
25
Motherhood, 2006); Rebecca Walker (Baby Love, 2007); as well as several books and
edited volumes by Ariel Gore (e.g. The Hip Mama Survival Guide: Advice from the
Trenches, 1998; The Essential Hip Mama, The Mother Trip: Hip Mama’s Guide to
Staying Sane in the Chaos of Motherhood, 2000).
As was the case in the previous generations of writers, most of the memoirs are
written by married, white, middle-class, professional, and educated women. Compared to
the earlier waves of maternal writing, however, some of the current memoirs (or
autobiographic essays) are written by minority writers and women who are poor, single,
very young, or who otherwise do not fit the picture of mainstream motherhood. While
many women were writing before they became mothers (e.g. Wolf, Slater, Belkin, and
Cheever), for others motherhood represented an opportunity to express themselves as
writers for the first time (e.g. Buchanan, Parker, Gore).
The motherhood memoirs vary in their length, focus, structure, and method of
presentation. They range from chronological accounts of the motherhood years, to diarytype descriptions of the author’s first year as a mother, to collections of essays connected
by the motherhood experience. What they usually have in common is that besides
celebrating mothering, they come to a realization that the adjustment to motherhood is
not always smooth and motherhood is not as blissful as the authors had expected. The
current generation of mothers-writers thus uses the memoir form to reflect on their
identity and role of a mother in the contemporary society and conflicted decisions they
have to make about having children, raising them, gender equality in their marriages, and
continuing their careers. Many authors encounter unexpected problems on their journey
through motherhood: from infertility, difficult pregnancies to colicky babies, identity
26
issues and post-partum depression, or alcoholism and they include them in their
narratives. This openness is possibly linked to a larger social tolerance toward uncovering
personal and taboo issues compared to the previous generations of motherhood writers
(Hewett 2006).
Writing thus provides women with a space for reflection and response to the
current conditions and expectations of motherhood. Indeed, contemporary motherswriters often use their memoirs to question the cultural definitions and practices related to
motherhood. Like the writers in the 1970s, some find that motherhood politicized them
and use their memoirs to suggest alternative arrangements and possibilities of mothering,
using their writing as a tool for social change and discussion about motherhood.
Compared to previous generations, this discussion is today more open than ever.
Contemporary authors communicate with their readers not only through their
books but also through internet chats and blogs. These additional communication venues
changed the previous one-way reflection of the authors into a direct two-way discussion
between authors and readers. This increases the accessibility of the authors while
simultaneously presenting their experience as real and authentic. Motherhood memoirs
thus not only represent but also contribute to defining and constructing the motherhood
experience of each generation and thus serve as a good source for sociological
exploration of maternal experience.
Memoirs as Sociological Accounts
The books included in this analysis represent varying forms of autobiographical
narratives from a limited period in the writers’ lives. I use the overarching term
27
“memoir,” although some of the books were written as essays, short stories, diaries, or
notes. Without focusing on the literary distinctions among these forms I suggest that from
the sociological perspective they can be all considered and analyzed as accounts of social
actors.
According to a review article by Orbuch (1997), theory and use of personal
accounts have long had their place in sociology. Accounts, stories and narratives are
understood and used as “ways in which people organize views of themselves, of others,
and of their social world” (Orbuch 1997:455). Orbuch defines accounts as “statements
made by one social actor to another to explain behaviors that are unanticipated or
deviant” (based on Scott and Lyman 1968) and story-like interpretations and explanations
(1997:456) that give actors more control and understanding of their environment, allow
them to cope with stressful events, produce closure, provide a sense of hope for the
future, and help establish order in daily relational experiences (1997: 459). This
perspective can help us to better understand some of the motivations behind the writing
of the motherhood memoirs.
Distinguishing from everyday accounts, Zussman (2000) brings attention to
autobiographic narratives that focus on a wider range of episodes and “stories about
lives” (2000:5). Unlike everyday accounts, autobiographical narratives are marked by
special occasions and Zussman introduces the term autobiographic occasions to describe
narratives that their authors are encouraged or required to provide at a significant point of
their lives. These can be events such as job or credit application, official confessions,
diary writing or undergoing therapies, in which social actors are required to provide
accounts of themselves and their lives. Becoming a mother can be marked as one of these
28
autobiographic occasions, during which the authors feel that reconstitution of their selves
and transition from one period of their lives to another calls for almost therapeutic
accounts; however, they present them in the form of literary writing.
Autobiographies, and as such also motherhood memoirs, are highly formalized,
although not standardized accounts that can be used for sociological research. Based on
the theories of accounts, I argue that while their motivations are not always stated, the
authors of motherhood memoirs use their writing to justify and improve their social
position and status, and explain their actions, feelings and situations, which at a certain
point they consider problematic. They also use their writings to deal with a major life
event (such as the birth of a child, becoming a parent), which they perceive as highly
dramatic, its progress unanticipated, and overall very significant for their future lives.
Undergoing a life transition, in this case becoming a mother, the writers also use these
accounts to negotiate and present their new identities. These books thus become part of
the social interaction processes, in which the authors participate.
Autobiographical narratives do not appear in the social vacuum but are socially
structured (Zussman 2000). On one hand, their reading provides us with the knowledge
about social structures, conditions and institutions, in which they had their origins. On the
other hand, social structures also shape the way these narratives are presented as they
reduce individual agency and freedom of social actors in acting but also in the narrative
presentation (2000:6). According to this understanding, the authors of motherhood
memoirs become mothers and engage in mothering practices within specific structural
conditions given by current definitions and ideologies of motherhood, family, and gender
29
(to mention just some of the structural restraints) and the limiting interests of other
involved social actors, and construct their accounts under these constraints.
Further, the presentation of the accounts published as motherhood memoirs is
constrained and shaped by the demands of the publishers and the interests of the audience
the publishers look to satisfy. While the authors may be motivated in their writing by
uncovering the reality of motherhood, in the marketplace the publishers look for
materials that would be successful with potential readers and sell books well. Providing
space for accounts that challenge existing norms and expectations of motherhood then
suggests a need among readers (most likely mothers) to connect and compare their own
experiences of mothering with the experiences of others. The authors thus use the space
they are provided and their public voice to challenge the existing constraints and structure
and promote change in existing practices.
Motherhood memoirs are also significant for bringing women’s voices and
accounts into the center of the discussion on motherhood. Women’s personal accounts
and narratives represent an essential source of information for feminist research, since
they directly present and interpret women’s life experiences (Personal Narratives Group
(PNG) 1989). Therefore, they also serve as “sources for the exploration of the process of
gendered self-identity” and an “entry point for examining the interaction between the
individual and society in the context of gender” (PNG 1989:5). Motherhood as a
gendered institution is well-positioned for study based on personal accounts as it connects
the personal and public of women’s gendered lives.
The concurrent appearance of a large number of motherhood narratives in the
non-fictional popular literature thus provides a great opportunity to include women’s
30
voices and direct maternal experiences in a sociological study. These books create an
important space for articulation of motherhood stories and motherhood experiences that
can be then applied to quantitative research.
REPRESENTATIONS OF MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE IN MOTHERHOOD
MEMOIRS
Although ambivalence takes different forms for different authors, several
common themes emerge in the analyzed narratives. The themes I present were defined
through a “grounded theory” approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967) and the analyzed issues
were reflected in the majority of the books studied. Among the most common themes are
divergences between expectations and reality of motherhood and mothers’ struggle with
being good mothers, formation of maternal identity, difficulties in combining work and
child care, and mothering according to the prevailing social expectations. This analysis
informs my conceptualization and operationalization of ambivalence in the quantitative
part of this research.
Ambivalence about Being a Mother: Transition to Motherhood
The most common thread among the analyzed memoirs is the dramatic and lifechanging nature of the transition to motherhood; surprise caused by its overwhelming
character, the unexpected ambivalence that most authors feel about their new role of a
mother, and identity conflicts between the motherhood self and their “pre-baby” identity.
According to the recent sociological research, many new mothers experience motherhood
31
in this way (McMahon 1995:132-135; Lupton 2000; Miller 2007). Maternal memoirs
bring these conflicted feelings about motherhood to the forefront. The titles of the
analyzed books suggest that most of their authors were not so overwhelmed by love and
joy over their new babies that they would not realize the difficulties of being a new
mother. In fact, just the opposite occurred. The books that focus on the transition to
motherhood talk about “shock” (Buchanan 2003), “misconceptions” and “lies” (Wolf
2001), and the “not-so-perfect life” (Fox 2003); writers with older children then use
words such as “difficult times” (Cheever 2001) and “unbalanced” mom (Belkin 2002).
Brockenbrough (2002) warns her readers in the title “It can happen to you!”
For many authors, their motherhood experience was quite different from what
they expected. Once they became mothers and the mask of motherhood was uncovered
(Maushart 1999), the reality they faced was very different from their expectations
(Lupton 2000; Miller 2007). Divergences between expectations and reality contributed to
the ambivalence about their new role. While not all of their expectations were positive
and many approached motherhood with doubts and misgivings (Wolf 2001; Slater 2002),
their new life made them feel confused, surprised, and overwhelmed. Buchanan describes
her feelings shortly after her daughter was born as very uncertain and different than ever
before:
...it seemed that my entire world had shifted in the course of one exhausting day,
joyous, eventful day ... I waited for that mythical maternal instinct to kick in,
waited for someone – a mother, my mother, any mother – to acknowledge that
yes, everything does feel different and new and difficult and that’s okay. (2003:
xii)
For some, the motherhood experience fulfills their worries and ambiguities about
becoming a mother in the first place. Wolf (2001), for example, noticed that while she
32
enjoys the presence of her baby, the motherhood experience dramatically and mostly
negatively changed her life. She called the third part of her book, in which she described
the first year after her daughter’s birth, “New Life” and described it as follows:
My life as a mother had become just what I feared. My delight in our child was
absolute. At the same time I experienced a tightening of the world’s
circumference; I was chained to the couch nursing; I was stunned with fatigue; I
was a vast primate of the flesh. I had become all the things I was most afraid I
would be. Also, we had moved to the suburbs. (2001:208)
Most of the authors agree that life with a baby becomes dramatically different for
new parents, and mostly for mothers. Brockenbrough (2002) describes some of the
changes in her life this way:
When you have a baby, you trade your nice and orderly life for one that is chaos
and kisses. You can’t hurry, because babies have schedules of their own. You
can’t rest, for the very same reason. ... You don’t plan for the life you want to
have. You live it, as best as you can. And even if you’re not going fast, it still
feels like you’ve taken flight. (2002:201)
Cheever (2001) points to a strong dividing line she sees in her life before and after
having children: “The birth of my daughter divided my life into a one-dimensional
‘before’ and a rich, deeper, and human ‘after’” (2001:18). Having children also made her
realize that regardless of a person’s social position, parenting “is the most exhilarating
and extraordinarily difficult task we will ever face” (2001:25).
While a majority of the writers tried to prepare for motherhood, most of them
found their preparations insufficient (Lupton 2000; Miller 2007:351). The main source of
their information seems to be the pregnancy and childcare guides, which provided the
necessary facts. Most writers though object to their patronizing tone and approach,
distrust towards mother’s intuition, and even contradictory advice. After reading often
numerous of these guides, they still found the transition to motherhood dramatic and
33
shocking. Expressing frustration over the inability to prepare for motherhood, Slater
(2002) asked a few days after her daughter was born:
What does motherhood mean? So far, all I can say is this. Whatever you plan
for, it will not happen. You plan for your labor but the baby is breach. You plan
to call her Sara but she comes out all Kate. ... I planned for a crisis and instead I
get calmness ... (2002:146)
Some of the ambivalence thus stems the surprise by the intense and overwhelming
nature of the motherhood transition. Once they became mothers, these mostly educated,
professional women realized that motherhood is different from their expectations.
Cultural images of idealized motherhood contribute to this divergence between
expectations and reality and contribute to the ambivalence experienced by new mothers
(Lupton 2000; Parker 2005).
In the analyzed books, the authors focus on different aspects of their personal
transition to motherhood. There are two main tendencies in these descriptions. While
some of the authors become mothers immediately after the baby is born, acquiring the
motherhood identity and developing a bond with the baby takes time for others (Miller
2007). These latter women often go through a period of uncertainty and ambivalence
about motherhood. They believe that one has to learn to be a mother. Both of these
transitions are somewhat unexpected to the mothers who go through them.
Among the authors who did not expect to feel like a mother easily is, for example,
Allison Crews, a teenage mother, whose essay is included in Gore and Lavender’s
collection (Crews 2001). As a fifteen-year-old, under the pressure of her environment and
a fear of raising a child when she was so young herself, she had decided to give up the
baby for adoption. However, she changed her mind as soon as her baby was born. She
34
felt that she became a mother: “I held my tiny infant son in my shaking arms ... He was
so much more than I could have dreamed, so much more than a fuzzy little ultrasound
worm.” Pumping breast milk while her son was in an incubator, she thought: “I had an
abundance of precious golden milk that only a mother could make. I was a mother.”
(Crews 2001:36). While her expectations of motherhood were mostly negative, she was
pleasantly surprised that she warmed to the idea. The physiological readiness to be a
mother thus in this case trumped her social unpreparedness.
Although in a very different social position, Cheever (2001) describes her reaction
in a similar way. Cheever had her first child at thirty-eight and was financially
comfortable, but as a professional woman, she did not expect to enjoy motherhood. As
her daughter was born, she was thinking:
I congratulated myself on arrangements I had made in advance. I had a babynurse and a nanny. ... We picked out a pediatrician, after interviewing three ...
[We got] a crib, a changing table, and a bassinet. We had a diaper pail and a
complete layette. ... I was of the opinion that I probably wouldn’t like the baby at
first, so I had been sure to protect myself against her intrusion into my life. I was
a writer, a woman, a lover, and a friend. I just couldn’t see myself as a mother.
(2001:18-19)
Other authors express their uncertainty about their abilities to become “good
mother” according to the social expectations. Min Jin Lee in her essay Will included in
Gore and Lavender’s collection (Lee 2001) says:
I was pregnant but I couldn’t imagine my life as a mother. All I could see was the
image of my mother ... with half a dozen arms spinning in the air, each hand
performing a different task. So I tried to focus on the pregnancy itself – on the
physical requirements of this life growing in my body. I tried to follow the
guidelines of the pregnancy books, but I kept falling short. ... I was a bad mother
and my baby wasn’t even born yet. (2001:26)
35
Many authors describe the feelings they experienced after their child was born
and express their surprise that giving birth does not make them a mother. According to
Julia Mossbridge having a child and becoming a mother happened very fast and were
filled with finality and ambivalence (Gore and Lavender’s collection, Mossbridge 2001):
The birth was shockingly final: Here is a child; now everything changes. ...
Shocking to have a child, yes, but for me it was bone-gnawingly shocking to be a
mom. (2001:257)
Another author from Gore and Lavender’s collection, Jennifer Savage, who
became mother for the first time as a nineteen-year-old (Savage 2001), felt strong
attachment to her unborn child even though she still had doubts about herself as a mother:
I want to be a good mom. But how? The very idea of having kids had always
sparked a strong ‘no way!’ reaction in me. No kids for me, no marriage, just wellpaying jobs; I was going to be ‘free.’ Then I found myself pregnant. ... Several
people advised me to get abortion, but I couldn’t. This little blip inside me had
actually been conceived in love. ... I found myself in the grip of an unnamable,
unstoppable emotion that had me saying, ‘I want to have this baby.’ (2001:245)
Later on, having three children, she described her transition to being a mother as
an ongoing process: “...learning to surf ... is a lot like learning to mother: I bought the
gear, I understand the theory, and I have occasional success. But the ocean won’t stay
still and neither will my kids; they keep getting older.” (Savage 2001:253). She thus
defines motherhood through the practices that need to be learned rather than through the
feelings for the children.
Facing Social Expectations: Ambivalence about Being Good at Mothering
Many authors also suggest that what makes it difficult to mother are the social
expectations on how to be a good mother that make it difficult to fully enjoy motherhood.
36
In other words, many of these women refuse or find it hard to be mothers following the
standards of “new momism,” a term coined by Douglas and Michaels (2004). Similar to
Hays’ (1996) ideology of “intensive mothering,” which requires a mother to fully devote
herself to the child and put the child’s needs ahead of her own, new momism is “a set of
ideals, norms, and practices, most frequently and powerfully presented in the media, that
seem on the surface to celebrate the motherhood but which in reality promulgate
standards of perfection that are beyond your reach” (Douglas and Michaels 2004:4).
Normative pressures then lead women to internalize and follow these standards, which
are not always easy to implement (Hays 1996; Maushart 1999). The inability or
unwillingness to follow these set norms and their unexpected stiffness are behind some of
the ambivalence that many new mothers feel about their motherhood role, which is
evident in the analyzed books.
Many writers describe their struggle to satisfy social expectations defined in these
terms and find that intensive mothering leaves very little space for a mother’s personal
identity or fulfillment of her needs. Several writers present these concerns (e.g. Cusk
2001; Wolf 2001; Buchanan 2003). Faulkner Fox (2003), for example, writes about the
effect of “attachment parenting,” one of the strictest methods of intensive mothering
popular since the 1990s, on mothers she met around her:
... if practiced fully, [attachment parenting] required that you carry your baby with
you all day in a sling, nurse on demand all day and all night, let baby doze on her
own schedule during the day (in your arms), and let her sleep with you all night
long. ... based on the exhausted faces and bodies I saw around me – at La Leche
League meetings, in the midwife’s office, at library sing-alongs – full adherence
to attachment parenting could nearly kill a woman. Certainly, I feared, it could
kill a woman who wanted to be a writer, a woman who needed time alone.
(2003:217)
37
Fox understood that part of her dissatisfaction with being a mother and a wife had
roots in the current definition of motherhood as a social institution that requires mothers
but not fathers to give up their identities and devote themselves totally to their children
(Peskowitz 2005). To resist the pressures of new momism, she felt it was necessary for
her to maintain a balance between her children and her work, and devote time separately
to both of them. Fox writes:
Something to do with motherhood was causing me trouble, but as long as I
managed to work at least few hours a day, it wasn’t time spent with my children.
When one of them was crying or whining, I certainly felt stress, but for the most
part, my children were enormous ballast. Their joy was infectious, and as long as
I didn’t have to see other mothers, I usually felt just fine. (2003:194)
Fox eventually managed to find her happiness in balancing her work and family,
her own self and her mother self, and in love for her children and husband. But she also
realized that social expectations to be a good mother and acquire a new identity in the
process made her dissatisfied with her new position:
I made myself unhappy – though I had a lot of help from books and various
experts around me – because I thought, at least in my most anxious moments, that
I had to become someone else as a mother, someone cheerful, selfless, and
aggressively devoted to my children’s enrichment. (2003:218)
Fox makes clear that it was the presence of other mothers who serve as mirrors
and judges of mothering (Parker 1997) and enforce the social norms on “good”
mothering that made her uncomfortable about her own mothering and fulfilling of the
motherhood role. Fox thus clearly locates the ambivalent feelings she had about
motherhood outside of the relationship and feelings for her children, in the social space of
norms and expectations on mothers (Parker 2005a:63).
38
Love at First Sight? Attachment Ambivalence
Feelings of love and instant attachment between the mother and the baby are also
a part of a “good mother” image prevalent in our society (Miller 2007) and some authors
describe the immediate bond they feel with the child. Cheever describes her emotions
after she held her daughter for the first time:
In the moment that I held my baby daughter in my arms, ... I changed so fast that I
felt dizzy. I instantly loved and wanted to protect her. Loving her became the
focus of my existence … As my baby grew, my love for her grew right along with
her. (2001:19)
However, as psychologists tell us, love is not experienced unopposed, and even
mothers who quickly bonded with their babies experienced ambivalent feelings about
mothering and struggled to understand them. Cheever further describes the complex
nature of love and emotions mothers feel towards their babies as follows:
Love raised a lot of questions. The other side of love isn’t hate ... It’s being
paralyzed. It’s a flash of helpless anger which grabs you up for one murderous
minute and then drops you, panting, back into ordinary life. When I could
comfort my daughter ... I was in ecstasy. ... When she cried out in pain, long
shrieky cries and I couldn’t make a difference, I wanted to flee; I wanted to die.
(2001:20)
Mothers who do not immediately experience attachment and love for their babies
struggle with the cultural image of the instant love and their own feelings of confusion
and ambivalence about one’s own ability to mother (Miller 2007). Buchanan’s first
reaction to seeing her baby daughter for the first time was quite different from Cheever’s.
She writes:
The first thing I remember thinking ... was ‘Who is this little stranger?’ She
didn’t look like me, she didn’t look like my husband; ... I couldn’t connect this
little person with the faceless kicks and jabs I had felt inside me for so many
months. ... I was still surprised to discover that my first emotion was not the
39
intense love I’d heard described but, instead, a sense of overwhelming
responsibility. (2003:53)
Lauren Slater (2002), ambivalent about having a child even before she became
pregnant, describes the long and gradual process it took for her to develop socially
expected feelings of love for her baby. Almost a month after childbirth, she comments on
her maternal feelings and finds it unexpected that she feels the same way as she did
before she had the baby:
I am a mother but I don’t look like a mother. I don’t feel like a mother. ... I’ve
grown accustomed to the word, but it stays at a distance from me. I thought I
would be smashed flat, or heaved high, mythically altered for this, the most
mythic roles but, shock of all shock, here I am, still me. And the baby? I have
come to like her a little bit. That’s it. A little bit. (2002:148)
Self and Motherhood: Identity Ambivalence
Slater (2002) thus captures the surprise, palpable in the writings of other authors,
that it takes time to become adjusted to a new identity and feel like a mother. However,
as the months progressed and the baby grew, she felt the increasing feelings of love for
her daughter and emergence of her maternal identity, which did not replace but became
incorporated into her previous self. Slater explains the process she was going through and
sees changes in her life as numerous, but not so dramatic:
Becoming a mother if – and this is a critical if – you have enough money for help
does not mean stripping the membranes and being born anew; it means a series of
tiny innumerable tasks added to your life that in the short run mean little but in the
long run amount to something. ... Like so much in life, being a mother is entirely
undramatic, filled with pleasures and multiple inconveniences that only over
weeks and months leave marks of any significance. (2002:172)
Slater notes that becoming a mother is a gradual process, without any specific milestones:
40
You cannot capture it. Being a mother is a lot like growing up. When, or how,
did you become an adult? ... No one can say. .... At some point you cease being
motherless and you become a mother, but what I didn’t know was how this line is
etched in smoke, a child’s chalk drawing, you go back and forth. (2002:173)
Many authors thus express their experience that for new mothers the transition to
motherhood is gradual and often difficult, which they find quite surprising. Wolf (2001),
whose book includes interviews with other mothers, writes:
Many women I spoke to learned with surprise that new mothers are not born but,
through a great effort, made. Bonding with baby is of course natural, but good
day-to-day mothering, as few seem publicly to acknowledge, is no more natural
than is any painstaking, exhaustive, difficult work that is both biologically driven
and deeply willed. (2001:6)
Some of the motherhood ambivalence is therefore rooted in the identity conflict
between the motherhood self and the author’s previous self. Many authors feel that in
order to become mothers, they need to undergo a total transformation of who they are and
create a new motherhood self. Wolf (2001) was uncertain that she could undergo such a
transformation successfully:
So many older women kept advising me that the mother-self to come would be a
better self. I found this less than reassuring. ... that maternal ‘I’ did not exist yet.
I did not yet know if I could successfully transform my current self into her.
(2001:106)
Particularly in the early stages of motherhood, it is not easy to incorporate the
new identity into a woman’s existing self, contributing to ambivalence about their new
motherhood identity. Cusk (2001) describes her feelings that her old self and her
motherhood self are quite separate, although she tried to unify them:
To be a mother, I must leave the telephone unanswered, work undone,
arrangements unmet. To be myself I must let the baby cry, must forestall her
hunger or leave her for evenings out, must forget her in order to think about other
41
things. To succeed in being one means to fail at being the other. ... At first ... I am
driven to work at the newer of the two skills, which is motherhood; and it is with
a shock that I see ... the resulting plunge of my own significance. (2001:57)
Such feelings stem from the intense requirements of the infant care that overrule a
mother’s own needs and interests. Cusk feels most threatened by the loss of her identity
at the moments when she perceives herself and her baby not even as two separate beings
but instead a well coordinated “motherbaby”, sustained through around-the-clock
nursing, which is strongly embedded in current ideologies of good motherhood. For
Cusk, it contributed to her feelings of slowly losing her old self-identity.
I cohabit uneasily with myself, with the person I was before. I look at this
person’s clothes, her things. I go through her memories, like an imposter, prurient
and faintly scandalized. Her self-involvement, her emotional vulnerability alarm
me. .. I have no subjectivity. (2001:93ff)
Feeling the disappearance of her subjectivity, Cusk mourned the loss of her previous self
that seemed to have disappeared:
When I look at the old photographs of myself, they seem to resemble the casts of
Pompei, little deaths frozen in time. I haunt the ruin of my body, a mournful,
restless spirit, and I feel exposed, open to the air ... (2001:134).
Similarly, Wolf felt that in order to gain motherhood identity, she had to replace
parts of her previous identities and start a new period in her life (2001:68): “... the
greatest loss I experienced as I grew more heavily with child was the loss of young
woman I had been.” The loss of pre-baby identity is reinforced by the society, which as
Buchanan suggests, pushes mothers out of their own self-identity into invisible momidentity, making mothers invisible to the rest of the world (2003:66).
Unlike these authors, writing from a perspective of a black mother, Parker
(2005b) does not experience motherhood as redefining her identity and does not feel a
42
need to give up her pre-baby self. It does not mean that she does not deeply love and care
for her children. She explains:
My children are my joy and my primal passions, but I have others as well, and
that’s something they need to understand. If need be, I would lay down my life for
my kids. But what I won’t do is stop living. (2005:95)
Parker illustrates that to be “good mothers” black women cannot lose their
identities and give everything for the children because they need to tend to the needs not
just of their children and immediate family but also to the needs of their community. In
this way, for black mothers, motherhood identities are firmly rooted in the history and
presence of their community (Collins 2000).
Ambivalence about Combining Work and Motherhood
For many contemporary women, their identities are strongly entrenched in their
careers. Some authors also describe the loss of their “pre-baby” self expressed through
their work, which they abandoned or cut back on due to the demands of childcare. For
these educated and career-focused women, the effect of motherhood on their identity is
quite significant, and the resulting changes in their lives and selves are surprising and not
always welcome (Peskowitz 2005). If they return to work, they often find it difficult to
balance their work and motherhood obligations. Both of these conflicts then make
mothers even more ambivalent about their motherhood experience.
In order to preserve their pre-baby identities, most mothers-writers continue to
work outside the home, or adjust to working from home. As many were writing before
they had children, it means mostly writing from home. However, they find the role
conflict between the identities as a worker and a mother difficult to balance. For instance,
43
in an essay Mother Tongue from the Gore and Lavender’s collection, Sherry Thompson
(2001) describes how she felt so overwhelmed by child-care and housework that she
found it challenging to continue writing poetry:
It is not always easy to integrate my artistic aspirations with my regular mama
life. It is difficult to write with a small boy and an infant daughter. ... And I
wonder why I don’t let something go, lighten my load and make the journey
easier. ... I know the only something I could get rid of would be my oddly strung
bits of words and rhythm; yet I cling to them like a drowning woman. (2001:73)
It is part of her ambivalent motherhood experience that she feels that despite the
difficulty to find time for writing, the motherhood experience provides a new source of
creativity for her writing (Parker 1997). Thompson then describes the positive effect of
motherhood on her creative self:
It is only here, in the midst of sandwich crusts, dirty diapers, trips to the doctor,
bedtime stories, lost sandals ... that I have found my poetic voice. ... This is not to
say that all, or even most of my work is about my children. I write very little
directly about them. Often I find my love for them too difficult, too raw a wound
still, to put into words. My children appear just under the surface of poems. ... I
know that the quality of work is only possible because of the authentic,
transformative experience of motherhood. (2001:75)
Several authors, however, feel a serious conflict between their working and
motherhood but perceive a social pressure to succeed in both. Being unable to combine
these two identities leaves the writers feeling guilty and insufficient (e.g. Wolf 2001; Fox
2003). Writer June Day (in Gore and Lavender, 2001) describes how motherhood
impeded her ability to work and write:
My daughter is almost two. I have not produced any significant art or writing
since her birth. I no longer consider myself a writer, even in secret. I catch
myself confessing to old friends at galleries and independent films, ‘I’m just
being a mother right now. She’s still so little...’ Their looks confirm my own
suspicions: I’m a lame, white-trash welfare leech. ...
44
My guilt over being ‘unproductive’ tires me out. I shouldn’t feel this ... Cultural
expectations are the source of my problem. It isn’t enough just to be a mother,
even though it’s difficult and important work. Good mothering isn’t considered
successful or even sufficient. One must have a MotherPlus Plan – maybe have
the MotherPlus law career or be a MotherPlus novelist. It fills me with guilt,
always coming up short. (2001:90)
When mothers return to work outside of the home, the conflict between work and
motherhood can become even more emotional, and some of the writers express a feeling
of being torn between their work and their children (Peskowitz 2005). Naomi Wolf
(2001) vividly describes her conflict between writing and taking care of her child. One
day, she was returning home late after staying at work longer than usual because her
writing went well. While she felt sorry for her hungry baby, she was also angry that she
had to interrupt her work:
... interruption was now my life. I was crying because I could not win. Because, as
a worker, I was turning away from my work at exactly the most important
moment; yet, at the same time, as a mother, I had already stayed too long at the
fair. (2001:211)
While this is not a typical description of the work-family conflict from the
perspective of mothers who cannot wait to return to their child, according to Wolf (2001)
the identity conflict and the loss of self are significant because of the low social status of
motherhood in the current society. Many of the writers of these books do not take easily
the demotion to the low status of motherhood among middle-class and upper middle-class
women and consequent devaluation of their social position once they become mothers
(Crittenden 2001; Peskowitz 2005). That makes their transition to motherhood and
acceptance of the maternal identity even more difficult. Wolf explains:
It was one thing to experience a loss of self in a prefeminist culture that at least
assigned a positive status to motherhood itself; it is very different to lose a part of
one’s very sense of self to motherhood in a world that often seems to have little
45
time, patience or appreciation for motherhood or parenting. This is especially hard
for women who have struggled to be independent and self-reliant. (2001:8)
Despite her difficulties of getting used to motherhood, Cusk sometimes feels that
motherhood is simpler than the life she had before – but this is too caused by its low
social status and lack of choices she can make:
The harness of motherhood chafes my skin, and yet occasionally I find a
predictable integrity in it too, a freedom of a different sort: from complexity and
choice and from the reams of unscripted time upon which I used to write my days,
bearing the burden of their authorship. ... The state of motherhood speaks to my
native fear of achievement. It is a demotion, a displacement, an opportunity to
give up. (2001:135)
Mothering in particular social conditions and change in the writers-mothers’
social status thus contribute to the feelings of ambivalence about motherhood. I put
emphasis on particular because Parker’s stories provide quite a different picture of the
relationship between mothers’ work outside of the home and child care. Parker explains
that black mothers experience combination of work and family differently than white
mothers. They are spared from the guilt associated with working outside of the home
described by white authors and see it as a “foreign concept” (2005b:12):
I didn’t realize there existed a culture of guilt in motherhood or that some women
felt they had to choose between work and family until I was in my mid-twenties
(2005b:xvi)
She explains that for black women there was not an option to choose between work and
family:
Growing up there was never any question that I would go to college and then go
to work. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I even understood that some women
considered paid, outside-the-home work optional. Because for black women in
my world, work wasn’t an option at all. (2005b:9)
46
Even if black women stayed at home with their children, they would support other
working mothers by providing them with child care. The meaning behind “staying at
home” is quite different for black women whose staying at home provides benefits not
just for the child and the family but also for the community:
In my mother’s world, there was no staying home and taking care of your kids. If
you stayed home, you were taking care of your kids and whole bunch of other
people’s kids as well. (2005b:9)
Although Parker admits that working and taking care of the children can
sometime take a toll on her and she finds herself exhausted, she finds strength in the
perseverance of black mothers who came before her and labored in inhuman conditions
in the fields. She also finds that having children made her a better writer:
…some very good editors have given me skills, but it was the babies I was afraid
to have who made my need to write bigger than my fear of failing at it; who made
me pregnant with resolve. It is my kids who have given me deeper connections,
keener insights, or at least a whole lot more raw material to draw from.
(2005b:73)
Black mothers, according to Parker’s account, thus do not experience same guilt and
ambivalence associated with working outside of the home and understand their
employment as an integral part of their roles as a mother and member of the community.
Managing Maternal Ambivalence
While most of the authors of the narratives I read found motherhood surprising
and their writings expressed their ambivalence about it, they all found ways to cope with
their ambivalence. Creating a support network of extended family and friends played an
important role in strategies employed by many writers (Brockenbrough 2002; Buchanan
47
2003). Brockenbrough, for example, says she would not be able to manage motherhood
without the support of her husband, friends and family:
They say it takes a village to raise a child. I’m not sure that’s exactly it. Right
now, I feel like it’s taking a village to raise me.My brothers and sisters and inlaws have all taken turns holding the baby on too many occasions to count. (2002:
145)
Fox’s struggle to balance work and time with her children, and her decision to
pursue interests that supported her “pre-baby” self, are also among some of the strategies
employed by mothers to manage ambivalence. Most of the authors found some
adjustment and balance among their various identities as their children grew older. They
also became more skilled in the mothering tasks and were able to accept their
motherhood identity. Cusk was surprised to realize that she indeed felt a need to mother
as her daughter was getting older and did not need her as much (2001:205). But at the
same time, she was happy to regain some of her lost freedom and felt satisfied that she
adjusted to motherhood:
Increasingly, motherhood comes to seem to me not a condition but a job, the work
of certain periods, which begin and end and outside of which I am free. My
daughter is more and more part of this freedom, something new that is being
added, drop by daily drop, to the sum of what I am. ... For the first year of her life
work and love were bound together, fiercely, painfully. Now, it is as if a
relationship has untethered itself and been let loose in our house. (2001:209)
But even once they adjusted to motherhood, most of the authors remained critical
of the social institution of motherhood and social position of mothers as they continued to
deal with conflicts between their work and families and social expectations of “good”
mothering. In response to these social pressures, many retreated from the institutional
requirements of motherhood and instead focused on mothering and relationship with their
48
children, thus supporting the argument that maternal ambivalence is socially based and
not affected by their relationship with the child. Wolf describes her adjustment this way:
Even with the rude lessons in how low my status had become, there was an
abundant recompense: a love that flayed me with its tenderness. To put my cheek
against hers, to be able to still her cries, was a joy and a privilege. (2001:265)
Five years later, after having another child, Wolf acknowledges the prevailing
positive side of motherhood but at the same time reminds her readers of the difficulties of
becoming a mother and the everyday mothering.
... this difficult story ... did indeed deliver the promised ‘happy ending,’ the joy at
the end of the journey, the blessing, the baby. ... But the joy of the new child, of
the happy ending, does not do away with the reality of the tough journey we as
mothers undertake. We do not so much fall into motherhood as we forge
ourselves into mothers. ... It is no dilution of our great love for our children to
honor the effort that women make. (2001:276-277)
MATERNAL WRITING AND AMBIVALENCE
As I discuss at the beginning of the chapter, we can view memoir writing as a
specific form and presentation of social accounts (Orbuch 1997:455). Mothers-writers
use their memoirs to help them deal with the transition to motherhood, a major event in
their lives, and through their writing they negotiate and present their new identity and
status. While mothering is an intimate experience, it is shaped by social expectations of
how to be a “good” mother as well as by public monitoring of mothering performance.
Pregnant women and new mothers are on any occasion given solicited and unsolicited
advice and opinions by friends as well as strangers on how to deal with the child, what to
do and what not to do ,and in general, how to be a “good” mother. The writers thus react
to the social expectations of good mothering and experience the process of acquiring of a
49
motherhood identity as a private and public event. Writing allows them to confront both
its positive and negative aspects. And although the writers express their ambivalence
about motherhood and being a mother, their accounts do not permanently subvert the
boundaries of being a “good mother”. Presentations of their experience of ambivalence in
maternal memoirs thus help to normalize the presence of conflicted feelings about
motherhood and in a way contribute to the reaffirmation of the “good mother” image.
Writing can also be interpreted as a creative outcome of ambivalence (Parker
1997), allowing the authors to acknowledge their maternal ambivalence in a socially
acceptable way. While some of these books are written in a humorous tone
(Brockenbrough 2002; to a lesser extent Gore and Lavender 2001; Belkin 2002;
Buchanan 2003), which is a socially acceptable display of maternal ambivalence (Parker
1997:17; Hewett 2006), most use a serious (Cheever 2001) and even socially critical tone
(notably Wolf 2001; Fox 2003). Most authors express their perception that writing offers
a space where they are freer to express their ambivalence. In everyday life, admitting
ambivalence is still not an option (Buchanan 2003:60-61).
Buchanan argues that it should be acceptable to acknowledge that while mothers
are thankful for their children, there are aspects of childcare and mothering that are not
always enjoyable (2003:63). She herself admits that when a pregnant woman asked her
what it was like to be a mother, she and her mom-friends could say only “It’s great. ... It’s
hard, and you don’t get a lot of sleep, but it’s great.” Buchanan comments: “What else
can you say, really? No one really knows what it’s like until they are there, and so often
no one is really ready to hear the gritty answers to the question, anyway” (2003:110).
50
Buchanan points out that due to social pressures to be a good mother, admitting
ambivalence to others is still not an option:
...we’re basically given two options for motherhood: good or bad. There is not a
lot of room for ambiguity. ... many moms find that discussing with others their
ambivalence about their children or their parenting abilities results only in blame,
guilt, and in some extreme cases a covert call to child protective services.”
(2003:60-61)
Similarly, Wolf (2001) believes that the negative side of motherhood is not well
known or covered in pregnancy books and women are kept to believe in “the myth about
the ease and naturalness of motherhood”:
When you have a new baby, what you get is a whole world; it’s a world filled
with gifts but also with losses. While the gifts new mothers receive are well
documented, the losses are often hidden. This is one truth that we are not told.
(2001:7)
Many writers thus struggle with a lack of openness in talking about motherhood
issues, mostly the darker ones (Maushart 1999), and some of them justify their own
writing with the need for more discussion and openness about maternal ambivalence
(Wolf 2001; Fox 2003). As the excerpts I present show, they try to convey to their
readers that motherhood experiences are not limited to happy and enjoyable moments,
which is quite different from the messages women receive about motherhood before they
become mothers. By writing about their own mixed feelings about motherhood, the
writers not only break the silence about maternal ambivalence but they are also creating a
public discourse that makes ambivalence part of the motherhood experience, making it
more manageable for other mothers (Parker 2005a; Hewett 2006:135).
Fox, for instance, clearly expresses in her writing that helping other women deal
with their mixed feeling is one of the reasons she wrote her book:
51
This book is my story, and it’s idiosyncratic, but I’ve been compelled to write it
out of a sense that the isolation, conflict, and love I’ve felt as a wife and mother
are anything but limited to me. I’ve wanted to tell the truth – in writing – in the
hope that my story could help other women feel less alone, less crazy, and
possibly less guilty. (2003:14)
Wolf also justifies her writing by wanting to give women a better sense of reality
of what happens when they become mothers:
I wrote this book to explore the genuine miracle, not the Hallmark card; to trace
the maternal bond as it forms, heroically and poignantly, in spite of, rather than
because of, the obtuse and unnatural ideology of motherhood under which we
labor. (2001:9)
These books thus represent a generational response to a societal lack of
acknowledgement of conflicted feelings about motherhood and the identity crisis that
motherhood can evoke (Hewett 2006). Most of the writers of the analyzed memoirs are
women who were born after or grew up after the gains of the women’s movement of the
1960s and their expectations of motherhood were thus shaped in a different historical
context from the time their own mothers were raising them. The women belonging to late
Baby Boomers and Generation X became mothers at the time when women could control
their reproduction and decide when to enter motherhood. This allowed them to delay
childbearing and achieve higher education and have careers before they had children.
Moreover, this generation of women believed that they can raise children while
continuing their careers and only once they tried to “have it all”, became aware of the
conflicts and decisions it entails, contributing thus to their experience of maternal
ambivalence.
Writing of the maternal narratives thus provides the authors with a space for
reflection and social criticism of the current conditions of motherhood. They use their
52
memoirs to challenge existing cultural definitions and practices related to motherhood as
a social institution as well as existing gender relationships and familial forms. In many
cases, the authors point to alternative arrangements and possibilities of mothering,
attempting to change the status quo (Cheever 2001; Gore and Lavender 2001; Wolf 2001;
Slater 2002; Fox 2003). However, while the motherhood memoirs challenge some of the
aspects of intensive mothering and new momism (Douglas and Michaels 2004), which
the mothers find particularly limiting, the authors do not go beyond the unmasking of
their real motherhood experience (O’Reilly 2010). Instead, the authors largely continue to
subscribe to the beliefs that it is best for the children to be cared for by their mothers at
all times and construct their decisions to stay at home with their children and fully devote
themselves to the children as the choice of an “enlightened mother” (O’Reilly 2010:211).
O’Reilly concludes that “[m]ost motherhood memoirs, because of their identification
with the new momism, cannot discern …the root causes of mothers’ oppression; [and]
thus the genre remains one of complaint and not change” (2010:212). Nevertheless,
understanding and expressing their own feelings of ambivalence becomes a source of
personal (Parker 1997), and possibly also social and political change (Hewett 2006).
CONCLUSION
While at first glance we might assume that ambivalent feelings are based in a
mother’s relationship to her children, my reading and analysis of 21st century maternal
memoirs suggests that maternal ambivalence is largely socially and culturally based.
Most of the ambivalence presented in the memoirs is located in the authors’ particular
53
social and cultural conditions of mothering, whether it’s a lack of preparation for
motherhood, social isolation, loss of identity, or a conflict between work and childcare.
While these are areas conducive to maternal ambivalence among middle-class mothers
and stemming from mainstream motherhood ideologies, which I discuss in the next
chapter, mothers in different social positions based on their social class and race would
likely experience distinct sources for their maternal ambivalence.
Nevertheless, very little of the authors’ ambivalence is located in their direct
relationship to their child. Even when they express surprise over the lack of attachment to
the child and length of time to experience maternal bonding, they hardly mention hate,
aggression, or annoyance toward their children but rather express surprise over unrealistic
social expectations of instant bonding. Social expectations requiring new mothers to
completely devote themselves to their children and leave little space for their own needs
and identities significantly add to the maternal ambivalence expressed in the analyzed
memoirs.
Psychologist Rozsika Parker (2005a:63) somewhat critically points out that many
social researchers (and writers) are careful to keep the distinction between overwhelming,
isolating, stifling work of childcare and the emotionally rewarding relationship with the
child. Such positioning suggests that authors are not completely honest in their writing
because of persisting idealization of mothers and social taboos regarding the relationship
between a mother and a child. I believe that this distinction and relatively little emphasis
on the psychological relationship between mother and child in the analyzed memoirs do
not take away the urgency this generation of mothers feel about the social conditions of
their mothering. The simultaneous appearance of these memoirs and their success
54
suggests that mothers – both as writers and readers – feel a need to communicate and
reflect on their motherhood experiences (Hewett 2006:135), as well as explain and justify
their ambivalence about motherhood.
In the motherhood memoirs, ambivalence is presented as a complex combination
of feelings, beliefs and attitudes that arise in reaction to social norms and expectations of
mothering and are located in concrete social-structural and cultural conditions of
mothering. By acknowledging these feelings publicly the writers create a space for
expressing ambivalence within the motherhood discourse and allow their readers –
mothers to frame their motherhood identity and ambivalence within this space. The
message to the readers that “it can happen to you!” is thus meant to help the readers to
normalize their own possible feelings of inadequacy and ambivalence about motherhood
and make maternal ambivalence a “normal” part of the motherhood experience.
The analysis of the motherhood memoirs serves as an introductory exploration of
maternal ambivalence and popular discourse about it in current American society. I use
the themes from these memoirs and discourses of ambivalence from these memoirs in
analyzing the prevalence of maternal ambivalence in a large sample. Because the
memoirs are written largely by few white middle-class women, my goal going forward is
to find out if their experiences of maternal ambivalence can be generalized across social
classes and race and ethnic lines, or whether they are structurally determined and can be
found only among women similar to the authors of the memoirs read.
55
Table 1.1. Description of books included in the qualitative analysis
Author
Title
Contents
(Year published)
Chronological accounts (almost in the form of diaries) starting with pregnancy and
covering the first year of motherhood
Diary of pregnancy and the first year
of motherhood. Author’s experience
Misconceptions. Truth,
complemented with experiences of
Lies, And the
Naomi Wolf (2001)
her friends in the similar position.
Unexpected on the
Socially critical view on the lack of
Journey to Motherhood.
power women have when they
become mothers.
Memoir of the pregnancy and the
first year with the baby focusing of
A Life’s Work. On
Rachel Cusk (2001)
the issues of social control, selfBecoming a Mother.
identity, gender inequality and
relationship with the baby.
Diary of pregnancy and the first year
of motherhood written with humor
focusing on the everyday details of
being pregnant and adjusting to
It Could Happen to You!
Martha Brockenbrough
having a baby. While these details
Diary of Pregnancy And
(2002)
are often stressful and exhausting, the
Beyond.
author enjoys the transition to
parenthood; she stops working at her
previous job, which gives her a
freedom to write.
Pregnancy and the first year of
Love Works Like This.
motherhood written by a mother
Lauren Slater (2002)
Moving from One Kind
dealing with depression and effects
of Life to Another.
of antidepressants on the baby.
Chapters on pregnancy and early mothering organized around specific issues while
maintaining some chronological order
Thirty essays on becoming a mother
Mother Shock. Loving
Andrea J. Buchanan
and often conflicting experiences of
Every (Other) Minute of
(2003)
love, anger and ambivalence that it
It.
entails.
Dispatches from A NotA feminist writer analyzes the
So-Perfect Life Or How
reasons for her conflicted feelings
Faulkner Fox (2003)
I Learned to Love the
about motherhood and her life as a
House, the Man, the
middle-class mother and wife.
Child.
56
Table 1.1. Continued.
Author
Title
Contents
(Year published)
Collections of thematic essays on different aspects of motherhood
Collection of essays by young
mothers with various social
backgrounds addresses issues of
Ariel Gore and Bee
Breeder. Real Life
motherhood ranging from infertility,
Lavender (editors)
Stories from a New
childbirth, everyday care of the baby,
(2001)
Generation of Mothers.
going back to work, and
breastfeeding, to marriage, intimate
relationships, and miscarriage.
As a mother of teenagers, the author
looks back at her life of raising
As Good As I Could Be. children and remembers her better
A Memoir of Raising
and worse days of being a mother
Susan Cheever (2001)
Wonderful Children in
and a parent. She addresses issues
Difficult Times.
such as learning to mother,
disciplining children, separation, and
divorce or alcohol abuse.
Life’s Work:
Essays previously published in New
Lisa Belkin (2002)
Confessions of an
York Times that tackle mostly the
Unbalanced Mom.
issues of balancing work and family.
Collection of essays on being a black woman and a mother
Personal stories reflecting on the
I’m Every Woman:
position of black women in current
Lonnae O’Neal Parker Remixed Stories of
society situating the author’s
(2005)
Marriage, Motherhood, experiences within historical context
and Work
of black motherhood and popular
culture.
57
Figure 1.1. Front covers of the analyzed motherhood memoirs
58
CHAPTER TWO
Ambivalence:
Literature Review and Conceptualization of Maternal Ambivalence
While motherhood is a life experience conventionally described as ultimate
happiness about having a child and becoming a mother, as I illustrated in the previous
chapter, the authors of the motherhood memoirs describe their transition to motherhood
as a mix of the joys of motherhood with its negative and stressful experiences. Social
researchers also find that parenthood represents a combination of stress and rewards,
particularly while the children are young and parents of young children are found to be
more distressed than their childless counterparts (Umberson and Give 1989; Nomaguchi
and Milkie 2003; Umberson, Pudrovska and Reczek 2010).
In this project, I use the concept of ambivalence to examine the coexistence of
positive and negative attitudes and experiences about motherhood. I begin in this chapter
with a general definition of ambivalence and discuss the use of the concept in
sociological theory and research. Next, I briefly discuss the psychological theories of
maternal ambivalence, and then focus on the social, demographic, and cultural context of
motherhood and discuss maternal ambivalence as a result of conflicting normative
expectations toward contemporary mothers. Throughout this discussion I look at the
differences in the motherhood experience according to mothers’ social structural
locations. I conclude this chapter with the conceptualization of maternal ambivalence and
its dimensions that I employ in this research.
59
DEFINING AMBIVALENCE
Most sociological surveys measure people’s attitudes on scales reaching from
positive to negative, often forcing their respondents to choose their position or to declare
themselves to be “undecided” or “neutral.” Respondents who answer similar questions in
opposing directions are considered either to be inconsistent (Maio, Esses and Bell 2000)
or their answers are attributed to measurement error (Zaller and Feldman 1992). While
human cognition may be organized in dichotomies and exclusionary terms “either – or”
(Zerubavel 1993), people are able to and often indeed do carry opposing attitudes. In
close relationships and in everyday life, we experience love and hate toward the same
people and happiness and sadness at the same moments, and hold conflicting emotions
and attitudes about personal, social, or political issues. Life transitions, such as becoming
a mother, are particularly prone to engendering mixed feelings as we leave the familiar
roles and social positions behind and occupy new roles associated with new social
expectations (Coser 1966:185).
Such coexistence of conflicted positive and negative attitudes or valences is
defined by the term ambivalence as opposed to univalence, in which one holds attitudes
of single orientation. Ambivalence is generally defined as the coexistence of positive and
negative feelings, actions, thoughts and volitions (Weigert 1991), love and hate,
attraction and repulsion (Smelser 1998:5). Some authors also understand it as a tension,
an oscillation between closeness and distance, and presence of conflicting norms
(Pillemer and Luescher 2004).
60
While the concept of ambivalence originated in psychological theories about
individual relationships, sociologists have adopted the term to describe the coexistence of
opposing norms, values and expectations located in social structures and social roles (see
e.g. Merton and Barber 1963; Connidis and McMullin 2002; Pillemer and Luescher
2004). Compared with psychological ambivalence, which emerges from contradictions at
the subjective level, for example cognitions, feelings, motivations, sociological
ambivalence stems from contradictions on the social structural level, for example from
conflicting expectations and norms assigned to a single status or a role (Pillemer and
Luescher 1998).
Unlike thinking in bifurcated either/or terminology, using the concept of
ambivalence enables the examination of coexistence of opposing and contradictory
views. Although people undoubtedly felt conflicted in their relationships before they
knew how to label their feelings, structural changes created by modernity, which
weakened traditional social relationships, and redefined social roles and the social order,
created social conditions prone to paradox and contradictions and made ambivalence
more pronounced and intensified (Luescher and Pillemer 1998:415). In his 1997
Presidential Address to the American Sociological Association, Neil Smelser argued for
incorporation of the concept of ambivalence into analysis of modern society as “the
notion of ambivalence leads us to understand and explain a range of behaviors and
situations beyond the scope of rational choice explanations” (1998:5). Luescher and
Pillemer (1998: 415-416) suggest that feminist theories of the family as well as
postmodern theories that “explicitly deal with contradiction and paradox in social
relations” are particularly well suited for uncovering ambivalence, although none of these
61
theories uses this term (Luescher and Pillemer 1998). The concept of ambivalence in
sociological research can thus serve as a “sensitizing concept” (Blumer 1969; Pillemer
and Luscher 2004) guiding researchers and theorists to focus not only on univalent
positive and negative orientations but also on their possible coexistence.
PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF AMBIVALENCE
Psychological ambivalence is usually experienced on the individual level and is
associated with the coexistence of love and hate in relationships (Pillemer and Luescher
2004:7). Eugene Bleuler, a Swiss psychiatrist who first used the term in 1910, described
ambivalence as a simultaneous existence of opposing attitudes, mostly love and hate, and
used it in diagnosing “negativism” and later schizophrenia (Luscher 2004:26).
Ambivalence became a significant concept in the psychoanalytic theories (Smelser 1998;
Luescher and Pillemer 1998) and the tension between opposing affects was at the center
of many of the Freud’s theories (Thom 1983; Smelser 1998). Smelser suggests that
Freud’s understanding of conscience is based on the presence of ambivalence, through
which opposing feelings are hidden in the unconscious and repressed (Smelser 1998:5-6).
Smelser succinctly summarizes Freud’s writing on ambivalence in four points, which
continue to represent the main tenets of the concept:
1. The origins of ambivalence “lie in the intimate relations between a child and
his or her parents and siblings;”
2. “The stronger the positive side of ambivalence, the stronger the negative;”
62
3. “Ambivalence becomes established in the psyche. It cannot be resolved once
and for all;”
4. And “although fixed mainly in childhood, ambivalences generalize readily to
other real and symbolic situations.”
The conflicting emotions that people first experience as infants thus in different forms
persevere through one’s life as a conflict between two opposing tendencies, such as
dependence and independence, or attraction and repulsion. From the psychological
perspective, ambivalence is thus experienced both universally and on the individual level,
and becomes problematic if it is not resolved appropriately.
Attitudinal Ambivalence
As part of their efforts to explain the nature of attitudes, social psychologists
examine the possibility and consequences of people holding inconsistent attitudes.
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957; Thompson and Holmes
1996), Heider’s theory of imbalance (Heider 1958; Higgins 1987) and theories of selfconsistency (Higgins 1987) focused on people holding opposing attitudes and thoughts,
and explored strategies they use to restore the consistency or deal with the dissonance.
According to the cognitive dissonance theory, for example, holding opposing attitudes
creates an unpleasant tension and discomfort, which leads people to resolve the
inconsistency through justifications, rationalizations or other ego defense mechanisms
that minimize the presence of ambivalence (Meffert, Guge and Lodge 2004:64).
Recent research on attitudes, however, suggests that certain people can hold
inconsistent attitudes, particularly about social and political issues for long periods of
63
time. These theorists suggest that attitudes thus should not be necessarily thought of as
oppositional and distressing (Thompson and Holmes 1996; Priester and Petty 1996;
Meffert, Guge and Lodge 2004). Cacioppe, Gardner, and Berntson’s (1997) research
suggests that positive and negative attitudes toward an object can move independently
from each and an increase in one side does not necessarily mean a decrease in the other
side of the attitude. Similar conclusions are suggested by research on mixed emotions, in
which for example Larsen and his colleagues (2001) demonstrate that people can be
happy and sad at the same time.
People can also hold inconsistent or dissonant thoughts and attitudes toward their
own selves. Higgins’ self-discrepancy theory builds on theories of personality and
personal constructs (among others e.g. James [1890]1948; Freud [1923] 1961; Mead
1934), which in different versions propose that each self consists of “three basic domains
of self”: a) the actual self, which is how you represent the attitudes that you or someone
else believe you possess, b) the ideal self, which are the attitudes that you or somebody
else would like you to ideally have, representing hopes, aspirations or ideals, and c) the
ought self, which are the attributes that you or someone else believe you should possess,
representing duties, obligations and responsibilities (1987:320-321). Higgins suggests
that these three parts of self do not necessarily always align, such as when personal ideals
do not follow the moral conscience, or in our case of mothers, when their actual
perceptions of themselves as mothers do not follow culturally dominant norms of good
mothering. Ambivalence can thus emerge from the discrepancies between different types
of selves.
64
Higgins’ research provides evidence that discrepancy between how one sees their
actual and ideal selves (e.g. what kind of mother I am compared to what kind of mother I
would like to be) can lead to increases in depression, whereas the discrepancy between
one’s own perception of actual self and other’s perception of one’s ought self (what kind
of mother I am and what kind of mother others expect me to be) lead to social anxiety but
not depression (1987:332). Theories of discrepant images of self thus shape my
understanding of maternal ambivalence as a result of the inconsistencies between
normative social expectations of a “good mother,” i.e. an image of a mother women are
expected to be, and her image of the actual self based on one’s own evaluation of the
performance of the normative motherhood role, which I develop in this chapter. Selfdiscrepancy theory thus provides a possible psychological explanation to ambivalence,
guilt, depression or anxiety stemming from the mismatch between women’s pre-natal
expectations and ideals about motherhood and their own experiences and evaluations
once they become mothers (Miller 2005; 2007).
SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO AMBIVALENCE
Unlike the psychological concept of ambivalence, which focuses on individual
attitudes, thoughts and emotions, sociologists locate ambivalence in social structural
positions and structured social relationships (Luscher and Pillemer 1998, Connidis and
McMullin 2002). Without using the term ambivalence, feelings of contradiction and
conflict formed an integral part of the work of Georg Simmel. In his essay The Stranger,
Simmel articulated the concept of in-betweenness and made the tension between
65
closeness and distance central to his argument about exclusion and belonging in modern
societies (see Luscher 2004:29).
The concept of ambivalence in sociology was initially formulated by Robert
Merton and Elinor Barber in an article published in 1963 (Merton and Barber 1963).
Understanding sociological ambivalence as complimentary to psychological
ambivalence, Merton in his subsequent writings defined sociological ambivalence as
referring to “incompatible normative expectations of attitudes, beliefs, and behavior
assigned to a status (i.e., a social position) or to a set of statuses in a society” (Merton
1976:6). This theory of ambivalence was part of Merton’s role and status theory and
focused mostly on role conflict, role performance, and the adjustment to incompatible
social expectations related to a person’s status (or statuses) in the society. What made his
sociological approach to ambivalence unique was its focus “on social definition of role
and statuses, not on the feeling-state of one or another type of personality” (1976:7).
The early approaches to sociological ambivalence were thus mostly focused on
the opposing normative expectations embedded in roles and statuses (Luscher 2004), for
example in expressive and normative functions assigned to a status (Merton 1976:7).
Importantly, these ambivalences are socially located and are not dependent upon the
personality of a social actor. Merton demonstrates an example of ambivalence using the
role of a bureaucrat who struggles between providing individual and personalized service
for the client with the expectations of generalized and impersonal treatment of a client, or
an example of a scientist, who must incorporate incompatible values of originality and
seeking recognition for his work with the value of humility about one’s own importance.
66
Behavioral oscillations that result from the negotiation of conflicting norms are also
important for the reproduction of social structures.
More recently, sociologists have argued that Merton’s analysis of sociological
ambivalence is too strongly embedded in the functionalist perspective and that the
sociological study of ambivalence does not need to focus only on contradictions in social
roles, values, norms and beliefs but can include social relationships and power
imbalances (Connidis and McMullin 2002:561; Luscher 2004:31; Cunningham 2009).
Ambivalence can thus arise from contradictions in social relationships that are embedded
in unequal social structures and are subject to social norms and expectations prescribed to
social statuses and roles, e.g. parents and children (Willson et al. 2006).
Connidis and McMullin (2002) argue for the replacement of a functionalist view
of normative systems with a focus on power imbalances in structural relations while
understanding of individuals as social actors “cannot be reduced to psychological states
and feelings.” According to this critical theoretical understanding, individuals experience
ambivalence when their attempts to exercise agency conflict with structured
arrangements that prescribe their behaviors and choices (Willson et al. 2006:236).
Ambivalence is thus rooted and produced by social structures and individuals experience
it in interactions with others (Connidis and McMullin 2002).
This understanding of ambivalence as a concept linking social structure and
individual action and experience and addressing the issues of social constraints and
individual agency extends the sociological understanding of ambivalence, and contributes
to my understanding of maternal ambivalence. Mothering, defined as an individual
relationship between the mother and her child, is situated within the social constraints of
67
motherhood with values, norms and expectations guiding the behavior and attitudes of
the social actors. Social structures then provide access to resources necessary to
accomplish the socially expected goals of motherhood as a definition of these goals for
mothers with different social structural locations.
Understanding of ambivalence as a concept linking individual relationships to
social structures also represents a connection between the sociological and psychological
approaches, the intersection which is still quite underdeveloped (Lorenz-Meyer 2001). In
this fashion, Fingerman, Hay and Birditt (2004), for example, studied emotional
ambivalence toward wider social networks, combining psychological ambivalence in
interpersonal relationships with the context of network theory. This perspective is
particularly important in studying modern societal conditions, which are, according to
social theorists, characterized by increasing choices, contradictions and demands that
social actors need to balance and conflicting expectations and norms that they have to
attend to (Luscher and Pillemer 1998).
Since sociological ambivalence is defined as the coexistence of conflicting norms
and expectations, the question arises of whether and how ambivalence differs from
conflict and role conflict in particular. Luscher (2004:30) agrees that the distinction is not
clear in Merton and Barber’s explanation of ambivalence and proposes that the term
conflict is “more general than … the meaning of ambivalence (2004: 35). Conflict can
refer to indecisiveness, tensions, opposing interests but what makes conflict different
from ambivalence is that in most cases they may be resolved whether by agreement,
contract, compromise or by the use of force, while in the case of ambivalence, “the basic
tension remains” (2004:35). Luscher suggests that ambivalence represents “pending
68
conflict,” meaning that ambivalence exists conceptually before harmony and conflict, and
may result in one of these outcomes.
In a different approach to a sociological understanding of ambivalence, Willson
and her colleagues (2003) distinguish ambivalence from conflict and propose that a
person experiencing ambivalence experiences conflicting sentiments and thoughts within
one relationship, rather than conflicting social demands between different roles she
occupies. Lettke and Klein (2004:92) also make an effort to distinguish ambivalence
from conflict and argue that ambivalence differs “… from social conflict, confusion of
uncertainty, and discordance between one’s mind and heart.” They suggest that while
“social conflict refers to interpersonal or intergroup disputes”, in which each party stands
on their side of the conflict, confusion reflects lack of knowledge, disagreement between
mind and heart brings together two different dimensions that ambivalence theorists keep
apart, “ambivalence can mean disagreement between opposing cognitions (mind) or
between opposing emotions (heart), but not a conflict between one’s mind and heart.”
(Lettke and Klein 2004:93). While this understanding goes deep into the meaning of
ambivalence, it also brings ambivalence back to a personal and psychological level and
Lettke and Klein do not offer suggestions about how to measure and operationalize
ambivalence according to these criteria.
Following Luscher’s approach (2002, 2004), I distinguish between ambivalence
and conflict and define ambivalence as the coexistence of opposing norms and
expectations that are temporarily or permanently irreconcilable. Luescher suggests the
following definition of ambivalence, which is also useful in my conceptualization of
maternal ambivalence:
69
For the purposes of sociological research (on intergenerational relations), it is
useful to speak of ambivalence when polarized simultaneous emotions, thoughts,
volitions, actions, social relations, and/or structures that are considered relevant
for the constitution of individual or collective identities are (or can be) interpreted
as temporarily or permanently irreconcilable. (2004:36)
This definition includes psychological aspects – i.e., the emotions and thoughts of
ambivalence – but locates them in specific social structures and identities. It also takes
into account the temporal dimension of dealing with ambivalence. Luscher proposes that
ambivalence is “embedded in the very processes of thinking, feeling, doing, relating, and
organizing,” which makes it a crucial and normal part of everyday life rather than a
negative or pathological situation, an important aspect of defining maternal ambivalence.
How social actors deal with ambivalence determines the impact of ambivalence
on both the social actors and social structures. Luscher suggests that “ambivalences are
dynamics that must be dealt with” (2004:36, emphasis original). Ambivalence can either
lead to inability to make a decision, thus halting individual action (Weigert 1991) or
redefinition of the problem or situation and creative solution as psychological theories
suggest. Individuals affected by the ambivalence produced by a social structure can
attempt to change their behaviors to appropriately deal with it, whether by creating space
for social change and eventual change of social structures, or by accepting one side of the
normative expectations. Understanding of an individual as a social actor opens a
possibility for ambivalence to activate “human potential for action in social structure”
(Weigert 1991). Ambivalence is therefore an unstable phenomenon because people try to
cope with it, which initiates changes in not only in ambivalence but also in the social
structures that produce it.
70
In empirical research, sociologists have used the concept of ambivalence to study
social relationships (Fingerman, Hay and Birditt 2004), attitudes toward social issues
such as the presence of women in the military (Drake 2006), pregnancy and abortion
(Alvarez and Brehm 1995; Bruckner, Martin and Bearmann 2005) and social
organizations and acts of the government (Akerstrom 2006; Cunningham 2009). In the
area of sociology of family, the concept of ambivalence has been used to study
relationships between adult children and their parents (intergenerational ambivalence),
single mothers and their relationships with their extended families (Sarkisian 2006), and
the coexistence of conflicting norms about grandparenting (Mason, May and Clarke
2007).
In the last decade, research in the area of sociology of intergenerational family
relationships has been the most significant in the development of the concept and the use
of ambivalence in sociological research. Intergenerational research focuses on dilemmas
in the relationships between adult children and their older parents, and contradictions
involved in caring for elderly parents. The researchers argue that current theories of
solidarity and conflict are not sufficient to understand the complexity of intergenerational
relationships (Luescher and Pillemer 1998). As children assume their adult roles and the
parents age, the norms and expectations for their relationships, responsibilities, care, and
individual accomplishment change and relationships between parents and children may
become more complicated (Pillemer and Suitor 2002; Luscher 2004:42). For example,
intergenerational ambivalence may be a result of the contradictory societal expectations
for children’s achievement and behavior (for example achieving financial independence,
taking care of elderly parents) and their actual practices (e.g., not having a job, living
71
with the parents) (Pillemer and Suitor 2002). In general, intergenerational sociological
research examines the conditions under which ambivalence increases or decreases.
Researchers in the area of intergenerational ambivalence thus significantly extend
and develop the sociological use of the concept of ambivalence. They use elements of its
psychological and sociological understanding to suggest new ways of conceptualizing
and measuring the term (Luescher and Pillemer 1998; Pillemer and Luscher 2004;
Willson, Shuey, and Elder 2003; Pillermer and Suitor 2002; Willson et al. 2006). The
characteristics of intergenerational ambivalence are in many ways similar to those of
maternal ambivalence as they involve intimate family relationships of indefinite duration,
relationships built on authority, caregiving, and ensuing relations of dependency,
conditions which have been long recognized as significant for generating ambivalence
(Merton and Barber 1963; Smelser 1998; Pillemer and Suitor 2002). Since early
mothering involves many of the characteristics of intergenerational relationships, I build
upon the conceptualization and research in my understanding of maternal ambivalence
and adjust it to the specific context of motherhood.
UNDERSTANDING MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
Motherhood creates plentiful conditions for ambivalence. Being a mother
involves the presence of conflicting social norms and expectations and coexistence of
discrepant identities and ideas about one’s self. At the same time, mothers are engaged in
the relationships of intimacy, dependence and caring, which can generate both positive
and negative feelings. Ambivalence thus represents a concept well-fit for the study of the
72
experience of motherhood as it combines the intimate family relationship with conflicting
cultural norms and expectations. While the psychological analysis of maternal
ambivalence is quite rich, the sociological perspective is absent. This project aims to
close this gap and extend our understanding of the motherhood experience by using the
sociological concept of ambivalence.
Although most mothers take pleasure in having the baby, they can also feel
exhausted, overwhelmed by the responsibilities of the never-ending childcare, lonely if
they take care of their child without sufficient social support, or confused about their new
identity. The words of a writer and poet Adrienne Rich in the classic Of Woman Born
([1976] 1986) express contradictory feelings produced by the mothering experience:
My children cause me the most exquisite suffering of which I have any
experience. It is the suffering of ambivalence: the murderous alternation between
bitter resentment and raw-edged nerves, and blissful gratification and tenderness.”
(1986:21)
While Rich in this quote describes her feelings and psychological state, she does
not place the ambivalence in the relationship with her child but rather in the social
conditions of motherhood. She distinguishes the acts of caring for her children, which she
defines as mothering, from the social norms and ideologies of motherhood as a
patriarchal social institution (Rich 1986; O’Reilly 2004:2). Rich argues that it is the
mothering in the patriarchal society and isolation of the middle-class family, which
creates contradictory feelings about her position as a mother (Rich 1986:34). Similarly, in
my analysis of motherhood memoirs, I found very little ambivalence located in the
relationship between mother and child. To fully understand maternal ambivalence, we
thus need to examine not only psychological but also social structural sources and
73
conditions of contemporary motherhood that are conducive to the presence of maternal
ambivalence.
Psychological Perspective on Maternal Ambivalence
From the psychological perspective, maternal ambivalence is based on a presence
of loving and hating feelings between a mother and her infant. In the works of Freud, and
his later followers such as Melanie Klein and Donald W. Winnicott, love and hate are
rooted in the unconscious and coexist side by side (Parker [1995] 2005a). For the infant,
feelings of ambivalence represent an important achievement (Klein in Parker 2005a:20)
and a developmental step in the achievement of the separation from the mother. Winnicot
mentions mothers’ contradictory emotions in the relationship to the baby, which stem
from the demands of child care, process of separation, and fear of losing own identity but
also from the fear of harming or losing the child due to this experience of negative
feelings toward her (Parker 2005a). The negative feelings become problematic only if
they become unmanageable or are suppressed. A mother’s awareness of the conflicted
emotions can turn against her own self and result in an overwhelming sense of guilt and
possibly depression.
The focus of traditional psychoanalysis is primarily on the infant’s development
and the environment the mother creates for the child’s psychological development
(Parker 2005a:17; Suleiman 2001:116). Contemporary psychotherapist Parker in her
study on maternal ambivalence, Torn in Two ([1995] 2005a), extends this understanding
and turns her attention to the significance of ambivalence for maternal psychological
development. She argues that while it may be difficult to accept, all mothers experience
74
complex and conflicting feelings about their babies. The achievement of ambivalence and
a mother’s awareness of the coexistence of love and hate for the baby can actually be
beneficial as it promotes a sense of concern and responsibility toward the baby and a
mother’s sense of self-autonomy. Manageable ambivalence enables the mother to form a
more fulfilling relationship with the baby.
However, unmanageable ambivalence can develop into anxiety or depression due
to the cultural idealization of mothers (Parker 2005a). Because every mother has a desire
to be considered a “good mother,” and because experiencing anger and negative emotions
toward the child is not part of the “good mother” image, awareness of the contradictory
feelings can increase the anxiety and guilt mothers feel about motherhood. The
psychological relationship based on love and hate is thus shaped by social and cultural
conditions of mothering and by the internalized image of a “good mother,” which women
try to achieve. In acknowledging the effects of social and cultural context on mothers’
relationships to their children and the existence of maternal ambivalence, Parker moves a
purely psychological understanding of ambivalence into a sociological perspective. In
such perspective, it is the socio-cultural conditions of mothering and the image of “good
mother,” which women internalize, that result in the ambivalent love-hate relationship
new mothers have toward their infants (Lupton 2000). I examine the social, cultural and
ideological context of contemporary mothering to identify conditions conducive to
maternal ambivalence, while paying particular attention to class and race differences in
the motherhood experience.
75
MOTHERHOOD IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
Demographic Trends
Today’s women become mothers at a different point of their life and under
different circumstances than was the case for previous generations. Changes in
motherhood are closely related to overall changes in the structure of American families
and the position of women in society. Women’s increasing levels of education, higher
career aspirations and expanded career opportunities, higher rates of labor force
participation, improved contraception, rising age at marriage, increasing rates of divorce
and rising proportion of non-marital childbearing all contribute to the changing
significance of motherhood in women’s lives and reflect changing demographic behavior
and trends (Smock and Greenland 2010:576).
According to the overview of the demographic trends toward parenthood, Smock
and Greenland (2010) point to decoupling of marriage and childbearing as one of the
most significant demographic changes characteristic of contemporary motherhood. While
a majority of all babies are still born to married couples, the rate of non-marital
childbearing has increased from about 10 percent in 1970 to almost 40 percent in 2007
(Smock and Greenland 2010:577). Non-marital childbearing varies widely by mothers’
race and ethnicity and by social class, with about 28 percent of white mothers having a
child outside marriage compared to 72 percent of black mothers (Hamilton, Martin and
Ventura 2009). Mothers with less than high school education, used as a proxy for social
class, were according to 2001 data more than twice as likely to become single mothers as
college educated mothers (68 percent compared to 32 percent). While these trends seem
76
to signify a decreasing importance of marriage, some sociologists point out that lowincome women actually value marriage highly and wait to get married until they resolve
their economic difficulties (Edin and Kefalas 2005). Non-marital childbearing has also
lost most of the stigma it used to carry (Cherlin et al. 2008).
Another significant demographic trend is characterized by women’s increasing
delay and avoidance of motherhood. Women often become mothers in their late twenties
and increasingly in their thirties – later in their lives than did their mothers and
grandmothers. The average age of the first time mother has increased from 21.4 years of
age in 1970 to 24.9 in 2000 (Mathews and Hamilton 2002) and this increase has been
about the same for women of all educational levels (Martin 2000; Smock and Greenland
2010). In 2004, about 45 percent of women between 25 and 29 years of age were still
childless (Dye 2005) and “the percentage of all births for women over age 30 increased
from 31.7 percent in the 1990-1994 period to 36.4 percent between 1997 and 2001”
(Kennedy and Bumpass 2008:1669; Smock and Greenland 2010:578).
Concurrent with the trend toward delayed motherhood, women also tend to have
fewer children. The average number of children an American woman is expected to have
in her lifetime has dropped from a high of 3.5 children during the 1950s baby boom to
about 2.1 in 2006, thus reaching only a replacement level for the population for the first
time since 1971 (Downs 2003; CDC Center for National Health Statistics 2007). Today’s
mothers thus spend much less of their life course actively involved in mothering than did
women in the past. In fact, the average woman spends less than a seventh of her lifetime
doing tasks such as nursing, diapering, or taking care of the everyday needs of a young
child (Coltrane and Collins 2001). Having fewer children and more resources allows
77
mothers to devote more attention, energy and resources to each child they have, as
required by the ideology of intensive mothering (Hays 1996), but it also presents women
with more time and opportunities to pursue other interests and life opportunities.
Voluntary Childlessness and Maternal Ambivalence
The proportion of women who remain childless has nearly doubled from the
1970s to the 2000s. In the 1970s only 10 percent of women did not have children during
their reproductive lives (defined by demographers as ending at age 44); by 2004, about
20 percent of women between the ages of 40 and 44 years remained childless (Dye 2005).
Even though improved reproduction technologies and adoption offer women the
possibility to become mothers after age 44, this increase suggests that more women are
postponing and foregoing motherhood more than ever before. While until the 1970s there
was a gap in childlessness between black and white women, with white women having
higher rates, at the beginning of the 2000s, this racial difference has largely disappeared
among women past their reproductive age (Lundquist, Budig and Curtis 2009).
Voluntary avoidance of motherhood can be viewed as an ultimate way of
resolving ambivalence about motherhood. While this is quite a different use of the term
“maternal ambivalence” than I use in this project, it is important to note that some women
may resolve their ambivalence about motherhood by choosing not to become mothers.
Therefore, I find it important to at least touch up on this meaning in this discussion of the
concept of ambivalence.
As it is conventionally expected that all women will become mothers, in the
Western societies, motherhood is still considered to be a part of “normal” womanhood
78
and femininity, and a woman is often not considered an adult woman until she has
children (Richardson 1993; Wager 2000). If she does not, she may be considered
immature or deviating from the prescribed roles (Wager 2000:389). However, given
increasing opportunities for women to find fulfillment in other areas of life than child
rearing, positive attitudes toward childlessness have become more acceptable. In a recent
study of attitudes about childlessness, women were more likely than men to hold positive
attitudes about childlessness. This pattern was particularly evident among women with
less traditional attitudes about marriage, gender equality and women’s employment
(Koropeckyj-Cox and Pendell 2007), suggesting separation of the female and maternal
identities.
Increasing options for self-fulfillment for women outside of motherhood and
medical advances controlling and prolonging fertility have led to a culture in which
motherhood becomes an active choice for a woman (Chodorow 2008:1196). Women
ambivalent about becoming mothers may choose to postpone having children until they
are no longer able to conceive (Lundquist, Budig, and Curtis 2009:744), until it is “too
late” (Dever and Saugeres 2004; Chodorow 2008), and thus resolve their mixed feelings
about becoming a mother. In the study of the trends in voluntary childlessness, Abma and
Martinez (2006:1050) found that between 1982 and 2002, between 44 and 59 percent of
childless women in the 40-44 age category were identified as voluntarily childless.
Among childless women, voluntarily childless generally comprise the largest group
compared to temporarily or involuntarily childless, suggesting an active decision of
women to forgo motherhood. Abma and Martinez (2006) propose that women who focus
on their careers are more likely to remain voluntarily childless; the decrease in the
79
proportion of the voluntarily childless in 2002, when the lowest number of voluntarily
childless was recorded, may be explained by an increasing acceptability of working
mothers and better possibilities to combine work and family.
However, not all childless women necessarily feel ambivalent about motherhood.
In a qualitative study of voluntarily childless women, Gillespie (2003) explores the
reasons behind the decisions to remain childless and suggests that modern society creates
“new possibilities for being a woman that exclude motherhood” (2003:134). She
describes the pulls of a childfree lifestyle and socially more surprising push away from
motherhood, in which women reject the activities and way of life associated with
nurturing and caring. Gillespie finds that childfree women redefine their femininity and
identity and see their refusal to become mothers as “the transformative effects of agency”
women exercise in face of society, which still equates femininity with motherhood.
Social and Cultural Norms of Motherhood:
How to Be a “Good Mother” and Maternal Ambivalence
Social construction of mothering. Because of women’s biological ability to bear children,
mothering might seem to be a universal female experience, and women in contemporary
society continue to be defined in terms of their relationship to maternity (DiQuinzio
1999; Wager 2000; Chodorow 2008). At the same time, women’s femininity and gender
identity are reinforced by mothering (McMahon 1995; Arendel 2000). Based on the
cultural, structural and historical differences in mothering practices and motherhood
norms, sociologists argue against essentializing of the motherhood experience and against
80
understanding of mothering as being the same and natural experience for all women
(Glenn 1994; DiQuinzio 1999). Not only do all women not give birth to children, but
many mothers raise their non-biological children, being thus involved in mothering
practices. In her influential work Maternal Thinking, philosopher Sarah Ruddick (1995)
suggests that mothers’ taking care of their children involves philosophical thinking and
depending on their possibilities mothers protect, nurture and train their children in
preparation for life. These practices and thinking are, however, not limited to biological
mothers and they are not limited to women either, which means that men can be involved
in mothering activities as well (Doucet 2006).
Pointing to social, cultural and historical variations in motherhood roles, norms
and expectations, social scientists thus understand motherhood primarily as a social
phenomenon (Bassin, Honey, and Kaplan 1994; Hays 1996). They point out that even
though pregnancy, childbirth or nursing are biological processes, their meaning is
culturally defined, and the actual experience of being a mother varies historically and
cross-culturally. The normative definition of what it means to be a “good mother”, that is
how to mother in a socially appropriate way have also historically varied and have been
applied differentially according to a woman’s social status. The social expectations and
norms of motherhood have changed and developed in reaction to gender, race and class
ideologies of the particular society. For example, in the 19th century the belief that
mothers rather than wet-nurses were best suited to take care of their babies became
increasingly popular. At the same time as American society began to expect middle-class
mothers to selflessly devote themselves to their children, public campaigns, policy
measures, and sterilization discouraged poor and minority women from becoming
81
mothers at all, since they were consider ill-equipped to be “good mothers” (Coontz
1992).
Though such stark class differences in creating motherhood norms may seem
implausible today, middle-class and working-class mothers are still held to different
standards of motherhood. For example, middle-class mothers are encouraged to devote as
much time as possible to the care of their children, while working-class and poor mothers
are expected to work outside of the home, leaving their children in the care of others in
order to provide income for their families (Hays 2003). What is often considered to be a
“natural” model of mothering thus stems from dominant views of the traditional white,
middle-class practices and ideologies of mothering (Glenn 1994; Landry 2000). Analyses
of the mass media show the normative mother to be a white, middle-class, and
presumably married woman (Johnston and Swanson 2003a, 2003b; Douglas and
Michaels 2003; Miller 2007), a model of motherhood that excludes (Collins 1994) single,
minority, and lesbian mothers.
Ideology of intensive mothering. Contemporary social expectations on how to be a “good
mother” are in the historical comparison very high and are based on the ultimate high
value of the child and a mother’s full devotion to her (Hays 1996). Despite the growing
numbers of mothers in the labor force, the culturally dominant beliefs about
characteristics of a good mother continue to be based on the domestic ideal of a stay-athome-mother and homemaker. Mothers are thus still expected to be primary caregivers of
their children and be fully devoted to their care and upbringing. Scholars of motherhood
agree that contemporary mothers are expected to mother according to the prevailing
82
ideology of “intensive mothering”, an approach to mothering described by Sharon Hays
(1996). Intensive mothering requires a mother to be the central caregiver to the child,
follow the advice of experts, always put the child’s needs ahead of her own, be fully
emotionally engaged with the child, and spend significant time and financial resources
for the benefit of the child. Hays defines the methods of intensive mothering as “childcentered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor-intensive and financially
expensive” (1996:8).
This approach to motherhood requires a mother to focus fully on her child, be
selfless, self-sacrificing, and caring, which stands in stark contrast with the individualistic
and profit-seeking ideology of American capitalism, which women encounter if they
work outside the home. According to Hays this is the main cultural contradiction that
mothers encounter in our society. She argues that mothers internalize these ideologies
and enact them in their daily activities, seeing them as natural and logical approaches to
life. The contradictory expectations stemming from these ideologies can lead to some of
the ambivalence and guilt about their role performance.
The dominance of this mothering ideology has since been explored and supported
by many theorists and researchers in the area of motherhood studies (see for example
Garey 1999; Hattery 2001; Johnston and Swanson 2006, 2007; O’Reilly 2004). Hays
suggests that while the expectations of intensive mothering are based on the model of
white middle-class mothers, the dominance of this ideology affects mothers across all
social layers. Mothers belonging to different social categories agree with its assumption
that their children come first and dedicate themselves to providing the best for them, even
if their definitions of the “best” may vary (Hays 1996:86). In the study of child rearing
83
differences across class and race categories Lareau (2003:236) concludes that although
child rearing practices and behavior of working-class and middle-class mothers are quite
different, all mothers express beliefs that reflect a similar notion of intensive mothering.
“Good” and “bad” mothers. Women who do not follow the requirements of intensive
mothering either because of the lack of resources or because they do not fit the
mainstream depictions of “good mothers” are then labeled as “bad mothers.” Definition
of “good” and “bad” mother varies by race and social class and points to the differences
in the motherhood experience among mothers of different social backgrounds. Compared
to the image of a white middle-class heterosexual mother representing the image of a
“good mother,” “bad mothers” are usually depicted through images of teen or single
mothers, poor mothers dependent on welfare, or women of color. “Bad mothers” are seen
as lazy, ignoring or endangering their children, or otherwise irresponsible, looking after
their own needs rather than the needs of their children (Luker 1996; Hancock 2004).
They usually also have more children than what is considered to be a cultural norm.
While they are expected to work to provide for their children, they are also seen as
neglectful if they do not spend enough time with them (Hays 2003).
In a study of low income mothers, Edin and Kefalas (2005:166) argue that the
poor mothers they studied also define themselves as “good mothers,” and while they may
not have the resources to mother according to middle-class standards and develop their
children’s talents through extra-curricular activities, “they adopt an approach to
childrearing that values survival, not achievement.” Being a good mother for them means
to be there for their children, keeping them clean, neat, and well-dressed, and just having
84
children in difficult circumstances represents a sacrifice for them. For African American
mothers, in the face of historical adversity and enduring racism, protecting their children
and teaching them to safely navigate the society constitutes good mothering (Collins
2000; Edin and Kefalas 2005; Parker 2005b). The practices of mothering and definition
of a good mother thus vary according to the resources mothers have available.
Perfect madness of “new momism” and parenting in the 21st century. The media play a
significant role in promoting the standards and ideology of good motherhood by
providing images and classifying mothers either as good or bad (Douglas and Michaels
2003; Johnston and Swanson 2003a; 2003b). Douglas and Michaels refer to the set of
motherhood norms promoted by media as “new momism” but the message is the same as
in the ideology of intensive mothering; it is “the insistence that no woman is truly
complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best primary caretakers
of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire
physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (2003:4).
Douglas and Michaels also point out that new momism is based on a powerful
contradiction: on the one hand new momism seems to celebrate motherhood and presents
it as women’s choice, on the other hand it presents women as enlightened only if they
make the right choice, i.e., become mothers and then raise their children with the
“combination of selflessness and professionalism” (2003:5). New momism promotes
increasing standards of perfection, which according to Douglas and Michaels make it
difficult for mothers to either achieve the ideologically prescribed ideal or carve a space
for an individual identity.
85
In a similar vein, Warner (2005) then describes the atmosphere of current
motherhood as “perfect madness,” characterized by stress, competition, anxiety and
never-ending work on behalf of the children. Lareau (2003:5) characterizes the middleclass intensive mothering approach to child rearing as “concerted cultivation.” Following
the principles of intensive mothering, Lareau documents how middle-class parents,
guided by experts, “deliberately try to stimulate their children’s development and foster
their cognitive and social skills” through focus on education and extracurricular activities
that define families’ daily life, development of language, and sense of entitlement. This is
in stark difference to working-class and poor families’ approach to parenting focused on
providing “comfort, shelter, and other basic support,” which Lareau characterizes as an
“accomplishment of natural growth” (2003:5). Such different approaches to parenting are
based in the unequal distribution of social and economic resources and contribute to the
reproduction of social inequalities in the society. Both of these approaches to parenting
appear to social actors as natural (2003:239) and both middle-class and working-class
mothers are expected to follow these child rearing approaches in order to be considered
“good” mothers.
Transition to motherhood: Divergence between expectations and reality. New mothers in
particular have to deal not just with the social expectations of intensive mothering, but
also with the process of sorting out expectations from realities and adjusting to the latter.
According to Maushart (1999), new mothers are ill-prepared for the intensity of
mothering expectations and the conflicted and negative aspects of motherhood are hidden
behind “the mask of motherhood”, which keeps the true character of motherhood
86
concealed to non-mothers. The mask of motherhood obscures the full spectrum of the
mothering experience, leaving new mothers to face the discrepancy between the idealized
expectations and the harsh realities of motherhood and understand them as their personal
problems.
Current motherhood discourse continues to emphasize “natural” and “instinctive”
abilities of women to care for their children (Hays 1996; Miller 2007). Even though new
mothers are given plenty of (often contradictory) advice (Buskens 2004), they often find
themselves unprepared and incompetent in their mothering performances (Miller
2007:351). Nevertheless, as Miller documents, mothers still try to do their best to fulfill
the expectations of good mothering. The lack of preparation and understanding of the
reality of the motherhood experience then represents one of the main factors contributing
to the feelings of unfulfilled expectations and maternal ambivalence according to
qualitative sociological research (McMahon 1995; Lupton 2000; Miller 2007). Miller
(2007:351) describes the transition to motherhood among the women she interviewed as
involving “a steep, lonely – and bumpy – learning curve,” for which they were illprepared and had trouble coping with. Lupton (2000) compared the expectations and
reality of first-time mothers and found a big discrepancy between the ideals and reality,
leading mothers to ambivalent feelings about their motherhood role as well as about their
baby.
Bonding with the baby. An integral part of the current motherhood ideologies is their
assumption that the prescribed social norms of mothering actually reflect the natural
childcare, which “good mothers” instinctively know how to achieve. The emphasis on the
87
“natural” and “instinctive” maternal care also shapes the expectations for the relationship
between a mother and her infant. This relationship is in early motherhood dominated by
the image of bonding, first formulated in the attachment theory developed during the
post-war period by John Bowlby (1988) (Hays 1996; Buskens 2004:100). Based on the
research examining the impact of lack of human attention on babies in orphanages,
Bowlby proposed that in order for children to develop properly, they need to create a
“secure attachment” with a caregiver (usually a mother). Such a bond can only develop if
a mother is constantly physically and emotionally available. Lack of secure attachment
and parent’s proper responsiveness to the needs of an infant can have, according to
Bowlby, negative implications for the mother-child relationship and eventually for the
child’s development (Meredith and Noller 2003:669-670).
The tenets of this theory of parenting were incorporated into some of the most
popular childcare manuals emerging since the 1950s (authored, e.g., by Penelope Leach,
Benjamin Spock, and William Sears) and became part of the ideology of intensive
mothering (Hays 1996; Buskens 2004). Buskens’ analysis of these manuals finds that
they advised mothers to be physically and emotionally available to the infant at all times,
implicitly and explicitly discouraging them from working outside of the home. Recalling
a “natural” approach to childcare in primitive societies, where mothers carry their
children wrapped on their bodies at all times, leading proponents of the “attachment
parenting” advocate an approach that involves almost constant contact with the baby
achieved by wearing the infant in the sling, breastfeeding on baby’s demand, and cosleeping (Buskens 2004:101).
88
Such a complete immersion into the childcare then clearly prohibits a mother
from maintaining and developing any other than maternal identity. Buskens argues that
such one-dimensional identity is in direct contradiction with modern society’s
characteristic of multiplicity in environments and identities and, in effect, pushes mothers
into a pre-modern, single identity, context. Although some of the attachment parenting
recommendations have in recent years been disputed and discouraged by medical
practitioners (e.g., co-sleeping) and only few women fully follow its recommendations,
attachment parenting has become a model of “natural” parenting endorsed by many
middle-class (and paradoxically, often feminist) mothers. Proponents of natural
mothering refuse materialistic, rushed, and expert-guided approaches to mothering in
favor of mother-dependent, natural, and instinctive mothering (Bobel 2002).
However, early attachment between the mother and the child has become a part of
the image of a good, nurturing mother (Eyer 1992; Blum 1999), and even mothers who
do not strictly follow attachment parenting expect to experience instant bonding with
their baby (Miller 2007). Lack of immediate attachment between a mother and a baby
and a mother’s everyday experience of gradual bonding with the child are at odds with
ideas of bonding and expected natural responses (Miller 2007:355) and can result in
conflicted and negative feelings about mothering experience (Taylor 1996:39). Even a
mother’s relationship with her baby is thus guided by social expectations of a “good
mother” and highlights that any mothering experience contradicting the prescribed norms
of mothering has the potential for creating feelings of ambivalence for the mother.
89
“Good mother” expectations and maternal ambivalence. Warner (2005), just like
Ruddick before her, points out that it is other mothers who enforce these high standards
through ever-present judgment of “gaze of others” (Ruddick 1989; O’Reilly 2004).
Mothers subscribing to different beliefs of what is a “right” approach to mothering are
pitted against each other (Johnston and Swanson 2003a; Maushart 1999; Peskowitz
2005), and in the competition to be even better mothers, perfect the standards of
mothering even further. Such unrealistic expectations and inability to follow these
increasingly high standards of how to be a good mother are behind the feelings of guilt
and ambivalence women feel about motherhood (Lupton 2000; Parker 2005a). Studies
examining social causes of post-partum depression suggest that the stress stemming from
adjustment to motherhood, along with the demands of taking care of the new baby, and
social and cultural pressures on mothers are considered among factors contributing to
maternal ambivalence and even postpartum depression (Taylor 1996; Kendall-Tackett
2005).
I thus see current standards of intensive mothering, which in short define women
as “good mothers” only if they completely devote themselves and their resources to
mothering, relinquish other interests and identities, and form a close relationship with the
child through constant and expert-guided care, as some of the areas conducive to
mothers’ feelings of ambivalence. Research on motherhood also finds that for
contemporary mothers, it is the intersection of work and family lives that becomes
another important source of women’s ambivalence about motherhood and their identities.
90
Work and Family Intersection
As a majority of women work outside of the home, issues arising from mothers’
combination of work and family responsibilities are some of the most discussed issues in
the area of sociological research on motherhood. Research shows that a mother’s
employment status plays a major role in defining what makes a good mother (Johnston
and Swanson 2006). Although the ideology of intensive mothering expects mothers to
prioritize mothering to employment, interestingly, the rise of the ideology of intensive
mothering coincides and grows more intensive with mothers’ increased participation in
the workforce (Hays 1996:50). Mothers regardless of their employment status are then
expected to follow the ideology of intensive mothering.
Mothers’ decisions about work and raising children become a subject of judgment
by other mothers (Hattery 2001; Peskowitz 2005; Warner 2005) as both stay-at-home and
employed mothers tend to use their work-status as a base for defining their own group as
better mothers, thus excluding others from the “good mother” status (Johnston and
Swanson 2004; Peskowitz 2005). While stay-at-home mothers stress their self-sacrifice
and constant availability to their children, employed mothers emphasize the extra
resources their jobs bring and the role models they provide for their children (Johnston
and Swanson 2006). This polarization between stay-at-home and employed mothers is
also known as the “mommy wars,” a cultural debate about who makes a better mother. It
has been played out in the media ever since the 1970s, with each camp pitted against the
other, arguing that their choice is the right one, and that children of the mothers on the
other side suffer because of their mothers’ choices (Peskowitz 2005).
91
According to the analysis of the messages women receive from women’s
magazines, Johnston and Swanson (2003b) found that mothers receive “double-bind
messages” that undermine their choices about work and motherhood. They find that the
media they analyzed show predominantly traditional stay-at-home mothers. However,
they were represented as unhappy, confused, and overwhelmed, which is at odds with the
domestic bliss myth (Johnston and Swanson 2003b:30). The images of employed
mothers, much less frequent, were, however, more commonly positive. Employed
mothers were presented on the intersection of the public and domestic spheres, providing
for their children but struggling with their relationship with them. Such mixed cultural
messages make mothers feel guilty over the choices they make and contribute to their
ambivalence about their performance of the motherhood role. As Peskowitz (2005) points
out, dividing mothers into working mothers and stay-at-home mothers is neither fully
accurate nor productive since mothers do not consistently fall in one category but they
move through them as their children grow, younger children are born, and their life
situations change. Regardless of the direction they choose, the “mommy wars” debate can
leave mothers ambivalent about their mothering (Peskowitz 2005).
Although childcare and mothering are often referred to as the most important jobs
in the world, mothers receive minimal public support and no economic compensation for
their work (Crittenden 2001). The benefits of childrearing are diffuse and shared by the
whole society; however, mothers are more likely than fathers to carry the negative
economic costs of having children, a fact that Crittenden refers to as the price of
motherhood (2001). However, the possibility to stay at home and raise children full time
is only available to those mothers whose household incomes are high enough to support
92
the family. Compared to the mid-20th century, staying at home has become a privilege
reserved for more affluent families and mothers. While at the height of the “traditional”
breadwinner-homemaker family in the 1950s, only 18 percent of mothers with children
below the age of six worked full-time (Hattery 2001), almost 60 percent of married
women with children under six years of age worked in 2008 (Bureau of Labor Statistics
2009a).
Even when mothers work outside of the home, they continue to carry primary
responsibility for parenting and household, although fathers’ participation in child care
has been on the increase (Hochschild 1989; Coltrane 1996; Bianchi et al. 2000). Still,
mothers’ time spent on child care remained high and was as high in the first decade of the
21st century as it had ever been (Bianchi and Milkie 2010:708). While holding multiple
roles can be beneficial for one’s well-being and provide mothers with positive
experiences (Thoits 1983; Ross and Mirowsky 1995; Marshall and Tracy 2009),
combining work and family responsibilities defined by intensive mothering demands can
lead to feelings of conflict and may have a negative impact on mothers’ health and wellbeing (Byron 2005). Combining work and family can make mothers feel exhausted and
stressed, particularly if they care for very young children (Marshall and Tracy 2009).
Work and family intersection then provides a potential source of conflict and
ambivalence about motherhood.
Mothers who work outside of the home need to incorporate the expectations
imposed by the ideology of intensive mothering into their mothering work and at the
same time need to deal with a work world that continues to disadvantage all caregivers,
not only mothers, who cannot perform as ideal workers, i.e., employees fully committed
93
to their jobs and performing without any family impediments (Williams 2000). Research
shows that working mothers thus face disadvantages in hiring because of their caregiving
status and receive lower pay than fathers and non-mothers (Ridgeway and Correll 2004,
Budig and England 2001). The wage penalty for motherhood, defined as a decrease in
pay mothers receive that can be explained by the fact that a woman has children, is about
2-10 percent for the first child and 5-13 percent for two or more children, depending on
the children’s ages and the mother’s education and race (Waldfogel 1997; Budig and
England 2001; Anderson et al. 2003).
Several authors point out that women differ in their preferences about the
optimum work and family arrangement (Gerson 1985; Hakim 2000; Blair-Loy 2003).
While their typologies vary, they all suggest that women are in general divided into three
groups – career-oriented, family-oriented and those who prefer to combine work and
family. In her study Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory
Hakim (2000) develops a preference theory as a new approach to predicting women’s
decisions about work and family arrangements in the contemporary society. She suggests
that women do not represent a homogeneous group in terms of their work-family
preferences but differ in their lifestyle choices, which are a good predictor of their actual
lifestyles. She argues that “once genuine choices are open to them, women choose among
three different lifestyles: adaptive, work-centered, or home-centered” (Hakim 2003:357).
According to Hakim, all three types of preferences can be found among mothers
regardless of their social class or education.
Blair-Loy (2003) sees the conflict between family and work lives as a cultural
conflict between values of motherhood and caring and values of the work world. To
94
explain this conflict, she uses the concept of “competing devotion schemas,” which she
defines as the deeply seated competing “cultural models we employ to make sense of the
world. These schemas are frameworks for…[f]iltering, understanding, and evaluating
what we know as reality” (2003:5), which shape choices, constraints, and people’s
interpretations of them. Blair-Loy shows that competing ideologies of motherhood and
employment contribute to mothers’ feelings of stress and ambivalence, in particular when
their preferred work-family arrangements do not fit their actual arrangements.
In her research, Blair-Loy divided the sample of women executives into two
ideal-typical groups based on their dominant schema as a “career-devoted” group and a
“family-devoted” group. Career-devoted women are characterized by their devotion to
work and allocate most of their time and energy to the company and career. About twothirds of the respondents Blair-Loy studied did not have children, either by choice or
because they ran out of time. On the other side of the spectrum are the family-devoted
women who quit full-time employment after they had children. While some continue to
work part-time, according to this schema, women have the primary responsibility for
housework and child-care. Marriages of these women are characterized by
interdependency; financial dependence by wives and physical and emotional dependence
by husbands. For these women, the family and children are their priority. They organize
their lives to take care of their children and are mostly content with this arrangement.
Only those women in the family-devoted group who planned for career life but instead
stayed at home were discontented and ambivalent about their position. (2003:168).
Career-devotion and family-devotion schemas are according to Blair-Loy ideal
types, which social actors can challenge and adjust. Blair-Loy thus suggests that women
95
working part-time are in fact family-devoted women who most noticeably attempt to
reinvent, adjust, and change the dominant schemas (2003:112). Out of all women, women
working part-time face conflicting expectations, resistance and identity struggles on both
sides (2003:108); their work-devotion is questioned and prevents them from reaching the
top positions, while they also feel rejected by stay-at-home moms because of their split
attention to work and family. Nevertheless, they also feel content and balanced because
they are able to include both worker and mother roles in their identities. They are thus
mostly able to overcome the ambivalence about work and family divisions. By resolving
their ambivalence, these mothers change the definitions of motherhood and career as they
“experiment with practical strategies to confront the emergent challenges of historically
changing circumstances” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998:1009; Blair-Loy 2003).
However, many mothers do not find it easy to challenge dominant patterns of
work and family lives and cannot reconcile the division between career-devotion and
family-devotion schemas and expectations. In a widely discussed New York Times article,
Belkin (2003) suggested that many mothers find it difficult to combine the demands of
both paid work and family, and leave the work force. Belkin contends that professional
mothers are increasingly leaving the workforce to take care of their children, and
choosing family over careers, referring to this as the opt out revolution. Further research
has demonstrated, however, that most of these mothers do not leave the workforce
because they want to reestablish traditional family arrangements or have a desire to be
full-time mothers as the media suggest (Williams et al. 2006). Instead, they are pushed
out from their jobs by inflexible workplaces, which make it difficult or impossible to
combine work and motherhood (Peskowitz 2005; Hewlett 2007; Stone 2007).
96
Garey (1999), Hattery (2001) and other researchers suggest that instead of
framing the analysis of work and family spheres in terms of conflict that needs to be
balanced or juggled, we should look at the ways these two spheres are integrated into
women’s lives. They document how working mothers that they study “weave” their work
and family lives together and adjust to the needs and pulls of each as necessary. Their
strategies of doing so, however, are ultimately based on the acceptance of the demands of
intensive mothering.
Life course studies confirm this view and show that in order to care for their
children, mothers’ careers are often interrupted and shaped by their family obligations,
limiting their possibilities for career advancement, promotion, and enhanced income in a
way fathers’ careers are not affected. Moen and Han (2001) describe “gendered career
paths” characterized as orderly or high-geared for men and intermittent, with delayed
entry or steady part-time work for women. This type of career progress is sometimes
referred to as the mommy track, characterized by slower career advancement but a better
ability to combine work and family. Indeed, while the majority of mothers have paid
jobs, most of them work less than full-time. According to 2002 statistics, among mothers
with children below 18, 24.6 percent stayed at home, 38.8 percent worked full-time all
year, and 36.7 percent worked part-time in 2002 (Lovell 2003). Part-time work is
preferred by 60 percent of women with minor children (Pew Research Center 2007),
although it has economic disadvantages, such as lower pay and limited benefits. Part-time
workers also often work almost full hours to maintain their place in the organization
(Stone 2007).
97
Although women may perceive that their decision about employment is a
“choice” or their preference (Hakim 2000), others argue that it is a choice under the
constraints of a social and economic system, which is still built on the assumption of a
division of labor between caregiving and breadwinning (Williams 2000; Peskowitz 2005;
Stone 2007). Structural constraints of the labor market, however, affect women with
similar preferences differently (McRae 2003; Duncan 2005). For example, the actual
choice whether to work or to stay-at-home is available only to those who can afford to
stay at home, as is clearly shown by the 1996 welfare reform requirements that poor
mothers work outside of the home to provide for themselves and their families (Hays
2003).
Historically, African American mothers with young children as well as lowerclass mothers were more likely to work outside of the home than white and middle-class
mothers (Landry 2000). These mothers are thus implicitly excluded from the “mommy
wars” and the “opting out” rhetoric. Parker (2005b) in her book on black motherhood
argues that black mothers do not experience the same feelings of guilt about not being
sufficiently devoted to their children – an argument that fuels the mommy wars – because
of the ever-present history of women who labored under harsh circumstances and, if
lucky, saw their children briefly in the evenings. For black mothers, being a breadwinner
with an emphasis on self-reliance and independence are thus part of the “good mother”
image (Blum and Deussen 1996; Blair-Loy and DeHart 2003). Full-time paid work is
central to black women’s mothering and black mother’s work status is part of their
everyday family experience and expectations (Reynolds 2001; Parker 2005b).
98
Landry’s (2000:100-101) analysis of the employment trends among middle-class
married mothers documents the historical differences in employment rates between
African American and white mothers and shows black wives worked historically much
earlier than white married women. According to this analysis, in 1960, only 19 percent of
white middle-class wives between the ages 25 and 44, with children younger than six
years of age, were employed, compared to 50 percent of African American middle-class
wives with young children. These numbers have risen among both groups in the
following years to 28 percent for white and 67 percent for African American middle-class
married mothers in 1976, and reached 68 and 82 percent, respectively, by 1994.
Recent statistics show that the labor participation rates of black and white mothers
have been further converging (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009b). In 2008, 76.7 percent of
black mothers with children below 18 years of age were in the labor force, in comparison
with 70.8 percent of white mothers. Among mothers with children under the age of three,
more African American mothers than white mothers work as well: 66.7 percent compared
to 59.4 percent.1 Landry suggests that African American women were at first excluded
from and later refused the ideology of domesticity, which kept their white counterparts
out of the labor force and argues that black middle-class families were the “pioneers of
American family revolution”, which brought married women with children into the labor
force.
The intersection of work and family thus provides not only cultural contradictions
between selfless and devoted care of motherhood and individualistic profit-seeking of the
1
To compare, Hispanic women with children under 18 have much lower levels of labor force participation
than both black and white mothers, pointing to different patterns of work and family beliefs among
Hispanic families. In 2008, 61.4 percent of Hispanic mothers with children under the age of 18 were in the
labor force, and only 47.9 percent of Hispanic mothers with children under three were employed.
99
market economy, as they were identified by Hays (1996), but also creates conflicts
related to the image of a good mother and performance of a motherhood role. Mothers
who have a choice to make that decision face conflicted expectations whether to be good
mothers through their working and providing for their children or devoting all their
energy and time to their children and staying at home. Mothers who work outside of the
home for economic or personal achievement reasons then face another set of
contradictions stemming from conflicting demands of work and family on mothers’ time
and energy. Evaluating the strains caused by mothers’ employment compared with the
benefits of her paid work thus forms another socially based source of maternal
ambivalence.
Social Structural Differences in the Motherhood Experience
The above discussion of current demographic trends, motherhood norms and
ideologies, and trends and approaches to maternal employment suggests that in the
contemporary American society, social class position and membership in racial and
ethnic groups continue to form the main structural and cultural locations of mothering
(Glenn 1994; Taylor 1996; Arendel 2000; O’Reilly 2004). Most of the gender and family
scholars agree that social class position and race/ethnicity directly shape everyday
activities associated with parenting, childrearing, family life, and experiences of family
roles (for example of some of these studies see e.g. Lareau 2003; Edin and Kefalas 2005;
Lareau and Conley 2008).
Social class position represents an important social structural constraint on social
choices, preferences and actions available to social actors (Duncan 2005). In a study of
white mothers belonging to different social classes in England, Duncan (2005) shows that
100
mothers’ decisions about employment and motherhood and their combination have strong
roots in social, cultural, and biographical conditions of social actors. While social actors
have certain autonomy to act according to their preferences and life experiences, their
economic resources and class-based constraints affect this autonomy (Lareau 2008) and
even the availability of preferences they might have (Duncan 2005).
Many quantitative research studies on parenthood find that families’
socioeconomic status and race directly or indirectly affect parenting practices and
experiences as well as maternal well-being (see e.g. Collins 1994; Linver, Brooks-Gunn,
and Kohen 2002; Lee et al. 2009). Studies examining parenting stress and depression
show that socially disadvantaged mothers experience more stress and depression than
mothers from higher-income households (Crnic and Avecedo 1995; Deater-Deckard and
Scarr 1996; Cairney et al. 2003; Segre et al. 2007). Studies based on the family stress
model then find associations between lower socioeconomic status, parenting stress, and
disruptions in parenting and child maladjustment (Conger, Conger, and Martin
2010:693).
Qualitative studies on maternal subjectivity, which usually study white middleclass women, point to the conflicted experiences of women related to the transition to
motherhood and work and family conflict and find that these mothers’ experiences are
often filled with anxiety, conflict and ambivalence about the performance of their role
(see, e.g., McMahon 1995; Blair-Loy 2003; Miller 2005; Stone 2007). In contrast, studies
that focus on poor and low-income mothers find that these women assign high
importance to their motherhood role despite the lack of economic resources and their
101
common single-parent status (Blum and Deussen 1996; Hays 2003; Edin and Kefalas
2005).
The meaning of motherhood in the context of uncoupling marriage and
motherhood is a focus of a study by Edin and Kefalas, Promises I Can Keep (2005). In a
study of poor unmarried mothers they find that motherhood represents the main part of
young women’s identity. In the otherwise bleak environment with little chance to
succeed, children become the center of these mothers’ worlds, motivating their further
education and job attainment. In the face of crime, alcohol, drugs, job instability, and
infidelity of their partners as well as frequent domestic abuse, however, marriage
becomes a much more difficult accomplishment. Edin and Kefalas find that women value
marriage too much to take it lightly and therefore wait to establish themselves
economically before they marry.
Edin and Kefalas also point out that while middle-class women tend to postpone
motherhood until they finish their education, establish their careers and are in a long-term
stable relationship, low-income women often start having children while still in high
school and without establishing stable relationships with their partners. Although they
often go through shock when they learn about their pregnancy, they rarely talk about
ambivalence about motherhood (2005:165). Even if they struggle to make a living, being
able to provide for their children and keeping them safe makes them feel as good mothers
and provides them with a sense of personal value and self-worth (2005:195). Unlike
middle-class mothers who often perceive their motherhood status as devaluation of their
previous accomplishments, for low-income and poor mothers “children offer a tangible
source of meaning, while other avenues for gaining social esteem and personal
102
satisfaction appear vague and tenuous” (Edin and Kefalas 2005:49). Without other
opportunities for self-realization, motherhood provides them with a “sense of meaning …
much of their self-worth is derived from their mothering role” (Edin and Kefalas
2005:102). Edin and Kefalas thus provide a powerful documentation of class differences
in the meaning of motherhood.
Due to an intersection of privilege, inequality and oppression across gender, class
and race lines, socioeconomic status and race remain in contemporary American society
highly correlated, creating a “matrix of domination” (Collins 2000). The rates of poverty
then well reflect the racial character of inequality with nearly three times as many blacks
as whites living in poverty in 2008 (8.6 percent of whites and 24.3 percent of blacks were
poor, Edin and Kissane 2010). About half of African American children are born into
poverty and they are four times as likely as white children to live in extreme poverty
(Cooper and McCoy 2009:47). The social disadvantage of African American children is
further accelerated by the dominance of single-parent women-headed families in which
they grow up. Income and wealth inequalities between blacks and whites persistent
across the life course are also well documented (Burton et al. 2010).
The socioeconomic inequality and disproportionately high percentage of black
women with children living in poverty as a result of historical oppressions and racism has
resulted in pathologizing of African American mothers in media, research and public
policy (Cooper and McCoy 2009:46). Following the Moynihan Report (named after
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,1965), which blamed matrocentric black families on
perpetuating the culture of poverty and creating dependency, images of black mothers
have been equated with welfare and poverty. Black and poor mothers are depicted either
103
as strong, emasculating women who head culturally deficient families (Collins [1994]
2000; Hancock 2004; Cooper and McCoy 2009) or weak and irresponsible teen mothers,
who are also poor, lazy, dependent, and sexually deviant (Blum and Deussen 1996).
Both of these stereotypical images have been challenged by multiple analyses of
the meanings and practices of mothering in the African American community (Blum and
Deussen 1996; Collins 2000) as well as among low-income mothers (Hays 2003; Edin
and Kefalas 2005), which are quite different from dominant ideologies of mothering.
These studies emphasize the resiliency of African American mothers who were able to
keep families together through slavery as well as during years of structural disadvantages
and incomplete families and point to the importance of mothering for mothers and their
communities (Blum and Deussen 1996; Collins 1997, 2000; Sarkisian and Gerstel 2004;
O’Reilly 2004). As norms of mothering differ across various social groups, these
theorists argue that the normative model of exclusive mothering characteristic of white
middle-class mothers is not applicable to other racial and ethnic communities or lowincome families due to historical, cultural and economic reasons (Blum and Deussen
1996:206).
In her influential study of black feminism and African American mothering,
Patricia Hill Collins (2000) points out the central place of motherhood dominant in much
of African American culture. She argues that while black women struggle to be good
mothers in the face of normative definitions that implicitly identify them as “bad
mothers,” motherhood also provides them with a sense of empowerment and selfactualization (2000:176). African American family creates a space for cultural and
psychological empowerment and resistance to the racialized society. As Collins argues,
104
the accomplishment of raising children is particularly challenging for black mothers who
face a myriad of social problems resulting from the structural inequalities, such as poor
education in inner-city neighborhoods, lack of child care available to working mothers,
disproportionate numbers of young African American men who are in jail, have an arrest
record or are unemployed, or high numbers of children in government-run foster care
(Collins 2000:177). According to O’Reilly’s summary of the research on African
American motherhood, “the focus of black motherhood, in both practice and thought, is
how to preserve, protect, and more generally empower black children so that they may
resist racial practices that seek to harm them and grow into adulthood whole and
complete” (O’Reilly 2004:11). To do so, mothers must hold power in the community.
In order to accomplish the task of raising and protecting their children, black
mothers have also historically and culturally relied on other women, including
grandmothers, aunts, cousins, neighbors and friends, to act as “othermothers” to their
children and share their responsibilities of mothering (Collins 2000:178). In the face of
uncertain future, “vesting one person with full responsibility for mothering a child may
not be wise or possible” (Collins 1993:47), and “othermothers” and community
mothering thus provide social structures supportive of the overall community survival.
Despite the centrality of motherhood for black women and communities, perhaps
the most significant difference between black and dominant mothering practices is thus
the lack of emphasis on exclusive maternal care. While this is one of the prerequisites of
the intensive mothering ideology built around the model of white middle-class nuclear
families and a mother’s exclusive care of her children, Collins describes “fluid and
105
changing boundaries [that] distinguish biological mothers from other women who care
for children” as a characteristic of African American communities (2000:178).
Support of kin and non-kin networks allows black mothers to raise children as
single mothers while working full-time. Being able to provide for their children is an
integral part of the “good mother” expectation for black mothers (Reynolds 2001; Parker
2005b). However, even if unmarried, they do not need to do it on their own. Research
shows that even in the contemporary society, black women are more likely than white
women to receive practical support from their social networks in form of help with child
care, transportation or household work (Sarkisian and Gerstel 2004). Black feminist
writers explain that expectations of full-time employment and shared responsibility of
mothering are behind the lack of guilt and ambivalence toward mothering among black
mothers, which they observe in writing about white women (Taylor 1996:15; hooks
1984; Parker 2005b).
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
Mothers’ relationships with children thus exist under particular historical, social,
and cultural conditions that affect how a mother feels about mothering and determine the
definition of her role of a mother. I suggest that we locate ambivalence in conflicting
social norms and expectations oriented toward the motherhood role and actual practices
of mothering. Based on my examination of the theories of ambivalence and contemporary
research on motherhood and mothering, I define maternal ambivalence as the
simultaneous experience of positive and negative attitudes (feelings, beliefs or thoughts)
106
about a woman’s position as a mother and her relationship toward the institution of
motherhood.
Maternal ambivalence can be a result of interconnected cultural, social structural,
and psychological contradictions; cultural stemming from the cultural norms and beliefs
about what a mother should be and the ideologies of motherhood (ideology of intensive
mothering, new momism); social structural emerging from one’s position in particular
social structures and roles and identities associated with normative expectations and
environments; and finally, psychological, located in the relationship with the child and
mother’s idiosyncratic conditions, from a mother’s personality and well-being.
In my definition of maternal ambivalence, I examine societal conditions that
contribute to mothers’ feelings of ambivalence about motherhood as a social institution
and her role as a mother. I build on the distinction between motherhood as a social
institution and mothering as a practice of birthing and rearing children (Rich 1976,
DiQuinzio 1999; O’Reilly 2004). I see the practices of mothering and the actual
experience of mothering as deeply embedded in the social expectations of motherhood
ideologies. Mothers’ relationships with their children are also shaped by the predominant
beliefs about bonding, nursing, caring, and other aspects of a “good mother” image. Their
ambivalence about motherhood can be created by the contradiction between the “good
mother” image and their own experiences of bonding, nursing and taking care of the
child. Emphasizing social aspects of maternal ambivalence thus necessarily involves
one’s daily experience as a mother. Maternal ambivalence, as conceptualized in this
project, thus involves predominantly conflicted attitudes, consisting of feelings, thoughts
107
behaviors about and toward motherhood as a social institution with its prescribed norms,
values and expectations, and a mother’s experience of mothering in this context.
Maternal ambivalence viewed in this perspective thus corresponds to the
experience of the authors of motherhood memoirs discussed in the previous chapter.
Their ambivalence is often rooted in the conflict between expectations of idealized
motherhood and normative motherhood on the one hand and their actual lived experience
of mothering on the other. While the conceptually pure notion of ambivalence is based on
the conflict between one’s emotions or one’s thoughts and not a “discordance between
one’s mind and heart” (Lettke and Klein 2004:92), limiting maternal ambivalence to
either conflicts between emotions or between thoughts would not capture the full range of
conflicting experiences mothers have. Sociological definitions of ambivalence point to
the conflicting social norms and values associated with the same role (Merton and Barber
1963), and the ambivalence is experienced by social actors facing these conflicting
expectations on their role. Maternal ambivalence thus involves conflicting expectations
and personal experiences as well as conflicting norms and values associated with
motherhood.
The simultaneous presence of positive and negative experiences and attitudes
distinguishes maternal ambivalence from other outcomes of maternal well-being using
bipolar measures, which conceptualize and evaluate maternal well-being during the early
child rearing years on scales ranging from low to high. 2 I distinguish maternal
ambivalence from parenting stress, which focuses solely on parenting distress, resulting
2
Some examples of these measures include Abidin’s Parenting Stress Index (Abidin 1983, 1986),
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (Cox, Holden and Sagovsky 1987; Matthey 2009) or more
general but commonly used self-reported Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)
(Radloff 1977; NICHD 1999).
108
from everyday frustrations, or “daily hassles,” involved in parenting and a child’s
difficult behavior (Crnic and Greenberg 1990; Crnic, Gaze and Hoffman 2005).
I also distinguish maternal ambivalence from postpartum depression, often
mentioned as an example of the conflicted and negative side of mothering. Unlike
ambivalence, postpartum depression is defined by negative emotions and experiences. As
a psychiatric emotional disorder it is characterized by sadness, lack of sleep, exhaustion,
emotional liability, forgetfulness, irritability and anxiety (Taylor 1996; Nicolson 1998;
Halbreich and Karkun 2006). While estimates of the prevalence of postpartum depression
vary, studies suggest that up to 80 percent of women experience “baby blues”
characterized by crying spells and anxiety during the first couple of weeks following
childbirth. Between 10 and 15 percent (with some estimates suggesting up to 20 percent)
of women experience postpartum depression, which can occur for up to a year following
childbirth, and only about 1 to 2 percent experience major psychotic depression (Taylor
1996; Nicolson 1998). Feminist writers argue against medicalization of postpartum
depression and labeling it as a mental illness, when in their view, its symptoms are a
natural response to childbirth and stress associated with transition to motherhood without
sufficient social support (Oakley 1979; Taylor 1996; Nicolson 1998; Matthey 2010).
Matthey (2010) also points out that current instruments measuring depression depend on
mothers’ self-reports and grossly overestimate the actual rates of depression.
Ambivalence, in contrast to postpartum depression, describes the coexistence of
positive and negative feelings about the role of a mother in a social context rather than
purely emotional state or stressful experiences. While those experiences may be
associated with feelings of ambivalence, to feel ambivalent one must experience a
109
simultaneous combination of both positive and negative experiences that lack the adverse
effects of negative emotions associated with depression, which prevent mothers from
day-to-day functioning and childcare. Psychoanalytic theories suggest that unresolved
ambivalence can result in depression (Parker 2005a) and that ambivalence is unstable
because people try to either resolve it or their attitudes are likely to be amplified in one
direction or another (Newby-Clark, McGregor and Zanna 2002). It is therefore possible
that mothers’ experience of ambivalence can turns into depression should the negative
aspects prevail. Including maternal ambivalence as a presence of both negative and
positive attitudes about motherhood simultaneously thus provides a new and unique way
of understanding the motherhood experience.
Dimensions of Maternal Ambivalence
As mothering experiences are unique to each mother, maternal ambivalence can
also mean different things for different mothers. At the same time, motherhood involves a
variety of norms and expectations related to different areas of the motherhood role.
Maternal ambivalence is thus in my understanding not a one-dimensional concept but, as
described, stems from a variety of cultural, social structural, and psychological
contradictions. Mothers can also experience ambivalence in different areas related to their
motherhood role.
Underlying all the dimensions of maternal ambivalence are, in my view, the
requirements of the ideology of intensive mothering and the normative expectations of
how to be a “good mother,” which I see as central to the existence of maternal
ambivalence. Although the definitions of a “good mother” differ according to a mother’s
110
social class and race locations, the dominance of the intensive mothering ideology affects
mothers across all social layers (Hays 1996). However, the ideology of intensive
mothering does not allow mothers to fulfill the expectations to be a “good mother” and at
the same time preserve their own identities and roles in other areas of their lives, creating
thus a tension between motherhood identity and other identities women have, as well as
high expectations on how to be a good mother.
In my conceptualization of maternal ambivalence, I use the descriptions of
ambivalence presented in the motherhood memoirs and current research on mothering
and parenting to define dimensions or sources of maternal ambivalence. I thus define and
study four dimensions of maternal ambivalence: ambivalence about being a good mother
(competence ambivalence), identity ambivalence, attachment ambivalence, and
ambivalence about combining work and family. While these are not exhaustive of all
possible contradictions mothers experience in their role, they represent exclusive and
distinct categories of maternal ambivalence presented in the motherhood memoirs and are
also supported by current motherhood research.
Ambivalence about being a good mother or competence ambivalence represents
the coexistence of conflicted feelings when mothers on one hand enjoy motherhood and
feel like good mothers while on the other hand feel that motherhood is overwhelming and
more difficult than they expected. In the memoirs, this was the experience described by
Bronckenbrough (2002), Fox (2003), Buchanan (2003) and others. Mothers can thus feel
that they are doing well in their role and at the same time have doubts about their
competence to take care of their babies. The writers of the motherhood memoirs as well
as mothers interviewed in qualitative research (Lupton 2000; Miller 2007) describe their
111
enjoyment of being mothers but at the same time feel caught by surprise by the
difficulties of (new) motherhood and taking care of the baby. Their expectations of what
it would be like to be a mother and the reality of everyday motherhood diverge and
contribute to the mixed feelings they have about motherhood. Ambivalence about being a
good mother thus captures the conflict between the positive enjoyments of motherhood
with the feelings of being overwhelmed by mothering responsibilities.
Many writers of the motherhood memoirs also express their conflicted feelings
about wanting to be with their child as much as possible and at the same time needing
space for themselves and preservation of the pre-motherhood identity (e.g. Fox 2003;
Wolf 2001; Cusk 2001; Slater 2002). I call the conflict between motherhood and premotherhood self identity ambivalence and define it as ambivalence resulting from the
feelings of restriction and self-sacrifice while enjoying the relationship with and presence
of the child. According to the dominant images of a “good mother” and ideology of
intensive mothering (Hays 1996), mothers are indeed supposed to sacrifice their own
lives for their children; however, the self-sacrifice is not supposed to represent a negative
experience for the mothers. This makes perceived loss and regrets of losing premotherhood identity even more difficult and maternal ambivalence even more
pronounced. This dimension of maternal ambivalence captures the opposing feelings
mothers may experience between losing their pre-motherhood identity while they enjoy
being mothers.
Attachment ambivalence corresponds to the difficulties in forming an immediate
bond with the baby and falling in love with the child from the first moment. This was
commonly described by the writers of the motherhood memoirs who at the same time felt
112
the pressure of the internalized social expectations that mothers are the best to love and
take care of their babies. Attachment ambivalence thus captures the conflict between a
mother’s personal experience of forming a bond with the child in contrast to the social
norms about maternal bonding and socially prescribed relationship between a “good
mother” and her child. While some writers (Slater 2002; Buchanan 2003) describe that it
takes some time to develop close feelings toward the child, social expectations of
immediate bonding made these writers feel ambivalent about motherhood.
The conflict between paid work and family care receives a lot of attention in
sociological research and many sociologists point out that mothers feel torn between their
jobs and taking care of their children. More than half of the mothers of infants and over
two-thirds of mothers of preschool children today divide their time between work and
family, with little difference among mothers according to their marital status (Bureau of
Labor Statistics 2009a). While some mothers do not have the resources to make a choice
to stay at home and care for their children, others choose to continue their paid
employment after they have a child. Mothers in both groups, however, can feel the
pushes and pulls of family and employment and can have mixed feeling when weighing
the costs and benefits of their paid work for their families. I describe the coexistence of
conflicted feelings about combining paid work and motherhood as ambivalence about
combining work and family.
I define these four dimensions as conceptually independent aspects of
ambivalence in early motherhood. While they are rooted in different areas of the
motherhood experience, they are all located in the normative expectations of
contemporary motherhood and present potential source of ambivalence for new mothers.
113
I further discuss the operationalization and measurement of these dimensions in Chapter
4.
114
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methods:
Research Questions, Data, and Measures
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In recent years, sociologists have begun to view “ambivalence [as it is] produced
by structured sets of social relations, such as gender, class, age and race-ethnicity”
(Connidis and McMullin 2002:565). In this project I focus on the analysis of maternal
ambivalence from a sociological perspective and examine the social structural locations
of mothers as conditions affecting maternal feelings of ambivalence. Most of the current
research on motherhood and specific measures of parental well-being such as parenting
stress, post-partum depression, and maternal satisfaction shows that families’
socioeconomic status (generally measured by income) and race directly or indirectly
affect parenting practices and experiences (see e.g. Linver, Brooks-Gunn, and Kohen
2002; Segre et al 2007; Lee et al. 2009). My review of motherhood research shows that
social class position and membership in racial and ethnic groups continue to form the
main structural and cultural locations of mothering in contemporary American society. I
therefore explore the patterns and differences in maternal ambivalence among mothers
according to their social class and race, a question that has not been empirically
addressed to date.
115
While the analysis of motherhood memoirs provided me with insights into various
aspects of maternal ambivalence, in the next part of my project I analyze a large national
data set to examine the effects of mothers’ race and ethnicity and social class position on
maternal ambivalence. After establishing the prevalence of ambivalence in my analytic
sample, the main research questions I aim to answer are: (1) Are there race and social
class differences in the experience of maternal ambivalence? Are white middle-class
mothers more ambivalent about motherhood than mothers belonging to other social
categories? As I operationalize maternal ambivalence according to four distinct
dimensions, I further ask (2) How do race and social class positions affect four distinct
dimensions of maternal ambivalence?
Finding differences in the levels of ambivalence across class and racial groups
would support an understanding of maternal ambivalence as a structurally based
phenomenon—i.e., one in which the structural positions of mothers and ensuing social
influences on their motherhood experience have an effect on the ambivalence that they
experience. Results indicating no difference among mothers of different class status and
race/ethnic backgrounds would then suggest that there may be other factors,
psychological or social, not tested in this project, which affect mothers’ feelings of
maternal ambivalence or, alternately, that maternal ambivalence is a universal mothering
experience.
The overrepresentation of white middle-class mothers as subjects of qualitative
studies on maternal identity and subjectivity generates an understanding that maternal
ambivalence is specific to white middle-class mothers and its experience among other
mothers is questioned (Taylor 1996; hooks 1984 in Hollway and Featherstone 1997;
116
Parker 2005b). This assumption is also supported by the analysis of the maternal memoirs
discussed in Chapter 1, which were largely written by white middle-class women. While
on the one hand the resources available to middle-class women give them the freedom to
choose if and when they become mothers and how they mother, on the other hand
middle-class mothers are also most likely to be susceptible to social pressures to mother
in a socially prescribed way. After spending years advancing their education and
developing their careers, becoming mothers makes women re-evaluate their lives and the
importance of their careers, families, and their own interests and priorities (Peskowitz
2005; Gerson 2009). Consequently, I suggest that they are likely to feel ambivalent about
their transition to motherhood.
Consistent with the current motherhood discourse I thus expect to find that white
mothers and mothers with higher socioeconomic status will experience higher levels of
maternal ambivalence than African American and working-class and poor mothers. I
expect that the intersection of class and race positions (white middle-class compared to
others) will make the differences in maternal ambivalence even more pronounced and I
expect to find that white middle-class mothers will be more ambivalent about
motherhood than other mothers, a relationship which would hold across all ambivalence
dimensions.
Mothers with lower socioeconomic status may also experience maternal
ambivalence, albeit along different dimensions than middle-class mothers. Arguments
can be made that low-income mothers may feel even more ambivalent about motherhood
than middle-class mothers because of the higher economic distress they experience in the
care of their children. These mothers are also exposed to and judged by the “good
117
mother” expectations while being pulled between their commitment to their children and
work demands (Hattery 2001; Hays 2003). As in the case of parenting stress and postpartum depression (Matthey et al. 2000; Mulsow et al. 2002; Beck 2007; Benoit et al.
2007), it is possible that mothers with lower income and disadvantaged minority
backgrounds would be susceptible to maternal ambivalence, although in other areas than
middle-class mothers. These mothers might experience more ambivalence about their
roles as mothers because of the economic pressures to satisfy the needs of their children
and the high importance they assign to their motherhood status (Burris1991; Edin and
Kefalas 2005).
Effects of Strains and Resources on Maternal Ambivalence
In addition to social structural predictors of maternal ambivalence, I analyze the
effects of several other social, cultural and interpersonal characteristics that may change
the relationship between social structural variables and maternal ambivalence.
Specifically, I examine the effects of strains mothers may experience as well as
relationship resources they have available on the relationship between social structural
characteristics and maternal ambivalence. These hypothetical relationships are
represented in Figure 3.1.
---Figure 3.1 here---
Motherhood experiences. Among the strains affecting maternal ambivalence I test several
characteristics of motherhood experience, including a mother’s status as a first-time
118
mother or a mother with multiple children (motherhood parity). Ambivalence is often
considered an attribute of transitional periods that wanes with the adjustment to a new
role and resolving of the conflicting normative expectations (Coser 1966; Weigert 1991).
Lack of preparations for motherhood and divergence between expectations and reality of
mothering were among main issues resonating in maternal narratives analyzed in this
project. While I do not aim to determine whether maternal ambivalence is only a
transitional phenomenon since all of the respondents experience a transition to life with
an additional child, new family dynamics, and additional responsibilities, I consider firsttime motherhood as a possible strain affecting maternal ambivalence.
Being a first-time mother represents a unique transition to a new role. Mothers
who have unrealistic expectations about motherhood are more likely to experience higher
parenting stress (Belsky 1984) and, I hypothesize, higher ambivalence. Most of the
authors of the maternal memoirs wrote about their ambivalent feelings after the birth of
their first child, although for some, maternal ambivalence increased with having more
children. I include motherhood status represented by the number of children among
potential strains affecting maternal ambivalence and ask (3) Is ambivalence about
motherhood more prevalent among first-time mothers than among more experienced
mothers?
According to the transition hypothesis, first-time mothers should experience more
ambivalence than mothers with more children since they need to adjust to their new
identity, encounter social norms and expectations associated with their new role, and
acquire skills needed to take care of their child. Alternately, it is possible that the
demands of having and taking care of more children can be associated with higher levels
119
of ambivalence. Experienced mothers may continue to perceive the pressure on mothers
to conform to social expectations and feel more constricted and overwhelmed by their
motherhood role than first-time mothers simply because taking care of more children is
more time and resource intensive. I expect to find that besides the direct effect on
maternal ambivalence, motherhood status will change the relationship between
socioeconomic status and maternal ambivalence and white middle-class women would
experience more maternal ambivalence than mothers belonging to other social groups
when controlling for motherhood status.
Even though the emphasis of my project is on the social structural context of
mothering and maternal ambivalence, I include the infant’s temperament, and mother’s
and infant’s health among the strains related to motherhood experience and possibly
contributing to mothers’ feelings of ambivalence. Parenting children whose mothers
perceive them as more difficult to deal with or who have more health problems is
associated with parenting stress, post-partum depression, and lower parenting
competence among new mothers (see e.g. Belsky 1984; Teti and Gelfand 1991; DeaterDeckard and Scarr 1996; Beck 2001; Mulsow et al 2002; Hess, Papas and Black 2002;
Porter and Hsu 2003; Copeland and Harbaugh 2005). Since maternal and infant health
and evaluation of baby’s temperament are also correlated with mother’s socioeconomic
status, these factors may mediate the relationship between social structural variables and
maternal ambivalence outcomes.
My next research question asks: (4) To what extent do evaluations of mother’s
and baby’s health and baby’s temperament account for an observed relationship between
maternal ambivalence and social structural characteristics? I expect to find that mothers
120
with better health, healthier babies, and babies with easier temperament are likely to be
less ambivalent about motherhood than mothers who are less healthy and perceive their
infants as more difficult. I expect these characteristics to have both direct and mediating
effects on maternal ambivalence, with health and baby temperament explaining some of
the social structural effects on maternal ambivalence.
Employment status and preferences. Many women, particularly of middle-class and upper
middle-class status, have to address the issue whether to stay at home or continue in their
careers when they become mothers (Stone 2007). Other mothers do not have the option to
make this choice as their families rely on their financial contributions (Garey 1999;
Crittenden 2001). Regardless of their social status and reasons behind working or staying
at home, the effects of employment on mothers and children have been one of the main
debates framing motherhood discourse since the influx of middle-class mothers into the
labor force in the 1970s.
With almost 60 percent of married women with children below six years of age
participating in the labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009a) and many returning to
work when their infants are less than three months old, maternal employment and
mothers’ satisfaction with work and family arrangements are important for our
understanding of women’s transition to mothering and maternal well-being. Maternal
employment has been viewed both as detrimental, causing a role strain, and beneficial,
providing role enhancement, to mothers’ psychological health (Thoits 1983; Wethington
and Kessler 1989; Elgar and Chester 2007; Marshall and Tracy 2009). The research
shows that the effects of mothers’ employment on mental health outcomes vary according
121
to the mother’s employment type and levels of the work-to-family and family-to-work
spillover (Grzywacz and Bass 2003) as well as according to mother’s marital status and
health of the child (Copeland and Harbaugh 2005). Mothers’ perception of work-family
conflict, poorer quality jobs, and difficulties in providing child care represent potential
strains on maternal psychological outcomes (Umberson and Gove 1989; Evenson and
Simon 2005; Marshall and Tracy 2009).
Research shows that work-family conflict is stronger for mothers with young
children or multiple children at home (Bellavia and Frone 2005) and working mothers
with infants face further strains specific to the demanding care of an infant (Marshall and
Tracy 2009). Marshall and Tracy (2009) thus find that among mothers with infants,
women in poorer quality jobs, women who are single and those whose children’s health
was poorer relative to others report more depressive symptoms than other mothers.
In the next research question I ask: (5) What is the effect of a mother’s
employment status and her satisfaction with the work-family arrangement on maternal
ambivalence? Does controlling for employment status change the relationship between
social structural characteristics and maternal ambivalence? I explore the effects of
mothers’ employment on their ambivalence about motherhood, and examine how
employment status and satisfaction with work and family arrangements affect the
relationship between mothers’ social structural characteristics and feelings of
ambivalence about motherhood.
Few studies assessed the impact of social class on work-family conflict (Bianchi
and Milkie 2010). However, based on the existing research we can hypothesize that as
mothers with less education and lower incomes are more likely to work in poor quality
122
jobs, hold several jobs simultaneously, and may have more difficulties getting
transportation and securing child care, and thus are more likely to experience more
conflict in the work-family area than women with higher education and professional and
managerial jobs. Therefore, I expect that they would also experience more ambivalence,
particularly along the combining work and family dimension. College educated and
professional mothers are also more likely to take an advantage of job flexibility and
higher incomes allow them to provide a more satisfactory child-care for their children
and delegate some of their household responsibilities. Therefore I expect to find that
mother’s employment status will account for part of the hypothesized association
between socioeconomic status and ambivalence outcomes.
I suggest two opposing hypotheses about a direct relationship between
employment status and ambivalence. Employed mothers may be more ambivalent about
motherhood than stay-at-home mothers because of the strain presented by their
employment, particularly if they do not find their work and family arrangements
satisfactory. Alternately, stay-at-home mothers may be more ambivalent about
motherhood than mothers working outside of the home because of the greater importance
of motherhood for their current identities and the lack of cultural support for their
maternal role (Johnston and Swanson 2004). Based on my analysis of maternal memoirs
and the current understanding of maternal ambivalence as a phenomenon experienced
mostly by white professional mothers, I expect that when employment status is controlled
for in the analysis, the relationship between race, socioeconomic status and maternal
ambivalence will become more robust.
123
In the case of ambivalence about combining work and family, I expect to find
mothers working full-time to be more ambivalent than mothers working part-time
because mothers employed part-time most likely have solved their ambivalence by
adjusting their work hours to accommodate their families’ and personal needs.
The maternal employment effects on ambivalence can be mediated by mothers’
satisfaction with their work and family arrangements. Research shows that mothers’
employment preferences and their actual employment status are important for their
attitudes about motherhood and feelings of separation from their child (DeMeis, Hook
and McBride 1986). Mothers who are not satisfied with their work and family
arrangements are thus likely to be more ambivalent about motherhood, in particular in the
area of combining work and family. However, feelings of dissatisfaction and unhappiness
about time spent at work and with the child can affect other ambivalence dimensions as
well.
Relationship resources: Social support and the quality of partner relationships. While
new mothers deal with a variety of strains and stressors, they also have resources
available that affect their transition to motherhood and feelings of maternal ambivalence.
Research on stress and depression, and specifically on parenting stress and post-partum
depression, found that supportive marital relationships and support of social networks can
help to improve psychological well-being and decrease stress by buffering the effects of
stressful experiences (see e.g. Kessler and McLeod 1985; House et al. 1988; Lin,
Woelfel, and Light 1985; Koeske and Koeske 1990; Lee et al. 2009). Belsky’s (1984)
124
influential model of parenting stress includes social support as one of the family system
factors influencing parenting stress.
Emotional and instrumental social suppo rt and close marital relationships have
both direct and mediating effects on parenting satisfaction, stress and parenting behavior
in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Simons et al. 1993; Deater-Deckard and Scarr
1996; Rogers and White 1998; Mulsow et al. 2002). A positive partner relationship and
the perception of receiving social support can thus minimize the effects of strains such as
employment status or being a first-time mother, as well as social structural disadvantages.
Lower levels of affectual support in marriage and social networks have also been
associated with less positive spillover from family to work (Grzywacz and Marks 2000).
Research also finds that low income and poverty are associated with parenting
stress and depression and social support mediates this relationship by reducing the effect
of economic distress (Lee et al. 2009). In the study of postpartum depression Taylor
(1996:30) finds that differences in coping with stress resulting from combining full-time
employment with motherhood arise from the availability of social suppo rt. While
working-class and African American mothers who had historically high rates of labor
force participation are more likely to rely on support of extended family and community,
white middle-class women often lack such support system and have to find different
strategies of handling stress and combining work and employment (Taylor 1996;
Sarkisian and Gerstel 2004).
According to social researchers parenting satisfaction is also associated with
higher marital satisfaction. The transition to parenthood represents one of the most
challenging times for a couple in the early years of marriage (Rossi 1968) and research
125
shows that marital satisfaction and marital quality decline after the birth of the child (for
overview of this literature see Kluwer 2010). Studies find that the decline in marital
satisfaction continues to persist for parents for several years after the birth of their first
child (O’Brien and Peyton 2002; Kluwer and Johnson 2007; Kluwer 2010) and that
difficulties in parenting are associated with lower marital intimacy (Rogers and White
1998). Although in my research quality of intimate relationship was measured at 1-month
after the birth of the child and the data included in the ambivalence measures were
collected in the 6-month interview, in general, the relationship between quality of marital
relationship and ambivalence is not necessarily causal; research shows that higher
perceived difficulties with parenting were related to lower initial levels of marital
intimacy (O’Brien and Peyton 2002).
Decrease in quality of marital relationship can lead mothers to rely on parenting
support in social networks outside their partner relationship. Marital support and the
support of social networks thus do not necessarily affect parenting experiences in the
same way (Simons et al. 1993; Matthey et al. 2000). In a longitudinal study on maternal
parenting stress during the early years of parenthood Mulsow and her colleagues (2002)
also found that intimacy with a partner is more important than other forms of social
support during the first six months of a child’s life but diminishes in importance in the
following months.
I thus address the question of the direct effects of social support and quality of
intimate relationships on maternal ambivalence as well as their mediating effect on the
link between social structural variables and maternal ambivalence and ask: (6) What are
the effects of social support and quality of intimate relationships on maternal
126
ambivalence? Do social support and quality of intimate relationships mediate part of the
relationship between social structural characteristics and maternal ambivalence?
Since a partner’s support and understanding can make a woman’s transition to
motherhood easier, I expect to find lower ambivalence along all ambivalence dimensions
among mothers who have stronger social support and better relationships with their
partners. As not all the mothers in the data set are married or have a partner, I control for
the mother’s marital status and the presence of a partner. In a similar vein, I expect
mothers who perceive higher levels of social support to feel less ambivalent about
motherhood regardless of the ambivalence dimension.
Psychological Covariates Influencing Maternal Ambivalence
Psychological well-being and maternal personality can also affect how women
feel about their motherhood role and whether they experience feelings of ambivalence.
While my study focuses on social predictors of maternal ambivalence, it is important to
take into account the impact of the mother’s psychological status and personality traits on
ambivalence as having an overall negative affect can also increase a mother’s feelings of
ambivalence about motherhood.
Maternal personality has been found to be a significant predictor of parenting
stress and postpartum depression (Belsky et. al 1995; Matthey et al. 2000; Mulsow et al.
2002; Beck 2007). The measure of personality characteristics represents psychological
resources, which can help mothers to cope with stressful situations and affect their
mothering experience. Mothers’ personality characteristics are linked to their ability to
prevent or deal with parenting stress (Belsky, Crnic and Woodworth 1995). In a
127
longitudinal study of new mothers, Mulsow and colleagues (2002:951) find that maternal
personality accounted for the most variance in parenting stress during the child’s first six
months and that mothers who were less neurotic and more agreeable experienced less
parenting stress.
A causal relationship between psychological well-being and ambivalence has not
been established. I expect that mothers’ personality characteristics will account for the
presence of maternal ambivalence and that mothers with more anxious and neurotic
personalities will be more ambivalent about motherhood than mothers with positive
affect. Controlling for mothers’ personality traits in the analysis of effects of social
structural factors on maternal ambivalence allows me to examine the persistence of social
structural factors beyond personality characteristics.
DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The quantitative part of this project is based on data analysis of the large national
sample collected by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development for
the Study of Early Child Care (NICHD SECC).1 The longitudinal study collected data
from 1,364 families beginning in 1991 with a goal of evaluating the effects of early
childcare experiences and characteristics on children’s developmental outcomes.
Although the data collection instruments were selected with this goal in mind, the study
also contains data that capture the experiences, values, and beliefs of mothers during their
transition to motherhood.
1
The description of the study, its objectives, document manuals and forms can be found at
https://secc.rti.org/
128
Since the collection of data for the study began in 1991, the age of the data set
may raise issues about the generalizability of the results to contemporary new mothers.
However, the main issues of the transition to motherhood, such as adjustment to a new
role and identity, differences between expectations and reality, decision about combining
work and family, remain the same for the 21st century mothers. The sampled mothers are
also part of the same generation as women writing the maternal narratives at the
beginning of the 2000s. This generation of women, born in the late 1960s and 1970s grew
up in the era of increasing gender equality, women’s rising education and labor force
participation, and prevalent belief that women can “have it all” and successfully combine
work and family. This time period is part of the era of intensive mothering ideology
examined by Hays (1996),2 which has continued to define mainstream motherhood into
the 21st century. Data on the motherhood experience as well as the study’s national
character make it a suitable source of data for the analysis of maternal ambivalence in the
United States.
Data Set Description
Phase I of the Study of Early Child Care (SECC) used in this project was
conducted from 1991-1994 and followed children from birth to age 3.3 During this time,
the families and children’s caregivers were contacted repeatedly and multiple research
instruments were administered to capture the children’s development, child care
arrangements, the relationship between children and parents, parental adjustments, work
arrangements, values and beliefs as well as family living conditions. The SECC contains
2
Hays conducted her interviews for The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood in 1991 (1996:xi).
Phases II, III and of the study were conducted between the years 1995 – 2008 and followed the children
through their ninth year in school.
3
129
interviews with mothers who were interviewed in person and over the phone every few
months after their children were born. Fathers and child care providers (if other than
parents) were also interviewed. The study also contains recorded observations of the
interactions between parents and children, children alone, and children with their peers.
In my project I utilize the survey data from the interviews with mothers collected
during Phase I. 4 This phase represents the only part of the study, which includes
instruments related to the motherhood experiences necessary for my project. During this
phase, mothers were interviewed in person using a standardized questionnaire at 1, 6, 15,
24 and 36 months, and over the phone in the intervening months in order to update family
information.
Although the study is longitudinal, the instruments focusing on the parenting
experiences of mothers were not measured consistently across all the time points of the
study. This lack of consistency in the collection of mother-focused data makes
longitudinal comparisons difficult and less reliable. Therefore, I limit my analysis to data
collected at a single point in time, when the children were six months old, and use the
data from face-to-face home interviews with mothers. Some of the demographic (age,
school attendance) and parenting indicators used in this analysis were collected during
the initial interview with mothers when the child was one month old. Although crosssectional analysis does not allow me to study changes in ambivalence at different points
4
The data in this data set were provided without any identification information on the human subjects
studied. Nevertheless, the data is handled with increased security as required by the contract with the data
manager RTI International and their use in this project does not entail any increased risks to the human
subjects involved. Demographic and descriptive variables are not be used in a way that would potentially
allow identification of individual subjects and are always to be used at the aggregate level only. I obtained
the Rutgers IRB exemption for the project on September 7, 2005 (Protocol #E06-028, Exemption Category
4).
130
in the mothers’ and babies’ lives, the life-course aspect is introduced into the analysis
through a comparison of the first-time mothers and mothers with more than one child.
I selected the six-month point in time after the birth of the child as my analytic
focus because it is still a period of transition to a new role and motherhood is still
somewhat of a new experience. Mothers are thus still likely to be aware of the changes
they are undergoing. It is also a time when mothers are already somewhat settled into life
with a new baby (Fox 2009). This time period therefore more likely provides valid and
reliable evidence of maternal experiences and the presence or absence of maternal
ambivalence than data collected at one month after birth. As many mothers who planned
to return to work already have done so by the time the baby is six months old, analyzing
data from this time also enables me to examine their adjustment and ability to balance the
requirements of different roles.
Sample selection. The data collection began in 1991, when researchers enrolled a diverse
sample of 1,364 children and their families at 10 locations across nine U.S. states. 5 The
sample includes families geographically, economically and ethically diverse, as well as
varied with respect to mothers’ plans for future employment (NICHD ECCRN 2005). To
accomplish the research goals, the original sample was selected according to a
conditionally random sampling plan. This plan was designed to ensure that the recruited
families included (a) mothers who planned to work or to go to school full time (60
percent) or part time (20 percent) in the child's first year, as well as some who planned to
5
The collection sites were in Charlottesville, VA, Irvine, CA, Lawrence, KS, Little Rock, AR, Madison,
WI, Morganton, NC, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh, PA, Seattle, WA, and Wellesley, MA.
131
stay at home with the child (20 percent). The conditional random sample also reflected
the demographic economic, educational, and ethnic diversity of the research sites. Both
two-parent and single-parent families were included. The major exclusionary criteria
used were: (a) mothers younger than 18 years of age at the time of the child's birth, (b)
families who did not anticipate remaining in the catchment area for at least 3 years, (c)
children with obvious disabilities at birth or who remained in the hospital more than 7
days postpartum, and (d) mothers not sufficiently conversant in English.
In 24 participating hospitals, a total of 8,986 mothers were screened over the
recruitment period. After a follow-up call two weeks after the baby’s birth and a one
month interview, 1,364 families were included in the study. During this selection process,
families unavailable or unwilling to participate (1.49 %) were excluded from the study.
Further excluded were those who had given birth to multiple children, women who
themselves or their babies had experienced health complications after birth, families who
planned to move away or lived far away from the research area, families who planned to
give their children up for adoption, or those involved in another research study. 6
According to the sample and catchment analysis by the NICHD Steering Committee for
the SECC, when the final sample was compared to the initial catchment sample on
parents’ education levels, mother’s ethnicity, presence of the partner at home and plans
for future work or school enrollment or staying at home, “the total enrolled sample is
amazingly similar to the catchment sample with the possible exception of the slight
oversampling of mothers who plan to return to work/school” (NICHD SECC 1993: 4).
6
More information on sampling and recruitment procedures is available in Child Care and Child
Development: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Edited by The
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. New York: The Guildford Press, 2005.
132
Because of these constraints and a certain level of self selection of cooperating
respondents in the study, the final enrolled sample of 1,364 families varies across
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, but is not representative of the US
population (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005:8-10). Compared with the
US Census data for all births in the US in 1991, white non-Hispanic children are
overrepresented in the sample, while minority children are underrepresented. For
example, the black non-Hispanic population was represented by 12.8 percent in the
sample compared to 15.7 percent in the US population. Asian respondents comprise 1.5
percent of the sample compared to 3.6 percent of the overall US population. Hispanics
represent 6.6 percent of the sample compared to 15.3 percent in the population (NICHD
ECCRN 2005). Except for the black non-Hispanic subgroup, numbers of other minorities
are not sufficiently included in the sample to allow for separate analysis of each group
(NICHD ECCRN 2005:10). Mean annual household income in the sample was higher
than the US average, at $37,781 in the sample compared to $36,875 in the population.
Yet, the sample included 18.8 percent of families on public assistance compared to 7.5
percent in the overall population. The lack of representativeness of the sample thus has to
be taken into consideration when making generalizations about the results.
Units of analysis. The NICHD SECC collects data on families of the focal child through
interviews with parents, care givers, teachers, and records of observations of the child
interactions in his/her home, child care or school environments. Though the data is
collected and organized based on the child’s record, for the purposes of this project, only
133
data reported by mothers are used. Mothers therefore comprise the units of analysis in
this project.
Analytic Sample
The analytic sample for this project is based on mothers who participated in the
six-month face-to-face survey and have complete data on all research variables. Out of
1,364 respondents who began the study, 1,279 respondents participated in the 6-month
interview, which comprises the majority of data used for this project. Compared to the
original sample, the 6-month wave lost 85 respondents (6.2%), mostly due to families
moving to a different location (37%), personal reasons (21%), or because they had
missed two previous assessments (18%).7 The comparison of the respondents who
dropped out from the study between the first assessment and 6-month interview with
those who remained in the study shows that respondents who dropped out were
significantly younger, less well educated, belonged to a racial or ethnic minority group,
had lower household income, and were more likely poor before having a baby than those
who continued to participate in the study. There was no significant difference between
mothers who dropped out of the study based on the number of the children. First-time and
repeat mothers dropped out at the same rate, but mothers who dropped out were more
likely to have had a baby without a live-in partner.
My research focuses on class and race differences in maternal ambivalence, and
thus racial and ethnic composition of the analytic sample were important criteria for my
7
Analysis based on 62 cases out of 141 available in the DROPS data file from the SECC data set, who
were missing at the six-month wave.
134
analysis in order to ensure sufficient representation of different minority groups for the
purposes of statistical operations. The respondents were asked about their race and
ethnicity in two separate questions. According to their race identification, they were
categorized as 1) American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, 2) Asian or Pacific Islander, 3) Black
or African American, 4) White, and 5) Other. The second question asked about the
respondent’s Hispanic origin (Yes/No). I recoded these two questions into a combined
“race and ethnicity” variable, by including those who identified themselves as Hispanic
into separate category and separate categories indicating white non-Hispanic, African
American non-Hispanic, Asian American, and other respondents.
The six-month sample included 80.6 percent white non-Hispanic mothers, 12.2
percent black non-Hispanic, 4.1 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Asian, and 1 percent of
mothers identified as other. Due to a low total number of minority respondents other than
non-Hispanic African Americans and cultural differences in the meaning of mothering
between different ethnic groups (Cherlin et al. 2008), it was not viable to create a single
“minority” group. 8 I therefore include only non-Hispanic black and white mothers in my
analytic sample.
Some respondents in the sample had data missing on some of the variables. In
order to maintain consistent sample size for the nested regression models, in the analytic
sample I included only respondents with complete data on all dependent and independent
variables. Where possible, I imputed the data and kept the respondent in the sample. The
procedures for imputation of missing data are described in Appendix A. Comparisons of
8
I conducted preliminary analysis, which showed significantly different results for Hispanic and black nonHispanic mothers when compared to white non-Hispanic women. Therefore, creating a single “minority”
group variable combining all the racial and ethnic groups represented in the data would not provide reliable
results.
135
the means (t-tests) did not show any significant difference in marital status, income,
education, employment status, occupation, and race between the analytic sample and
those excluded from the analysis. After excluding 92 other than black and white nonHispanic cases from the total 1,279 participating in the six-month wave of the Phase I, I
excluded an additional 27 respondents with missing data on some independent or
dependent variables. The analytic sample thus consists of 1,160 mothers with complete
data on all independent and dependent variables.
MEASURES AND INSTRUMENTS
Dependent Variables
Based on the conceptualization of ambivalence and exploratory analysis of the
motherhood memoirs, I create four measures of maternal ambivalence: ambivalence
about being good at mothering, identity ambivalence, attachment ambivalence, and
ambivalence about combining work and family. Conceptually, ambivalence is defined by
a coexistence of positive and negative feelings or thoughts and its measures must
combine positive and negative indicators into a single measure. Based on my
conceptualization of maternal ambivalence, I define ambivalence along four dimensions.
Ambivalence about being good at mothering combines the negative emotions of being
overwhelmed by motherhood responsibilities with the positive feelings based on mother’s
belief in her own ability to take care of her baby and enjoying parenting. Identity
ambivalence represents a coexistence of negative feelings of limitations and loss of the
“old self” with positive feelings of enjoying the presence of the child and wanting to be
around her at al times. Attachment ambivalence combines feelings of a mother’s
136
uncertainty about her personal bonding with the baby with the mother’s beliefs in the
societal expectations that mothers are the best to take care of and comfort their babies.
Finally, the last ambivalence dimension, ambivalence about combining work and family,
compares the mother’s feelings about the costs and benefits of her work outside of home
for herself and her family. The analyses for this last outcome are only available for the
sub-sample of employed mothers (N=728).
Since there are no direct ambivalence measures included in the study and there
are no previously used instruments measuring maternal ambivalence during the early
years of motherhood, I create new ambivalence measures using the instruments available
in the data set. I describe the conceptual and methodological steps for creating these
measures in Chapter 4. In brief, for each one of the four ambivalence dimensions I create
a continuous scale that is entered into the OLS regression equation in its standardized
form. Each of the four measures is treated as an independent outcome.
Independent Variables 9
Descriptive statistics (means and proportions) of the analytic sample according to
the independent variables are listed in Table 3.1, while Table 3.2 shows correlations
among the independent variables.
--- Table 3.1 here ---
--- Table 3.2 here ---
9
An overview of all the independent variables, their categorization and coding is included in Appendix B.
137
Social structural characteristics. Race and ethnicity of mothers were in the data set
measured by two separate questions about respondents’ race and ethnicity. I combined
these two questions and as I describe above, due to relatively low numbers of Hispanic,
Asian and Native American respondents in the sample, I limit the analysis to the
comparison of non-Hispanic black mothers (1) and non-Hispanic white mothers (0,
reference category). The analytic sample includes 13 percent of African American
mothers, which is consistent with national estimates of the proportion of the U.S.
population that is African American.
Occupation, income and education are usually treated as indicators of social class
(Lareau 2008) and it is assumed that higher income and higher education indicate higher
social class. However, these variables are not perfectly correlated and indicate different
aspects of socioeconomic status—related either to the status of the household (household
income) or to the mother’s personal achievement (education, occupation) and I consider
all of them in my analysis.
During the transition to parenthood and early parenting years, household income
can decrease largely due to the mother’s changing participation in the labor force. I use
household income data collected at in the 6-month wave in the analysis. At this time, the
mean total household income in the sample was $49,112, which was 7 percent lower than
before the baby was born. I use the natural log of total household income in the OLS
regression models and base the categorical social class variable on the comparative
standing of the household within the sample by using a median split.
Taking household income alone into account does not necessarily reflect a
mother’s social class position. Therefore, I also use mother’s education as an additional
138
indicator of social class. Mother’s education is highly correlated with household income
(r=.47, p<.000) but it also provides information about the mother’s individual
sociocultural achievement, and her personal access to cultural capital and dominant
cultural values. After checking for multicollinearity, I include it in the analysis along with
the household income.
Mothers’ educational level was measured during the one-month interview, when
the respondents were asked how many years of school they had completed. Their answers
were categorized as “less than high school,” “high school graduate/GED,” “some college/
associate degree/vocational school,” “undergraduate degree,” “master’s degree/some
graduate work,” “law degree,” “doctorate/more than one MA.” For analytic purposes, I
categorize educational achievement into three categories to approximate the social class
divisions: completed high school or less (1), some post-secondary education (includes
some college, associate degree or vocational school) (2), and completed college or some
post-graduate work or degree (3). High school and college educational attainment serve
as respective proxies for working class and middle class and I maintain the middle
category of those with some completed college as an indicator of an incomplete social
class trajectory. These three educational categories are about equally represented in the
data set. Thirty percent of respondents completed high school or have a lower educational
attainment level, 34 percent of the respondents obtained some post-secondary education,
and 36 percent of the mothers in the sample completed college or some post-graduate
degree. I create dummy variables for these categories and use “college education and
higher” as a reference category.
139
Since many of the mothers in the sample are of an age when they are still enrolled
in school and thus potentially on track to improve their socioeconomic status, I control
for mothers’ school status before the baby along with the achieved education. 10 In the
analytic sample, 17 percent of all mothers were enrolled in school before they had a baby
and 23 percent of the first-time mothers were enrolled in school.
I also test social class differences by including mother’s occupation as an
additional indicator of social class. Mothers were asked to select their occupation from
thirteen occupational categories ranging according to the prestige of the position from
executive/managerial to handler/helper before their babies’ birth. Based on this data, I
created a set of three dummy variables: managerial and professional (omitted category,
30 percent of the sample), other non-managerial (50 percent), and for mothers not
employed before they had the focal child non-working (16 percent).
Using the data on occupation did not improve the statistical fit of the multivariate
model and in some cases led to multicollinearity issues between occupation and
education due to the strong association between education and occupation. 11 Therefore, I
only included the mother’s occupation before she had the baby in the preliminary and
bivariate analyses. In the multivariate analyses I measure social class by combining
measures of household income and the mother’s educational attainment. I do this in two
ways: first, by including measures of social class indicators in the regression model
10
Before having a baby, out of the total sample of 1,364 mothers, 218 were enrolled in school before the
birth of their child, potentially increasing their socioeconomic status. Among them, 14.7 percent were in
high-school or working towards the GED diploma, 55.5 percent were enrolled in college or a post-highschool type of educational institution and 29.9 percent in post-graduate education.
11
Miech and Hauser’s analysis (2000) of effects of socio-economic status on health in mid-life for example
shows that using occupational data does not provide any additional information if education is included in
the model. In the NICHD SECC sample, education was strongly associated with occupation (chi-square =
647.051, p<.001).
140
separately and second, by combining race, income and education into a composite
categorical variable.
This second approach enables me to directly address the research question of the
difference in maternal ambivalence between white middle-class mothers and other
mothers. I create a composite categorical variable that combines indicators of social class
(education and household income) and race and compare white middle-class mothers (1)
to all other mothers in the sample (0, reference category). I define white middle-class
women as white women with at least completed college education and total household
income above the sample median. 12 I include this categorical variable in the parallel set
of analyses to the analyses with individual indicators of social class and race.
Control Variables
Demographic characteristics. I adjust the models for mother’s age and marital status
since they are correlated with race and social class characteristics (see Table 3.2). The
mean age of the mothers at the beginning of the study was 28.4 years. The youngest
mothers were 18 years old and the oldest 46 years old. I use three age categories to
classify mothers as young (18 – 25 years old, 30 percent of the sample), average (26 – 34
years old, 55 percent of the sample, reference category), and older mothers (35 and
older). About 15 percent of mothers participating in the study were older than 35 years of
age and they were significantly more likely to have more than one child (t=4.783,
p<.001).
12
I ran the models using the income categorization with the top quartile of the household income with
generally the same results.
141
Over three-quarters of mothers participating in the study were married (78
percent, reference category) and an additional nine percent were living with a romantic
partner (cohabitating). Single, never-married mothers living without a romantic partner
comprised 12 percent of the sample. Only one percent of mothers were divorced,
separated or widowed and I combine them into one category with single mothers. As
could be expected and corresponding to national trends, 49 percent of black mothers in
the sample were single compared to 9 percent of white mothers (chi-square 208.02,
p<.001).
Personality traits. In the last analytic model I also include a control variable to adjust for
the effect of the mother’s personality traits and her propensity to worry and feel negative.
Both in general and in the analytic sample, neuroticism is highly associated with
depression; the correlation between neuroticism and depression (measured as CES-D in
the sample) at a child’s sixth month is .627 (p<.001) and neuroticism is inversely
associated with psychological well-being in the future (Costa and McCrae 1985).
Mothers’ neuroticism was measured in the data set along with extraversion and
agreeableness using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory Scale (Costa and McCrae 1985), a
successfully tested instrument based on the psychological research on the personality
structure. 13 Neuroticism, as one of the personality traits rather than a diagnosis, is
measured by 12 items, which together assess a person’s tendency to worry, feel insecure,
emotional, and nervous, and respond with a negative affect. The neuroticism scale
captures general anxiety (tense, fearful, worried, apprehensive compared to calm,
relaxed, stable and fearless), hostility (hot-tempered, angry, easily frustrated vs. amiable,
13
The complete instrument is listed in Appendix C.
142
even tempered, slow-to-take offense) and depression (hopeless, guilty, down-hearted,
blue vs. seldom sad, hopeful, feels worthwhile). It is considered to be a measure of
general personality affect rather than an indicator of current depression.
The respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed (5-point
scale) with statements such as “I am not a worrier (reversed),” “I often feel helpless and
want someone else to solve my problems,” and “I often feel inferior to others.” The
reliability coefficient of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) in the analytic sample is .840. The
mean of the averaged five-point scale is 2.48 (SD=0.60).
Including this measure in the adjusted models allows me to control for the
mother’s emotional stability, propensity to worry, be nervous and emotional. These
characteristics likely influence her overall emotional state and thus also her evaluation of
motherhood experiences, general attitudes and perceptions. I include this instrument in
the final adjusted model explaining maternal ambivalence.
Covariate Factors
Motherhood experience. I measure motherhood experience with three sets of
characteristics: 1) motherhood parity—i.e. a mother’s status as a first-time or repeat
mother to include her level of experience in taking care of the baby, 2) mother’s
evaluation of child’s temperament, and 3) subjective evaluation of mother’s and baby’s
health.
I determine motherhood parity, i.e. whether the mother is a first-time mother
(reference group) or an experienced mother, from the question about the birth order of the
focal child. First-time mothers comprised 44.6 percent of the sample, while 55.4 percent
143
of mothers had two or more children. The mean number of children per mother in the
sample is 1.8.
Baby’s temperament was measured at 6 months with a question about the
mother’s assessment of child’s temperament.14 Mothers could choose to rate their child’s
style of behavior as easier than average, average or more difficult than average. Since
only 3 percent of mothers evaluated their child as more difficult than average and 62
percent of the mothers assessed their baby’s temperament as easier than average, I
created a dummy variable combining the categories of average and more difficult than
average and comparing those to less difficult than average (reference group). White
mothers, mothers with higher incomes, and college educated mothers are significantly
more likely to evaluate their child as less difficult than average (see Table 3.2).
The data set includes a variety of questions regarding the child’s health. For the
purposes of this analysis, I use a variable summarizing the child’s health that ranges from
poor to excellent on a four-point scale. According to the preliminary analysis, only one
percent of the mothers in the analytic sample rated their baby’s health as poor compared
to almost 49 percent who rated their child’s health as excellent. I thus collapsed the
ratings “poor” and “fair” and use dummy variables for fair or poor health (13%), good
health (38%), and excellent health (reference group). Evaluation of a better child health
has a weak positive correlation with higher socioeconomic status of the mother
(household income r=.08, p<.05, education r=.13, p<.000). Interestingly, mothers with
14
In addition to a question about the child’s overall temperament, mothers were also asked to evaluate their
child’s temperament according to 55 different types of behavior. However, due to a high proportion of
missing data on this instrument, NICHD SECC researchers recommend using the overall evaluation of the
child’s temperament rather than the composite scale. Therefore I use the general question about the child’s
overall temperament in my analysis.
144
more than one child are more likely than first-time mothers to rate their child’s health as
fair or poor (16% compared to 10%, t=2.841, p<.01).
Mothers were also asked to evaluate their own health using a scale from poor to
excellent. Only two percent of mothers rated their health as poor and I use the same three
dummy variables to measure the mothers’ health status as I use to measure baby’s health
evaluation. Evaluations of baby and mother health are significantly correlated (r=.31,
p<.001) and mothers with higher socioeconomic status evaluate their own health as better
in comparison with mothers with lower socioeconomic status.
Employment. Based on the total hours worked, I divide mothers into three categories:
stay-at-home mothers, who report no work outside of home, mothers with part-time
employment (1-34 hours per week), and full-time employment (35 hours and more per
week, reference category). In the sample, 37 percent of the mothers were stay-at-home
mothers, 38 percent worked full-time, and 26 percent worked part-time. The data shows
that mothers with more than one child are more likely to leave the labor force; there is a
significant difference among first-time and repeat mothers in their employment status,
with more first-time mothers working full-time (45 percent compared to 32 percent) and
mothers with more than one child are more likely to stay at home compared to first-time
mothers (45 percent compared to 30 percent). There is no difference between first-time
and repeat mothers in the part-time employment.
I also control for the mother’s satisfaction with her work and family arrangement,
which was measured by one question: “How satisfied are you with your decision about
(working/not being employed/going to school) right now?” The answers were recorded
145
using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). The
sample mean is 3.92, indicating relatively high satisfaction with work and family
arrangements among the interviewed mothers. Interestingly, mothers with more children
are significantly more satisfied about their work-family arrangement than first-time
mothers (t=2.602, p<.01). Stay-at-home mothers and mothers working part-time are also
more satisfied with their arrangements than mothers working full-time (F=19.685,
p=.000).
Relationship resources. I evaluate mothers’ relationship resources and support by
including measures of social support and quality of intimate relationships in the analysis.
Social support is assessed using a scale Relationships with Other People. This 11-item
scale was included in the 6-month wave interview and asks the respondent to rate their
relationships with other people over the past month (Marshall and Barnett 1993).15
According to the NICHD instrument manual, this scale was selected because it “measures
general perceived availability of support, which is most consistent support predictor of
general adult functioning” (Cohen and Wills 1985) and tests have shown it to have good
reliability and validity. The scale includes items measuring both emotional and
instrumental types of social support. The respondents were, for example, asked how much
of the time they felt that the people they care about make them feel they care about them;
how much of the time people they care about seem interested in how they are doing; or
when they need someone to help them out, they can usually find someone.16 Each item is
scored from none of the time (1) to all of the time (6). The higher composite score on the
15
The complete Social Support instrument is listed in Appendix C.
The complete wording of the statements included in this and other composite scales is included in
Appendix C.
16
146
scale means a perception of higher social support by the mother. In the analytic sample,
the mean of the scale is quite high at 5.023 (SD=0.72) and the reliability score
Cronbach’s alpha is .923 (standardized).
Another source of support to the mother during her transition to motherhood is a
woman’s relationship with her husband or intimate partner. I include two measures of
quality of intimate relationships as perceived by the mother. The data set includes a Love
and Relationships instruments measuring the quality of intimate relationship according to
four characteristics of intimate relationships: love, intimacy, conflict and ambivalence
(PAIR Inventory, Shaefer and Olson 1981). In the analysis, I use two of its subscales
measuring intimacy and conflict to distinguish between positive and negative aspects of
mothers’ intimate relationships. I use the terms “partner” or “intimate” rather than
“marital” to describe these measures since unmarried mothers with partners also
responded to these instruments.
The Love and Relationships instrument was included in the interview with the
complete analytical sample only during the 1-month interview; in the subsequent
interviews only mothers at select locations were asked to respond to this instrument.
Therefore, the data collected comes from the 1-month wave. Mothers without partners
did not respond to the questions in this instrument and figure in the data set as missing
data. In order not to lose these respondents in the overall analysis, I used mean
imputation for the missing values and then control for marital status of the mother. I also
include a dummy variable “missing values on intimacy and conflict” for the cases of
mothers who are not single but have missing values on these scales (8 cases).
147
The intimacy scale is comprised of six items asking the respondents about their
closeness to and level of understanding with their partner such as “My (spouse/partner)
listens to me when I need someone to talk to,” “My (spouse/partner) can really
understand my hurts and joys,” and “I sometimes feel lonely when we're together”
(reversed). The items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to
strongly agree) and adjusted to a 7-point scale to make it comparable with the other
relationship subscales. The mean for the intimacy scale is 5.61 and the reliability
coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scale is 0.819.
The conflict measure consists of five items, which ask the mother about the
“frequency and gravity of arguments with her husband/partner”, “the possibility of
communicating negative emotions with him,” and “changing things that bother her about
him.” The items are measured on a seven-point scale ranging from not at all/very little to
very much. The mean for this scale is 3.14. The reliability coefficient for the conflict
scale is 0.678. While there is a strong negative correlation (r = -.528) between the
intimacy and conflict scales, the multicollinearity statistics do not suggest that they
should be excluded in the same model. First-time mothers report significantly higher
levels of intimacy and lower levels of conflict than mothers with more children (intimacy
t-test = -4.665, p<.000; conflict t-test 2.569, p<.05).
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
This project has three objectives that define my analytic strategy. First, I develop
new measures of maternal ambivalence. Second, I analyze social structural differences in
148
maternal ambivalence, and finally, I examine the direct effects of covariate factors on
maternal ambivalence and their potentially mediating effects on the relationship between
social structural characteristics and ambivalence outcomes. I look specifically at the
effects of motherhood strains (number of children, health of mother and the baby, baby’s
temperament, and mother’s employment status) and relationship resources (social support
and quality of marital/partner relationships) on ambivalence outcomes and their
relationship with social structural characteristics.
The statistical data analysis was conducted using SPSS 16.0 software. From the
NICHD SECC data set I first selected the instruments and variables needed for the
analysis, cleaned up the missing data, and organized variables for the analysis. In the next
step, I develop four ambivalence measures using factor analysis of the parenting
experience measures identified in the data set. I analyze the distributions of different
dimensions of ambivalence and compared the means between first-time mothers and
experienced mothers, white and black mothers, working and stay-at-home mothers, and
mothers with different levels of education, income, marital status, social support, and
relationship quality with the father/partner. The main independent variables (social class
and race) are then entered into OLS regressions along with control variables
(demographic measures) to observe their direct effect on the ambivalence measures.
Finally, I examine the effects of covariate factors (motherhood experience, health,
employment, relationship resources) on the relationship between class, race and maternal
ambivalence by comparing blocks of variables and creating nested regression models for
each ambivalence outcome.
149
Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of direct and indirect effects of independent variables on
maternal ambivalence
STRAINS
Employment
status and
preferences
Maternal
ambivalence
outcomes
Social structural
characteristics
(SES, race)
Social Support
and Partner
relationship
RESOURCES
Direct relationship
Potential intervening effects of
covariates on the main relationship
Motherhood
experience
150
Table 3.1. Means (standard deviations) and proportions for social structural and
demographic characteristics, motherhood experience, health, employment status,
relationship characteristics, and personality traits for the analytic sample and sub-samples
of first-time and repeat mothers
Social structural variables
Race (1 = black)
Household income
Education
HS or less
Some post-secondary
Completed college and higher
Occupation (before baby)
Managerial/professional
Other
Not working
Demographic variables
Age (in years)
18 - 25
26 - 34
35+
Marital status
Married
Cohabitating
Single (incl. divorced and widowed)
Mother in school (before baby, 1 = yes)
Motherhood experience
Number of children
First-time mother (1=yes)
Two children
Three children
Four and more children
Baby's temperament (1 = average or more difficult)
Baby's health
Excellent
Good
Fair or Poor
Mother's health
Excellent
Good
Fair or Poor
Employment status
Stay-at-home mother
Part-time work
Full-time work
Satisfaction with work and family arrangement (1low -5
high)
Relationship resources
Social support scale (1 low - 6 high)
Intimate relationships (closeness) (1low - 7 high)
Intimate relationships (conflict) (1low - 7 high)
Personality - neuroticism (1 low - 5 high)
Total
sample
(N=1,160)
First-time
mothers
(N=518)
Experienced
mothers
(N=642)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
0.13 (0.34)
0.12 (0.33)
0.14 (0.34)
0.701
49,112
(40,171)
47,867
(40,347)
50,117
(40,031)
0.948
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.29
0.33
0.39
0.30
0.35
0.35
0.668
0.74
-1.363
0.30
0.54
0.16
0.32
0.63
0.05
0.28
0.47
0.26
-1.525
-5.733***
10.552***
28.4 (5.64)
26.94 (5.58)
29.57 (5.42)
8.103***
0.30
0.55
0.15
0.40
0.51
0.09
0.23
0.58
0.19
-6.207***
2.482**
4.783***
0.78
0.09
0.14
0.17 (0.38)
0.73
0.09
0.18
0.23 (0.42)
0.82
0.08
0.10
0.12 (0.33)
3.631***
-0.801
-3.705***
-4.645***
1.82 (0.91)
0.45 (0.50)
0.36
0.15
0.05
0.38 (0.49)
1 (0)
1 (0)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.38 (0.49)
2.47 (0.73)
0 (0)
64.2
26.5
9.4
0.37 (0.48)
N/A
-0.402
0.49
0.38
0.13
0.52
0.38
0.10
0.47
0.38
0.16
-1.685+
-0.197
2.841**
0.44
0.44
0.12
0.48
0.43
0.09
0.41
0.44
0.15
-2.291*
0.524
-0.715
0.37
0.26
0.38
3.92 (1.12)
0.30
0.25
0.45
3.82 (1.12)
0.42
0.26
0.32
3.99 (1.11)
4.274***
0.220
-4.383***
2.605**
5.02 (0.71)
5.61 (1.04)
5.08 (0.69)
5.77 (1.01)
4.98 (0.74)
5.49 (1.06)
-2.268*
-4.641***
3.14 (0.96)
3.06 (0.92)
3.21 (1.00)
2.569*
2.48 (0.60)
2.49 (0.62)
2.46 (0.58)
-0.715
Notes: Asterisks denote statistical significance of the difference in the means between first-time and
experienced mothers. Two-tailed t-tests significance levels are +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.000.
T-test
Table 3.2. Correlations between independent variables included in the models (N=1,160)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Household income
2. Mother's education
3. Race (1 = black)
4. Age (in years)
5. Marital status (married, cohabitating,
single)
6. Mother in school (1= yes)
7. First-time mother (1 = yes)
8. Baby's temperament (1 = average or
more difficult )
9. Baby's health (poor to excellent)
1
0.47***
-0.23***
0.46***
-0.38***
1
-0.24***
0.52***
-0.36***
1
-0.26***
0.42***
1
-0.39***
1
-0.14***
-0.03
-0.14***
-0.04
0.04
-0.16***
0.18***
-0.02
0.14***
-0.25***
-0.23***
-0.16***
0.19***
0.12***
0.15***
1
0.14***
0.06*
0.08*
0.13***
-0.02
0.14***
-0.03
-0.02
0.08*
-0.09**
1
10. Mother's health (poor to excellent)
0.19***
0.22***
-0.08**
0.15***
-0.10**
-0.03
0.09**
-0.11***
0.31***
11. Employment status (SAHM, PT, FT)
0.22***
0.13***
-0.09**
0.09**
-0.08**
-0.06*
0.14***
-0.11**
12. Mother's satisfaction with work and
family arrangement (low to high)
13. Social support
14. Intimate relationship (closeness)
0.12***
0.137***
-0.11***
0.15***
-0.14***
-0.04
-0.08**
0.07*
0.14***
0.07*
0.16***
-0.03
-0.05
0.02
0.02
-0.12***
-0.11***
-0.04
-0.01
0.07*
0.14***
-0.011
-0.20***
0.10***
0.18***
15. Intimate relationship (conflict)
-0.04
0
16. Neuroticism
-0.24***
-0.22***
Notes: Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
0.09**
0.05
0.09**
0.06
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
0.01
-0.08*
0.02
1
1
-0.04
0.10**
1
-0.06
0.05
0.16***
-0.17***
-0.08**
-0.03
0.13***
0.13***
0.24***
0.22***
0.06*
0.03
0.16***
0.13***
1
0.38***
1
0.06
0.16***
-0.10**
-0.12***
-0.18***
-0.27***
-0.03
-0.05
-0.13***
-0.27***
-0.28***
-0.40***
-0.53***
-0.31***
1
1
0.30***
1
151
152
CHAPTER FOUR
Measuring Maternal Ambivalence:
Methods, Measures, and Prevalence of Ambivalence in the Sample
A vast literature explores the social conditions of mothering and the mother’s
relationship to maternal ambivalence (see e.g. Davies and Welch 1986; McMahon 1995;
Hays 1996; Parker [1995] 2005a; Lupton 2000; Hattery 2001; Blair-Loy 2003). As yet,
however, there is no established way to measure maternal ambivalence quantitatively.
Therefore, one of the goals of this project is to conceptualize, develop, and test
psychometrically sound measures of maternal ambivalence using a large data set. In this
chapter, I 1) review the debate on ambivalence measurement originating in the social
psychological, sociological and political science literatures and, 2) introduce strategies
used in this research to measure attitudinal ambivalence using the survey data. Following
this overview, I describe the construction of scales that allow us to measure maternal
ambivalence based on my conceptualization of the construct. Finally, I present the results
of the univariate analysis of the data set using these measures.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN AMBIVALENCE MEASUREMENT
Although the general concept of ambivalence has been part of sociological
discourse since Merton and Barber’s discussion of ambivalence stemming from role
conflict (1963), ambivalence was not empirically measured in sociology until the end of
153
the 1990s. Most of the sociological studies, which empirically studied ambivalence and
developed quantitative methods of ambivalence measurement, are in the area of
intergenerational relationships (Luescher and Pillemer 1998; Pillemer and Suitor 2002;
Willson et al. 2003; Pillemer and Luscher 2004; Willson et al. 2006; Ha and IngersollDayton 2008). The methodological approaches of these researchers are guided by social
psychological research on and studies of attitudinal ambivalence (Thompson, Zanna and
Griffin 1995; Priester and Petty 1996; Cacioppo, Gardner and Berntson 1997, Priester
and Petty 2001; Maio, Esses and Bell 2000) as well as research in the area of
ambivalence in intimate relationships (Thompson and Holmes 1996). Measurements of
ambivalence have also been discussed and developed by political scientists analyzing
political attitudes, specifically the possibility that people may hold opposing attitudes at
the same time (for overview see Meffert, Guge and Lodge 2004; also Steenberg and
Brewer 2004).
In general, social psychologists studying attitudes and their development agree
that people’s attitudes, or “evaluative responses to other people, places, products, issues,
ideas, activities, and objects” (Priester and Petty 2001:19) are composed of different, and
sometimes competing, ideas (Meffert et al. 2004). While older psychological theories of
cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957) or balance theory (Heider 1946) suggested that
individuals motivated to resolve or at least reduce conflicting reactions in order to avoid
discomfort, stress, or tensions (Priester and Petty 1996:448; Thompson and Holmes
1996:497; Meffert et al. 2004:64), recent theories of attitudinal ambivalence are based on
the perspective that “rather than being driven to reduce all inconsistencies in evaluation
154
by any means possible, humans are viewed instead as being capable of maintaining, as
well as reducing, their conflicting reactions” (Priester and Petty 1996:448).
Theories examining multidimensionality of attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence
thus became more developed only toward the end of the 20th century (Thompson and
Holmes 1996:500), with contemporary social psychologists working to provide new ways
of measuring the strength of the conflicting attitudes. The challenge of creating
ambivalence measures stems from the coexistence of conflicted feelings and the
methodological difficulties of capturing this coexistence. Commonly used instruments
measuring attitudes and opinions assume consistency in people’s attitudes and most
social research uses bilateral measures. For example, when using Likert scales or
instruments involving Semantic Differentials, respondents are asked to indicate their
degree of agreement or disagreement with a statement within a single bipolar scale.
While these scales often include a midpoint, its definition is often unclear and may
include those who are uncertain about their opinion, those who are neutral about the
issue, as well as those who are ambivalent, that is those who both agree and disagree with
the questioned statement (Breckler 1994). A midpoint can also mean that the respondent
wanted to give a response that was neither positive nor negative and is indifferent about
the issue or a response that was equally positive and negative and the respondent is thus
ambivalent (Kaplan 1972; see Thompson et al. 1995:364). Respondents with mixed
attitudes, who cannot locate their opinion on a bipolar scale, may also respond with a
“don’t know” option if provided or skip the question altogether, leading social scientists
to omit such ambivalent respondents from their studies.
155
Bipolar scales are therefore not appropriate for measuring ambivalence because
they do not separate the positive and negative components of attitudes (Bell, Esses and
Maio 1996). Attitudinal ambivalence researchers also agree that positivity and negativity
constitute attitudinal components that are distinct and independent (Thompson and
Holmes 1996:500; Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson 1997). This means that positive and
negative attitudes can coexist independently of each other and can increase or decrease
independently of each other as well (Cacioppo et al.1997; Meffert et al. 2004). However,
Lettke and Klein (2004:95) show examples of both types of studies, in which positive and
negative components are inversely correlated, as well as studies in which they are
statistically independent. They explain this inconsistency by the wording and
conceptualization of the opposing scales. The relationship between positive and negative
aspects of the attitudes is depicted in Figure 4.1, with the independent relationship
between positive and negative attitudes signified as “uncoupled.” Meffert and colleagues
(2004) point out that the lower left corner represents the area of indifference,
characterized by low positivity and low negativity of attitudes, while the upper right
corner represents the area of highest ambivalence, characterized by high positive and
simultaneous high negative attitude.
--- Figure 4.1 here ---
This picture shows that there is a distinction between those respondents who have
both negative and positive attitudes of low intensity and are thus indifferent toward the
object or issue, and those who have both positive and negative attitudes with higher
156
intensity and are thus ambivalent toward the object or the issue. Such differentiation
would not be possible if we were using a bipolar scale. If a person has a weak opinion on
both negative and positive sides of the issue, we would consider such an attitude as
indifference. If someone’s attitudes are strong on both the positive and negative side,
such a person would be considered ambivalent.
The evaluative space in Figure 4.1 represents two important characteristics of
attitudinal ambivalence. In order for the opposing attitudes to create feelings of
ambivalence, the attitudes must be 1) similar in their strength (or magnitude), and 2) the
intensity of these attitudes must be at least moderate (Thompson et al. 1995). The
attitudes that are more similar (both positive and negative approaching high) are more
likely to create ambivalence than attitudes that are moving in the opposite directions.
Similarity in strength and the intensity of the opposing attitudes are critical characteristics
in the measurement of attitudinal ambivalence (Thompson et al. 1995; Priester and Petty
1996).
Direct Ambivalence Measures
In order to capture attitudinal ambivalence it is necessary to either ask
respondents directly about their ambivalent feelings about the object, person or issue
(direct measures), or to measure the presence and strength of negative and positive
feelings and attitudes separately and combine them into one ambivalence measure
(indirect measures). In the questions or answers, direct measures use words such as torn,
can’t make up my mind, feel confused, my mind and heart are in disagreement,
ambivalent (Lettke and Klein 2004:90-91). Direct measures are rarely used in
157
quantitative research but they are helpful in testing the validity of indirect measures
(Thompson et al. 1995; Lettke and Klein 2004). The advantage of direct measures is that
they let us easily assess the prevalence of perceived ambivalence. Since they may not
detect ambivalence in respondents who are unaware of their ambivalent feelings
(Pillemer 2004), they are better suited for in-depth interviews or secondary analysis of
qualitative interviews (Lettke and Klein 2004:89).
In one of the sociological projects that directly assesses ambivalence, Pillemer
and Suitor (2002) and then Pillemer (2004) analyzed mothers’ ambivalence toward their
adult children and compared the effects of developmental stage, child’s status attainment,
educational similarity, proximity, and mother’s health on the feelings of ambivalence,
closeness and interpersonal stress. Their first ambivalence measure asked respondents
directly about how often they felt “torn in two directions or conflicted about the child”
(1=never, 2=seldom, 3=now and then, 4=often, 5=very often) and “to what degree they
had “very mixed feelings” toward the child” (response scale from 1=strongly disagree to
4=strongly agree) (2002:607). These direct questions were then complemented by items
formulated on the basis of exploratory interviews, which in one statement combined
positive and negative aspects of the relationship. These measures were phrased as follows
and responses were recorded on a 4-point scale from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly
agree (Pillemer and Suitor 2002:607):
[CHILD] and I often get on each other’s nerves but nevertheless we feel very
close.
My relationship to [CHILD] is very intimate but that also makes it restrictive.
Although I love [CHILD] very much, I am sometimes indifferent about him or her.
158
Pillemer and Suitor then combined all of these five items into a scale for each child (α =
.68) and compared ambivalent feelings to feelings of closeness in the relationship and
interpersonal stress (strained and tense feelings).
Indirect Ambivalence Measures
More common than direct ambivalence measures are indirect measures. These
measures do not ask explicitly about mixed feelings and judgments but ask separately
about positive and negative attitudes toward a person, activity or relationship, and then
combine these responses into one ambivalence score using a mathematical formula. The
advantage of indirect measures is that they can capture the latent ambivalence
characterized by the coexistence of positive and negative attitudes (Thompson and
Holmes 1996). As Lettke and Klein (2004) point out, it is particularly important to
construct opposing instruments that would be combined into an ambivalence score in a
way that covers the two poles of the same attitude dimension.
The question that comes up next is how to combine scores on positive and
negative scales into a single measure. Simply adding them would not be helpful in
identifying ambivalence as such a method would produce an average score and the cases
with most divergence between negative and positive experiences or feelings would end
up in the middle section of the scale, appearing neutral. Social psychologists have
proposed and evaluated various mathematical formulas for combining positive and
negative attitudes or weak and strong attitudes and tested their results (Thompson et al.
1995; Priester and Petty 1996). Thompson and her colleagues (1995) review the strength
and weaknesses of different formulas of ambivalence measurement, and Lettke and Klein
159
2004 summarize their findings and formulas in their article on methodological issues in
ambivalence assessment (2004:97). All of these formulas are based on a comparison of
the intensity of the opposing attitudes and agree that in order to constitute ambivalence
the opposing attitudes need to be similar in strength (Thompson et al. 1995, Willson et al.
2006). If a person’s attitudes differ in strength – for example strong on the positive
component and weak on the negative component – they become polarized in the direction
of the stronger dimension, i.e. in this case, they become more positive rather than
ambivalent.
Among the formulas listed by Thompson and colleagues (1995), Griffin’s formula
evaluating similarity and intensity of attitudes has been repeatedly used in sociological
and political science research and is so far considered to be the best available formula for
the indirect assessment of ambivalence (Thompson and Zanna 1996, Meffert et al. 2004;
Steenbergen and Brewer 2004; Willson et al. 2006; Ha and Ingersoll-Dayton 2008). In
this project, I use this formula for the computation of the ambivalence scale scores.
According to this formula, ambivalence (A) is defined as a difference between the
average of the intensity of positive (P) and negative (N) responses and the absolute value
of the difference between the positive and negative components 1:
A= (P + N)/2 - |P - N|
Results of this formula used with 5-point Likert scales of positive and negative
attitudes are presented in Table 4.1. To increase the ease of interpretation and avoid the
use of negative numbers in the scale, a constant (in this case 1) is usually added to the
formula so the formula looks like this:
1
Some authors use terms “weaker” and “stronger” component to focus on the intensity of the components
but since I work with positive and negative scales, I maintain this terminology here.
160
A= [(P + N)/2 - |P - N|] + 1
--- Table 4.1 here---
The resulting scale ranges in score from 0 (indicting “no ambivalence”) to 6
(indicting “highest ambivalence”). The highest ambivalence is reached by a person
simultaneously holding strongest negative and positive attitudes as (5+5)/2 - |5 - 5| + 1 =
6, whereas a respondent with a very positive and a somewhat negative score (e.g. positive
score 5, negative score 2) would score (5+2)/2 - |5 - 2| + 1 = 1.5, resulting in a score
toward the low end of the ambivalence scale. Respondents with high positive attitudes
and no negative attitudes and vice versa would score as having no ambivalence.
Respondents low in both negative and positive attitudes (1,1) score in the lower half of
this scale, indicating lower levels of ambivalence, or as I described earlier, indifference.
Preliminary tests of my data as well as other studies (Thompson et al. 1995;
Pillemer 2004) show that Griffin’s formula is very closely correlated with another
formula used for assessing ambivalence. Thompson and colleagues attribute this formula
to Jamieson and it is based on the understanding of ambivalence by Scott (1966) that
compares the intensity of the positive and negative components (see Thompson et
al.1995). The calculation is based on the ratio of the weaker component (W) to the
stronger (S) component. The weaker component is squared “in order to reward (or
weight) intensity even more”, which is an arbitrary decision by the author of the formula
(Thompson et al. 1995:368, emphasis in the original). According to this formula:
A=W2/S
161
---Table 4.2 here ---
The hypothetical results of the comparison of two 5-point Likert scales using this
formula are presented in Table 4.2. The values achieved using this formula and the values
achieved using Griffin’s formula were almost perfectly correlated in my data set (r=.98,
p=.000). Since Griffin’s formula is theoretically stronger as it includes both the intensity
and similarity of components, I chose to use it in my calculations while being aware of its
shortcomings.
Ambivalence measures using computational formulas can be used in the analysis
as either continuous or categorical variables. Most often, they are treated as continuous
scales, in which distances between levels of scores are the same (e.g. the distance
between 1 and 2 is the same as the distance between 4 and 5) and higher scores indicate
higher ambivalence. This measure also allows us to distinguish increases or decreases in
ambivalence levels. However, this approach does not differentiate indifferent attitudes
(low scores on both positive and negative measures 1,1; 2,2) from no ambivalence or
medium level ambivalence (such as 2,5; 2,4; 3,5). I suggest that in addition to using the
scale as a continuum, we can use its categorical form. Splitting the scale into two
categories allows me to separate ambivalent and non-ambivalent respondents. I do this at
the univariate level only and use the scale in its continuous form in the OLS regression
analysis. Values greater than or equal to 3.5 (the result of neutral responses on both
positive and negative components 3, 3) can be categorized as ambivalent and those below
3.5 as non-ambivalent. Another option is to split the scale into three groups with values
162
below 1.5 indicating no or very low ambivalence, values between 1.5 and 3 indicating a
medium level of ambivalence, and values greater than or equal to 3.5 indicating high
ambivalence. 2
I tested one additional approach to measuring ambivalence based on direct
comparison of the positive and negative parenting experiences. This method compares an
individual’s locations categorized as high and low (based on sample median or tertile
split) on the positive and negative dimensions. The typology of ambivalence created
according to the intersection of positive and negative location results in a categorical
ambivalence measure, which distinguishes between positive, negative, indifferent, and
ambivalent attitudes. While this approach provides an alternative way of operationalizing
ambivalence and comparing positive and negative attitudes, measuring ambivalence
along the continuous scale created with the one of the computational methods represents
a more accurate representation of ambivalence. Therefore, I use the continuous scale
approach, commonly used in social research, to create the ambivalence measures I
analyze in my project. I discuss the alternative categorical method in more detail in
Appendix E.
Examples of Ambivalence Measures in Sociological Research
To construct measures of maternal ambivalence, I draw on the research in the area
of intergenerational ambivalence as the only area of sociological research that attempts to
quantitatively measure ambivalence in relationships. Researchers in this field understand
intergenerational ambivalence as a characteristic of the potentially torn and mixed
2
This is a rather conservative categorization as other studies include in the ambivalence category anyone
with a score equal to or greater than three on the same scale as the one used in this project (Willson et al.
2003).
163
feelings between aging parents and their adult children. I argue for understanding
maternal ambivalence in its social context and define maternal ambivalence as mothers’
conflicted attitudes toward the institution of motherhood and socially prescribed role of a
mother. My measures need to reflect this approach and focus on a mother’s evaluations
of her motherhood experience in the social context rather than the relationship between
the mother and her child. Although intergenerational research focuses on the
interpersonal relationships, it provides useful examples for the construction of
ambivalence measures and their use in quantitative sociological research.
In a study of the effect of widowhood on intergenerational ambivalence, Ha and
Ingersoll-Dayton (2008:S52) used indirect ambivalence measures. They measured the
effect of widowhood on ambivalence of parents’ relationship toward their children by
combining instruments measuring positive interactions and negative interactions with
children. The positive interactions were measured by two questions (Cronbach’s alpha =
.70): “How much do your children make you feel loved and cared for?” and “How much
are they willing to listen when you need to talk about your worries or problems?”
Negative interactions were also measured by two questions (Cronbach’s alpha = .48)
“How much do you feel they make too many demands on you?” and “How much are they
critical of you or what you do?” The respondents could choose to answer a great deal,
quite a bit, some, a little, and not at all. The positive and negative scores were then
combined into an ambivalence measure using the Griffin formula described above
(Thompson et al. 1995; Thompson and Zanna 1996; Ha and Ingersoll-Dayton 2008).
They find that six months after loss of the husband, widowhood was associated with a
164
decrease in ambivalence; however, after 18 months widowhood did not have a significant
effect on intergenerational ambivalence.
Willson and colleagues (2006) also study ambivalence between mothers and their
adult children by asking both mothers and children about the evaluations of their mutual
relationship. They attempt to identify factors that lead to higher ambivalence. They
measure ambivalence indirectly by combining positive and negative sides of the
relationship (2006:242). The positive component is measured “by each respondent’s
perceptions of love (how much the respondent feels “appreciated, loved or cared for”),
support (how much the respondent can “depend” on the parent/child to be there), and
understanding (how much “concern and understanding” the parent/child shows for the
respondent’s feelings and problems).” The Cronbach’s alpha for these items is .849. The
negative component was evaluated by questions about “conflict, tension, or
disagreement” in the relationship, “how often [does] the parent/child make too many
“demands” [on the respondent] for help and support,” and “how “critical” the
parent/child is toward the respondent” (alpha = .739). The researchers combined these
items into scales (ranging from 3-12) for each component and calculated the ambivalence
scores using Griffin’s formula. They use the resulting scale as a linear continuum in the
hierarchical linear models of dyadic ambivalence. They identify situations of potential
dependence as leading to increased ambivalence and find that mothers experience less
ambivalence in the relationship than their adult children.
Pillemer (2004) complements the use of direct measures, described earlier, with
an indirect measure. Rather than using several statements aggregated in a scale, he uses
single-item positive and negative statements - derived from the measure of affectual
165
solidarity developed by Rossi and Rossi (1990) - that are combined into an ambivalence
scores. The respondents were asked: “All things considered: How close do you feel to
[child]? Please evaluate your relationship on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is very close
and 1 is not at all close.” The negative statement asked the respondents to indicate how
tense and strained their relationships with their children were, and responses were coded
on a scale 1 (not at all tense and strained) to 5 (very tense and strained). The extremely
negative answers of both scales (1 not at all close on the positive scale and 5 very tense
and strained on the negative scale) were collapsed because of small numbers of
responses and the items were used as 4-point scales. Pillemer uses the Jamieson formula
to calculate the ambivalence scores. The correlations between the direct and indirect
measures used in this study are relatively strong (between 0.337 for the oldest child and
0.528 for the youngest child), but as the author points out, the imperfect correlation
suggests that the direct and indirect measures he used likely assess different aspects of the
intergenerational relationships (Pillemer 2004:120).
CONSTRUCTING MEASURES OF MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
Since there is no established conceptualization or quantitative instruments to
measure maternal ambivalence, it is one of the goals of this project to develop
instruments measuring maternal ambivalence and use them in the analysis. Research on
maternal ambivalence in sociology has so far been limited to a few qualitative studies,
which explore ambivalence as part of a larger research agenda. Rather than beginning
their research with the goal of examining ambivalence, conflicted feelings about
166
motherhood are discussed as a result of the analyses of the qualitative interviews (Davies
and Welch 1986; Lupton 2000; Hattery 2001; Miller 2007). While these studies are
useful in the conceptualization and understanding of ambivalence, they do not provide
instruments for measuring maternal ambivalence. I thus build new measures of maternal
ambivalence following the ambivalence measurement techniques developed by social
psychologists over the past several decades, yet limited by the indicators available in the
NICHD SECC data set.
As discussed in Chapter 2 my understanding of maternal ambivalence builds upon
the existing research on motherhood and my reading and interpretation of the
representation of maternal ambivalence in motherhood memoirs. I conceptualize maternal
ambivalence as a presence of mixed feelings about motherhood, the maternal role, and
the mothering experience in the light of current social definitions about motherhood. This
sociological conceptualization focuses on the analysis of the social origins of maternal
ambivalence, rather than on the analysis of the relationship between the individual
mother and her child.
I propose that maternal ambivalence may have different components and sources
for different subgroups of mothers. I suggest that maternal ambivalence comprises four
dimensions: ambivalence about being a good mother (competence), identity ambivalence,
attachment ambivalence, and ambivalence about combining work and family. These four
dimensions of ambivalence capture some of the mixed feelings women experience about
being a mother: while they enjoy being mothers, they may struggle with social
expectations about being a good mother; while they love spending time with and taking
care of the baby, they may feel trapped by their maternal responsibilities; while they feel
167
that they need time to bond with the baby, they feel social expectations to love the baby
immediately; and finally, while they feel that their work outside of home is beneficial for
their families, they also feel that working outside of home does not allow them to be good
mothers. I construct four separate scales measuring maternal ambivalence along these
four dimensions.
Unlike other instruments evaluating maternal well-being and experiences (such as
parenting satisfaction, parental stress, and post-partum depression), measures of maternal
ambivalence are distinct as they do not extend from positive to negative territory. Rather,
they combine positive and negative feelings and express the simultaneous coexistence of
opposite feelings in a single measure. Ideally, to measure maternal ambivalence, we
would directly ask respondents about having mixed feelings about motherhood, not really
feeling like a mother, having mixed/torn feelings towards a child, or having mixed
feelings about the adjustment to motherhood or being torn between being a mother and
pre-baby “self”. If using indirect measures in the study of maternal ambivalence, we
would use indicators measuring complimentary positive and negative feelings toward
being a mother and the experience of motherhood. While it would be preferable to
construct new measures of ambivalence following the guidelines of previous ambivalence
research, conducting a secondary data analysis restricts the construction of the measures
to the available instruments (Kiecolt and Nathan 1985).
The first step in the process of constructing ambivalence measures was to identify
instruments, which measure maternal experience, attitudes about motherhood, and
mothers’ direct responses about their relationship with the child. From the instruments
available in the NICHD SECC data set I looked for items that could be used in designing
168
new scales of maternal ambivalence. Interestingly, in none of the several instruments
describing parenting experiences is there a direct question or statement regarding the
mixed feelings one may feel toward motherhood or being a mother, or a question
evaluating conflicting motherhood experiences.
After I identified instruments assessing parenting experiences and feelings, I
analyzed their individual indicators and conducted an exploratory factor analysis
(separately for each instrument) with the indicators that capture the mothering experience
and attitudes about motherhood. The factor analysis helped me to establish separate
positive and negative components of mothering experience that correspond to the
dimensions of maternal ambivalence I introduced in Chapter 2. Finally, I combined these
positive and negative scales into measures of maternal ambivalence using the
methodology suggested by the social psychological research on attitudinal ambivalence.
Instruments Measuring Parenting Experiences in NICHD Study of Early Child Care and
Their Use for the Construction of Ambivalence Scales
The NICHD Study of Early Child Care data set contains several instruments that
ask mothers about their parenting experience, their adjustment to having a new child,
their relationship with the child, and several other questions related to issues of
combining work and family. Most of these instruments were included in the interviews
with mothers when their focal child was six months old. Among these instruments, I
identified the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale (MSAS), Parenting Stress Index and
Combining Work and Family as measures with indicators relevant to measurement of
maternal ambivalence. I briefly describe these instruments and their use for the
169
construction of the new ambivalence measures below. The methodological characteristics
of these instruments are based on the NICHD SECC Phase I. Instrument Document and
appropriate Child Care Data Reports released by the NICHD research team. The exact
wording of the questions included in these instruments with sample distributions and
means are included in Appendix D.
Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale. The Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale measures a
mother’s “level of worry, sadness, and guilt when separated from her infant; her beliefs
about the importance of exclusive maternal care; her beliefs that her child prefers her care
and is better off in her care; and her beliefs about her child’s abilities to adapt to nonmaternal care” (DeMeis, Hock, and McBride 1986:628). This commonly used instrument
is a composite scale consisting of 21 items (see Table 4.3), all of which were included in
the one-month and six-month interviews with the mothers. Responses to the items are
measured using 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(5).
For the purposes of identifying positive and negative mothering experiences to
assess ambivalence, I conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the six-month data of
the Maternal Separation Anxiety scale, the results of which are presented in Table 4.3.
The factor analysis reveals three components of this scale: 1) Beliefs in the importance of
exclusive maternal care, 2) Mothers’ worries and sadness at separation from the child,
and 3) Mothers’ enjoyment of child’s presence and worry and guilt during separation
from the child. These three factors account for 57 percent of the total variance.
170
From the items belonging to the first factor (i.e. mothers’ beliefs in the
importance of exclusive maternal care), I chose the items related to mothers’ general
beliefs instead of those related to their own child (such as “Only a mother just naturally
knows how to comfort her distressed child”), to construct the scale of the mother’s beliefs
about social expectations for mother-child attachment. I use these items to create the
positive side of the attachment ambivalence dimension (Table 4.6, Cronbach’s alpha
.711). I use the items included in the 3rd component that measures mothers’ enjoyment of
child’s presence and worry and guilt during separation as indicators of the positive
parenting attitudes along the identity ambivalence dimension, which I define as mothers’
enjoyment of being a mother and caring for the child. The items on this scale ask the
mother about missing the physical closeness with her child when she is away or liking to
have her child close at all times. The coefficient of internal consistency of this subscale
Cronbach’s alpha is .839.
---- Table 4.3 here ---
Parenting Stress Index. Parenting stress is a concept intended to capture parental wellbeing and the level of distress parents perceive while raising a child. This instrument
consists of 25 statements from the Abidin Parenting Stress Index (PSI, Abidin 1983),
focused on parental distress and child difficulties (Crnic, Gaze and Hoffman 2005).
Intended to assess parents’ experiences, feelings about parenting and the parenting role, it
constitutes a good source of data for measurement of maternal ambivalence. The
instrument was included in the NICHD SECC interview at one and six months. The
171
Parenting Stress Index was designed to measure parenting competence (self-efficacy),
parental role restriction, and attachment. The statements ask respondents, for example, to
evaluate their capability and confidence in caring for the baby and to compare their
expectations about parenting with the reality they are experiencing. They are also asked
about their bonding with the baby and their feelings about spending all their time and
energy on the baby. In its original form, the responses on the 5-point Likert scale (from
strongly disagree to strongly agree) are summed and averaged, with higher scores
indicating higher parenting stress. With some adjustments, the data confirms to the three
dimensions originally proposed by Abidin (1983) 3.
For the purposes of identifying positive and negative parenting experiences as
dimensions of maternal ambivalence, I use the factor structure of the Parenting Stress
Index and its individual indicators with several adjustments. First, I eliminated items that
do not directly pertain to mothers’ current parenting experiences, such as items (4) “I
need help with making decisions” and (13) “When I was young I never felt comfortable
holding or taking care of the babies”. Next, I separated positively worded items, which
according to the original division were developed to comprise the “competence
dimension” and measure parenting satisfaction (“I enjoy being a parent.”). In the
Parenting Stress Index these items are recoded; I use them to measure positive feelings
about the mothering experience as part of the ambivalence about being good at
mothering (Table 4.6, Cronbach’s alpha .648). I conducted factor analysis with the
remaining 16 items, results of which are presented in Table 4.4.
--Table 4.4 here --3
The instrument and its subscales are in detail discussed in Appendix D.
172
Factor analysis indicated four separate components among the negatively worded
items: 1) Competence and self-efficacy, 2) Entrapment, 3) Role restriction, and 4)
Attachment. These components together explain 53 percent of the variance in the data.
Since some of the items belong both to the second and the third dimensions and the face
validity of these items suggests their meaning is similar, I combine them into one scale. I
use the three resulting dimensions as negative components of three of the ambivalence
dimensions (see Table 4.6) – negative perceptions about being good at mothering
operationalized as a low competence about mothering (Cronbach’s alpha .664), negative
feelings about motherhood identity operationalized as feeling of entrapment and role
restriction (Cronbach’s alpha .765), and negative feelings about attachment to the child
(Cronbach’s alpha .596).
Combining Work and Family. This measure is used to assess several aspects of a mother's
job stress and her evaluation of the strains and benefits of working outside of the home. It
can thus be used for the evaluation of work-to-home and home-to-work spillover. The
instrument was included in the six-month interview with mothers and consists of 21
items; 13 of which measure strains associated with combining work and family (e.g.
“Working leaves you with too little time to be the kind of parent you want to be” or
“During the time set aside for work you feel resentful because you’d rather be spending
time with your family”), and eight that measure the benefits associated with combining
work and family (e.g. “Working makes you feel good about yourself, which is good for
your children”). The answers are recorded using a 4-point Likert scale and range from not
173
at all true (1) to very true (4) with higher scores indicating more benefits or strains of
employment. Only respondents who worked full- or part-time at the time of the interview
have valid data on this measure. The analytic sample for the analyses involving this
instrument is therefore reduced to 728 respondents.
The Combining Work and Family instrument is well-suited to be used as an
ambivalence measure since it incorporates both positive (benefits, gains) and negative
(strains) aspects of combining work and family. Conventionally, it is used as a set of
subscales indicating home-to-family spillover, family-to-work spillover, work-family
strains and work-family gains, or an overall composite variable formed as the difference
between the “strain from work and family” items (original items 1-13) and inverse of the
“gains from work and family” items (original items 14-21) subscales. Rather than using
the score resulting from the difference between the strains and gains, I combine the
positive and negative scales using the ambivalence computation formula.
For the purposes of my analysis, I excluded two items from this instrument that
ask the respondent about being pulled apart by having to juggle conflicting obligations
(12) or things adding up to being “just too much” (13). The factor analysis conducted
with all the other items confirmed three components of this instrument (see Table 4.5): 1)
Family benefits from mother’s working, 2) Work negatively interferes with family life,
and 3) Family life negatively interferes with work. These three components together
explain about 55 percent of the variance. I use the items belonging to the first component
to create a measure of positive attitudes (benefits) about combing work and family (Table
4.6, Cronbach’s alpha .885). I use the items in the second dimension to create a scale
measuring negative attitudes about combing work and family from the family
174
perspective, since it assesses strains of work on the family life and my focus is on
mothering role (Cronbach’s alpha .858). 4
--- Table 4.5 here ---
Comparing Positive and Negative Components of Mothers’ Parenting Experience
Using a new perspective to analyze existing measures of parenting experiences, I
created four positive and four negative subscales of the parenting experience
corresponding to the four ambivalence dimensions I set out to measure. These subscales
and their internal consistency scores are presented in Table 4.6.
---Table 4.6 here---
The subscales for positive and negative components for ambivalence about being
good at mothering, identity ambivalence and attachment ambivalence range between 1
and 5, with 1 being the least positive or negative attitude and 5 the strongest positive or
negative attitude. The subscales, which comprise the ambivalence about combining work
and family, range from 1 (low) to 4 (high). As discussed earlier, I compute the
ambivalence scores along each dimension using the Griffin’s formula (Thompson et al.
1995) and create four scales of maternal ambivalence along the four ambivalence
dimensions. Because of the different ranges of the positive and negative components, the
resulting scales for ambivalence about being good at mothering, identity ambivalence and
4
I excluded the first item Your working creates strains for your children from the scale because the focus
of this item is on children rather than on the mother.
175
attachment ambivalence range from 0 (no ambivalence) to 6 (highest ambivalence), and
for the ambivalence about combining work and family from 0 to 4.5. Having created the
positive and negative scales of parenting experiences and comparative ambivalence scale,
we can take a look at the prevalence of maternal ambivalence in the sample.
DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDES AND
MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE IN THE SAMPLE
The frequency distributions and means of positive and negative attitudes about
parenting and resulting ambivalence along the four dimensions of ambivalence show that
mothers feel mostly positively about motherhood. Generally, strong positive attitudes coexist alongside weak negative attitudes. The only exception are the attitudes about the
strains and gains of combining work and family, where the mothers’ negative attitudes
are strong and the positive attitudes comparatively weak. The means for the positive and
negative components and ambivalence scales are presented in Table 4.7. The
approximate crosstabulations of positive and negative parenting experiences are reported
in Appendix F.
--- Table 4.7 here ---
Respondents with ambivalence score equal to or greater than 3.5 on the first three
dimensions, and those with scores equal or higher than 2.5 on combining the work-family
dimension, can be considered ambivalent about motherhood in each respective
176
dimension. The proportions of respondents based on the categorization according to this
criterion are presented in Figure 4.2. According to this categorization, the highest
proportion of ambivalent mothers is along the identity dimension with over a quarter of
the sample classified as ambivalent (26.4 percent), followed by the ambivalence about
combining work and family (15.4 percent) and ambivalence about being good at
motherhood with less than a tenth of mothers being ambivalent (8.2 percent). The lowest
proportion of ambivalent mothers is on the attachment dimension with less than two
percent of respondent scoring at or above 3.5 on the attachment ambivalence scale. This
first look at the data already suggests that mothers feel ambivalent about their
motherhood role and its intersection with other roles and in the area of the expectations
and reality of motherhood, rather than in the area of relating to their children.
---Figure 4.2 here ---
The means of the ambivalence scales are also presented in Table 4.7. The
ambivalence scales have relatively low means; identity ambivalence has the highest mean
of 2.84 (SD= .962), compared to 1.89 (SD=1.060) for ambivalence about being good at
mothering, 1.67 (SD=.750) for attachment ambivalence scale, as well as for combining
work and family scale (M=1.67, SD=.804). The means for all the dimensions are well
below the point defined as constituting ambivalence (3.5 and higher for competence,
identity and attachment ambivalence, 2.5 for combining work and family ambivalence).
The correlations between positive and negative scales are also shown in Table 4.7.
Their analysis reveals that for the ambivalence dimensions explored here, positive and
177
negative components are mostly independent (Lettke and Klein 2004, Meffert et al.
2004). While the positive and negative components are negatively correlated for the
ambivalence about being good at mothering (r = -.47, p< .01) and combining work and
family (r=-.26, p<.01) dimensions, there is actually a positive correlation between the
positive and negative scales measuring attachment (r = .119, p< .01), and no association
between the positive and negative identity measures. There is no inverse correlation
between positive and negative attitudes, which means that positive and negative
mothering experiences and attitudes are not in direct opposition. The data show that there
are indeed mothers who hold both positive and negative attitudes about motherhood.
The correlations among the four ambivalence dimensions presented in Table 4.8
confirm that the four dimensions of ambivalence as defined in this research are indeed
independent components of ambivalence. We can see that while there is some positive
association among the ambivalence dimensions, in particular between competence and
identity ambivalence (r=.435, p<.01), the correlations are not high enough to indicate that
the four dimensions of ambivalence tap into the same meanings. Maternal ambivalence is
thus not a single concept but can be divided into several dimensions, which are to a large
extent independent of each other.
---Table 4.8 here ---
178
CONTRIBUTIONS OF MEASURING MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE:
COMPARISON OF NEW AMBIVALENCE MEASURES AND EXISTING
INSTRUMENTS MEASURING PARENTING EXPERIENCE
Finally, I examine the relationship between the original instruments measuring
parenting experiences – Maternal Separation Anxiety, Parenting Stress Index, and
Combining Work and Family Instrument – and the newly created scales of ambivalence.
Zero-order correlations presented in Table 4.9 show that there are strong correlations
between the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) and ambivalence about being good at
mothering (r=.827, p=.000), PSI and identity ambivalence (r=.734, p=.000), and a
relatively strong correlation between PSI and attachment ambivalence (r=.417, p=.000).
There is a also a strong relationship between the original document measuring the total
strains and gains of combining maternal employment and family and ambivalence about
combining work and family (which is based on the sum of positive and negative
components from this instrument ) with a correlation of .536 (p=.000).
--- Table 4.9 here ---
Since the ambivalence scales consist of items used in instruments measuring
parenting experiences, I would expect to find a relatively strong association between the
ambivalence scales and parenting instruments, particularly between the Parenting Stress
Index and ambivalence about being good at mothering (where both positive and negative
subscales are constructed from the items comprising the Parenting Stress Index). Even
179
though these correlations are quite high, I contend that ambivalence scales represent a
different way of conceptualizing and representing maternal parenting experiences.
Rather than defining the motherhood experience along a single continuum ranging from
negative to positive, ambivalence measures represent an opportunity to capture both
positive and negative experiences of mothers concurrently in one measure.
I also compare the newly constructed ambivalence scales with another common
measure of maternal well-being: maternal depression (CES-D, Table 4.9). The
correlations between ambivalence scales and maternal depression show significant
correlations between ambivalence and depression (highest r= .366, p=.000 for
ambivalence about being good at mothering, lowest r= .182, p=.000 for attachment
ambivalence), and indicate that mothers who experience ambivalent feelings are also
mothers with higher depression scores. The correlations between ambivalence
dimensions and depression, however, are smaller than a correlation between maternal
depression and parenting stress (r= .444, p=.000). This suggests that while measures
which combine positive and negative attitudes behave to a certain extent similarly to the
instruments focused on a single dimension, they are not identical and provide a different
perspective on maternal experience.
The primary advantage and contribution of maternal ambivalence measures is that
they go beyond a single dimensional view, enabling us to conceptualize motherhood as a
multifaceted and multivalent experience. While the “either-or” approach is widespread in
most discussions about contemporary motherhood and its conflicts (e.g. either breastfeed
or bottle-feed, either work or stay at home, either a good mother or a bad mother), using
the concept of ambivalence allows us to acknowledge and capture the mixed experiences
180
mothers may have, and focus on both sides of these experiences simultaneously. Creating
the ambivalence measures provides us with a tool to capture these conflicted experiences
in quantitative research and a means of using quantitative analysis to extend our
understanding of the motherhood experience.
181
Figure 4.1. Bi-dimensional evaluative space
Source: Adapted from Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson 1997.
182
Figure 4.2. Proportions of mothers identified as ambivalent according to the four
dichotomous ambivalence outcomes
26.40%
30%
25%
20%
15.40%
15%
8.20%
10%
1.80%
5%
0%
Being Good at
Mothering
Identity
Attachment
Ambivalence outcomes
Combining WorkFamily
183
Table 4.1. Theoretical results of the Similarity and Intensity of Components ambivalence
computation formula using 5-point positive and negative attitude scales:
A = (P+N)/2-|P -N| + 1
Negative component
Positive
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2
1.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
3
1
2.5
4
3.5
3
4
0.5
2
3.5
5
4.5
5
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
component
Notes: Ambivalence = (positive + negative)/2 - |positive - negative| + 1
Constant 1 added to all original values to achieve scale with positive values ranging
between 0 and 6 points.
This formula produces the same results if we replace terms “positive” and “negative” with
terms focusing on the comparative intensity “weak” and “strong”.
Bold values indicate presence of ambivalence.
Table 4.2. Theoretical results of the Ratio of Weaker Component Squared to Stronger
Component ambivalence computation formula using 5-point positive and negative
attitude scales: A= W2/S
Negative component
Positive
component
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
0.5
0.33
0.25
0.2
2
0.5
2
1.33
1
0.8
3
0.33
1.33
3
2.25
1.8
4
0.25
1
2.25
4
3.2
5
0.2
0.8
1.8
3.2
5
Notes: Ambivalence = Weaker component squared/Stronger component
Bold values indicate presence of ambivalence.
184
Table 4.3. Items and factor loadings of the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Sixmonth interview (N=1,160)
Component
Item
1
Importance
of maternal
care
1. I miss holding or cuddling my child when I am away from him/her.
2. My child is happier with me than with babysitters or teachers.
.743
3. Children will be afraid in a new place without their mother.
.629
.684
.822
.434
.420
.649
.725
.469
.436
.587
.445
11. I like to have my child close to me most of the time.
12. I am naturally better at keeping my child safe than any other
person.
13. I believe that my child misses me when I have to let someone
else take care of him/her for a while.
14. I don't like to leave my child.
15. My child prefers to be with me more than with anyone else.
16. My child is afraid and sad when he/she is not with me.
3
Enjoys
child’s
presence
.816
4. When away from my child, I often wonder if his/her physical needs
(dry diapers, enough to eat, etc.) are being met.
5. Holding and cuddling my child makes me feel so good that I really
miss the physical closeness when I'm away.
6. I am more concerned with my child's physical safety than a
babysitter or teacher.
7. It will be difficult for my child to adjust to someone else taking care
of him/her.
8. When I am away from my child, I feel lonely and miss him/her a
great deal.
9. Only a mother just naturally knows how to comfort her distressed
child.
10. A child is likely to get upset when he/she is left with a babysitter.
2
Worries
and
sadness
at
separation
.663
.570
.612
.634
.758
.619
.431
17. When I am separated from my child, I wonder whether he/she is
crying and missing me.
.671
18. I don't enjoy myself when I'm away from my child.
.592
19. I worry that my child is never completely comfortable in an
unfamiliar setting if I am not with him/her.
.673
20. I worry when someone else cares for my child.
.787
21. When away from my child, I worry about whether or not the
babysitter is able to soothe and comfort my child if he/she is lonely or
upset.
.763
Note: Rotated matrix with factor loadings below .400 suppressed.
Items are numbered according to the original document (Appendix D)
185
Table 4.4. Items and factor loadings of the negative items from the Parenting Stress
Index, Six-month interview (N=1,160)
Component
Item
1
Competence
1. When my baby came home from the hospital, I
had doubtful feelings about my ability to handle
being a parent.
2. Being a parent is harder than I thought it would
be.
5. I have had many more problems caring for my
baby than I expected.
8. Since I brought this baby home from the hospital,
I find that I am not able to take care of this baby as
well as I thought I could. I need help.
9. I often have the feeling that I cannot handle things
very well.
10. It takes a long time for parents to develop close,
warm feelings for their babies.
11. I expected to have closer and warmer feelings
for my baby than I do and this bothers me.
12. Sometimes my baby does things that bother me
just to be mean.
15. The number of children I have now is too many.
16. Most of my life is spent doing things for my baby.
17. I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my
baby's needs than I ever expected.
18. I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent.
19. I often feel that my baby's needs control my life.
20. Since having this child, I have been unable to do
new and different things.
2
Entrapment
3
Role
restriction
4
Attachment
.569
.597
.716
.669
.625
.679
.778
.688
.525
.678
.658
.513
.709
.605
21. Since having a baby I feel that I am almost never
able to do things that I like to do.
.677
22. It is hard to find a place in our home where I can
go to be by myself.
.657
Note: Rotated matrix with factor loadings below .400 suppressed
Items are numbered according to the original document (Appendix D)
.401
186
Table 4.5. Items and factor loadings of the Combining Work and Family instrument,
Six-month interview (N=1,160)
Item
Component
1
Family
benefits from
mother’s
working
1. Your working creates strains for your children.
2. Working leaves you with too little time to be the kind of
parent you want to be.
3. Working causes you to miss out on some of the
rewarding aspects of being a parent.
4. Working leaves you with too little energy to be the kind
of parent you want to be.
5. Because of the requirements of your job, you have to
miss out on home or family activities that you would
prefer to participate in.
6. Because of the requirements of your job, your family
time is less enjoyable and more pressured.
7. Thinking about your children interferes with your
performance at work.
8. Because of your family responsibilities, you have to
turn down work activities or opportunities that you would
prefer to take on.
9. Because of your family responsibilities, the time you
spend working is less enjoyable and more pressured.
10. When you spend time working, you're bothered by all
the things at home that you should be doing.
11. During the time set aside for work, you feel resentful
because you'd really rather be spending time with your
family.
14. Working helps you to better appreciate the time you
spend with your children.
15. Working makes you feel good about yourself, which
is good for your children.
16. The fact that you're working makes you a better
parent.
Having both work and family responsibilities:
17. Makes you a more well-rounded person.
18. Gives your life more variety.
19. Challenges you to be the best you can be.
20. Means you manage your time better.
21. Managing work and family responsibilities as well as
you do makes you feel competent.
2
Work
negative for
family
3
Family
negative for
work
.523
.855
.835
.765
.700
.606
.623
.646
.747
.567
.584
.614
.725
.709
.811
.787
.819
.695
.757
Note: Rotated matrix with factor loadings below .400 suppressed
Items are numbered according to the original document (Appendix D)
187
Table 4.6. Overview and wording of positive and negative subscales used to create
maternal ambivalence scales
Identity ambivalence
Ambivalence about being good at mothering (competence)
Ambivalence
dimension
Positive component
Negative component
Belief in own ability to care for the baby,
enjoying parenting and feeling as a good
parent
1. I feel capable and on top of things when I
am caring for my baby.
Motherhood is overwhelming and more
difficult than expected, it takes time to learn
2. I enjoy being a parent.
3. I feel that I am successful most of the
time when I try to get my baby to do or not
do something.
4. (R) When I think about myself as a
parent I believe: 1. I can handle anything
that happens., 2. I can handle most things
pretty well, 3. Sometimes I have doubts, but
find that I handle most things without any
problems., 4. I have some doubts about
being able to handle things., 5. I don't think
I handle things very well at all.
1. When my baby came home from the
hospital, I had doubtful feelings about my
ability to handle being a parent.
2. Being a parent is harder than I thought it
would be.
3. I have had many more problems caring
for my baby than I expected.
4. Since I brought this baby home from the
hospital, I find that I am not able to take
care of this baby as well as I thought I
could. I need help.
5.(R) I feel that I am: 1 A. very good parent.,
2. A better than average parent., 3. An
average parent., 4. A person who has some
trouble being a parent, 5. Not very good at
being a parent.
6.(R) How easy is it for you to understand
what your child wants or needs? 1 Very
easy, 2 Easy , 3 Somewhat difficult, 4 It is
very hard, 5 I usually can't figure out what
the problem is.
5. I often have the feeling that I cannot
handle things very well.
Cronbach’s alpha = .648 (stand.= .649)
Wanting to be with the baby, enjoying
motherhood
Cronbach’s alpha = .664 (stand.= .691)
Role restriction and entrapment by
motherhood obligations, not able to do
things for herself
1. Most of my life is spent doing things for
my baby.
2. I find myself giving up more of my life to
meet my baby's needs than I ever expected.
1. I miss holding or cuddling my child when
I am away from him/her.
2. Holding and cuddling my child makes me
feel so good that I really miss the physical
closeness when I'm away.
3. When I am away from my child, I feel
lonely and miss him/her a great deal.
4. I like to have my child close to me most
of the time.
5. I don't like to leave my child.
Cronbach’s alpha = .839 (stand.= .839)
3. I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a
parent.
4. I often feel that my baby's needs control
my life.
5. Since having this child, I have been
unable to do new and different things.
6. Since having a baby I feel that I am
almost never able to do things that I like to
do.
7. It is hard to find a place in our home
where I can go to be by myself.
Cronbach’s alpha =.765 (stand. =.775)
188
Table 4.6. Continued.
Ambivalence about combining work and family
Attachment ambivalence
Ambivalence
dimension
Positive component
Belief in social expectation that mothers
are the best to take care of the baby
1. Children will be afraid in a new place
without their mother.
2. Only a mother just naturally knows how
to comfort her distressed child.
Negative component
Uncertain about the attachment with the
baby, takes her longer to attach to the baby
than expected
1. It takes a long time for parents to develop
close, warm feelings for their babies.
1. Working helps you to better appreciate
the time you spend with your children.
2. I expected to have closer and warmer
feelings for my baby than I do and this
bothers me.
3. Sometimes my baby does things that
bother me just to be mean.
Cronbach’s alpha = .596 (stand.=.610)
Work interferes with family, work-to-home
spillover
1. Working leaves you with too little time to
be the kind of parent you want to be.
2. Working makes you feel good about
yourself, which is good for your children.
2. Working causes you to miss out on some
of the rewarding aspects of being a parent.
3. The fact that you're working makes you a
better parent.
3. Working leaves you with too little energy
to be the kind of parent you want to be.
Having both work and family responsibilities:
4. Because of the requirements of your job,
you have to miss out on home or family
activities that you would prefer to participate
in.
5. Because of the requirements of your job,
your family time is less enjoyable and more
pressured.
6. During the time set aside for work, you
feel resentful because you'd really rather be
spending time with your family.
3. A child is likely to get upset when he/she
is left with a babysitter.
Cronbach’s alpha = .711 (stand. = .721)
Work good for self and family
4. Makes you a more well-rounded person.
5. Gives your life more variety.
6. Challenges you to be the best you can be.
7. Means you manage your time better.
8. Managing work and family
responsibilities as well as you do makes
you feel competent.
Cronbach’s alpha = .885 (stand.=.886)
Note: (R) the item is reverse-coded
Cronbach’s alpha =.858 (stand.=.856)
189
Table 4.7. Distributions of positive and negative parenting experiences scales (mean,
SD), correlations between positive and negative subscales, and distributions of
ambivalence scales in the sample (mean, SD)
Positive Attitudes
Negative Attitudes
Correlation between positive
and negative attitudes
(Spearman coeff.)
Ambivalence Scales
Mean (SD)
Proportion considered
ambivalentc
Attachment a
Identity a
3.836 (.749)
2.586 (.694)
.004
Combining WorkFamilyb
2.773 (.803)
2.707 (.700)
1.393 (.517)
1.904 (.702)
.119**
-.256**
1.891 (1.060)
8.20%
2.844 (.962)
26.40%
1.670 (.750)
1.80%
1.669 (.804)
15.40%
1,160
1,160
1,160
728
Being Good at
Mothering a
4.288 (.386)
2.029 (.654)
-.477**
N
Notes:
The range of positive and negative scales is 1– 5. The ambivalence scale ranges between 0 (no
ambivalence) – 6 (highest ambivalence).
b
The range of positive and negative scales is 1– 4. The ambivalence scale ranges between 0 (no
ambivalence) – 4.5 (highest ambivalence).
c
Score on the ambivalence scale equal or higher than 3.5 for good at motherhood, identity and attachment
scales, 2.5 for work-family scale.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
a
Table 4.8. Correlations between dimensions of maternal ambivalence
1
1. Being good at mothering
2
3
4
1
2. Identity a
.435**
1
3. Attachment a
.303**
.183**
1
4. Work-Family b
.165**
.140**
.099**
Notes:
** Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
a
N = 1,160
b
N = 728
1
190
Table 4.9. Correlations between newly constructed ambivalence scales and existing
parenting instruments and measures of well-being
Original Parenting Instruments and Measures of Maternal WellBeing
Ambivalence Scale
Parenting
Stress Index
Separation
Anxiety Scale
Total strains and
gains of maternal
employment
Maternal
depression
Ambivalence about being
good at mothering
.827***
.145***
.176***
.366***
Identity ambivalence
.734***
.009
.171***
.282***
Attachment ambivalence
.417***
-.282***
-.011
.134***
Ambivalence about
combining work and family
.230***
.168***
.536***
.216***
Note: All measures based on data collected at 6-month interview
*** Significance level (2-tailed) p< .000
191
CHAPTER FIVE
The Social Demography of Maternal Ambivalence:
Mean Comparisons and Direct Effects of Social Structural Characteristics on
Ambivalence Outcomes
The main goal of this project is to explore social class and race differences in the
experience of maternal ambivalence. Specifically, I seek to find out whether white
middle-class mothers are more ambivalent about motherhood than black mothers and
mothers with lower socioeconomic standing as the analysis of maternal memoirs and
current theories of motherhood would suggest. As I conceptualize maternal ambivalence
into four different dimensions, I further explore whether mothers’ race and class positions
affect different dimensions of maternal ambivalence in a similar direction, or whether
they differ across these four ambivalence dimensions. In this chapter I present the data
analysis and answers to these questions first by comparing the means on ambivalence
scales between mothers belonging to different social groups, and second by analyzing the
effects of social structural characteristics on maternal ambivalence using regression
analysis.
In order to capture social class differences between mothers, I use three different
indicators of socioeconomic status: 1) highest achieved level of education, 2) pre-baby
occupation, and 3) total household income. Each of these indicators taps into a different
aspect of social class; for example, the mother’s educational level and occupation
represent her individual achievement and access to cultural capital, while household
192
income is based on the overall financial income of the family and does not necessarily
express the mother’s contribution or income. I compare individual aspects of social class
and their effects on maternal ambivalence one by one before entering them into the
analytical model concurrently. This process allows me to not only examine the effects of
social class on maternal ambivalence but also to evaluate the relative contributions of
each distinctive aspect of social class, which are in social research often treated as
interchangeable. Since a relatively large proportion of mothers did not work before they
had a baby (16.3 percent), and because of the multicollinearity of the results in the
multivariate regression models (which already included household income and
education), I use mother’s occupation only in the first level of the analysis when the
variables are entered into the regression individually.
In addition to the analysis of the individual effects of social class and race on
maternal ambivalence, I also compare mothers according to their position at the
intersection of race and class categories. This allows me to directly assess whether
maternal ambivalence is experienced differently by white middle-class mothers as
compared to mothers of other social backgrounds, or whether it is a phenomenon
widespread across different social subgroups. To do this, I split the sample into four
categories: white middle-class, white working-class, black middle-class, and black
working-class, and define social class in terms of education (college education or
advanced degree vs. no college degree), occupation (professional and managerial jobs vs.
other jobs or non-working), and family income split into categories according to the
sample median (above median vs. below median). I also create a variable based on the
intersection of household income, education and race and compare ambivalence
193
outcomes between white-middle class mothers (white, college educated, above-themedian household income) and all the other mothers.
BIVARIATE ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF THE MEANS
Table 5.1 presents distributions of the four ambivalence dimensions according to
mothers’ social structural characteristics. According to the comparison of the means (ttests and one-way ANOVA), there are some significant differences among categories of
mothers according to their race and socioeconomic status. Figures 5.1, 5.2. and 5.3
graphically summarize the differences among mothers belonging to different groups
based on the combination of their race and different socioeconomic indicators along the
four ambivalence dimensions.
--- Table 5.1 here---
--- Figure 5.1 here ---
--- Figure 5.2 here ---
--- Figure 5.3 here ---
The results of the comparison of the means show that there is no clear general
direction in the relationship between social class indicators and race and maternal
194
ambivalence. Regardless of the indicator of social class used, there are no significant
differences among mothers in their ambivalence about combining work and family. The
most consistent are the differences between white middle-class mothers and mothers
belonging to other social groups along the identity ambivalence dimension. Separating
mothers by race, white mothers score statistically significantly higher on identity
ambivalence than black mothers (2.9 and 2.8, t=2.596, p<.05). Separating mothers by
occupation, professional women have the highest mean on this ambivalence dimension as
well (2.9 compared with 2.8 scored by women in other than professional jobs, F=3.9,
p<.05). When the race and class indicators are combined, white middle-class mothers
also score statistically significantly higher on the identity ambivalence scale than white
lower-class and black lower-class mothers (see Table 5.1, the mean for white college
educated mothers is 2.93 and for black mothers without college education 2.67, p<.05).
The results are quite opposite for ambivalence about being good at mothering.
Along this ambivalence dimension, women with a maximum of a high school education
and in families with lower income tend to feel significantly more ambivalent than
middle-class mothers (the difference between the bottom and top income quartile is 2.1
compared to 1.7; the difference between high-school educated and those with some
college is 2.1 compared to 1.8). There is not a significant difference between white and
black mothers in their ambivalence about being good at mothering. When the race and
class categories are combined, white middle-class mothers score lower on ambivalence
about being good at mothering than white working-class mothers; however, these
differences are only significant when social class is indicated by household income (2.0
compared to 1.8). There is also a statistically significant difference between white
195
middle-class mothers and other mothers when the cumulative measure of class and race is
used (1.78 compared to 1.93, t=2.148). These results indicate that it is the level of
household income and the mother’s education, rather than the mother’s race, which affect
different levels of mixed feelings about enjoying motherhood and being able to keep up
with the demands of early motherhood.
Other significant differences can be observed in the attachment ambivalence
outcome. On this ambivalence dimension, black mothers (regardless of social class) tend
to be more ambivalent than white mothers. This finding is supported by the comparison
of categories based on the cumulative measures or race and class, where African
American working-class mothers tend to score higher on this dimension of ambivalence
than white working-class mothers.
This first look at the data thus indicates that there are indeed social class and race
differences in maternal ambivalence. Further, these social structural differences are not in
the same direction along all ambivalence outcomes, suggesting that there are distinctive
pathways to each of the ambivalence subscales. In the case of identity ambivalence,
regardless of the indicator used, white middle-class mothers have significantly higher
levels of ambivalence than mothers belonging to other social groups. This difference is
most pronounced when white middle-class mothers are compared to black working-class
mothers. This confirms my original assumption of higher maternal ambivalence among
white middle-class women. However, this is only the case when maternal ambivalence is
defined as a conflict between a woman’s restrictions and the responsibilities imposed by
motherhood and the simultaneous enjoyment of the presence of the child, and does not
apply to all ambivalence dimensions.
196
The results also show that mothers with less education and income feel more
conflicted about the overwhelming and surprising nature of motherhood while enjoying
parenthood (ambivalence about being good at mothering). Social class position and
available resources thus seem to affect women’s mixed feelings about succeeding as
mothers. Ambivalence about being good at mothering might have more to do with
feelings of competence and self-efficacy than fulfilling expectations about being a good
mother. While race does not directly influence ambivalence about being good at
mothering, there are statistically significant differences between black and white mothers
along the attachment ambivalence dimension, indicating that white and black mothers
feel different level of conflict between their bonding with the baby and the social
expectations about this bonding. Interestingly, the comparison of the means showed no
differences in mothers’ feelings of ambivalence about combining work and family.
SOCIAL CLASS AND RACE EFFECTS ON MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
The bivariate analysis provides the first look at the data, however, it does not
account for covariate factors. I use OLS regression analysis to evaluate the extent to
which the social structural differences in maternal ambivalence documented in the
bivariate analysis persist when I control for additional demographic characteristics. In
this chapter I present the first part of the regression analysis exploring the direct effects of
individual social-structural characteristics and their combined effects on the four maternal
ambivalence outcomes. I include additional variables indicating maternal personality,
197
social support, employment and maternal parity in the next step of the analysis (Chapter
6).
I first regress each ambivalence outcome on each indicator of race and social class
(family income, education, occupation) separately, and then control for other
sociodemographic characteristics correlated with social structural variables (age, marital
status, school attendance, see Table 3.2). To evaluate and compare the effects of the
individual social structural characteristics, I then included all of them in the regression
model simultaneously. In order to ascertain whether it’s race, class or their combination, I
also tested models that included interaction terms between race and socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics (race and education, race and household income, race and
marital status) for all the ambivalence outcomes. None of these interactions were
statistically significant, whether they were entered into the model individually or several
at a time. The interaction terms were not statistically significant nor did their inclusion in
the multivariate models explain more variance in the ambivalence outcomes than models
with only main effects. This suggests that the effects of social class on maternal
ambivalence do not vary according to the mother’s race and vice versa.
In order to directly answer the question that stems from the current motherhood
research and my reading of the maternal memoirs about the difference between white
middle-class mothers and mothers belonging to other social groups, I also tested models
predicting maternal ambivalence based on categorical variables that combined class
(defined by income and education) and race indicators. I thus compare white middle-class
mothers to black middle-class, black working-class, and white working-class mothers. In
198
all the regression models, the ambivalence scales are entered in their standardized forms
(mean=0, SD=1) to allow for comparison across all ambivalence dimensions.
Ambivalence about Being Good at Mothering
Ambivalence about being good at mothering is conceptualized as a combination
of negative feelings of being overwhelmed by motherhood responsibilities and surprised
by the unexpected difficulties of early motherhood with positive feelings based on a
mother’s belief in her own ability to take care of her baby and her enjoyment of
parenting. Ambivalent mothers thus feel overwhelmed by their motherhood
responsibilities while they enjoy being mothers (for the exact wording of the items
comprising this scale see Table 4.6). The ambivalence scale that combines positive and
negative feelings ranges from 0 to 6 and is used in a standardized form with a zero mean
in the regression analysis (original scale mean=1.891, SD=1.060, Table 4.7).
--- Table 5.2 here ---
The regression results presented in Tables 5.2 show that social structural
characteristics contribute little to explaining the variance of the ambivalence about being
good at mothering. When entered into regression models along with sociodemographic
controls, socioeconomic and race indicators explain less than two percent of the variation
in the ambivalence about being good at mothering (Table 5.2). The models with control
variables are all statistically significant (lowest F=2.906, p<.01 for occupation, highest
F=4.701, p<.001 for household income). When we compare the impact of individual
199
socioeconomic indicators on this aspect of ambivalence, only household income
significantly predicts this outcome net of control variables. Ambivalence about being
good at mothering decreases with increasing family income,. Although education is
significant when entered alone into the regression predicting ambivalence about being
good at mothering, it loses its significance when other sociodemographic variables are
entered into the model (zero-order correlation between education and age is .52,
education and marital status -.36). There is no significant association between occupation
or race and maternal ambivalence along this dimension when controlling for additional
sociodemographic characteristics of respondents (age, school enrollment and marital
status). Among demographic characteristics, single mothers are significantly more
ambivalent about being good at mothering than married mothers in these models (race,
education, occupation).
I found similar results when I directly compared white middle-class mothers
(defined by college education and above-the-median household income) to mothers
belonging to other class and racial groups. Table 5.3 and the first model in Table 5.11
show the results of the regression analysis for variables that combine class and race on
ambivalence about being good at mothering. Although white working class mothers were
more ambivalent about being good at mothering in the baseline model, this result no
longer holds when I control for age and marital status. The data show that young mothers
and single mothers are more ambivalent about being good at mothering than older
mothers and mothers with partners. Since young mothers are more likely to be in the
lowest income category (60% are in the bottom quartile), they are less educated (almost
60% have only high school education or less) and more likely to be black (26%, chi-
200
square 81.099, p=.000), it is possible that some of the previously significant social
structural differences are absorbed by age. It is easy to imagine that single mothers may
more likely feel overwhelmed by the demands of early mothering than mothers who have
partner support (Copeland and Harbaugh 2005), while they simultaneously enjoy the
status of the motherhood role (Edin and Kefalas 2005). I further explore the relationship
between social structural characteristics and ambivalence with social support as a
covariate in the later stages of my analysis (Chapter 6).
--- Table 5.3 here---
To test the effects of all social structural variables on ambivalence about being
good at mothering, I estimate a model that includes all of these variables and the controls.
Table 5.10 presents multivariate regression models, which include all socioeconomic and
race variables for all the ambivalence outcomes. For ambivalence about being good at
mothering (first column), including household income, mother’s education and race along
with control variables yields a modest increase in explained variance compared to the
models that include only individual social structural variables (Table 5.2) and produced a
statistically significant model (Model 1 adjusted R2 0.024, F= 4.194, p<.001). Among the
tested social structural characteristics, only household income is significantly associated
with ambivalence about being good at mothering (b= -.141, p<.01). This result indicates
that with increasing household income, net of other variables included in the model,
mothers feel less conflicted about being good mothers. In this model, which includes
household income, education and race along with marital status and age, being single or
201
young is no longer a significant predictor of ambivalence about being good at mothering
and is replaced by the household income indicator associated with marital status and
maternal age. Increasing economic resources, associated with having a partner, thus help
mothers feel less conflicted about their roles as mothers and their responsibilities
associated with mothering.
Identity Ambivalence
The second ambivalence dimension, identity ambivalence, captures feelings of
restriction and entrapment by motherhood obligations combined with the enjoyment of
being with the child and missing the child when separated from her. Mothers who score
high on the identity ambivalence scale feel constrained by their parenting responsibilities
and unable to do new things or things they like, but, at the same time, miss their child
when they are away and would like to have their child close most of the time. This
ambivalence dimension thus represents their conflicted feelings about their motherhood
role. The resulting scale ranges from 0 to 6, with a mean of 2.844 and standard deviation
of .962 (Table 4.7). In the regression analysis I use the standardized form of the scale
with a mean of 0 (SD=1.00).
--- Table 5.4 here---
The regression models that include individual social structural characteristics with
controls on identity ambivalence are presented in Table 5.4. These models explain very
little or no variation in identity ambivalence (adjusted R2 between -.003 and .005) and are
202
not statistically significant. However, the coefficients show some evidence that white
mothers and mothers with higher socioeconomic status are more ambivalent about their
motherhood identities. Mothers with some college education have significantly lower
identity ambivalence scores than college educated mothers net of controls (b=-0.159,
p<.05). Similarly, mothers with non-managerial occupations have statistically
significantly lower identity ambivalence than mothers who work as managers or
professionals (model with controls, b=-0.178, p<.05). Household income is not a
significant predictor of identity ambivalence when entered into the model with
sociodemographic controls. This suggests that rather than a mother’s household
economic resources, it is the direct indicators of her social status – represented by
achieved education or occupational prestige – that predict higher identity ambivalence.
This finding supports my expectation that mothers who invested in their education and
careers may feel a more intense conflict between the restrictions imposed by motherhood
and their enjoyment of their child. Ambivalence about motherhood identity is thus often a
more significant concern among educated and professional women, who feel torn
between their old selves and needs and their motherhood identities and responsibilities.
White mothers also experience more ambivalence about their motherhood identity
than black mothers. Controlling for sociodemographic variables, black women score
about a quarter of a standard deviation lower on identity ambivalence than white women.
When mother’s race, household income and education are entered into the multivariate
model (Table 5.10, second column), race and education continue to be significant
predictors of identity ambivalence (race b= -.243, p<.05, education - some college b= -
203
0.156, p<.05), confirming the expectation that white women with higher educations
experience more conflict about their motherhood identity.
Although the interaction terms between social class and race indicators were not
significant in the multivariate model predicting identity ambivalence, I compare groups of
mothers according to their position on the intersection of class and race categories to find
out whether white middle-class mothers experience more ambivalence about their
maternal identity than mothers belonging to other racial and socioeconomic groups. The
results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.5.
--- Table 5.5 here---
When mothers are classified based on a combination of their race and class, a
pattern emerges confirming the hypothesis about higher maternal ambivalence among
white middle class mothers. The data show that white college-educated women
experience statistically significant higher identity ambivalence than black collegeeducated women (the coefficient approaches significance) and both black and white
women without college education (b=-0.359, p<.01 for black mothers without college
education, b=-0.149, p<.05 for white mothers without college education). There are
statistically significant differences between white professional mothers and black mothers
in non-managerial or non-professional jobs, as well as between white mothers from
higher income families and black mothers with lower household incomes. These
differences persist when controls for sociodemographic characteristics are included in the
models. In the model that defines middle class both according to education and household
204
income (Table 5.11, second column), white middle-class mothers tend to have higher
identity ambivalence than other mothers (b=.159, p<.05) net of sociodemographic
characteristics. Categorizing mothers according to the intersection of race and social class
thus further supports the patterns evident in the models with individual class and race
characteristics (Table 5.4) that white middle-class mothers tend to experience higher
identity ambivalence than black mothers and white working-class mothers. This finding
supports the expectations about differences in maternal ambivalence according to
mothers’ social structural characteristics suggested by the readings of maternal memoirs
and current motherhood research. In the next chapter, I explore additional covariate
factors that possibly explain this relationship further.
Attachment Ambivalence
The attachment ambivalence dimension combines the mother’s uncertainty about
her personal connection with the baby with the internalized social expectations that
mothers are the best able to take care of and comfort their babies. The attachment
ambivalence scale ranges from 0 to 6 and has a mean of 1.670 and standard deviation of
.750, and is used in the analysis in the standardized form (z-score).
Similar to the identity ambivalence results, white middle-class women (when
categorized by a combination of an individual’s race, education and income (Table 5.11,
third column), score significantly higher on the attachment ambivalence scale net of
demographic variables (b=.216, p<.01). However, when the socioeconomic
characteristics are entered into the regression models separately (Table 5.6), the results
show that black mothers experience higher attachment ambivalence than white mothers
205
net of other variables (b=.264, p<.01). Mothers with a college degree experience more
attachment ambivalence than mothers with only some post-secondary schooling (b= .153, p<05). Race and social class thus seem to have a different effect on attachment
ambivalence, which shows the importance of not conflating social class and race effects.
--- Table 5.6 here---
---Table 5.7 here---
These results persist and remain statistically significant in the models with all
social structural characteristics and sociodemographic controls (see Table 5.10). In all of
the models that include sociodemographic characteristics, however, mothers between 18
and 25 years of age experience higher levels of attachment ambivalence than older
mothers. Further analysis of the composition of this age category suggests that mothers in
this category are more likely black (26 percent of young mothers are black compared to
74 percent white, chi-square 81.099, p=.000), more likely to be single (almost 30 percent
of 18-25 year old mothers are single compared to eight percent of mothers who are
between 26 and 34 years old, and four percent of mothers over 35 years old, chi-square
197.7, p=.000). Younger mothers are also less educated than older mothers (almost 60
percent of young mothers have only completed high school, while 64 percent of mothers
in the category over 35 years old have completed college education, chi-square 291.947,
p=.000), and they are more likely to live in households belonging to the bottom quartile
of the income distribution (60 percent of young mothers compared to 10 percent of
206
mothers over 35 years old, chi-square 320.649, p=.000). In the case of attachment
ambivalence, maternal age differences seem to subsume the race and class differences
and become more important in the multivariate regression models than social class and
race indicators.
This is also documented by the results presented in Table 5.7, where black
working-class mothers, regardless of the social class indicator used, score higher on the
attachment ambivalence scale than white middle-class mothers until I control for age,
marital status and school attendance. In these models, it is age that becomes a significant
predictor of attachment ambivalence. Younger mothers in disadvantaged social structural
positions are thus more likely to feel conflicted about forming bonds with their babies in
the face of social expectations to do so. When the controls are included in these models,
white working-class mothers become significantly less ambivalent about their attachment
with the baby than white middle-class mothers (models based on race and education, and
race and income combination, which approaches significance).
Overall, social structural characteristics add very little to the understanding of
attachment ambivalence among mothers (adjusted R2 equal or below .01) and there is no
clear direction in the relationship between individual social class and race indicators and
attachment ambivalence. Regression models that simultaneously include race, household
income and education measures suggests that net of other variables, black mothers feel
more ambivalent about their attachment to their children, while mothers who have not
completed college experience less attachment ambivalence (Table 5.10, third column).
However, the model in which race interacts with multiple indicators of social class (Table
5.11, third column) show that white middle-class mothers experience higher attachment
207
ambivalence than other women (net of controls). The age when women become mothers
is shown to be a more important indicator of attachment ambivalence than social
structural characteristics, likely due to the strong association of being a young mother
with race and social class indicators. Older mothers are thus less conflicted about their
bonding with the baby than younger mothers.
Ambivalence about Combining Work and Family
The last dimension of maternal ambivalence, ambivalence about combining work
and family roles, is measured on a scale that combines mothers’ perceived strains of
working on the family with the positive aspects of work on a mother’s self and her
family. The results for this scale are only available for employed mothers with complete
data on all variables included in the models (n=728). The resulting scale ranges between
0 and 4.5 and for the analytic sample reaches a median of 1.669 with a standard deviation
of 0.804. It is used in the standardized version (z-score) in the present analysis.
Regression analysis shows that social structural characteristics along with the
demographic variables explain none or almost none of the variance in the ambivalence
about combining work and family (Table 5.8, adjusted R2 below 0.005). Only household
income is a statistically significant predictor of this ambivalence dimension (Model 1 b=
-0.123, p<.05), however, some of its impact is explained by sociodemographic variables
when they are included in the model (Model 2 b= -0.136, p<.10). Household income also
approaches statistical significance as a predictor of ambivalence about combining work
and family in the multivariate model with all of the social structural characteristics
included (last column in Table 5.10, b= -.145, p<.10). Interaction terms included in the
208
models (results not shown) and categorical variables measuring the intersection of race
and social class (Tables 5.9 and 5.11, last column) are not statistically significant.
---Table 5.8 here---
---Table 5.9 here---
--- Table 5.10 here---
---Table 5.11 here---
These results suggest that mothers who live in households with higher levels of
income experience less conflict about the strains and benefits of their work for
themselves and their families. Higher household income and the resulting availability of
economic resources are thus important for lowering mothers’ feelings of conflict between
work and family. Interestingly, it is not the prestige of a mother’s job that affects this type
of ambivalence. In further analysis I will explore whether other factors, such as working
full or part-time, the availability of social support, or the quality of the partner
relationship work as suppressors of the relationship between race and class and
ambivalence about combining work and family.
209
SUMMARY: ARE WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS MOTHERS MORE AMBIVALENT
ABOUT MOTHERHOOD THAN OTHER MOTHERS?
Analysis of the direct effects of social structural variables on maternal
ambivalence shows that race and social class do indeed predict maternal ambivalence;
however, their impact and significance vary in both direction and magnitude for the four
ambivalence dimensions studied. This confirms my original hypothesis that ambivalence
is a multi-dimensional concept with different presentations among diverse social groups.
Overall, the mothers interviewed were more positive than negative about their
motherhood experiences but a significant proportion held positive and negative feelings
at the same time—i.e. expressed ambivalence. Social structural characteristics explain
only a very small amount of the variation in maternal ambivalence outcomes. I find
several statistically significant differences between race and social class categories that
can help us better understand the motherhood experience among new mothers and
provide evidence supporting a sociological approach to the conceptualization of maternal
ambivalence.
I find that white middle-class mothers – a group conventionally seen as more
ambivalent about motherhood - are indeed more likely to feel conflicted about
motherhood. This is nevertheless only the case when maternal ambivalence is defined as
a conflict between the mother’s enjoyment of her child and desire to be with her, and the
mother’s feelings of restriction, entrapment and loss of identity due to motherhood
demands. Regardless of the social structural indicator used, white middle-class mothers
have significantly higher levels of identity ambivalence than mothers belonging to other
210
social groups, particularly black lower-class mothers. Among the social class indicators, a
mother’s achieved education and occupation are significant predictors of identity
ambivalence, which suggests that it is the mother’s individual socioeconomic status that
predicts her ambivalence about motherhood identity rather than household characteristics
and household income.
White middle-class women also experience higher levels of attachment
ambivalence but only when we consider the intersection of race and class variables.
When analyzed separately, black mothers and mothers without college degrees score
higher on this ambivalence dimension. Some of these effects are explained when
mother’s age is entered into the regression models. These results consistently show that
becoming a mother at a young age is the most significant predictor of attachment
ambivalence, likely due to an association of young parenthood with disadvantaged social
status.
Analyses of the ambivalence about being good at mothering and ambivalence
about combining work and family provide different results about the effects of race and
social class on maternal ambivalence. Consistent the research on self-efficacy in early
motherhood, mothers with higher education and higher household income experience less
ambivalence about being good at mothering than mothers with lower incomes and with
less than college educations. Ambivalence about being good at mothering thus represents
a distinctly different type of ambivalence compared to identity ambivalence.
Interestingly, ambivalence about combining work and family is significantly
associated with household income only, and even this indicator only approaches
statistical significance when I control for age, marital status and school attendance.
211
Mothers belonging to different socioeconomic and racial groups thus experience conflict
between work and family rewards and demands similarly, yet their ambivalence is likely
to increase if their household income is lower. This supports some of the findings of
earlier research on work and family conflict that points out the difficulties low income
mothers encounter with securing child care, transportation, and working in less
emotionally rewarding jobs (Hays 2003). The analyses presented in the next chapter
further explore the effects of covariate factors on the relationship between social class,
race and ambivalence outcomes.
212
Table 5.1. Mean comparisons of ambivalence outcomes according to social structural
characteristics and their combination and tests for the significance of the difference of the
means (N=1,160)
AMBIVALENCE OUTCOME
%
Total sample mean
Race
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
t
Household Income Level
Less than $22,500 (1st quartile)
$22,500 – 39,999 (2nd quartile)
$40,000 – 62,500 (3rd quartile)
Above $62,500 (top quartile)
F
Education
HS or lower
Some college or vocational school
College graduate/Some postgraduate work
F
Occupation
Non-working
Other than
managerial/professional
Managerial / professional
F
White college educated
White less than college
Black college educated
Black less than college
F
White professional
White other jobs/non-working
Black professional
Black other jobs/non-working
F
White above median
White below median
Black above median
Black below median
F
Good at
mothering
Identity
Attachment
Combining
work and
family
100%
1.891
2.844
1.67
1.669
87.10%
12.90%
1.888
1.911
-0.253
2.872
2.654
2.596*
1.644
1.842
-3.027**
1.676
1.625
0.525
27.90%
23.30%
24.70%
24.10%
2.075*
1.892
1.822*ac
1.746*ad
5.457**
ac, ad
2.810
2.833
2.841
2.897
0.429
1.678
1.651
1.630
1.721
0.767
1.688
1.677
1.740
1.583
1.394
29.60%
2.067*a,b
2.820
1.718
1.686
34%
1.798*a,b
2.784
1.590
1.681
36.50%
1.835
6.881**
2.918
2.120
1.705
3.422*
1.651
0.140
16.30%
1.953
2.937
1.691
1.538
54.00%
29.60%
1.927
1.791
2.223
1.837
1.923
1.782
1.922
0.620
1.792
1.936
1.755
1.919
1.464
2.771# bc
2.924# bc
3.903*
2.93*
2.832
2.453
2.67*
3.284*
2.927*
2.844
2.822
2.646*
2.871*
1.659
1.678
0.149
1.702
1.605**
1.833
1.843**
4.430**
1.672
1.631*
1.952
1.837*
3.333*
1.682
1.663
0.358
1.654
1.688
1.412
1.665
0.372
1.648
1.69
2.183
1.595
1.013
1.774**
2.019**
2.017
1.889
4.665**
2.868*ad
2.876*bd
2.870
2.608*ad,bd
2.780*
1.666
1.619*
1.853
1.84*
3.386*
1.664
1.687
1.615
1.643
0.089
35.50%
51.60%
0.90%
12%
29%
58.10%
0.60%
12.30%
46.60%
40.50%
2.20%
10.70%
213
Table 5.1. Continued
AMBIVALENCE OUTCOME
%
White middle class (college
educated, higher than median
income)
Other
t
27.30%
72.70%
Good at
mothering
1.783
1.932
2.148*
Identity
2.936
2.809
-2.069*
Attachment
1.738
1.644
-2.118*
Combining
work and
family
1.619
1.695
1.166
Notes:
% based on proportion out of total N= 1,160
Good at mothering, Identity, Attachment ambivalence scales range from 1 (no ambivalence) to 6 (highest
ambivalence); Combining work and family ambivalence (N=728) scale ranges from 0 (no ambivalence) to 4.5
(highest ambivalence)
a, b,c,d signify groups from top to bottom. The mean difference between the groups with the same letters is
significant; when no letters are indicated, the difference is between the groups with the significance sign;
#
,
p<.10 * p < .05, ** p <.01, *** p < .001 (post-hoc tests, two-tailed)
214
Table 5.2. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household income,
maternal education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence about being good at
mothering (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Social Structural Variables Models
Household Income
(ln)
Race
(Race+SES
(1) HS or less
(2) some college)
(Black = 1)
Constant
Race+SES (1)
Education
Model 1
b (SE)
-0.003
(0.031)
Model 2
b (SE)
-0.061
(0.041)
Model 1
b (SE)
1.794***
(.351)
0.022
(0.800)
-0.168+
(0.097)
-0.071***
(.033)
Model 2
b (SE)
1.399**
(0.488)
-0.135**
(0.045)
Race+SES (2)
Occupation
(Race+SES (1)
other than
managerial or
professional
(2) non-working)
Model 1 Model 2
b (SE)
b (SE)
-0.094
-0.096
(0.054)
(0.059)
Model 1
b (SE)
-0.052
(0.048)
Model 2
b (SE)
-0.045
(0.055)
0.218**
(0.072)
0.090
(0.086)
0.128
(0.067)
0.040
(0.071)
-0.035
(0.070)
-0.103
(0.073)
0.153
(0.090)
0.074
(0.093)
Control
variables
Age:18-25
0.145*
(0.073)
0.056
(0.086)
0.096
(0.078)
0.122
(0.074)
Age: 35+
-0.091
(0.086)
-0.067
(0.112)
-0.093
(0.087)
-0.085
(0.087)
Marital status:
cohabitating
0.091
(0.111)
0.003
(0.112)
0.035
(0.112)
0.057
(0.111)
Marital status:
single
Mother inschool
pre-birth
Adj R2
0.283**
(0.097)
0.072
(0.104)
0.209*
(0.093)
0.217**
(0.092)
0.027
(0.081)
-0.002
(0.080)
0.036
0.015
(0.080)
0.000
0.014
0.210
0.019
0.100
0.016
0.002
0.011
F
0.064
3.670** 26.273***
4.701***
6.881**
3.638**
2.223 2.806**
+
Notes: N=1,160, ***p<.001,** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10
Omitted categories: Education: college and higher, Occupation: managerial/professional, Marital status:
married, Age–26 -34
215
Table 5.3. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence about
being good at mothering (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors
reported)
Social Structural Variables Model
Race+Education
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Income
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Occupation
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Constant
-0.051
(0.049)
-0.046
(0.055)
-0.111+
(0.043)
-0.110*
(0.048)
-0.094
(0.055)
-0.098
(0.060)
White working class
0.082
(0.064)
-0.028
(0.069)
0.232***
(0.063)
0.126+
(0.07)
0.136*
(0.067)
0.060
(0.070)
Black middle class
-0.052
(0.306)
-0.134
(0.305)
0.230
(0.200)
0.173
(0.200)
-0.035
(0.382)
-0.188
(0.383)
Black working class
0.080
(0.098)
-0.196
(0.116)
0.109
(0.099)
-0.146
(.122)
0.120
(0.100)
-0.116
(0.114)
Control variables
+
Age: 18-25
0.154*
(0.076)
0.113
(0.076)
0.132
(0.074)
Age: 35+
-0.096
(0.087)
-0.086
(0.086)
-0.083
(0.087)
Marital status:
cohabitating
0.098
(0.112)
0.067
(0.113)
0.082
(0.112)
Marital status:
single
0.289**
(0.098)
0.269**
(0.101)
0.277**
(0.098)
Mother in-school
pre-birth
Adj R2
F
0.026
(0.081)
0.012
2.772**
0.036
(0.081)
0.017
3.495***
0.029
(0.081)
0.013
2.847**
0.000
0.620
0.009
4.665**
0.001
1.464
+
Notes: N=1,160, ***p<.001, ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10
Omitted categories for control variables: Marital status – married, Age – 26 -34
Middle-class and working-class categories defined as follows: Race+Education: White college educated
(reference), white without college, black college educated, black without college; Race+Income: White
above median (reference), white below median, black above median, black below median;
Race+Occupation: White professional or managerial job (reference), white and other than professional
or managerial job, black and professional or managerial, black and other than professional or managerial
job
216
Table 5.4. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household income,
maternal education, and occupation) predicting identity ambivalence (z-score,
unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Social Structural Variables Models
Household Income
(ln)
Race
(Black = 1)
Education
Occupation
(Race+SES
(1) HS or less
(2) some college)
(Race/SES (1) other
than managerial or
professional
(2) non-working)
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Constant
0.029
(0.031)
0.031
(0.042)
-0.043
(0.355)
0.055
(0.494)
0.077
(0.049)
Race+SES (1)
-0.227*
(0.087)
-0.258**
(0.098)
0.004
(0.034)
-0.003
(0.045)
Race+SES (2)
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
0.102
(0.055)
+
0.084
(0.054)
0.109
(0.060)
-0.101
(0.073)
-0.139
(0.087)
-0.159*
(0.067)
-0.178*
(0.072)
-0.139*
(0.070)
-0.159*
(0.073)
0.013
(0.090)
0.00
(0.093)
Control
variables
Age:18-25
0.055
(0.073)
0.034
(0.078)
0.079
(0.079)
0.066
(0.074)
Age: 35+
-0.059
(0.087)
-0.056
(0.087)
-0.082
(0.087)
-0.087
(0.087)
Marital status:
cohabitating
-0.098
(0.112)
-0.141
(0.113)
-0.110
(0.113)
-0.109
(0.111)
Marital status:
single
Mother inschool prebirth
2
Adj R
0.049
(0.098)
-0.043
(0.105)
-0.007
(0.094)
-0.020
(0.092)
-0.024
(0.081)
-0.044
(0.081)
-0.050
(0.082)
-0.048
(0.081)
F
0.005
0.003
0.000
-0.003
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.003
6.737*
1.557
0.015
0.393
2.120
1.050
3.903*
1.537
Notes: N=1,160, ***p<.001,** p<.01, *p<.05
Omitted categories: Education–college and higher, Occupation–managerial/professional, Marital status–
married, Age–26 -34
217
Table 5.5. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting identity
ambivalence (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors)
Social Structural Variables Model
Race+Education
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Income
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Occupation
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Constant
0.090+
(0.049)
0.111*
(0.056)
0.026
(0,043)
0.036
(0.049)
0.086
(0.054)
0.101
(0.060)
White working class
-0.103
(0.064)
-0.149*
(0.070)
0.008
(0.063)
-0.029
(0.071)
-0.086
(0.067)
-0.114
(0.070)
Black middle class
-0.469
(0.305)
-0.526+
(0.306)
0.001
(0.200)
-0.014
(0.201)
-0.108
(0.381)
-0.144
(0.385)
Black working class
-0.271**
(0.098)
-0.359**
(0.116)
-0.270**
(0.099)
-0.354**
(0.123)
-0.292**
(0.100)
-0.361**
(0.115)
Control variables
Age: 18-25
0.094
(0.076)
0.069
(0.076)
0.080
(0.075)
Age: 35+
-0.084
(0.087)
-0.065
(0.087)
-0.075
(0.087)
Marital status:
cohabitating
-0.073
(0.113)
-0.082
(0.114)
-0.079
(0.112)
Marital status: single
0.072
(0.099)
0.084
(0.102)
0.061
(0.098)
Mother in-school
pre-birth
Adj R2
F
-0.037
(0.081)
0.005
1.792
-0.015
(0.081)
0.003
1.469
-0.027
(0.081)
0.004
1.537
0.006
3.284*
0.005
2.780*
0.005
2.871*
Notes: N=1,160, ***p<.001, ** p<.01, *p<.05, + p<.10
Omitted categories for control variables: Marital status: married, Age :26 -34
Middle-class and working-class categories defined as follows: Race+Education: White college educated
(reference), white without college, black college educated, black without college; Race+Income: White
above median (reference), white below median, black above median, black below median;
Race+Occupation: White professional or managerial job (reference), white and other than professional
or managerial job, black and professional or managerial, black and other than professional or managerial
job
218
Table 5.6. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household income,
maternal education, and occupation) predicting attachment ambivalence (z-score,
unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Social Structural Variables Models
Household Income
(ln)
Race
Race+SES (1)
Occupation
(Race+SES
(1) HS or less
(2) some college)
(Black = 1)
Constant
Education
(Race+SES (1) other
than managerial or
professional
(2) non-working)
Model 1
Model 2
b (SE)
b (SE)
0.010
-0.020
(0.054)
(0.060)
Model 1
b (SE)
-0.034
(0.031)
Model 2
b (SE)
-0.072
(0.042)
Model 1
b (SE)
0.067
(0.355)
Model 2
b (SE)
-0.952
(0.491)
Model 1
b (SE)
0.047
(0.049)
Model 2
b (SE)
0.024
(0.055)
0.264**
(0.087)
0.233*
(0.097)
-0.006
(0.034)
0.082+
(0.045)
0.017
(0.073)
-0.088
(0.086)
-0.024
(0.067)
-0.079
(0.072)
-0.153*
(0.070)
-0.206**
(0.073)
0.017
(0.091)
-0.038
(0.093)
Race+SES (2)
Control
variables
Age:18-25
0.160*
(0.073)
0.223**
(0.077)
0.199*
(0.078)
0.192*
(0.074)
Age: 35+
0.038
(0.086)
0.022
(0.087)
0.009
(0.087)
0.023
(0.087)
Marital status:
cohabitating
-0.188
(0.111)
+
-0.113
(0.112)
-0.136
(0.112)
0.136
(0.111)
Marital status:
single
Mother inschool prebirth
Adj R2
-0.032
(0.097)
0.141
(0.105)
0.071
(0.093)
0.059
(0.092)
0.046
(0.081)
0.074
(0.081)
0.069
(0.081)
0.062
(0.081)
F
0.007
0.009
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.01
-0.001
0.004
9.164**
2.721*
0.036
2.313*
3.422*
2.702**
0.149
1.689
Notes: N=1,160, ***p<.001,** p<.01, *p<.05, + p<.10
Omitted categories: Education: college and higher, Occupation: managerial/professional, Marital status:
married, Age: 26 -34
219
Table 5.7. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting attachment
ambivalence (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors)
Social Structural Variables Model
Race+Education
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Income
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Occupation
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Constant
0.042
(0.049)
0.026
(0.055)
-0.005
(0.043)
-0.031
(0.048)
0.003
(0.054)
-0.021
(0.060)
White working class
-0.129*
(0.064)
-0.187**
(0.069)
-0.063
(0.063)
-0.119+
(0.070)
-0.055
(0.067)
-0.083
(0.070)
Black middle class
0.176
(0.304)
0.078
(0.116)
0.249
(0.200)
0.124
(0.122)
0.374
(0.381)
0.155
(0.114)
Black working class
0.188+
(0.098)
0.168
(0.305)
0.232*
(0.099)
0.227
(0.201)
0.220*
(0.100)
0.372
(0.384)
Control variables
Age: 18-25
0.215**
(0.076)
0.197*
(0.076)
0.179*
(0.074)
Age: 35+
0.007
(0.087)
0.029
(0.086)
0.027
(0.087)
Marital status:
cohabitating
-0.152
(0.112)
-0.154
(0.113)
-0.174
(0.112)
Marital status: single
0.001
(0.098)
0.012
(0.102)
-0.024
(0.098)
Mother in-school
pre-birth
Adj R2
F
0.032
(0.081)
0.013
2.955**
0.048
(0.081)
0.010
2.409*
0.043
(0.081)
0.009
2.252*
0.009
4.430**
0.006
3.386*
0.006
3.333*
+
Notes: N=1,160, ***p<.001, ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10
Omitted categories for control variables: Marital status: married, Age: 26 -34
Middle-class and working-class categories defined as follows: Race+Education: White college educated
(reference), white without college, black college educated, black without college; Race+Income: White
above median (reference), white below median, black above median, black below median;
Race+Occupation: White professional or managerial job (reference), white and other than professional
or managerial job, black and professional or managerial, black and other than professional or managerial
job
220
Table 5.8. OLS regression results for social structural variables (race, household income,
maternal education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence about combining work and
family (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)
Social Structural Variables Models
Household Income
(ln)
Race
(Black = 1)
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Education
Occupation
(Race+SES
(1) HS or less
(2) some college)
Model 1
Model 2
b (SE)
b (SE)
(Race+SES (1) other
than managerial or
professional)
Model 1
Model 2
b (SE)
b (SE)
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Constant
0.004
(0.039)
-0.040
(0.052)
1.316*
(.598)
1.448+
(0.816)
-0.027
(0.058)
-0.058
(0.066)
-0.025
(0.058)
-0.061
(0.068)
Race+SES (1)
-0.045
(0.124)
-0.152
(0.137)
-0.123*
(0.056)
-0.136+
(0.074)
0.041
(0.096)
0.023
(0.111)
0.042
(0.076)
0.032
(0.081)
0.049
(0.085)
0.030
(0.089)
Race+SES (2)
Control
variables
Age: 18-25
0.018
(0.092)
-0.060
(0.099)
-0.002
(0.099)
0.000
(0.094)
Age: 35+
0.035
(0.110)
0.074
(0.112)
0.042
(0.111)
0.044
(0.112)
Marital status:
cohabitating
0.025
(0.155)
-0.030
(0.156)
0.009
(0.157)
0.006
(0.156)
Marital status:
single
Mother inschool prebirth
Adj R2
0.200
(0.127)
0.032
(0.136)
0.145
(0.121)
0.145
(0.120)
0.131
(0.106)
0.103
(0.106)
0.120
(0.106)
0.122
(0.105)
-0.001
-0.002
0.005
0.001
-0.002
-0.005
0.000
F
0.132
0.770
4.863*
1.125
0.186
0.499
0.309
Notes: N=728, ***p<.001,** p<.01, *p<.05, + p<.10
Omitted categories: Education: college and higher, Occupation: managerial/professional, Marital status:
married, Age: 26-34
-0.003
0.589
221
Table 5.9. OLS regression results for social structural variables combining race and
social class (household income, education, and occupation) predicting ambivalence about
combining work and family (z-score, unstandardized coefficients and standard errors
reported)
Social Structural Variables Model
Race+Education
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Income
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Race+Occupation
Model 1
b (SE)
Model 2
b (SE)
Constant
-0.019
(0.059)
-0.050
(0.067)
-0.006
(0.050)
-0.033
(0.058)
-0.026
(0.061)
-0.059
(0.069)
White working class
0.042
(0.079)
0.026
(0.086)
0.028
(0.080)
-0.029
(0.092)
0.051
(0.080)
0.034
(0.085)
Black middle class
-0.302
(0.359)
-0.100
(0.159)
-0.061
(0.248)
-0.079
(0.249)
0.666
(0.451)
-0.170
(0.154)
Black working class
0.013
(0.138)
-0.360
(0.363)
-0.026
(0.144)
-0.209
(0.176)
-0.065
(0.137)
0.520
(0.462)
Control variables
Age: 18-25
0.003
(0.097)
0.030
(0.097)
0.019
(0.095)
Age: 35+
0.112
(0.037)
0.030
(0.111)
0.037
(0.111)
Marital status:
cohabitating
0.017
(0.156)
0.033
(0.157)
0.020
(0.156)
Marital status:
single
0.193
(0.128)
0.224
(0.136)
0.176
(0.128)
Mother in-school
pre-birth
Adj R2
F
0.129
(0.106)
-0.004
0.644
0.134
(0.106)
-0.004
0.61
0.134
(0.106)
-0.001
0.873
-0.003
0.372
-0.004
0.089
0.000
1.013
+
Notes: N=728, ***p<.001, ** p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10
Omitted categories for control variables: Marital status: married, Age: 26 -34
Middle-class and working-class categories defined as follows: Race+Education: White college
educated (reference), white without college, black college educated, black without college;
Race+Income: White above median (reference), white below median, black above median, black
below median; Race+Occupation: White professional or managerial job (reference), white other than
professional or managerial job, black professional or managerial, black other than professional or
managerial job
222
Table 5.10. OLS regression predicting ambivalence outcomes using race and social class
variables, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (unstandardized
coefficients and SE)
AMBIVALENCE OUTCOME
Being good
at
mothering
Identity
Attachment
Combining
Work and
Family
Constant
1.514**
(0.529)
0.510
(0.534)
-0.801
(0.531)
1.554+
(0.890)
a
Race (Black=1)
-0.173
(0.097)
-0.243*
(0.098)
0.260**
(0.097)
-0.148
(0.137)
-0.141**
(0.047)
-0.037
(0.048)
0.074
(0.048)
-0.145+
(0.080)
0.011
(0.091)
-0.138
(0.074)
-0.148
(0.092)
-0.156*
(0.075)
-0.056
(0.091)
-0.198**
(0.075)
-0.044
(0.118)
-0.007
(0.093)
0.055
(0.080)
-0.081
(0.086)
0.078
(0.080)
-0.079
(0.087)
0.212**
(0.080)
0.003
(0.087)
-0.040
(0.102)
0.070
(0.112)
0.019
(0.113)
-0.084
(0.114)
-0.153
(0.114)
-0.010
(0.158)
0.126
(0.108)
0.024
(0.081)
0.037
(0.110)
-0.037
(0.082)
0.059
(0.109)
0.061
(0.082)
0.080
(0.143)
0.107
(0.108)
0.024
4.149***
1,160
0.004
1.556
1,160
0.016
3.152**
1,160
-0.001
0.901
728
Household income (ln)
Educationb
HS degree or lower
Some post-secondary
Control variables
c
Age
18 – 25
35+
Marital statusd
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school prebirth (yes=1)
Adj R2
F
N
Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a White, b College degree or some postc
d
graduate education, 26 - 34 years old, Married
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.000
223
Table 5.11. OLS regression predicting ambivalence outcomes by class and race variable
(combination of race, income and education), controlling for age, marital status and
school attendance (unstandardized coefficients and SE)
AMBIVALENCE OUTCOME
Being
good at
mothering
Identity
Attachment
Combining
Work and
Family
-0.054
(0.049)
-0.035
(0.049)
-0.141**
(0.049)
-0.011
(0.062)
-0.036
(0.072)
0.158*
(0.072)
0.216 **
(0.072)
-0.082
(0.087)
18 – 25
0.124
(0.075)
0.229**
(0.075)
35+
-0.083
(0.087)
0.074
(0.075)
-0.082
(0.087)
0.001
(0.087)
-0.015
(0.095)
0.054
(0.112)
Cohabitating
0.058
(0.111)
-0.111
(0.112)
-0.112
(0.111)
-0.002
(0.155)
Single
0.218*
(0.093)
0.093
(0.092)
0.053
(0.080)
0.130
(0.121)
0.124
(0.105)
0.012
3.280**
1,160
-0.002
0.713
728
Constant
White middle-class mothers
(race, above-median
income, college education)
(Yes=1)
Control variables
a
Age
Marital status
b
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
0.015
(0.080)
-0.007
(0.093)
-0.052
(0.081)
Adj R2
F
N
0.011
3.205**
1,160
0.001
1.194
1,160
Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married
'Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.000
224
Figure 5.1. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and
education categories (unadjusted means)
3.5
*
3
*
Ambivalence mean
2.5
2
*
*
1.5
1
0.5
0
Good at mothering
White college educated
Identity*
Attachment*
Ambivalence Outcome
(*p<.05)
White less than college
Black college educated
Combining work and family
Black less than college
Note: * above a column signifies a statistically significant between-group difference based on the post-hoc
testing
225
Figure 5.2. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and
occupation prestige categories (unadjusted means)
3.5
*
3
*
Ambivalence mean
2.5
2
*
*
1.5
1
0.5
0
Good at mothering
Identity*
Attachment*
Combining work and
family
Ambivalence Outcome
(*p<.05)
White professional/managerial
White other jobs/non-working
Black professional/managerial
Black other jobs/non-working
Note: * above a column signifies a statistically significant between-group difference based on the post-hoc
testing
226
Figure 5.3. Differences in maternal ambivalence according to race and household income
levels (unadjusted means)
3.5
3
*
*
*
Ambivalence mean
2.5
*
2
*
*
*
1.5
1
0.5
0
Good at mothering*
White above median
Identity*
Attachment*
Ambivalence outcome
(*p<.05)
White below median
Black above median
Combining work and family
Black below median
Note: * above a column signifies a statistically significant between-group difference based on the post-hoc
testing
227
CHAPTER SIX
Effects of Strains and Resources on Maternal Ambivalence:
Results of Multivariate Analysis
In the previous chapter I presented the analysis of the direct effects of social
structural characteristics on maternal ambivalence. These results show that social
structural characteristics, in particular mothers’ social class and race, affect the four
ambivalence outcomes in distinct ways. This suggests that maternal ambivalence is a
multidimensional concept and that mothers experience its different facets in distinct ways
according to their social locations. In this chapter I examine each of these ambivalence
outcomes separately and investigate potential explanations for these patterns.
Specifically, I explore whether strength and direction of the relationships between social
structural characteristics and ambivalence change when I control for potential
psychosocial pathways and other covariates. Previous research shows that other factors
correlated with mothers’ social class and race such as number of children, maternal
employment, social support, quality of marital relationship, and maternal and children’s
health have direct and intervening effects on mothers’ well-being, parenting stress, and
transition to motherhood.
I explore both the direct and intervening effects of these variables on maternal
ambivalence. For each ambivalence outcome, I examine the effects of the social and
personal stressors and strains that mothers may face during the transition to motherhood,
as well as the effects of the relationship resources mothers can rely on for support. I
228
conclude with the analysis of the models that control for both sets of these factors in
order to explain how they together influence and account for maternal ambivalence
outcomes, and the relationship between social class and race variables and maternal
ambivalence.
EFFECTS OF STRAINS AND RESOURCES ON MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE
Current research on motherhood and parenting suggests several factors that can
potentially negatively influence mothers’ well-being outcomes during the transition to
motherhood. In my project I look at the motherhood experience and mothers’
employment status as two possible sources of maternal strain. I operationalize the
motherhood experience in four variables: 1) maternal parity as being a first-time mother
or an experienced mother with more than one child, 2) mother’s health, 3) baby’s health,
and 4) a mother’s evaluation of the child’s temperament.
I find that subjective evaluations of the mother’s and child’s health are positively
associated with the mother’s education and household income (Table 3.2, correlation
between mother’s health and education is .22, p<.001; correlation between baby’s health
and maternal education is .13, p<.001). Mothers’ evaluations of their children’s
temperaments as more difficult than average are associated with lower education and
lower household income (correlation between baby’s temperament and household income
is r = -.14, p<.001). Black mothers are also more likely to evaluate their children as being
of average or above average temperament than are white mothers (chi-square 23.183,
229
p=.000). These characteristics are thus likely to mediate the relationship between social
structural characteristics and maternal ambivalence.
Maternal employment and satisfaction with the arrangement of work and family
lives represent another set of variables I include in the models predicting maternal
ambivalence. While in some research maternal employment has been viewed as
beneficial for mothers’ psychological well-being (Thoits 1983; Wethington and Kessler
1989; Elgar and Chester 2007; Marshall and Tracy 2009), negative aspects of workfamily conflict have been found more significant for mothers with young children or
more children at home (Bellavia and Frone 2005). As working mothers of infants face
strains specific to the demanding care of an infant (Marshall and Tracy 2009), I include
mother’s employment status among potential strains on maternal ambivalence. First-time
mothers may also be particularly prone to experiencing more ambivalence about their
decision to work or stay at home since they face the decision to work or stay at home
with the child for the first time.
As could be expected, mothers’ employment status is associated with their social
structural characteristics. Women with higher achieved education are more likely to work
full-time (chi-square 51.292, p=.000) and there is a significant difference in the level of
household income between mothers who work (part-time or full-time) and those who stay
at home (F-statistics for the mean difference is 31.6, correlation is .22, p=.000). Although
employment status cannot act as a mediating factor in the relationship between class, race
and ambivalence due to a lack of a causal sequence, as a covariate of the independent
variables it can change the effect of their relationship with ambivalence.
230
To balance the pressure of strains and stressors during the transition to
motherhood, mothers turn to their social networks for support. I examine the effects of
such resources on maternal ambivalence, specifically the effect of general social support
(both emotional and instrumental) and the quality of partner relationship, measured by
levels of intimacy and conflict. Unlike strains related to having poor health, a higher
number of children, a child with a difficult temperament, or working full-time, which can
contribute to higher levels of ambivalence, I explore relationship resources as factors that
can potentially decrease mothers’ ambivalent feelings.
The analysis shows that there are no significant differences in perceived social
support and partner intimacy between black and white mothers, although black mothers
score significantly higher on the conflict scale of the quality of intimate relationship
instrument than white mothers (t= -2.904, p<.01). However, there is a positive correlation
between mothers’ education and intimacy in the relationship (r=.15, p=.000) as well as
between household income and mothers’ evaluation of intimacy (r=.14, p=.000).
Maternal ambivalence measures are based on subjective evaluations of the
mothering experience and mothers’ perceptions of social expectations of their mothering,
but they are also susceptible to mother’s moods and emotions. In addition to controlling
for strains and resources, I therefore adjust the final model for a measure of personality
characteristics. The measure of neuroticism represents the availability of psychological
resources that can help a mother cope with stressful situations and thus affect her
mothering experience. Including this measure in the adjusted models allows me to control
for a mother’s emotional stability and propensity to worry, be nervous and emotional.
231
Such characteristics are likely to influence her overall emotional state and thus also her
evaluation of motherhood experiences, attitudes and perceptions.
Personality characteristics are strongly correlated with the ambivalence measures;
the strongest correlation is with ambivalence about being good at mothering (r= .46,
p≤.001) and the weakest correlation with attachment ambivalence (r= .15, p≤.001).
Mothers’ emotional state and personality characteristics are also negatively correlated
with most of the subjective measures included in the study (social support, satisfaction
with work and family arrangement, quality of intimate relationship, baby’s temperament)
as well as with the socioeconomic variables (Table 3.2). A mother’s personality thus
affects both independent and dependent variables and I adjust the final model to account
for its potentially confounding effect on the studied relationships. This helps me to
determine whether the direct association of social structural factors and maternal
ambivalence persists beyond the psychological resources of a mother.
AMBIVALENCE ABOUT BEING GOOD AT MOTHERING
Ambivalence about being good at mothering measures mothers’ conflicted
feelings about being overwhelmed and surprised by the motherhood experience while
enjoying being a mother. How do motherhood strains and resources affect mothers’
feelings of conflict about being a mother and how do they affect the relationship between
mothers’ social structural characteristics and their ambivalence? The results of bivariate
analysis of the variables describing strains and resources on ambivalence about being
good at mothering presented in Table 6.1 reveal statistically significant relationships
232
between all covariates and this ambivalence dimension. The multivariate nested models,
in which the effects of social structural characteristics are adjusted for motherhood
experience, employment status, social support, quality of intimate relationships, and
personality characteristics are presented in Tables 6.2 and 6.3.
--- Table 6.1 here---
--- Table 6.2 here---
--- Table 6.3 here---
Motherhood Experience
The results of bivariate analysis show that first-time mothers reported
ambivalence about being good at mothering over a third of a standard deviation higher
than mothers with more children (Table 6.1, b=.352, p≤.001). As could be expect ed,
compared to mothers with more children, first-time mothers feel a greater conflict
between enjoying mothering and feeling competent as mothers. The first-time transition
to motherhood thus represents a factor associated with the experience of maternal
ambivalence.
Perceiving the child as difficult also makes mothers more ambivalent about being
good at mothering. Mothers who characterize their babies as having an average or worse
than average temperament had ambivalence scores almost one-half of a standard
deviation higher than mothers who characterized their infants as having a less difficult
233
temperament (b=.474, p≤.001). Being able to calm and control the baby thus decreases
ambivalence about being good at mothering and contributes to mothers’ feelings of
maternal competence.
Mothers’ evaluations of their own and their babies’ health as worse than excellent
also predict higher levels of ambivalence about being good at mothering; mothers with
excellent health and whose children are in excellent health experience significantly lower
ambivalence scores than mothers who rated their own or their baby’s health as good, fair
or poor.
Most of the associations between motherhood experience characteristics and
ambivalence persist in multivariate analysis when social structural characteristics (race,
education and household income) and control variables (mother’s age, marital status and
school attendance) are included in the models (Tables 6.2 and 6.3, Models 2 and 3).
Indicators of baby health are the only variables that do not maintain their significance in
the multivariate models.
The protective effect of household income on ambivalence about being good at
mothering, which was significant in the baseline model, is explained by motherhood
experience variables (Table 6.3, Models 1-3). 1 This means that there is no difference
among mothers according to their class and race in ambivalence about being good at
mothering when motherhood experience factors are accounted for. Being a first-time
mother, having a baby with a difficult temperament, and having health problems continue
1
When only baby’s temperament and mother’s and baby’s health evaluations are included in the
multivariate analysis in the models that include individual social structural variables (race, education and
household income), race and education become significant negative predictors of competence ambivalence
along with household income (results not shown). African American mothers with the babies with the same
temperament and same mothers’ and babies’ health, report ambivalence about being good at mothering .23
standard deviation lower than white mothers, and mothers with some college report ambivalence .16
standard deviation lower than mothers with at least completed college net of control variables. These
results are accounted for by including motherhood status in the model.
234
to be positively associated with ambivalence about being good at mothering net of other
variables included in the model. These factors contribute to higher ambivalence along
this ambivalence dimension (Table 6.3, Model 3). Including motherhood experience
variables in the model along with social structural and sociodemographic characteristics
also increases the explained variance in the ambivalence about being good at mothering
from 2.4 percent in the baseline model to 12.6 percent in Model 3 (Table 6.3).
Employment Status
While we might expect employed mothers to be more conflicted about enjoying
mothering and feeling competent about it because of the time strain caused by their work
outside of the home, models both with and without controls show that mothers working
part-time and full-time actually experience less ambivalence about being good at
mothering than mothers who stay at home (Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3). Working mothers’
ambivalence about being good at mothering is about one-fifth of a standard deviation
below the scores of stay-at-home mothers (Table 6.1, full-time work b= -.21, p<.01, parttime work b= -.19, p<.05). While this effect only approaches statistical significance in the
models with social structural and control variables (Tables 6.2 and 6.3, Model 4), it
regains its significance when motherhood experience variables and mothers’ satisfaction
with combining work and family are included in the model (Model 5). Mothers who work
full-time thus experience the lowest levels of ambivalence about being good at mothering
compared to at-home and part-time working mothers net of other variables included in
the model.
235
Higher levels of ambivalence about being good at mothering among stay-at-home
mothers can be explained by their undivided attention to motherhood and the importance
they assign, presumably, to the motherhood role. In their evaluations they are thus more
likely than employed mothers to focus both on their negative and positive experiences of
being good at mothering. Stay-at-home mothers possibly feel more pressure to comply
with the norms of intensive mothering than employed mothers, who may have forsaken
the ideals of perfect mothering given the competing demands of their employment. This
result could also be explained by the self-selection of mothers who choose to stay at
home ostensibly to give the best possible care to their children; yet once they stay at
home, they are unable to satisfy the high standards imposed by the contemporary
motherhood ideology (Miller 2007). The relationship between a mother’s satisfaction
with work and family arrangements and ambivalence about being good at mothering
shows that mothers who report higher satisfaction with their arrangements also
experience less ambivalence (Table 6.1). While the causal ordering of this relationship is
not clear, including satisfaction about work-family arrangements as a control strengthens
the relationship between employment status (particularly working full-time) and
ambivalence about being good at mothering (Tables 6.3 and 6.4, Models 3 and 4).
Mothers working full-time with the same level of satisfaction regarding their work and
family arrangements are then even less ambivalent about being good at mothering than
stay-at-home mothers.
Controlling for maternal employment status alone does not change the
relationship between social structural characteristics and ambivalence. However,
including both employment status and motherhood experience in the regression models
236
with social structural and control variables enhances the relationship between race and
ambivalence. Mothers’ race then becomes a significant predictor of ambivalence about
being good at mothering (Table 6.3, Model 5, b= -197, p<.05). White mothers thus
experience more conflict about enjoying mothering and being competent at it than black
mothers if we hold employment and motherhood experience constant. This means that
among mothers with the same level of strains represented by employment, motherhood
status, health and same baby’s temperament, white mothers experience more ambivalence
about being good at mothering than black mothers.
Social Support and Quality of Intimate Relationships
According to the results of the bivariate analysis mothers who receive more social
support and have better relationships with their partners are less ambivalent about being
good mothers (Table 6.1). For every one standard deviation increase on the scale of social
support, ambivalence decreases by about a quarter of standard deviation (b= -.276,
p≤.001). A closer relationship between partners also provides some protection against
conflicted feelings about being a good mother (b=-.122, p≤.001) and on the contrary,
conflicts in the intimate relationship contribute to higher maternal ambivalence (b=.128,
p≤.001).
Social support, intimacy and conflict remain significant predictors of ambivalence
about being good at mothering in the multivariate models, which include the social
structural characteristics (Tables 6.2 and 6.3). There are no changes in the significance of
the categorical variable measuring mothers’ social status when social support and conflict
and intimacy are included (Table 6.2, Models 6 - 8). However, in the adjusted models
237
with disaggregate social class variables (Table 6.3, Models 6 - 8), including social
support and conflict and intimacy in the partner relationships enhances some of the
effects of social structural variables on ambivalence about being good at mothering.
When we account for differences in social support, maternal education becomes a
significant predictor of ambivalence and mothers with some college education score .171
standard deviations lower on the ambivalence scale than mothers who completed college
degrees (Table 6.3, Models 6 and 8). With the same levels of social support, college
educated mothers thus feel more ambivalent about being good mothers than mothers
without college degree.
Adjusting the multivariate models for conflict and intimacy, black mothers score
.187 standard deviations lower on the ambivalence scale than white mothers (Table 6.3,
Model 7). In other words, if white mothers had the same level of emotional support as
black mothers, who tend to have more conflicted and less stable relationships (34 percent
of black mothers are married compared to 84 percent of white mothers, chi-square 208,
p=.000), their ambivalence about being good mothers would be higher than that of their
black counterparts.
The effect of household income remains significant and negatively associated
with ambivalence about being good at mothering when social support and partner
relationships are included in the multivariate models. Regardless of the relationship
resources available to mothers, mothers with higher household income feel less
ambivalent about being good mothers. Taking into account the quality of intimate
relationships thus provides additional insights into our understanding of maternal
ambivalence.
238
The Complete Model: Explaining Ambivalence about Being Good at Mothering
What are the social structural effects on ambivalence about being good at
mothering when we account for maternal strains and resources as well as the mothers’
personality? Results of the fully adjusted OLS regression models show that including
motherhood experience, employment, relationship resources, and personality
characteristics account for the baseline effect of household income on this ambivalence
outcome compared to the baseline models. There are thus no differences between
mothers in their ambivalence about being good at mothering related to their
socioeconomic position and race (Tables 6.2 and 6.3, Model 10). While the baseline
model (Table 6.3, Model 1) indicates that mothers with more economic resources
experienced less ambivalence, this difference is fully explained by including maternal
strains and resources in the model.
Yet, in the fully adjusted model, most of the other independent variables
representing motherhood strains and resources have significant direct associations with
ambivalence about being good at mothering (Table 6.3, Model 10). Being a first-time
mother increases ambivalence about being good at mothering by almost half of a
standard deviation on the ambivalence scale compared to experienced mothers (b=.410,
p≤.001); having a baby with average or worse than average temperament increases
ambivalence by about a third of a standard deviation (b=.332, p≤.001); and having good
rather than excellent health is also associated with more ambivalence about being good at
mothering (b=.167, p<.01). Interestingly, mothers with fair or poor health do not
experience more ambivalence about being good at mothering, which could be explained
239
by the relationship between negative overall emotional affect related to negative selfrating of health. There is a significant difference between mothers who rate their health as
excellent and those who rate it as poor or fair in their neuroticism scores (mothers with
worse health score .72 standard deviations higher on the neuroticism scale than mothers
with excellent health, F=49.02, p=.001).
The effect of employment status on ambivalence about being good at mothering
remains significant in the model adjusted for relationship resources. Compared to stay-athome mothers, mothers who work part-time or full-time have lower ambivalence about
being good at mothering net of the other variables included in the model (Table 6.3,
Model 10, b= -.140, p<.05 for part-time, b= -0.218, p<.01 for full-time employed
mothers). Working outside of the home thus protects against this type of maternal
ambivalence and helps to reduce mothers’ feelings of conflict about enjoying motherhood
and competence as good mothers. Employed mothers are likely to feel more confident
and have a higher sense of self-efficacy than at-home mothers, which could also explain
this result.
The effects of relationship resources on ambivalence about being good at
mothering decrease when other independent variables are included in the regression
analysis (Table 6.3, Model 10). The size of the effect of social support on ambivalence
about being good at mothering is reduced by about 60 percent in the fully adjusted
model. Mothers with higher perceived social support though experience less ambivalence
about being good at mothering than mothers with lower social support. In the fully
adjusted model, quality of intimate relationship is no longer a significant predictor of this
240
ambivalence outcome, which could be explained by the correlation with the personality
factors (r = -.31 for intimacy and r =.30 for conflict).
To summarize, socioeconomic status and race are no longer statistically
significant predictors of ambivalence about being good at mothering when motherhood
experience, employment status, relationship resources and personality characteristics are
accounted for. Mothers thus do not differ in their experience of conflicted feelings about
enjoying motherhood and being good at it according to their social class and race.
However, other social characteristics (employment status, social support, being a firsttime mother) represent significant predictors of this type of ambivalence beyond a
mother’s personality type, health, and child temperament. This finding in part supports
my original assumption that maternal ambivalence is not just a psychological
phenomenon located in the relationship with a child but also has social and cultural
causes.
IDENTITY AMBIVALENCE
The second ambivalence dimension, identity ambivalence, captures conflicted
feelings of restriction and entrapment by motherhood obligations (negative experience)
combined with enjoyment the motherhood and missing the presence of the child when the
mother is away (positive experience). The analysis of the effects of social structural
characteristics in the previous chapter has shown that white middle-class mothers
experience higher levels of maternal ambivalence on this dimension than mothers
belonging to other class and racial categories. This is the case both for the models with
241
composite variables classifying race and social status (white middle-class mothers
compared to everyone else, Table 6.4, Model 1) and for the models with social structural
characteristics entered individually (Table 6.5, Model 1). In the following section I
explore the effects of motherhood strains and relationship resources on mothers’ identity
ambivalence. Results of these analyses are presented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5.
---Table 6.4 here---
---Table 6.5 here---
Motherhood Experience
First-time motherhood predicts lower identity ambivalence compared to
mothering of more children (Tables 6.4, Model 2, b= -.131, p<.05; Table 6.5, Model 2,
b= -.152, p<.05). Without accounting for social structural factors, there is no difference
between first-time and experienced mothers in their identity ambivalence (Table 6.1).
When the model includes socioeconomic and race variables, mothers with more children
feel more conflict between their feelings of restriction imposed by motherhood and
wanting to be in the presence of their child.
Mothers who perceive their children as having an average or more difficult
temperament also report higher levels of identity ambivalence than mothers who see their
children as being less difficult, net of social structural, control and employment variables
(Tables 6.4 and 6.5, Models 3 and 5). While evaluation of children’s health is not
significantly associated with identity ambivalence, mothers who do not classify their own
242
health as excellent report higher levels of identity ambivalence (Table 6.1). This
relationship persists in the multivariate models with social structural and control variables
included (Tables 6.4 and 6.5, Model 3, and Model 5 for “good health” category). Mothers
who see themselves as healthier thus experience less conflict about their motherhood
identity than mothers with worse health.
Employment Status
Mother’s employment status is the most robust predictor of identity ambivalence
among the analyzed motherhood strains. According to the bivariate model (Table 6.1),
mothers with full-time employment experience .27 standard deviations less identity
ambivalence than stay-at-home mothers, although there is no significant difference
between mothers who work part-time and those who stay at home.
These differences in identity ambivalence among mothers working full-time and
stay-at-home mothers persist in the multivariate models with social structural and control
variables included (Tables 6.4 and 6.5, Model 4 and 5). Accounting for social class and
race, mothers working full-time score almost a third of a standard deviation lower than
stay-at-home mothers on the identity ambivalence scale. Mothers’ satisfaction with their
home and family arrangements also affects their identity ambivalence levels; higher
levels of satisfaction with work and family arrangements lead to lower identity
ambivalence (Tables 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5, Model 5).
Identity ambivalence is defined as a conflict between mother’s feelings of
restriction triggered by the motherhood responsibilities and her inability to do what she
likes, and her enjoyment of being around the child. The results of the effects of maternal
243
employment on this type of ambivalence also suggest that mothers’ focus on their
maternal role compared to their career can predict this type of maternal ambivalence.
Mothers working full-time do not feel this conflict to the same extent as part-time and
stay-at-home mothers likely due to the time they spend away from home and the division
of their attention, responsibilities, and identity between different parts of their lives.
Interestingly, results along this ambivalence dimension show that part-time mothers
experience identity ambivalence in a way more similar to stay-at-home mothers than fulltime working mothers.
The relationship between social class and race and identity ambivalence increases
in magnitude and significance when motherhood experience and employment status are
entered into the regression models (Tables 6.4 and 6.5, Models 2-5). When motherhood
experience factors (being a first-time mother, baby’s temperament, mother’s and baby’s
health) and employment status are accounted for, the effect of being a white middle-class
mother on identity ambivalence increases by about 40 percent compared to the baseline
model. White middle-class mothers (Table 6.4) score .22 standard deviations higher on
the identity ambivalence scale than black mothers and white mothers with lower income
and less than college education.
Similar results are observed in the models that include individual social structural
characteristics as ambivalence predictors (Table 6.5). When adjusting for mothers’
employment and motherhood experience, being a white or a college educated mother
predicts higher identity ambivalence compared to being a black mother or a mother
without a college degree (Models 2 - 5). In these models, however, there is no
relationship between household income and identity ambivalence.
244
Social structural characteristics strengthen in magnitude as significant predictors
of identity ambivalence when motherhood experience and employment status variables
are included in the models. This means that among mothers with the same employment
status and with the same motherhood experience, white middle-class women are
significantly more ambivalent about their identities than mothers in other social groups.
These results confirm the hypothesis that white middle-class mothers experience more
conflict about feeling trapped by motherhood responsibilities while wanting to be with
their child than do black women and women without a college education even after
accounting for employment differences among mothers.
Social Support and Relationship Resources
As in the case of ambivalence about being good at mothering, higher levels of
perceived social support and closer intimate relationships with a partner contribute to
decreasing level of identity ambivalence among mothers. In both bivariate and
multivariate models that include social structural and sociodemographic variables (Tables
6.1, 6.4 and 6.5, Models 6 and 8), each one standard deviation increase in social support
decreases identity ambivalence by about a quarter of standard deviation. Each one
standard deviation increase on the love-intimacy scale decreases mother’s score on
identity ambivalence scale by .15 standard deviation, while an increase on the intimate
conflict scale also increases mother’s identity ambivalence (b = .116, p<.01; Tables 6.4
and 6.5, Model 7). Mothers who receive more social support and have better intimacy
with their partner thus experience less conflict about being restricted by their motherhood
role and enjoying it at the same time.
245
When social support and quality of intimate relationships are included in the same
multivariate model (Tables 6.4 and 6.5, Model 8), the size and significance of the partner
intimacy and conflict coefficients decrease, which can be explained by a correlation
between social support and intimacy (r = .38, p≤.001) and social support and conflict in
the partner relationship (r = - .28, p≤.001). In these models, the effect of social support
remains at almost the previous level of magnitude and significance, while the magnitude
of intimacy and conflict coefficients decreases. Perception of higher general social
support is thus more important in protecting mothers from identity ambivalence than their
quality of intimate relationships.
Adjusting the social structural models with social support and quality of intimate
relationships variables also enhances the relationship between social structural variables
and identity ambivalence. In the adjusted models with the intimate relationship and social
support variables included, being a white middle-class mother increases identity
ambivalence by about 25 percent compared to the baseline model (Table 6.4, from
b=.158, p<.05 in baseline Model 1 to b=.197, p<.05 in Model 8).
In the analytic models with disaggregated social structural variables, the effect of
race on identity ambivalence remains significant when social support and quality of
intimate relationships are adjusted for (Table 6.5, Models 6-8). Further, mothers’
educational achievement becomes a significant predictor of identity ambivalence. These
models show that college-educated mothers experience a higher level of ambivalence
than mothers without a college degree. These findings indicate that among mothers with
the same level of social support and quality of intimate relationships, black mothers
would score about a quarter of a standard deviation lower on the identity ambivalence
246
scale than white mothers, and mothers with a college degree would then score .19
standard deviations higher than mothers without completed college (Table 6.5, Model 8).
Accounting for different levels of social support and quality of intimate
relationships, I find that mothers with higher education and white mothers feel more
conflicted about the limitations and joys of motherhood. While the effect of education
was not significant in the baseline models, higher achieved education predicts higher
identity ambivalence in the adjusted models. It seems that given the same level of social
support and quality of intimate relationships, mothers with higher achieved education
tend to feel more conflicted about motherhood responsibilities limiting their other
opportunities while enjoying the presence of their child.
The Complete Model: Explaining Identity Ambivalence
When the effects of social class and race on identity ambivalence are
simultaneously adjusted for motherhood strains, relationship resources and personality
characteristics, the data show that white middle-class mothers feel more conflicted than
black and lower-class mothers about enjoying motherhood and time with their children
while feeling trapped and limited by motherhood responsibilities. The effect of being a
white middle-class mother (college educated, with higher than median household
income) on identity ambivalence in the fully adjusted model increases by about 50
percent compared to the baseline model (Table 6.4, Models 1 and 10 respectively, from
b=.158, p<.05 to b=.240, p<.01).
This finding is confirmed in the analysis that includes disaggregated social
structural characteristics (Table 6.5, Model 10). When adjusting for strains, resources and
247
personality characteristics, the effects of mother’s education and household income reach
statistical significance and the effect of race remains a significant predictor of higher
identity ambivalence. Being a white mother increases identity ambivalence by almost a
quarter of a standard deviation on the ambivalence scale, while mothers with completed
college degrees experience about a .20 standard deviation (p<.05) increase in identity
ambivalence compared to high-school educated mothers and a .15 standard deviation
(p<.05) increase compared to mothers without college degree. With increasing household
income mothers also experience higher identity ambivalence (b=.121, p<.05).
The results of the adjusted models presented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 also show that
in the presence of other covariates some of the stressors and relationship resource
variables continue to have an effect on identity ambivalence. While there is no difference
in identity ambivalence between stay-at-home mothers and mothers working part-time,
mothers with full-time employment score a third standard deviation lower on identity
ambivalence scale than stay-at-home mothers (Table 6.5). Social support also continues
to provide protection against identity ambivalence when mothers who perceive higher
social support experience lower identity ambivalence net of other variables in the model
(b= -.125, p≤.001 Table 6.5, Model 10). Intimacy and conflict with the partner, however,
only have a very minor effect (approaching significance levels) once personality
characteristics are included in the model.
These findings confirm my expectations that white middle-class mothers would
be more ambivalent about their maternal identities than other mothers even after we
account for effects of other social, familial, and psychological factors. The relationship
between social structural variables and identity ambivalence actually strengthens when
248
other social characteristics and covariates are included. Thus, in a large national sample,
this type of ambivalence, vividly depicted in the motherhood memoirs is associated with
white middle-class mothers and is not the experience of mothers from other backgrounds.
All the variables included in the final model explain about 15 percent of the variance in
identity ambivalence. Additional factors, which are not included in my analysis, thus also
affect mothers’ experience of maternal ambivalence. The analysis of the adjusted models
explaining identity ambivalence reveals very different results than ambivalence about
being good at mothering, which suggests that different ambivalence dimensions are
associated with distinct social characteristics.
ATTACHMENT AMBIVALENCE
Attachment ambivalence measures mothers’ conflicted feelings about their
closeness with their babies and their belief in society’s expectations that mothers should
develop a strong bond with the baby. The analysis of social structural effects on
attachment ambivalence (Chapter 5) was inconclusive. However, being a young mother
has shown to be a significant predictor of attachment ambivalence. In the series of nested
OLS regression models presented in Tables 6.6 and 6.7, I adjust the social structural
effects on attachment ambivalence for the characteristics of motherhood experience and
employment status (Models 2-5), social support and quality of partner relationship
variables (Models 6-8), and in the last two models I combine the effects of strains and
resources along with the effect of personality characteristics (Models 9-10).
249
--- Table 6.6 here---
---Table 6.7 here---
Effects of Motherhood Experience and Employment Status Variables
The models based on the composite race and class variables and adjusted by
motherhood experience and employment status show that being a white middle-class
mother and being a young mother are significant predictors of higher attachment
ambivalence (Table 6.6, Models 2-5). In contrast, the models with disaggregated social
structural characteristics indicate that being a black mother and a young mother predicts
higher attachment ambivalence, while being a mother with some college education as
compared to college degree decreases attachment ambivalence (Table 6.7, Models 2-5).
In the models that include individual social class and race variables (Table 6.7),
the effect of being a young mother decreases, yet remains significant, when the variable
indicating first-time motherhood is included in the model. Since there is a statistically
significant difference in mean age between first-time and repeat mothers of about 2.5
years (t = 8.103, p≤.001), being a first-time mother thus explains some of the effect
between age and attachment ambivalence.
Most of the motherhood experience and employment status variables are not
significant predictors of attachment ambivalence, with the exception of baby
temperament. This is the case in bivariate models (Table 6.1) and multivariate models
that include social structural factors (Tables 6.6 and 6.7). Attachment ambivalence is the
ambivalence dimension most closely focused on the mother-child relationship, although
250
it includes the social aspect in the form of internalized beliefs about mother-baby
attachment. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that mothers who perceive their child to
have an average or worse than average temperament compared to other children score
about a quarter of a standard deviation higher on the attachment ambivalence scale than
mothers who have a child with easier than average temperament (Table 6.1). This
difference persists in all the multivariate models (Tables 6.6 and 6.7). Mothers who
perceive their children’s temperament as average or more difficult than average
experience more conflict about their attachment with their babies and the social
expectations to form a bond with them.
Although being a working mother does not have an effect on attachment
ambivalence in the bivariate models, in the multivariate model comparing white middleclass mothers to other mothers and controlling for motherhood experience (Table 6.6,
Model 5), mothers employed full-time have a .119 standard deviation higher attachment
ambivalence score than stay-at-home mothers (p<.10), indicating that full-time
employment contributes to higher attachment ambivalence. This is quite different from
the impact of full-time employment on ambivalence about being good at mothering and
identity ambivalence, when full-time working mothers experienced lower ambivalence
than stay-at-home mothers. This result suggests that different predictors can affect
ambivalence outcomes in opposite directions.
Social Support and Quality of Intimate Relationship Effects
Similar to the results of identity ambivalence and ambivalence about being good
at mothering, higher levels of social suppo rt predict lower attachment ambivalence. This
251
relationship is observed in the bivariate model (Table 6.1) and remains significant in the
models with social structural characteristics and demographic variables (Tables 6.6 and
6.7). Holding constant social structural, demographic and relationship variables, for each
one standard deviation increase on the social support scale mothers’ attachment
ambivalence decreases by .133 standard deviation (Table 6.6 and 6.7, Model 8, b= -.137,
p≤.001). Mothers who receive more social support are less conflicted about forming a
bond with their child and their beliefs about social expectations on mother-infant
attachment.
Adjusting the models predicting attachment ambivalence by social structural
variables for indicators of social support does not change the effects of social structural
characteristics on ambivalence. Although quality of partner relationship variables are not
significantly associated with attachment ambivalence, including the quality of partner
relationships in the model with disaggregated social structural variables (Table 6.7,
Model 7) eliminates the effect of college education on attachment ambivalence. This
result can be explained by the positive correlation between maternal education and close
relationship with the partner (r= .16, p≤.001). Perception of higher social support, but not
quality of intimate relationships, thus predicts lower attachment ambivalence among
mothers regardless of their social class or race. This finding suggests that as reported in
the previous research, social support and marital relationship quality influence different
aspects of parenting differently (Simons et al. 1993).
252
The Complete Model: Explaining Attachment Ambivalence
Overall, the social structural characteristics maintain their significance as
predictors of attachment ambivalence when motherhood strains and resources are
accounted for. This is the case regardless of the operationalization of social structural
factors as composite categorical variables or separation of the social class and race
indicators. However, similar to the baseline models, the adjusted models do not provide a
clear answer about the effects of race and class on attachment ambivalence.
The fully adjusted models with the composite class and race variable show that
white middle-class mothers experience higher levels of attachment ambivalence than
minority and working class and poor mothers, which is a result consistent across all
adjusted models (Table 6.6, b=.225, p≤.001 in Model 10). In contrast, in all the models
with social structural characteristics entered individually, being a black mother predicts
higher attachment ambivalence than being a white mother (Table 6.7, Model 10, b=.276,
p≤.001) and having less than a college education compared to completed college predicts
lower scores on the attachment ambivalence scale (Table 6.7, Model 10, b= -.201,
p≤.001).
In both types of the analysis, demographic characteristics, which are correlated
with race and education, are significantly associated with attachment ambivalence. In the
adjusted models, being a younger mother (18 to 25 years old) indicates an increase in
ambivalence, while cohabitation with a partner, rather than marriage is associated with a
decrease in attachment ambivalence. Some of the effects of race and social class on
attachment ambivalence can thus be explained by the mother’s age and marital status.
Net of other variable included, younger mothers experience more ambivalence than
253
average-age mothers and cohabitating mothers experience less ambivalence than married
mothers.
These results suggest that when race, class and education variables are combined,
white middle-class mothers experience more attachment ambivalence than a comparative
group that includes all black respondents and white respondents with household incomes
below median and without college degree. When these characteristics are disaggregated
and race and class are measured separately, the effect does not persist. To understand
these mixed results, I also tested separate models that included interaction terms for race
and education and race and household income. However, these interaction terms were not
statistically significant. It is possible that only when all three factors – income, education
and race – are combined, being a white middle-class mother would have a significant
effect on higher attachment ambivalence and that these effects can not be captured when
race and socioeconomic factors are included in the analysis separately.
While the other independent variables do not change the relationship between the
social structural characteristics and attachment ambivalence, they do have direct effects
on this ambivalence outcome. In the fully adjusted models (regardless of how the social
structural variables are entered), a mother’s perception of her child’s temperament
continues to be a significant predictor of mothers’ attachment ambivalence: mothers, who
classify their infants as having an average or worse than average temperament, score
about a quarter of a standard deviation higher on the attachment ambivalence scale than
mothers who classify their children as easier than average. These results suggest that
having a child with a less difficult temperament makes it easier to reconcile the societal
expectations with actual bonding with the child, which is in line with earlier research
254
findings about the association of child’s temperament on parenting stress and depression
(Belsky 1984; Teti and Gelfand 1991; Deater-Deckard and Scarr 1996; Beck 2001;
Mulsow et al 2002; Hess, Papas and Black 2002; Porter and Hsu 2003).
Mothers working full-time also experience higher attachment ambivalence than
mothers staying at home net of other variables included in the model (Table 6.6, Model
10, b=.141, p<.05). These mothers likely spend more time away from their children and
in the face of social expectations about maternal bonding with the child that requires the
mother’s constant presence and care, they likely feel guilty and insecure about their
attachment with their children, which is reflected in their higher ambivalence levels.
Similar to the results along other ambivalence outcomes, mothers who receive
more social support also experience lower attachment ambivalence (Table 6.6, Model 10,
b=-.125, p<.01). Quality of intimate relationship is not significantly associated with
attachment ambivalence in the presence of other control variables, nor is motherhood
status as a first-time mother or mothers’ evaluations of their own and their child’s health.
The inconclusive results of the analysis of the social structural variables and their
relationship with attachment ambivalence suggest that besides being associated with
social structural characteristics, attachment ambivalence varies according to other factors
perhaps more closely related to the relationship between a mother and her baby. As the
variables included in this analysis explain only about five percent of the variance, there
are many other factors that could explain variance in this ambivalence dimension. It is
possible that compared to other ambivalence dimensions, attachment ambivalence is
more dependent on the relationship with the child, which are formed regardless of the
255
social context, as social factors analyzed here do not have explanatory power to account
for its variance.
AMBIVALENCE ABOUT COMBINING WORK AND FAMILY
Contradictory feelings about the benefits and strains of maternal employment are
measured by the maternal ambivalence about combining work and family dimension. In
the analysis of the social structural factors, white middle-class mothers’ ambivalence was
not significantly different from other mothers when controlling for other
sociodemographic characteristics (Table 6.8, Model 1), while household income only
approached statistical significance as a predictor of this type of ambivalence when other
social structural variables were included (Table 6.9, Model 1). According to this result,
mothers with lower household incomes experience more ambivalence about combining
work and family than mothers with higher household incomes. This finding is consistent
with my expectation that lower-income working mothers might experience more
ambivalence about combining work and family than middle-class mothers. In the
following section I examine whether the relationship between household income and
ambivalence about combining work and family will change if maternal employment,
satisfaction with work and family arrangements, motherhood experience factors and
social support resources are included in the regression model.
--- Table 6.8 here---
256
--- Table 6.9 here---
Motherhood Experience
Among the motherhood experience variables, the mother’s evaluations of her own
and her child’s health are significant predictors of ambivalence about combining work
and family in the bivariate models (Table 6.1), while variables indicating first-time
motherhood and the mother’s evaluation of child’s temperament do not predict the
ambivalence mothers feel about combining work and family. Personal health problems or
having a sickly child can lead mothers to experience more conflict about combing work
and family.
Only mother’s health then remains a significant predictor of ambivalence about
combining work and family in the multivariate models with social structural and
demographic characteristics included (Tables 6.8 and 6.9, Models 3 and 5). Mothers who
report fair or poor health score .315 standard deviation higher and mothers with good
health .202 standard deviation higher than mothers who report excellent health (Table
6.9, Model 3, similar results for the model with composite social structural variables in
Table 6.8, Model 3). Mothers with health problems thus experience more conflicted
feelings about the costs and benefits of combining work and family. Including mother’s
health in the models eliminates the effects of household income on ambivalence about
combining work and family, suggesting that the relationship between household income
and this ambivalence outcome is explained by the mother’s weaker health.
257
Employment Status
In the bivariate and multivariate models, employment status represents a strong
predictor of ambivalence about combining work and family. Mothers working full-time
score about half of the standard deviation higher on the ambivalence about combining
work and family scale than mothers working part-time in all the models. 2 Including
employment status in the regression models along the social categorical variable does not
increase the significance of being a white middle-class mother on combining work and
family ambivalence (Table 6.8).
In the models with disaggregated indicators of social class and race, mother’s
income and education become significant predictors of ambivalence about combining
work and family when controlling for employment status and motherhood experience
(Table 6.9, Models 4 and 5). This means that college educated mothers with the same
type of employment (e.g. full-time) would score about 0.2 standard deviation higher on
the scale measuring ambivalence about combining work and family than mothers without
a college degree. Having a completed college education is thus a significant predictor of
higher ambivalence about combining work and family. On the contrary, with increasing
household income, mothers would experience less conflict about combining work and
family.
As could be expected, mothers who are more satisfied with their work and family
arrangements experience less ambivalence about combining work and family net of other
variables. However, mothers’ satisfaction with work and family arrangements does not
explain the effects of employment status, household income and education on
2
Stay-at-home mothers do not have data on this instrument and are not included in the analysis of
ambivalence about combining work and family.
258
ambivalence, but adds to our understanding of the sources of ambivalence about
combining work and family.
To summarize, mothers’ full-time work is the strongest predictor of higher
ambivalence about combining work and family in the models with social structural,
sociodemographic and motherhood experience variables. That said mothers’ weaker
health also increases ambivalent attitudes about combining work and family. Controlling
for employment status—i.e. working full-time or part-time— and motherhood experience
at the same time increases the impact of socioeconomic differences between mothers.
This impact is, however, not in the same direction. While college educated mothers
experience more ambivalence about combining work and family, increasing household
income diminishes conflicted feelings about combining work and family. Thus, the
availability of economic resources helps to alleviate some of the conflict between the
benefits and strains of employment but mothers’ higher education increases this conflict.
Social Support and Quality of Intimate Relationships
Similar to the results of the other ambivalence outcomes, higher levels of social
support and intimacy in partner relationships are associated with lower ambivalence
about combining work and family. In the bivariate analysis of employed mothers, those
who perceive more social support feel less ambivalent about combining work and family
(Table 6.1, b=-.164, p≤.001). The significance and magnitude of the relationship persist
in the multivariate models with social structural and sociodemographic characteristics
included (Tables 6.8 and 6.9, Model 6). For every one standard deviation increase on the
social support scale, mothers with the same socioeconomic and demographic status score
259
about .16 standard deviation lower on the scale measuring conflicted feelings about the
benefits and strains of combining work and family.
Quality of intimate relationships is a significant predictor of ambivalence about
combining work and family both in bivariate and in the multivariate models where
controls of marital status are included (Table 6.1, 6.8 and 6.9, Models 7 and 8). In the
multivariate model, the magnitude of the social support coefficient decreases by about a
third of its original size when quality of intimate relationships variables are included
(Model 8). Zero-order correlation between social support and partner intimacy likely
explains some of the changes in the coefficients (Table 3.2, r = .38, p<.000). It seems that
in dealing with conflicted feelings about combining work and family, feeling understood
and closer to one’s partner is more important than a general feeling of social support.
Since spouses usually navigate work-family issues together, having a better relationship
with the partner makes it easier for a mother to do so and may be a reason why partner
support becomes more important than overall social support. The conflict dimension of
the partner relationship is not statistically significant for ambivalence about combining
work and family.
The relationship between household income and this ambivalence outcome loses
its statistical significance when the regression models predicting ambivalence about
combining work and family with social structural characteristics are adjusted with the
quality of intimate relationships variables (Table 6.9, Models 7 and 8). This could be
explained by the correlation between household income and partner intimacy (r = .14,
p<.000). Better quality of intimate relationships thus explains the relationship between
higher household income and lower ambivalence about combining work and family. On
260
the other hand, lower income is associated with lower quality of intimate relationship and
higher ambivalence about combining work and family. This finding supports the
conclusions of earlier research that if parents and partners experience higher economic
pressures, their marital satisfaction and well-being suffer (Lee et al. 2009). In this case,
mothers experience more ambivalence about their work and family lives.
The Complete Model: Explaining Ambivalence about Combining Work and Family
The results of the nested OLS regression models comparing white middle-class
mothers to other mothers, presented in Table 6.8, show that there is no difference
between mothers according to their position at the intersection of class and race in terms
of this ambivalence outcome across all adjusted models. However, when motherhood
strains and resources along with personality characteristics are simultaneously included in
the models with disaggregated social structural characteristics, the significance and
magnitude of the social structural effects on this ambivalence outcome actually increase
(Table 6.9). While household income only approaches significance in the baseline model
(Model 1), it becomes a significant predictor of ambivalence about combining work and
family when employment status is accounted for (Model 4), and remains significant when
motherhood experience, relationship resources and personality characteristics are
included in the models (Model 10). Mothers thus experience less conflict about the
strains and benefits of their employment for their families when they have more
economic resources available.
While the adjusted models indicate that higher household income predicts lower
ambivalence about combining work and family, college-educated mothers perceive more
261
conflict about combining work and family than mothers with less education (Table 6.9,
Model 10, b= -.223, p<.01 for high school educated, b= -.209, p<.01 for mothers with
some college education). Since income and education are positively correlated (r=.47,
p≤.001) and both are used as indicators of social class, these results may seem counterintuitive.
Yet I suggest that these results actually support opposing expectations about the
effects of social class on maternal ambivalence and can be explained by the different
character of household income and individual education as socioeconomic indicators. On
the one hand, mothers with higher education are possibly more susceptible to cultural
messages about good motherhood and thus perceive more ambivalence about combining
work and family, which is not resolved by potentially higher household income. On the
other hand, mothers with lower household incomes can experience more ambivalence
about combining work and family, similar to the higher levels of stress and depression
due to economic distress, which makes obtaining reliable child care more difficult and
possibly contributes to less stable familial situations (Lee et al. 2009).
The covariate variables maintain their direct effects on ambivalence about
combining work and family in the models with social structural and demographic
characteristics included. According to the fully adjusted models, mothers working fulltime experience almost half of a standard deviation higher ambivalence about combining
work and family than mothers working part-time (Table 6.9, Model 10). A mother’s
satisfaction with her own work and family arrangements is also statistically significant
for predicting maternal ambivalence along this dimension. For each one standard
262
deviation increase in mothers’ satisfaction with work and family arrangements,
ambivalence decreases by a quarter of a standard deviation on the ambivalence scale.
While social support protects against all other ambivalence outcomes, it is not a
significant predictor of ambivalence about combining work and family in the fully
adjusted models. Support coming from the close relationship with a partner, however,
contributes to lower ambivalence about combining work and family when other variables
are held constant (Table 6.9, Model 10, b=-0.151, p≤.001). Mothers who feel closer to
and supported by their partners thus feel less conflicted about the effects of their
employment on their families.
Although there is an argument in race and motherhood literature about black
mothers’ historical participation in the labor force compared to white mothers and the
ensuing lack of guilt or conflict about working outside of the home among black women
(Landry 2000; Parker 2005b), my analysis does not find any differences between black
and white mothers in their ambivalence about combining work and family. This suggests
that mothers deal with issues arising from balancing work and family regardless of their
race and the differences in conflict they perceive are instead based on socioeconomic
resources and employment status.
Altogether, the variables included in the final model account for almost 20
percent of variance in this ambivalence outcome. This means that there are other factors
that influence mothers’ conflicting feelings about work and family, which were not
included in my analysis. Examples of these can include the type of work, hours worked,
the time of day the mother works, the husband or partner’s employment status and
characteristics, availability of child care and many others. In this project, I set out to
263
examine social structural patterns in the experience of maternal ambivalence and these
findings show that even when mothers’ strains and resources are included in the analysis,
social structural characteristics are significant predictors of ambivalence about combining
work and family.
SUMMARY
The results of the analyses of the separate and combined effects of strains and
resources on ambivalence about motherhood suggest that motherhood experience,
employment status and relationship support are largely associated with maternal
ambivalence. The direction of the effects depends on the definition of the ambivalence
outcome. In some cases, these covariates, particularly social support and employment
status, intervene in the relationship between social structural factors and ambivalence and
enhance or weaken the original relationships. It is therefore important to distinguish
among different types of maternal ambivalence outcomes to understand how different
social factors are associated with their increase or decrease. These analyses suggest that
maternal ambivalence is a multidimensional concept and each dimension is associated
with a unique set of predictors and pathways. I further analyze these results and discuss
their implications in the following chapter.
Table 6.1. Results of the OLS regression of the direct relationships between covariate and pathway variables and ambivalence outcomes
Ambivalence outcome
Being Good at
Motheringa
b (SE)
Adj R2
Motherhood experience
Constant
First-time mother (Yes = 1)
Constant
Baby’s temperament average or
worsec
Constant
Baby’s health – goodd
Baby’s health – fair or poord
Constant
Mother’s health – goodd
Mother’s health – fair or poord
Employment status
Constant
Part-time worke
Full-time worke
Constant
Satisfaction with work and family
arrangements (z-score)
-0.157***
(0.039)
0.352***
(0.058)
-0.178***
(0.036)
0.474***
(0.059)
-0.086*
(0.042)
0.124*
(0.063)
0.296**
(0.091)
-0.234***
(0.043)
0.400***
(0.061)
0.477***
(0.093)
0.030
0.131**
(0.048)
-0.194*
(0.075)
-0.213**
(0.068)
-9.002E-16
(0.029)
-0.145***
(0.029)
0.008
0.052
0.008
0.042
0.020
Identitya
b (SE)
Attachmenta
Adj R2
0.048
(0.039)
-0.107
(0.059)
-0.076*
(0.037)
0.202**
(0.060)
-0.058
(0.042)
0.103
(0.063)
0.147
(0.091)
-0.097*
(0.044)
0.161*
(0.063)
0.219*
(0.094)
0.002
0.121*
(0.048)
-0.074
(0.075)
-0.270***
(0.068)
-9.145E-16
(0.029)
-0.061
(0.029)
0.013
0.009
0.002
0.006
0.003
b (SE)
Adj R2
-0.044
(0.039)
0.100
(0.059)
-0.099**
(0.037)
0.265***
(0.060)
-0.027
(0.042)
0.070
(0.063)
0.006
(0.091)
-0.049
(0.044)
0.059
(0.063)
0.187
(0.095)
0.002
-0.011
(0.048)
-0.098
(0.076)
0.095
(0.068)
-1.162E-16
(0.029)
-0.034
(0.029)
0.004
0.016
0.000
0.002
0.000
Combining Work
and Familyb
b (SE)
Adj R2
-0.017
(0.052)
0.035
(0.074)
0.029
(0.045)
-0.085
(0.078)
-0.030
(0.054)
-0.005
(0.079)
0.261*
(0.119)
-0.121*
(0.054)
0.208**
(0.078)
0.328*
(0.131)
-0.001
-0.306
(0.057)
0.061
0.509***
(0.073)
-1.069E-15
(0.035)
-0.340***
(0.035)
0.000
0.005
0.012
0.115
264
Table 6.1 continued
Ambivalence outcome
Being Good at
Motheringa
b (SE)
Adj R2
Identitya
b (SE)
Attachmenta
Adj R2
b (SE)
Adj R2
Combining Work
and Familyb
b (SE)
Adj R2
Relationship resources
Constant
Social Support at 6 months (zscore)
Constant
Relationship – Intimacy (z-score)
Relationship – Conflict (z-score)
Missing intimate relationship
scales data
-3.706 E-15
(0.028)
-0.276***
(0.028)
-0.029
(0.029)
-0.122***
(0.034)
0.128***
(0.034)
0.451***
(0.117)
0.075
0.057
-3.449E-15
(0.028)
-0.259***
(0.028)
-0.012
(0.030)
-0.127***
(0.034)
0.118
(0.034)
0.184
(0.117)
0.066
0.045
-1.475E-15
(0.029)
-0.139***
(0.029)
-0.010
(0.030)
-0.006
(0.034)
0.078*
(0.034)
0.162
(0.120)
0.018
0.006
-1.745E-16
(0.037)
-0.164***
(0.037)
-0.008
(0.037)
-0.197***
(0.043)
0.028
(0.043)
0.133
(0.154)
0.026
0.042
Notes: a N = 1,160; b N = 728. Reference categories: c Baby's temperament easier than average; d Excellent health; e Stay-at-home mother.
Significance levels: ***p<.001, ** p<.01, *p<.05, + p<.10
265
266
Table 6.2. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about being good at mothering by composite race and
social class categories, motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and personality
characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Model 1
Constant
White middle-class mothers
(race, income, education)
(Yes=1)
Control variables
Agea
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusb
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
-0.054
(0.049)
-0.036
(0.072)
-.167**
(0.053)
-0.077
(0.071)
-0.563***
(0.066)
-0.023
(0.069)
0.063
(0.063)
-0.013
(0.072)
-0.405***
(0.076)
0.006
(0.068)
-0.045
(0.047)
0.003
(0.069)
-0.036
(0.048)
-0.017
(0.072)
-0.029
(0.047)
-0.004
(0.070)
-0.338***
(0.074)
0.011
(0.067)
-0.246***
(0.070)
0.028
(0.063)
0.124
(.075)
0.069
(0.074)
-0.031
(0.072)
0.112
(0.075)
-0.053
(0.072)
0.131+
(0.072)
0.119
(0.073)
0.120+
(0.072)
-0.033
(0.07)
-0.132*
(0.066)
-0.083
(.087)
-0.037
(0.086)
0.014
(0.083)
-0.100
(0.087)
0.012
(0.082)
-0.109
(0.084)
-0.135
(0.085)
-0.139+
(0.083)
-0.039
(0.080)
-0.036
(0.075)
0.058
(0.111)
0.218*
(0.093)
0.058
(0.110)
0.188*
(0.092)
-0.054
(0.106)
0.129
(0.088)
0.038
(0.111)
0.209*
(0.092)
-0.078
(0.105)
0.088
(0.088)
0.011
(0.107)
-0.040
(0.110)
-0.214*
(0.096)
0.000
(0.08)
-0.023
(0.080)
-0.034
(0.076)
0.007
(0.080)
-0.049
(0.076)
0.163+
(0.091)
0.000
(0.079)
-0.159
(0.102)
0.016
(0.085)
0.015
(0.080)
0.142
(0.090)
-0.003
(0.078)
-0.047
(0.107)
0.123
(0.089)
-0.013
(0.077)
-0.079
(0.074)
-0.061
(0.069)
0.325***
(0.060)
0.384***
(0.058)
0.403***
(0.058)
0.448***
(0.056)
0.421***
(0.053)
0.421***
(0.059)
0.398***
(0.058)
0.381***
(0.056)
0.327***
(0.053)
0.013
(0.062)
0.041
(0.062)
0.149+
(0.090)
0.171+
(0.089)
0.019
(0.06)
0.109
(0.087)
0.044
(0.056)
0.101
(0.082)
0.372***
(0.062)
0.424***
(0.094)
0.342***
(0.062)
0.343***
(0.095)
0.246***
(0.061)
0.193*
(0.093)
0.164**
(0.058)
0.100
(0.088)
-0.161*
(0.073)
-0.257***
(0.067)
-0.110***
(0.029)
-0.143*
(0.070)
-0.231***
(0.065)
-0.069*
(0.028)
-0.133*
(0.066)
-0.214***
(0.061)
-0.012
(0.027)
-0.184***
(0.029)
-0.087**
(0.029)
-0.025
(0.031)
Motherhood experience
First-time mother (Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsec
Baby's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmente
Part-time
-0.158*
(0.077)
-0.191**
(0.068)
Full-time
Mother’s satisfaction with
work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.268***
(0.028)
Love relationship - Intimacy
(z-score)
-0.116**
(0.034)
Love relationship - Conflict
(z-score)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
0.128***
(0.034)
0.660+
(0.349)
-0.221***
(0.030)
-0.047
(0.035)
0.105**
(0.034)
0.522
(0.342)
-0.060+
(0.033)
0.089
(0.032)
0.480
(0.325)
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
0.046
(0.03)
0.372
(0.306)
0.362***
(0.030)
0.011
3.205**
0.035
7.015***
0.118
13.892***
0.017
0.134
3.481** 12.981***
0.081
15.667***
0.056
8.649***
0.097
13.387***
0.193
15.606***
0.286
24.190***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married, c Baby's temperament easier than average, d Excellent health, e Stay-at-home.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
267
Table 6.3. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about being good at mothering by social structural
characteristics (race, income and education), motherhood experience, employment status, relationship
resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance
(N=1,160)
Model 1
Constant
Racea (Black=1)
Family income (ln)
Educationb
HS degree or lower
Some post-secondary
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
1.514**
(0.529)
-0.173
(0.097)
1.477**
(0.522)
-0.121
(0.096)
0.703
(0.507)
-0.172
(0.093)
1.256*
(0.552)
-0.141**
(0.047)
-0.152**
(0.047)
-0.112
(0.045)
-0.184+
(0.097)
-0.109
(0.051)
0.011
(0.091)
-0.138
(0.074)
0.075
(0.091)
-0.099
(0.074)
-0.023
(0.088)
-0.123
(0.071)
0.008
(0.091)
-0.131
(0.075)
0.055
(0.080)
-0.081
(0.086)
-0.022
(0.080)
-0.030
(0.086)
-0.069
(0.077)
0.011
(0.082)
0.019
(0.113)
0.126
(0.108)
0.024
(0.081)
-0.002
(0.112)
0.060
(0.108)
-0.017
(0.081)
-0.070
(0.108)
0.075
(0.103)
-0.027
(0.077)
0.333***
(0.060)
0.376***
(0.058)
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
0.353
(0.525)
-0.197*
(0.092)
1.363**
(0.510)
-0.149
(0.094)
1.318**
(0.518)
-0.187*
(0.095)
-0.065
(0.048)
-0.123**
(0.046)
-0.034
(0.087)
Model 8
Model 10
Model 9
1.280*
(0.506)
0.316
(0.507)
-0.120*
(0.047)
-0.166+
(0.093)
-0.115*
(0.046)
-0.172+
(0.089)
-0.056
(0.046)
-0.002
(0.090)
-0.154*
(0.074)
0.003
(0.088)
-0.164*
(0.072)
-0.003
(0.085)
-0.130
(0.071)
-0.006
(0.088)
-0.171*
(0.072)
-0.134
(0.069)
-0.033
(0.081)
-0.098
(0.066)
0.062
(0.080)
-0.096
(0.087)
-0.066
(0.077)
0.007
(0.082)
0.066
(0.077)
-0.108
(0.083)
0.063
(0.078)
-0.136
(0.085)
0.060
(0.077)
-0.139
(0.083)
-0.054
(0.074)
-0.044
(0.080)
-0.116
(0.07)
-0.047
(0.075)
0.019
(0.113)
0.157
(0.110)
0.024
(0.081)
-0.072
(0.107)
0.092
(0.104)
-0.031
(0.077)
-0.028
(0.109)
0.059
(0.105)
0.009
(0.078)
-0.065
(0.112)
0.100
(0.106)
0.011
(0.08)
-0.078
(0.109)
0.054
(0.104)
0.000
(0.078)
-0.160
(0.104)
0.014
(0.101)
-0.058
(0.075)
-0.196*
(0.099)
0.047
(0.095)
-0.046
(0.07)
0.384***
(0.059)
0.432***
(0.057)
0.410***
(0.054)
0.416***
(0.059)
0.402***
(0.058)
0.383***
(0.056)
0.332***
(0.053)
0.022
(0.062)
0.147
(0.090)
0.042
(0.061)
0.021
(0.059)
0.102
(0.086)
0.044
(0.056)
0.099
(0.082)
0.364***
(0.062)
0.399***
(0.094)
0.339***
(0.062)
0.331
(0.095)
0.241***
(0.061)
0.167**
(0.058)
0.099
(0.088)
-0.129+
(0.078)
-0.150*
(0.074)
-0.127+
(0.073)
-0.221**
(0.072)
-0.131+
(0.071)
-0.196**
(0.069)
-0.218**
(0.066)
-0.115
(0.029)
-0.073**
(0.028)
-0.017
(0.027)
-0.184***
(0.029)
-0.087**
(0.029)
-0.029
(0.032)
+
+
-0.315
(0.482)
-0.096
(0.084)
0.012
(0.044)
Control variables
Agec
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusd
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
Motherhood
experience
First-time mother
(Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsee
Baby's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmentg
Part-time
Full-time
0.163+
(0.089)
Mother’s satisfaction
with work and family
arrangements (z-score)
0.178+
(0.093)
-0.140*
(0.067)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-.267***
(.028)
Love relationship Intimacy (z-score)
-0.113**
(0.034)
Love relationship - Conflict
(z-score)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
0.130***
(0.034)
0.604+
(0.347)
-0.221***
(0.03)
0.043
(0.035)
0.108**
(0.034)
0.471
(0.339)
-0.059+
(0.033)
0.091**
(0.032)
0.435
(0.324)
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
0.045
(0.031)
0.350
(0.306)
0.358***
0.024
4.149***
0.048
6.876***
0.126
12.093***
0.025
3.747***
0.140
11.460***
0.093
12.926***
0.068
8.007***
0.108
11.808***
0.199
14.063***
0.287
21.236***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a White, b College degree or some post-graduate education, c 26 - 34 years old, d Married, e Baby's temperament
easier than average, f Excellent health, g Stay-at-home.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
268
Table 6.4. OLS regression predicting identity ambivalence by composite race and social class categories,
motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and personality characteristics,
controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
-0.031
(0.080)
-0.026
(0.047)
-0.020
(0.048)
-0.014
(0.047)
0.038
(0.078)
0.099
(0.077)
0.197**
(0.072)
0.110+
(0.063)
0.181**
(0.072)
0.220**
(0.072)
0.197**
(0.070)
0.185*
(0.071)
0.197**
(0.070)
0.228**
(0.070)
0.240**
(0.069)
0.096
(0.076)
-0.100
(0.088)
0.050
(0.076)
-0.075
(0.087)
0.066
(0.075)
-0.099
(0.087)
0.033
(0.076)
-0.077
(0.087)
0.081
(0.072)
-0.108
(0.084)
0.070
(0.073)
-0.135
(0.085)
0.071
(0.072)
-0.139
(0.084)
0.053
(0.073)
-0.134
(0.084)
-0.012
(0.072)
-0.131
(0.082)
-0.111
(0.112)
-0.007
(0.093)
-0.111
(0.111)
0.004
(0.093)
-0.160
(0.112)
-0.024
(0.093)
-0.133
(0.111)
-0.016
(0.092)
-0.180
(0.111)
-0.057
(0.092)
-0.159
(0.108)
-0.084
(0.090)
-0.225*
(0.11)
-0.066
(0.091)
-0.232*
(0.107)
-0.104
(0.089)
-0.280**
(0.107)
-0.135
(0.089)
-0.317**
(0.105)
-0.052
(0.081)
-0.036
(0.081)
-0.044
(0.081)
-0.069
(0.080)
-0.066
(0.080)
-0.070
(0.078)
-0.061
(0.079)
-0.074
(0.077)
-0.092
(0.077)
-0.146+
(0.087)
-0.080
(0.076)
-0.131*
(0.061)
-0.105+
(0.061)
0.204**
(0.062)
-0.075
(0.061)
-0.027
(0.059)
-0.044
(0.058)
0.175**
(0.062)
0.158**
(0.059)
0.122*
(0.058)
0.053
(0.065)
0.065
(0.095)
0.087
(0.065)
0.096
(0.094)
0.063
(0.063)
0.023
(0.091)
0.079
(0.061)
0.018
(0.089)
0.152*
(0.065)
0.132*
(0.065)
0.099
(0.100)
0.03
(0.064)
-0.062
(0.098)
-0.024
(0.063)
-0.124
(0.096)
-0.097
(0.077)
-0.307***
(0.071)
-0.084**
(0.030)
-0.078
(0.074)
-0.277***
(0.068)
-0.036
(0.029)
-0.071
(0.072)
-0.265***
(0.067)
0.001
(0.029)
-0.200***
(0.031)
-0.081*
(0.035)
-0.136***
(0.031)
-0.148***
(0.034)
-0.213***
(0.031)
-0.081*
(0.035)
Love relationship - Conflict (zscore)
0.116**
(0.034)
0.094**
(0.034)
0.085*
(0.034)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
Personality
Neuroticism (z-scale)
1.006**
(0.348)
0.873*
(0.342)
0.848*
(0.341)
0.057+
(0.033)
0.777*
(0.334)
Constant
-0.035
(0.049)
0.011
(0.053)
-0.180*
(0.070)
White middle-class mothers
(race, income, education)
(Yes=1)
0.158*
(0.072)
0.175
(0.072)
0.074
(0.075)
-0.082
(0.087)
Control variables
Agea
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusb
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
+
Motherhood experience
First-time mother (Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsec
Baby's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthd
Good
0.173+
(0.061)
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmente
Part-time
-0.110
(0.077)
-0.296***
(0.068)
Full-time
Mother’s satisfaction with
work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.271***
(0.029)
Love relationship - Intimacy
(z-score)
Adj R2
F
-0.058+
(0.034)
0.240***
(0.032)
0.001
1.194
0.004
1.688
0.018
2.803**
0.016
3.316**
0.035
3.825***
0.073
13.962***
0.057
8.781***
0.095
13.107***
0.110
8.565***
0.151
11.268***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married, c Baby's temperament easier than average, d Excellent health, e Stay-at-home.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
269
Table 6.5. OLS regression predicting identity ambivalence by social structural characteristics (race,
income and education), motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and personality
characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
Constant
0.510
(0.534)
0.527
(0.533)
0.158
(0.535)
-0.199
(0.554)
-0.501
(0.553)
0.357
(0.515)
0.279
(0.52)
0.242
(0.509)
-0.561
(0.532)
Racea (Black=1)
-0.243*
(0.098)
-0.037
(0.048)
-0.266**
(0.098)
-0.032
(0.048)
-0.293**
(0.098)
-0.014
(0.048)
-0.260**
(0.097)
0.043
(0.051)
-0.314**
(0.097)
0.063
(0.051)
-0.219*
(0.094)
-0.019
(0.046)
-0.251**
(0.095)
-0.012
(0.047)
-0.231*
(0.094)
-0.008
(0.046)
-0.282**
(0.094)
0.075
(0.049)
-0.995+
(0.523)
-0.230*
(0.092)
0.121*
(0.048)
-0.148
(0.092)
-0.225*
(0.092)
-0.133
(0.092)
-0.216*
(0.092)
-0.123
(0.075)
-0.168*
(0.075)
-0.173+
(0.091)
-0.181*
(0.074)
-0.168+
(0.089)
-0.190**
(0.073)
-0.210*
(0.088)
-0.185*
(0.075)
-0.165+
(0.089)
-0.189**
(0.072)
-0.190*
(0.090)
-0.156*
(0.075)
-0.177+
(0.092)
-0.174*
(0.075)
-0.177**
(0.073)
-0.152*
(0.071)
0.078
(0.080)
-0.079
(0.087)
0.114
(0.082)
-0.103
(0.088)
0.089
(0.081)
-0.081
(0.087)
0.105
(0.080)
-0.104
(0.087)
0.104
(0.081)
-0.090
(0.087)
0.089
(0.078)
-0.106
(0.084)
0.090
(0.079)
-0.137
(0.085)
0.087
(0.077)
0.117
(0.078)
0.074
(0.077)
-0.141+
(0.083)
-0.146+
(0.083)
-0.148+
(0.082)
-0.084
(0.114)
-0.075
(0.114)
-0.108
(0.114)
-0.077
(0.114)
-0.102
(0.113)
-0.132
(0.110)
0.067
(0.110)
-0.018
(0.082)
0.071
(0.109)
-0.026
(0.082)
0.114
(0.110)
-0.043
(0.082)
0.119
(0.109)
-0.037
(0.081)
-0.031
(0.106)
-0.053
(0.079)
-0.198+
(0.110)
-0.035
(0.105)
-0.055
(0.079)
-0.210+
(0.11)
0.037
(0.106)
-0.061
(0.078)
-0.235*
(0.107)
0.037
(0.110)
-0.037
(0.082)
-0.185+
(0.112)
0.009
(0.106)
-0.044
(0.080)
-0.152*
(0.062)
-0.133*
(0.062)
Family income (ln)
Educationb
HS degree or lower
Some post-secondary
Control variables
Agec
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusd
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
Motherhood
experience
First-time mother
(Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsee
Baby's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthf
Good
-0.052
(0.06)
-0.067
(0.058)
0.220***
(0.062)
-0.105+
(0.062)
0.196**
(0.062)
0.177**
(0.059)
0.142*
(0.058)
0.056
(0.065)
0.058
(0.095)
0.088
(0.065)
0.088
(0.094)
0.064
(0.062)
0.016
(0.091)
0.080
(0.061)
0.014
(0.089)
0.162*
(0.065)
0.146*
(0.065)
0.113
(0.100)
0.044
(0.064)
-0.049
(0.098)
-0.007
(0.063)
-0.103
(0.096)
-0.129+
(0.078)
-0.344***
(0.076)
-0.093**
(0.030)
-0.109
(0.075)
-0.116
(0.073)
-0.316***
(0.073)
-0.047
(0.029)
-0.332***
(0.071)
-0.008
(0.029)
-0.192***
(0.031)
-0.084*
(0.035)
-0.125***
(0.031)
-0.148***
(0.035)
-0.210***
(0.030)
-0.081*
(0.035)
0.120***
(0.034)
0.098**
(0.034)
0.088**
(0.034)
0.977**
(0.348)
0.85*
(0.341)
0.830*
(0.34)
0.056+
(0.033)
0.771*
(0.332)
0.181+
(0.100)
Fair or poor
0.059
(0.103)
-0.052
(0.076)
Employment status
Employmentg
Part-time
-0.131+
(0.078)
-0.321***
(0.074)
Full-time
Mother’s satisfaction
with work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-.268***
(.029)
Love relationship Intimacy (z-score)
Love relationship - Conflict
(z-score)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
-0.064+
(0.034)
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
0.246***
(0.033)
0.004
1.556
0.009
2.018*
0.025
2.969***
0.019
3.059***
0.044
0.075
3.972*** 10.352***
0.061
7.283***
0.098
10.638***
0.117
8.000***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a White, b College degree or some post-graduate education, c 26 - 34 years old, d Married, e Baby's
temperament easier than average, f Excellent health, g Stay-at-home.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
0.158
10.484***
270
Table 6.6. OLS regression predicting attachment ambivalence by composite race and social class
categories, motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and personality
characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Model 1
Constant
White middle-class
mothers (race, income,
education) (Yes=1)
Control variables
Agea
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusb
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
-0.141**
(0.049)
0.216 **
(0.072)
Model 2
-0.159**
(0.053)
0.210**
(0.072)
Model 3
Model 4
-0.293*** -.150 (.063)
(0.069)
0.221**
.222**
(0.072)
(.072)
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
-.302***
(.081)
.226**
(.072)
-0.137**
(0.048)
0.236**
(0.071)
-0.132**
(0.049)
0.216**
(0.073)
-0.128**
(0.049)
0.224**
(0.073)
-0.264**
(0.081)
0.220**
(0.073)
-0.239**
(0.081)
0.225**
(0.073)
0.229**
(0.075)
0.001
(0.087)
0.221**
0.185*
(0.075)
(0.076)
0.008 .030 (.087)
(0.087)
0.222**
(0.075)
-0.002
(0.087)
0.181*
(0.076)
0.028
(0.087)
0.233**
(0.074)
-0.013
(0.086)
0.224**
(0.075)
-0.019
(0.087)
0.225**
(0.074)
-0.022
(0.086)
0.188*
(0.076)
0.003
(0.087)
0.161*
(0.076)
0.004
(0.086)
-0.112
(0.111)
-0.112
(0.111)
-0.162
(0.111)
-0.113
(0.111)
-0.165
(0.111)
-0.137
(0.11)
-0.149
(0.112)
-0.153
(0.111)
0.093
(0.092)
0.053
(0.080)
0.088
(0.093)
0.047
(0.081)
0.057
(0.092)
0.037
(0.080)
0.092
(0.092)
0.062
(0.080)
0.056
(0.093)
0.050
(0.080)
0.053
(0.092)
0.044
(0.08)
0.074
(0.093)
0.045
(0.081)
0.049
(0.092)
0.037
(0.08)
-0.200+
(0.111)
0.021
(0.092)
0.032
(0.08)
-0.216+
(0.111)
0.016
(0.092)
0.037
(0.080)
0.050
(0.061)
0.064
(0.061)
0.046
(0.061)
0.063
(0.061)
0.056
(0.061)
0.257***
(0.062)
0.271***
(0.062)
0.260***
(0.061)
0.245***
(0.061)
0.029
(0.065)
-0.064
(0.095)
0.014
(0.065)
-0.084
(0.095)
0.005
(0.065)
-0.115
(0.094)
0.012
(0.065)
-0.117
(0.094)
0.054
(0.065)
0.046
(0.065)
0.163+
(0.099)
0.171+
(0.100)
-0.001
(0.066)
0.095
(0.101)
-0.024
(0.066)
0.069
(0.101)
-0.095
(0.077)
-0.084
(0.076)
0.119+
(0.071)
-0.004
(0.030)
0.136+
(0.071)
0.017
(0.031)
-0.081
(0.076)
0.141*
(0.07)
0.033
(0.031)
-0.133***
(0.032)
0.014
(0.036)
0.046
(0.035)
-0.128***
(0.032)
0.011
(0.036)
0.047
(0.035)
-0.101**
(0.033)
0.021
(0.036)
0.035
(0.035)
0.182
(0.354)
0.239
(0.354)
0.209
(0.353)
Motherhood
experience
First-time mother
(Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsec
Baby's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmente
Part-time
-0.103
(0.077)
0.092
(0.068)
Full-time
Mother’s satisfaction
with work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.141***
(0.029)
Love relationship Intimacy (z-score)
Love relationship - Conflict
(z-score)
-0.028
(0.035)
0.060+
(0.035)
0.265
(0.356)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
0.100**
(0.034)
0.012
3.280**
0.011
2.906**
0.026
3.559***
0.016
3.328**
0.031
3.432***
0.031
6.217***
0.016
3.033**
0.030
4.555***
0.046
3.944***
0.052
4.203***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married, c Baby's temperament easier than average, d Excellent health, e Stay-at-home.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
271
Table 6.7. OLS regression predicting attachment ambivalence by social structural characteristics (race,
income and education), motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and personality
characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=1,160)
Model 1
Constant
-0.801
(0.531)
Racea (Black=1)
0.260**
(0.097)
0.074
(0.048)
Family income (ln)
Educationb
HS degree or lower
Some post-secondary
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
0.085+
(0.047)
0.253**
(0.097)
0.061
(0.050)
-0.055
(0.093)
-0.199
(0.076)
-0.052
(0.092)
-0.205**
(0.075)
-0.07
(0.093)
-0.211**
(0.076)
-0.079
(0.093)
-0.201**
(0.075)
0.217**
(0.079)
0.211**
(0.080)
0.209**
(0.080)
0.167*
(0.081)
0.030
(0.087)
-0.011
(0.086)
-0.018
(0.087)
-0.020
(0.086)
0.007
(0.087)
0.148+
(0.081)
0.006
(0.086)
-0.197+
(0.113)
0.022
(0.11)
0.053
(0.081)
-0.178
(0.113)
-0.188
(0.115)
-0.242*
(0.114)
-0.253*
(0.113)
0.023
(0.108)
0.053
(0.081)
0.050
(0.109)
0.056
(0.082)
-0.196+
(0.114)
0.021
(0.108)
0.048
(0.081)
-0.023
(0.109)
0.037
(0.081)
-0.014
(0.109)
0.041
(0.081)
0.059
(0.062)
0.079
(0.062)
0.072
(0.062)
0.249***
(0.062)
0.260***
(0.062)
0.247***
(0.061)
0.231***
(0.061)
0.030
(0.065)
-0.062
(0.095)
0.018
(0.065)
-0.079
(0.095)
0.009
(0.065)
-0.113
(0.094)
0.016
(0.064)
-0.114
(0.094)
0.052
(0.065)
0.042
(0.065)
0.169+
(0.099)
0.172+
(0.100)
-0.007
(0.066)
0.092
(0.101)
-0.03
(0.066)
0.068
(0.101)
-0.074
(0.078)
-0.077
(0.077)
0.134+
(0.076)
0.017
(0.031)
0.128+
(0.075)
0.034
(0.031)
-0.131***
(0.032)
0.008
(0.036)
0.045
(0.035)
0.285
(0.353)
-0.102**
(0.033)
0.017
(0.036)
0.031
(0.035)
0.259
(0.352)
-0.793
(0.556)
0.087+
(0.048)
0.259**
(0.097)
0.050
(0.051)
-0.043
(0.092)
-0.190*
(0.075)
-0.073
(0.092)
-0.191*
(0.075)
0.212**
(0.080)
0.196
(0.081)
0.003
(.087)
0.013
(0.087)
-0.153
(0.114)
-0.157
(0.114)
0.059
(0.109)
0.061
(0.082)
-1.090*
(0.534)
0.241*
(0.097)
0.072
(0.048)
-0.056
(0.091)
-0.198**
(0.075)
-0.869
(0.531)
+
Model 10
-0.967+
(0.553)
0.276**
(0.097)
0.082
(0.051)
-0.542
(0.554)
-0.808
(0.531)
0.271**
(0.098)
+
0.236*
(0.098)
0.060
(0.051)
-0.883
(0.526)
0.273**
(0.096)
0.084+
(0.047)
0.254**
(0.097)
-0.893
(0.527)
0.267**
(0.097)
0.082+
(0.048)
-0.075
(0.092)
-0.218**
(0.075)
-0.096
(0.092)
-0.216**
(0.075)
-0.065
(0.090)
-0.216**
(0.074)
0.179*
(0.081)
0.031
(0.087)
0.197
(0.080)
0.167*
(0.081)
0.003
(0.087)
-0.160
(0.114)
0.046
(0.110)
0.053
(0.082)
-0.188+
(0.114)
0.047
(0.109)
0.044
(0.082)
0.067
(0.061)
0.076
(0.061)
-0.776
(0.552)
Control variables
Agec
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusd
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
Motherhood
experience
First-time mother
(Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsee
Baby's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmentg
Part-time
0.035
(0.110)
0.067
(0.082)
-0.088
(0.078)
0.101
(0.074)
Full-time
-0.088
(0.078)
0.115
(0.076)
-0.006
(0.030)
Mother’s satisfaction with
work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.145***
(0.029)
Love relationship - Intimacy
(z-score)
Love relationship - Conflict
(z-score)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
-0.031
(0.035)
0.058
(0.035)
0.320
(0.355)
-0.137***
(0.032)
0.012
(0.036)
0.044
(0.035)
0.238
(0.353)
0.108**
(0.035)
0.016
3.152**
0.017
2.955**
0.030
3.385***
0.029
3.159***
0.034
3.246***
0.036
5.367***
0.021
3.031***
0.036
4.287***
0.050
3.793***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a White, b College degree or some post-graduate education, c 26 - 34 years old, d Married, e Baby's
temperament easier than average, f Excellent health, g Stay-at-home.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
0.058
4.082***
272
Table 6.8. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about combining work and family by composite race
and social class categories, motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and
personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=728)
Model 1
Constant
White middle-class mothers
(race, income, education)
(Yes=1)
Control variables
Agea
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusb
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
-0.011
(0.062)
-0.082
(0.087)
-0.022
(0.069)
-0.086
(0.088)
-0.120
(0.089)
-0.055
(0.087)
-0.315***
(0.074)
-0.058
(0.084)
-0.299**
(0.091)
0.003
(0.081)
-0.007
(0.061)
-0.077
(0.086)
-0.022
(0.061)
-0.035
(0.087)
-0.018
(0.061)
-0.04
(0.087)
-0.279**
(0.091)
0.026
(0.082)
-0.248**
(0.091)
0.026
(0.081)
-0.015
(0.095)
0.054
(0.112)
-0.022
(0.096)
0.059
(0.112)
-0.036
(0.097)
0.065
(0.112)
-0.055
(0.092)
0.036
(0.108)
-0.056
(0.090)
0.085
(0.104)
-0.005
(0.094)
0.073
(0.11)
0.015
(0.093)
0.046
(0.11)
0.016
(0.093)
0.059
(0.109)
-0.032
(0.089)
0.084
(0.103)
-0.059
(0.088)
0.086
(0.103)
-0.002
(0.155)
0.130
(0.121)
0.124
(0.105)
-0.003
(0.156)
0.127
(0.122)
0.122
(0.106)
0.018
(0.156)
0.122
(0.121)
0.126
(0.105)
-0.020
(0.151)
0.121
(0.118)
0.153
(0.102)
0.035
(0.144)
0.094
(0.112)
0.159
(0.097)
-0.014
(0.154)
0.072
(0.121)
0.099
(0.104)
-0.055
(0.154)
0.062
(0.119)
0.107
(0.104)
-0.056
(0.153)
0.039
(0.119)
0.097
(0.104)
-0.017
(0.143)
0.023
(0.112)
0.137
(0.097)
-0.044
(0.143)
0.038
(0.111)
0.139
(0.096)
0.029
(0.077)
0.054
(0.077)
-0.012
(0.072)
0.035
(0.071)
0.035
(0.071)
-0.117
(0.080)
-0.064
(0.075)
-0.052
(0.074)
-0.075
(0.073)
-0.064
(0.082)
0.179
(0.124)
-0.074
(0.077)
0.107
(0.116)
-0.084
(0.076)
0.081
(0.114)
-0.082
(0.075)
0.077
(0.114)
0.206*
(0.082)
0.330*
(0.136)
0.095
(0.077)
0.237+
(0.127)
0.029
(0.077)
0.134
(0.127)
-0.007
(0.078)
0.095
(0.127)
0.406***
(0.072)
-0.294***
(0.035)
0.402***
(0.071)
-0.279***
(0.035)
0.406***
(0.071)
-0.250***
(0.036)
-0.040
(0.038)
-0.157***
(0.043)
0.010
(0.041)
0.336
(0.414)
-0.005
(0.039)
-0.148**
(0.043)
-0.006
(0.041)
0.268
(0.411)
Motherhood experience
First-time mother (Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsec
Baby's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthd
Good
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmente
Full-time
0.510***
(0.074)
Mother’s satisfaction with
work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.159***
(0.037)
Love relationship - Intimacy
(z-score)
Love relationship - Conflict (zscore)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
-0.196***
(0.044)
0.023
(0.044)
0.399
(0.445)
-0.095*
(0.039)
-0.165***
(0.046)
0.017
(0.044)
0.415
(0.444)
0.133**
(0.040)
-0.002
0.713
-0.004
0.631
0.012
1.714+
0.059
7.470***
0.150
10.188***
0.021
3.238**
0.037
4.111***
0.044
4.307***
0.176
9.618***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married, c Baby's temperament easier than average, d Excellent health, e Part-time
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
0.188
9.843***
273
Table 6.9. OLS regression predicting ambivalence about combining work and family by social structural
characteristics (race, income and education), motherhood experience, employment status, relationship
resources and personality characteristics, controlling for age, marital status and school attendance (N=728)
Model 1 Model 2
Constant
Racea (Black=1)
Family income (ln)
Educationb
HS degree or lower
Some post-secondary
1.554+
(0.890)
-0.148
(0.137)
1.549+
(0.891)
-0.145
(0.138)
-0.145+
(0.080)
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
2.559**
(0.826)
2.242*
(0.830)
-0.147
(0.134)
-0.128
(0.078)
1.583+
(0.872)
-0.139
(0.134)
-0.144
(0.078)
-0.077
(0.125)
-0.250**
(0.074)
-0.072
(0.124)
-0.219**
(0.075)
-0.061
(0.117)
-0.095
(0.117)
-0.096
(0.117)
-0.223*
(0.110)
-0.223*
(0.110)
-0.017
(0.092)
-0.060
(0.093)
-0.058
(0.092)
-0.227**
(0.087)
-0.209*
(0.087)
-0.104
(0.096)
0.112
(0.104)
-0.036
(0.101)
0.094
(0.111)
0.004
(0.101)
0.058
(0.110)
-0.001
(0.101)
0.075
(0.110)
-0.078
(0.095)
0.112
(0.103)
-0.087
(0.095)
0.108
(0.102)
0.000
(0.146)
-0.055
(0.132)
0.128
(0.098)
-0.027
(0.156)
0.000
(0.142)
0.077
(0.106)
-0.056
(0.156)
0.024
(0.141)
0.093
(0.106)
-0.062
(0.155)
-0.015
(0.141)
0.079
(0.106)
-0.055
(0.145)
-0.13
(0.132)
0.107
(0.098)
-0.067
(0.144)
-0.093
(0.132)
0.111
(0.097)
-0.030
(0.072)
0.018
(0.071)
0.018
(0.071)
-0.114
(0.081)
-0.062
(0.074)
-0.051
(0.073)
-0.070
(0.073)
-0.057
(0.082)
0.192
(0.125)
-0.066
(0.076)
0.118
(0.115)
-0.075
(0.075)
0.091
(0.114)
-0.074
(0.075)
0.089
(0.113)
0.202*
(0.082)
0.315*
(0.137)
0.080
(0.076)
0.208
(0.127)
0.011
(0.077)
0.101
(0.127)
-0.016
(0.077)
0.074
(0.127)
0.467***
(0.073)
-0.297***
(0.035)
0.464***
(0.073)
-0.283***
(0.035)
0.460***
(0.072)
-0.258***
(0.036)
-0.048
(0.038)
-0.158***
(0.043)
0.008
(0.041)
0.319
(0.410)
-0.016
(0.039)
-0.151***
(0.043)
-0.007
(0.041)
0.259
(0.408)
1.303
(0.891)
2.719**
(0.870)
2.532**
(0.834)
1.802*
(0.880)
1.409
(0.873)
-0.145+
(0.080)
-0.122
(0.138)
-0.129
(0.079)
-0.153
(0.132)
-0.277***
(0.079)
-0.085
(0.127)
-0.251**
(0.075)
-0.136
(0.135)
-0.166*
(0.079)
-0.044
(0.118)
-0.040
(0.120)
-0.084
(0.120)
-0.142
(0.115)
-0.007
(0.093)
-0.005
(0.093)
-0.024
(0.093)
-0.099
(0.090)
-0.204+
(0.111)
-0.196*
(0.087)
-0.040
(0.102)
0.070
(0.112)
-0.044
(0.105)
0.073
(0.113)
-0.047
(0.104)
0.076
(0.113)
-0.122
(0.099)
0.074
(0.108)
-0.010
(0.158)
0.080
(0.143)
0.107
(0.108)
-0.011
(0.158)
0.076
(0.144)
0.106
(0.107)
0.016
(0.158)
0.078
(0.143)
0.108
(0.107)
-0.058
(0.152)
-0.030
(0.139)
0.120
(0.103)
0.017
(0.078)
0.041
(0.078)
Control variables
Agec
18 - 25
35+
Marital statusd
Cohabitating
Single
Mother in-school prebirth (yes=1)
Motherhood
experience
First-time mother
(Yes=1)
Baby's temperament
average or worsee
Baby's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Mother's healthf
Good
Fair or poor
Employment status
Employmentg
Full-time
0.573***
(0.075)
Mother’s satisfaction
with work and family
arrangements (zscore)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.163***
(0.037)
Love relationship Intimacy (z-score)
Love relationship Conflict (z-score)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
-0.199***
(0.045)
0.021
(0.044)
0.369
(0.445)
-0.099*
(0.040)
-0.165***
(0.046)
0.014
(0.044)
0.387
(0.443)
0.114**
(0.040)
-0.001
0.901
-0.003
0.815
0.012
1.587+
0.072
6.663***
0.163
9.336***
0.024
2.762**
0.038
3.421***
0.046
3.666***
0.190
9.109***
0.198
9.159***
Notes: Reference/ommitted categories: a White, b College degree or some post-graduate education, c 26 - 34 years old, d Married, e Baby's
temperament easier than average, f Excellent health, g Part-time.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
274
CHAPTER SEVEN
Discussion and Conclusions:
Toward A Sociological Understanding of Maternal Ambivalence
This book is my story, and it’s idiosyncratic, but I’ve been compelled to write it
out of a sense that the isolation, conflict, and love I’ve felt as a wife and mother
are anything but limited to me. I’ve wanted to tell the truth – in writing – in the
hope that my story could help other women feel less alone, less crazy, and
possibly less guilty. (Faulkner Fox, Dispatches from a Not-So-Perfect Life,
2003:14)
This dissertation explores the concept of maternal ambivalence as a social and
structural phenomenon rather than an experience rooted in the relationship between a
mother and her child. Building upon my analysis of motherhood memoirs published at
the beginning of the 21st century, I explore social class and race differences in the
experience of motherhood ambivalence in a national sample of new mothers. I suggest
that scholars understand maternal ambivalence in its social context and define maternal
ambivalence as mothers’ conflicted attitudes toward the institution of motherhood and the
socially prescribed role of a mother. My research thus focuses on social structural
conditions of mothering that give rise to maternal ambivalence rather than on the
relationship between a mother and her child. In this chapter I discuss the most significant
findings of my research and their implications for future research on mothering and
motherhood as well as social policy and counseling implications of my findings. I also
outline a case for use of ambivalence in sociology as a theoretical concept and
methodological tool.
275
FROM PERSONAL PROBLEMS TO SOCIAL ISSUES: AMBIVALENCE IN THE
MOTHERHOOD MEMOIRS IN THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
My view of maternal ambivalence as largely socially and culturally based was
first supported by my reading and analysis of motherhood memoirs, in which writers
narrated their motherhood experiences as a coexistence of positive and negative feelings
and attitudes. The authors of the motherhood memoirs are mostly white, educated
women, who grew up after the second wave of feminism with the expectations of “having
it all.” Many of these writers, and other women like them, built successful careers, and
expected to succeed in mothering as well. However, they found the transition to
motherhood surprisingly difficult and quite different from their expectations. Their
writings are therefore motivated by this discrepancy between expectations and reality as
they reflect on their transition to motherhood and negotiate their new identity and status.
Many authors understand their conflicted feelings about motherhood as a result of the
contemporary social and cultural conditions in which they mother and I find that most of
their ambivalence stems from a lack of preparation for motherhood, social isolation, loss
of identity, or conflict between their work and child care. In contrast to the prevailing
psychological knowledge, almost none of their ambivalence is located in their
relationship with their children.
For the contemporary authors of the motherhood memoirs, who became mothers
at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, the low status of motherhood and
the deep gender inequality they encountered once they became mothers, represent a
surprising reality (Brown 2006). As mostly educated, professional women who came of
276
age at the time of increasing opportunities for women, they were not prepared to face
gendered inequalities, which they become aware of as mothers. This confirms Ann
Oakley’s observation “that a woman first confronts the full-reality of what it means to be
a woman in our society” only when she becomes a mother (1979:1). It is no coincidence
that the recent explosion of motherhood memoirs happens at a time when third wave
feminists reached their childbearing age and began having children, bringing their
attention from other feminist issues to motherhood (O’Reilly 2010:205).
This generation of mothers assumed that society, workplaces and families had
adapted to gender equality and they find it difficult to accept that parenthood remains a
deeply gendered institution, which places primary responsibility for the child on the
mother and changes mothers’ lives to a larger extent than fathers. As Alice Rossi pointed
out in her influential article on transition to parenthood, parenthood rearranges gender
relationships in marriage between the partners (1968). Although gender relationships and
women’s expectations of equality in marriage and parenthood have changed since the
1960s, when it comes to the actual choices made following the birth of the children,
gender relationships often tend to return to traditional models (Cowan and Cowan 1992;
Gerson 2009; Fox 2009). The writers’ expectations of egalitarian marriage from their prebaby years and the fact that the majority of them had careers and jobs, which they put on
hold to take care of their children, then make these transitions to traditional roles quite
frustrating. The writers show how they deal with the discontent with their new family
roles and relationships and the subsequent unequal division of labor and how they try to
find a compromise, which they consider fair in order to maintain their marriage and their
own sanity (Wolf 2001:233-253; see also Lennon and Rosenfield 1994; Hochschild
277
1989).
With the lack of macro-structural support mechanisms for mothers and families,
gender equality as represented in the memoirs studied, remains at a stage of the “stalled
revolution” (Hochschild 1989) and thus contributes to maternal ambivalence. As women
become mothers later in their lives than earlier generations, their motherhood identity
needs to be incorporated into other identities, making the transition to motherhood
potentially more likely to be filled with ambivalence. Feminism and demographics are
thus some of the explanations behind the rise of the motherhood memoirs (Niesslein and
Wilkinson 2005; O’Reilly 2010:204).
In the years following the publication of the books analyzed in this project (20002003), many other books about motherhood were published, some of them much more
critical of the maternal experience and child rearing than the earlier texts. 1 Some of them
describe mothers’ drinking and other behaviors mothers relied upon to “make it through”
the transition to motherhood. Had they been written or narrated by low-income or welfare
mothers, their maternal rights would likely be in jeopardy. The continued absence of
working class or race/ethnic minorities’ popular narratives suggests further class and race
differentiation of the motherhood experience and differing social expectations toward
mothers according to their social status. White, educated and professional mothers (and
sometime celebrities) thus have the latitude to discuss their mixed feelings about
motherhood without the likelihood of being negatively sanctioned. Although they express
their anti-normative motherhood experience, it is done within a socially and culturally
conventional space and their narratives generally conclude with the adjustment and
1
These authors represent themselves as quite the opposite of the normative “good” mothers (see e.g.
Mellor 2004; Soutter Schwartzer 2006; Ashworth and Nobile 2007; Leibovich 2007; Wilder-Taylor 2008;
Glembocki 2009; Klein Moddisett 2010).
278
acceptance of the normative “good mother” role.
While the motherhood memoirs challenge some of the aspects of intensive
mothering and new momism (Douglas and Michaels 2004), they largely continue to
subscribe to the beliefs that it is best for the children to be cared for by their mothers at
all times and construct their decisions to stay at home with their children and fully devote
themselves to the children as the choice of an “enlightened mother” (O’Reilly 2010:211).
However, their writing opens up the motherhood discourse to the criticism of the current
social conditions of mothering and normative expectation of motherhood. By depicting
their ambivalence about motherhood the authors of the maternal memoirs contribute to
expanding of what is considered as an acceptable form of maternal experience and
including maternal ambivalence in the existing public discourse about motherhood
experiences. Our culture tends to present motherhood as joyful (e.g. ultimate happiness,
fulfillment of a woman’s life) or troubled (e.g., postpartum depression). There is very
little in the discourse that suggests that mothering experiences can happen somewhere inbetween and these memoirs try to fill that gap. In the face of increasing social
expectations of mothers, some suggest that feelings of ambivalence can actually be
understood as a normal reaction of women overwhelmed by motherhood transition.
Further, some of the authors point to alternative arrangements and possibilities of
mothering that allowed them to adjust to the motherhood role and in this way, encourage
their readers to question their own gender and familial arrangements. Expressions of
ambivalence thus becomes a source of not only personal (Parker 1997) but also social and
possibly, political change (Weigert 1991; Hewett 2006).
279
CLASS AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN THE EXPERIENCE OF MATERNAL
AMBIVALENCE
As most of the motherhood memoirs were written by white, educated, and
professional women and expressions of mixed feelings about motherhood are
conventionally attributed to white middle-class women who became mothers at the end of
the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, the main goal of my project was to examine
race and class differences in the experience of maternal ambivalence. In other words, I
sought to find out whether the experience of maternal ambivalence described in the
motherhood memoirs is an experience limited to white middle-class women or whether it
is a phenomenon more generally experienced by mothers regardless of their social
background.
Clearly, mothering experiences vary according to mothers’ economic, social and
cultural resources and so do social expectations on how women should mother.
Depending on their resources and social circumstances, mothers protect, nurture and train
their children in preparation for life in different settings (Ruddick 1995). While mothers
from disadvantaged social backgrounds it is a priority to fulfill their children’s basic
needs and to keep them alive by providing food and safety, middle-class mothers with
more resources can also worry about close bond with their infant, their children’s
appropriate development and self-esteem. 2 Mothering approaches and expectations of
mothers thus vary depending on the mothers’ social location.
Current research on motherhood suggests that social class and race continue to
2
These approaches to mothering reflect different level of needs people have, ranging from physiological to
self-actualization as described by Maslow (1954).
280
contribute not only to the expectations toward mothers belonging to different social
categories but also to their own experience of motherhood. Research on parenting stress
and maternal depression shows the effects of mother’s socioeconomic status and race on
maternal well-being and satisfaction (Beck 2002; Benoit et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2009). The
findings of the literature on motherhood identity also paint very different pictures of the
issues encountered by middle-class and working-class and poor mothers (McMahon
1995; Hays 2003; Lareau 2003; Miller 2005, 2007; Edin and Kefalas 2005). Lareau’s
(2003) description of “natural growth” as a childrearing method of working-class parents
compared to “concerted cultivation” of the children preferred by middle-class parents
illustrates well the different resources and priorities of parents according to their social
structural location. Therefore, I expected to find different levels and presentations of
maternal ambivalence among mothers according to their social class and race, and
resulting variability of their economic conditions, social expectations, and cultural
traditions associated with their performance of the motherhood role.
Multidimensional Character of Maternal Ambivalence
Different aspects of the motherhood role and mother’s adjustment to motherhood
are reflected in the multidimensional operational definition of maternal ambivalence. I
examine mothers’ conflicted expectations about motherhood and the reality of being a
mother (ambivalence about being good at mothering), the conflict between maternal
identity and a mother’s pre-baby self (identity ambivalence), the contradiction between a
mother’s bonding with her baby and beliefs in social expectations to do so (attachment
ambivalence), and a finally, a mother’s conflicted attitudes about the strains and benefits
281
of her employment for herself and her family (ambivalence about combining work and
family).
Since becoming a mother represents such a normatively happy event, it is
remarkable that my quantitative data analysis of a national sample found the coexistence
of both positive and negative feelings about motherhood at all. When I first began
analyzing the data I noticed that almost all mothers strongly agreed with a statement “I
enjoy being a parent.” As there is a strong social expectation to respond to such a query
in a positive way, separating negative from positive attitudes and comparing them using
the ambivalence scale produced quite distinct results. Although very few mothers were
found to be ambivalent about their attachment to their child, over a quarter of the sampled
mothers experienced ambivalence about their identities as mothers. Identity ambivalence
is the dimension of ambivalence most sensitive to the demands of the ideology of
intensive mothering. These results show that even though it is not socially quite
acceptable for mothers to complain about the lack of personal time, energy or interests,
mothers perceive such constraints. Trying to conform to the requirements of intensive
mothering, they want to be with their children at all times. Mothers were also ambivalent
about combining work and family (15.4 percent) and I identified some mothers who
experienced ambivalence about being good at mothering (8.2 percent). Less than two
percent of the mothers were identified as ambivalent along the attachment dimension.
Mothers thus feel most ambivalent about motherhood when it intersects with their other
roles and identities.
The results of the analysis of the prevalence of maternal ambivalence provide the
first indication that there are differences in the experience of maternal ambivalence along
282
its different dimensions. Although the motherhood memoirs present the experience of
maternal ambivalence as an integral (though surprising) part of the transition to
motherhood, the majority of mothers included in the quantitative sample do not express
conflicted feelings about their maternal experience. Positive attitudes are generally
stronger than the negative ones. In contrast to a psychological approach, which defines
ambivalences as “a complex and contradictory state of mind, shared by all mothers, in
which loving and hating feelings for children exist side by side” (Parker 1997:18), I find
that mothers’ ambivalence about motherhood and their role as mothers is not shared by
all mothers but particular ambivalent attitudes are specific to mothers’ social structural
locations.
The social structural context of maternal ambivalence is confirmed by the
regression analysis, in which mothers’ social characteristics and relationships remain
statistically significant predictors of maternal ambivalence even when child and maternal
personal characteristics are accounted for. In some cases their significance even increases
when other social psychological characteristics are included in the analysis. My analysis
thus confirms that maternal ambivalence is affected by mothers’ social roles and
environments beyond the psychosocial characteristics and is not based solely in the
individual relationship between a mother and her child as psychological approaches
would expect.
Social Structural Similarities and Differences in the Experience of Maternal Ambivalence
The analysis of the effects of race and class and other social and psychological
characteristics on maternal ambivalence outcomes reveals that maternal ambivalence is a
283
multidimensional phenomenon and is not manifested in the same way for mothers
belonging to different social categories. Unlike parenting stress and postpartum
depression, which are usually positively correlated with disadvantaged social position,
different aspects of maternal ambivalence are present among mothers of various social
backgrounds. My findings challenge the common assumption that maternal ambivalence
is limited to white middle-class mothers as I find that in different forms, maternal
ambivalence is present among mothers of different social locations. Interestingly,
different aspects of social class do not always affect maternal ambivalence outcome in
the same direction, which points to a complex relationship between social structure
characteristics and maternal ambivalence. A summary of the statistical significance of all
the analyzed characteristics on ambivalence outcomes in the direct and adjusted models is
presented in Table 7.1. In the next sections I discuss the different ways indicators of
social class and race affect the four dimensions of maternal ambivalence studied in this
project.
--- Table 7.1 here ---
Identity ambivalence is the only dimension of maternal ambivalence which shows
that white middle-class mothers – a group conventionally seen as more ambivalent about
motherhood than others – are consistently more conflicted about motherhood than other
mothers. In all the analyzed models, white college educated and higher income mothers
have significantly higher levels of identity ambivalence than mothers belonging to other
social groups, particularly black mothers and mothers with less than college education
284
and household income below median. The baseline models predicting the main effects
show that white mothers and mothers with college degrees have higher identity
ambivalence; when the models are adjusted for motherhood experience characteristics,
employment, relationship resources and personality characteristics (neuroticism
measure), all of the indicators of white middle-class (race, increasing income, and college
education) become significant predictors of higher identity ambivalence.
These results confirm the hypothesis that white, higher income, and college
educated mothers experience more ambivalence about motherhood when it is defined as a
conflict between feeling restricted by the motherhood role while enjoying the presence of
the child than do black women, women with lower household incomes and women
without a college education. Thus, in a large national sample, this type of ambivalence,
described in the 21st century motherhood memoirs as well as in the writings of the second
wave feminist authors (Rich 1976; Lazarre 1976; Oakley 1979), ambivalence is
associated with white middle-class mothers and is not the experience of mothers from
other backgrounds.
These results also support other research findings documenting structural
differences in the meaning of motherhood. Rather than competing with other roles and
identities, for working class and poor women motherhood represents a possibility to
justify and fulfill their adult lives (Edin and Kefalas 2005). Although white middle-class
mothers have often spent years advancing their education and careers and may have other
opportunities to pursue, they have also internalized the normative expectations of
intensive mothering, which expect “good mothers” to be fully devoted to the care of their
children. The contradiction between these two forces results in their ambivalence about
285
their motherhood role (Blair-Loy 2003; Peskowitz 2005; Stone 2007). Educational,
economic, and race differences among mothers thus contribute to different experience of
motherhood and presence of conflicted feelings along identity ambivalence.
Ambivalence about being good at mothering. Mothers ambivalent about being
good at mothering have mixed feelings about enjoying being a mother while experience
motherhood more difficult than they expected. In terms of social structural differences
among mothers, this ambivalence outcome represents a distinctly different type of
ambivalence compared to identity ambivalence. While lower levels of household income
predicted higher ambivalence about being good at mothering in the unadjusted models,
once the motherhood experience, employment status, relationship resources and
personality characteristics are accounted for, I find no differences among mothers in
ambivalence about being good at mothering based on their socioeconomic status and
race. Results of no difference suggest that regardless of their education, income, and race,
mothers find the motherhood transition and being mothers surprisingly difficult but also
enjoyable. This type of maternal ambivalence, when mothers find it hard to achieve the
prescribed ideals of being a good mother but still enjoy motherhood is equally perceived
by mothers across different social groups, thus affirming the extensive descriptions of it
in the motherhood memoirs and earlier research on middle class women’s transition to
motherhood (McMahon 1995; Lupton 2000; Miller 2007). Although income, education,
and race characteristics are not associated with ambivalence about being good at
mothering, this ambivalence dimension is predicted by other social and social
psychological factors included in the adjusted model. While psychosocial characteristics
286
such as motherhood experience characteristics (particularly being a first-time mother and
babies’ more difficult than average temperament) and neurotic type of personality
contribute to higher ambivalence about being good at mothering, employment and social
support decrease this type of ambivalence. This confirms my assumption that social
context of mothering is important in understanding maternal ambivalence.
The results of the adjusted models explaining ambivalence about being good at
mothering are then quite different when compared to reported class and race differences
in parenting stress and maternal depression, which usually find disadvantaged social
status to be a predictor of more negative outcomes (Deater-Deckard and Scarr 1996;
Beck 2001; Lee et al. 2009). Similarly, the research on self-efficacy in early motherhood
finds that poor mothers and mothers with less education report lower self-efficacy and
competence levels than mothers with higher socioeconomic status (Porter and Hsu 2003).
Findings of no difference in maternal ambivalence levels among mothers according to
their race, education and income in the fully adjusted models suggests that when the
measures of maternal well-being are focused on the coexistence of positive and negative
feelings about mothering competence compared to one-directional measures, we can gain
a new insight into the mothering experience of new mothers. 3
Ambivalence about combining work and family. The analysis of another
ambivalence outcome, ambivalence about combining work and family, gives us yet
3
In further data analysis, I compare the regression results predicting ambivalence about being good at
mothering and the Parenting Stress Index. These measures are highly correlated (Table 4.9) yet I find
differences between white middle-class mothers and other mothers in the experience of parenting stress
with white middle-class mothers experiencing higher stress than other mothers (Appendix G, Table G.1).
Despite the high correlation between this ambivalence outcome and the Parenting Stress Index,
ambivalence about being good at mothering represents a distinct type of measure producing different
results regarding the mothering experience of new mothers.
287
another pattern of the relationship between social class, race, and maternal ambivalence.
Mothers ambivalent about combining work and family feel conflicted about the benefits
and strains of their employment for their families and themselves. About 15 percent of
mothers in the sample scored ambivalent along this dimension. While this may not seem
like a large proportion, this analysis was conducted only among working mothers and it is
possible that mothers who felt conflicted about working outside of the home either
resolved their ambivalence by working part-time or staying at home. This explanation is
consistent with Blair-Loy’s (2003) study of women executives and Stone’s (2007)
analysis of managerial and professional women.
The analysis of social structural differences along this ambivalence dimension
suggests an intricate web of associations between social class indicators and maternal
ambivalence. While there are no differences in ambivalence about combining work and
family among white middle-class mothers and all other mothers in all of the composite
models and also no difference between white and black mothers in the models with
disaggregated race and class characteristics, I find significant differences among mothers
according to their educational attainment and household income. These differences
though only become evident when we include mothers’ employment status and the
existence of supportive relationships. The results show that on the one hand, mothers
experience less conflict about the strains and benefits of their employment when they
have more economic resources; on the other hand, mothers experience more ambivalence
if they achieved higher education. While the correlation between income and education is
usually positive (and is positive in the sample), these results suggest that different aspects
of social class are associated with ambivalence about combining work and family in
288
opposite directions.
This is an important finding as education and income are usually understood as
interchangeable indicators of social class. The analysis of the differences in maternal
ambivalence shows that social class indicators can operate differently in explaining
maternal ambivalence and points to the complexity of the meaning of social class and its
measurement in quantitative research. At the level of the family, increased economic
resources contribute to lower maternal ambivalence. At the individual level, mothers’
higher educational attainment produces greater ambivalence.
These results suggest that mothers with varying levels of education and levels of
household income feel ambivalent about combining work and family for quite different
reasons. Since researchers have found that income moderates the relationship between
time pressure and depression (Roxburgh 2004), it is likely that mothers with more
disposable income can alleviate some of the conflict between their work and family
obligations by paying for domestic labor and/or dependable child care. Lower income
mothers then experience more ambivalence about combining work and family because of
economic distress, less satisfying work, and more difficulties in obtaining reliable child
care (Burris 1991; Hays 2003). College-educated mothers may be more susceptible to the
ideology of intensive mothering (Hays 1996; McQuillan et al. 2008) and thus perceive
more conflict about combining work and family, which is not resolved by potentially
higher family income. More research is needed to determine whether other work or
family related factors such as the number of hours worked, schedule conflicts, partners’
employment characteristics or division of household labor would further explain the
relationship between education, income, and maternal ambivalence.
289
Attachment ambivalence. Among all the ambivalence dimensions studied,
attachment ambivalence is the one most closely focused on the mother-child relationship.
It assesses mothers’ level of conflict between feeling that it takes them longer than they
expected to form a bond with their child (negative component) and their beliefs about
social expectations that mothers are the best suited to take care of the babies and
understand them (positive component). Based on the attachment theory (Bowlby 1988)
early bonding between the mother and the child has become a part of the image of a
good, nurturing mother (Eyer 1992; Blum 1999). Conflicts between the actual bonding
with the child and the social expectations of close attachment between the mothers and
their babies can thus produce feelings of maternal ambivalence.
The data analysis yields mixed results on the effects of social structural
characteristics on attachment ambivalence. According to the models based on the
composite variables of race, education and income, white middle-class women
experience higher levels of attachment ambivalence compared to other mothers.
However, when socioeconomic variables are analyzed separately, black mothers and
mothers with college degrees score higher on this ambivalence dimension. The
combination of these three factors – income, education and race – thus seems to create a
situation in which being a white middle-class mother exposes a mother to higher
attachment ambivalence. This effect is partially captured by the significant association
between mothers’ college education and higher attachment ambivalence.
When race is entered into analytic models separately from the socioeconomic
variables, black mothers experience more attachment ambivalence than white mothers.
290
This would suggest that black mothers encounter more conflicting attitudes in their bond
with their child and the social expectations about a mother’s unique abilities to care for
her child. Since black mothers have historically and culturally relied on a shared
community for mothering and the boundaries that distinguish biological mothers from
mothers who care for the children were often fluid (Collins 2000:178), it is likely that
black mothers’ attachment to their children, and thus also their attachment ambivalence,
would have different meanings for them as compared with white mothers. However,
according to the measures used in this research, black mothers score higher on the scale
assessing the beliefs about mothers’ uniqueness in taking care of their children than white
mothers. Further research is thus needed to explore the meaning of mother-child bonding
and social expectations of maternal attachment among mothers according to their class
and racial backgrounds.
The inconclusive nature of these results may be also explained by the overall
skewedness of the attachment ambivalence scale toward the lower ambivalence end. The
prevalence of attachment ambivalence in the data is very low, with less than two percent
of mothers who could be classified as ambivalent. Along both positive and the negative
component scales, mothers do not seem to be concerned with the lack of attachment (the
mean of the negative scale is 1.39 (SD=.52)) and do not agree that mothers are better than
others to take care of and understand their babies (the mean of the negative scale is 2.77
(SD=.80)). Mothers thus do not seem to be conflicted about their relationship to their
children. Although the presentations of attachment ambivalence are quite common in the
maternal narratives when the authors of the analyzed memoirs described their conflicted
feelings about forming the bond with their babies, it is possible that by the time the
291
babies are six months old, mothers no longer perceive the attachment conflicts to the
same extent that they perceived them during the first weeks of babies’ lives (Miller
2007). Overall, the variables included in this analysis explain only about five percent of
the variance in the attachment ambivalence, which is the lowest explained variance
among the studied ambivalence outcomes. There are thus other possible factors that could
explain the variance in this ambivalence dimension.
Overview of the Class and Race Effects on Maternal Ambivalence
These results show that mothers differ in their experience of maternal
ambivalence according to their social class and race. However, the direction of the
relationship and the magnitude of these effects depend on the definition of maternal
ambivalence and on the specific indicators of social class used (see Table 7.1). Based on
the analysis of the fully adjusted models, holding motherhood experience, employment
status, relationship resources, and personality characteristics constant, white middle-class
mothers (defined by college education and above-median household income),
experienced higher maternal ambivalence along the identity and attachment dimensions.
There is no difference between white middle-class mothers and other mothers in their
ambivalence about being good at mothering and ambivalence about combining work and
family.
The analysis of the disaggregated social structural characteristics helps us paint a
more detailed and nuanced picture of the effects of social structure on maternal
ambivalence. While there are no differences between mothers according to their race in
their ambivalence about being good at mothering and ambivalence about combining
292
work and family, effects of race are contradictory along the remaining two ambivalence
dimensions. White mothers experience higher identity ambivalence, while black mothers
are more conflicted along the attachment ambivalence dimension.
While on the one hand economic resources help mothers feel less ambivalence
about combining work and family, on the other hand, mothers with higher household
incomes experience more identity ambivalence. There is no relationship between
household income and ambivalence about being good at mothering and attachment
ambivalence. The analyses also show that mothers with college education experience
higher ambivalence than mothers with lower education along three dimensions: identity,
attachment, and combining work and family ambivalence. Middle-class mothers
regardless of their race thus hold more conflicted attitudes about motherhood than
mothers of lower socioeconomic status.
This overview shows that maternal ambivalence is a varied phenomenon and
mothers belonging to different social groups experience it in distinct ways. In other
words, social structural characteristics contribute to different experiences of maternal
ambivalence among mothers with diverse social backgrounds. No one social group is
immune to the experience of maternal ambivalence. Furthermore, maternal ambivalence
is not only the experience of white middle-class women as is commonly assumed. Race,
income and education are the most significant sources of differences along identity
ambivalence, which as expected, white middle-class mothers experience at the highest
degree. Mothers belonging to other social groups experience more maternal ambivalence
along the attachment and combining work and family ambivalence dimensions. In these
areas, black mothers and lower income mothers, feel more ambivalent about their
293
motherhood experiences than white and higher income mothers.
Effects of Motherhood Strains and Resources on Maternal Ambivalence Outcomes
In addition to exploring the effects of social structural characteristics on maternal
ambivalence, I also sought to examine the effects of potential motherhood strains and
resources on maternal ambivalence outcomes and how they change the relationship
between social class, race and maternal ambivalence. The results of the fully adjusted
models suggest that motherhood experience, employment status and relationship support
are associated with maternal ambivalence; however, the direction of the effects depends
on the definition of the ambivalence outcome. It is therefore important to distinguish
among different types of maternal ambivalence to understand the social factors associated
with their increase or decrease. These findings confirm my earlier conclusion that
maternal ambivalence is a multidimensional concept and each dimension is associated
with a unique set of predictors and pathways.
Motherhood experience and ambivalence. Among the characteristics of
motherhood experience, the data analysis shows that first-time mothers are significantly
more ambivalent about being good at mothering than are mothers with other children. As
expected, they find the divergence between their expectations and the reality of
motherhood and their enjoyment of being mothers more conducive to feelings of
ambivalence. However, there are no statistically significant differences between first-time
and experienced mothers along the other ambivalence dimensions. Mothers thus
experience ambivalence about their identity, attachment, and combining work and family
294
in a similar way regardless of whether they are going through a first-time transition to
motherhood or whether they are more experienced mothers.
A child with a temperament that is either average or more difficult than average,
increases maternal ambivalence along all dimensions except for the ambivalence about
combining work and family. This result confirms earlier research on parenting stress and
maternal depression, which find that evaluating baby’s temperament as difficult is usually
associated with increased stress and risk of depression for mothers (Belsky 1984; Mulsow
et al. 2002; Meredith and Noller 2003; Beck 2007). Child temperament effects remain
significant in the fully adjusted models and mothers’ good rather than excellent health
remains a significant predictor of ambivalence about being good at mothering in the fully
adjusted models, suggesting that mothers who face their own health problems have more
difficulties in adjusting to motherhood.
Child temperament and health characteristics suppress some of the associations
between social structural characteristics and identity ambivalence. Including these
variables in the analysis of the relationship between being a white middle-class mother
and identity ambivalence increased the magnitude and significance of being a white
middle-class (as well as being a white or a college educated mother in the disaggregated
variables models) on identity ambivalence. This implies that if all mothers had the same
quality of health and the children had the same temperament, white middle-class mothers
would have even higher identity ambivalence than mothers belonging to other social
groups.
Maternal employment status and ambivalence. With almost 60 percent of married
295
women with children below six years of age participating in the labor force (Bureau of
Labor Statistics 2009a), maternal employment and issues related to balancing work and
family underlie some of the main conflicts and contradictions facing contemporary
mothers and I expected to find significant relationship between employment and maternal
ambivalence. The effects of maternal employment on mothers’ well-being and maternal
employment have been shown to both enhance and diminish maternal well-being (Thoits
1983; Grzywacz and Bass 2003; Elgar and Chester 2007). Even when they work fulltime, mothers continue to carry the primary responsibility for the children and housework
and working the “second shift” tends to contribute to mothers’ stress and marital
dissatisfaction (Hochschild 1989; Simon 1995). While a mother’s employment status is
one of the most significant social predictors of maternal ambivalence outcomes, it does
not affect all the ambivalence dimensions in the same directions. Maternal employment
contributes to lower levels of both ambivalence about being good at mothering and
identity ambivalence. Stay-at-home mothers experience more ambivalence about being
good at mothering than mothers who work outside of the home full-time or part-time.
Being a full-time mother thus generates more conflict about the role performance
compared to working mothers, and working outside of home in any capacity lowers
mothers’ ambivalence about being good at mothering. This could be explained by the
high priority stay-at-home mothers assign to the motherhood role and the pressure of
social expectations to perform as “good mothers” when being a mother becomes their
main identity. Occupying multiple roles, as employed mothers do, may contribute to
mothers’ higher feelings of self-efficacy (Jackson 2000) and thus decrease maternal
ambivalence along this dimension. Maternal employment also explains away the
296
relationship between the effects of household income on ambivalence about being good
at mothering, which was significant in the baseline models. This means that rather than
better economic conditions, it is the mother’s work outside of home, which reduces
ambivalence about being good at mothering.
Stay-at-home mothers also experience more identity ambivalence than mothers
working full-time and are more similar in this respect to mothers working part-time.
Stay-at-home mothers and mothers working part-time thus experience more conflict
between wanting to be with the baby and feeling trapped by the motherhood role. Stay-athome mothers are also likely to feel more ambivalence about their identity as mothers
compared to mothers working full-time because of the greater importance of motherhood
for their overall identity and the lack of cultural support for their maternal role (Johnston
and Swanson 2004). Mothers who stay at home after having successful careers prior to
having a child, feel ambivalent about their motherhood role because they “miss financial
independence, status, challenge, collegiality, and intensity they had enjoyed as full-time
workers” (Blair-Loy 2003:75). Such women may find full-time motherhood less
rewarding than they expected and this attitude is reflected in their higher levels of identity
ambivalence. Since full-time employed mothers spend more time away from home and
from their babies and since they are not fully focused on motherhood, they do not
experience the identity conflict to the same extent as stay-at-home mothers. The same
reasons that make employed mothers less ambivalent about their motherhood identity
make them more ambivalent about combining work and family. Compared with mothers
working part-time, full-time working mothers have more conflicted attitudes about their
work as a strain and a benefit for their families.
297
While working mothers who are satisfied with their work and family
arrangements feel less ambivalent about combining work and family, the level of
satisfaction does not decrease the significance of the effects of employment status on
work-family ambivalence. It is possible that mothers who work part-time or stay at home
have already resolved their ambivalent feelings about work and family, which could
explain the differences in ambivalence levels between mothers working part-time versus
full-time.
According to the fully adjusted models, mothers employed full-time also
experience more attachment ambivalence than at-home mothers, suggesting that when
personality characteristics and social support factors are taken into account, full-time
employment increases both the mothers’ conflicted feelings about bonding with their
babies and the social expectations to be their primary caregiver. I hypothesize that
mothers who work outside of the home are particularly prone to the feelings of guilt of
not being sufficiently available to the child and detrimentally affecting the child’s
development, which would explain these results.
Including mothers’ employment status in the analysis also increases the effects of
social structural characteristics on maternal ambivalence. Differences in identity
ambivalence between white middle-class mothers and other mothers become more
pronounced when employment status is held constant. When we take employment status
into account, white middle-class mothers have even higher levels of conflict about their
identity than black mothers and mothers with lower income and less than college
education. This suggests that employment status forms a significant pathway between
socioeconomic status, race and identity ambivalence and that for white middle-class
298
mothers the conflict between pre-baby identity and maternal identity becomes heightened
when employment status is taken into account. Similarly, considering employment status
in the model, the negative relationship between household income and ambivalence about
combining work and family strengthens. For working mothers, having the economic
resources associated with an increasing household income thus leads to a significant
decrease in the conflict between the benefits and drawbacks of their work.
The varied effects of maternal employment on maternal ambivalence highlight the
distinct meanings behind the different ambivalence dimensions and the unique pathways
leading to feelings of maternal ambivalence. While full-time employment increases
ambivalence about combining work and family and attachment ambivalence on the one
hand, it reduces mothers’ ambivalence in the areas directly related to the performance of
motherhood role – identity and being a good mother – on the other hand. Both stay-athome mothers and employed mothers thus experience conflicts and contradictions about
their motherhood role but these conflicts are concentrated in areas which are central to
their specific motherhood experiences. The quantitative analysis thus confirms conflicted
sentiments about maternal employment expressed in the motherhood memoirs. The
authors describe their employment both as a reason for their maternal ambivalence, when
they felt torn between their work and their child, and as a resource of an alternative
identity – an antidote to the overwhelming character of motherhood, which protects them
from ambivalent feelings.
Social support and maternal ambivalence. Similar to the effect of social support
on parenting stress and depression, mothers’ social support networks and the support they
299
find in the relationship with their partners also provide resources contributing to lower
levels of maternal ambivalence. Along all ambivalence outcomes, mothers with better
social support experience less ambivalence about motherhood: the perception of general
social support significantly decreases mothers’ ambivalence about being good at
mothering, identity and attachment, while support in the intimate relationship provides
protection against ambivalence about combining work and family. Although more
conflict in the relationship with a partner increased ambivalence about being a good
mother and identity ambivalence in the partial models, which included social structural
and demographic variables, in the fully adjusted models only positive intimacy remains a
predictor of ambivalence outcomes. Extending social support to mothers who experience
ambivalence about motherhood and taking on some of their responsibilities can thus
decrease feelings of being overwhelmed, surprised, or entrapped by the motherhood role
as well as alleviate the conflict between work and family.
Relationship support also acts as an intervening variable between social structural
characteristics and maternal ambivalence; including the effects of social support and the
quality of partner relationships actually increases the predictive strength of structural
variables on ambivalence about being good at mothering, identity ambivalence and
ambivalence about combining work and family. When adjusting for social support,
middle-class mothers have higher levels of maternal ambivalence along these dimensions
than working-class and poor mothers. While lower socioeconomic status is usually
associated with worse parenting outcomes, controlling for social support and the quality
of intimate relationships actually suggests that lower income and less educated mothers
experience less ambivalence than college educated mothers and mothers with higher
300
household incomes, thus supporting the original hypothesis of this project of higher
ambivalence among middle-class mothers. In this respect, the relationship between social
support and maternal ambivalence is unique when compared with other measures of
maternal well-being, since it functions as a buffering mechanism lowering or erasing the
effects of social disadvantage and stressful events on negative outcomes.
Although maternal personality operationalized as neuroticism scale is a
psychological measure, it is important to note that it represents a significant predictor of
all ambivalence outcomes. Mothers with more neurotic personalities are also more
ambivalent about motherhood. Even though including neuroticism significantly increases
the explained variance in the models, personality characteristics do not explain away the
social factors as predictors of maternal ambivalence. In other words, mothers with the
same levels of neurotic personalities differ in their experience of maternal ambivalence
based on their social position, employment status and social support they have available.
Maternal ambivalence thus represents a phenomenon affected by the social position of a
mother and the resources she has available and is not limited to a mother’s relationship
with her child and cannot be fully explained by her personality characteristics.
CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT
This study represents the first analysis of maternal ambivalence from a
sociological perspective, which emphasizes social roles and expectations toward mothers
rather than psychological states and the relationship between the mother and her child.
The social aspect of maternal ambivalence as conceptualized in this project is further
301
defined and tested through the social structural differentiation of maternal ambivalence
analyzed here. Following the analysis of motherhood memoirs, I identified several areas
of motherhood ambivalence and tested their prevalence and race and social class
differentiation among new mothers in a large national sample.
This study makes four major contributions. It highlights the importance of social
structural effects on mothers’ transition to parenthood. Second, it conceptualizes a
sociological understanding of ambivalence and employs it to analyze the experience of
motherhood. Third, this research develops statistical measures of maternal ambivalence
based on its multidimensional conceptualization. And finally, by simultaneously
analyzing positive and negative aspects of the motherhood experience, this study points
to a new way of understanding social reality and experience, which can be utilized by
scholars in other research areas as well.
The results of the analysis contribute to our understanding of motherhood
experience and the effect of mothers’ social class and race position on how they transition
to motherhood. I find that mothers experience conflicted feelings and attitudes during
their transition to motherhood, which are not located in the relationship with their child.
Indeed, most mothers are ambivalent along the identity and work-family conflict, i.e.
areas where most of the social constraints on mothering are concentrated. The findings of
social structural differences partially confirm my expectations that white middle-class
mothers would experience more maternal ambivalence than other women. However, this
is only the case when maternal ambivalence is defined as a conflict between a woman’s
pre-baby identity and her identity as a mother. My findings thus challenge common
assumption that maternal ambivalence is an experience limited only to white middle-class
302
mothers. Instead, women experience motherhood and conflicting feelings associated with
their motherhood role differently according to their position at the intersection of race
and class.
Race, education and income thus do not create a single pathway towards maternal
ambivalence. Rather, mothers with diverse social structural positions, and thus different
access to resource and different meanings given to motherhood, prioritize distinct aspects
of motherhood and evaluate differently how to incorporate their mothering with their
identity and other roles they hold. White, college educated mothers with higher
household income thus perceive the conflict between their maternal identity and losses
associated with the restrictions presented by motherhood more than other mothers.
Women with higher education who are employed also experience more ambivalence
about the costs and benefits of combining work and family. I suggest that these mothers
are more prone to the ideology of intensive mothering, which requires them to be the
primary caregiver to their child and be available to the child at all times. However, they
also perceive these expectations as limiting their future and other interests and identities
(including work-identity). Low income mothers also experience more ambivalence about
balancing work and family. I contend this is because of the economic pressures to
provide for their children and taking care of them at the same time rather than the
intensive mothering requirements.
The race differentiation between mothers in their maternal ambivalence is also
most visible along the identity ambivalence, with some differences between black and
white mothers along attachment ambivalence as well. Interestingly though, there are no
differences among black and white mothers along their ambivalence about combining
303
work and family. This result challenges a common assumption that due to distinct
patterns of labor force participation, the importance of work identity is different for black
and white mothers. I find that it is the education, income, employment status and
relationship support, rather than mothers’ race, which contribute to feelings of
ambivalence along this dimension.
The findings of the varied effects of employment status on maternal ambivalence
also represent a contribution to the body of research on work-family conflict and effects
of balancing employment and motherhood. Mothers’ employment does not function in
the same direction along all the ambivalence dimensions; while mothers working fulltime experience less ambivalence about being good at mothering and less conflict about
their maternal identity, they experience more ambivalence about combining work and
family than mothers working part-time. It thus seems that employment outside of home
can be beneficial for mothers since the additional role provides them with another focus
of their attention and interests, which can alleviate some of the conflicted feelings about
motherhood. Part-time employment can then help mothers reduce the conflict between
costs and benefits of their working outside of home. These findings thus provide support
for the role enhancement hypothesis, which proposes that occupying multiple roles and
having multiple social identities helps to prevent anxiety and depression and as I find,
also reduce maternal ambivalence.
The research presented in this dissertation also contributes to the understanding
that parenting and mothering produce conflicted experiences for social actors (Umberson
and Gove 1989; Everson and Simon 2005). Unlike studies that acknowledge this conflict
as a result of their analyses, I begin my quantitative research with a premise of the
304
existence of conflicted attitudes about motherhood. I suggest that assessing the
coexistence of the positive and negative experiences simultaneously provides a new
perspective into our understanding of motherhood compared to separately focusing on
positive and negative aspects. While most social scientific studies using quantitative
measures of the motherhood experience focuses on either positive (parenting
satisfaction) or negative aspects of mothering (parenting stress, postpartum depression), I
offer a conceptual and methodological approach that acknowledges the coexistence of
positive and negative experiences and combines these contradictory feelings into one
assessment. In doing so, this research contributes to the explanation of the inconclusive
results in the current research on maternal well-being outcomes, which find either no
effects or mixed effects of motherhood (parenthood) on maternal stress and well-being.
Understanding the coexistence of positive and negative experiences thus helps us to
understand that mothers can indeed find some parts of mothering positive and some
negative, which can result in zero final effect on maternal well-being. 4
In order to quantitatively measure maternal ambivalence, I develop conceptually
and statistically distinct scales of maternal ambivalence, building upon the
methodological work in social psychology, sociology of the family, and studies of
intergenerational relationships. This project thus represents a methodological contribution
to the future research on motherhood as it provides researchers with a model of maternal
ambivalence among new mothers, focusing on the social conditions of their transition to
motherhood and their mothering experience rather than on the relationship with their
child. It also creates tools for ambivalence measurement available to researchers
evaluating maternal well-being, which are only partially correlated with parenting stress
4
Thank you to Peggy Thoits for raising this issue. Personal communication, August 14, 2010.
305
and maternal depression. Although the ambivalence dimensions included in my project
may not exhaust all possible sources of maternal ambivalence, they are the areas I
identified in the motherhood memoirs, examined theoretically, and were available for
empirical testing. Future research may identify additional aspects of maternal
ambivalence for study.
My conceptualization of maternal ambivalence as a multidimensional
phenomenon is also in line with earlier calls for the development of varied measures of
outcomes in sociological research, as diverse ethnic, social class, age and gender groups
might respond to stressors or stressful life situations with different types of outcomes
(Horwitz, White and Howell-White 1996; Horwitz 2002). I indeed find that mothers with
different social backgrounds experience ambivalence in various areas related to their
motherhood role, which would be overlooked in a single ambivalence measure. These
findings can be used in future research on the motherhood transition and have
implications for the clinical practice as a tool for identifying and understanding sources
of maternal ambivalence among mothers of different social backgrounds.
In addition to its contributions to the study of motherhood, this research also
contributes to the theoretical and methodological discussions on the definition and
measurement of social class and the intersection of race and class categories. I use
multiple measures of social class and race and their combination and compare results of
the models based on the composite variables with models that include disaggregated
indicators of social class and race. I find that these two approaches generate different
results when comparison of composite variable “white middle-class mothers” with other
mothers does not find the all the differences in maternal ambivalence indicated in the
306
models with disaggregated characteristics. This finding points to a complex and dynamic
relationship between education, income and race and to understand the role of social class
in family life, it is necessary to include both composite and disaggregated indicators in
future research projects (see also Conger, Conger and Martin 2010:699).
Furthermore, I find that different indicators of social class have opposing effects
on a maternal ambivalence outcome (ambivalence about combining work and family). In
the case of maternal ambivalence outcomes, mothers’ college education and household
income affect maternal ambivalence in opposite directions or are not significant
predictors of the same outcome. While the availability of economic resources reduces
ambivalence about combining work and family, higher household incomes actually
increase mothers’ identity ambivalence.
Further, my analysis indicates that mothers’ socioeconomic status as defined by
education and household income is a stronger predictor of the mothering experience than
is mothers’ race. Although there is a correlation between the socioeconomic status and
race, the implication of my analysis is that in social research these characteristics should
not be conflated.
Overall, I contend that the discussion of the social and structural causes of
ambivalence and its diverse forms among mothers of different social backgrounds can
contribute to a better understanding of the motherhood contradictions and conflicts
associated with the transition to the motherhood role. I show that social expectations
attached to the motherhood role based on the ideology of intensive mothering underlie
some of these contradictions. Therefore, I suggest that we understand maternal
ambivalence as a normal part of motherhood and the transition to motherhood rather than
307
a negative or pathological phenomenon in need of treatment. This understanding allows
us to see maternal ambivalence as a reaction to the high expectations of how to be a
“good mother” rather than a mother’s personal issue, or even as a normal reaction to the
overwhelming demands of motherhood.
This understanding has practical implications for mothers experiencing maternal
ambivalence and counseling they may seek. Acknowledging ambivalence and the
presence of mixed feelings about motherhood as a normal reaction to social expectations
may help to alleviate some of the pressures of intensive mothering and being a “good
mother” and move their individual problems into social realm. Understanding of pathway
mechanisms, which reduce maternal ambivalence, such as social support, supportive
relationship with a partner, or even adjustment of the employment status, can then be
useful in advising mothers for whom feelings of maternal ambivalence become a
problem.
LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECT AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This project represents the first inquiry into maternal ambivalence from a
sociological perspective using quantitative data and while there are many findings that
increase our understanding of mothers’ experiences during the transition to motherhood,
the project also has several limitations, some of which can be addressed in the future
research. Probably the most significant limitation stemmed from the use of the secondary
data set. Although analyzing the secondary data allowed me to work with a large national
sample, it also meant that the creation of the ambivalence measures was constrained by
308
the instruments and indicators included in the study for a different purpose. The positive
and negative components of the ambivalence measures were thus developed using
indicators included in the instruments measuring parenting stress, maternal separation
anxiety, and an instrument evaluating the strains and benefits of combining work and
family. Some of the measures were constructed from the indicators included in the same
instrument (ambivalence about combining work and family, ambivalence about being
good at mothering), while others were built using indicators included in different
instruments (identity and attachment ambivalence). This could explain some of the
differences in the results of these measures. Further testing of the ambivalence measures
proposed in this project and comparison with newly created direct measures of maternal
ambivalence along the same dimensions is necessary to confirm their reliability and
validity. Future research should test these measures with other samples to ensure their
applicability across different social groups both within the United States and in other
nations. Development of other new measures would also be beneficial as it would allow
for better comparison of maternal ambivalence with other measures of maternal wellbeing.
Another limitation of the project lies in the cross-sectional design of the analysis.
The project captures maternal ambivalence only at one point during the early
motherhood, six months after the birth a child. Any changes in ambivalence across
different stages to motherhood are not addressed. As ambivalence is often seen as an
experience triggered by transitions (Coser 1976; Weigert 1991), it is likely that its causes,
forms, and prevalence will change across time. The inconsistency of the instruments used
by the NICHD SECC during different data collection points did not allow me to conduct
309
a longitudinal study. Yet, even if we measured ambivalence over time with the same
instruments, social psychologists point out that longitudinal comparisons can be affected
by the inherent instability of ambivalence as people may try to resolve their conflicted
attitudes in one direction or another (Newby-Clark, McGregor and Zanna 2002).
However, the cross-sectional character of the analysis also does not permit me to address
issues of causality.
Furthermore, this sample is not fully representative of the U.S. population and
does not include sufficient numbers to study minority group members beyond black and
white non-Hispanic mothers. Future research on maternal ambivalence should thus
include other racial and ethnic groups, which would broaden our understanding of social
structural differences in maternal ambivalence.
Another limitation of the study is the gap in our knowledge of fathers. While I
include intimacy and conflict with the partner among the resources available to mothers,
fathers’ direct involvement in child care, his attitudes toward parenting or division of
household labor are not accounted for in the analyzed models. The use of such dyadic
data, where available, would represent another exciting direction for future research on
factors affecting maternal ambivalence.
The data used in this analysis were collected during 1991-1992 and reflect
mothers’ experiences at that time. This can raise some questions about the
generalizability of these findings to of the current moment. While mothers at the
beginning of the 1990s faced some of the same challenges related to the transition to
motherhood as do mothers at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it is possible
that a new generation of mothers would experience maternal ambivalence differently. I
310
contend that motherhood and the context of the experience of caring for the children has
changed little since the 1990s and motherhood transition represents one the biggest
adjustments in the life of an adult woman (Rossi 1968). The primacy of mothers in caring
for their children and gendered character of parenting roles also persist until today. Both
the women surveyed and current mothers belong to the generations of the women who
can be considered “children of gender revolution” (Gerson 2009), and while they enjoy
many benefits brought on by the women’s movement, they still have to deal with
persistent gender inequalities, which continue affect their motherhood experiences and
adjustment to parenthood.
Although in the past twenty years women have achieved higher levels of
education than men, and the labor participation of mothers with young children has
grown, the wage gap between men and women, and in particular between men and
women with children, has remained relatively large. High levels of divorce and resulting
changes in the family structure have also contributed to women’s focus on self-reliance
and flexible gender arrangements (Gerson 2009). Despite mothers’ increased
participation in the labor force and fathers’ increased involvement with children
(Coltrane 1996; Doucet 2006), mothers continue to bear more responsibility for parenting
and child care than fathers (Bianchi et al. 2000). Furthermore, the economic turmoil at
the end of the first decade of the 21st century affected families with high and chronic
unemployment and led to restructuring of industries where men predominated. This will
likely put even more demands for mothers to be employed. Although part-time work
might be preferred by employers as a less costly hiring option, other family-friendly
policies will likely be lagging in the near future.
311
At the same time, intensive child raising strategies have only become more childfocused and intensive, and middle-class parents will continue to be deeply involved in
their children’s growth, development, and education (Lareau 2003). It is likely that the
weakened position of the U.S. in a global economy following the economic recession will
increase the pressure on parents to raise children well-prepared to succeed in the
competitive world of the 21st century. Intensive mothering thus becomes extended
beyond infancy and pre-school years through adolescence, with “helicopter parents”
taking care of their children’s well-being even in college. These new patterns of parenting
potentially re-create conditions for maternal ambivalence not only among new mothers
but also among mothers with older children.
Although the maternal ambivalence measures analyzed in this project encompass
some of the conditions of mothering faced by the new generation of mothers, future
research should explore other possible areas of contradictions and conflict, which might
contribute to feelings of maternal ambivalence. One such area may be the conflict
between mothers’ attempts at equal parenting and egalitarian relationships and the
inflexibility of their partners and social institutions in accommodating domestic equality.
In her study of young adults at the beginning of the 21st century, Gerson (2009) found
that while most women hoped for egalitarian relationships, they often found them hard to
achieve and created “gendered fallback positions”. As a result, some sought autonomy if
they could not achieve gender equality. The gendered character of motherhood and the
return to traditional gender arrangements after the couple become parents (Rossi 1968;
Cowan and Cowan 1992; Walzer 1998; Gerson 2009, Fox 2009) thus represent additional
potential sources of maternal ambivalence not explored in this study.
312
Future research should also examine whether the areas of maternal ambivalence
examined here and defined to a large extent according to the themes identified in the
motherhood memoirs are indeed forms of ambivalence among mothers of other social
categories. While this research identified areas of similarities and differences among
mothers of various social backgrounds, it did not explore, for example, issues related to
parenting beliefs, economic distress, the availability and quality of child care and their
relationship to maternal ambivalence. Future research focused on the experience of
maternal ambivalence among minority mothers and low income and poor mothers should
elaborate whether the ambivalence dimensions identified in this project have the same
meanings across different communities and whether some groups experience forms of
ambivalence unique to them.
CONCLUSION: A CASE FOR AMBIVALENCE
Maternal Ambivalence in a Social Context
While most motherhood memoirs and advice books are written with the goal of
uncovering the mask of motherhood and presenting the true motherhood experience to
new generations of mothers, new mothers repeatedly voice surprise about the nature of
their motherhood experiences. I contend that some of the reasons for this lack of
awareness are rooted in the isolated character of the modern nuclear family and in the
focus on individualism in current American society. Therefore, young mothers often lack
the knowledge that comes from observing other women – sisters, cousins, and neighbors
- as they made the transition to motherhood. Further, disregarding the experiences of their
313
own mothers, whom they believe lived under very different social circumstances, modern
women expect their own motherhood experiences will be both distinct and better.
Society’s idealized images of motherhood and the cultural emphasis on the joys of
motherhood dominate popular culture and do not prepare women for the demands of
motherhood. I suggest that most women tend to overlook or diminish the negative and
conflicted accounts of motherhood as something they can escape. Although memoir
writers anticipate this attitude and warn their readers that “it can happen to you!”, this
warning is not heeded until women become mothers and seek out these accounts as a
form of reassurance that they themselves are the not the problem (Rossi 1968).
Given the availability of reproductive technology, women who become mothers
are assumed to have chosen to do so, even though their choice occurs in a society with
normative expectations that every woman will become a mother. This adds to the
pressure to enjoy motherhood and contributes to the apprehension about one’s maternal
ambivalence. Unlike other life-course transitions and adjustments to major life events such as marriage, children leaving the home (empty nest syndrome), retirement, or
moving - the transition to motherhood is loaded with positive normative expectations,
setting up the conditions for disappointment and ambivalence.
The American cultural emphasis on the power of an individual to overcome
obstacles and shape one’s own life regardless of social circumstances and expectations
contributes to the view that in contrast to the dominant depictions of motherhood as
joyful, the conflicted maternal experience is deviant and unusual. Indeed, experiencing
conflicting feelings and ambivalence about motherhood is understood as a personal
problem, one that can be overcome individually, rather than as an attitude shaped by
314
mothers’ social structural positions and cultural expectations. The perspective applied in
this research suggests and results confirm that we need to understand maternal
ambivalence as a social issue rather than a personal trouble.
How do mothers deal with maternal ambivalence? While the cross-sectional
character of my research does not allow me to make comparisons about the level of
maternal ambivalence at different times or its increase or decrease depending on
changing position, the analysis of the motherhood memoirs suggests that maternal
ambivalence is not a permanent state. The authors of the maternal narratives point out
strategies they used to adjust to conflicting social expectations. As their transition to
motherhood progresses, the conflict between their identities and roles becomes less
pronounced. It is unclear, however, whether their ambivalent attitudes decreased or
persisted, or simply became less problematic.
Ambivalence arises from contradictions, which can result either in persistent
conflict or resolution (by choosing one of the sides). The existence of chronic
ambivalence would suggest that people can live long term with inconsistent beliefs and
feelings. However, as different dimensions of maternal ambivalence are positively
correlated with maternal depression and parenting stress, it can signal that for some
mothers maternal ambivalence represents a problematic outcome, which needs to be dealt
with. Pathways identified in this research as reducing maternal ambivalence, such as
social support, quality of the partner relationship, and employment status can play a role
in mothers’ effective approach to decreasing ambivalence. However, given the endurance
of conflicting social expectations and identity conflicts faced by contemporary mothers,
the likelihood of the presence of ambivalent attitudes about motherhood should be
315
anticipated and understood as a normal reaction to the multivalent social context of
mothering.
Ambivalence as a Sociological Concept
The overall findings of this analysis confirm my understanding of maternal
ambivalence as a socially based phenomenon. I identify both possible areas of conflicting
expectations and norms, which may result in maternal ambivalence, and social structural
factors, which affect it. I show that motherhood experience provides conditions for the
existence of conflicting experiences and mothers as social actors do not necessarily tilt
toward either positive or negative attitudes, but can experience both simultaneously.
Although our language and syntax encourage us to express ideas and think in terms of
“either-or” rather than “both-and”, the consideration of both positive and negative aspects
simultaneously provides a useful approach for sociologists. Applying the concept of
ambivalence to multivalent social experiences and conflicting social norms can help
sociologists to capture the complexity of social life and provide a more valid
representation of social reality than the standard dichotomous view.
In this project, I expand the use of the concept of ambivalence in contemporary
sociology beyond its current use, not just by focusing on the conflicting circumstances of
early mothering, but also by understanding ambivalence as the presence of mixed
attitudes toward a social institution. Sociologists already study, for example, the
coexistence of positive and negative effects on social networks, exchanges, and
relationships on well-being (see e.g. Rook 1998; Newsome et al. 2005), ambivalence
between adult children and their parents (intergenerational ambivalence), ambivalence
316
specific to grandparenting relationships (Mason, May and Clarke 2007) or ambivalence
in the actions of a state (Cunningham 2009). There are few, however, who explore
ambivalent relationship of social actors toward social institutions.
Although mothering is characterized by relationships of dependency and care,
which are conditions conducive to ambivalent attitudes (Smelser 1998), instead of
primarily examining interpersonal relationships as is common in the studies of
intergenerational ambivalence, I understand maternal ambivalence as the presence of
mothers’ mixed attitudes about their experiences and relationship toward motherhood as
a social institution. I contend that individuals, in this case mothers, experience
ambivalence when their attempts to exercise agency conflict with structured
arrangements and normative expectations on mothers, which regulate their behaviors and
choices (Willson et al. 2006:236). For example, women who pursue or want to pursue
their own interests or careers after they become mothers often encounter disapproval
when they do not devote themselves to their children as the ideology of intensive
mothering prescribes. Similarly, mothers overwhelmed by the care of their child can feel
inadequate as mothers when faced with the myth of women’s natural ability to mother
and bond with their babies.
My research also shows that ambivalence is useful in the study of periods of
transitions (Coser 1966; Pillemer and Luescher 2004). Transitions are prone to the
production of ambivalence because of the heightened sensitivity of social actors to the
social expectations defining their new roles and identities. Besides motherhood, there are
other transitory periods or states, which can be explored with the use of the ambivalence
concept, for example political elections or individual’s retirement. Even the end of a
317
relationship through divorce or breakup or a death in the family, though predominantly
sad events, can sometimes signal more positive consequences such as relief from abuse in
the first case or pain and caregiving responsibilities in the latter. My project thus provides
a model for studying these issues with the focus on ambivalence inherent in the transitory
periods.
Most importantly, the concept of ambivalence in sociological research can help
scholars to avoid the shortcomings of a singular or univalent focus and instead enable
them to explore social life with more validity and complexity. Combining positive and
negative aspects of social experience and attitudes into one measure, the notion of
ambivalence yields a more nuanced and intricate perspective on social reality, a
perspective which is overlooked when social scientists try to capture it using
unidimensional measures. As a result, all too often empirical work avoids this complexity
instead of seeking ways to capture it. For instance, survey research and interviews often
disregard the “don’t know” category and the “neither agree nor disagree” responses,
which promise to complicate the uniform categorical responses they are designed to
produce. In doing so, social scientists ignore the possibility that respondents choosing
such response might actually hold opposing attitudes. Considerations of both positive and
negative aspects of social experiences can thus provide a useful approach for sociology
and the concept of ambivalence can open up an understanding of the complexities of
social life, which have so far been overlooked.
My research opens up this field of inquiry and my application of the concept of
ambivalence in the sociology of motherhood provides a nuanced example of how this
concept can affect sociological debate. By including contradictions and multivalent
318
attitudes in our analysis of social reality our understanding of social world becomes
richer and more complex. My findings show that mothers are not just happy or depressed
but hold a combination of positive and negative attitudes about motherhood
simultaneously along different dimensions of mothering. And while motherhood may
represent a unique area of a study of ambivalence because of its highly normative
positive nature, the ambivalence concept can in a similar way be applied to the study of
any phenomena that are multivalent and contain contradictory traits and expectations
toward social actors. Focus on multivalent experience resulting from the contradictory
expectations can thus provide a fresh perspective and understanding of the relationship
between social actors and social institutions.
319
Table 7.1. Summary of the statistical significance and direction of the effects of the
predictors of ambivalence outcomes based on the multivariate regression analyses
Ambivalence outcome
Good at
Mothering
Identity
Attachment
Combining
Work and
Family
BASELINE MODELS: Social structural characteristics (with demographic controls only)
Analysis 1 – Composite SES and race variables
White middle class mothers (dichotomy)
N/S


Analysis 2 – Individual SES and race indicators


Race (being black)
N/S
Household income

N/S
N/S
Education (compared to college and higher)
HS or less
N/S
N/S
N/S
Some college
N/S


FULLY ADJUSTED MODELS: Social structural characteristics with controls and mediators
Analysis 1 – Composite SES and race variables
White middle class mothers (dichotomy)
N/S


Analysis 2 – Individual SES and race indicators


Race (being black)
N/S
Household income
N/S

N/S
Education (compared to college and higher)
HS or less
N/S

N/S


Some college
N/S
Other IVs in Analysis 2 (individual SES and race indicators) net of other variables
Motherhood experience
Child’s birth order (1st child)

N/S
N/S
Baby’s temperament average or worse than



average (compared to better than average)
Baby’s health good/poor or fair (compared to
N/S
N/S
N/S
excellent)
Mother’s health good/poor or fair (compared to

N/S
N/S
excellent)
Employment (compared to non-employed)
Working part-time

N/S
N/S
Working full-time


N/S
Satisfaction with work and family arrangements
N/S
N/S
N/S
Relationship resources
Social support



Partner relationship - conflict
N/S
N/S
N/S
Partner relationship – intimacy
N/S
N/S
N/S
Personality – Neuroticism scale



VARIANCE EXPLAINED by the fully adjusted
model (adjusted R2 from Analysis 2)
28.7%
15.8%
5.8%
Notes:   - relationship significant at p<.05 level,  - lowers outcome,  - increases outcome;
N/S – non-significant, N/A – not applicable.
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S



N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A


N/S
N/S


19.8%
320
APPENDIX A
Treatment of Missing Data
Starting with the complete sample of 1,364 respondents included in the NICHD
SECC data set, I applied several filters to define the cases with valid values on all
dependent and independent variables in order to create the analytic sample used in all
analyses. I use the sub-sample of mothers employed at 6-month wave in the analysis of
ambivalence about combining work and family. These filters and sample size reduction
following the application of these filters are presented in Table A.1.
After applying the first three filters, I identified missing values on any of the
independent variables included in the analysis. Table A.2 presents the overview of
independent variables and describes handling of the missing values for each variable with
missing data. Remaining variables (race, education, age, school status, first-time
motherhood, social support, baby health, mother health) had valid data for all cases.
Table A.1. Filters applied to original NICHD SECC data set in the process of creating
the analytic sample
Main Filters:
1) Only respondents participating in the 6 month wave are included
2) Only respondents with valid data on instruments used to construct dependent
variables (Parenting Stress Index, Separation Anxiety Index, and Combining
Work Family Scale)
3) Only Black and White non-Hispanic respondents are included (Main sample)
4) The sub-sample of employed mothers for Ambivalence about combining work
and family (Work-family sample)
5) The main analytic sample after missing data excluded (23 cases)
6) The work-family sample after missing data excluded from (12 cases)
Valid N after
filter
1,279
1,274
1,183
740
1,160
728
321
Table A.2. Overview of the independent variables with missing values and their handling
in the NICHD SECC data. (6-months, N=1,183)
Variable
(Time of collection)
Occupation (before baby)
Total household income
(6 months)
Marital status
(6 months)
Employment status
(6 months)
Satisfaction with work and
family arrangements
(6 months)
Quality of intimate
relationships
(1 month)
Mother's evaluation of
child's temperament
(6 months)
Main sample N
(Being good at mothering,
Identity, Attachment
ambivalence)
Work-family N
(Combining work and
family ambivalence;
employed mothers only)
Number
Approach to missing data
of
missing
cases
204 Only mothers working during the past 12 months answered
the question about the occupation status. Non-working
mothers were coded as missing. I created a new occupation
status variable, in which mothers not-employed in the past 12
months are coded as non-working (MOCC3 for 3 categories
– managerial/professional; other job; non-working). 192
mothers were coded as non-working. For the remaining
missing data, based on the reported occupation at 6 months, I
imputed the same occupation values for 2 respondents. 10
cases were left with missing values and I excluded them
from the analytic sample.
8 I was able to impute data for 3 cases based on their pre-baby
and 1-month reported total family income; I excluded the
other 5 cases.
3 Based on the response about marital status at 1 month and
questions about presence of father and partner at home at, I
recoded these cases as “single.”
2 Based on the answers to other employment related questions
and comparison of employment at 1 month with reported
income at 1 and 6 months, I imputed values for the two
missing cases as working part-time.
1 I imputed the missing value based on several characteristics
of the respondent – race (white), occupation category
(administrative), hours worked (40). I calculated the mean
for the variable for this-defined sub-sample and substituted
the missing value with this value.
76 Because the majority of missing cases are respondents
without a partner, excluding all these cases would introduce a
bias to the data. I impute the sample mean for the missing
cases and created a dummy variable for these cases that is
included in the analysis.
8 I excluded these 8 cases from the analytic sample.
1,160
728
23 cases excluded from the analysis (1.9% out of 1,183). I
found no statistical differences between the cases excluded
from the analysis and the rest of the sample on race, income,
age, education, marital status, and employment status (ttests).
12 cases excluded from the analysis (1.6% out of 740)
322
APPENDIX B
Overview of the Independent Variables and Their Coding
Indicator
(time of
measurement)
Race (01)
Education (00)
School status
(00)
Income (06)
Occupation
(00)
Operational description
Variable name and
dummy variables
Values
Race dichotomized – black
and white non-Hispanics
Education in years split into 3
categories
RACE_BW
0 – White
1 – Black
HS or less;
some college;
complete college
or more
Mother enrolled in school
before the baby is born
Total household income
(natural log transformation)
Occupational status before
child birth measured in 13
categories; split into 3
categories
Age (01)
Mother’s age at 1 month of
the baby measured in years;
split into 3 categories
Marital status
(06)
Marital status at 6 months
recoded into 3 categories
Child’s birth
order (01)
Number of children mother
has – dichotomized as firsttime and repeat mothers
Self-evaluation of own health
in 4 categories (fair and poor
collapsed), dummy variables
Mother’s
health (06)
Baby’s health
(06)
Mother’s evaluation of
child’s health in 4 categories
(fair and poor collapsed),
dummy variables
MEDUC3cat
Dummy variables:
MED3HS
MED3_1315d
MED3_colleged
MSCHSM00
0 – no
1 – yes
LnTINC06
MOCC3
Dummy variables:
OCC_MANAG
OCC_JOBOTHER
OCC_NOWORK
MAGE_01
Dummy variables:
AGE3YOUNG
AGE3MIDDLE
AGE3OLD
MSTAT306im
Dummy variables:
MARRIED_DUMMY306
COHAB_DUMMY306
SINGLE_DUMMY306
CBORD2cat
Dummy variables:
HLTMEXC06d
HLMGOOD06d
HLMPOOR06d
Dummy variables:
HLBEXCd06
HLBGOODd06
HLBPOORd06
Managerial/
professional;
other jobs; nonworking
Young (18-25);
Average (26-34);
Older (35+)
Married,
Cohabitating,
Single/Divorced/
Widow
0 – more than 1
child
1 – 1 child only
1 – poor or fair
2 – good
3 – excellent
1 – poor or fair
2 – good
3 – excellent
323
Indicator
(time of
measurement)
Child’s
temperament
(06)
Operational description
Variable name and
dummy variables
Values
Mother’s evaluation of baby’s
temperament – more difficult
than average; average; better
than average – dichotomized
GTEMP06DICH
Employment
status (06)
Employment status based on
total number of hours worked
per week: stay-at-home mom
(no work outside of home);
part-time work (1-34 hours);
full-time work (35 and more)
Scale of mother’s satisfaction
with the decision to combine
work and family
EMST3im
Dummy variables:
SAHM_d
PTwork_d
FTwork_d
0 – less difficult
than average
1 – average or
more difficult
than average
Stay-at-home;
Part-time work;
Full-time work
Composite scale of 11 items
(Relationships with Others
questionnaire)
Quality of marital or partner
relationship – intimacy scale;
dummy variable for missing
values (no answer, not single)
Quality of marital or partner
relationship - conflict scale;
dummy variable for missing
values (no answer, not single)
Neuroticism scale from NEO
Personality Inventory
SOCSPM06
Satisfaction
with work and
family
arrangement*
(06)
Social
support*(06)
Quality of
intimate
relationship –
intimacy* (01)
Quality of
intimate
relationship –
conflict* (01)
Personality
traits* (06)
SATWMM06
1 – very
dissatisfied
2 – dissatisfied
3 –mixed feelings
4 – satisfied
5 – very satisfied
1 – lowest
6 – highest
LRINTM01im (with
imputed values)
MISSINT
1 – lowest
7 – highest
LRCONM01im (with
imputed values)
MISSCON
1 – lowest
7 – highest
NEURTM06_01 (with
imputed values)
1 – strongly
disagree through
5 – strongly agree
Notes: Categories in italics are the reference categories.
* All continuous variables are entered into analysis in the standardized form (z-score) based on
the analytical sample size.
324
APPENDIX C
Complete Wording of the Instruments Measuring Independent Variables 1
SOCIAL SUPPORT SCALE
During the past month, how much of the time have you felt:
1- None of the time
2- A little of the time
3- Some of the time
4- A good bit of the time
5- Most of the time
6- All of the time
1. The people I care about make me feel that they care about me.
2. The people important to me accept me as I am.
3. I enjoy the time I spend with the people who are important to me.
4. The people I care about seem interested in how I'm doing.
5. The people I care about come through for me when I need them.
6. When something is on my mind, just talking with the people I know can make me feel
better.
7. The people who are important to me encourage me when I feel discouraged or down.
8. I enjoy talking about everyday kinds of things with the people I care about.
9. The people I know are good sources of useful information when I need it.
10. The people I care about help me out.
11. When I need someone to help me out, I can usually find someone.
1
Exact wording based on the NICHD SECC documentation.
325
QUALITY OF INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS SCALE
Love and Relationships - Intimacy
The next set of items are about your relationship with your spouse or partner. Now,
please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please think
about how your relationship is right now.
1- Strongly disagree
2- Somewhat disagree
3- Neutral
4- Somewhat agree
5- Strongly agree
(R) = item reversed
1. My (spouse/partner) listens to me when I need someone to talk to.
2. I can state my feelings without (him/her) getting defensive.
3. I often feel distant from my (spouse/partner). (R)
4. My (spouse/partner) can really understand my hurts and joys.
5. I feel neglected at times by my (spouse/partner). (R)
6. I sometimes feel lonely when we're together. (R)
Love and Relationships - Conflict
The following questions ask about certain aspects of your relationship with your spouse
or partner. Please answer these questions for the present time in your relationship by
filling in the number that best characterizes your relations with your spouse or partner.
Measured on a scale 1 - Not at all / Very little to 7 - Very much
1. How often do you and your partner argue with one another?
2. To what extent do you try to change things about your partner that bother you (e.g.,
behaviors, attitudes, etc.)?
3. How often do you feel angry or resentful toward your partner?
4. When you and your partner argue, how serious are the problems or arguments?
5. To what extent do you communicate negative feelings toward your partner (e.g., anger,
dissatisfaction, frustration, etc.)?
326
PERSONALITY NEUROTICISM SCALE
Carefully read all of the instructions before beginning. Read each statement carefully.
For each statement fill in the box with the response that best represents your opinion.
Make sure that your answer is in the correct box.
SD - strongly disagree or the statement is definitely false
D - disagree or the statement is mostly false
N - neutral on the statement, cannot decide, or the statement is about equally true and
false
A - agree or the statement is mostly true
SA - strongly agree or the statement is definitely true.)
(R) = item reversed
1. I am not a worrier. (R)
2. I often feel inferior to others.
3. When I'm under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I'm going to pieces.
4. I rarely feel lonely or blue. (R)
5. I often feel tense and jittery.
6. Sometimes I feel completely worthless.
7. I rarely feel fearful or anxious. (R)
8. I often get angry at the way people treat me.
9. Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up.
10. I am seldom sad or depressed. (R)
11. I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems.
12. At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide.
327
APPENDIX D
Descriptions and Distributions of the Original Instruments
Measuring Parenting Experiences
To create measures of maternal ambivalence, I use instruments included in the
NICHD SECC data set. I identified Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Parenting Stress
Index, and Combining Work and Family Scale as instruments including indicators
potentially appropriate for the construction of new ambivalence measures. These
previously tested instruments were originally meant to measure other aspects of parenting
experiences, attitudes about motherhood, mothers’ relationship with their children, and
compared strains and gains of maternal employment. I describe the exploratory factor
analysis (separately for each instrument) and set up of the new ambivalence scales in
Chapter 4. Here I describe the original purpose and psychometric characteristics of these
instruments based on the Phase I Instrument Documentation to NICHD Study of Early
Child Care provided by Research Triangle International and Child Care Data Reports
available with the data set (CCDR 4, 9, 15).
MATERNAL SEPARATION ANXIETY SCALE
Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale is an instrument developed by Hock and
colleagues (1983) to measure mother’s “level of worry, sadness, and guilt when separated
from her infant; her beliefs about the importance of exclusive maternal care; her beliefs
328
that her child prefers her care and is better off in her care; and her beliefs about her
child’s abilities to adapt to non-maternal care” (DeMeis, Hock, and McBride 1986:628).
When originally used and tested, the instrument had Cronbach’s reliability alpha of .71
and seven week test-retest reliability was r = .71 (Hock et al. 1987). The instrument
consists of 21 items, which were all used in the NICHD SECC data collection. This
instrument, under the heading Parental Care, was repeatedly part of the Home Interview
with the mothers. Respondents filled out answers privately, without the interviewer
reading the questions and recording the answers. The responses to the items on this scale
are measured using 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5). The mean of the scale at 1 month was 70.17 and at six months 66.38,
suggesting a decrease in maternal separation anxiety with the increasing age of the child.
The data shows high internal reliability of the overall scale; at one month Cronbach’s
alpha was .925, at six months .928.
PARENTING STRESS INDEX
This instrument consists of a subset of 25 statements from the original Abidin
Parenting Stress Index (Abidin 1983), intended to measure parental feelings about
parenting and difficulties associated with caring for their child. The complete instrument
is listed in Table D.2. It was used in the SECC survey at one and six months of the focal
child and was presented to mothers as a form asking about their parenting experiences.
The mothers responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Table D.2 also provides distributions and means for all the items using
the 6-month data from the analytic sample.
329
While the instrument does not use all the items from the Abidin’s original index,
it follows its original setup that created 3 subscales (Sense of competence, Restriction of
Role, and Attachment). In the NICHD SECC six month data sample, the internal
consistency index Cronbach’s alpha is quite high for parenting competence (.755) and
role restriction (.735) and somewhat lower for attachment (.525), with the overall scale
Cronbach’s alpha of .823. According to the NICHD data report (CCDR 15), these values
are consistent with other uses of this instrument although the factor structure was
somewhat different from the structure suggested by Abidin and adjustments to the factor
structure are suggested. As described in Chapter 4, I create subscales of positive and
negative parenting experiences following these recommendations as well as specific
needs of the ambivalence measurement (i.e. separating positive and negative items rather
than reversing them and excluding items based on the face validity that do not directly
pertain to current parenting experiences of respondents).
COMBINING WORK AND FAMILY
This measure was developed by Marshall and Barnett (1993) to evaluate strains
associated with combining work and family. In the NICHD SECC it is used to assess
several aspects of mother's job stress and her evaluation of strains and benefits of
working outside of home. It was included in the six-month interview with the mothers.
This measure consists of 21 items, which are listed along with their distributions in Table
D.3. The responses are coded on the four-point Likert scale from not at all true (1) to
330
very true (4). Only mothers working full-time or part-time have valid data on this
instrument.
The instrument is divided into 13 items measuring strains associated with
combining work (items 1-13) and 8 items measuring benefits associated with combining
work and family (items 14-21). This instrument is also used to specifically assess hometo-work spillover (items 7,6,9,10,11) and work-to-home spillover (items 1,2,3,4,5,6).
Overall scale score comparing work-family strains and work-family gains is computed as
a sum of the mean of items on the "strains" subscale and the inverse of the mean of the
"gains" subscale (Work-family Strains + (-Work-Family Gains)). Since each averaged
scale can range from 1 to 4, the resulting scale can theoretically range from -3 to 3, with
higher scores representing higher levels of work-related parental strain. The mean for the
6-month NICHD SECC sample for the composite scale was -.89, indicating balance
between work-related gains and strains (CCDR 15). The overall scale achieves relatively
high internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha .768, the “gains” subscale .880 and the
“strains” subscale .876.
Table D.1. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Six-Month Interview (N=1,160)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Mean (SD)
1. I miss holding or cuddling my child when I am away from him/her.
2. My child is happier with me than with babysitters or teachers.
3. Children will be afraid in a new place without their mother.
4. When away from my child, I often wonder if his/her physical needs (dry
diapers, enough to eat, etc.) are being met.
5. Holding and cuddling my child makes me feel so good that I really miss
the physical closeness when I'm away.
6. I am more concerned with my child's physical safety than a babysitter or
teacher.
7. It will be difficult for my child to adjust to someone else taking care of
him/her.
8. When I am away from my child, I feel lonely and miss him/her a great
deal.
9. Only a mother just naturally knows how to comfort her distressed child.
10. A child is likely to get upset when he/she is left with a babysitter.
11. I like to have my child close to me most of the time.
12. I am naturally better at keeping my child safe than any other person.
.8
2.2
7.8
14.4
2.4
12.9
31.4
25.0
12.2
27.3
40.6
21.2
35.9
29.2
14.4
20.7
48.8
28.3
5.8
18.8
4.29 (.830)
3.68 (1.084)
2.79 (.979)
3.05 (1.334)
.4
5.2
19.2
33.0
42.2
4.11 (.920)
6.4
22.7
25.1
23.4
22.4
3.33 (1.227)
11.0
44.2
29.1
10.8
4.9
2.54 (.990)
2.5
20.5
28.8
27.3
20.9
3.44 (1.107)
7.7
7.3
0.7
5.4
34.3
41.5
6.6
31.2
28.8
36.2
29.7
28.8
17.7
11.7
39.9
19.8
11.6
3.2
23.1
14.7
2.91 (1.132)
2.62 (.900)
3.78 (.899)
3.07 (1.146)
13. I believe that my child misses me when I have to let someone else take
care of him/her for a while.
14. I don't like to leave my child.
15. My child prefers to be with me more than with anyone else.
16. My child is afraid and sad when he/she is not with me.
17. When I am separated from my child, I wonder whether he/she is crying
and missing me.
18. I don't enjoy myself when I'm away from my child.
19. I worry that my child is never completely comfortable in an unfamiliar
setting if I am not with him/her.
20. I worry when someone else cares for my child.
21. When away from my child, I worry about whether or not the babysitter is
able to soothe and comfort my child if he/she is lonely or upset.
1.2
13.1
37.8
33.6
14.2
3.47 (.932)
1.2
1.9
11.8
6.4
13.8
21.6
62.7
26.1
34.7
34.8
17.1
34.2
29.1
25.8
6.0
21.6
21.2
15.9
2.4
11.7
3.55 (1.010)
3.32 (1.041)
2.21 (.829)
3.06 (1.095)
18.1
8.6
55.3
42.9
19.5
28.7
4.4
13.6
2.7
6.1
2.18 (.872)
2.66 (1.019)
6.1
5.3
32.0
26.7
36.6
34.5
17.3
20.9
8.0
12.6
2.89 (1.024)
3.09 (1.088)
Item
331
Table D.2. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Parenting Stress Index, Six-Month Interview (N=1,160)
Item
1. When my baby came home from the hospital, I had doubtful feelings about
my ability to handle being a parent.
2. Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be.
3. I feel capable and on top of things when I am caring for my baby. *
4. I need help with making decisions.
5. I have had many more problems caring for my baby than I expected.
6. I enjoy being a parent. *
7. I feel that I am successful most of the time when I try to get my baby to do
or not do something. *
8. Since I brought this baby home from the hospital, I find that I am not able
to take care of this baby as well as I thought I could. I need help.
9. I often have the feeling that I cannot handle things very well.
10. It takes a long time for parents to develop close, warm feelings for their
babies.
11. I expected to have closer and warmer feelings for my baby than I do and
this bothers me.
12. Sometimes my baby does things that bother me just to be mean.
13. When I was young I never felt comfortable holding or taking care of
babies.
14. My baby knows I am his or her parent and wants me more than other
people.*
15. The number of children I have now is too many.
16. Most of my life is spent doing things for my baby.
17. I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my baby's needs than I
ever expected.
18. I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent.
19. I often feel that my baby's needs control my life.
20. Since having this child, I have been unable to do new and different things.
21. Since having a baby I feel that I am almost never able to do things that I
like to do.
22. It is hard to find a place in our home where I can go to be by myself.
Strongly
disagree
39.7
Disagree
Not sure
Agree
19.2
Strongly
agree
2.5
32.6
6.0
2.12 (1.199)
13.0
.8
42.2
36.9
.3
.3
41.0
1.2
47.2
51.1
.2
2.8
7.9
4.3
4.1
4.5
.4
6.1
31.1
64.1
5.0
7.0
21.9
62.7
7.1
29.6
1.6
.5
77.1
28.1
2.78 (1.216)
1.79** (.644)
1.77 (.865)
1.83 (.844)
1.25** (.496)
1.84** (.675)
54.5
39.2
2.5
3.4
.4
1.56 (.742)
37.6
57.1
47.8
34.4
7.3
4.1
6.4
2.9
.9
1.4
1.85 (.872)
1.57 (.819)
70.9
25.0
2.1
1.6
.4
1.36 (.649)
80.9
37.2
15.0
35.3
2.5
8.4
1.1
14.6
.4
4.5
1.25 (.598)
2.14 (1.193)
.7
5.9
9.7
54.5
29.2
1.94 (.827)**
53.5
3.2
10.1
38.7
29.7
48.0
4.5
9.2
10.3
2.5
48.7
26.4
.9
9.2
5.2
1.59 (.766)
3.31(1.089)
2.69 (1.121)
36.7
13.7
14.1
16.6
47.8
42.8
47.8
59.0
8.4
12.7
9.2
10.8
6.0
28.8
25.9
12.6
.9
2.1
3.0
1.1
1.87 (.872)
2.63 (1.100)
2.56 (1.108)
2.23 (.909)
13.5
41.6
3.7
31.6
9.6
2.82 (1.275)
Mean (SD)
332
Table D.2. Continued.
Item
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Not sure
Agree
Strongly
agree
23. When I think about myself as a parent I believe:
I can handle
anything that
happens.
I can handle
most things
pretty well.
I have some
doubts about
being able to
handle things.
I don't think I
handle things
very well at
all.
Mean (SD)
22.4
A very good parent.
.7
A person who has
some trouble
being a parent.
.5
0.0
Not very good
at being a
parent.
0.0
2.01 (.686)
48.4
55.1
A better than
average
parent.
36.6
Sometimes I have
doubts, but find
that I handle most
things without any
problems.
21.8
An average
parent.
Very easy
Easy
Somewhat
difficult.
It is very hard.
34.2
61.0
4.3
.3
I usually can't
figure out what
the problem is.
.1
24. I feel that I am:
25. How easy is it for you to understand what your
child wants or needs?
14.6
Mean (SD)
1.67 (.737)
1.71 (.569)
Notes:
* Items need to be reverse-coded.
** For comparison purposes, I calculate means on the reverse-coded items, so that higher number indicates more stress.
333
Table D.3. Frequency Distributions and Means of Combining Work and Family Instrument, Six-Month Interview (N=742)
Item
1. Your working creates strains for your children.
2. Working leaves you with too little time to be the kind of parent you want to be.
3. Working causes you to miss out on some of the rewarding aspects of being a parent.
4. Working leaves you with too little energy to be the kind of parent you want to be.
5. Because of the requirements of your job, you have to miss out on home or family
activities that you would prefer to participate in.
6. Because of the requirements of your job, your family time is less enjoyable and more
pressured.
7. Thinking about your children interferes with your performance at work.
8. Because of your family responsibilities, you have to turn down work activities or
opportunities that you would prefer to take on.
9. Because of your family responsibilities, the time you spend working is less enjoyable
and more pressured.
10. When you spend time working, you're bothered by all the things at home that you
should be doing.
11. During the time set aside for work, you feel resentful because you'd really rather be
spending time with your family.
12. In general, how often do you feel pulled apart from having to juggle conflicting
obligations?
13. How often do things add up to being just too much?
14. Working helps you to better appreciate the time you spend with your children.
15. Working makes you feel good about yourself, which is good for your children.
16. The fact that you're working makes you a better parent.
Having both work and family responsibilities:
17. Makes you a more well-rounded person.
18. Gives your life more variety.
19. Challenges you to be the best you can be.
20. Means you manage your time better.
21. Managing work and family responsibilities as well as you do makes you feel competent.
Not at all
true
40.8
34.0
27.4
34.8
49.6
Somewhat
true
46.0
42.2
40.3
42.5
30.3
Fairly true
9.7
14.2
16.3
13.9
13.5
Completely
true
3.5
9.7
16.0
8.8
6.6
1.76 (.767)
2.00 (.933)
2.21 (1.018)
1.97 (.915)
1.77 (.918)
56.4
30.1
9.2
4.3
1.61 (.825)
71.6
60.8
23.4
28.0
3.8
8.9
1.2
2.3
1.35 (.613)
1.53 (.752)
61.5
28.2
7.0
3.4
1.52 (.770)
47.8
40.6
8.1
3.5
1.67 (.770)
40.8
39.4
11.2
8.6
1.88 (.922)
Never
11.7
Occasionally
65.5
Often
16.6
Very Often
6.2
2.17 (.709)
10.1
Not at all
true
8.6
4.7
41.8
74.5
Somewhat
true
38.5
28.4
33.1
12.0
Fairly true
2.09 (.591)
23.5
32.2
17.0
3.4
Completely
true
29.4
34.6
8.1
9.8
5.3
7.1
12.4
6.7
38.4
31.8
28.3
27.2
27.9
28.6
31.1
32.9
31.8
41.4
23.2
31.8
31.7
28.6
23.9
2.65 (.943)
2.89 (.915)
2.89 (.935)
2.77 (1.000)
2.82 (.871)
Mean (SD)
2.74 (.978)
2.97 (.905)
1.91(.952)
334
335
APPENDIX E
Typology of Ambivalence:
An Alternative Approach to Ambivalence Measurement
In Chapter 4 I describe the method of constructing ambivalence scales based on
Griffin’s formula comparing similarity and intensity of the positive and negative
components (Thompson et al. 1995). This method results in a continuous variable ranging
from 0 (indicating no ambivalence) to 6 (indicating high ambivalence). As this is the
most commonly used approach in other sociological studies of ambivalence, I use it to
create measures in analyzed in my research. However, in the process of creating these
ambivalence measures, I also tested categorical approach to measuring ambivalence,
which I present here.
Similar to the computation of the continuous ambivalence scale, the alternative
method of creating ambivalence uses the same positive and negative subscales
comprising four dimensions of maternal ambivalence. Instead of computing scores that
fall on the continuous scale, the average positive and negative responses to the items on a
particular scale are combined them into a categorical typology. The positive and negative
scales are divided into equal parts (halves, thirds, or quarters) and for each ambivalence
dimension respondents’ position on the positive scale is compared to the position on the
negative scale. Based on this division, the respondents are split into four types:
indifferent, negative, positive and ambivalent. Mothers, who score high both on positive
and negative parenting experiences scales are considered ambivalent, mothers, who score
336
high on positive dimension but low on negative dimension as mostly positive, and those
who are high on the negative and low on the positive subscale as mostly negative. I
classify mothers, who score low on both negative and positive parenting experience
measures as indifferent about motherhood.
To test this type of ambivalence measure, I use both the division of the sample by
median and tertiles, and recode the positive and negative subscales into new variables
with low and high categories for the median split or low, medium and high categories for
the tertiary division. These two options and the actual data distributions based on these
divisions are represented in the tables below. Table E.1 presents the categorization of the
positive and negative subscales into two categories and the distributions of the data along
the four ambivalence dimensions using this categorization are presented in Table E.2.
Tables E.3 and E.4 then represent theoretical categories and actual data distribution,
when the tertiary division is used.
The data distributions of the two types of categorical divisions show different
results for the proportions of mothers across the four dimensions of ambivalence.
According to the categorization based on the median splits of the positive and negative
scales, 26.4% of the respondents are ambivalent about motherhood identity, which is the
highest proportion of ambivalent respondents among the four dimensions. This is
followed by 24% of respondents ambivalent along the attachment dimension, 17.8% on
the combining work and family ambivalence dimension, and 16.2% on the competence
dimension. Interestingly, the dimensions with the higher proportion of ambivalent
respondents also have the highest proportions of respondents who experience indifference
along these dimensions—i.e. respondents who combine weak negative and weak positive
337
attitudes. Respondents classified as ambivalent comprise the minority category on all four
ambivalence dimensions.
The categorization based on the split of the positive and negative subscales based
on the sample tertiles shows almost equal proportion of ambivalent mothers on all four
ambivalence dimensions ranging between 17% for ambivalence about combining work
and family and 20.3% for ambivalence about being a good at mothering. Using either
type of classification thus shows that about one-fifth of mothers are ambivalent about
motherhood on any one ambivalence dimension.
The categorization method of identifying ambivalent, positive, negative and
indifferent attitudes is quite intuitive, yet, there are at least two problems associated with
this method. First, since the individual’s locations on the positive and negative
dimensions are determined by the distributions of the sample, which is skewed toward the
positive side, they represent relative rather than absolute locations of the respondent
dependent on the distribution of the sample. This causes some interpretation difficulties
regarding the meaning of the categories. For example, the median for the positive
experience on the being good at mothering subscale is 4.284. That means that a mother
who scores less than 4.284 on the 5-point scale is considered to be “low” on this
dimension and a mother scoring for example 4.3 is considered “high” on this scale. The
median for the negative competence dimension is 2.04. A mother who scores 2.5 on this
dimension would thus be considered “high” on the negative subscale although her
absolute score would position her in the “low” end of the scale. If she also scored on the
“high” end of the positive scale, she would be classified as “ambivalent” although her
actual scores would suggest she is positive about being good at mothering.
338
Second, using the median or tertile split artificially introduces a sharp cut point
and categorizes respondents who may be very close in absolute values as very different.
This is often an issue when dichotomous rather than continuous variables are used. While
using dichotomous variables has its advantages, for example, when the measure is meant
to distinguish between the presence and absence of an outcome, “creating dichotomies
from continuous data restricts the amount information available to researchers” (Horwitz
2002:145).
Continuous measures are then a more appropriate way of assessing stressful
consequences of social arrangements (Kessler 2002; Horwitz 2002:146). While both
categorical and continuous measures of ambivalence provide information about the
occurrence of maternal ambivalence in the population, using the continuous variables
allows us to compare increases or decreases in the level of ambivalence among different
social groups. Compared to a typology, I thus contend that measuring ambivalence along
the continuous scale represents a more suitable depiction of ambivalence for the purposes
of this project, when the effects of social structure on ambivalence are considered.
339
Table E.1. Conceptual model of the categorical ambivalence measure, split by sample
median
Positive Parenting Experiences
Low
High
Negative Parenting
Low
INDIFFERENT
POSITIVE
Experiences
High
NEGATIVE
AMBIVALENT
Note: Negative and Positive Parenting Scales are identical with the positive and negative scales defined in
Chapter 4 (Table 4.6). Low and high categories are based on the split of the data sample according to the
sample median.
Table E.2. Proportions of mothers in the sample according to the ambivalence categories,
split by sample median
Ambivalence
Being good at
mothering
Identity
Attachment
Combing work
and family
Negative
27.6%
27.2%
27.1%
25.3%
Indifferent
16.6%
25.0%
28.6%
24.5%
Ambivalent
16.2%
26.4%
24.0%
17.8%
Positive
39.7%
21.5%
20.3%
32.3%
Note: Negative and Positive Parenting Scales are identical with the positive and negative scales defined in
Chapter 4 (Table 4.6). Sample medians that define “low/high” on each scale are as follows (positive;
negative scale): Being good at mothering – 4.28; 2.04; Identity – 3.85;2.58; Attachment – 2.79; 1.40;
Combining work and family – 2.70; 1.92.
340
Table E.3. Conceptual model of categorical ambivalence measure, split by sample
tertiles
Positive Parenting Experiences
Bottom third (Low)
Middle third
Top third (High)
(Medium)
Negative
Parenting
Experiences
Bottom third (Low)
INDIFFERENT
Middle third
(Medium)
NEGATIVE
AMBIVALENT
Top third (High)
POSITIVE
AMBIVALENT
Note: Negative and Positive Parenting Scales are identical with the positive and negative scales defined in
Chapter 4 (Table 4.6). Low, medium, and high categories are based on the split of the data sample
according to the sample thirds (33%, 67%).
Table E.4. Proportions of mothers in the sample according to ambivalence categories,
split by sample tertiles
Ambivalence
Being good at
mothering
Identity
Attachment
Combing work
and family
Negative
32.4%
32.2%
24.8%
34.4%
Indifferent
2.9%
13.6%
21.4%
10.6%
Ambivalent
20.3%
18.6%
18.3%
17.0%
Positive
44.4%
35.5%
35.5%
38.0%
Note: Negative and Positive Parenting Scales are identical with the positive and negative scales defined in
Chapter 4 (Table 4.6). Sample tertiles (33%/67%) that define “low/medium/high” on each scale are as
follows (positive; negative scale): Being good at mothering – 4.67/4.50;1.80/2.40; Identity –
3.40/4.20;2.29/2.86; Attachment – 2.33/3.00; 1.00/1.67; Combining work and family – 2.38/3.00;
1.50/2.67.
341
APPENDIX F
Approximate Distributions of the Sample on the Positive and Negative Subscales
Measuring Parenting Experiences
The data in Tables F.1, F.2, F.3 and F.4 represent the approximate distributions of
the sample along the positive and negative scales of parenting experience used to create
measures of maternal ambivalence. The full wording of the items comprising these scales
is listed in Table 4.6. In order to create these tables, the average scores on the scales were
rounded to the closest whole number. Mothers, who hold both strong positive and strong
negative attitudes, are considered ambivalent about motherhood. In the tables below,
these positions are indicated with a bold font. Due to a rounding error, the sums in these
fields differ from the proportions of ambivalent mothers reported in Table 4.7, however,
the cross-tabulation helps us visualize how the ambivalence occurs as a coexistence of
positive and negative attitudes.
342
Table F.1. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising
ambivalence about being good at mothering (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N=
1,160)
Positive Component
Negative
Component
1
2
3
4
5
1
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
84 (7.2)
185 (15.9)
2
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (0.3)
416 (35.9)
223 (19.2)
3
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
5 (0.4)
184 (15.9)
32 (2.8)
4
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (0.2)
19 (1.6)
4 (0.3)
5
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
Notes: The positive and negative scales reach from 1 to 5 and represent an average score for the items on
the scale. To make the presentation of the results possible in this format, the crosstabulations are based on
rounded values of the average scores for the positive and negative scales.
The fields indicated in BOLD represent locations of ambivalence. According to the formula comparing the
positive and negative components, the ambivalence score at these fields is equal or larger than 3.5.
Table F.2. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising the
identity ambivalence (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N= 1,160)
Positive Component
Negative
Component
1
1
2
3
4
5
0 (0)
4 (0.3)
15 (1.3)
26 (2.2)
13 (1.1)
2
1 (0.1)
24 (2.1)
148 (12.8)
198 (17.1)
110 (9.5)
3
0 (0)
18 (1.6)
144 (12.4)
237 (20.4)
111 (9.6)
4
0 (0)
4 (0.3)
27 (2.3)
50 (4.3)
26 (2.2)
5
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
2 (0.2)
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
Notes: The positive and negative scales reach from 1 to 5 and represent an average score for the items on
the scale. To make the presentation of the results possible in this format, the crosstabulations are based on
rounded values of the average scores for the positive and negative scales.
The fields indicated in BOLD represent locations of ambivalence. According to the formula comparing the
positive and negative components, the ambivalence score at these fields is equal or larger than 3.5.
343
Table F.3. Approximate distributions of positive and negative components comprising
the attachment ambivalence (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N= 1,160)
Positive Component
Negative
Component
1
1
2
3
4
5
42 (3.6)
294 (25.3)
322 (27.8)
103 (8.9)
19 (1.6)
2
9 (0.8)
114 (9.8)
146 (12.6)
61 (5.3)
8 (0.7)
3
0 (0)
8 (0.7)
14 (1.2)
14 (1.2)
0 (0)
4
0 (0)
2 (0.2)
2 (0.2)
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
5
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
Notes: The positive and negative scales reach from 1 to 5 and represent an average for the items on the
scale. To make the presentation of the results possible in this format, the crosstabulations are based on
rounded values of the average scores for the positive and negative scales.
The fields indicated in BOLD represent locations of ambivalence. According to the formula comparing the
positive and negative components, the ambivalence score at these fields is equal or larger than 3.5.
Table F.4. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising the
ambivalence about combining work and family (rounded frequencies and (%) of total,
N=728)
Positive Component
Negative
Component
1
1
2
3
4
4 (0.5)
13 (1.8)
4 (0.5)
3 (0.4)
2
50 (6.9)
125 (17.2)
51 (7.0)
21 (2.9)
3
97 (13.3)
174 (23.9)
49 (6.7)
6 (0.8)
4
64 (8.8)
54 (7.4)
10 (1.4)
3 (.4)
Notes: The positive and negative scales reach from 1 to 4 and represent an average for the items on the
scale. To make the presentation of the results possible in this format, the crosstabulations are based on
rounded values of the average scores for the positive and negative scales.
The fields indicated in BOLD represent locations of ambivalence. According to the formula comparing the
positive and negative components, the ambivalence score at these fields is equal or larger than 2.5.
344
APPENDIX G
Results of the OLS Regression of Parenting Stress and Maternal Depression on
Social Structural Variables and their Covariates
Tables G.1 and G.2 contain the results of the regression analyses of the parenting
stress index (PSI) and maternal depression using the same predictors used to predict
maternal ambivalence outcomes. This allows me to compare maternal ambivalence
dimensions with univalent instruments assessing the mothering experience (PSI and
depression) and quantify how they differ among mothers belonging to different racial and
socioeconomic groups. Both maternal depression and PSI were measured at the 6-month
interview and I entered the standardized version (z-score) of these measures in the
regression analysis. The independent variables in the baseline and fully adjusted models
are identical to those in the models predicting maternal ambivalence outcomes.
The fully adjusted models explain about 33% of the variance in the parenting
stress index and almost 48% of the variance in maternal depression, compared to between
6% and 28% of the variance explained in the ambivalence outcomes. I suggest that lower
explained variance in the ambivalence measures is a result of the definition of
ambivalence used and the conceptual and methodological combination of opposing
experiences, which may produce less robust results than one-dimensional instruments.
In the fully adjusted models with the composite class and race variable white
middle-class mothers experience more parenting stress than other women. Although this
relationship was not significant in the baseline model, it becomes statistically significant
345
when motherhood experience, employment status, social support and personality
characteristics are accounted for. This means that socially disadvantaged mothers actually
experience less parenting stress than white middle-class mothers with the same
motherhood experiences, employment, level of social support and personality
characteristics.
In the model with disaggregated social structural characteristics, only the
mothers’ educational attainment is a significant predictor of parenting stress among class
and race predictors. Attaining some college education as compared to a completed
college degree is significantly associated with lower parenting stress net of other
variables. Among other social characteristics, both part-time and full-time employment
reduce mothers’ parenting stress. A higher level of general social support and close
relationship with a partner also significantly predict decreases in parenting stress. On the
other hand, being a first-time mother or having a child with a difficult or average
temperament, which are defined in my research as potential mothering strains, are
associated with significant increases in mothers’ parenting stress net of other variables
included in the models.
Maternal depression is not significantly associated with social structural
characteristics in either of the fully adjusted models. In these models, being a single
mother (Table G.1) or cohabitating with a partner (Table G.2) predict a higher depression
scores net of other variables. Mothers who evaluate their health as fair or poor compared
to mothers with excellent health are also likely to experience more depression. In
contrast, mothers’ part-time and full-time employment and higher perceived social
346
support predict statistically significantly lower depression scores. These results are thus
in line with existing research on maternal depression during early mothering years.
A comparison of these results to ambivalence scales provides evidence that
studying maternal ambivalence offers a different perspective on the motherhood
experience and that the experience of ambivalence is to a certain extent shaped by factors
different from those affecting parenting stress and depression.
347
Table G.1. OLS regression models predicting Parenting Stress (PSI) and Maternal
Depression at 6-month using the ambivalence analytic models with composite social
structural variable (unstandardized coefficients, z-scores, N=1,160)
Parenting Stress
Model 1
Model 2
Maternal Depression
Model 1
Model 2
Constant
+
-0.084
(0.049)
-0.084
(0.068)
-0.144**
(0.047)
-0.043
(0.060)
White middle-class mothers (race,
income, education) (Yes=1)
0.040
(0.072)
0.156*
(0.061)
-0.135
(0.070)
+
0.005
(0.054)
18 – 25
0.191*
(0.075)
-0.018
(0.064)
0.231**
(0.072)
0.026
(0.057)
35+
-0.072
(0.087)
-0.083
(0.073)
0.047
(0.084)
-0.007
(0.064)
Cohabitating
0.052
(0.111)
-0.254**
(0.094)
0.379***
(0.108)
0.138
(0.083)
Single
0.206*
(0.092)
-0.018
(0.078)
0.472***
(0.090)
0.268***
(0.068)
-0.046
(0.080)
-0.093
(0.067)
0.036
(0.078)
0.022
(0.059)
Control variables
a
Age
Marital statusb
Mother in-school pre-birth (yes=1)
Motherhood experience
First-time mother (Yes=1)
0.150**
(0.052)
-0.049
(0.046)
0.284***
(0.052)
0.000
(0.046)
Good
0.056
(0.054)
0.064
(0.048)
Fair or poor
-0.052
(0.079)
0.085
(0.07)
Good
0.103+
(0.056)
0.046
(0.049)
Fair or poor
0.124
(0.085)
0.288***
(0.075)
Part-time
-0.180**
(0.064)
-0.142*
(0.057)
Full-time
-0.288***
(0.059)
-0.138**
(0.052)
-0.023
(0.026)
-0.078**
(0.023)
Baby's temperament average or
worsec
Baby's healthd
d
Mother's health
Employment status
e
Employment
Mother’s satisfaction with work
and family arrangements (z-score)
348
Table G.1. Continued.
Parenting Stress
Model 1
Model 2
Maternal Depression
Model 1
Model 2
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
-0.134***
(0.028)
-0.192***
(0.025)
Love relationship - Intimacy (zscore)
-0.071*
(0.031)
-0.017
(0.027)
Love relationship - Conflict (zscore)
0.04
(0.029)
0.059*
(0.026)
Missing values on love scales/not
single
0.795**
(0.297)
0.236
(0.262)
0.388***
(0.029)
0.459***
(0.025)
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
0.012
0.328
0.070
0.475
3.317**
29.255***
15.641***
53.526***
Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married, c Baby's temperament
d
e
easier than average, Excellent health, Stay-at-home. Parenting Stress Index measured
using the full PSI; maternal depression measured using CES-D instrument.
Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
349
Table G.2. OLS regression models predicting Parenting Stress (PSI) and Maternal
Depression at 6-month using the ambivalence analytic models (unstandardized
coefficients, z-scores, N=1,160)
Parenting Stress
Maternal
Depression
Model 1
Model 2
1.677**
0.113
(0.512)
(0.412)
Model 1
1.540**
(0.529)
Model 2
-0.485
(0.468)
-0.090
(0.097)
-0.040
(0.082)
0.092
(0.094)
0.165*
(0.072)
-0.143**
(0.048)
0.049
(0.043)
-0.176***
(0.046)
-0.016
(0.038)
HS degree or lower
-0.002
(0.091)
-0.102
(0.078)
0.113
(0.088)
-0.030
(0.069)
Some post-secondary
-0.144+
(0.074)
-0.139*
(0.064)
0.061
(0.072)
0.019
(0.056)
18 – 25
0.100
(0.080)
0.003
(0.068)
0.119
(0.077)
0.014
(0.060)
35+
-0.058
(0.087)
-0.088
(0.073)
0.069
(0.084)
0.000
(0.064)
Cohabitating
-0.011
(0.113)
-0.236
(0.096)
0.281*
(0.110)
0.114*
(0.084)
Single
0.07
(0.109)
0.040
(0.092)
0.243*
(0.105)
0.200
(0.081)
-0.041
(0.081)
-0.079
(0.068)
0.012
(0.079)
0.002
(0.060)
Constant
a
Race (Black=1)
Household income (ln)
b
Education
Control variables
Agec
Marital status
d
Mother in-school pre-birth
(yes=1)
Motherhood experience
First-time mother (Yes=1)
0.143**
(0.052)
-0.039
(0.046)
0.288***
(0.052)
-0.007
(0.046)
Good
0.058
(0.054)
0.065
(0.048)
Fair or poor
-0.054
(0.079)
0.089
(0.070)
Good
0.107+
(0.056)
0.043
(0.049)
Fair or poor
0.129
(0.086)
0.290***
(0.075)
Baby's temperament
e
average or worse
Baby's healthf
Mother's healthf
350
Table G.2. Continued.
Parenting Stress
Model 1
Model 2
Maternal
Depression
Model 1
Model 2
Employment status
g
Employment
Part-time
-0.190**
(0.065)
-0.131*
(0.058)
Full-time
-0.305***
(0.064)
-0.128*
(0.056)
-0.027
(0.026)
-0.074**
(0.023)
-0.132***
(0.028)
-0.193***
(0.025)
Love relationship Intimacy (z-score)
-0.074*
(0.031)
-0.016
(0.027)
Love relationship Conflict (z-score)
0.039
(0.030)
0.056*
(0.026)
Missing values on love
scales/not single
0.800**
(0.297)
0.264
(0.262)
0.389***
(0.029)
0.464***
(0.026)
Mother’s satisfaction with
work and family
arrangements (z-score)
Relationship resources
Social support (z-score)
Personality
Neuroticism (z-score)
Adj R2
F
0.023
0.327
0.084
0.477
3.971***
25.476***
12.802***
46.945***
Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a White, b College degree or some post, c
d
e
graduate education 26 - 34 years old, Married, Baby's temperament easier
f
g
than average, Excellent health, Stay-at-home. Parenting Stress Index
measured using the full PSI; Maternal depression measured using CES-D
instrument.
+
Statistical significance levels p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
351
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abma, Joyce C. and Gladys M. Martinez. 2006. “Childlessness Among Older Women in
the United States: Trends and Profiles.” Journal of Marriage and Family 68(4):10451056.
Abidin, Richard R. 1983. Parenting Stress Index Manual. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric
Psychology.
Abidin, Richard R. 1986. “Commentary on the National Conference on Clinical Child
Training.” Clinical Psychologist 39:15.
Akerstrom, Malin. 2006. “Doing Ambivalence: Embracing Policy Innovation—At Arm’s
Length.” Social Problems 53(1):57-74.
Alvarez, Michael R. and John Brehm. 1995. “American Ambivalence Towards Abortion
Policy: development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.”
American Journal of Political Science 39(4):1055-1082.
Anderson, Deborah J., Melissa Binder, and Kate Krause. 2003. “The Motherhood Wage
Penalty Revisited: Experience, Heterogeneity, Work Effort, and Work-Schedule
Flexibility.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56(2): 273-294.
Arendel, Terry. 2000. “Conceiving and Investigating Motherhood: The Decade’s
Scholarship.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (Nov.):1192-1207.
Ashworth, Trisha and Amy Nobile. 2007. I Was a Really Good Mom Before I Had Kids:
Reinventing Modern Motherhood. Chronicle Books.
Bassin, Donna, Margaret Honey, and Meryle Mahrer Kaplan (editors). 1994.
Representations of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1991. Modernity and Ambivalence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Beck, Cheryl Tatano. 2001. “Predictors of Postpartum Depression.” Nursing Research
50(5):275-285.
Belkin, Lisa. 2002. Life’s work: Confessions of an Unbalanced Mom. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Belkin, Lisa. 2003. “The Opt-Out Revolution.” New York Times Magazine, October 26.
Bellavia, Gina M and Michael R. Frone. 2005.”Work-Family Conflict.” Pp. 113-148 in
Handbook of Work Stress, edited by Julian Barling, E. Kevin Kelloway and Michael
R. Frone. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Belsky, Jay. 1984. “The Determinants of Parenting: A Process Model.” Child
Development 55: 83-96.
Belsky, Jay, M. Lang and M. Rovine. 1985. “Stability and Change in Marriage Across
the Transition to Motherhood.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:855-865.
Belsky, Jay, K. Crnic and S. Woodworth. 1995. “Personality and Parenting: Exploring
the Mediating Role of Transient Mood and Daily Hassles.” Journal of Personality 63:
905-929.
352
Benoit, Cecilia, Rachel Westfall, Adrienne E. B. Treloar, Rachel Phillips, and S. Mickael
Jackson. 2007. “Social Factors Linked to Post-partum Depression: A Mixed Methods
Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Mental Health 16(6):719-730.
Bianchi, Suzanne M., Melissa A. Milkie, Liana C. Sayer, and John P. Robinson. 2000. “Is
Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.”
Social Forces 79:191-228.
Bianchi, Suzanne M. and Melissa A. Milkie. 2010. “Work and Family Research in the
First Decade of the 21 st Century.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (June):705725.
Blair-Loy, Mary. 2003. Competing Devotions. Career and Family among Women
Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blair-Loy, Mary and Gretchen DeHart. 2003. "Family and Career Trajectories among
African American Female Attorneys.” Journal of Family Issues 24:908-933.
Blum, Linda M. and Theresa Deussen. 1996. “Negotiating Independent Motherhood:
Working Class African American Women Talk about Marriage and Motherhood.”
Gender and Society 10: 199-211.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bobel, Chris. 2002. The Paradox of Natural Mothering. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Bowlby, John. 1988. A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory.
London: Routledge.
Braiker, Harriet and Harold H. Kelley. 1979. “Conflict in the Development of Close
Relationships.” In Social Exchange and Developing Relationships, edited by Robert
L. Burgess and Ted L. Huston. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Breckler, Steven J. 1994. “A Comparison of Numerical Indexes for Measuring Attitude
Ambivalence.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 54:350-365.
Brockenbrough, Martha. 2002. It Could Happen to You! Diary of a Pregnancy and
Beyond. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing.
Brown, Ivana. 2006. “Mommy Memoirs: Feminism, Gender and Motherhood in Popular
Literature.” Journal of the Association for the Research on Mothering 8:200-212.
Bruckner, Hannah, Anne Martin, and Peter S. Bearmann. 2004. “Ambivalence and
Pregnancy: Adolescents’ Attitudes, Contraceptive Use and Pregnancy.” Perspectives
on Sexual and Reproductive Health 36(6):248-257.
Buchanan, Andrea J. 2003. Mother Shock. Loving Every (Other) Minute of It.
Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.
Budig, Michelle and Paula England. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.”
American Sociological Review 66:204-25.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009a. Employment Characteristics of Families 2008. News.
U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed May 18, 2010.
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf
353
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009b. “Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity,
2008.” Current Population Survey. Accessed May 18, 2010 from
www.bls.gov/cps/race_ethnicity_2008_families.htm
Burris, Beverly. 1991. “Employed Mothers: The Impact of Class and Marital Status on
the Prioritizing of Family and Work.” Social Science Quarterly 72(1):50-66.
Burton, Linda M., Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Victor Ray, Rose Buckelew, and Elizabeth
Hordge Freeman. 2010. “Critical Race Theories, Colorism, and the Decade’s
Research on Families of Color.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (June): 440-459.
Buskens, Petra. 2004. “The Impossibility of “Natural Parenting” for Modern Mothers: On
Social Structure and the Formation of Habitat.” Pp. 98-110 in Mother Matters:
Motherhood as a Discourse and Practice, edited by Andrea O’Reilly. Toronto:
Association for Research on Mothering.
Buss, Helen. 2002. Repossessing the World: Reading Memoirs by Contemporary
Women. Life Writing Series. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Byron, Kristin. 2005. “A Meta-analytic Review of Work-Family Conflict and its
Antecedents.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 67:169-198.
CDC National Center for Health Statistics. 2007. Teen Birth Rate Rises for First Time in
14 Years. Released December 5, 2007. Accessed January 15, 2008 at
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/2007/r071205.htm
Cacioppo, John T., Wendi L. Gardner, and Gary G. Berntson. 1997. “Beyond Bipolar
Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space.”
Personality and Social Psychology Review 1(1):3-25.
Cairney, John, Michael Boyle, David R. Offord, and Yvonne Racine. 2003. “Stress,
Social Support and Depression in Single and Married Mothers.” Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38:442-449.
Cheever, Susan. 2001. As Good As I Could Be. New York: Washington Square Press.
Cherlin, Andrew, Caitlin Cross-Barnet, Linda M. Burton, and Raymond Garrett-Peters.
2008. Promises They Can Keep: Low Income Women’s Attitude Toward
Motherhood, Marriage, and Divorce.” Journal of Marriage and Family 70
(November): 919-933.
Chodorow, Nancy J. 2003. ““Too Late”: Ambivalence about Motherhood, Choice, and
Time.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 51 (4):1181-1198.
Cohen, Sheldon and Thomas Ashby Wills. 1985. “Stress, Social Support and the
Buffering Hypothesis.” Psychological Bulletin 98:310-357.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1993. “The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black
Mother-Daughter Relationships.” Pp. 42-60 in Double Stitch: Black Women Write
About Mothers and Daughters, edited by Patricia Bell-Scott. New York:
HarperPerennial.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.
Coltrane, Scott. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework and Gender Equality. New
York: Oxford University Press.
354
Scott Coltrane and Randall Collins. 2001. Sociology of Marriage and the Family:
Gender, Love, and Property (Fifth Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and McMullin, Julie Ann. 2002. “Sociological Ambivalence and
Family Ties: A Critical Perspective.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (Aug): 558567.
Conger, Rand D., Katherine J. Conger and Monica J. Martin. 2010. “Socioeconomic
Status, Family Processes, and Individual Development.” Journal of Marriage and
Family 72 (June):685-704.
Cooper, Camille Wilson and Shuntay Z. McCoy. 2009. “Poverty and African American
Mothers: Countering Biased Ideologies, Representations and Politics of
Containment.” Journal of the Association for the Research on Mothering 11(2): 4555.
Copeland, Debra and Bonnie Lee Harbaugh. 2005. “Differences in Parenting Stress
between Married and Single First Time Mothers at Six to Eight Weeks after Birth.”
Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 28:139-152.
Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a
Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112 (5):1297-1338.
Coser, Rose L. 1966. “Role Distance, Sociological Ambivalence, and Transitional Status
System.” American Journal of Sociology 72: 173-187.
Costa, Paul and Robert McCrae. 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa,
Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Costa, Paul and Robert McCrae. 1989. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa,
Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cowan, Carolyn and Phillip Cowan.1992.When Partners Become Parents: The Big Life
Changes for Couples. New York: Basic Books.
Cox, J.L., Holden, J.M., and Sagovsky, R. 1987. “Detection of Postnatal Depression:
Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.” The British
Journal of Psychiatry 150:782-786.
Crews, Allison. 2001. “When I was Garbage.” Pp. 31- 77 in Breeder: Real-Life Stories
from the New Generation of Mothers, edited by Ariel Gore and Bee Lavender.
Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Crittenden, Anne. 2001. The Price of Motherhood. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Crnic, Keith and Marcela Avecedo. 1995. “Everyday Stresses and Parenting.” Pp. 277297 in Handbook of Parenting, edited by Marc H. Bornstein. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Crnic, Keith A., Catherin Gaze, and Casey Hoffman. 2005. “Cumulative Parenting Stress
across the Preschool Period: Relations to Maternal Parenting and Child Behavior at
Age 5.” Infant and Child Development 14: 117-132.
Cunningham, David. 2009. "Ambivalence and Control: State Action against the Civil
Rights-Era Ku Klux Klan." Qualitative Sociology 32:355-78.
Cusk, Rachel. 2001. A Life’s Work. On Becoming a Mother. New York: Picador USA.
Daly, Brenda O. and Maureen T. Reddy (editors). 1991. Narrating Mothers: Theorizing
Maternal Subjectivities. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.
355
Day, June. 2001. “Movements.” Pp. 86-91 in Breeder: Real-Life Stories from the New
Generation of Mothers, edited by Ariel Gore and Bee Lavender. Seattle, WA: Seal
Press.
Deater-Deckard, Kirby and Sandra Scarr. 1996. “Parenting Stress Among Dual-Earner
Mothers and Fathers: Are There Gender Differences?” Journal of Family Psychology
10: 45-59.
DeMeis, Debra K., Ellen Hock, and Susan L. McBride. 1986. “The Balance of
Employment and Motherhood: Longitudinal Study of Mothers’ Feelings about
Separation from their First-Born Infants.” Developmental Psychology 22: 627-632.
Dever, Maryanne and Lise Saugeres. 2004. I Forgot to Have Children! Untangling Links
Between Feminism, Careers and Voluntary Childlessness. Journal of the Association
of the Research for Mothering 6(2): 116-126.
DiQuinzio, Patrice. 1999. The Impossibility of Motherhood: Feminism, Individualism,
and the Problem of Mothering. New York: Routledge.
Doucet, Andrea. 2006. Do Men Mother? Fathering, Care, and Domestic Responsibility.
Toronto: University of Toronto.
Douglas, Susan J. and Meredith W. Michaels. 2004. The Mommy Myth. The Idealization
of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. New York: Free Press.
Downs, Barbara. 2003. Fertility of American Women: June 2002. Current Population
Reports, October 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved January 15,
2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf.
Drake, Monica Jansen. 2006. “Ambivalence at the Academies: Attitudes toward Women
in the Military at the Federal Service Academies.” Social Thought and Research
27:43-68.
Duncan, Simon. 2005. “Mothering, Class and Rationality.” The Sociological Review
53(1): 50-76.
Dye, Jane Lawler. 2005. Fertility of American Women: June 2004. Current Population
Reports, December 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved January
15, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-555.pdf .
Edin, Kathryn and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises I Can Keep. Why Poor Women Put
Motherhood before Marriage. University of California Press.
Edin, Kathryn and Rebecca Joyce Kissane. 2010. “Poverty and the American Family.”
Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (June):460-479.
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische. 1998. “What is Agency?” American Journal of
Sociology 103:962-1023.
Elgar, Karen and Andrea Chester. 2007. “The Mental Health Implications of Maternal
Employment: Working versus At-Home Mothering Identities.” Australian e-Journal
for the Advancement of Mental Health 6(1):
www.auseinet.com/journal/vol6iss1/elgar.pdf
Evenson, Ranae J. and Robin W. Simon. 2005. “Clarifying the Relationship Between
Parenthood and Depression.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46 (Dec):341358.
356
Eyer, Dianne E. 1992. Mother-Infant Bonding: A Scientific Fiction. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Il.: Row, Peterson.
Fingerman, Karen L., Elizabeth L. Hay, and Kira S. Birditt. 2004. “The Best of Ties, the
Worst of Ties: Close, Problematic, and Ambivalent Social Relationships.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 66:792-808.
Flanagan, Caitlin. 2003. “Housewife Confidential: A tribute to the old-fashioned
housewife, and to Erma Bombeck, her champion and guide,” The Atlantic Monthly
(September 2003). Accessed July 2, 2010 from www.theatlantic.com/
past/docs/issues/2003/09/flanagan.htm
Fong, Christina T. and Larissa Z. Tiedens. 2002. “Dueling Experiences and Dual
Ambivalences: Emotional and Motivational Ambivalence of Women in High Status
Positions.” Motivation and Emotion 26(1):105-121.
Fox, Bonnie. 2009. When Couples Become Parents: The Creation of Gender in the
Transition to Motherhood. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
Fox, Faulkner. 2003. Dispatches From a Not-So-Perfect Life or How I Learned To Love
the House, the Man, the Child. New York: Harmony Books.
Freud, Sigmund. ([1923]1961). “The Ego and the Id.” Pp. 3-66 in The Standard Edition
of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3), edited by J.
Strachey. London: Hogarth Press.
Garey, Anita. 1999. Weaving Work and Motherhood. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Gerson, Kathleen. 1985. Hard Choices: How Women Decide about Work, Career, and
Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gerson, Kathleen. 2009. “Changing Lives, Resistant Institutions: A New generation
Negotiates Gender, Work, and Family Change.” Sociological Forum 24 (4): 735-753.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Glembocki, Vicki. 2009. The Second Nine Months: One Woman Tells the Real Truth
about Becoming a Mom. Finally. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Gore, Ariel, and Bee Lavender, editors. 2001. Breeder. Real Life Stories from a New
Generation of Mothers. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Grzywacz Joseph G. and Nadine F. Marks. 2000. “Reconceptualizing the Work-Family
Interface: An Ecological Perspective on the Correlates of Positive and Negative
Spillover between Work and Family.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
5(1):111-126.
Grzywacz, Joseph G. and Brenda L.Bass. 2003. “Work, Family, and Mental Health:
Testing Different Models of Work-Family Fit.” Journal of Marriage and Family
65:248-261.
Ha, Jung-Hwa and Berit Ingersoll-Dayton. 2008. “The Effect of Widowhood on
Intergenerational Ambivalence.” Journal of Gerontology 63B (1): S49-S58.
Hakim, Catherine. 2000. Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
357
Hakim, Catherine. 2003. “A New Approach to Explaining Fertility Patterns: Preference
Theory.” Population and Development Review 29 (3):349-374.
Halbreich Uriel and Sundhya Karkun 2006. “Cross-Cultural and Social Diversity of
Prevalence of Postpartum Depression and Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of
Affective Disorders 91(2-3): 97-111.
Hamilton, Brady E., Joyce A. Martin and Stephanie J. Ventura. 2009. Births: Preliminary
Data for 2007. National Vital Statistics Report, Web release, Volume 57 (12).
Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed Aug 15, 2010 from
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_12.pdf
Han, Wen Jui, Christopher J. Ruhm, Jane Waldfogel and Elizabeth Washbrook 2008.
“The Timing of Mothers’ Employment After Childbirth.” Monthly Labor Review
June:15–27. Accessed on May 17, 2010, www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/06/art2full.pdf.
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: The Public Identity of the Welfare
Queen. New York: New York University Press.
Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Hays, Sharon. 2003. Flat Broke with Children. Oxford University Press.
Heider, Fritz. 1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.” Journal of Psychology
21:107-112.
Heider, Fritz. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Wiley.
Hess, Christine Reiner, Mia A. Papas, and Maureen M. Black. 2002. “Resilience Among
African American Adolescent Mothers: Predictors of Positive Parenting in Early
Infancy.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 27(7): 619-629.
Hewett, Heather. 2006. “You Are Not Alone: The Personal, the Political, and the “New”
Mommy Lit,” Pp. 119-139 in Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction, edited by
Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young. New York: Routledge.
Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. 2007. Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the
Road to Success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Higgins, Tory E. 1987. “Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect.”
Psychological Review 94 (3):319-340.
Hochschild, Arlie with Anne Mannung. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the
Revolution at Home. New York: Academic Press.
Hock, E., D. DeMeis, and S.L. McBride. 1987. “Maternal Separation Anxiety: Its Role in
the balance of Employment and Motherhood in Mothers of Infants.” In Maternal
Employment and Children’s Development: Longitudinal Research, edited by A.
Gottfried and A. Gottfried. New York: Plenum.
Hock, E., Gnezda M. T. and S. McBride. 1983. “The Measurement of Maternal
Separation Anxiety.” Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Detroit, MI.
Hollway, Wendy and Brid Featherstone. 1997. Mothering and Ambivalence. London:
Routledge.
hooks, bell. 1984. From the Margin to the Centre. Boston, Mass.: South End Press.
358
Horn, Sundae. 2003. “The More Things Change… Revisiting the First Wave of Mother
Lit.” Brain, Child Magazine (Summer). Accessed August 22, 2010 from:
www.brainchildmag.com/essays/summer2003_horn1.htm
Horwitz, Allan V., Helene R. White, and Sandra Howell-White. 1996. “The Use of
Multiple Outcomes in Stress Research: A Case Study of Gender Differences in
Responses to Marital Dissolution.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 37:278291.
Horwitz, Allan V. 2002. “Outcomes in the Sociology of Mental Health and Illness:
Where have We Been and Where are We Going?” Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 43:143-151.
House, James S., Debra Umberson and Karl Landis. 1988. “Structures and Processes of
Social Support.” Annual Review of Sociology 14:293-318.
Jackson, Aurora P. 2000. “Maternal Self-Efficacy and Children’s Influence on Stress and
Parenting Among Single Black Mothers in Poverty.” Journal of Family Issues 21:316.
Jackson, Aurora P., Phyllis Gyamfi, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Mandy Blake. 1998.
“Employment Status, Psychological Well-Being, Social Support, and Physical
Discipline Practices of Single Black Mothers.” Journal of Marriage and Family
60(4): 894-902.
Johnston, Deirdre D. and Debra H. Swanson. 2003a. “Undermining Mothers: A Content
Analysis of Representations of Mothers in Magazines.” Mass Communication and
Society 6:243-265.
Johnston, Deirdre D. and Debra H. Swanson. 2003b. “Invisible Mothers: A Content
Analysis of Motherhood Ideologies and Myths in Magazines.” Sex Roles 49(1/2):2133.
Johnston, Deirdre D. and Debra H. Swanson. 2004. “Moms Hating Moms: The
Internalization of Mother War Rhetoric.” Sex Roles 51(9/10):497-509.
Johnston, Deirdre D. and Debra H. Swanson. 2006. “Constructing the “Good Mother”:
The Experience of Mothering Ideologies by Work Status.” Sex Roles 54:509-519.
James, William. ([1890] 1948). Psychology. New York: World.
Kaplan, Kalman J. 1972. “On the Ambivalence-Indifference Problem in Attitude Theory
and Measurement: A Suggested Modification of the Semantic Differential
Technique.” Psychological Bulletin 77:361-372.
Kennedy, Sheela and Larry Bumpass. 2008. “Cohabitation and Children’s Living
Arrangements: New Estimates from the united States.” Demographic Research
19:1663-1692.
Kendall-Tackett, Kathleen A. 2005. Depression in New Mothers. Causes, Consequences
and Treatment Alternatives. The Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.
Kessler, Ronald C. and Jane D. McLeod. 1985. “Social Support and Mental Health in
Community Samples.” Pp. 219-240 in Social Support and Health, ed. by S. Cohen
and S. L. Syme. New York: Academic.
Kessler, Ronald. 2002. “The Categorical versus Dimensional Assessment Controversy in
the Sociology of Mental Illness.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43:171-188.
359
Kiecolt, K. Jill and Laura E. Nathan. 1985. Secondary Analysis of Survey Data. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Klein Modisett, Dani. 2010. Afterbirth: Stories You Won't Read in a Parenting Magazine.
St. Martin's Griffin.
Kluwer, Esther S. and Matthew D. Johnson. 2007. “Conflict Frequency and Relationship
Quality Across the Transition to Parenthood.” Journal of Marriage and Family
69:1089-1106.
Kluwer, Esther S. 2010. “From Partnership to Parenthood: A Review of Marital Change
Across the Transition to Parenthood.” Journal of Family Theory & Review 2 (June):
105-125.
Koeske, Gary F. and Randi Daimon Koeske. 1990. “The Buffering Effect of Social
Support on Parental Stress.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 60 (3): 440–451.
Koropeckyj-Cox, Tanya and Gretchen Pendell. 2007. “The Gender Gap in Attitudes
about Childlessness in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69(4):
899-915.
Lamott, Anne. 1993. Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Landry, Bart. 2000. Black Working Wives: Pioneers of the American Family Revolution.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2008. “Introduction: Taking Stock of Class.” Pp. 3-24 in Social Class:
How Does it Work, edited by Annette Lareau and Dalton Conley. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Lareau, Annette and Dalton Conley, editors. 2008. Social Class: How Does it Work. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Larsen, Jeff T., Peter A. McGraw, and John T Cacioppo. 2001. “Can People Feel Happy
and Sad at the Same Time?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(4):684696.
Lazarre, Jane. 1976. The Mother Knot. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, Chih-Yuan S, Jared D. Anderson, Jason L. Horowitz, and Gerard J. August. 2009.
“Family Income and Parenting: The Role of Parental Depression and Social Support.”
Family Relations 58:417-430.
Lee, Min Jin. 2001. “Will.” Pp. 21- 30 in Breeder: Real-Life Stories from the New
Generation of Mothers, edited by Ariel Gore and Bee Lavender. Seattle, WA: Seal
Press.
Leibovich, Lori. 2006. Maybe Baby: 28 Writers Tell the Truth About Skepticism,
Infertility, Baby Lust, Childlessness, Ambivalence, and How They Made the Biggest
Decision of Their Lives. Harper Collins.
Lennon, Mary Clare and Sarah Rosenfield. 1994. “Relative Fairness and the Division of
Housework: The Importance of Options.” The American Journal of Sociology 100:
506-531.
360
Lettke, Frank and David M. Klein. 2004. “Methodological Issues in Assessing
Ambivalences in Intergenerational Relations”. Pp. 85-114 in Intergenerational
Ambivalences: New perspectives on Parent-Child Relations in Later Life, edited by
Karl Pillemer and Kurt Luescher. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Lin, Nan, Mary W. Woelfel and Stephen C. Light. 1985. “The Buffering Effect of Social
Support Subsequent to an Important Life Event.” Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 26 (3):247-263
Lorenz-Meyer, Dagmar. 2001. “The Politics of Ambivalence: Towards A
Conceptualisation Of Structural Ambivalence In Intergenerational Relations.” Gender
Institute New Working Paper Series, Issue 2 (February).
Lovell, Vicky. 2003. “40-hour Work Proposal Significantly Raises Mothers’
Employment Standard.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Research-in-Brief.
Retrieved January 20, 2008. www.iwpr.org/pdf/D460.pdf
Luescher, Karl. 2004. “Conceptualizing and Uncovering Intergenerational Ambivalence.”
Pp. 23-62 in Intergenerational Ambivalences: New perspectives on Parent-Child
Relations in Later Life, edited by Karl Pillemer and Kurt Luescher. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Luescher, Kurt and Pillemer, Karl 1998. “Intergenerational Ambivalence: A New
Approach to the Study of Parent-Child Relations in Later Life.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 60 (May 1998): 413-425.
Luker, Kristen.1996. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Lundquist, Jennifer Hickes, Michelle J. Budig, and Anna Curtis. 2009. “Race and
Childlessness in America.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71(3):741-755.
Lupton, Deborah. 2000. “‘A love/hate relationship’: the ideals and experiences of firsttime mothers.” Journal of Sociology 36 (1), 51-63.
Marshall, N.L. and R.C. Barnett. 1993. “Work-Family Strains and Gains among TwoEarner Couples.” Journal of Community Psychology 21:64-78.
Marshall, Nancy L. and Allison J. Tracy. 2009. “After the Baby: Work-Family Conflict
and Working Mothers’ Psychological Health.” Family Relations 58 (October): 380391.
Martin, Steven P. 2000. “Diverging Fertility among U.S. Women Who Delay
Childbearing Past Age 30.” Demography 27:523-533.
Mason, Jennifer, Vanessa May, and Lynda Clarke. 2007. “Ambivalence and the
Paradoxes of Grandparenting.” The Sociological Review 55 (4):687-706.
Mason, Mary G. 1988. “The Other Voice.” In Life/Lines: Theorizing Women’s
Autobiography, edited by Bella Brodzki and Celeste Schenck, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Mathews, T. J. and Brady E. Hamilton. 2002. “Mean Age of Mother 1970 – 2000.”
National Vital Statistics Report 51 (1). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for
Health Statistics. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_01.pdf.
361
Matthey, Stephen, Bryann Barnett, Judy Ungerer, and Brent Waters. 2000. “Paternal and
Maternal Depressed Mood during the Transition to Parenthood.” Journal of Affective
Disorders 60:75-85.
Matthey, Stephen. 2010. “Are We Overpathologising Motherhood?” Journal of Affective
Disorders 120(1):263-266.
Maushart, Susan. 1999. The Mask of Motherhood. How Becoming a Mother Changes our
Lives and Why We Never Talk about It. New York: Penguin Books.
Mayberry, Linda J., June Andrews Horowitz, and Eugene Declercq. 2007. “Depression
Symptom Prevalence and Demographic Risk Factors among U.S. Women during the
First 2 Years Postpartum.” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Obstetric Nursing
36:542-549.
McBride, Brent A., Sarah J. Schoppe, Thomas R. Rane. 2002. “Child Characteristics,
Parenting Stress, and Parental Involvement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64
(Nov): 998-1011.
McCullough, Kate. 2004. “Of Woman (but Not Man or the Nuclear Family) Born.
Motherhood outside Institutionalized Heterosexuality.” Pp. 103-124 in From
Motherhood to Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
McMahon, Martha. 1995. Engendering Motherhood. Identity and Self-Transformation in
Women’s Lives. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
McQuillan, Julia, Arthur L. Greil, Karina M. Shreffler, and Veronica Tichenor. 2008.
“The Importance of Motherhood among Women in the Contemporary United States.”
Gender & Society 22 (4):477-496.
McRae, Susan. 2003. “Constraints and Choices in Mothers' Employment Careers: A
Consideration of Hakim's Preference Theory.” The British Journal of Sociology 54
(3):317-338.
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meffert, Michael F., Michael Guge, and Milton Lodge. 2004. “Good, Bad, and
Ambivalent: The Consequences of Multidimensional Political Attitudes.” Pp. 63-92
in Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and
Change, edited by Willem E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mellor, Christie. 2004. The Three-Martini Playdate: A Practical Guide to Happy
Parenting.Chronicle Books.
Meredith, Pamela and Patricia Noller. 2003. “Attachment and Infant Difficultness in
Postnatal Depression.” Journal of Family Issues 24(5): 668-686.
Merton, Robert and Barber, Elinor. 1963. “Sociological Ambivalence”. Pp.91-120 in
Sociological Theory: Values and Sociocultural Change, edited by E. Tirayakian. New
York: Free Press.
Merton, Robert. 1976. Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free
Press.
362
Miech, Richard A. and Robert M. Hauser. 2000. Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Health
at Midlife; A Comparison of Educational Attainment with Occupation-Based
Indicators. Accessed 6/29/06 from www.ssc.wisc.edu/~hauser/miech-hauser.pdf.
Miller, Tina. 2007. “Is This What Motherhood Is All about? Weaving Experiences and
Discourse through Transition to First-Time Motherhood.” Gender & Society 21:337358.
Moen, Phyllis and S.-K. Han. 2001 “Gendered Careers: A Life-Course Perspective.” Pp.
42-57 in Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home, edited by R.
Hertz and N. L. Marshall. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mossbridge, Julia. “God the Mother.” Pp. 255-260 in Breeder: Real-Life Stories from the
New Generation of Mothers, edited by Ariel Gore and Bee Lavender. Seattle, WA:
Seal Press.
Mulsow, Miriam, Yvonne M. Caldera, Marta Pursley, Alan Reifman, Aletha C. Huston.
2002. “Multilevel Factors Influencing Maternal Stress During the First Three Years.”
Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (November):944-956.
NICHD SECC. 1993. Child Care Data Report – 1. Hospital Recruitment Data. Compiled
by Mark Applebaum. Nashville, TN: Quantitative Systems Laboratory. (Available
with the NICHD SECC data.)
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network.1999. Chronicity of Maternal Depressive
Symptoms, Maternal Sensitivity and Child Functioning at 36 months. Developmental
Psychology 5:1297-1310.
The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (editors). 2005. Child Care and Child
Development. Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development. New York: The Guilford Press.
Newby-Clark, Ian R., I. McGregor, I. and Mark P. Zanna. 2002. “Thinking and caring
about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel
uncomfortable?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82:157-166.
Newsom, Jason T., Karen S. Rook, Masami Nishishiba, Dara H. Sorkin, and Tyrae L
Mahan, 2005. “Understanding the relative importance of positive and negative social
exchanges: Examining specific domains and subjective appraisals.” Journal of
Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 60:304-312.
Nicolson, Paula. 1998. Post-Natal Depression: Psychology, Science and the Transition to
Motherhood. London: Routledge.
Niesslein, Jennifer and Stephanie Wilkinson. 2005. “Motherhood in Book Publishing.”
Brain, Child. Spring 2005. Accessed July 25, 2010 from
www.brainchildmag.com/essays/spring2005_niesslein_wilkinson.html
Nomaguchi, Kei M. and Melissa A. Milkie. 2003. “Costs and Rewards of Children: The
Effects of Becoming a Parent on Adults’ Lives.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:
413-430.
O’Reilly, Andrea (editor). 2004. From Motherhood to Mothering. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
O’Reilly, Andrea. 2006. Rocking the Cradle. Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism, and
Empowered Mothering. Albany: Demeter Press.
363
O’Reilly, Andrea. 2010. “The Motherhood Memoir and the “New Momism”: Biting the
Hand that Feeds You.” Pp. 203-213 in 2010. Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts:
Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures, edited by Elizabeth Podnieks
and Andrea O’Reilly. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Oakley, Ann. 1979. Becoming a Mother. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Orbuch, Terri L. 1997. “People’s Accounts Count: The Sociology of Accounts”, Annual
Review of Sociology 23:455-78.
Osmond, Marie with Marcie Wilkie and Dr. Judith Moore. 2002. Behind the Smile: My
Journey Out of Postpartum Depression. Grand Central Publishing.
Parker, Rozsika. [1995] 2005a. Torn in Two. The Experience of Maternal Ambivalence.
London: Virago Press.
Parker, Rozsika. 1997. The Production and Purposes of Maternal Ambivalence. Pp. 1736 in. Mothering and Ambivalence, edited by Wendy Hollway and Brid Featherstone.
London: Routledge.
Parker, Lonnae O’Neal. 2005b. I’m Every Woman. Remixed Stories of Marriage,
Motherhood, and Work. Amistad.
Personal Narratives Group (PNG). 1989. Interpreting Women’s Lives. Feminist Theory
and Personal Narratives. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Peskowitz, Miriam. 2005. The Truth behind the Mommy Wars. Who Decides What
Makes a Good Mother? Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.
Pew Research Center. 2007. “From 1997 to 2007: Fewer Mothers Prefer Full-time
Work.” A Social & Demographic Trends Report. Retrieved January 15, 2008.
http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/WomenWorking.pdf
Philyaw, Deesha. 2008. “There’s Something Missing from the Mommy-Lit.” Bitch
Magazine June 28, 2008. Accessed Aug 23, 2010 from
www.alternet.org/media/89758?page=1
Pillemer, Karl. 2004. “Can’t Live With ‘em, Can’t Live Without ‘em: Older Mothers’
Ambivalence toward Their Adult Children.” Pp. 115-132 in Intergenerational
Ambivalences: New perspectives on Parent-Child Relations in Later Life, edited by
Karl Pillemer and Kurt Luescher. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Pillemer, Karl and Kurt Luescher (editors). 2004. Intergenerational Ambivalences: New
perspectives on Parent- Child Relations in Later Life. Contemporary Perspectives in
Family Research, Volume 4. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Pillemer, Karl and J. Jill Suitor. 2002. “Explaining Mothers’ Ambivalence Toward Their
Adult Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (August): 602-613.
Podnieks, Elizabeth and Andrea O’Reilly. 2010. Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts:
Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Porter, Christin L. and Hui-Chin Hsu. 2003. “First-Time Mothers' Perceptions of Efficacy
during the Transition to Motherhood: Links to Infant Temperament.” Journal of
Family Psychology 17(1):54-64.
Priester, Joseph R. and Richard E. Petty. 1996. “The Gradual Threshold Model of
Ambivalence: Relating the Positive and Negative Bases of Attitudes to Subjective
Ambivalence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(3):431-449.
364
Radloff, L.S. 1977. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in
General Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement 1:385-401.
Reynolds, Tracey. 2001. “Black Mothering, Paid Work, and Identity.” Ethnic and Racial
Studies 24 (6): 1046-1064.
Rich, Adrienne. [1976] 1986. Of Woman Born. Motherhood as Experience and
Institution. New York: W.W. Norton.
Richardson, Diane. 1993. Women, Motherhood and Childrearing. London: Macmillan.
Rogers, Stacy J. and Lynn K. White. 1998. “Satisfaction with Parenting: The Role of
Marital Happiness, Family Structure, and Parents’ Gender.” Journal of Marriage and
Family 60 (May 1998):293-308.
Rook, Karen S. 1998. “Investigating the Positive and Negative Sides of Personal
Relationships: Through a Glass Darkly?” Pp. 369-393 in The Dark Side of Close
Relationships edited by B. H. Spitzberg and W. R. Cupach. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 1995. “Does Employment Affect Health?”
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36:230-243.
Rossi, Alice S. 1968. “Transition to Parenthood.” Journal of Marriage and Family 30:2639.
Rossi, Alice S. and Peter H. Rossi. 1990. Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child
Relationships Across the Life Course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Roxburgh, Susan. 2004. ““There Just Aren’t Enough Hours in the Day”: The Mental
Health Consequences of Time Pressure.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior
45:115-131.
Ruddick, Sarah. 1995. Maternal Thinking. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sarkisian, Natalia. 2006. “‘Doing Family Ambivalence’: Nuclear and Extended Families
in Single Mothers’ Lives. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:804-811.
Savage, Jennifer. 2001. “Learning to Surf.” Pp. 244-254 in Breeder: Real-Life Stories
from the New Generation of Mothers, edited by Ariel Gore and Bee Lavender.
Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Scott, M.B. and S. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review 33:46-62.
Segre, Lisa S, Michael W. O’Hara, Stephan Arndt, and Scott Stuart. 2007. “The
Prevalence of Postpartum Depression: The Relative Significance of Social Status
Indices.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42:316-321.
Shaefer, M.T. and D. H. Olson. 1981. “Assessing Intimacy: The Pair Inventory.” Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy 7(1):640-653.
Shields, Brooke. 2006. Down Came the Rain: My Journey Through Postpartum
Depression. New York: Hyperion Books.
Simon, Robin W. 1992. “Parental Role Strains, Salience of Parental Identity, and Gender
Differences in Psychological Distress.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33:
25-35.
Simon, Robin W. 1995. “Gender, Multiple Roles, Role Meaning, and Mental Health.”
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36(2):182-194.
365
Simons, Ronald L., Fred O. Lorenz, Chyi-In Wu, and Rand D. Conger. 1993. “Social
Network and Marital Support as Mediators and Moderators of the Impact of Stress
and Depression on Parental Behavior.” Developmental Psychology 29 (2): 368-381.
Slater, Lauren. 2002. Love Works like This. Moving from One Kind of Life to Another.
New York: Random House.
Smelser, Neil J. 1998. “The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences.”
American Sociological Review 63:1-16.
Smock, Pamela and Fiona Rose Greenland. 2010. “Diversity in Pathways to Parenthood:
Patterns, Implications and Emerging Research Directions.” Journal of Marriage and
Family 72 (June): 576-593.
Soutter Schwarzer, Elizabeth. 2006. Motherhood Is Not For Wimps: No Answers, Just
Stories. AuthorHouse
Steenbergen, Marco R. and Paul R. Brewer. 2004. “The Not-So-Ambivalent Public:
Policy Attitudes in the Political Culture of Ambivalence.” Pp. 93-129 in Studies in
Public Opinion, edited by Willem E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Stone, Pamela. 2007. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home.
University of California Press.
Suleiman, Susan Robin. 2001.“Writing and Motherhood.” Pp.113-137 in Mother Reader:
Essential Writings on Motherhood, edited by Moyra Davey. Seven Stories Press.
Taylor, Verta. 1996. Rock-a-by Baby: Feminism, Self-Help, and Post-Partum
Depression. New York: Routledge.
Teti, Douglas M. and Donna M. Gelfand. 1991. “Behavioral Competence among Mothers
of Infants in the First Year: The Mediational Role of Maternal Self-Efficacy.” Child
Development 62:918-929.
Thoits, Peggy. 1983. “Multiple Identities and Psychological Well-Being.” American
Sociological Review 48: 174-187.
Thom, Gary B. 1983. The Human Nature of Social Discontent: Alienation, Anomie,
Ambivalence. Rowman and Allanheld Publishers.
Thompson, Megan M. and John G. Holmes. 1996. “Ambivalence in Close Relationships:
Conflicted Cognitions as Catalysts for Change.” Pp. 497-530 in Handbook of
Motivation and Cognition, edited by R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins. New York:
Guilford Press.
Thompson, Megan M., Mark P. Zanna and Dale W. Griffin.1995. “Let’s Not Be
Indifferent about (Attitudinal) Ambivalence.” Pp. 361-386 in Attitude Strength:
Antecedents and Consequences, edited by Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, Sherry. 2001. “Mother Tongue.” Pp. 72-76 in Breeder: Real-Life Stories from
the New Generation of Mothers, edited by Ariel Gore and Bee Lavender. Seattle,
WA: Seal Press.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2006. Report
1000. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2006.pdf
366
Umberson, Debra and Walter R. Gove. 1989. “Parenthood and Psychological WellBeing: Theory, Measurement, and Stage in the Life Course.” Journal of Family Issues
10 (4):440-462.
Umberson, Debra, Tetyana Pudrovska, and Corinne Reczek. 2010. “Parenthood,
Childlessness, and Well-Being: A Life-Course Perspective.” Journal of Marriage and
Family 72 (June): 612-629.
Wager, Maaret. 2000. “Childless by Choice? Ambivalence and the Female Identity.”
Feminism & Psychology 10(3):389-395.
Waldfogel, Joan. 1997. “The Effect of Children on Women's Wages.” American
Sociological Review 62 (2): 209-217.
Walzer, Susan. 1998. Thinking about the Baby: Gender and Transitions to Parenthood.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Warner, Judith. 2006. Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Weigert, Andrew J. 1991. Mixed Emotions. Certain Steps Toward Understanding
Ambivalence. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wethington, Elaine and Ronald C. Kessler. 1989. “Employment, Parental Responsibility,
and Psychological Distress: A Longitudinal Study of Married Women.” Journal of
Family Issues 10(4): 527-546.
Wilder-Taylor, Stefanie. 2008. Naptime Is the New Happy Hour: And Other Ways
Toddlers Turn Your Life Upside. Gallery.
Williams, Joan. 2000. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To
Do About It. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Joan C., Jessica Manvell, J., and Stephanie Bornstein. 2006. How the Press
Covers Work/Family Conflict. The Untold Story of Why Women Leave the Workforce.
The Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the
Law. Accessed May 19, 2010 from
ww.uchastings.edu/site_files/WLL/OptOutPushedOut.pdf
Willson, Andrea E., Kim M. Shuey, Glen H. Elder, Jr. and K.A.S. Wickrama. 2006.
“Ambivalence in Mother-Adult Child Relations: A Dyadic Analysis.” Social
Psychology Quarterly 69(3):235-252.
Wolf, Naomi. 2001. Misconceptions. Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to
Motherhood. New York: Doubleday.
Zaller, John R. and Stanley Feldman. 1992. “A Simple Theory of Survey Response:
Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political
Science 36:579-616.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. Chicago,
Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Zussman, Robert. 2000. “Autobiographical Occasions: Introduction to the Special Issue.”
Qualitative Sociology 23:5-8.
367
Curriculum Vitae
Ivana Brown
EDUCATION
2011
Ph.D. Sociology, Rutgers University
2002
M.A. Sociology, Rutgers University
1996
B.A. Sociology; Social Policy and Social Work (with Honors),
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
RESEARCH AND TEACHING POSITIONS
2006/2007, Summer Sessions 1999, 2000
Instructor, Rutgers University
 Courses independently prepared and taught: Sociology of the Family,
Introduction to Social Research, Individual and Society
1999/2000, 1998/1999
Teaching Assistant, Rutgers University
 Courses taught: Introduction to Sociology, Criminology, Classical
Sociological Theory
1997
Research Assistant, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging
Research, Rutgers University
 Conducted preliminary research in the area of mental health and
culture.
 Assisted in the production of an edited volume on mental health and
illness
PUBLICATIONS
Brown, Ivana. 2010. “Ambivalence of the Motherhood Experience.” Pp. 121-139 in
21st Century Motherhood: Experience, Identity, Policy, Agency, edited by
Andrea O’Reilly. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, Ivana. 2010. “Ambivalence, Maternal.” In Encyclopedia of Motherhood,
Vol. 1, pp. 50-52, edited by Andrea O’Reilly and Geoffrey J. Golson. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Brown, Ivana. 2010. “Motherhood Memoirs.” In Encyclopedia of Motherhood, Vol.
2, pp. 818-821, edited by Andrea O’Reilly and Geoffrey J. Golson. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
368
Brown, Ivana. 2010. “Slovakia.” In Encyclopedia of Motherhood, Vol. 3, pp. 11291130, edited by Andrea O’Reilly and Geoffrey J. Golson. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Brown, Ivana. 2009. "Motherhood." In Encyclopedia of the Life Course and Human
Development, Volume 2, pp.300-306, edited by Deborah Carr, Robert Crosnoe,
M. E. Hughes, and Amy Pienta. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale/CENGAGE
Learning.
Brown, Ivana. 2006. “Mommy Memoirs: Feminism, Gender and Motherhood in Popular
Literature.” Journal of the Association for the Research on Mothering, Vol. 8
(1&2): 200-212. (Peer-reviewed).