©2011 Ivana Brown ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2011

Ivana Brown

A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF MATERNAL AMBIVALENCE:

CLASS AND RACE DIFFERENCES AMONG NEW MOTHERS

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Table of Contents

Abstract ii Acknowledgements v List of Tables xi List of Figures 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

5 The Social Demography of Maternal Ambivalence: Mean Comparisons and Direct Effects of Social Structural Characteristics on Ambivalence Outcomes 191

6 Effects of Strains and Resources on Maternal Ambivalence: Results of Multivariate Analysis 227

7 Discussion and Conclusions: Toward A Sociological Understanding of Maternal Ambivalence 274

Appendix A: Treatment of Missing Data 320 Appendix B: Overview of the Independent Variables and Their Coding 322 Appendix C: Complete Wording of the Instruments Measuring Independent Variables 324 Appendix D: Descriptions and Distributions of the Original Instruments Measuring Parenting Experiences 327 Appendix E: Categorical Measurement of Ambivalence: An Alternative Approach to Ambivalence Measurement 335 Appendix F: Approximate Distributions of the Sample on the Positive and Negative Subscales Measuring Parenting Experiences 341 Appendix G: Results of the OLS Regression of Parenting Stress and Maternal Depression on Social Structural Variables and their Covariates 344 Bibliography 351 Curriculum Vitae 367

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Description of the books included in the qualitative analysis 55 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 151 Table 3.2. Correlations between independent variables included in the models (N=1,160) 152 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| + 1 183 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 183 Table 4.3. Items and factor loadings of the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Six- month interview (N=1,160) 184 Table 4.4. Items and factor loadings of the negative items from the Parenting Stress Index, Six-month interview (N=1,160) 185 Table 4.5. Items and factor loadings of the Combining Work and Family instrument, Six-month interview (N=1,160) 184 Table 4.6. Overview and wording of positive and negative subscales used to create maternal ambivalence scales 187 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) 189 Table 4.8. Correlations between dimensions of maternal ambivalence 189 Table 4.9. Correlations between newly constructed ambivalence scales and existing parenting instruments and measures of well-being 190 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) 212 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) 214 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) 215 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) 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) 217 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) 218 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) 219 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) 220 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) 221 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) 222 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) 223 Table 6.1. Results of the OLS regression of the direct relationships between covariate and pathway variables and ambivalence outcomes 264 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) 266 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) 267 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) 268 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) 269 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) 270

xii

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) 270 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) 271 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) 272 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 319

Table A.1. Filters applied to original NICHD SECC data set in the process of creating the analytic sample 320 Table A.2. Overview of the independent variables with missing values and their handling in the NICHD SECC data. (6-months, N=1,183) 321 Table D.1. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Six-Month Interview (N=1,160) 331 Table D.2. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Parenting Stress Index, Six- Month Interview (N=1,160) 332 Table D.3. Frequency Distributions and Means of Combining Work and Family Instrument, Six-Month Interview (N=742) 334 Table E.1. Conceptual model of the categorical ambivalence measure, split by sample median 339 Table E.2. Proportions of mothers in the sample according to the ambivalence categories, split by sample median 339 Table E.3. Conceptual model of categorical ambivalence measure, split by sample tertiles 340 Table E.4. Proportions of mothers in the sample according to ambivalence categories, split by sample tertiles 340 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) 342 Table F.2. Approximate distributions of positive and negative scales comprising the identity ambivalence (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N= 1,160) 342 Table F.3. Approximate distributions of positive and negative components comprising the attachment ambivalence (rounded frequencies and (%) of total, N= 1,160) 343 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) 343

xiii

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) 347 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) 349

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Front covers of the analyzed motherhood memoirs 57 Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of direct and indirect effects of independent variables on maternal ambivalence 149 Figure 4.1. Bi-dimensional evaluative space 181 Figure 4.2. Proportions of mothers identified as ambivalent according to the four ambivalence outcomes 182 Figure 5.1. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and education categories 224 Figure 5.2. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and occupation prestige categories 225 Figure 5.3. Differences in maternal ambivalence according to race and household income levels 226

xv 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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Assumptions about higher levels of maternal ambivalence among white middle- class 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

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

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.

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

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 “either- or” 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

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 one- dimensional 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.

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

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.

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

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---

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

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

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

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,

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 day- to-day descriptions of the authors’ mothering moments. Although this generation of writers is sometimes criticized for being focused narrowly on the struggles of middle-

class 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

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 diary-

type 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 mothers- writers 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

“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

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

(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 life- changing 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

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 baby- nurse 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)

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 well- paying 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.

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)

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).

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

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:

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

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 mom- identity, 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

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,

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. ...

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:

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)

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

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 in- laws 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).

Buchanan points out that due to social pressures to be a good mother, admitting ambivalence to others is still not an option:

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”:

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:

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

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

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.

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, self- Becoming 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 Not- A 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.

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.

Figure 1.1. Front covers of the analyzed motherhood memoirs

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.

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).

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

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;”

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 self-

consistency (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.

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. Self- discrepancy 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

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 low- income 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

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

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

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-at-

home-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

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 “child- centered, 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

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.

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 middle-

class 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 qua litative 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 ill- prepared 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

“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 co- sleeping (Buskens 2004:101).

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.

“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.

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).

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

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 well-

being (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

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 two- thirds 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).

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).

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 lower- class 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).

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.

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

root s 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 middle- class 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 low-

income 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 self-

actualization (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 pre- motherhood 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 pre- motherhood 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

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 first-

time 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; Deater-

Deckard 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). 3 Phases II, III and of the study were conducted between the years 1995 – 2008 and followed the children through their ninth year in school.

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 cross-

sectional 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 non- Hispanic 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 non-

Hispanic 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 Variables9

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-high- school 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. 16 The complete wording of the statements included in this and other composite scales is included in Appendix C.

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 Motherhood status and experience preferences

Maternal Social structural ambivalence characteristics outcomes (SES, race)

Social Support and Partner relationship RESOURCES

Direct relationship

Potential intervening effects of covariates on the main relationship

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

Total First-time Experienced T-test sample mothers mothers (N=1,160) (N=518) (N=642) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Social structural variables Race (1 = black) 0.13 (0.34) 0.12 (0.33) 0.14 (0.34) 0.701 Household income 49,112 47,867 50,117 0.948 (40,171) (40,347) (40,031) Education HS or less 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.668 Some post-secondary 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.74 Completed college and higher 0.36 0.39 0.35 -1.363 Occupation (before baby) Managerial/professional 0.30 0.32 0.28 -1.525 Other 0.54 0.63 0.47 -5.733*** Not working 0.16 0.05 0.26 10.552*** Demographic variables Age (in years) 28.4 (5.64) 26.94 (5.58) 29.57 (5.42) 8.103*** 18 - 25 0.30 0.40 0.23 -6.207*** 26 - 34 0.55 0.51 0.58 2.482** 35+ 0.15 0.09 0.19 4.783*** Marital status Married 0.78 0.73 0.82 3.631*** Cohabitating 0.09 0.09 0.08 -0.801 Single (incl. divorced and widowed) 0.14 0.18 0.10 -3.705*** Mother in school (before baby, 1 = yes) 0.17 (0.38) 0.23 (0.42) 0.12 (0.33) -4.645*** Motherhood experience Number of children 1.82 (0.91) 1 (0) 2.47 (0.73) N/A First-time mother (1=yes) 0.45 (0.50) 1 (0) 0 (0) Two children 0.36 N/A 64.2 Three children 0.15 N/A 26.5 Four and more children 0.05 N/A 9.4 Baby's temperament (1 = average or more difficult) 0.38 (0.49) 0.38 (0.49) 0.37 (0.48) -0.402 Baby's health Excellent 0.49 0.52 0.47 -1.685+ Good 0.38 0.38 0.38 -0.197 Fair or Poor 0.13 0.10 0.16 2.841** Mother's health Excellent 0.44 0.48 0.41 -2.291* Good 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.524 Fair or Poor 0.12 0.09 0.15 -0.715 Employment status Stay-at-home mother 0.37 0.30 0.42 4.274*** Part-time work 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.220 Full-time work 0.38 0.45 0.32 -4.383*** Satisfaction with work and family arrangement (1low -5 3.92 (1.12) 3.82 (1.12) 3.99 (1.11) 2.605** high) Relationship resources Social support scale (1 low - 6 high) 5.02 (0.71) 5.08 (0.69) 4.98 (0.74) -2.268* Intimate relationships (closeness) (1low - 7 high) 5.61 (1.04) 5.77 (1.01) 5.49 (1.06) -4.641*** Intimate relationships (conflict) (1low - 7 high) 3.14 (0.96) 3.06 (0.92) 3.21 (1.00) 2.569* Personality - neuroticism (1 low - 5 high) 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.

Table 3.2. Correlations between independent variables included in the models (N=1,160)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Household income 1 2. Mother's education 0.47*** 1 3. Race (1 = black) -0.23*** -0.24*** 1 4. Age (in years) 0.46*** 0.52*** -0.26*** 1 5. Marital status (married, cohabitating, -0.38*** -0.36*** 0.42*** -0.39*** 1 single) 6. Mother in school (1= yes) -0.14*** -0.04 0.18*** -0.25*** 0.19*** 1 7. First-time mother (1 = yes) -0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.23*** 0.12*** 0.14*** 1 8. Baby's temperament (1 = average or -0.14*** -0.16*** 0.14*** -0.16*** 0.15*** 0.06* 0.01 1 more difficult ) 9. Baby's health (poor to excellent) 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*** 1 11. Employment status (SAHM, PT, FT) 0.22*** 0.13*** -0.09** 0.09** -0.08** -0.06* 0.14*** -0.11** -0.04 0.10** 1 12. Mother's satisfaction with work and 0.12*** 0.137*** -0.11*** 0.15*** -0.14*** -0.04 -0.08** -0.06 0.05 0.16*** -0.17*** 1 family arrangement (low to high) 13. Social support 0.07* 0.07* -0.03 0.02 -0.12*** -0.04 0.07* -0.08** 0.13*** 0.24*** 0.06* 0.16*** 1 14. Intimate relationship (closeness) 0.14*** 0.16*** -0.05 0.02 -0.11*** -0.01 0.14*** -0.03 0.13*** 0.22*** 0.03 0.13*** 0.38*** 1 15. Intimate relationship (conflict) -0.04 0 0.09** -0.011 0.10*** 0.09** -0.08* 0.06 -0.10** -0.18*** -0.03 -0.13*** -0.28*** -0.53*** 1 16. Neuroticism -0.24*** -0.22*** 0.05 -0.20*** 0.18*** 0.06 0.02 0.16*** -0.12*** -0.27*** -0.05 -0.27*** -0.40*** -0.31*** 0.30*** 1 Notes: Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

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 152

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 Ingersoll-

Dayton 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 153

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. 154

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 155

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 156

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. 157

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 158

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 components1:

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. 159

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 160

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 161

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 comput ational 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). 162

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 163

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 164

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 165

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 166

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 167

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 168

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 non-

maternal 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. 169

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 well-

being 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 170

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. 171

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 172

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 173

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. 174

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 175

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 176

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 --- 177

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 178

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 179

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.

180

181

Figure 4.1. Bi-dimensional evaluative space

Source: Adapted from Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson 1997.

181

182

Figure 4.2. Proportions of mothers identified as ambivalent according to the four dichotomous ambivalence outcomes

30% 26.40%

25%

20% 15.40%

15%

8.20% 10%

5% 1.80%

0% Being Good at Identity Attachment Combining Work- Mothering Family Ambivalence outcomes

182

183

Table 4.1. Theoretical results of the Similarity and Intensity of Components ambivalence comput ation formula using 5-point positive and negative attitude scales: A = (P+N)/2-|P -N| + 1

Negative component Positive 1 2 3 4 5 component 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

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 1 2 3 4 5 component 1 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.

183

184

Table 4.3. Items and factor loadings of the Maternal Separation Anxiety Scale, Six- month interview (N=1,160)

Item Component 1 2 3 Importance Worries Enjoys of maternal and child’s care sadness presence at separation

1. I miss holding or cuddling my child when I am away from him/her. .816 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 4. When away from my child, I often wonder if his/her physical needs .684 (dry diapers, enough to eat, etc.) are being met. 5. Holding and cuddling my child makes me feel so good that I really .822 miss the physical closeness when I'm away. 6. I am more concerned with my child's physical safety than a .434 .420 babysitter or teacher. 7. It will be difficult for my child to adjust to someone else taking care .649 of him/her. 8. When I am away from my child, I feel lonely and miss him/her a .725 great deal. 9. Only a mother just naturally knows how to comfort her distressed .469 .436 child. 10. A child is likely to get upset when he/she is left with a babysitter. .587 .445 11. I like to have my child close to me most of the time. .663 12. I am naturally better at keeping my child safe than any other .570 person. 13. I believe that my child misses me when I have to let someone .612 else take care of him/her for a while. 14. I don't like to leave my child. .634 15. My child prefers to be with me more than with anyone else. .758 16. My child is afraid and sad when he/she is not with me. .619 .431 17. When I am separated from my child, I wonder whether he/she is .671 crying and missing me. 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 .673 unfamiliar setting if I am not with him/her. 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 .763 upset. Note: Rotated matrix with factor loadings below .400 suppressed. Items are numbered according to the original document (Appendix D) 184

185

Table 4.4. Items and factor loadings of the negative items from the Parenting Stress Index, Six-month interview (N=1,160)

Item Component 1 2 3 4 Competence Entrapment Role Attachment

restriction

1. When my baby came home from the hospital, I had doubtful feelings about my ability to handle .569 being a parent. 2. Being a parent is harder than I thought it would .597 be. 5. I have had many more problems caring for my .716 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 .669 well as I thought I could. I need help. 9. I often have the feeling that I cannot handle things .625 very well. 10. It takes a long time for parents to develop close, .679 warm feelings for their babies. 11. I expected to have closer and warmer feelings .778 for my baby than I do and this bothers me. 12. Sometimes my baby does things that bother me .688 just to be mean. 15. The number of children I have now is too many. .525 16. Most of my life is spent doing things for my baby. .678 17. I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my .658 baby's needs than I ever expected. 18. I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent. .513 19. I often feel that my baby's needs control my life. .709 20. Since having this child, I have been unable to do .605 .401 new and different things.

21. Since having a baby I feel that I am almost never .677 able to do things that I like to do.

22. It is hard to find a place in our home where I can .657 go to be by myself. Note: Rotated matrix with factor loadings below .400 suppressed Items are numbered according to the original document (Appendix D)

185

186

Table 4.5. Items and factor loadings of the Combining Work and Family instrument, Six-month interview (N=1,160)

Item Component 1 2 3 Family Work Family benefits from negative for negative for mother’s family work working

1. Your working creates strains for your children. .523 2. Working leaves you with too little time to be the kind of .855 parent you want to be. 3. Working causes you to miss out on some of the .835 rewarding aspects of being a parent. 4. Working leaves you with too little energy to be the kind .765 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 .700 prefer to participate in. 6. Because of the requirements of your job, your family .606 time is less enjoyable and more pressured. 7. Thinking about your children interferes with your .623 performance at work. 8. Because of your family responsibilities, you have to turn down work activities or opportunities that you would .646 prefer to take on. 9. Because of your family responsibilities, the time you .747 spend working is less enjoyable and more pressured. 10. When you spend time working, you're bothered by all .567 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 .584 family. 14. Working helps you to better appreciate the time you .614 spend with your children. 15. Working makes you feel good about yourself, which .725 is good for your children. 16. The fact that you're working makes you a better .709 parent. Having both work and family responsibilities: 17. Makes you a more well-rounded person. .811 18. Gives your life more variety. .787 19. Challenges you to be the best you can be. .819 20. Means you manage your time better. .695 21. Managing work and family responsibilities as well as .757 you do makes you feel competent. Note: Rotated matrix with factor loadings below .400 suppressed Items are numbered according to the original document (Appendix D) 186

187

Table 4.6. Overview and wording of positive and negative subscales used to create maternal ambivalence scales

Ambivalence Positive component Negative component dimension Belief in own ability to care for the baby, Motherhood is overwhelming and more enjoying parenting and feeling as a good difficult than expected, it takes time to learn parent 1. I feel capable and on top of things when I 1. When my baby came home from the am caring for my baby. hospital, I had doubtful feelings about my ability to handle being a parent. 2. I enjoy being a parent. 2. Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be. 3. I feel that I am successful most of the 3. I have had many more problems caring time when I try to get my baby to do or not for my baby than I expected. do something. 4. (R) When I think about myself as a 4. Since I brought this baby home from the parent I believe: 1. I can handle anything hospital, I find that I am not able to take that happens., 2. I can handle most things care of this baby as well as I thought I pretty well, 3. Sometimes I have doubts, but could. I need help. 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.

5.(R) I feel that I am: 1 A. very good parent., 5. I often have the feeling that I cannot 2. A better than average parent., 3. An handle things very well. 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 Ambivalence about being good at mothering (competence) mothering at good being about Ambivalence 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.

Cronbach’s alpha = .648 (stand.= .649) Cronbach’s alpha = .664 (stand.= .691) Wanting to be with the baby, enjoying Role restriction and entrapment by motherhood motherhood obligations, not able to do things for herself 1. I miss holding or cuddling my child when 1. Most of my life is spent doing things for I am away from him/her. my baby. 2. Holding and cuddling my child makes me 2. I find myself giving up more of my life to feel so good that I really miss the physical meet my baby's needs than I ever expected. closeness when I'm away.

3. When I am away from my child, I feel 3. I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a lonely and miss him/her a great deal. parent. 4. I like to have my child close to me most 4. I often feel that my baby's needs control of the time. my life.

Identity ambivalence Identity 5. I don't like to leave my child. 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 = .839 (stand.= .839) Cronbach’s alpha =.765 (stand. =.775) 187

188

Table 4.6. Continued.

Ambivalence Positive component Negative component dimension Belief in social expectation that mothers Uncertain about the attachment with the are the best to take care of the baby baby, takes her longer to attach to the baby than expected 1. Children will be afraid in a new place 1. It takes a long time for parents to develop without their mother. close, warm feelings for their babies.

2. Only a mother just naturally knows how 2. I expected to have closer and warmer to comfort her distressed child. feelings for my baby than I do and this bothers me. 3. A child is likely to get upset when he/she 3. Sometimes my baby does things that Attachment ambivalence Attachment is left with a babysitter. bother me just to be mean. Cronbach’s alpha = .711 (stand. = .721) Cronbach’s alpha = .596 (stand.=.610) Work good for self and family Work interferes with family, work-to-home spillover 1. Working helps you to better appreciate 1. Working leaves you with too little time to the time you spend with your children. be the kind of parent you want to be.

2. Working makes you feel good about 2. Working causes you to miss out on some yourself, which is good for your children. of the rewarding aspects of being a parent.

3. The fact that you're working makes you a 3. Working leaves you with too little energy better parent. 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. 4. Makes you a more well-rounded person. 5. Because of the requirements of your job, your family time is less enjoyable and more pressured. 5. Gives your life more variety. 6. During the time set aside for work, you feel resentful because you'd really rather be spending time with your family. 6. Challenges you to be the best you can be. Ambivalence about combining work and family and work combining about Ambivalence

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) Cronbach’s alpha =.858 (stand.=.856)

Note: (R) the item is reverse-coded

188

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)

Being Good at Identity a Attachment a Combining Work- Mothering a Familyb Positive Attitudes 4.288 (.386) 3.836 (.749) 2.773 (.803) 2.707 (.700) Negative Attitudes 2.029 (.654) 2.586 (.694) 1.393 (.517) 1.904 (.702) Correlation between positive -.477** .004 .119** -.256** and negative attitudes (Spearman coeff.)

Ambivalence Scales Mean (SD) 1.891 (1.060) 2.844 (.962) 1.670 (.750) 1.669 (.804) Proportion considered 8.20% 26.40% 1.80% 15.40% ambivalentc

N 1,160 1,160 1,160 728

Notes: a 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)

Table 4.8. Correlations between dimensions of maternal ambivalence

1 2 3 4 1. Being good at mothering 1 2. Identity a .435** 1 3. Attachment a .303** .183** 1 4. Work-Family b .165** .140** .099** 1

Notes: ** Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) a N = 1,160 b N = 728

189

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 Well-

Being

Total strains and Parenting Separation Maternal Ambivalence Scale gains of maternal Stress Index Anxiety Scale depression employment Ambivalence about being .827*** .145*** .176*** .366*** good at mothering

Identity ambivalence .734*** .009 .171*** .282***

Attachment ambivalence .417*** -.282*** -.011 .134***

Ambivalence about .230*** .168*** .536*** .216*** combining work and family Note: All measures based on data collected at 6-month interview *** Significance level (2-tailed) p< .000

190

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 191

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 192

193 outcomes between white-middle class mothers (white, college educated, above-the- median 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 (t- tests 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 193

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 194

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. 195

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, 196

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 19

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 198

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- 199

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 200

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 201

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= - 202

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 college- educated 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 203

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 204

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 205

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 206

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 207

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.

208

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 209

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. 210

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. 211

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 Combining Good at % Identity Attachment work and mothering family Total sample mean 100% 1.891 2.844 1.67 1.669 Race White non-Hispanic 87.10% 1.888 2.872 1.644 1.676 Black non-Hispanic 12.90% 1.911 2.654 1.842 1.625 t -0.253 2.596* -3.027** 0.525 Household Income Level Less than $22,500 (1st quartile) 27.90% 2.075*ac, ad 2.810 1.678 1.688 $22,500 – 39,999 (2nd quartile) 23.30% 1.892 2.833 1.651 1.677 $40,000 – 62,500 (3rd quartile) 24.70% 1.822*ac 2.841 1.630 1.740 Above $62,500 (top quartile) 24.10% 1.746*ad 2.897 1.721 1.583 F 5.457** 0.429 0.767 1.394 Education HS or lower 29.60% 2.067*a,b 2.820 1.718 1.686 Some college or vocational school 34% 1.798*a,b 2.784 1.590 1.681 College graduate/Some post- graduate work 36.50% 1.835 2.918 1.705 1.651 F 6.881** 2.120 3.422* 0.140 Occupation Non-working 16.30% 1.953 2.937 1.691 1.538 Other than managerial/professional 54.00% 1.927 2.771# bc 1.659 1.682 Managerial / professional 29.60% 1.791 2.924# bc 1.678 1.663 F 2.223 3.903* 0.149 0.358 White college educated 35.50% 1.837 2.93* 1.702 1.654 White less than college 51.60% 1.923 2.832 1.605** 1.688 Black college educated 0.90% 1.782 2.453 1.833 1.412 Black less than college 12% 1.922 2.67* 1.843** 1.665 F 0.620 3.284* 4.430** 0.372 White professional 29% 1.792 2.927* 1.672 1.648 White other jobs/non-working 58.10% 1.936 2.844 1.631* 1.69 Black professional 0.60% 1.755 2.822 1.952 2.183 Black other jobs/non-working 12.30% 1.919 2.646* 1.837* 1.595 F 1.464 2.871* 3.333* 1.013 White above median 46.60% 1.774** 2.868*ad 1.666 1.664 White below median 40.50% 2.019** 2.876*bd 1.619* 1.687 Black above median 2.20% 2.017 2.870 1.853 1.615 Black below median 10.70% 1.889 2.608*ad,bd 1.84* 1.643 F 4.665** 2.780* 3.386* 0.089

212

213

Table 5.1. Continued

AMBIVALENCE OUTCOME Combining Good at % Identity Attachment work and mothering family White middle class (college educated, higher than median income) 27.30% 1.783 2.936 1.738 1.619 Other 72.70% 1.932 2.809 1.644 1.695 t 2.148* -2.069* -2.118* 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)

213

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 Race Education Occupation (ln) (Race+SES (1) (Race+SES other than (Black = 1) (1) HS or less managerial or (2) some college) professional (2) non-working) Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) -0.003 -0.061 1.794*** 1.399** -0.052 -0.045 -0.094 -0.096 Constant (0.031) (0.041) (.351) (0.488) (0.048) (0.055) (0.054) (0.059) 0.022 -0.168+ -0.071*** -0.135** 0.218** 0.090 0.128 0.040 Race+SES (1) (0.800) (0.097) (.033) (0.045) (0.072) (0.086) (0.067) (0.071) -0.035 -0.103 0.153 0.074 Race+SES (2) (0.070) (0.073) (0.090) (0.093) Control variables 0.145* 0.056 0.096 0.122 Age:18-25 (0.073) (0.086) (0.078) (0.074) -0.091 -0.067 -0.093 -0.085 Age: 35+ (0.086) (0.112) (0.087) (0.087) Marital status: 0.091 0.003 0.035 0.057 cohabitating (0.111) (0.112) (0.112) (0.111) Marital status: 0.283** 0.072 0.209* 0.217** single (0.097) (0.104) (0.093) (0.092) Mother in- 0.027 -0.002 0.015 school 0.036 (0.081) (0.080) (0.080) pre-birth Adj R2 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 -34 214

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 Race+Income Race+Occupation Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) -0.051 -0.046 -0.111+ -0.110* -0.094 -0.098 Constant (0.049) (0.055) (0.043) (0.048) (0.055) (0.060) 0.082 -0.028 0.232*** 0.126+ 0.136* 0.060 White working class (0.064) (0.069) (0.063) (0.07) (0.067) (0.070) -0.052 -0.134 0.230 0.173 -0.035 -0.188 Black middle class (0.306) (0.305) (0.200) (0.200) (0.382) (0.383) 0.080 -0.196 0.109 -0.146 0.120 -0.116 Black working class (0.098) (0.116) (0.099) (.122) (0.100) (0.114) Control variables 0.154* 0.113 0.132+ Age: 18-25 (0.076) (0.076) (0.074) -0.096 -0.086 -0.083 Age: 35+ (0.087) (0.086) (0.087) Marital status: 0.098 0.067 0.082

cohabitating (0.112) (0.113) (0.112) Marital status: 0.289** 0.269** 0.277**

single (0.098) (0.101) (0.098) Mother in-school 0.026 0.036 0.029

pre-birth (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) Adj R2 0.000 0.012 0.009 0.017 0.001 0.013 F 0.620 2.772** 4.665** 3.495*** 1.464 2.847** 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

215

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 Race Education Occupation (ln) (Race/SES (1) other (Race+SES than managerial or (Black = 1) (1) HS or less professional (2) some college) (2) non-working) Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) 0.029 0.031 -0.043 0.055 0.077 0.102+ 0.084 0.109 Constant (0.031) (0.042) (0.355) (0.494) (0.049) (0.055) (0.054) (0.060) -0.227* -0.258** 0.004 -0.003 -0.101 -0.139 -0.159* -0.178* Race+SES (1) (0.087) (0.098) (0.034) (0.045) (0.073) (0.087) (0.067) (0.072) -0.139* -0.159* 0.013 0.00 Race+SES (2) (0.070) (0.073) (0.090) (0.093) Control variables 0.055 0.034 0.079 0.066 Age:18-25 (0.073) (0.078) (0.079) (0.074) -0.059 -0.056 -0.082 -0.087 Age: 35+ (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) Marital status: -0.098 -0.141 -0.110 -0.109 cohabitating (0.112) (0.113) (0.113) (0.111) Marital status: 0.049 -0.043 -0.007 -0.020 single (0.098) (0.105) (0.094) (0.092) Mother in- -0.024 -0.044 -0.050 -0.048 school pre- (0.081) (0.081) (0.082) (0.081) birth Adj R2 0.005 0.003 0.000 -0.003 0.002 0.000 0.005 0.003 F 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 -34 216

217

Social Structural Variables Model

Race+Education Race+Income Race+Occupation Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) 0.090+ 0.111* 0.026 0.036 0.086 0.101 Constant (0.049) (0.056) (0,043) (0.049) (0.054) (0.060) -0.103 -0.149* 0.008 -0.029 -0.086 -0.114 White working class (0.064) (0.070) (0.063) (0.071) (0.067) (0.070) -0.469 -0.526+ 0.001 -0.014 -0.108 -0.144 Black middle class (0.305) (0.306) (0.200) (0.201) (0.381) (0.385) -0.271** -0.359** -0.270** -0.354** -0.292** -0.361** Black working class (0.098) (0.116) (0.099) (0.123) (0.100) (0.115) Control variables 0.094 0.069 0.080 Age: 18-25 (0.076) (0.076) (0.075) -0.084 -0.065 -0.075 Age: 35+ (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) Marital status: -0.073 -0.082 -0.079

cohabitating (0.113) (0.114) (0.112) 0.072 0.084 0.061 Marital status: single (0.099) (0.102) (0.098) Mother in-school -0.037 -0.015 -0.027

pre-birth (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) Adj R2 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.004 F 3.284* 1.792 2.780* 1.469 2.871* 1.537 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

217

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 Race Education Occupation (ln) (Race+SES (1) other (Race+SES than managerial or (Black = 1) (1) HS or less professional (2) some college) (2) non-working) Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) -0.034 -0.072 0.067 -0.952 0.047 0.024 0.010 -0.020 Constant (0.031) (0.042) (0.355) (0.491) (0.049) (0.055) (0.054) (0.060) 0.264** 0.233* -0.006 0.082+ 0.017 -0.088 -0.024 -0.079 Race+SES (1) (0.087) (0.097) (0.034) (0.045) (0.073) (0.086) (0.067) (0.072) -0.153* -0.206** 0.017 -0.038 Race+SES (2) (0.070) (0.073) (0.091) (0.093) Control variables 0.160* 0.223** 0.199* 0.192* Age:18-25 (0.073) (0.077) (0.078) (0.074) 0.038 0.022 0.009 0.023 Age: 35+ (0.086) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) Marital status: -0.188+ -0.113 -0.136 0.136 cohabitating (0.111) (0.112) (0.112) (0.111) Marital status: -0.032 0.141 0.071 0.059 single (0.097) (0.105) (0.093) (0.092) Mother in- 0.046 0.074 0.069 0.062 school pre- (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) birth Adj R2 0.007 0.009 0.000 0.007 0.004 0.01 -0.001 0.004 F 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 -34 218

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 Race+Income Race+Occupation Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) 0.042 0.026 -0.005 -0.031 0.003 -0.021 Constant (0.049) (0.055) (0.043) (0.048) (0.054) (0.060) -0.129* -0.187** -0.063 -0.119+ -0.055 -0.083 White working class (0.064) (0.069) (0.063) (0.070) (0.067) (0.070) 0.176 0.078 0.249 0.124 0.374 0.155 Black middle class (0.304) (0.116) (0.200) (0.122) (0.381) (0.114) 0.188+ 0.168 0.232* 0.227 0.220* 0.372 Black working class (0.098) (0.305) (0.099) (0.201) (0.100) (0.384) Control variables 0.215** 0.197* 0.179* Age: 18-25 (0.076) (0.076) (0.074) 0.007 0.029 0.027 Age: 35+ (0.087) (0.086) (0.087) Marital status: -0.152 -0.154 -0.174

cohabitating (0.112) (0.113) (0.112) 0.001 0.012 -0.024 Marital status: single (0.098) (0.102) (0.098) Mother in-school 0.032 0.048 0.043

pre-birth (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) Adj R2 0.009 0.013 0.006 0.010 0.006 0.009 F 4.430** 2.955** 3.386* 2.409* 3.333* 2.252* 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

219

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 Race Education Occupation (ln) (Race+SES (Race+SES (1) other (Black = 1) (1) HS or less than managerial or (2) some college) professional) Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) 0.004 -0.040 1.316* 1.448+ -0.027 -0.058 -0.025 -0.061 Constant (0.039) (0.052) (.598) (0.816) (0.058) (0.066) (0.058) (0.068) -0.045 -0.152 -0.123* -0.136+ 0.041 0.023 0.042 0.032 Race+SES (1) (0.124) (0.137) (0.056) (0.074) (0.096) (0.111) (0.076) (0.081) 0.049 0.030 Race+SES (2) (0.085) (0.089) Control variables 0.018 -0.060 -0.002 0.000 Age: 18-25 (0.092) (0.099) (0.099) (0.094) 0.035 0.074 0.042 0.044 Age: 35+ (0.110) (0.112) (0.111) (0.112) Marital status: 0.025 -0.030 0.009 0.006 cohabitating (0.155) (0.156) (0.157) (0.156) Marital status: 0.200 0.032 0.145 0.145 single (0.127) (0.136) (0.121) (0.120) Mother in- 0.131 0.103 0.120 0.122 school pre- (0.106) (0.106) (0.106) (0.105) birth Adj R2 -0.001 -0.002 0.005 0.001 -0.002 -0.005 0.000 -0.003 F 0.132 0.770 4.863* 1.125 0.186 0.499 0.309 0.589 Notes: N=728, ***p<.001,** p<.01, *p<.05, + p<.10 Omitted categories: Education: college and higher, Occupation: managerial/professional, Marital status: married, Age: 26-34 220

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 Race+Income Race+Occupation Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) -0.019 -0.050 -0.006 -0.033 -0.026 -0.059 Constant (0.059) (0.067) (0.050) (0.058) (0.061) (0.069) 0.042 0.026 0.028 -0.029 0.051 0.034 White working class (0.079) (0.086) (0.080) (0.092) (0.080) (0.085) -0.302 -0.100 -0.061 -0.079 0.666 -0.170 Black middle class (0.359) (0.159) (0.248) (0.249) (0.451) (0.154) 0.013 -0.360 -0.026 -0.209 -0.065 0.520 Black working class (0.138) (0.363) (0.144) (0.176) (0.137) (0.462) Control variables 0.003 0.030 0.019 Age: 18-25 (0.097) (0.097) (0.095) 0.112 0.030 0.037 Age: 35+ (0.037) (0.111) (0.111) Marital status: 0.017 0.033 0.020

cohabitating (0.156) (0.157) (0.156) Marital status: 0.193 0.224 0.176

single (0.128) (0.136) (0.128) Mother in-school 0.129 0.134 0.134

pre-birth (0.106) (0.106) (0.106) Adj R2 -0.003 -0.004 -0.004 -0.004 0.000 -0.001 F 0.372 0.644 0.089 0.61 1.013 0.873 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

221

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 Combining at Identity Attachment Work and mothering Family

1.514** 0.510 -0.801 1.554+ Constant (0.529) (0.534) (0.531) (0.890)

a -0.173 -0.243* 0.260** -0.148 Race (Black=1) (0.097) (0.098) (0.097) (0.137) -0.141** -0.037 0.074 -0.145+ Household income (ln) (0.047) (0.048) (0.048) (0.080) Educationb 0.011 -0.148 -0.056 -0.044 HS degree or lower (0.091) (0.092) (0.091) (0.118) -0.138 -0.156* -0.198** -0.007 Some post-secondary (0.074) (0.075) (0.075) (0.093) Control variables Agec 0.055 0.078 0.212** -0.040 18 – 25 (0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.102) -0.081 -0.079 0.003 0.070 35+ (0.086) (0.087) (0.087) (0.112) Marital statusd 0.019 -0.084 -0.153 -0.010 Cohabitating (0.113) (0.114) (0.114) (0.158) 0.126 0.037 0.059 0.080 Single (0.108) (0.110) (0.109) (0.143) Mother in-school pre- 0.024 -0.037 0.061 0.107 birth (yes=1) (0.081) (0.082) (0.082) (0.108)

Adj R2 0.024 0.004 0.016 -0.001 F 4.149*** 1.556 3.152** 0.901 N 1,160 1,160 1,160 728

Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a White, b College degree or some post- graduate education, c 26 - 34 years old, d Married

Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.000

222

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 Combining good at Identity Attachment Work and mothering Family -0.054 -0.035 -0.141** -0.011 Constant (0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.062) White middle-class mothers (race, above-median -0.036 0.158* 0.216 ** -0.082 income, college education) (0.072) (0.072) (0.072) (0.087) (Yes=1) Control variables Agea 0.124 0.074 0.229** -0.015 18 – 25 (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.095) -0.083 -0.082 0.001 0.054 35+ (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.112) Marital statusb 0.058 -0.111 -0.112 -0.002 Cohabitating (0.111) (0.112) (0.111) (0.155) 0.218* -0.007 0.093 0.130 Single (0.093) (0.093) (0.092) (0.121) Mother in-school pre-birth 0.015 -0.052 0.053 0.124 (yes=1) (0.080) (0.081) (0.080) (0.105)

Adj R2 0.011 0.001 0.012 -0.002 F 3.205** 1.194 3.280** 0.713 N 1,160 1,160 1,160 728 Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married 'Statistical significance levels +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.000

223

224

Figure 5.1. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and education categories (unadjusted means)

3.5

3 *

* 2.5

2 * *

1.5 Ambivalence mean

0.5

0 Good at mothering Identity* Attachment* Combining work and family Ambivalence Outcome (*p<.05)

White college educated White less than college Black college educated Black less than college

Note: * above a column signifies a statistically significant between-group difference based on the post-hoc testing 224

225

Figure 5.2. Differences in maternal ambivalence outcomes according to race and occupation prestige categories (unadjusted means)

3.5

3 *

* 2.5

2 * * 1.5 Ambivalence mean

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

225

226

Figure 5.3. Differences in maternal ambivalence according to race and household income levels (unadjusted means)

3.5

3 * * * 2.5

* 2 * * *

1.5 Ambivalence mean

0.5

0 Good at mothering* Identity* Attachment* Combining work and family Ambivalence outcome (*p<.05) White above median White below median Black above median Black below median

Note: * above a column signifies a statistically significant between-group difference based on the post-hoc testing

226

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 work-

family 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, part- time 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 self-

rating 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-at-

home 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, qua lity 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 first-

time 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 full- time 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 middle- class 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 counter-

intuitive.

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 full-

time 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 Combining Work Identitya Attachmenta Motheringa and Familyb b (SE) Adj R2 b (SE) Adj R2 b (SE) Adj R2 b (SE) Adj R2 Motherhood experience Constant -0.157*** 0.030 0.048 0.002 -0.044 0.002 -0.017 -0.001 (0.039) (0.039) (0.039) (0.052) First-time mother (Yes = 1) 0.352*** -0.107 0.100 0.035 (0.058) (0.059) (0.059) (0.074) Constant -0.178*** 0.052 -0.076* 0.009 -0.099** 0.016 0.029 0.000 (0.036) (0.037) (0.037) (0.045) Baby’s temperament average or 0.474*** 0.202** 0.265*** -0.085 worsec (0.059) (0.060) (0.060) (0.078) Constant -0.086* 0.008 -0.058 0.002 -0.027 0.000 -0.030 0.005 (0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.054) Baby’s health – goodd 0.124* 0.103 0.070 -0.005 (0.063) (0.063) (0.063) (0.079) Baby’s health – fair or poord 0.296** 0.147 0.006 0.261* (0.091) (0.091) (0.091) (0.119) Constant -0.234*** 0.042 -0.097* 0.006 -0.049 0.002 -0.121* 0.012 (0.043) (0.044) (0.044) (0.054) Mother’s health – goodd 0.400*** 0.161* 0.059 0.208** (0.061) (0.063) (0.063) (0.078) Mother’s health – fair or poord 0.477*** 0.219* 0.187 0.328* (0.093) (0.094) (0.095) (0.131) Employment status Constant 0.131** 0.008 0.121* 0.013 -0.011 0.004 -0.306 0.061 (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.057) Part-time worke -0.194* -0.074 -0.098 (0.075) (0.075) (0.076) Full-time worke -0.213** -0.270*** 0.095 0.509*** (0.068) (0.068) (0.068) (0.073) Constant -9.002E-16 0.020 -9.145E-16 0.003 -1.162E-16 0.000 -1.069E-15 0.115 (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.035) Satisfaction with work and family -0.145*** -0.061 -0.034 -0.340*** arrangements (z-score) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.035)

264

Table 6.1 continued

Ambivalence outcome Being Good at Combining Work Identitya Attachmenta Motheringa and Familyb b (SE) Adj R2 b (SE) Adj R2 b (SE) Adj R2 b (SE) Adj R2 Relationship resources Constant -3.706 E-15 0.075 -3.449E-15 0.066 -1.475E-15 0.018 -1.745E-16 0.026 (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.037) Social Support at 6 months (z- -0.276*** -0.259*** -0.139*** -0.164*** score) (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.037) Constant -0.029 0.057 -0.012 0.045 -0.010 0.006 -0.008 0.042 (0.029) (0.030) (0.030) (0.037) Relationship – Intimacy (z-score) -0.122*** -0.127*** -0.006 -0.197*** (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.043) Relationship – Conflict (z-score) 0.128*** 0.118 0.078* 0.028 (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.043) Missing intimate relationship 0.451*** 0.184 0.162 0.133 scales data (0.117) (0.117) (0.120) (0.154)

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 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Constant -0.054 -.167** -0.563*** 0.063 -0.405*** -0.045 -0.036 -0.029 -0.338*** -0.246*** (0.049) (0.053) (0.066) (0.063) (0.076) (0.047) (0.048) (0.047) (0.074) (0.070) White middle-class mothers -0.036 -0.077 -0.023 -0.013 0.006 0.003 -0.017 -0.004 0.011 0.028 (race, income, education) (0.072) (0.071) (0.069) (0.072) (0.068) (0.069) (0.072) (0.070) (0.067) (0.063) (Yes=1) Control variables Agea 18 - 25 0.124 0.069 -0.031 0.112 -0.053 0.131+ 0.119 0.120+ -0.033 -0.132* (.075) (0.074) (0.072) (0.075) (0.072) (0.072) (0.073) (0.072) (0.07) (0.066) 35+ -0.083 -0.037 0.014 -0.100 0.012 -0.109 -0.135 -0.139+ -0.039 -0.036 (.087) (0.086) (0.083) (0.087) (0.082) (0.084) (0.085) (0.083) (0.080) (0.075) Marital statusb Cohabitating 0.058 0.058 -0.054 0.038 -0.078 0.011 -0.040 -0.047 -0.159 -0.214* (0.111) (0.110) (0.106) (0.111) (0.105) (0.107) (0.110) (0.107) (0.102) (0.096) Single 0.218* 0.188* 0.129 0.209* 0.088 0.142 0.163+ 0.123 0.016 0.000 (0.093) (0.092) (0.088) (0.092) (0.088) (0.090) (0.091) (0.089) (0.085) (0.08) Mother in-school pre-birth 0.015 -0.023 -0.034 0.007 -0.049 -0.003 0.000 -0.013 -0.079 -0.061 (yes=1) (0.080) (0.080) (0.076) (0.080) (0.076) (0.078) (0.079) (0.077) (0.074) (0.069) Motherhood experience

First-time mother (Yes=1) 0.325*** 0.384*** 0.403*** 0.448*** 0.421*** (0.060) (0.058) (0.058) (0.056) (0.053) Baby's temperament 0.421*** 0.398*** 0.381*** 0.327*** average or worsec (0.059) (0.058) (0.056) (0.053) Baby's healthd Good 0.013 0.041 0.019 0.044 (0.062) (0.062) (0.06) (0.056) Fair or poor 0.149+ 0.171+ 0.109 0.101 (0.090) (0.089) (0.087) (0.082) Mother's healthd Good 0.372*** 0.342*** 0.246*** 0.164** (0.062) (0.062) (0.061) (0.058) Fair or poor 0.424*** 0.343*** 0.193* 0.100 (0.094) (0.095) (0.093) (0.088) Employment status Employmente Part-time -0.158* -0.161* -0.143* -0.133* (0.077) (0.073) (0.070) (0.066) Full-time -0.191** -0.257*** -0.231*** -0.214*** (0.068) (0.067) (0.065) (0.061) Mother’s satisfaction with -0.110*** -0.069* -0.012 work and family (0.029) (0.028) (0.027) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -0.268*** -0.221*** -0.184*** -0.087** (0.028) (0.030) (0.029) (0.029) Love relationship - Intimacy -0.116** -0.047 -0.060+ -0.025 (z-score) (0.034) (0.035) (0.033) (0.031) Love relationship - Conflict 0.128*** 0.105** 0.089 0.046 (z-score) (0.034) (0.034) (0.032) (0.03) Missing values on love 0.660+ 0.522 0.480 0.372 scales/not single (0.349) (0.342) (0.325) (0.306) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.362*** (0.030)

Adj R2 0.011 0.035 0.118 0.017 0.134 0.081 0.056 0.097 0.193 0.286 F 3.205** 7.015*** 13.892*** 3.481** 12.981*** 15.667*** 8.649*** 13.387*** 15.606*** 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 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Constant 1.514** 1.477** 0.703 1.256* 0.353 1.363** 1.318** 1.280* 0.316 -0.315 (0.529) (0.522) (0.507) (0.552) (0.525) (0.510) (0.518) (0.506) (0.507) (0.482) Racea (Black=1) -0.173 -0.121 -0.172 -0.184+ -0.197* -0.149 -0.187* -0.166+ -0.172+ -0.096 (0.097) (0.096) (0.093) (0.097) (0.092) (0.094) (0.095) (0.093) (0.089) (0.084) Family income (ln) -0.141** -0.152** -0.112 -0.109 -0.065 -0.123** -0.120* -0.115* -0.056 0.012 (0.047) (0.047) (0.045) (0.051) (0.048) (0.046) (0.047) (0.046) (0.046) (0.044) Educationb HS degree or lower 0.011 0.075 -0.023 0.008 -0.034 -0.006 -0.002 0.003 -0.003 -0.033 (0.091) (0.091) (0.088) (0.091) (0.087) (0.088) (0.090) (0.088) (0.085) (0.081) Some post-secondary -0.138 -0.099 -0.123 -0.131 -0.130+ -0.171* -0.154* -0.164* -0.134+ -0.098 (0.074) (0.074) (0.071) (0.075) (0.071) (0.072) (0.074) (0.072) (0.069) (0.066) Control variables Agec 18 - 25 0.055 -0.022 -0.069 0.062 -0.066 0.066 0.063 0.060 -0.054 -0.116 (0.080) (0.080) (0.077) (0.080) (0.077) (0.077) (0.078) (0.077) (0.074) (0.07) 35+ -0.081 -0.030 0.011 -0.096 0.007 -0.108 -0.136 -0.139 -0.044 -0.047 (0.086) (0.086) (0.082) (0.087) (0.082) (0.083) (0.085) (0.083) (0.080) (0.075) Marital statusd Cohabitating 0.019 -0.002 -0.070 0.019 -0.072 -0.028 -0.065 -0.078 -0.160 -0.196* (0.113) (0.112) (0.108) (0.113) (0.107) (0.109) (0.112) (0.109) (0.104) (0.099) Single 0.126 0.060 0.075 0.157 0.092 0.059 0.100 0.054 0.014 0.047 (0.108) (0.108) (0.103) (0.110) (0.104) (0.105) (0.106) (0.104) (0.101) (0.095) Mother in-school pre-birth 0.024 -0.017 -0.027 0.024 -0.031 0.009 0.011 0.000 -0.058 -0.046 (yes=1) (0.081) (0.081) (0.077) (0.081) (0.077) (0.078) (0.08) (0.078) (0.075) (0.07) Motherhood experience First-time mother 0.333*** 0.376*** 0.384*** 0.432*** 0.410*** (Yes=1) (0.060) (0.058) (0.059) (0.057) (0.054) Baby's temperament 0.416*** 0.402*** 0.383*** 0.332*** average or worsee (0.059) (0.058) (0.056) (0.053) Baby's healthf Good 0.022 0.042 0.021 0.044 (0.062) (0.061) (0.059) (0.056) Fair or poor 0.147 0.163+ 0.102 0.099 (0.090) (0.089) (0.086) (0.082) Mother's healthf Good 0.364*** 0.339*** 0.241*** 0.167** (0.062) (0.062) (0.061) (0.058) Fair or poor 0.399*** 0.331 0.178+ 0.099 (0.094) (0.095) (0.093) (0.088) Employment status Employmentg Part-time -0.129+ -0.150* -0.131+ -0.140* (0.078) (0.074) (0.071) (0.067) Full-time -0.127+ -0.221** -0.196** -0.218** (0.073) (0.072) (0.069) (0.066) Mother’s satisfaction -0.115 -0.073** -0.017 with work and family (0.029) (0.028) (0.027) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources

Social support (z-score) -.267*** -0.221*** -0.184*** -0.087** (.028) (0.03) (0.029) (0.029) Love relationship - -0.113** 0.043 -0.059+ -0.029 Intimacy (z-score) (0.034) (0.035) (0.033) (0.032) Love relationship - Conflict 0.130*** 0.108** 0.091** 0.045 (z-score) (0.034) (0.034) (0.032) (0.031) Missing values on love 0.604+ 0.471 0.435 0.350 scales/not single (0.347) (0.339) (0.324) (0.306) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.358***

Adj R2 0.024 0.048 0.126 0.025 0.140 0.093 0.068 0.108 0.199 0.287 F 4.149*** 6.876*** 12.093*** 3.747*** 11.460*** 12.926*** 8.007*** 11.808*** 14.063*** 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

Constant -0.035 0.011 -0.180* 0.110+ -0.031 -0.026 -0.020 -0.014 0.038 0.099 (0.049) (0.053) (0.070) (0.063) (0.080) (0.047) (0.048) (0.047) (0.078) (0.077) White middle-class mothers 0.158* 0.175 0.197** 0.181** 0.220** 0.197** 0.185* 0.197** 0.228** 0.240** (race, income, education) (0.072) (0.072) (0.072) (0.072) (0.072) (0.070) (0.071) (0.070) (0.070) (0.069) (Yes=1) Control variables Agea 18 - 25 0.074 0.096 0.050 0.066 0.033 0.081 0.070 0.071 0.053 -0.012 (0.075) (0.076) (0.076) (0.075) (0.076) (0.072) (0.073) (0.072) (0.073) (0.072) 35+ -0.082 -0.100 -0.075 -0.099 -0.077 -0.108 -0.135 -0.139+ -0.134 -0.131 (0.087) (0.088) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.084) (0.085) (0.084) (0.084) (0.082) Marital statusb Cohabitating -0.111 -0.111 -0.160 -0.133 -0.180 -0.159 -0.225* -0.232* -0.280** -0.317** (0.112) (0.111) (0.112) (0.111) (0.111) (0.108) (0.11) (0.107) (0.107) (0.105) Single -0.007 0.004 -0.024 -0.016 -0.057 -0.084 -0.066 -0.104 -0.135 -0.146+ (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.092) (0.092) (0.090) (0.091) (0.089) (0.089) (0.087) Mother in-school pre-birth -0.052 -0.036 -0.044 -0.069 -0.066 -0.070 -0.061 -0.074 -0.092 -0.080 (yes=1) (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) (0.080) (0.080) (0.078) (0.079) (0.077) (0.077) (0.076) Motherhood experience

First-time mother (Yes=1) -0.131* -0.105+ -0.075 -0.027 -0.044 (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.059) (0.058) Baby's temperament 0.204** 0.175** 0.158** 0.122* average or worsec (0.062) (0.062) (0.059) (0.058) Baby's healthd Good 0.053 0.087 0.063 0.079 (0.065) (0.065) (0.063) (0.061) Fair or poor 0.065 0.096 0.023 0.018 (0.095) (0.094) (0.091) (0.089) Mother's healthd Good 0.152* 0.132* 0.03 -0.024 (0.065) (0.065) (0.064) (0.063) Fair or poor 0.173+ 0.099 -0.062 -0.124 (0.061) (0.100) (0.098) (0.096) Employment status Employmente Part-time -0.110 -0.097 -0.078 -0.071 (0.077) (0.077) (0.074) (0.072) Full-time -0.296*** -0.307*** -0.277*** -0.265*** (0.068) (0.071) (0.068) (0.067) Mother’s satisfaction with -0.084** -0.036 0.001 work and family (0.030) (0.029) (0.029) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -0.271*** -0.213*** -0.200*** -0.136*** (0.029) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) Love relationship - Intimacy -0.148*** -0.081* -0.081* -0.058+ (z-score) (0.034) (0.035) (0.035) (0.034) Love relationship - Conflict (z- 0.116** 0.094** 0.085* 0.057+ score) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.033) Missing values on love 1.006** 0.873* 0.848* 0.777* scales/not single (0.348) (0.342) (0.341) (0.334) Personality Neuroticism (z-scale) 0.240*** (0.032)

Adj R2 0.001 0.004 0.018 0.016 0.035 0.073 0.057 0.095 0.110 0.151 F 1.194 1.688 2.803** 3.316** 3.825*** 13.962*** 8.781*** 13.107*** 8.565*** 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 0.527 0.158 -0.199 -0.501 0.357 0.279 0.242 -0.561 -0.995+ (0.534) (0.533) (0.535) (0.554) (0.553) (0.515) (0.52) (0.509) (0.532) (0.523) Racea (Black=1) -0.243* -0.266** -0.293** -0.260** -0.314** -0.219* -0.251** -0.231* -0.282** -0.230* (0.098) (0.098) (0.098) (0.097) (0.097) (0.094) (0.095) (0.094) (0.094) (0.092) Family income (ln) -0.037 -0.032 -0.014 0.043 0.063 -0.019 -0.012 -0.008 0.075 0.121* (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.051) (0.051) (0.046) (0.047) (0.046) (0.049) (0.048) Educationb HS degree or lower -0.148 -0.177+ -0.225* -0.133 -0.216* -0.165+ -0.173+ -0.168+ -0.190* -0.210* (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.089) (0.091) (0.089) (0.090) (0.088) Some post-secondary -0.156* -0.174* -0.185* -0.123 -0.168* -0.189** -0.181* -0.190** -0.177** -0.152* (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.072) (0.074) (0.073) (0.073) (0.071) Control variables Agec 18 - 25 0.078 0.114 0.089 0.105 0.104 0.089 0.090 0.087 0.117 0.074 (0.080) (0.082) (0.081) (0.080) (0.081) (0.078) (0.079) (0.077) (0.078) (0.077) 35+ -0.079 -0.103 -0.081 -0.104 -0.090 -0.106 -0.137 -0.141+ -0.146+ -0.148+ (0.087) (0.088) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.084) (0.085) (0.083) (0.083) (0.082) Marital statusd Cohabitating -0.084 -0.075 -0.108 -0.077 -0.102 -0.132 -0.185+ -0.198+ -0.210+ -0.235* (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.113) (0.110) (0.112) (0.110) (0.11) (0.107) Single 0.037 0.067 0.071 0.114 0.119 -0.031 0.009 -0.035 0.037 0.059 (0.110) (0.110) (0.109) (0.110) (0.109) (0.106) (0.106) (0.105) (0.106) (0.103) Mother in-school pre-birth -0.037 -0.018 -0.026 -0.043 -0.037 -0.053 -0.044 -0.055 -0.061 -0.052 (yes=1) (0.082) (0.082) (0.082) (0.082) (0.081) (0.079) (0.080) (0.079) (0.078) (0.076) Motherhood experience First-time mother -0.152* -0.133* -0.105+ -0.052 -0.067 (Yes=1) (0.062) (0.062) (0.062) (0.06) (0.058) Baby's temperament 0.220*** 0.196** 0.177** 0.142* average or worsee (0.062) (0.062) (0.059) (0.058) Baby's healthf Good 0.056 0.088 0.064 0.080 (0.065) (0.065) (0.062) (0.061) Fair or poor 0.058 0.088 0.016 0.014 (0.095) (0.094) (0.091) (0.089) Mother's healthf Good 0.162* 0.146* 0.044 -0.007 (0.065) (0.065) (0.064) (0.063) Fair or poor 0.181+ 0.113 -0.049 -0.103 (0.100) (0.100) (0.098) (0.096) Employment status Employmentg Part-time -0.131+ -0.129+ -0.109 -0.116 (0.078) (0.078) (0.075) (0.073) Full-time -0.321*** -0.344*** -0.316*** -0.332*** (0.074) (0.076) (0.073) (0.071) Mother’s satisfaction -0.093** -0.047 -0.008 with work and family (0.030) (0.029) (0.029) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -.268*** -0.210*** -0.192*** -0.125*** (.029) (0.030) (0.031) (0.031) Love relationship - -0.148*** -0.081* -0.084* -0.064+ Intimacy (z-score) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.034) Love relationship - Conflict 0.120*** 0.098** 0.088** 0.056+ (z-score) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.033) Missing values on love 0.977** 0.85* 0.830* 0.771* scales/not single (0.348) (0.341) (0.34) (0.332) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.246*** (0.033)

Adj R2 0.004 0.009 0.025 0.019 0.044 0.075 0.061 0.098 0.117 0.158 F 1.556 2.018* 2.969*** 3.059*** 3.972*** 10.352*** 7.283*** 10.638*** 8.000*** 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 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Constant -0.141** -0.159** -0.293*** -.150 (.063) -.302*** -0.137** -0.132** -0.128** -0.264** -0.239** (0.049) (0.053) (0.069) (.081) (0.048) (0.049) (0.049) (0.081) (0.081) White middle-class 0.216 ** 0.210** 0.221** .222** .226** 0.236** 0.216** 0.224** 0.220** 0.225** mothers (race, income, (0.072) (0.072) (0.072) (.072) (.072) (0.071) (0.073) (0.073) (0.073) (0.073) education) (Yes=1) Control variables Agea 18 - 25 0.229** 0.221** 0.185* 0.222** 0.181* 0.233** 0.224** 0.225** 0.188* 0.161* (0.075) (0.075) (0.076) (0.075) (0.076) (0.074) (0.075) (0.074) (0.076) (0.076) 35+ 0.001 0.008 .030 (.087) -0.002 0.028 -0.013 -0.019 -0.022 0.003 0.004 (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.086) (0.087) (0.086) (0.087) (0.086) Marital statusb Cohabitating -0.112 -0.112 -0.162 -0.113 -0.165 -0.137 -0.149 -0.153 -0.200+ -0.216+ (0.111) (0.111) (0.111) (0.111) (0.111) (0.11) (0.112) (0.111) (0.111) (0.111) Single 0.093 0.088 0.057 0.092 0.056 0.053 0.074 0.049 0.021 0.016 (0.092) (0.093) (0.092) (0.092) (0.093) (0.092) (0.093) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) Mother in-school pre-birth 0.053 0.047 0.037 0.062 0.050 0.044 0.045 0.037 0.032 0.037 (yes=1) (0.080) (0.081) (0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.08) (0.081) (0.08) (0.08) (0.080) Motherhood experience First-time mother 0.050 0.064 0.046 0.063 0.056 (Yes=1) (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) Baby's temperament 0.257*** 0.271*** 0.260*** 0.245*** average or worsec (0.062) (0.062) (0.061) (0.061) Baby's healthd Good 0.029 0.014 0.005 0.012 (0.065) (0.065) (0.065) (0.065) Fair or poor -0.064 -0.084 -0.115 -0.117 (0.095) (0.095) (0.094) (0.094) Mother's healthd Good 0.054 0.046 -0.001 -0.024 (0.065) (0.065) (0.066) (0.066) Fair or poor 0.163+ 0.171+ 0.095 0.069 (0.099) (0.100) (0.101) (0.101) Employment status Employmente Part-time -0.103 -0.095 -0.084 -0.081 (0.077) (0.077) (0.076) (0.076) Full-time 0.092 0.119+ 0.136+ 0.141* (0.068) (0.071) (0.071) (0.07) Mother’s satisfaction -0.004 0.017 0.033 with work and family (0.030) (0.031) (0.031) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -0.141*** -0.133*** -0.128*** -0.101** (0.029) (0.032) (0.032) (0.033) Love relationship - -0.028 0.014 0.011 0.021 Intimacy (z-score) (0.035) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) Love relationship - Conflict 0.060+ 0.046 0.047 0.035 (z-score) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) Missing values on love 0.265 0.182 0.239 0.209 scales/not single (0.356) (0.354) (0.354) (0.353) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.100** (0.034)

Adj R2 0.012 0.011 0.026 0.016 0.031 0.031 0.016 0.030 0.046 0.052 F 3.280** 2.906** 3.559*** 3.328** 3.432*** 6.217*** 3.033** 4.555*** 3.944*** 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 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Constant -0.801 -0.808 -1.090* -0.542 -0.793 -0.883+ -0.869 -0.893+ -0.776 -0.967+ (0.531) (0.531) (0.534) (0.554) (0.556) (0.526) (0.531) (0.527) (0.552) (0.553) Racea (Black=1) 0.260** 0.271** 0.241* 0.259** 0.236* 0.273** 0.254** 0.267** 0.253** 0.276** (0.097) (0.098) (0.097) (0.097) (0.098) (0.096) (0.097) (0.097) (0.097) (0.097) Family income (ln) 0.074 0.072 0.087+ 0.050 0.060 0.084+ 0.082+ 0.085+ 0.061 0.082 (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.051) (0.051) (0.047) (0.048) (0.047) (0.050) (0.051) Educationb HS degree or lower -0.056 -0.043 -0.073 -0.075 -0.096 -0.065 -0.055 -0.052 -0.07 -0.079 (0.091) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.090) (0.093) (0.092) (0.093) (0.093) Some post-secondary -0.198** -0.190* -0.191* -0.218** -0.216** -0.216** -0.199 -0.205** -0.211** -0.201** (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.075) (0.074) (0.076) (0.075) (0.076) (0.075) Control variables Agec 18 - 25 0.212** 0.196 0.179* 0.197 0.167* 0.217** 0.211** 0.209** 0.167* 0.148+ (0.080) (0.081) (0.081) (0.080) (0.081) (0.079) (0.080) (0.080) (0.081) (0.081) 35+ 0.003 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.030 -0.011 -0.018 -0.020 0.007 0.006 (.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.086) (0.087) (0.086) (0.087) (0.086) Marital statusd Cohabitating -0.153 -0.157 -0.188+ -0.160 -0.197+ -0.178 -0.188 -0.196+ -0.242* -0.253* (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.113) (0.113) (0.115) (0.114) (0.114) (0.113) Single 0.059 0.046 0.047 0.035 0.022 0.023 0.050 0.021 -0.023 -0.014 (0.109) (0.110) (0.109) (0.110) (0.11) (0.108) (0.109) (0.108) (0.109) (0.109) Mother in-school pre-birth 0.061 0.053 0.044 0.067 0.053 0.053 0.056 0.048 0.037 0.041 (yes=1) (0.082) (0.082) (0.082) (0.082) (0.081) (0.081) (0.082) (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) Motherhood experience First-time mother 0.067 0.076 0.059 0.079 0.072 (Yes=1) (0.061) (0.061) (0.062) (0.062) (0.062) Baby's temperament 0.249*** 0.260*** 0.247*** 0.231*** average or worsee (0.062) (0.062) (0.061) (0.061) Baby's healthf Good 0.030 0.018 0.009 0.016 (0.065) (0.065) (0.065) (0.064) Fair or poor -0.062 -0.079 -0.113 -0.114 (0.095) (0.095) (0.094) (0.094) Mother's healthf Good 0.052 0.042 -0.007 -0.03 (0.065) (0.065) (0.066) (0.066) Fair or poor 0.169+ 0.172+ 0.092 0.068 (0.099) (0.100) (0.101) (0.101) Employment status Employmentg Part-time -0.088 -0.088 -0.074 -0.077 (0.078) (0.078) (0.078) (0.077) Full-time 0.101 0.115 0.134+ 0.128+ (0.074) (0.076) (0.076) (0.075) Mother’s satisfaction with -0.006 0.017 0.034 work and family (0.030) (0.031) (0.031) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -0.145*** -0.137*** -0.131*** -0.102** (0.029) (0.032) (0.032) (0.033) Love relationship - Intimacy -0.031 0.012 0.008 0.017 (z-score) (0.035) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) Love relationship - Conflict 0.058 0.044 0.045 0.031 (z-score) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) Missing values on love 0.320 0.238 0.285 0.259 scales/not single (0.355) (0.353) (0.353) (0.352) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.108** (0.035)

Adj R2 0.016 0.017 0.030 0.029 0.034 0.036 0.021 0.036 0.050 0.058 F 3.152** 2.955** 3.385*** 3.159*** 3.246*** 5.367*** 3.031*** 4.287*** 3.793*** 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 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Constant -0.011 -0.022 -0.120 -0.315*** -0.299** -0.007 -0.022 -0.018 -0.279** -0.248** (0.062) (0.069) (0.089) (0.074) (0.091) (0.061) (0.061) (0.061) (0.091) (0.091) White middle-class mothers -0.082 -0.086 -0.055 -0.058 0.003 -0.077 -0.035 -0.04 0.026 0.026 (race, income, education) (0.087) (0.088) (0.087) (0.084) (0.081) (0.086) (0.087) (0.087) (0.082) (0.081) (Yes=1) Control variables Agea 18 - 25 -0.015 -0.022 -0.036 -0.055 -0.056 -0.005 0.015 0.016 -0.032 -0.059 (0.095) (0.096) (0.097) (0.092) (0.090) (0.094) (0.093) (0.093) (0.089) (0.088) 35+ 0.054 0.059 0.065 0.036 0.085 0.073 0.046 0.059 0.084 0.086 (0.112) (0.112) (0.112) (0.108) (0.104) (0.11) (0.11) (0.109) (0.103) (0.103) Marital statusb Cohabitating -0.002 -0.003 0.018 -0.020 0.035 -0.014 -0.055 -0.056 -0.017 -0.044 (0.155) (0.156) (0.156) (0.151) (0.144) (0.154) (0.154) (0.153) (0.143) (0.143) Single 0.130 0.127 0.122 0.121 0.094 0.072 0.062 0.039 0.023 0.038 (0.121) (0.122) (0.121) (0.118) (0.112) (0.121) (0.119) (0.119) (0.112) (0.111) Mother in-school pre-birth 0.124 0.122 0.126 0.153 0.159 0.099 0.107 0.097 0.137 0.139 (yes=1) (0.105) (0.106) (0.105) (0.102) (0.097) (0.104) (0.104) (0.104) (0.097) (0.096) Motherhood experience

First-time mother (Yes=1) 0.029 0.054 -0.012 0.035 0.035 (0.077) (0.077) (0.072) (0.071) (0.071) Baby's temperament -0.117 -0.064 -0.052 -0.075 average or worsec (0.080) (0.075) (0.074) (0.073) Baby's healthd Good -0.064 -0.074 -0.084 -0.082 (0.082) (0.077) (0.076) (0.075) Fair or poor 0.179 0.107 0.081 0.077 (0.124) (0.116) (0.114) (0.114) Mother's healthd Good 0.206* 0.095 0.029 -0.007 (0.082) (0.077) (0.077) (0.078) Fair or poor 0.330* 0.237+ 0.134 0.095 (0.136) (0.127) (0.127) (0.127) Employment status Employmente Full-time 0.510*** 0.406*** 0.402*** 0.406*** (0.074) (0.072) (0.071) (0.071) Mother’s satisfaction with -0.294*** -0.279*** -0.250*** work and family (0.035) (0.035) (0.036) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -0.159*** -0.095* -0.040 -0.005 (0.037) (0.039) (0.038) (0.039) Love relationship - Intimacy -0.196*** -0.165*** -0.157*** -0.148** (z-score) (0.044) (0.046) (0.043) (0.043) Love relationship - Conflict (z- 0.023 0.017 0.010 -0.006 score) (0.044) (0.044) (0.041) (0.041) Missing values on love 0.399 0.415 0.336 0.268 scales/not single (0.445) (0.444) (0.414) (0.411) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.133** (0.040)

Adj R2 -0.002 -0.004 0.012 0.059 0.150 0.021 0.037 0.044 0.176 0.188 F 0.713 0.631 1.714+ 7.470*** 10.188*** 3.238** 4.111*** 4.307*** 9.618*** 9.843***

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

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 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Constant 1.554+ 1.549+ 1.303 2.719** 2.532** 1.802* 1.409 1.583+ 2.559** 2.242* (0.890) (0.891) (0.891) (0.870) (0.834) (0.880) (0.873) (0.872) (0.826) (0.830) Racea (Black=1) -0.148 -0.145 -0.122 -0.153 -0.085 -0.136 -0.147 -0.139 -0.077 -0.072 (0.137) (0.138) (0.138) (0.132) (0.127) (0.135) (0.134) (0.134) (0.125) (0.124) Family income (ln) -0.145+ -0.145+ -0.129 -0.277*** -0.251** -0.166* -0.128 -0.144 -0.250** -0.219** (0.080) (0.080) (0.079) (0.079) (0.075) (0.079) (0.078) (0.078) (0.074) (0.075) Educationb HS degree or lower -0.044 -0.040 -0.084 -0.142 -0.204+ -0.061 -0.095 -0.096 -0.223* -0.223* (0.118) (0.120) (0.120) (0.115) (0.111) (0.117) (0.117) (0.117) (0.110) (0.110) Some post-secondary -0.007 -0.005 -0.024 -0.099 -0.196* -0.017 -0.060 -0.058 -0.227** -0.209* (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.090) (0.087) (0.092) (0.093) (0.092) (0.087) (0.087) Control variables Agec 18 - 25 -0.040 -0.044 -0.047 -0.122 -0.104 -0.036 0.004 -0.001 -0.078 -0.087 (0.102) (0.105) (0.104) (0.099) (0.096) (0.101) (0.101) (0.101) (0.095) (0.095) 35+ 0.070 0.073 0.076 0.074 0.112 0.094 0.058 0.075 0.112 0.108 (0.112) (0.113) (0.113) (0.108) (0.104) (0.111) (0.110) (0.110) (0.103) (0.102) Marital statusd Cohabitating -0.010 -0.011 0.016 -0.058 0.000 -0.027 -0.056 -0.062 -0.055 -0.067 (0.158) (0.158) (0.158) (0.152) (0.146) (0.156) (0.156) (0.155) (0.145) (0.144) Single 0.080 0.076 0.078 -0.030 -0.055 0.000 0.024 -0.015 -0.13 -0.093 (0.143) (0.144) (0.143) (0.139) (0.132) (0.142) (0.141) (0.141) (0.132) (0.132) Mother in-school pre- 0.107 0.106 0.108 0.120 0.128 0.077 0.093 0.079 0.107 0.111 birth (yes=1) (0.108) (0.107) (0.107) (0.103) (0.098) (0.106) (0.106) (0.106) (0.098) (0.097) Motherhood experience First-time mother 0.017 0.041 -0.030 0.018 0.018 (Yes=1) (0.078) (0.078) (0.072) (0.071) (0.071) Baby's temperament -0.114 -0.062 -0.051 -0.070 average or worsee (0.081) (0.074) (0.073) (0.073) Baby's healthf Good -0.057 -0.066 -0.075 -0.074 (0.082) (0.076) (0.075) (0.075) Fair or poor 0.192 0.118 0.091 0.089 (0.125) (0.115) (0.114) (0.113) Mother's healthf Good 0.202* 0.080 0.011 -0.016 (0.082) (0.076) (0.077) (0.077) Fair or poor 0.315* 0.208 0.101 0.074 (0.137) (0.127) (0.127) (0.127) Employment status Employmentg Full-time 0.573*** 0.467*** 0.464*** 0.460*** (0.075) (0.073) (0.073) (0.072) Mother’s satisfaction -0.297*** -0.283*** -0.258*** with work and family (0.035) (0.035) (0.036) arrangements (z- score) Relationship resources

Social support (z-score) -0.163*** -0.099* -0.048 -0.016 (0.037) (0.040) (0.038) (0.039) Love relationship - -0.199*** -0.165*** -0.158*** -0.151*** Intimacy (z-score) (0.045) (0.046) (0.043) (0.043) Love relationship - 0.021 0.014 0.008 -0.007 Conflict (z-score) (0.044) (0.044) (0.041) (0.041) Missing values on love 0.369 0.387 0.319 0.259 scales/not single (0.445) (0.443) (0.410) (0.408) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.114** (0.040)

Adj R2 -0.001 -0.003 0.012 0.072 0.163 0.024 0.038 0.046 0.190 0.198 F 0.901 0.815 1.587+ 6.663*** 9.336*** 2.762** 3.421*** 3.666*** 9.109*** 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 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 pre-

baby 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 (2000-

2003), 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 in- between 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 full- time, 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-at-

home 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 suppo rt 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-at- home 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 full-

time 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 well- being.

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 child-

focused 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 Combining Good at Identity Attachment Work and Mothering Family BASELINE MODELS: Social structural characteristics (with demographic controls only) Analysis 1 – Composite SES and race variables White middle class mothers (dichotomy) N/S   N/S Analysis 2 – Individual SES and race indicators Race (being black) N/S   N/S Household income  N/S N/S N/S Education (compared to college and higher) HS or less N/S N/S N/S N/S Some college N/S   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   N/S Analysis 2 – Individual SES and race indicators Race (being black) N/S   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 N/S Baby’s temperament average or worse than    N/S average (compared to better than average) Baby’s health good/poor or fair (compared to N/S N/S N/S N/S excellent) Mother’s health good/poor or fair (compared to  N/S N/S N/S excellent) Employment (compared to non-employed) Working part-time  N/S N/S N/A Working full-time   N/S  Satisfaction with work and family arrangements N/S N/S N/S  Relationship resources Social support    N/S Partner relationship - conflict N/S N/S N/S N/S Partner relationship – intimacy N/S N/S N/S  Personality – Neuroticism scale     VARIANCE EXPLAINED by the fully adjusted 2 28.7% 15.8% 5.8% 19.8% model (adjusted R from Analysis 2)

Notes:   - relationship significant at p<.05 level,  - lowers outcome,  - increases outcome; N/S – non-significant, N/A – not applicable.

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: Valid N after filter 1) Only respondents participating in the 6 month wave are included 1,279 2) Only respondents with valid data on instruments used to construct dependent 1,274 variables (Parenting Stress Index, Separation Anxiety Index, and Combining Work Family Scale) 3) Only Black and White non-Hispanic respondents are included (Main sample) 1,183 4) The sub-sample of employed mothers for Ambivalence about combining work 740 and family (Work-family sample) 5) The main analytic sample after missing data excluded (23 cases) 1,160 6) The work-family sample after missing data excluded from (12 cases) 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 Number Approach to missing data (Time of collection) of missing cases Occupation (before baby) 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. Total household income 8 I was able to impute data for 3 cases based on their pre-baby (6 months) and 1-month reported total family income; I excluded the other 5 cases. Marital status 3 Based on the response about marital status at 1 month and (6 months) questions about presence of father and partner at home at, I recoded these cases as “single.” Employment status 2 Based on the answers to other employment related questions (6 months) 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. Satisfaction with work and 1 I imputed the missing value based on several characteristics family arrangements of the respondent – race (white), occupation category (6 months) (administrative), hours worked (40). I calculated the mean for the variable for this-defined sub-sample and substituted the missing value with this value. Quality of intimate 76 Because the majority of missing cases are respondents relationships without a partner, excluding all these cases would introduce a (1 month) 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. Mother's evaluation of 8 I excluded these 8 cases from the analytic sample. child's temperament (6 months) Main sample N 1,160 23 cases excluded from the analysis (1.9% out of 1,183). I (Being good at mothering, found no statistical differences between the cases excluded Identity, Attachment from the analysis and the rest of the sample on race, income, ambivalence) age, education, marital status, and employment status (t- tests). Work-family N 728 12 cases excluded from the analysis (1.6% out of 740) (Combining work and family ambivalence; employed mothers only)

322

APPENDIX B

Overview of the Independent Variables and Their Coding

Indicator Operational description Variable name and Values (time of dummy variables measurement) Race (01) Race dichotomized – black RACE_BW 0 – White and white non-Hispanics 1 – Black Education (00) Education in years split into 3 MEDUC3cat HS or less; categories Dummy variables: some college; MED3HS complete college MED3_1315d or more MED3_colleged School status Mother enrolled in school MSCHSM00 0 – no (00) before the baby is born 1 – yes Income (06) Total household income LnTINC06 (natural log transformation) Occupation Occupational status before MOCC3 Managerial/ (00) child birth measured in 13 Dummy variables: professional; categories; split into 3 OCC_MANAG other jobs; non- categories OCC_JOBOTHER working OCC_NOWORK Age (01) Mother’s age at 1 month of MAGE_01 Young (18-25); the baby measured in years; Dummy variables: Average (26-34); split into 3 categories AGE3YOUNG Older (35+) AGE3MIDDLE AGE3OLD Marital status Marital status at 6 months MSTAT306im Married, (06) recoded into 3 categories Dummy variables: Cohabitating, MARRIED_DUMMY306 Single/Divorced/ COHAB_DUMMY306 Widow SINGLE_DUMMY306 Child’s birth Number of children mother CBORD2cat 0 – more than 1 order (01) has – dichotomized as first- child time and repeat mothers 1 – 1 child only Mother’s Self-evaluation of own health Dummy variables: 1 – poor or fair health (06) in 4 categories (fair and poor HLTMEXC06d 2 – good collapsed), dummy variables HLMGOOD06d 3 – excellent HLMPOOR06d Baby’s health Mother’s evaluation of Dummy variables: 1 – poor or fair (06) child’s health in 4 categories HLBEXCd06 2 – good (fair and poor collapsed), HLBGOODd06 3 – excellent dummy variables HLBPOORd06

323

Indicator Operational description Variable name and Values (time of dummy variables measurement) Child’s Mother’s evaluation of baby’s GTEMP06DICH 0 – less difficult temperament temperament – more difficult than average (06) than average; average; better 1 – average or than average – dichotomized more difficult than average Employment Employment status based on EMST3im Stay-at-home; status (06) total number of hours worked Dummy variables: Part-time work; per week: stay-at-home mom SAHM_d Full-time work (no work outside of home); PTwork_d part-time work (1-34 hours); FTwork_d full-time work (35 and more) Satisfaction Scale of mother’s satisfaction SATWMM06 1 – very with work and with the decision to combine dissatisfied family work and family 2 – dissatisfied arrangement* 3 –mixed feelings (06) 4 – satisfied 5 – very satisfied Social Composite scale of 11 items SOCSPM06 1 – lowest support*(06) (Relationships with Others 6 – highest questionnaire) Quality of Quality of marital or partner LRINTM01im (with 1 – lowest intimate relationship – intimacy scale; imputed values) 7 – highest relationship – dummy variable for missing MISSINT intimacy* (01) values (no answer, not single) Quality of Quality of marital or partner LRCONM01im (with 1 – lowest intimate relationship - conflict scale; imputed values) 7 – highest relationship – dummy variable for missing MISSCON conflict* (01) values (no answer, not single) Personality Neuroticism scale from NEO NEURTM06_01 (with 1 – strongly traits* (06) Personality Inventory imputed values) 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 home-

to-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)

Item Strongly Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Mean (SD) disagree disagree agree 1. I miss holding or cuddling my child when I am away from him/her. .8 2.4 12.2 35.9 48.8 4.29 (.830) 2. My child is happier with me than with babysitters or teachers. 2.2 12.9 27.3 29.2 28.3 3.68 (1.084) 3. Children will be afraid in a new place without their mother. 7.8 31.4 40.6 14.4 5.8 2.79 (.979) 4. When away from my child, I often wonder if his/her physical needs (dry 14.4 25.0 21.2 20.7 18.8 3.05 (1.334) diapers, enough to eat, etc.) are being met. 5. Holding and cuddling my child makes me feel so good that I really miss .4 5.2 19.2 33.0 42.2 4.11 (.920) the physical closeness when I'm away. 6. I am more concerned with my child's physical safety than a babysitter or 6.4 22.7 25.1 23.4 22.4 3.33 (1.227) teacher. 7. It will be difficult for my child to adjust to someone else taking care of 11.0 44.2 29.1 10.8 4.9 2.54 (.990) him/her. 8. When I am away from my child, I feel lonely and miss him/her a great 2.5 20.5 28.8 27.3 20.9 3.44 (1.107) deal. 9. Only a mother just naturally knows how to comfort her distressed child. 7.7 34.3 28.8 17.7 11.6 2.91 (1.132) 10. A child is likely to get upset when he/she is left with a babysitter. 7.3 41.5 36.2 11.7 3.2 2.62 (.900) 11. I like to have my child close to me most of the time. 0.7 6.6 29.7 39.9 23.1 3.78 (.899) 12. I am naturally better at keeping my child safe than any other person. 5.4 31.2 28.8 19.8 14.7 3.07 (1.146) 13. I believe that my child misses me when I have to let someone else take 1.2 13.1 37.8 33.6 14.2 3.47 (.932) care of him/her for a while. 14. I don't like to leave my child. 1.2 13.8 34.7 29.1 21.2 3.55 (1.010) 15. My child prefers to be with me more than with anyone else. 1.9 21.6 34.8 25.8 15.9 3.32 (1.041) 16. My child is afraid and sad when he/she is not with me. 11.8 62.7 17.1 6.0 2.4 2.21 (.829) 17. When I am separated from my child, I wonder whether he/she is crying 6.4 26.1 34.2 21.6 11.7 3.06 (1.095) and missing me. 18. I don't enjoy myself when I'm away from my child. 18.1 55.3 19.5 4.4 2.7 2.18 (.872) 19. I worry that my child is never completely comfortable in an unfamiliar 8.6 42.9 28.7 13.6 6.1 2.66 (1.019) setting if I am not with him/her. 20. I worry when someone else cares for my child. 6.1 32.0 36.6 17.3 8.0 2.89 (1.024) 21. When away from my child, I worry about whether or not the babysitter is 5.3 26.7 34.5 20.9 12.6 3.09 (1.088) able to soothe and comfort my child if he/she is lonely or upset. 331

Table D.2. Frequency Distributions and Means on the Parenting Stress Index, Six-Month Interview (N=1,160)

Item Strongly Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Mean (SD) disagree agree 1. When my baby came home from the hospital, I had doubtful feelings about 39.7 32.6 6.0 19.2 2.5 2.12 (1.199) my ability to handle being a parent. 2. Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be. 13.0 41.0 7.9 31.1 7.1 2.78 (1.216) 3. I feel capable and on top of things when I am caring for my baby. * .8 1.2 4.3 64.1 29.6 1.79** (.644) 4. I need help with making decisions. 42.2 47.2 4.1 5.0 1.6 1.77 (.865) 5. I have had many more problems caring for my baby than I expected. 36.9 51.1 4.5 7.0 .5 1.83 (.844) 6. I enjoy being a parent. * .3 .2 .4 21.9 77.1 1.25** (.496) 7. I feel that I am successful most of the time when I try to get my baby to do .3 2.8 6.1 62.7 28.1 1.84** (.675) or not do something. * 8. Since I brought this baby home from the hospital, I find that I am not able 54.5 39.2 2.5 3.4 .4 1.56 (.742) 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. 37.6 47.8 7.3 6.4 .9 1.85 (.872) 10. It takes a long time for parents to develop close, warm feelings for their 57.1 34.4 4.1 2.9 1.4 1.57 (.819) babies. 11. I expected to have closer and warmer feelings for my baby than I do and 70.9 25.0 2.1 1.6 .4 1.36 (.649) this bothers me. 12. Sometimes my baby does things that bother me just to be mean. 80.9 15.0 2.5 1.1 .4 1.25 (.598) 13. When I was young I never felt comfortable holding or taking care of 37.2 35.3 8.4 14.6 4.5 2.14 (1.193) babies. 14. My baby knows I am his or her parent and wants me more than other .7 5.9 9.7 54.5 29.2 1.94 (.827)** people.* 15. The number of children I have now is too many. 53.5 38.7 4.5 2.5 .9 1.59 (.766) 16. Most of my life is spent doing things for my baby. 3.2 29.7 9.2 48.7 9.2 3.31(1.089) 17. I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my baby's needs than I 10.1 48.0 10.3 26.4 5.2 2.69 (1.121) ever expected. 18. I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent. 36.7 47.8 8.4 6.0 .9 1.87 (.872) 19. I often feel that my baby's needs control my life. 13.7 42.8 12.7 28.8 2.1 2.63 (1.100) 20. Since having this child, I have been unable to do new and different things. 14.1 47.8 9.2 25.9 3.0 2.56 (1.108) 21. Since having a baby I feel that I am almost never able to do things that I 16.6 59.0 10.8 12.6 1.1 2.23 (.909) like to do. 22. It is hard to find a place in our home where I can go to be by myself. 13.5 41.6 3.7 31.6 9.6 2.82 (1.275)

332

Table D.2. Continued.

Item Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Mean (SD) agree 23. When I think about myself as a parent I believe: I can handle I can handle Sometimes I have I have some I don't think I Mean (SD) anything that most things doubts, but find doubts about handle things happens. pretty well. that I handle most being able to very well at things without any handle things. all. problems. 22.4 55.1 21.8 .7 0.0 2.01 (.686) 24. I feel that I am: A very good parent. A better than An average A person who has Not very good average parent. some trouble at being a parent. being a parent. parent. 48.4 36.6 14.6 .5 0.0 1.67 (.737)

25. How easy is it for you to understand what your Very easy Easy Somewhat It is very hard. I usually can't child wants or needs? difficult. figure out what the problem is. 34.2 61.0 4.3 .3 .1 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 Not at all Somewhat Fairly true Completely Mean (SD) true true true 1. Your working creates strains for your children. 40.8 46.0 9.7 3.5 1.76 (.767) 2. Working leaves you with too little time to be the kind of parent you want to be. 34.0 42.2 14.2 9.7 2.00 (.933) 3. Working causes you to miss out on some of the rewarding aspects of being a parent. 27.4 40.3 16.3 16.0 2.21 (1.018) 4. Working leaves you with too little energy to be the kind of parent you want to be. 34.8 42.5 13.9 8.8 1.97 (.915) 5. Because of the requirements of your job, you have to miss out on home or family 49.6 30.3 13.5 6.6 1.77 (.918) activities that you would prefer to participate in. 6. Because of the requirements of your job, your family time is less enjoyable and more 56.4 30.1 9.2 4.3 1.61 (.825) pressured. 7. Thinking about your children interferes with your performance at work. 71.6 23.4 3.8 1.2 1.35 (.613) 8. Because of your family responsibilities, you have to turn down work activities or 60.8 28.0 8.9 2.3 1.53 (.752) opportunities that you would prefer to take on. 9. Because of your family responsibilities, the time you spend working is less enjoyable 61.5 28.2 7.0 3.4 1.52 (.770) and more pressured. 10. When you spend time working, you're bothered by all the things at home that you 47.8 40.6 8.1 3.5 1.67 (.770) should be doing. 11. During the time set aside for work, you feel resentful because you'd really rather be 40.8 39.4 11.2 8.6 1.88 (.922) spending time with your family. Never Occasionally Often Very Often 12. In general, how often do you feel pulled apart from having to juggle conflicting 11.7 65.5 16.6 6.2 2.17 (.709) obligations? 13. How often do things add up to being just too much? 10.1 74.5 12.0 3.4 2.09 (.591) Not at all Somewhat Fairly true Completely true true true 14. Working helps you to better appreciate the time you spend with your children. 8.6 38.5 23.5 29.4 2.74 (.978) 15. Working makes you feel good about yourself, which is good for your children. 4.7 28.4 32.2 34.6 2.97 (.905) 16. The fact that you're working makes you a better parent. 41.8 33.1 17.0 8.1 1.91(.952) Having both work and family responsibilities: 17. Makes you a more well-rounded person. 9.8 38.4 28.6 23.2 2.65 (.943) 18. Gives your life more variety. 5.3 31.8 31.1 31.8 2.89 (.915) 19. Challenges you to be the best you can be. 7.1 28.3 32.9 31.7 2.89 (.935) 20. Means you manage your time better. 12.4 27.2 31.8 28.6 2.77 (1.000) 21. Managing work and family responsibilities as well as you do makes you feel competent. 6.7 27.9 41.4 23.9 2.82 (.871) 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 Combing work Identity Attachment mothering 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) Bottom third (Low) INDIFFERENT Negative Middle third POSITIVE Parenting AMBIVALENT (Medium) NEGATIVE Experiences Top third (High) 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 Combing work Identity Attachment mothering 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 1 2 3 4 5 Component 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 1 2 3 4 5 Component 1 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)

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 1 2 3 4 5 Component 1 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 1 2 3 4 Component 1 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

Parenting Stress Maternal Depression Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Constant -0.084+ -0.084 -0.144** -0.043 (0.049) (0.068) (0.047) (0.060) White middle-class mothers (race, 0.040 0.156* -0.135+ 0.005 income, education) (Yes=1) (0.072) (0.061) (0.070) (0.054) Control variables Agea 18 – 25 0.191* -0.018 0.231** 0.026 (0.075) (0.064) (0.072) (0.057) 35+ -0.072 -0.083 0.047 -0.007 (0.087) (0.073) (0.084) (0.064) Marital statusb Cohabitating 0.052 -0.254** 0.379*** 0.138 (0.111) (0.094) (0.108) (0.083) Single 0.206* -0.018 0.472*** 0.268*** (0.092) (0.078) (0.090) (0.068) Mother in-school pre-birth (yes=1) -0.046 -0.093 0.036 0.022 (0.080) (0.067) (0.078) (0.059) Motherhood experience First-time mother (Yes=1) 0.150** -0.049 (0.052) (0.046) Baby's temperament average or 0.284*** 0.000 worsec (0.052) (0.046) Baby's healthd Good 0.056 0.064 (0.054) (0.048) Fair or poor -0.052 0.085 (0.079) (0.07) Mother's healthd Good 0.103+ 0.046 (0.056) (0.049) Fair or poor 0.124 0.288*** (0.085) (0.075) Employment status Employmente Part-time -0.180** -0.142* (0.064) (0.057) Full-time -0.288*** -0.138** (0.059) (0.052) Mother’s satisfaction with work -0.023 -0.078** and family arrangements (z-score) (0.026) (0.023)

348

Table G.1. Continued.

Parenting Stress Maternal Depression Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Relationship resources Social support (z-score) -0.134*** -0.192*** (0.028) (0.025) Love relationship - Intimacy (z- -0.071* -0.017 score) (0.031) (0.027) Love relationship - Conflict (z- 0.04 0.059* score) (0.029) (0.026) Missing values on love scales/not 0.795** 0.236 single (0.297) (0.262) Personality Neuroticism (z-score) 0.388*** 0.459*** (0.029) (0.025)

Adj R2 0.012 0.328 0.070 0.475 F 3.317** 29.255*** 15.641*** 53.526***

Notes: Reference/omitted categories: a 26 - 34 years old, b Married, c Baby's temperament easier than average, d Excellent health, e 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 Model 1 Model 2 Constant 1.540** -0.485 1.677** 0.113 (0.529) (0.468) (0.512) (0.412) Racea (Black=1) -0.090 -0.040 0.092 0.165* (0.097) (0.082) (0.094) (0.072) Household income (ln) -0.143** 0.049 -0.176*** -0.016 (0.048) (0.043) (0.046) (0.038) Educationb HS degree or lower -0.002 -0.102 0.113 -0.030 (0.091) (0.078) (0.088) (0.069) Some post-secondary -0.144+ -0.139* 0.061 0.019 (0.074) (0.064) (0.072) (0.056) Control variables Agec 18 – 25 0.100 0.003 0.119 0.014 (0.080) (0.068) (0.077) (0.060) 35+ -0.058 -0.088 0.069 0.000 (0.087) (0.073) (0.084) (0.064) Marital statusd Cohabitating -0.011 -0.236 0.281* 0.114* (0.113) (0.096) (0.110) (0.084) Single 0.07 0.040 0.243* 0.200 (0.109) (0.092) (0.105) (0.081) Mother in-school pre-birth -0.041 -0.079 0.012 0.002 (yes=1) (0.081) (0.068) (0.079) (0.060) Motherhood experience First-time mother (Yes=1) 0.143** -0.039 (0.052) (0.046) Baby's temperament 0.288*** -0.007 average or worsee (0.052) (0.046) Baby's healthf Good 0.058 0.065 (0.054) (0.048) Fair or poor -0.054 0.089 (0.079) (0.070) Mother's healthf Good 0.107+ 0.043 (0.056) (0.049) Fair or poor 0.129 0.290*** (0.086) (0.075)

350

Table G.2. Continued.

Parenting Stress Maternal Depression Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Employment status Employmentg -0.190** -0.131* Part-time (0.065) (0.058) -0.305*** -0.128* Full-time (0.064) (0.056) Mother’s satisfaction with -0.027 -0.074** work and family (0.026) (0.023) arrangements (z-score) Relationship resources -0.132*** -0.193*** Social support (z-score) (0.028) (0.025) Love relationship - -0.074* -0.016

Intimacy (z-score) (0.031) (0.027) Love relationship - 0.039 0.056*

Conflict (z-score) (0.030) (0.026) Missing values on love 0.800** 0.264

scales/not single (0.297) (0.262) Personality 0.389*** 0.464*** Neuroticism (z-score) (0.029) (0.026)

Adj R2 0.023 0.327 0.084 0.477 F 3.971*** 25.476*** 12.802*** 46.945*** Notes: Reference/omitted 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. 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):1045- 1056. 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 21st Century.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (June):705- 725. 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): 558- 567. 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): 45- 55. 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. 277- 297 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):341- 358.

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 37:278- 291. 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 21:3- 16. 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):21- 33. 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):684- 696. 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 first- time mothers.” Journal of Sociology 36 (1), 51-63. Marshall, N.L. and R.C. Barnett. 1993. “Work-Family Strains and Gains among Two- Earner 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): 380- 391. 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 21:337- 358. 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. 17- 36 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 30:26- 39. 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 Well- Being: 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. 1129- 1130, 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).