Journey to Remain Childless: A Grounded Theory of the Decision-Making Process among Voluntarily Childless Couples
by
Kyung Hee Lee, M.A.
A Dissertation
In
HUMAN DEVELOPOMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Anisa Zvonkovic Chair of Committee
Duane Crawford
Amy Hueman
Sylvia Niehuis
Elizabeth Sharp
Peggy Miller Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2011
Copyright 2011, Kyung Hee Lee Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This has been an amazing journey. I would not have been able to finish this dissertation without help from so many people. First, I would like to thank my participants. They invited me, a total stranger, into their houses and lives, and shared their stories. Throughout the whole process, I tried not to forget the trust they had in me to tell their story. I can only hope that I told their story as best as I could. I also thank Dr. Anisa
Zvonkovic, my dissertation chair, for her passion, patience, and guidance. She was there every step of my journey for me. I appreciate the relationship we have developed through this journey together. Her encouragement and trust helped me to keep going. I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Duane Crawford, Amy Heuman, Elizabeth Sharp, and Sylvia Niehuis. I appreciate their encouragement, support, and insightful suggestions.
My dissertation is in much better shape thanks to their suggestions.
I am grateful to have so many friends who were willing to help me throughout the process. I thank Courtney Smith for helping me with transcriptions. I thank Andrea and
Jon Swenson, Stephen Hunsaker, and Tory Ervin for proof-reading drafts of my long proposal and dissertation. I also thank them for being good friends. I appreciate and value their friendship tremendously. I would also like to thank Drs. Karen and Richard
Wampler. I would not be where I am now if it were not for them in many ways.
There is no way I can express my love and appreciation toward my parents properly. Mom and Dad, this dissertation is for you (엄마, 아빠, 이 논문은 엄마와 아빠를
위한 거에요). I will never be able to pay back your love and support for me. I also want
ii Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 to express my love and appreciation to my family: my brother and sister, their spouses, and my niece and nephew. I love you all very much.
iii Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii
ABSTRACT ...... vii
LIST OF TABLES ...... x
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 Language Defined ...... 5
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 Childlessness in Contexts ...... 7 Historical trends of childlessness...... 7 Pronatalism……………...... 10 Characteristics of voluntarily childless individuals and couples ...... 12
Childlessness as a choice...... 18 Existing theories and models of childlessness...... 18 Reasons for Choosing To Remain Childless ...... 23
Childlessness as a Process ...... 28 Reaching an agreement between partners ...... 28 Dealing with social pressure and stigma ...... 33 Moments of doubt ...... 37 Moments of conviction ...... 39 Sterilization and abortion as a means of contraception ...... 40
III. METHOD ...... 53 Grounded Theory ...... 53
Participants ...... 54 Couple as the unit of analysis ...... 54 Sampling and criteria ...... 58 Recruitment...... 60 Participants...... 61
Data Collection Procedure ...... 64 Pilot study ...... 64 Procedure ...... 64 Data Analysis ...... 68 Constant comparative method ...... 68 Coding...... 68
iv Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Researcher‘s memos...... 71 Peer debriefing...... 71 Verification of the study ...... 72
V. RESULTS ...... 76 From Agreement to Acceptance and Closing of the Door ...... 76
Reaching an Agreement ...... 80 Mutual early articulator couples ...... 81 Mutual postponer couple ...... 83 Non-mutual couples ...... 83
Staying in the Agreement Phase...... 87 Triggers of revisitations ...... 89 The Process of revisitation to reaffirmation ...... 94 Reaffirming moments ...... 101 Musings ...... 104 Dealing with inquiries, pressure, and stigma ...... 105
From Agreement to Acceptance ...... 112
Staying in the Acceptance Phase ...... 116
From Acceptance to Closing of the Door...... 122
To Acceptance through Closing of the Door ...... 124
After the door is closed ...... 125
VI. DISCUSSION ...... 130 Decision-Making Types ...... 130
Childlessness as a Process ...... 132
Childlessness as a Dyadic Process ...... 134
Two Driving Forces: The Importance of the Relationship and the Strength of the Conviction ...... 136
Emotional Aspects of the Process ...... 138
Verification of the Study ...... 139 Limitations and Future Research...... 141 Conclusion ...... 143
v Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
EPILOGUE ...... 146
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 148
APPENDIX
A. RECRUITMENT MATERIALS ...... 160 B. TELEPHONE INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 163 C. INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 166 D. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 170 E. PERSONAL HISTORY CHART ...... 173 F. INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 175 G. REFLECTIVE JOURNAL WRITING INSTRUCTIONS ...... 178 H. AN EXAMPLE OF OPEN CODING ...... 179 I. AN EXAMPLE OF AXIAL CODING ...... 180
vi Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
ABSTRACT
The goal of this study was to develop a cohesive framework to explain the couples‘ process of remaining voluntarily childless using grounded theory method. Based on in-depth interviews with 21 married couples, a theoretical model illustrating the process was developed. Specifically, the theoretical model in the current study was developed to conceptualize the process of remaining voluntarily childless as a dyadic process with chronological sequences. Moreover, efforts were made to incorporate cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of the process into the model.
Three decision-making types were identified: mutual early articulator couples, mutual postponer couples, and non-mutual couples. Mutual early articulator couples consisted of two early articulator individuals. Spouses in mutual postponer couples started their marriage either assuming they would have children someday or not knowing whether they wanted to have children or not. In non-mutual couples, couples‘ decision is made due to one spouse‘s strong conviction of childlessness.
Three phases of the decision-making process were identified: agreement, acceptance, and closing of the door phases. The different groups of voluntarily childless couples tend to move through these three phases differently. Specifically, the process of reaching the initial agreement not to have children, or at least not for now, was different across the three decision-making groups. Mutual early articulator and mutual postponer couples reached an agreement instantly and easily. In contrast, the process was longer and more complicated for spouses in non-mutual couples. Spouses who wanted to have
vii Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 children had to ―assess‖ whether they would be ―okay‖ with not having children before they could agree not to have children. Sometimes, spouses in this group would argue and counter-argue with one another about the merits of having vs. not having children.
During the agreement phase, many couples revisited their decision. However, each revisitation ended with a reaffirmation that they made the right decision. They also reported many reaffirming situations, independent of revisitation, which had made their childless conviction stronger. Voluntarily childless couples sometimes wondered what it would have been like to have children, or what their child would have been like, which is called musings. These couples also had to deal with inquiries about their parenthood intention and pressure to have children from family. The strength of the conviction, experiences of pregnancy and subsequent abortion, and passing a certain age helped couples move from the agreement to the acceptance phase.
The most apparent difference between the agreement and the acceptance phase is the lack of revisitation with only one exception, when they got pregnant. However, couples in the acceptance phase still experienced reaffirming moments and musings. The inquiries and pressure from other people tended to decrease by the time couples reached the acceptance phase. The closing of the door phase is characterized by the physical inability to conceive a child.
Some couples moved from agreement to closing of the door through the acceptance phase, whereas others moved to acceptance through the closing of the door.
Couples stayed in the acceptance phase because they did not want to go through sterilization for several reasons: doctor‘s refusal, not wanting to have an elective surgery,
viii Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 and fear of the surgery. These couples waited until the door was closed for them when they become physically unable to conceive a child due to either old age or sterilization for medical reasons. Some couples actively chose to close the door to finalize their decision. The path from agreement to acceptance through the closing of the door phase is unique for some non-mutual couples. Spouses who initially wanted to have children seemed to be able to reach the acceptance phase only after they got rid of the possibility of ever having children, i.e., sterilization.
In addition to the three phases of the process, two factors that drive the process were identified: the importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction. The balance between these two forces of both spouses is what made these couples remain voluntarily childless. Moreover, these two forces influenced how couples reached a certain phase, how long they stayed in a certain phase, and how they navigated through the three phases.
The limitation of the current study is the homogeneity of the sample. Future research with diverse samples is suggested. In conclusion, the current study confirmed that remaining voluntarily childless as a couple needs to be understood as an interactive dyadic process in which couples navigate through phases over time. Moreover, their voluntary childlessness is the result of the balancing acts between the importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction to remain childless so that the scale is remained tipped towards childlessness.
ix Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
LIST OF TABLES
1. Features of Studies Reviewed in Literature Review ...... 46
2. Description of the participants ...... 63
x Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Theoretical Model ...... 77
xi Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Everybody makes choices on a daily basis; some of them are as simple as choosing a lunch menu but others are as serious as whom to marry. These choices, big or small, shape our lives and future. Whether or not to become a parent is one of the significant and serious choices. For most people, getting married and starting a family— having children—is not a matter of choice; they are a rite of passage (Campbell, 1985;
Letherby, 2002). For others, however, it is a matter of choice, and some of them choose not to be a parent. Although many researchers project the childless population to keep increasing (Edmondson & Waldrop, 1993; Rovi, 1994), the childless population, especially the voluntarily childless population, is still small; only around 7% of women aged 35-44 were voluntarily childless in 2002 (Amba & Martinez, 2006). Choosing a less traveled path means that the travelers have to do things differently from those on a well- traveled path, including negotiating with partners; announcing their decision and dealing with reactions; making sure they do not get pregnant; and wondering sometimes what the other path would be like.
Many studies on voluntary childlessness have shed some light on the childless path piece by piece. We now have a better understanding of who voluntarily childless people are (e.g., Heaton, Jacobson, & Fu, 1992; Magarick & Brown, 1981; Majumda,
2004), the timing of the decision (e.g., Houseknecht, 1979b; Veevers, 1973, 1980), the decision-making patterns (e.g., Cooper, Cumber, & Hartner, 1978), reasons for voluntary childless decision (e.g., Park, 2005; Weston & Qu, 2001), childless couples‘ lived
1 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 experiences (e.g., Baker, 2002; Kwon, 2005; Mawson, 2005), and social pressure and stigmatization (e.g., Gillespie, 2000; Morell, 1994). However, we still lack a framework which weaves these pieces together and guides us through the childless path in a cohesive way. Existing theories cannot adequately explain the complexity of the process.
Moreover, previous research on voluntary childlessness has failed to understand voluntary childlessness as a process which evolves with peoples‘ life experiences over time.
Another limitation of the existing literature on voluntarily childlessness is the almost exclusive focus on women. Men have been continuously ignored in fertility research in general as well as in childlessness research in particular (Billari, 2005;
Lunneborg, 1999; Thomson, 1997). It may be because voluntarily childless women suffer social pressure and stigmatization more than childless men (Bartlett, 1994; Houseknecht,
1987; Marshall, 1993) or because women are the ones who physically bear the child, making them ultimately responsible for the decision (Daniluk, 1999; Hird & Abshoff,
2000). What seems to be forgotten in these arguments is that childbearing usually involves a man and a woman. If they are in a marital relationshipthe decision to have or not to have a child becomes a couple‘s decision.
Studies which examined voluntarily childless couples have made important contributions to our understanding. For example, Veevers (1973, 1980) described how couples finally decide not to have children after years of postponement of childbearing;
Nason and Poloma (1976) identified four voluntarily childless couple groups with different commitment levels, and Copper, Cumber, and Hartner (1978) identified
2 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 different couple decision-making patterns based on each spouse‘s influence on the decision. Despite these contributions, we still do not know how exactly spouses reach an agreement not to have children (Bulcroft & Teachman, 2004; Houseknecht, 1987). We do not know what is going on between the spouses when they discuss the matter or how spouses resolve the conflicts to finally make a joint decision of voluntary childlessness.
Voluntarily childless couples also have to discuss what kind of contraceptive methods to use (c.f., Bartlett, 1994; Thompson, MacGillivray, & Fraser, 1991) and how much and to whom to reveal their decision (c.f., Durham, 2008; Park, 2002). Discussions between spouses on these matters are not known either. These dyadic interactions between spouses seem to be one of the missing pieces in the literature which will help us to connect other known pieces.
Temporal aspects are another missing piece in the voluntary childlessness process.
People reach the conclusion of voluntary childlessness in various ways. Some people make up their mind very early in their life and seldom waver; others find themselves questioning parenthood assumptions they held for a long time and leaning toward the childless choice later in life (Veevers, 1973, 1980). Even after the decision is made, voluntarily childless people sometimes question their childlessness decision for diverse reasons depending on where they are in their life-course (c.f., Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll,
2000; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005). Although these doubts may change some couples‘ stance toward becoming parents (Towill, 2001) or linger for a long time, they usually disappear when they encounter situations which lead them to realize that they made the right choice (c.f., Cain, 2001; Carroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994;
3 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Vissing, 2002). The experiences of social pressure and stigmatization also change over time. Social pressure seems to get stronger a year or two after couples get married and starts to decrease after about five years (Bartlett, 1994; Houseknecht, 1987; Marshall,
1993; Veevers, 1980). People either assume they are infertile or come to terms with their choice. Thus, the framework to explain voluntary childlessness needs to incorporate temporal aspects to capture the fluid and changing nature of the process.
Emotions related to the process are the last missing piece of the puzzle. For many voluntarily childless individuals, the decision to remain voluntarily childless is emotional
(c.f., Baker, 2002; Brooks, 2007). Moreover, when there was initial conflict over the decision, the final agreement to remain voluntarily childless evokes different emotions for each spouse: appreciation (c.f., Mawson, 2005) and guilt (c.f., Caroll, 2000) for the spouse who persuaded the other; resentment (c.f., Burgwyn, 1981) and sadness (c.f., Cain,
2001) in the spouse who was persuaded. However, emotions elicited during the process of remaining voluntarily childless have not received much attention by researchers.
Therefore, the current study attempts to develop a framework, a theory, of the decision-making process of voluntarily heterosexual childless couples which incorporates dyadic, temporal, and emotional aspects. Grounded theory methods developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) were used to answer the research question: ―What is the decision- making process involved in deciding to remain voluntarily childless as a couple?‖
Grounded theory methods are the most appropriate for process studies with temporal aspects (Charmaz, 2006; LaRossa, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Most of all, the theory discovered through grounded theory methods is ―grounded‖ in data―keeping the theory
4 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 close to the experiences of the participants (Charmaz, 2006). The theory developed from this study enhances our understanding of voluntarily childless couples by conceptualizing the decision to remain voluntarily childless as a couple‘s process and focusing on aspects which have been ignored. It also provides a cohesive framework which encompasses cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of the decision-making process of remaining voluntarily childless.
Language Defined
Many researchers, especially feminists, have lamented over the lack of suitable language to describe people who do not want to have children (Brooks, 2007; Mawson,
2005; Morell, 1994). The languages which have been used so far either have negative connotations (e.g., childless and childfree) or define this population in relation to parenthood (e.g., non-parenthood). The term ―childless‖ conveys a nuance that something is missing (Gillepie, 2000; Lisle, 1996). Some researchers and voluntarily childless people feel that ―childless‖ implies infertility rather than voluntary choice (Brooks, 2007;
Letherby & Williams, 1999). They usually prefer the term ―childfree‖ over ―childless.‖
While some researchers and voluntarily childless individuals argue that ―childfree‖ reflects the positive aspect of choice (Lafayette, 1995; Letherby & Williams, 1999), others dispute that it implies the dislike of children, inauthenticity, and a carefree attitude—thus, childlike—(Brooks, 2007; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994).
These debates led me to ask my participants which term they preferred. Some spouses did not have a preference, whereas others either chose ―childfree‖ or ―childless.‖
The most common reasons for choosing ―childfree‖ over ―childless‖ was that ―childfree‖
5 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 implies a choice and freedom but ―childless‖ denotes a lack of something. However, some spouses preferred ―childless‖ for the exact same reasons. They did not want to highlight the freedom out of respect for those who chose parenthood. Moreover, some of them felt that ―childfree‖ carries the nuance that they hate children. The current study uses ―voluntarily childless‖ as a way to convey sentiments of the both sides: the choice and the respect for parents.
6 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, literature related to childlessness is reviewed. Childlessness is discussed in contexts, as a choice, and as a process. More attention is given to literature on childless couples than those on childless individuals, and academic literaturethan non- academic. Literature on childless individuals and non-academic literatureare reviewed when deemed necessary and appropriate due to the lack of academic literature on childless couples. The detailed features of the studies reviewed in this chapter are presented in Table 1 at the end of the chapter.
Childlessness in Contexts
Like any other social phenomenon, childlessness needs to be understood within historical, social, and cultural circumstances (Gillespie, 2005) as well as individual and relational characteristics. Thus, changes in the population of childless adults as well as factors associated with these changes are presented first. Next, pronatalism is reviewed as a strong cultural orientation which governs childbearing behaviors in our society. Finally, characteristics of voluntarily childless individuals and relationships are discussed.
Historical trends of childlessness. Voluntary childlessness has received more attention recently from the public and professionals due to concerns about zero population growth. However, childlessness has existed throughout our history. According to Census data, approximately 15% of women born between 1840 and 1849 were childless in the United States (Rowland, 2007). The percentage of childless women —
7 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 including both voluntary and involuntary—had steadily increased since then until it reached the peak (20% - 25%) during the 1930s of Great Depression (Glick, 1975;
Morgan, 1991; Rowland, 2007). The major reason for this increase was the economy:
People simply could not afford children. Many people who delayed marriage and childbearing, waiting for the economy to get better, never were able to realize their desire for a marriage or children.
World War II had a great impact on the subsequent decrease of childlessness and the Baby Boom. During the war, the rate of childlessness remained high because many men were off to the war and many women started to occupy full-time jobs outside their houses. In the two decades following the war, the fertility and marriage rates hit a record high, whereas age at first marriage and childlessness reached a record low (Bean & Leach,
2005; Downs, 2003; Glick, 1975). The percentage of childless women dropped to 6%
(Glick, 1975). The post-war atmosphere such as patriotism, familism, and optimism is usually described as a contributor to these drastic changes. Many, especially feminists, argue that the government played a very important role in creating this atmosphere via propaganda. In an attempt to create jobs for returning soldiers, the government urged women to go back to their previous roles of housewives (Bean & Leach, 2005; Burgwyn,
1981; Cain, 2001).
Between the 1960s and the early 1980s, the childless population had continued to increase to 20%-25% (O‘Connell, 1991) and remained steady (Amba & Martinez, 2006).
It decreased a little bit between 1995 and 2002 to 20% of women aged 35-39 and 18% of women aged 40-45 (Downs, 2003). Many societal changes such as the women‘s
8 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 liberation movement, the contraception revolution, equal opportunity for women, delayed marriage and childbearing, and an increasing acceptance of diverse lifestyles likely contributed to the increase (Amba & Martinez, 2006; Cain, 2001). The voluntarily childless population shows the same pattern as the general childless population for the past two decades: It increased from 5% in 1982 to 9% in 1995, remained stable for a while, and then decreased to 7% in 2002 (Abma & Martinez, 2006).
Interpreting these statistics is sometimes confusing and requires caution. First, it is important to understand that two different approaches have been used to estimate the childless population: Cohort and period approaches. The cohort approach reports the childless population among women who were born in a certain time span, while the period approach examines childless women in a given year (Bulcroft & Teachman, 2004).
Second, the average age at which women bear their first child changes over time. Thus, reports by age groups can be more helpful than the cohort approach. Third, many estimates do not consider the marital status of the women. Never-married and the married childless women are different in childbearing behaviors: Childless women who are currently and formerly married are more likely to be involuntarily childless than to be voluntarily or temporarily childless (Abma & Martinez, 2006). Fourth, childlessness in men and in couples has been consistently ignored in Census data (Billari, 2005; Thomson,
1997). Finally, people with parenting experiences of non-biological children such as adoption and step-parenting also need to be excluded from the childless population.
These limitations hinder a more accurate understanding of the childless population.
9 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Estimating the voluntary childless population is even more difficult. Although the distinction between fertile and infertile women is important, simply asking women whether they have fertility problems does not necessarily distinguish involuntary from voluntary childlessness or temporary from permanent childlessness. With the increase of delayed childbearing, women in their late 30‘s and early 40‘s may be assumed to be voluntarily childless when in fact they are still delaying childbearing. Furthermore, women who consider themselves as delayed or voluntarily childless will later find out they are infertile (Rovi, 1994). Thus, many researchers (e.g., Abma & Martinez, 2006;
Heaton, Jacobson, & Holland, 1999; Rovi, 1994) have argued the need to consider fertility intentions. While it may resolve the problem of differentiating temporary from permanent childlessness, it cannot account for the fact that the discrepancy between intended and actual parity—the number of children previously born (Meriam-Webster,
2004)—occurs more often than not (c.f., Becker, 2007; Bongaarts, 2002; Heaton et al.,
1999; Thomson, 1997). Finally, estimations without information on the partner‘s fertility problems will not be accurate.
Pronatalism. The term—pronatalism—was first used by demographers to describe policies which governments implemented to encourage childbearing (Peck &
Senderowitz, 1974). The definition of pronatalism has been broadened since to encompass not only policies but also any attitudes and cultures that promote childbearing and praise parenthood (Peck & Senderowitz, 1974; Veevers, 1980).
Although the term itself is not in everybody‘s daily vocabulary, pronatalism can be found in almost every aspect of our lives. Various religions advocate high fertility
10 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 rates and/or prohibit artificial birth controls (Blake, 1985). The pronatalist influence of religions on fertility-related attitudes and behaviors can be found in numerous studies
(e.g., Amba & Martinez, 2006; Blake, 1985; Heaton et al., 1992; Pearce, 2002; Poston,
1990; Poston & Kramer, 1986; Rovi, 1994).
The evidence of pronatalism in our culture also can be easily found whenever we turn on the TV. A review of fictional series on national TV networks over three decades revealed that childless couples were the least represented family configuration (2.3%) during 1990-1995 (Robinson & Skill, 2001). The major target of TV commercials is parents or expectant parents (Burkett, 2000), although childless couples are bigger spenders than parents (Paul, 2001). Advertisements boasting ―family-friendliness‖ are everywhere: Family-friendly restaurants, gyms, cars, communities, and vacations.
Some work places are family-friendly nowadays with the government‘s efforts and employers‘ cooperation. Although it is not common yet, some parent workers enjoy benefits that childless workers do not: Childcare centers onsite, off-site childcare subsidies, health insurance benefits for children, paid and unpaid maternal or paternal leave, flexible time, and cash benefits for adoptive parents, to name a few (Flynn, 1996).
Employers justify these parent benefits with increased loyalty and decreased absenteeism and turnover although only one third of workers in the labor force are parents with children under age 18 at home (Burkett, 2000; Flynn, 1996). They rationalize this inequity with the assumption that everybody will be a parent and, thus, will enjoy the benefits someday, ignoring the fact that there are those who may not wish to become parents and, thus, will never have a chance to enjoy the benefits.
11 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Many family rituals revolve around childbirth and major developmental events of children: Baby showers, birthdays, christenings, first communions, graduations and so on.
The question any childless couple has to answer, at least for several years after they get married, is ―When are you going to start a family?‖ Married couples without at least one child are not considered a family. Consequently, they do not belong to the ―family- friendly‖ society.
In sum, the major theme of childlessness in the current pronatalistic culture seems to be the invisibility. As discussed above, the childless and their needs are ignored by religions, TV programs, governments, employers, and businesses. Moreover, it is not just their existence and needs that are being ignored. Many voluntarily childless individuals report that their choice to remain childless was easily dismissed, challenged or questioned by families, friends, or medical professionals (c.f., Brooks, 2007; Burgwyn, 1981;
Campbell, 1999; Carroll, 2000; Gillespie, 2000; Lunneborg, 1999). They have to listen to other people telling them that they will change their mind and/or that they will regret their decision later. Often they have to explain why they do not want to have children, while parents are seldom asked why they want to have children. Although the invisibility can be considered to be an improvement from before when childless individuals and couples were portrayed as selfish and dysfunctional (Veevers, 1980), it is not surprising that some people started to argue that the childless population is a new minority (Burkett,
2000).
Characteristics of voluntarily childless individuals and couples.
Understanding who voluntarily childless individuals are and what kind of marital
12 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 relationships they have is also important because their characteristics provide us with background information. Therefore, many demographers and sociologists have tried to identify individual and relationship characteristics of the voluntarily childless. One of the individual characteristics of the voluntarily childless is age. The older people become, the more likely they are to remain childless (Heaton et al., 1999). Age at first marriage is also related to voluntarily childlessness; individuals who are older at the time of marriage are more likely to be voluntarily childless (Hodge & Ogawa, 1991; Kiernan, 1989; Krishnan,
1993). These findings fit well with the decision-making process of a group of voluntarily childless people who have been labeled as the postponers (Veevers, 1980). They postpone childbearing for a while before they finally decide not to have children usually because they enjoy their relationships and lifestyles without children (Veevers, 1980).
However, there is another group of individuals who decided very early that they do not want to have children—whom Veevers (1980) called the early articulators.
A second demographic dimension is race/ethnicity. Interestingly, race/ethnicity has not received much attention by researchers: Many studies have either focused exclusively on Caucasians (e.g., Bram, 1978, 1985; Gillespie, 1999, 2003; Poston, 1990;
Veevers, 1973, 1980), or the number of non-Caucasian was too small to yield a meaningful comparison (e.g., Baker, 2002; Brooks, 2007; Gillespie, 2000; Jeffries &
Konnert, 2002; Magarick & Brown, 1981; Majumda, 2004; Morell, 1994; Park, 2005;
Somers, 1993). The few studies that have examined race/ethnicity of the voluntarily childless usually focused on the comparison between Caucasians and African-Americans, and the results are inconsistent. While some researchers have found that the difference in
13 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 voluntary childlessness between African-American and Caucasian women disappears after controlling for socioeconomic variables (Jacobson & Heaton, 1991), others have reported that African-Americans are less likely to choose childlessness (Rovi, 1994) and to postpone childbearing, and more likely to intend to have children and to actually bear children (Heaton et al., 1999).
Religion has consistently been found to be related to voluntary childlessness. It is speculated that pronatalism, which almost every religion preaches, is responsible for this phenomenon (Heaton et al., 1992; Jacobson & Heaton, 1991). Voluntarily childless individuals are more likely to have no religious affiliation than people with children
(Bram, 1974; Burman & de Anda, 1985; Feldman, 1981; Heaton et al., 1992; Housknecht,
1987; Jacob & Heaton, 1991; Somers, 1993). Among those with religious affiliation,
Catholic men (Heaton et al., 1992; Magarick & Brown, 1981) and women (Heaton et al.,
1992; Poston, 1995; Poston & Kramer, 1986) are less likely to be voluntarily childless than Protestant men and women. Voluntarily childless individuals also have been found to be associated with a lower level of religiosity measured by church attendance (Heaton et al., 1992; Krishnan, 1993).
Although studies on voluntary childlessness tend to find their participants to be highly educated (e.g., Houseknecht, 1979a, 1979b; Park, 2005; Veevers, 1980), findings on the relationship between education and voluntary childlessness from comparison studies between parents and the voluntarily childless or between those who intend to have children and those who do not are not conclusive. Some studies found that higher education in both men and women increased the likelihood or the intention of becoming
14 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 voluntarily childless (Heaton et a., 1999; Jacobson & Heaton, 1991; Kiernan, 1989;
Krishnan, 1993; Rovi, 1994), whereas others found no difference for both genders
(Secombe, 1991; Somers, 1993). In addition, many studies found different results for men and women. There are findings that suggest a positive relationship between higher education and voluntary childlessness for women but no relationship for men (Bram,
1974; Feldman, 1981; Magarick & Brown, 1981) and an opposite relationship for men and women; education higher than high school decreased the likelihood of intending to remain childless for men but increased the likelihood for women (Majumda, 2004).
Many researchers found that voluntarily childless women and mothers are different when it comes to work related characteristics. It has been consistently found that voluntarily childless women are more likely than mothers to be employed (Burman & de
Anda, 1985; Feldman, 1981; Magarick & Brown, 1981), work more hours (Bram. 1985;
Burman & de Anda, 1985), and have managerial and professional occupations (Jacobson
& Heaton, 1991; Houseknecht, 1979a; Magarick & Brown, 1981; Silka & Keiser, 1977;
Somers, 1993). On the other hand, there seems to be no difference between fathers and voluntarily childless men in occupations (Bram, 1985; Burman & de Anda, 1985;
Feldman, 1981; Somers, 1993).
Although some researchers argue that income has a modest relationship with voluntary childlessness (Gillespie, 2003; Heaton et al., 1999), findings on the income of the voluntary childless are conflicting depending on the unit of analysis or gender. In terms of household income, most researchers found that voluntarily childless couples have higher household income than parents (Bram, 1985; Burman & de Anda, 1987;
15 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Jacobson & Heaton, 1991; Magarick & Brown, 1981; Silka & Kiesler, 1977; Somers,
1993). Many researchers claimed that this difference is due to the higher income of voluntarily childless wives compared to mothers, many of whom experience periods of being out of the full-time labor force (Bram, 1985; Houseknecht, 1987). For men, the findings are inconsistent: The income of the voluntary childless is the same as (Bram,
1985), lower (Heaton et al., 1999), or higher than fathers (Burman & de Anda, 1985).
Moreover, there is evidence that the increase in income also increases the chance of having children because higher income provides people with economic resources for childrearing (Heaton et al., 1999). Regardless of the level of income, however, childless couples enjoy more discretionary money than parents with the same income and, thus, spend more in many consumer categories than parents (Paul, 2001).
The voluntarily childless are not different from parents in terms of family of origin experiences: Happiness in childhood (Magarick & Brown, 1981); gender of the dominant parent, closeness to mother, and parent‘s values on masculinity and femininity
(Feldman, 1981); mother‘s employment status (Bram, 1974); and parents‘ divorce or separation (Bram, 1974; Magarick & Brown, 1981; Silka & Kiesler, 1977). Another characteristic related to family of origin is birth order. Researchers tend to find many firstborns and only children in their voluntarily childless samples (Bram, 1974; Carroll,
2000; Kiernan, 1989; Nason & Poloma, 1976; Veevers, 1973, 1980). However, it does not necessarily mean that firstborns and only children are more likely to be voluntarily childless than other people with different birth orders.
16 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Voluntarily childless men and women have been found to be less traditional and more egalitarian than parents in regard to gender role attitudes (Bram, 1974, 1985;
Burman & de Andam 1986; Feldman, 1981; Houseknecht, 1979b; Majumdar, 2004).
However, the findings are less consistent for men. For example, Kaufman (2000) found in a 6-year longitudinal study that while egalitarian gender-role attitudes increase the likelihood of childless intention and of remaining childless for women, they increase the likelihood of the intention to have children for men. Moreover, some researchers found no difference in gender-role attitudes between voluntarily childless men and fathers
(Magarick & Brown, 1981).
In terms of couple characteristics, research findings usually indicate that the voluntarily childless enjoy higher marital satisfaction, happiness and adjustment than parents (Bram, 1985; Burman & de Anda, 1985, Callan, 1987; Houseknecht, 1979a;
Sommers, 1993) with a few exceptions, which found no difference (Feldman, 1981;
Magarick & Brown, 1981). They also report more positive interactions measured by subscales of the Marital Adjustment Scale (Spanier, Lewis, & Cole, 1975) and more frequent marital conversation (Feldman, 1981), and more egalitarian division of labor and decision-making power (Bram, 1985) than parents. Interestingly, there is some evidence suggesting that marital happiness increases the intention to have a child (Schoen et al.,
1997) and the likelihood of having a child (Myers, 1997). However, the samples of these studies were married individuals with different parities (0, 1, 2 or higher) and examined the intention and incidence of having a(nother) child. Moreover, changes in marital happiness did not make the voluntarily childless change their mind and have a child
17 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
(Myers, 1997). Very few studies examined divorce history among the voluntarily childless; however, those studies did find that they have higher rates of previous separation and divorce than parents (Bram, 1985) and that the divorce rate of the childless was lower than that of parents with children over 16 but higher than that of parents with children under age 16 (Barlett, 1995). In one longitudinal qualitative study
(Marshall, 1993), three out of eleven childless couples were separated after five years.
In sum, findings on individual and relationship characteristics of the voluntarily childless need to be understood with caution because many of them are conflicting or inconsistent. It may be due to the fact that most of the studies used non-representative samples. Moreover, different studies tended to use different criteria for the voluntary childless. More studies with representative samples and more rigorous criteria to establish the voluntary childless status are needed to resolve conflicting findings.
Childlessness as a choice
For voluntary childless couples, childlessness is a choice and a decision. In this section, theoretical models which have been used to study voluntary childlessness and their limitations are discussed. Next, reasons for voluntary childlessness are presented.
Existing theories and models of childlessness.
Veevers’ (1973, 1980) typology of early articulators vs. postponers. Veevers
(1973, 1980) was the first scholar to research the life and decision-making process of voluntarily childless couples in a systematic and non-judgmental way. After in-depth interviews with 156 childless wives and husbands, including 29 couples, she identified
18 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 two different types of decision-making paths which later were dubbed early articulators and postponers by Houseknecht (1977). Early articulators refer to the individuals whose decision to remain childless was made long before they got married (Veevers, 1973,
1980). Many of them intentionally sought partners who shared their intention or made their intention very clear to their potential spouse before the marriage (cf., Barlett, 1994;
Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Cooper et al., 1978; Lunneborg, 1999; Veevers, 1980).
The postponers‘ path to remain childless is characterized by ―a series of decisions to postpone having children‖ (Veevers, 1973, p. 359). Veevers (1973, 1980) argued that postponers go through four stages before they finally come to a decision to remain childless. The first stage is the first few years of marriage during which spouses believe they will soon have a baby. Postponers in this stage are not distinguishable from couples who will eventually become parents but who taking some time before they start a family.
Couples in the second stage still think they will have a baby someday but do not know when. They tell themselves that they will have a baby ―when it is the right time.‖ It is in the third stage when couples begin to contemplate the possibility of remaining childless.
The fourth stage marks the final decision to remain childless or the realization that they will never have a child. While some couples make a conscious decision not to have a child at some point, others keep postponing until parenthood is not an option anymore.
More people were postponers (two-thirds of the sample) than early articulators in
Veevers‘ study (1980).
The most important limitation of Veevers‘ typology (1973, 1980) is that it is too simplified to explain couples‘ decision-making processes. Her descriptions imply the
19 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 perfect agreement between spouses in both types of decision-making. For example, it is implied that early articulators will marry each other and that postponer spouses will always reach a certain stage of the process at the same time. However, in many cases, one spouse who reached the decision first waits for or persuades the undecided spouse to make the same decision (cf., Barlett, 1994; Burgwyn, 1981; Cowan & Cowan, 1992;
Carroll, 2000; Kwon, 2005; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005). Moreover, it is also implied in Veevers‘ typology that early articulators never have doubts about their decision. However, even some of those who chose not to have children early in their life and committed to that decision are known to revisit the decision seriously later for various reasons (cf., Brooks, 2007; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994; Vissing, 2002).
Nevertheless, Veevers‘ typology contributed tremendously to our understanding of timing and process of the decision to remain childless and has guided numerous studies
(e.g., Brooks, 2007; Callan, 1983: Houseknecht, 1979a, 1979b, 1987; Kemkes-
Grottenthaler, 2003; Nason & Poloma, 1976).
Nason & Poloma’s (1976) typology of commitment to remain childless. Nason and Poloma (1976) expanded Veever‘s (1973) research by recruiting only couples rather than individuals and found different degrees of commitment to remain childless among those who claimed that they had chosen to remain childless. Based on information from
30 couples about contraceptive use, sterilization, attitude toward abortion in case of unwanted pregnancy, and possibility of children in the future, they identified four groups of couples: (1) the irrevocably committed; (2) the strongly committed; (3) the reasonably committed; and (4) the committed with reservations. Although they suggest that these can
20 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 be considered as stages of a decision-making process to remain childless, they acknowledge that not every couple goes through all four stages and that there is a great deal of variation in how long a couple may stay in a certain stage (Nason & Poloma,
1976).
The major limitation of Nason and Poloma‘s (1976) typology is the criteria they used to classify the couples. For example, the only difference between the irrevocably and the strongly committed couples is whether one or both spouses had undergone a sterilization procedure and sterilized couples were automatically assigned to the irrevocably committed couple group regardless of how they answered to the other questions. Although sterilization is a very strong indicator of permanent childlessness, it does not automatically mean the end of the decision-making process. Some individuals trying to get sterilized get turned down by medical professionals (Campbell, 2000;
Lunneborg, 1999) because of their young age and the childless status. On the other hand, a small number of childless individuals who underwent sterilization try to reverse the sterilization (Campbell, 2000; Kariminia, Saunders, & Chamberlain, 2002). Thus, sterilization itself cannot characterize the highest commitment to remain childless.
Moreover, attitudes toward abortion as an option in the case of an unwanted pregnancy can be more an indicator of one‘s belief system than that of commitment to remain childless (Bartlett, 1994; Veevers, 1980). As in Veevers‘ (1973, 1980) typology, Nason and Poloma‘s (1976) typology does not allow for the possibility that spouses in a couple may not be in the same stages at the same time. However, Nason and Poloma‘s (1976)
21 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 typology demonstrates that reaching an agreement to remain childless between spouses is not the end of the decision-making process for many couples.
Cooper, Cumber, & Hartner’s (1978) Decision-making patterns of childless couples. Cooper, Cumber and Hartner (1978) also expanded Veevers‘ (1973) research by focusing on negotiation patterns of childless couples. Based on in-depth interviews with
55 couples, they identified two decision-making patterns: independents and negotiators.
Independents are very similar to what Veevers (1980) called early articulators: each spouse had decided not to have children even before they met their partner. Negotiators are similar to the postponers in Veevers‘ (1980) study in that spouses reach an agreement to remain childless after the postponement of having a baby and consideration of pros and cons of remaining childless. However, Cooper and colleagues (1978) found variations among negotiators depending on who had more influence on the decision: mutuals, wife influentials, and husband influentials. They found that while there was no evidence of intense argument or conflict among wife influential couples, some wives in the husband influential group reported emotional conflict and uncertainty toward the decision.
The most important contribution of Cooper and colleagues‘ (1978) model is that it acknowledges the possible disagreement between spouses at least in the beginning of their decision-making process and incorporates couple aspects into decision-making processes. However, it is limited in that it does not explain what spouses do to persuade or coerce their spouse to agree with them or how the persuaded spouse feels about the decision. Moreover, it does not consider the fact that many individuals revisit their decision later in their life.
22 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Reasons for Choosing To Remain Childless. Many researchers have identified reasons for remaining childless in an attempt to understand or predict childlessness.
However, understanding the reasons for choosing to remain childless is not an easy task.
First, there are numerous reasons for not having children. Second, people usually have multiple reasons for not having children (Langdridge, Sheeran, & Connolly, 2005;
Vissing, 2002; Weston & Qu, 2001) and usually have a hard time pinpointing one most important reason because most of them weigh pros and cons before they make the decision (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Morell, 1994; Veevers, 1980). Third, for many people, especially for the postponers, the reasons for voluntary childlessness evolve over time (Burgwyn, 1981; Campbell, 1985). Thus, it is hard to differentiate initial reasons from later ones or from primary motives which drove people to make the decision from rationalization of the decision after the fact. On the contrary, for some, especially for the early articulators, the decision is emotional rather than rational (Carroll, 2000). In short, reasons for childlessness are complicated and complex, which contributes to the lack of systematic and theoretical understanding of reasons or motives of childlessness (Park,
2005). Nevertheless, listening to the reasons as the childless themselves understand and tell us is important in comprehending the decision of voluntary childlessness.
The most frequently mentioned reason for childlessness is freedom. It seems that the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want is a very important attraction of being childless (Baker, 2002; Bram, 1985; Burgwyn, 1981; Burman & de Anda, 1985;
Carroll, 2000; Dever & Saugeres, 2004; Housekneckt, 1987; Gillespie, 1999, 2003;
Langdridge et al., 2005; Lunneborg, 1999; Mollen, 2006; Park, 2005; Sommers, 1993;
23 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002; Weston & Qu, 2001). Being free from the responsibilities of childrearing means more freedom for other things. Voluntarily childless people enjoy more time and financial resources than parents to invest in themselves and their interest such as travel, leisure activities, further education, political or environment causes, or careers. Being childless also enables them to enjoy spontaneity and to take risks associated with their interest:They may quit their jobs and go back to school or go on long trips; they may take a lower paying job they love; or they may move from place to place on a whim. Although many studies found that voluntarily childless individuals tend to be professionals who are committed to their careers (Bulcroft & Teachman, 2004;
Houseknecht, 1987; Somers, 1993), not all of them are. Whereas childlessness enables some people to work more to pursue their career than parents, being childless means, for others, the freedom to work less than parents (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000;
Lunnenborg, 1999). Interestingly, the freedom to pursue their careers seems more prominent for females than males (Bram, 1985; Houseknecht, 1987; Park, 2005). It is understandable considering that childrearing is still females‘ responsibilities in our society and being a mother is a disadvantage in terms of career advancement and wages
(Avellar & Smock, 2003; Glauber, 2007). Conversely, the freedom to work less seems more relevant to males than females (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Lunnenborg, 1999).
Without the financial responsibilities of being parents, they can afford to make less money.
Many voluntarily childless people report that they chose childlessness for a better marital relationship (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Housekneckt, 1987; Gillespie, 1999,
24 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
2003; Lunneborg, 1999; Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002). Without children, they can spend more resources—time, energy and money—on their intimate relationship. Many voluntarily childless individuals believe that having a child might change their relationship for the worse and do not want to take that risk. This reason seems more relevant to postponers than to early-articulators since they establish a certain marital relationship for several years, postponing childbearing before they realize they do not want to change what they have.
It is a common misconception that all voluntarily childless people do not like children and things related to children. In fact, many of them like children and have jobs related to children, such as teachers and counselors (Baker, 2002; Burgwyn, 1981;
Carroll, 2000; Lunneborg, 1999; Morell, 1994; Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002).
Nevertheless, some voluntarily childless individuals report that their reason not to have children is the dislike of children or the disinterest in childrearing (Baker, 2002; Bram,
1985; Burman & de Anda, 1985; Carroll, 2001; Houseknecht, 1987; Gillespie, 1999,
2003; Lunneborg, 1999; Mollen, 2006; Somers, 1993; Veevers, 1980; Weston & Qu,
2001). Some voluntarily childless people do not feel comfortable around infants but feel better around older children, while others do not enjoy children in general. Researchers report inconsistent gender differences regarding this reason; more males than females provided the dislike of children as a reason in some studies (Houseknecht, 1987), while the opposite was reported in other studies (Park, 2005).
Some voluntarily childless individuals believe that they will not make a good parent. Many of them believe that their personalities such as impatience, perfectionism,
25 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 or introversion would prevent them from being a good parent (Bram, 1985; Brooks, 2007;
Burman & de Anda, 1985; Carroll, 2000; Houseknecht, 1987; Langdridge et al., 2005;
Lunneborg, 1999; Park, 2005). Interestingly, this belief sometimes is related to their family of origin and their own childhood experiences. Some voluntarily childless individuals think that they would not know how to be a good parent because their parents had not been good parents or worry that they will perpetuate the bad parenting they had received (Carroll, 2001; Burman & de Anda, 1985; Houseknecht, 1987; Park, 2005).
Others worry that they might pass some kind of pathology such as depression, hereditary diseases, violence, or alcoholism onto their children (Baker, 2002; Burgwyn, 1981;
Mollen, 2006; Park, 2005; Vissing, 2002).
There are some other reasons related to early family experiences. Some voluntarily childless people report that they watched their parents sacrifice their fulfillment, goals or dreams for children or felt their dissatisfaction being a parent and do not wish the same thing for themselves (Carroll, 2000; Veevers, 1980). Others feel that they already experienced their share of childrearing taking care of siblings; thus, they do not feel the need or wish to have their own children (Baker, 2002; Mollen, 2006; Veevers,
1980).
Some females do not wish to have children because of the dislike or fear of pregnancy and childbirth. Other women do not wish to experience the changes pregnancy and breast-feeding bring to their bodies or do not like the idea that the baby will be growing inside them. Women who fear pregnancy and childbirth tend to have witnessed
26 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 someone with a complicated pregnancy and childbirth (Bartlett, 1994; Brooks, 2007;
Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2001; Houseknecht, 1987; Park, 2005; Veevers, 1980).
Concerns about overpopulation (Bram, 1985; Burman & de Anda, 1985;
Campbell, 1985; Houseknecht, 1987; Kown, 2005; Langdridge et al., 2005; Lunneborg,
1999; Park, 2005) and the environment (Baker, 2002; Dever & Saugeres, 2004; Mollen,
2006), the belief that the world is not a good and safe place for children (Baker, 2002;
Caroll, 2001; Housenknecht, 1987; Mollen, 2006; Weston & Qu, 2001), fear of unknowns such as the child‘s bad temperament or health (Carroll, 2000; Kwon, 2005;
Lunneborg, 1999), and a partner‘s wish to remain childless (Alexander, 1992; Burman & de Anda, 1985; Cain, 2001; Langdridge et al., 2005) are some other less frequently mentioned reasons for voluntary childlessness.
It is hard to conclude which reason is the most common reason because many studies reviewed here are qualitative studies and the samples of the quantitative studies are usually small and non-representative. Moreover, voluntarily childless individuals present more than one reasons and most quantitative studies did not analyze the reasons in terms of the importance stated by the participants.
In sum, some characteristics of voluntarily childless individuals and couples and reasons for remaining childless were discussed to provide background information.
Review of existing theoretical perspectives and models revealed that they are not adequate to conceptualize and explain the married couples‘ process of remaining voluntarily childless. Therefore, the current study will develop a grounded theory which
27 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 incorporates couple interactions, emotions, and temporal aspects of the process of remaining voluntarily childless.
Childlessness as a Process
Making a choice of voluntary childlessness and remaining childless as a married couple is a process in which spouses reach an agreement not to have children and take actions to stay childless. Couples first need to reach an agreement not to have children.
However, the process of remaining childless usually does not end here. Many people revisit the decision to remain childless later in their lives either seriously or fleetingly. On the other hand, there also seem to be moments that make them convinced that they made the right decision. In this section, thus, the ways spouses reach an agreement initially and moments which trigger doubts or lead to convictions about the decision will be discussed first. How voluntarily childless couples announce their intention of voluntary childlessness and deal with social pressure and negative stereotypes will be reviewed in the next section because these seem to be integral to the process of remaining childless in pronatalist societies. Finally, contraception is also an important part of remaining childless. Sterilization and abortion as contraceptive measures will be discussed.
Reaching an agreement between partners. Fertility related decisions are foremost individual decisions. However, as long as individuals stay in a marital relationship, the spouses need to come to an agreement whether they want to have children or not. Regrettably, ―little is known about how men and women negotiate and make joint decisions or passive decision about having children‖ (Bulcroft & Teachman,
28 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
2004, p. 125). Although the need for process research on voluntarily childless couples was first raised by Houseknecht in 1978, there is still no study which has examined how spouses persuade uncertain or unwilling spouses to agree to remain childless. Thus, we can only take a glimpse of what might happen between spouses in this process from some qualitative studies which examined lives of voluntarily childless individuals or couples.
The process of reaching an agreement is easy and short for some couples but long and hard for others. The process seems easy when both spouses feel the same about not having children, whom Cooper and colleagues (1978) called mutuals. However, the process is not necessarily always short. Couples may find out that both of them do not want to have children even before the marriage or several years into the marriage. Early articulators who knew early on that they did not want to have children seem to look for a partner who shares their feelings about children. They often report how important and hard it was to find a partner who did not want to have children (Brooks, 2007; Cooper et al., 1978; Kwon, 2005; Lunneborg, 1999; Vissing, 2002). Some of them had to break up a relationship because of the different ideas about parenthood (Brooks, 2007; Cain, 2001;
Lunneborg, 1999). However, when they finally find a romantic partner with a same conviction, the decision tends to be easy and painless, and is made even before they get married (Burgwyn, 1981; Brooks, 2007; Carroll, 2000; Doyle, 1999; Kwon, 2005;
Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005). In some cases, couples keep an open mind for a while after the marriage to see if they change their mind despite their shared belief, and confirm later without a doubt that they have not and would not change their mind (c.f., Carroll,
2000; Lunneborg, 1999; Morell, 1994).
29 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
However, not all mutuals make the decision before the marriage. Many couples who initially thought they would have children may change their mind after the marriage.
What distinguishes this group of couples from other couples is the lack of one spouse having stronger feelings about not having children than the other spouse, or one spouse changing his/her mind toward not having children first and then persuading the other
(Nason & Poloma, 1976). It seems that both spouses come to the understanding that they would not have children almost at the same time. Some couples report a very brief conversation which sounds more like a statement of a fact—that they would not have children—than a discussion. Other couples recall lengthy discussions of pros and cons of having children over several years (Carroll, 2000; Lunneborg, 1999; Morell, 1994; Nason
& Poloma, 1976). Although one spouse may take a devil‘s advocate role during these discussions (Lunneborg, 1999; Veevers, 1980), there is usually no hint of one spouse leaning toward voluntary childlessness sooner and more strongly than the other.
On the other hand, for those whom Coopper and colleagues (1978) called negotiators, it is obvious that one spouse has more influence on the decision than the other. For example, some evidence of conflicts between spouses (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll,
2000) and one partner‘s influence on the decision to remain childless can be found in many qualitative studies (Doyle, 1999; Kemkes-Grottenthaler, 2003; Lunneborg, 1999;
Morell, 1994; Vissing, 2002). Furthermore, quantitative studies also frequently report the partner‘s wish as a reason for remaining childless voluntarily (Alexander, 1992; Burman
& de Anda, 1985; Cain, 2001; Langdridge et al., 2005). It is surprising to learn that many couples go into marriage without discussing what they feel about parenthood (Burgwyn,
30 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
1981; Cain, 2001; Carroll, 2000; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005; Nason & Poloma,
1976). This may contribute to some of the conflicts over whether to remain childless, which some couples experience after the marriage. Some spouses enter the marriage hoping their partner will change their mind (Carroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005).
It is not clear yet which spouse—husbands or wives— tends to be the more influential spouse (Bulcroft & Teachman, 2004). Although some studies found more husband influential than wife influential couples (Cain, 2001; Marciano, 1978), most studies found that the opposite was true for their samples (Bram, 1974; Houseknecht,
1977b; Nason & Poloma, 1976; Silka & Keisler, 1977). Moreover, Coopers and colleagues (1978), and Veevers (1980) did not find a gender difference. Considering the fact that samples of these studies were not representative, these conflicting findings may suggest that the spouse with a very strong conviction of remaining childless wins over the other spouse, regardless of gender.
The processes of reaching an agreement to voluntarily remain childless seem easier for some negotiators than others. When an individual with a conviction of remaining childless finds a partner who does not care much about whether or not to have a child, they seem to reach an agreement relatively easily (Brooks, 2007; Carroll, 2000;
Doyle, 1999; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005; Nason & Poloma, 1976). It is when each spouse has different convictions and feelings about having a child that the process can be hard for both or either of them (Cain, 2001; Caroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005). In either case, the spouse who wants to remain childless has to persuade the other spouse to agree. Some spouses with a very strong conviction may give their partner an ultimatum, asking them
31 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 to choose between their relationship and a child (Brooks, 2007; Cain, 2001; Nason &
Poloma, 1976; Mawson, 2005). As less forceful measures, convincing (Carroll, 2000;
Doyle, 1999) and pressuring (Coopper et al., 1978) seem to be used to persuade the partner to agree. In other cases, spouses report that the partner who originally wanted a child came around on their own (Caroll, 2000; Kwon, 2005; Mawson, 2005). When spouses cannot reach an agreement, divorce (Burgwyn, 1981; Mawson, 2005) or separation (Carroll, 2000) may happen.
Feelings during the process of reaching an agreement between the spouses and after the decision have never been a focus of studies on voluntarily childless couples. A review of some qualitative studies reveals that the decision to remain childless evokes feelings from both spouses. Once the agreement to remain childless between the spouses is finally made, couples report feelings of relief (Burgwyn, 1981). They also feel
―increased feelings of control over their lives‖ (Cooper et al., 1978, p. 84). Interestingly, some couples seem to experience feelings of guilt over their decision to remain childless, leading some of them to consider adopting a child (Durham, 2008; Mawson, 2005; Nason
& Poloma, 1976). It may be due to the pronatalist ideas that voluntarily childless people are irresponsible and selfish (Gillespie, 2003; Park, 2002; Veevers, 1980). The spouses who had more influence on the decision also report feelings of guilt (Cain, 2000; Carroll,
2000) as well as appreciation (Mawson, 2005) for their spouse for the agreement. On the other hand, spouses who initially wanted to have a child report resentment (Burgwyn,
1981), sadness (Cain, 2001), hurt (Carroll, 2000), or pain (Cain, 2001) over the decision.
However, their decision to honor their partner‘s wish was sometimes described as a
32 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 sacrifice (Cain, 2001), the gift of agreement (Doyle, 1999), or a gesture of respect and support (Mawson, 2005).
In sum, our understanding of the process of remaining voluntarily childless as a couple is far from complete. Although we have a better understanding of the timing of the decision and patterns of decision-making regarding a more influential spouse
(Houseknecht, 1987), we do not know how exactly spouses negotiate, persuade, or pressure one another to finally reach an agreement or what kind of emotions are related to these processes. A systemic analysis of the processes of negotiation and related feelings is needed.
Dealing with social pressure and stigma. Most voluntarily childless people experience social pressure and stigmatization associated with voluntary childlessness
(Bartlett, 1994; Brooks, 2007; Campbell, 1999; Cooper et al., 1978; Durham, 2008;
Gillespie, 2000; Marshall, 1993; Mawson, 2005; Mollen, 2006; Morell, 1994; Nason &
Poloma, 1976; Park, 2002; Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002). Social pressure and stigmatization are closely related to each other since stigma of voluntary childlessness often leads people to pressure voluntarily childless couples to change their mind.
The reactions of other people to the childless choice are good examples of stigmatization: disbelief, disregard, and accusations of deviance (Gillespie, 2000). It seems that some people cannot believe anybody would voluntarily choose to be childless; thus, they have to put them into other categories, which make more sense to them. For example, many people assume that couples are infertile when they say they do not have children (Gillespie, 2000; Morell, 1994; Park, 2002). Other people seem not to take the
33 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 choice of voluntary childlessness seriously and respond to it with ―you will change your mind,‖ ―just wait and see,‖ or ―you don‘t know what you‘re talking about‖ (Bartlett, 1994;
Brooks, 2007; Gillespie, 2000; Mollen, 2006). Many voluntarily childless individuals experience being thought of as selfish, different, strange, weird, abnormal, or, in case of women, unfeminine because of their choice of childlessness (Campbell, 1999; Gillespie,
2000; Mollen, 2006; Park, 2002).
Many studies have found that social pressure can take various forms with different strength (Marshall, 1993; Mollen, 2006; Park, 2002). Repeated questions about when they plan to have children (Bartlett, 1994) and their parents‘ hints suggesting wishes to be a grandparents (Kwon, 2005) can be considered subtle. Sometimes, the announcement of their choice is met with crying (Durham, 2008; Marshall, 1993) or anger (Campbell, 1999; Marshall, 1993), making voluntary childless couples feel uncomfortable and defensive. Some voluntarily childless couples even report their parents‘ attempt to bribe them to have children (Burgwyn, 1981). Voluntarily childless individuals often feel the need to defend their decision (Durham, 2008) when they face people who attack them and their decision by hurtful comments (Campbell, 1999;
Durham, 2008; Marshall, 1993, Mawson, 2005) or who try to persuade them with comments like ―who is going to take care of you when you get old?‖ or ―you don‘t know what you‘re missing out on‖ (Gillespie, 2000; Morell, 1994).
It seems that social pressure decreases with time: it usually starts one or two years after the wedding but becomes less intrusive after about five years (Bartlett, 1994;
Houseknecht, 1987; Marshall, 1993; Veevers, 1980). People either assume they are
34 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 infertile or come to terms with their choice. Family members, relatives, and friends are the most common sources of social pressure and stigmatization (Durham, 2008; Marshall,
1993; Park, 2002; Veevers, 1980). However, it is not unusual that voluntarily childless couples have to deal with stigmatization and social pressure from doctors and strangers.
Some voluntarily childless women report family doctors, physicians, gynecologists, or psychologists urging them to have children (Baker, 2002; Mawson, 2005; Veevers, 1980).
Moreover, many voluntarily childless men and women have been refused requests for sterilization due to their young age and/or childlessness (Bartlett, 1994; Campbell, 1994;
Lunneborg, 1999). The seemingly simple and innocent question of ―do you have kids?‖ from strangers or people who voluntarily childless couples may have just met at social gatherings can turn into uncomfortable or even a hostile situation depending on how both parties respond to the question and the answer (Baker, 2002; Brooks, 2007; Morell, 1994;
Vissing, 2002).
To avoid unnecessary discomfort and confrontations, some voluntarily childless individuals and couples are cautious about to whom and how much to talk about their decision (Bartlett, 1994; Durham, 2008; Marshall, 1993; Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002).
Using the communication privacy management perspective by Petronio (2002), Durham
(2008) found out that voluntarily childless couples control the information about their decision according to four criteria: Cultural, gendered, motivational/contextual, and risk.
Religion seems to be the most important cultural criterion. Many voluntarily childless couples have learned that their decision to remain childless is usually not received well by religious people. Gender seems to play an important role in information control about
35 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 the choice of childlessness. Many researchers have noticed that voluntarily childless women feel more pressure to have children than their male counterparts (Bartlett, 1994;
Cooper et al., 1978; Durham, 2008; Houseknecht, 1987; Marshall, 1993; Nason &
Poloma, 1976). Moreover, revealing the couple‘s decision to remain childless seems to be the job for wives‘ rather than husbands‘ (Durham, 2009). Finally, many voluntarily childless women report that ―other women were their harshest critics‖ (Durham, 2008, p.
139). These findings support the argument that womanhood is a lot more closely tied to motherhood than manhood is to fatherhood and that motherhood has become a mandate for women (Hird & Abshoff, 2000; Lisle, 1999; Meyers, 2001). Voluntarily childless couples‘ willingness to reveal their childlessness decision may vary from situation to situation. Whether or not and how much to reveal their decisions are carefully evaluated by the possible risk of negative reactions (Durham, 2008).
Thus, it is not surprising that voluntarily childless couples develop different strategies to deal with different situations. In fact, voluntarily childless couples take advantage of stigma and pronatalist ideas to conceal their childless decision. For example, they may let people believe or sometimes make them believe that they are infertile
(Brooks, 2007; Park, 2002; Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002). They also may imply that they will have children in the future (Morell, 1994; Nason & Poloma, 1976; Park, 2002;
Veevers, 1980; Vissing, 2002). In other situations, voluntarily childless couples may use humor (Marshall, 1993; Morell, 1994, Nason & Poloma, 1976) in an attempt to prevent further questioning or confrontations. As a consequence of these practices, many
36 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 voluntarily childless couples find themselves with a social network consisting of people who accept or approve their choice (Durham, 2008; Marshall, 1993; Veevers, 1980).
Most importantly, voluntarily childless individuals and couples need to develop and maintain a positive childless identity in spite of social pressure and stigmatization
(Gillespie, 2003; Morell, 1994; Park, 2002; Veevers, 1980). Veevers (1980) found several cognitive processes that voluntarily childless couples use to achieve this goal. It seems that voluntarily childless couples selectively perceive only negative aspects of parenthood and positive aspects of childlessness and use negative language to describe parents (Park, 2002; Veevers, 1980). They also reinterpret parents‘ interests, scorn, concern, or questions about their childless choice as a result of envy (Veevers, 1980).
Finally, voluntarily childless couples redefine parenthood as a matter of choice—one of many life choices—not as a mandate (Baker, 2002; Park, 2002).
In sum, developing strategies to deal with social pressure and stigmatization and maintaining a positive childless identity are essential parts of processes of remaining voluntarily childless. Stigmatization associated with voluntary childlessness and strategies to deal with it are among the few aspects of voluntarily childlessness which have been researched extensively in recent years. However, it is again not clear if these are more individual or couple processes. The questions of whether and how spouses in a voluntarily childless couple communicate to each other regarding social pressure and stigmatization, and strategies to deal with them, remain to be answered.
Moments of doubt. It is not unusual that voluntarily childless individuals revisit their decision from time to time (Baker, 2002; Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Doyle,
37 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
1999; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005). Even many early articulators who argue they knew from very early on that they did not want to have children report having moments of doubt (Baker, 2002; Morell, 1994). These moments of doubt are called twinges
(Brooks, 2007; Carroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005), tugs, (Doyle, 1999), lapses of confusion
(Brooks, 2007), occasional speculation (Baker, 2002), or a brief sniff (Mawson, 2005).
The experiences of revisitation seem different from individual to individual. They may be a brief, fleeting speculation or a hard re-examination of the decision (Brooks, 2007).
Many voluntarily childless women seem to experience doubts about their decision when they feel their biological clock ticking. The fact that having or not having a child would no longer be a choice seems to compel these women to reconsider their decision
(Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994; Vissing, 2002). For the same reason, voluntarily childless individuals may revisit their decision to remain childless before they or their partner get sterilized (Carroll, 2000). The loss of parents or the spouse also seems to trigger revisitation of the decision. These events remind voluntarily childless individuals that they no longer have generational or intimate connections (Burgwyn, 1981, Carroll, 2000; Morell, 1994). Having their own child—a lasting tie beyond time and space—might seem to be the only thing for them which can fill the void created by the loss. Social pressure (Brooks, 2007, Carroll, 2000; Mawson,
2005), the birth of a baby by friends or relatives (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Mawson,
2005), spending time with nephews or nieces (Cain, 2001; Carroll, 2000; Doyle, 1999;
Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994), and disappointment in a career
38 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
(Burgwyn, 1987; Carroll, 2000; Morell, 1994) are some other occasions that may elicit feelings of doubt.
Little is known as to whether these moments of doubt are purely individual experiences or shared with spouses. Considering that the decision to remain childless was a joint decision, doubts of one spouse may alarm or worry the other spouse. What happens when one spouse revisits the decision? Are these doubts shared with their spouses? What does the other partner do when this happens? How does he/she feel about the situation? Are there any differences depending on which spouse is having the doubts?
Finding out answers to these questions will expand our understanding of the couple process of remaining voluntarily childless.
Moments of conviction. Voluntarily childless individuals also enjoy moments which reassure them that they made a right decision (Baker, 2002, Brooks, 2007; Cain,
2001; Carroll, 2000; Kwon, 2005; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994; Vissing, 2002).
Interestingly, the revisitation caused by moments of doubts can ultimately lead to a confirmation that they really do not want to have a child (Brooks, 2007; Mawson, 2005;
Vissing, 2002). Going through the process of re-examination and finally reaching the same conclusion seem to give some couples reassurance. For women, pregnancy scares or actual pregnancies followed by an abortion can provide moments of conviction. Their feelings about becoming a mother become very real in these situations, helping them to re-examine and re-realize that they do not want to bear a child (Baker, 2002; Bartlett,
1994; Brooks, 2007; Mawson, 2005; Vissing, 2002). Furthermore, voluntarily childless individuals get validation from other voluntarily childless couples as well as parents.
39 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Observing other voluntarily childless couples live a very happy and productive life reassures them that it was the right decision (Carroll, 2000; Kwon, 2005). It seems that voluntarily childless people feel especially good about their decision when the validation come from people who are parents, basically telling them not having children is a better choice (Baker, 2002; Carroll, 2000). Although spending time with children can prompt voluntarily childless people to think about their decision again, it also helps them to realize how happy they are with their decision (Cain, 2001; Carroll, 2000). It seems that time with children reminds them of what they might be missing and what they do not have to deal with on a daily basis at the same time. Most of all, moments of freedom and spontaneity, which are not usually available to couples with children, are when voluntarily childless people appreciate what they have and the decision which made it most possible (Carroll, 2000; Kwon, 2005; Mawson, 2005).
As with the moments of doubt, there are unanswered questions about moments of conviction. Do spouses use these moments to reassure each other or especially the spouses who initially wanted to have children? How important is validation for voluntarily childless couples to remain childless? Do they actively look for validation?
Do these moments contribute to changes over time in reasons why they do not want to have a child? To conceptualize and understand voluntary childless as a process over time, these questions need to be answered.
Sterilization and abortion as a means of contraception. There is no question about how important contraception is to voluntarily childless couples. Thus, it is not surprising that they have been found to be more consistent and effective with
40 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 contraception than people who have children (Bram, 1974; Burnside, 1977; Silka &
Keisler, 1977). In general, sterilization (male and female sterilization combined) is the most common contraceptive method (36.2%) in the United States, followed by the pill
(30.6%) and the condom (18%) (Mosher, Martinez, Chandra, Abma, & Willson, 2004).
Similar to the general population, voluntarily childless couples use various methods of contraception to ensure they do not get pregnant. Many voluntarily childless women report living or having lived in constant fear of pregnancy (Campbell, 1999).
Considering that almost 50% of unintended pregnancies in the United States in 2001 were due to contraceptive failures (Finer & Henshaw, 2006), their fear is warranted.
Therefore, many voluntarily childless couples turn to sterilization, which is the safest contraception method found so far (Amundsen & Ramakrishnan, 2004; Bartz &
Greenberg, 2008). Voluntarily childless people show high rates of sterilization: The percentage of sterilized voluntarily childless individuals in previous studies ranges from
23% to 76% (Burnside, 1977, den Bandt, 1980; Hall, 1979; Hotz, 1976; Houseknecht,
1977b; Veevers, 1973b, cited from Houseknecht, 1987; Sommers, 1993).
Voluntarily childless women who were sterilized report dissatisfaction with other contraceptive methods including side effects and failure rates, and not wanting to resort to chemicals to prevent pregnancy as reasons for the decision to get sterilized (Campbell,
1999). Effectiveness, convenience of office procedure, and naturalness have been reported as benefits of vasectomy by sterilized men (Callan & Que Hee, 1984).
Furthermore, sterilization may improve sex lives of voluntarily childless couples because it rids of fear of pregnancy (Bartlett, 1994; Campbell, 1999). It also provides finality to
41 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 them and others, eliminating room for doubts and pressure (Bartlett, 1994; Burgwyn,
1981; Mawson, 2005). There is no information available about whether more wives or husbands within voluntarily childless couples get sterilization. In terms of how they decide who will get sterilized, relative attitudes toward the decision to remain childless and contraceptive responsibility seem to be important determining factors (Bartlett, 1994;
Burgwyn, 1981; Thompson et al., 1991). In the general population including childless individuals, cost effectiveness, convenience of the procedure, less major complication, an easier way to check the success of the procedure, taking over the responsibility for the contraception, wives‘ unwillingness to get sterilized, and shorter waiting time have been reported as reasons for choosing vasectomy rather than female sterilization (Thompson et al., 1991; Raspa, 1993). Reasons for female sterilization rather than male sterilization are being more committed to stop having children and husbands‘ fear of losing virility after vasectomy (Thompson et al., 1991). There are also voluntarily childless couples of whom both spouses are sterilized (Burgwyn, 1984).
Because of the finality, sterilization has been used to measure the level of commitment to the decision to remain childless by many researchers (e.g., Nason &
Poloma, 1976; Burgwyn, 1981; Lunneborg, 1999). In fact, the finality is one of the major reasons why voluntarily childless men and women do not want to get sterilized (Bartlett,
1994; Burgwyn, 1981; Nason & Poloma, 1976). However, some voluntarily childless people report that they are not sterilized not because they do not want to but because they could not (Callan & Que Hee, 1984).
42 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Many voluntarily childless men and women seem to have been denied of the procedure by doctors because they are too young and/or do not have any children (Brooks,
2007; Bartlett, 1994; Burgwyn, 1981; Cain, 2001; Campbell, 1999; Gillespie, 2000;
Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005), although there is some evidence that men have an easier time than women getting sterilized (Cain, 2001; Lunneborg, 1999). Many women seem to have experienced frustration at being denied, at being treated as an immature person who does not know what she really wants, of looking for doctors who would perform the procedure, and sometimes of having to resort to abortion(s) before they finally were sterilized (Campbell, 1999). In fact, in all states of the United States, a special consent is required for all women who want publicly funded sterilization and a few states require it for all women who want sterilization, whereas it is not required for men anywhere (Bartz & Greenberg, 2008). Moreover, there was a ―120 rule‖—the age of the woman multiplied by two and then by the number of children should be at least 120 or higher to be qualified for a female sterilization—by the American Society of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists until 1969 (Burgwyn, 1981; Campbell, 1999). The doctors‘ reasons for refusing to perform sterilization on young and/or childless individuals is the possibility of future regret, although the World Health Organization does not consider age and parity to be medical reasons to deny the procedure (World
Health Organization, 2001).
Research findings report that from 0.9% to 25% of women (Hillis, Marchbanks,
Tylor, & Peterson, 1999) and less than 5% of men (Shain, 1986) later regret their sterilization. Being younger than 30 at the time of the procedure has been repeatedly
43 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 found to be a significant factor of future regret for both men and women (Jamieson et al.,
2002; Kariminia et al., 2002; Wilcox, Chu, Eaker, & Zeger, 1991). Many studies have found no evidence that parity is a significant predictor of future regret among both women and men (Boring, Rochat, & Becerra, 1988; Jamieson et al., 2002; Leader, Galan,
George, & Taylor, 1983; Marcil-Gratton, 1988; Pitaktepsombati & Janowitz, 1991;
Wilcox et al., 1991). Because studies on regret after sterilization usually have very limited number of childless individuals, it is hard to conclude whether age is a significant predictor, regardless of the number of children. Refusing to perform a sterilization procedure on young and childless people still is under debate in the medical community
(Benn & Lupton, 2002).
The perceived possibility of an abortion in case of pregnancy also has been used as a measure of commitment to voluntary childlessness (Hotz, 1975; Houseknecht, 1974;
Veevers, 1973b cited from Houseknecht, 1987; Nason & Poloma, 1976). Personal beliefs about abortion in conjunction with the level of commitment to remaining childless seem to determine couples‘ wilingness to get an abortion. Although more voluntarily childless people think they would get an abortion if they get pregnant, there are still a few who do not think they could get an abortion not because they have doubts about the decision but because they do not think they can live with the fact that they terminated a pregnancy
(Bartlett, 1994; Veevers, 1980). Sometimes, an abortion becomes a reality, not a possibility, when voluntarily childless women find out they are pregnant unexpectedly.
The experience of an abortion seems to be different from individual to individual. The decision to get an abortion can be easy or hard, and some women may feel guilty (Brooks,
44 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
2007) and remember it as psychological and emotional trauma (Campbell, 1994) while others may just feel relieved (Bartlett, 1994; Campbell, 1994). There is almost no information on how husbands experience the abortion(s).
In sum, contraception is a very important part of the process of remaining voluntarily childless. Voluntarily childless couples take pains to stay childless including enduring side effects of contraceptive methods, being repeatedly denied of sterilization, going through medical procedures, and sometimes an abortion. Little is known about how the decisions regarding the contraceptive method, which spouse will get sterilized and abortion are made in a marital relationship. Looking more deeply into these matters will help us to understand whether decisions about contraception are closely connected to the way spouses reach the agreement to remain voluntarily childless as well as to the whole process of remaining childless.
To summarize, the existing literature on voluntarily childless failed to conceptualize the decision to remain voluntarily childless as a dyadic process for married couples. In addition, there is a need to understand what is actually happening when two spouses make the decision to remain voluntarily childless. Thus, this study focuses on delineating the decision-making process over time and what each spouse says, does, and feels throughout the process.
45 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Table 1.
Features of Studies Reviewed in Literature Review
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Abma & Martinez 2006 Journal Article Quantitative 17,659 A nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized (JA) (QN) women between the ages of 15 and 44 (Cycles 3, 4, 5, 6 of the NSFG data) Alexander 1992 JA Qualitative 90 Childless women of age 60 and over (QL) Amundsen & 2004 JA Review (R) NA NA Ramakrishnan Avellar & Smock 2003 JA 11- year 8,245 A nationally representative sample of women between the ages Longitudinal of 21 to 42 in 1985 (the NLS-YW) and between the ages of 33 Quantitative and 41 in 1998 (the NLSY) (LQN) Aykan 2003 JA QN 6,953 A nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized individuals born in 1923 or earlier (the AHEAD) Baker 2002 Dissertation (D) QL 9 Voluntarily childless women between the ages of 32 and 51 Bartlett 1994 Book (B) Non-academic 50 Childless women between the ages of 22 and 75 interviews (I) Bartz & Greenberg 2008 JA R NA NA Bean & Leach 2005 JA R NA NA Benn & Lupton 2005 JA Case Study 1 A 26 year old women (CS) Becker 2007 JA QN 35,331 A nationally representative sample of married couples from 29 couples countries (the DHS) Billari 2005 Book Chapter R NA NA (BC) Bongaarts 2002 JA R NA NA 46 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Boring, Rochat & 1988 JA QN 846 A population-based sample of Puerto Rican women between Becerra the ages of 15 and 49 Bram 1978 BC QN 83 couples Voluntarily childless couples, couples with intention to have children, and couples who had their first child Bram 1985 JA 7- year LQN 135 The participants of the previous Bram (1978) study Brooks 2007 D QL 30 Voluntarily childless women between the ages of 27 and 71 Bulcroft & Teachman 2004 BC R NA NA Burgwyn 1981 B I Approximatel Childless individuals y 100 Burkett 2000 B NA NA NA Burman & de Anda 1985 JA QN 76 Voluntarily childless individuals and intentional parents Cain 2001 B NA NA NA Callan 1983 JA QN 78 Voluntarily childless individuals Callan 1987 JA QN 149 Voluntarily and involuntarily childless married women, and married mothers Callan & Que Hee 1984 JA QN 134 50 voluntarily childless couples and 34 intentional mothers with one child Campbell 1999 B QL 23 Sterilized, voluntarily childless women Carroll 2000 B I 15 couples Voluntarily childless married couples Choi 1994 JA 7,444 A nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized individuals aged 70 years or older in 1984 (the LSOA) Cooper, Cumber, & 1978 JA QL 44 couples Voluntarily childless married couples Hartner Cowan & Cowan 1992 B 10-year 92 couples 72 expectant couples and 24 nonparent couples Longitudinal Qualitative (LQL) Dever & Saugeres 2004 JA R NA NA Durham 2008 JA QL 32 Voluntarily childless individuals
47 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Dykstra & Hagestad 2007a JA QN Unknown Nationally representative samples of older persons from Australia (the ALSA), Finland (the SFLC) Netherlands (the NESTOR-LSN), the United States (the SNFH), and Japan (the NSFI); and local samples from West Berlin (the BASE), Liverpool (the ALOHA), Melbourne (the HSOP), and Tokyo (the TMIG-LISA) Dykstra & Hagestad 2007b JA R NA NA Feldman 1981 JA QN 79 couples 42 intentional parent couples and 37 voluntarily childless couples Finer & Henshaw 2006 JA QN 10,847 A nationally representative sample of women between the ages of 15 and 44 (1995 and 2002 NSFG) Flynn 1996 Magazine Article NA NA NA (MA) Gillespie 1999 JA QL 25 Voluntarily childless women between the ages of 18 and 51 Gillespie 2000 JA QL 25 Voluntarily childless women between the ages of 18 and 51 Gillespie 2003 JA QL 25 Voluntarily childless women between the ages of 18 and 51 Glauber 2007 JA QN 5,929 A nationally representative sample of women born between 1957 and 1965 (the 1982 to 2004 waves of the NLSY) Glick 1975 R R NA NA Hagestad & Call 2007 JA QN 7,000 Nationally representative samples of individuals between the ages of 55 to 90 from Netherlands (the NESTOR-LSN) and the United States (the NSFH) Heaton, Jacobson, & 1992 JA QN 4067 couples A nationally representative sample of married couples aged 19 Fu years and older (the 1988 wave of the NSFH) Heaton, Jacobson, & 1999 JA QN 1,172 A nationally representative sample of women aged 19 years Holland and older, and men with partners or spouses between the ages 19 and 39 in 1988 (the 1988 and 1994 waves of the NSFH) Hills, Marchbanks, 1999 JA QN 11,232 Women between the ages of 18 and 44 who had tubal Tylor, & Peterson sterilizations between 1978 and 1987
48 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Hird & Abshoff 2000 JA R NA NA Hodge & Ogawa 1991 B NA NA NA Houseknecht 1979b JA QN 51 Voluntarily childless married women between the ages of 25 and 40 Houseknecht 1987 BC R NA NA Jacobson & Heaton 1991 JA QN 13,017 A nationally representative sample of individuals aged 19 years and older (the 1988 wave of the NSFH) Jamieson et al. 2002 JA 5-year LQN 4197 525 women whose husband underwent vasectomy and 3672 women who underwent tubal sterilization Jeffries & Konnert 2002 JA QN 72 Voluntarily childless women, involuntarily childless women, and mothers Kariminia, Saunders, 2002 JA QN 198 97 sterilized women who received evaluation for in vitro & Chamberlain fertilization and 101 sterilized women Kaufman 2000 JA QN 2,621 A nationally representative sample of women younger than 40 years old; and single men younger than 45 and married or cohabiting men with a partner younger than 40 in 1988 (the 1988 and 1994 waves of the NSFH) Kemkes-Grottenhaler 2003 JA QN 193 Female faculty members of a university in Germany Kiernan 1989 JA QN 3,268 A nationally representative sample of individuals who were born in 1946 (the NSHD) Koropeckyj-Cox & 2007 JA QN Unknown Nationally representative samples of older persons from Call Australia (the ALSA), Finland (the SFLC) Netherlands (the NESTOR-LSN), the United States (the SNFH), and Japan the (NSFI); and local samples from West Berlin (the BASE), Liverpool (the ALOHA), Melbourne (the HSOP), and Tokyo (the TMIG-LISA) Krishnan 1993 JA QN 2,863 A nationally representative sample of women between the ages of 18 and 49 who were married or in common-law unions in 1984 in Canada (the CFS)
49 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Kwon 2005 D QL 10 couples Voluntarily childless couples with one Asian or Asian- American partner Leader, Galan, 1983 JA QN 319 Women who requested a reversal of sterilization and women George, & Taylor who did not Letherby 2002 JA R NA NA Letherby & Williams 1999 JA QL 2 1 voluntarily and 1 involuntarily childless researchers Lisle 1999 B NA NA NA Lunneborg 1999 B I 30 Voluntarily childless men Magarick & Brown 1981 JA QN 95 Sterilized voluntarily childless men and sterilized fathers Majumdar 2004 JA QN 1,020 A nationally representative sample of childless individuals aged 19 years and older who were married or cohabiting (the 1988 wave of the NSFH) Marshall 1993 B QL & QN 11 couples Voluntarily childless couples and individuals (QL) and 97 individuals (QN) Marcil-Gratton 1988 JA QN 497 A representative sample of women who had tubal sterilization Mollen 2006 JA QL 9 Voluntarily childless women between the ages of 32 and 51 Morell 1994 B QL 34 Voluntarily childless married women between the ages of 40 and 78 Morgan 1991 JA QN Unknown Viral registration estimates and Census in 1910, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980 Mosher, Martinez, 2004 JA QL 7643 A nationally representative sample of women between the ages Chandra, Abma, & of 15 and 44 (the 2002 wave of the NSFG), Willson Myers 1997 JA 12-year LQN 2033 A national sample of married individuals aged 55 and younger Nason & Poloma 1976 B QL & QN 30 couples Voluntarily childless couples O‘Connell 1991 R QN Unknown A nationally representative sample of women over 30 years old (the CPS data between 1976 and 1990) Park 2002 JA QL 24 Voluntarily childless individuals between the ages of 21 and 56
50 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Park 2005 JA QL 21 Voluntarily childless individuals between the ages of 31 and 56 Paul 2001 MA NA NA NA Peck & Senderowitz 1974 B NA NA NA Pitaktepsombati, & 1994 JA QN Unknown A nationally representative sample of ever-married women Janowitz between the ages of 15 and 49 in Thailand (the TDHS) Poston 1990 JA QN Unknown Ever-married, non-pregnant White women between the ages of 35 and 44(the 1976 and 1982 waves of the NSFG) Poston & Kramer 1986 JA QN Unknown Ever-married, non-pregnant White women between the ages of 35 and 44(the 1976 wave of the NSFG) Raspa 1993 JA R NA NA Rovi 1994 JA QN 2,914 Probability samples of individuals between the ages 18 and 44 (The 1972, 1974-1978, 1982-1983, 1985-1086, and 1988 GSS) Rowland 2007 JA R NA NA Schoen, Kim, 1997 JA QN 4,358 A national probability sample of White and Black individuals Nathanson, Fields, & between the ages of 16 and 39 who were nether sterile nor Astone pregnant (the 1988 wave of the NSFH) Secombe 1991 JA QN 821 A nationally representative sample of married individuals with no children who are of childbearing age (the 1988 wave of the NSFH) Shain 1986 BC R NA NA Silka & Kiesler 1977 JA QN 61 couples Married couples under 30 who did not have children Somers 1993 JA QN 201 Voluntarily childless individuals and parents Thompson, 1991 JA QN 251 A representative sample of individuals requesting sterilization MacGillivray, & Fraser Thomson 1997 JA QN 1,143 A nationally representative sample of unsterilized couples in which the woman was under 40 and neither had children from a previous relationship (the 1988 and 1994 waves of NSFH) Veevers 1973 JA QL 52 Voluntarily childless married women Veevers 1980 B QL 156 Voluntarily childless individuals
51 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Authors Year Publication Type Study Type Sample Size Sample Characteristics Vissing 2002 B QL & QN 125 Childless women Weston & Qu 2001 MA NA NA NA Wilcox, Chu, Eaker, 1991 JA 5-year LQN 7,590 Women who underwent tubal sterilization Zeger, & Peterson
52 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
CHAPTER III
METHOD
This chapter contains a detailed description of how this study was conducted: specific methodology; sampling and recruitment; data collection and analysis process; and theory evaluation criteria.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) out of the frustration that there was only a limited number of big social theories and that these were often not adequate to explain specific areas of interest (LaRossa, 2005). Glaser and
Strauss created a set of principles and guidelines which can be used to develop a theory
‗grounded‘ in data (Charmaz, 2003). These guidelines allow researchers to explore raw data, to find new patterns, and ultimately to ―discover‖ or ―construct‖ a theory which provides an ―abstract, conceptual understanding of the studied phenomena‖ (Charmaz,
2006, p. 6).
The main focus of the current study is couples‘ decision-making processes to remain childless. Grounded theory method, among other qualitative methods, is particularly appropriate to study processes. Inquiries based on grounded theory methods seek to understand what is going on (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and the researcher is interested in ―how individuals act, interact, or engage in a process in response to a phenomenon‖ (Creswell, 1998, p. 56). Grounded theorists are encouraged to incorporate processes and temporal elements in the analysis (Charmaz, 2006; LaRossa,
53 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). They also look for ―causes, contexts, contingencies, consequences, covariances, and conditions‖ (the six C‘s‖); and ―strategies and tactics‖
(Glaser, 1978, pp. 74, 76). Thus, this study uses ground theory methods to answer the research question: what are the decision-making processes of remaining childless as a couple?
One of the unique features of grounded theory methods is the flexibility given to researchers. Grounded theorists are encouraged to ―adopt and adapt‖ (Charmaz, 2006, p.
9) the guidelines for their own studies. The flexibility of grounded theory methods turns out to have its advantages and disadvantages. It has inspired many researchers to conduct various valuable studies while adopting certain aspects of the methods (Charmaz, 2006), interpreting the principles and guidelines differently, or even devising their own version of the methods (LaRossa, 2005). However, these different ways of utilizing grounded theory have created confusion particularly for novices concerning which one to follow.
Thus, it is important to choose the most appropriate grounded theory method to the study.
My decisions on specific aspects of method—the timing of the literature review, analysis process, and the evaluation of the theory—are expressed and explained in the relevant sections.
Participants
Couple as the Unit of Analysis. The consistency of the unit of analysis among research questions, data sources, and data analysis is an important not only in quantitative
(Maguire, 1999; Thompson & Walker, 1982) but also in qualitative research (Benett &
McAvity, 1994; McClement & Woodgate, 1998). The research question of the current
54 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 study—couples‘ processes of remaining voluntarily childless— dictated that the unit of analysis should be the couple. Thus, the data needed to be collected from both members of the couple. When interviewing couples, the researcher needs to decide what kind of interview format to use because different interview formats produce different data
(Arksey, 1996; Benett & McAvity, 1994). Three interview formats are most common in studies on couples: separate individual interviews with each partner; conjoint interviews; and a combination of the two.
The decision to choose one format over the others is seldom easy and warrants methodological, practical, and ethical considerations. For example, the possibility of a conjoint interview depends on the nature of the topic (Bottorff, Lalaw, Johnson, Stewart,
& Greaves, 2005). Separate individual interviews are appropriate for sensitive topics which might prevent participants from being honest in the presence of the partner, increase conflicts between partners, or threaten the safety of the participants (Arksey,
1996; Beitin, 2007; LaRossa, Bennett, & Gelles, 1981). However, separate individual interviews present other methodological and ethical problems. When analyzing the data, the researcher has to find a way to deal with conflicting or inconsistent accounts from two spouses of a couple to capture shared experiences (Benett & McAvity, 1994; Bottorff et al., 2005; Hertz, 1995; LaRossa, 1978). Confidentiality of individuals can nevertheless be compromised because the participants can learn what their partner said in the written report or one partner can reveal the other partner‘s confidential information to the interviewer inadvertently without permission (Botkin, 2001; LaRossa et al., 1981).
55 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
The combination of separate individual and conjoint interviews can resolve some of these issues and take advantage of benefits from both formats. The researcher can obtain both individual and couple perspectives on the same topic or obtain individual history in individual interviews and couple history in conjoint interviews (Benett &
McAvity, 1994). Moreover, when scheduled after the separate individual interviews, the conjoint interview can be used to clarify conflicting information (Jordan, James, Kay, &
Redley, 1992; Beitin, 2007). However, this format may not be appropriate for practical reasons. The time and effort necessary to schedule and conduct the interviews can be enormous for participants and the researcher (Valentine, 1999). The amount of data collected can pose problems to the researcher in managing and analyzing them (Arksey,
1996; Beitin, 2007; Hertz, 1995).
When the researcher is mainly interested in the shared experience of couples and the topic does not require separate individual interviews, a conjoint interview has many advantages. The most important advantage of couple conjoint interview is the richness of the data (Allan, 1980; Arksey, 1996; Benett & McAvity, 1994; LaRossa, 1978; Valentine,
1999). One partner can elaborate and clarify factual and symbolic information provided by the other partner. Moreover, different views on the same experiences which the partners were not aware of can come out during the interview. The interactions between partners during the interview can provide valuable non-verbal information about the couple (Allen, 1980) and decrease the need for the interviewer to probe (Benett &
McAvity, 1994; Valentine, 1999). Moreover, couple conjoint interviews can facilitate rapport between the interviewer and the couple being interviewed because they do not
56 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 have to worry about what their partner would say about them or their relationship in the privacy of the individual interview (LaRossa, 1978; Valentine, 1999).
There are some disadvantages of conducting couple conjoint interviews only. For example, one partner may coerce other partner to participate in the study with his/her own agenda (Bottorff et al., 2005) or dominate the conversation (Allan, 1980; Arksey,
1996; Hertz, 1995). There is also a possibility that couples may hide any disagreements by not challenging each other‘s responses in an effort to present a united front (Hertz,
1995; LaRossa, 1978) and unexpected conflicts or disagreement are provoked (Arksey,
1996; LaRossa, 1978; LaRossa et al., 1981; Valentine, 1999).
Each interview format has its advantages and disadvantages and researchers cannot anticipate every possible issue which might come up during the interviews. The researcher has to weigh the pros and cons, and decide the most appropriate format to address the research question. Some researchers argue that couple conjoint interviews are appropriate for decision-making studies (e.g., Sandelowski, Holditch-Davis, & Harris,
1992; Valentine, 1999) whereas others believe separate but simultaneous interviews are better (e.g., Hertz, 1995). However, all agree that decision-making processes are interactive and shared experiences between spouses.
The goal of this study was to understand how spouses negotiate and re-negotiate to reach an agreement and to commit to the decision. It is not likely that one partner has more information than the other partner or has information which is unknown to the other partner as in the other areas of marital relationships such as childcare arrangement or money management. Furthermore, how spouses came to the decision to remain childless
57 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 individually is beyond the scope of this study. The topic of the current study did not require separate individual interviews for either sensitivity or safety issues. Thus, it was decided that separate individual interviews in addition to couple conjoint interviews were not necessary. Instead, reflective journals from each spouse after the conjoint interview was used to give participants a chance to express their individual feelings and thoughts they want to add.
Sampling and Criteria. Twenty one heterosexual married couples were recruited through purposeful and theoretical sampling (Creswell, 1998). Sampling in qualitative research is different from sampling in quantitative research because the purpose of qualitative research is analytic generalization rather than generalization to populations
(Sandelowski, 1995). Thus, qualitative research usually involves some type of purposeful sampling rather than random or probability sampling. Researchers intentionally seek participants who can contribute to the goal of the study using specific parameters (Morse,
1998, 2007; Sandelowski, 1995). The sampling criteria of the current study were initially established to ensure purposeful sampling: the ability to contribute to the evolving theory of couples‘ decision-making process to remain childless.
To ensure that the participants contribute to the evolving theory of couples‘ decision-making process to remain childless, couples who met certain criteria were invited to participate in the study initially: (1) both spouses are at least 18 years of age; (2) the couple has been married at least 5 years; (3) they do not have children by choice; (4) neither spouse has any known fertility problem; and (5) neither spouse has any childbearing or childrearing experience from previous relationships.
58 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
This study focuses only on married couples because childbearing behaviors as well as social norms and expectations on childbearing of cohabiting couples are different from those of married couples (Bartlett, 1994; Corin, Liefbroer, & Gierveld, 1996;
Heaton et al., 1999). Many researchers have used 5 years of marriage as their inclusion cutoff marker when studying voluntarily childless couples (e.g., Mawson, 2005; Veevers,
1980). The argument is that they need couples who are committed to being childless and have enough shared experience of being childless. To capture the complex process of remaining voluntarily childless over time, a minimum of 5 years of marriage is required.
However, this criterion was expanded during the data collection process. Two couples who had been married only for 4 and a half years were included although they did not meet the criterion of having been married for 5 years or more. The rationale for the 5 years of marriage criterion had been to ensure the couples had enough shared experience of remaining voluntarily childless. Each of these two couples had been together more than 10 years and had lived together for 7 years at the time of the interview.
Moreover, both couples told the researcher during the telephone interview that they decided to remain voluntarily childless even before they had gotten married. Thus, these two couples were included in the sample.
Initially, the researcher decided to recruit couples who could tell the researcher that they had made the decision not to have children. However, the first couple to respond to the advertisement could not say that they made the decision. The researcher thanked them for their interest and explained that the researcher was looking for couples who had already made the decision. After inquiries from two more couples who also could not tell
59 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 the researcher that they had made the decision, the researcher began to wonder whether these couples should become part of the study. Although they had not made the decision to remain voluntarily childless, they were responding to the advertisement recruiting married couples who ―don‘t have kids by choice.‖ Thus, the researcher decided to interview at least one of them to determine whether this group of couples would contribute to the study and the theoretical model. After the interview, the researcher realized that this group represented couples who were in the process of eventually becoming postponer couples and, thus, would be able to provide important information that could help delineate the process of postponement. Specifically, as these couples were currently in the process of postponement, they could provide concurrent rather than retrospective accounts of their decision-making process. Thus, the researcher contacted these previously disqualified couples and scheduled interviews with them.
A decision to remain childless in current relationships for people with previous parenting experience or with fertility problems is different from that of those who voluntarily decided not to have or parent a child (Cain, 2001; Vissing, 2002). Thus, those with previous parenting experience or fertility problems are excluded from the current study.
Recruitment. The participants were recruited through various strategies: advertisement, word-of-mouth, and snowballing. First, electronic advertisements were sent out using a university‘s daily email announcement. Second, an advertisement was placed online in newspapers and the Craig‘s List (http://www.craigslist.org) in a metropolitan city. Third, an email with the advertisement was sent out to the researcher‘s
60 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 colleagues and friends asking them to forward it to their acquaintances. Fourth, participants were asked to recommend couples who met the criteria and might be interested in participating in the study. The recruitment continued until the researcher reached ‗theoretical saturation‘ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Morse, 2007; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). The recruitment materials are presented in Appendix A.
Participants. The participants of this study were 21 married couples who remain voluntarily childless. The description of the participants is presented in Table 2. All names are pseudonyms. Some participants chose their own pseudonym and others let the researcher choose one for them. The ages of the husbands ranged from 36 to 69 (42 on average) and the ages of the wives ranged from 31 to 54 (39.1 on average). Only two spouses of a couple were Hispanic and others were Caucasians. On average, the couples had been together for 13.86 years (SD = 5.05) and married for 11.11 years (SD = 5.90).
Three wives and two husbands were in their second marriage. Three couples had had an abortion and two wives had had a tubal ligation. One of the two sterilized wives later underwent a hysterectomy for health reasons. There were two additional wives who underwent a hysterectomy for health reasons also sterilized. Five husbands were sterilized and an additional husband had an appointment with a doctor to discuss a vasectomy at the time of the interview.
All the participants had graduated from at least high school and half of the participants (50%) had at least a Bachelor‘s degree. Approximately half (52%) had no formal religious affiliation and three spouses were atheists. Approximately 86 % of the husbands and 71% of the wives had a full time job. Two wives did not have a job and one
61 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 of them has a disability. One wife was unemployed at the time, looking for a new job.
Others had part-time jobs and some of them were also attending school. A little more than half of the couples (57%) had annual household income more than $65,000. The lowest level of household income range was between $20,000 and $34,999 (3 couples) and 6 couples reported their household income was over $95,000.
62 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Table 2.
Description of the participants
Length of Length of Decision- Age Names the the Making Type Relationship Marriage Husband Wife Ginger & Steele NM 8 5.5 36 31 Jane & Joe MEA to MP 11 9.5 36 30 Karen & Richard MEA 11 9.5 56 34 Natalie & Floyd NM 10 4.5 43 32 Michelle & Hank MEA 24 24 45 48 Lisa & James MEA 11 4.5 38 31 Kate & Wade MP 12 10 40 36 Gina & Klaus MEA 12 9 33 42 Brenda & Mark MP 23 22 42 46 Dana & Kary NM 17 15 52 50 Marie & Spot MEA 16 16 57 54 Adrian & Ray NM 18 18 69 53 Nicole & Jon MEA 22 18 43 40 Penelope & Bob MEA 17 17 57 54 Lily & Christian MEA 13 9 34 33 Betty & Vincent MEA 6 6 33 31 Jake & Veronica MEA 14 10 38 42 Christina & Jaun NM 15 8 37 41 Tony & Gertrude MEA 8 6.5 28 30 Charlotte & Harry MP 12 8 30 30 Derek & Meredith MP 11 7 35 33 Note. NM = Non-mutual, MEA = Mutual Early Articulator, MP = Mutual Postponer.
63 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Data Collection Procedure
Pilot study. To make sure the interview questions and procedures were appropriate for the current study, a pilot study with one couple who met the sample criteria was conducted using the data collection procedure designed for this study: a conjoint couple interview and participants‘ reflective journal. No changes on interview questions and procedures were made after reviewing feedback on the interview format and questions, and journal writings from the participants of the pilot study. The pilot study data were included in the data analysis.
Procedure. Once couples who were interested in participating in the study were identified, informal telephone interviews were conducted with each spouse separately.
During these interviews, information about the purpose and the procedure of the study, expected time commitment, confidentiality, participants‘ rights, and compensation ($ 50) in cash were given to the potential participants. Next, a series of questions were asked to determine their eligibility (Appendix B). When the couple agreed to participate in the study and met the criteria, an appointment was set for the interview.
To decrease the possibility of one spouse coercing the other spouse to participate in the study, the researcher asked each spouse whether they were willing to participate in the study on the phone. When asked how they decided to participate in the study, spouses reported that the spouse who found the advertisement or email talked to the other spouse to see whether the other spouse would also be interested.
64 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Before the interviews, couples were informed again about the research, the purpose of the study, taping of the interview, what was expected of them for the study, what they could expect from participation including the compensation, potential benefits and risks, their right to withdraw from the study, and confidentiality. Each spouse was invited to ask any questions about the study and asked to sign the informed consent
(Appendix C) if they still wanted to participate in the study. A demographic questionnaire
(Appendix D) and a personal history chart (Appendix E) were completed by each spouse before the interview. Personal history charts were used to orient the participants for the interview. The participants were asked to read a list of events related to the decision- making process such as the first time they had talked about having or not having children and the time when they had finally made the decision not to have children together, and to mark how old they were when these events happened, if they happened to them. This exercise helped the participants to remember important markers of the decision-making process, thus helping the interview process.
This study used in-depth interviews. Interviews in qualitative research, including grounded theory, attempt to gain deep understanding of participants‘ experience from their perspective (Kvale, 1996). They are in effect guided conversations (Rubin & Rubin,
1995). However, interviews in grounded theory are different from other qualitative interviews in that interview questions evolve with the developing theory. As data collection and analysis progress, the researcher tends to focus on specific questions
(Charmaz, 2006). This is different from forcing participants into responding in a way that
65 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 fits with already emergent concepts or categories, which researchers need to guard against (Glaser, 1978).
In this study, a semi-structured interview format was used. This format gives researchers a structure to keep the interview focused as well as the flexibility to probe and explore certain topics (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). An interview guide with open- ended questions (Appendix F) helped the researcher not to miss important questions during the interviews and gave the researcher competence and comfort to focus on the interview itself (Charmaz, 2006).
Participants chose the interview location (e.g., participants‘ home, researcher‘s, participants‘ office, or a coffee shop) and the interviews were conducted by the researcher. The interviews took approximately 40 to 90 minutes (62 minutes on average).
The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim by the researcher and an undergraduate research assistant, who had been trained to transcribe qualitative interviews and who was cognizant of the importance of confidentiality. The transcriptions completed by the research assistant were reviewed by the researcher. The cash compensation was given to the participants after the interview.
The participants were also asked to write a reflective journal within a week after the interview and send it to the researcher. Elicited texts—writing data from participants upon researcher‘s request—are another meaningful form of data (Charmaz, 2006). In this study, participants were asked to write a reflective journal within a week after the couple interview with minimal instructions (Appendix G). Confidentiality issues of the journal were discussed in advance so that each participant can decide whether they wish their
66 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 journal to be included in data analysis, allowing the possibility their partner would read a part of it. Participants were asked to reflect on the interview and write any feelings, thoughts, and ideas that they had not shared in the interview either because they thought of it after the interview or because they had not felt comfortable sharing it in the presence of the partner. They were also asked to write any conversation or discussion they had with their partner after the interview.
The main purpose of the reflective journals in this study was to provide the participants with the privacy the couple interview lacked and to guard against the possibility that spouses may not be able to reveal some things in front of their spouse.
Seventeen of the 42 spouses sent their reflective journals via email to the researcher. Of the 17 spouses who wrote a journal, only one spouse did not want the journal to be shared.
This assured the researcher that most participants did not feel that they could not talk freely in front of their spouse. To keep the analysis dyadic, however, the reflective journals were not included in the analysis in the current study.
The digital recording files, the transcription files, and the journal files were kept in a password protected computer. The questionnaires, personal history charts, and hard copies of the transcriptions were kept in a locked file cabinet. Data from interviews and journals were managed with a qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti 6.0 which was installed on a password protected computer.
67 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Data Analysis
Constant comparative method. Constant comparisons (Glaser & Strauss,
1967)—also referred to as theoretical comparisons (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 67)— are a very important analytic tool in grounded theory and used in every step of grounded theory coding. For example, the researcher constantly compares incident to incident to find similarities and differences to assign them into appropriate concepts in open coding.
Comparisons among concepts and categories occur in axial coding (Glaser & Strauss,
1967; LaRossa, 2005). The researcher also can compare data in terms of different dimentionality such as gender or intensity (LaRossa, 2005) or time sequence (Charmaz,
2006). It is during these comparisons that the researcher decides whether theoretical saturation has occurred or not (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Coding. Data analysis in a grounded theory study does not wait until the data collection is finished. It begins as soon as the first interview ends (Charmaz, 2003; Stauss
& Corbin, 1998) and the analysis of the previous interviews guides the next interviews.
Creswell (1998) calls this process a ―zigzag‖ process (Creswell, 1988, p. 57); the researcher collects and analyzes the data, and then collects and analyzes more data, and so forth until the categories are saturated.
As discussed before, there are many different grounded theory coding procedures.
I adopted Strauss and Corbin‘s (1998) three phase coding procedure—open coding, axial coding, and selective coding— for this study because they seem to be the most commonly used procedure in grounded theory research (LaRossa, 2005). The three phases are not necessarily sequential but cyclical (Ambert, Adler, Adler, & Detzner, 1995;
68 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
LaRossa, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Because of the zigzag relationship between the data collection and the analysis, the researcher had to go back to the open coding phase whenever new data were collected. Moreover, the researcher had to go back to previous phases to modify previous coding.
Open coding is ―the analytic process through which concepts are identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data‖ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 101).
In this phase, incidents were identified and compared through line-by-line coding to construct concepts. In a similar fashion, comparing the similarities and differences of the concepts led to the formation of categories. An example of open coding using Atlas.ti is presented in Appendix H. Each code contained comments describing the meaning of the code, relationships with other codes, and any changes, such as name changes or merging with other codes. These comments may serve as an audit trail.
Axial coding is ―the process of relating categories to their subcategories‖ (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998, p. 123). The definition of category and subcategory in grounded theory need special attention because it can be confusing to those who are not familiar with grounded theory. A category in grounded theory can be either a group of similar concepts
(e.g., toys or books) or a group of dissimilar but related concepts (e.g., different strategies to cope with stress) (LaRossa, 2005). The difference between categories and subcategories in grounded theory is not the level of abstraction but the roles they play in building a theory. Understanding the process of axial coding makes it easier to distinguish categories from subcategories. In fact, the name ―axial‖ literally illustrates the process of the coding. The researcher puts categories from open coding in axes and find
69 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 out dimensions and properties around them (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During this process, the researcher put one category (a focal category) in the middle, arranged other categories
(subcategories) around the focal category, and examined whether subcategories answered the questions of ―when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences‖ (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998, p. 125), which is called ―dimensionalizing.‖ Through this process, the researcher developed, tested, and modified propositions. The researcher repeated the process with different categories as the focal category until the researcher chose the core category. An example of axial coding using Atlas.ti is presented in Appendix I. The boxes represent either concepts or categories. The first number inside the brackets represents the groundedness of the concept or category, the number of quotes that are related to that specific code. The second number represents the density of the concept or category, the number of relationship the concept or category has with others. The arrows represent the direction of the relationship among concepts or categories and the relationships are specified as ―is part of‖, ―is property of‖, or ―is related to.‖
The final stage of coding is selective coding. In this stage of coding, the researcher integrates and refines the theory by selecting the core category and ―the story line‖ of the study (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 148). Even with the criteria provided by
Strauss (1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), choosing the right core category can be difficult.
The suggestion that the most relevant and central category be the core category seems obvious. However, deciding how to tell the story most effectively also depends on the researcher‘s creativity and artistry (LaRossa, 2005). In this study, the selective coding process included repeated comparison and refinement of the relationships among
70 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 categories. Thus, the name of the categories as well as the relationships among the categories changed and evolved until the researcher was confident that she found the most effective way to tell the story. Most of the selective coding occurred while the researcher was writing memos.
Researcher’s memos. Memos are crucial analytic tools in grounded theory
(Lempert, 2007); they are records of the analysis process as well as spaces where actual analysis takes place (Charmaz, 1983; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As records of analysis, memos were used for researchers to define concepts and categories, to write down any ideas or thoughts about the analysis, and to document the analysis process. It was the memo-writing processes where the researcher compared and linked concepts and categories to each other; and noticed gaps in data and saturation of concepts and categories (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Memos also helped researchers to keep some distance from the data by forcing the researcher to work with concepts, not with raw data. At the same time, memos kept the analysis grounded in the data; they contained short quotes and information which can be traced back to the raw data (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). Memos were written and kept using the software ATLAS. ti 6.0 on a password protected computer, documenting every step of the analysis.
Peer debriefing. The researcher regularly met with her dissertation chair for peer debriefing throughout the study. Peer debriefing was used to ensure the credibility and reflexivity of the analysis. During the debriefing sessions, each step of the data collection, data analysis, and the theory development was discussed. The role of the debriefer was to
71 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 encourage the researcher to reflect on each decision and to be aware of how the researcher was constructing the knowledge (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993;
Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The debriefer also reviewed the coding and the developing theory, providing a reliability check. Through this process, the researcher could minimize biases within the analysis as well as the study in general.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) encouraged researchers to choose ―a peer‖ who is knowledgeable about the methodology and the topic area, not a person with authority over the researcher to create a safe environment to discuss issues. However, the researcher chose the dissertation chair as the debriefer for two reasons. First, the chair has knowledge and expertise in the methodology and possesses a general understanding of the study topic. Second, the researcher and the chair had developed a trusting relationship over time in which an open discussion of thoughts and opinions was encouraged and valued, and constructive critiques were exchanged.
Verification of the Study
The answer to the question of ―what is a good qualitative (or quantitative) research?‖ is clear; a rigorous study. However, there seem to be various ways to achieve rigor in qualitative research. The debate over verification of qualitative research is well summarized in Emden and Sandelowski‘s statement that ―the concepts of reliability and validity in relation to qualitative research are conceived as being championed, translated, exiled, redeemed and surpassed‖ (1998, p.206, see also Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle,
2001). Still, there is little agreement on ―the ways‖ to achieve rigor in qualitative research yet. Finding ―the ways‖ is not an easy task because qualitative research encompasses
72 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 various methodologies and each methodology requires different processes of doing research. Some researchers have suggested verification criteria for qualitative research in general (e.g., Beck, 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Leininger, 1994; Maxwell, 1992;
Rubin & Rubin, 1995) with the understanding that different methodologies need additional criteria for its own while others have focused on specific methodology (e.g.,
Hall & Callery, 2001; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982; Yin, 1994) or field (e.g., Ambert et al.,
1995; Popay, Rogers, & Williams, 1998)
To ensure rigor, this study adapts Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, and Spiers‘ criteria (2002) as general verification strategies and Strauss and Corbin‘s (1998) as grounded theory specific evaluation criteria. They are complementary to each other in more than one way. Although developed for general use, Morse and colleagues‘ strategies are suitable to grounded theory research as is described below. Moreover, their strategies (Morse et al., 2002) are meant to be built into the research process whereas
Strauss and Corbin‘s (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) are to evaluate the theory after it is developed.
Morse and colleagues‘ (2002) strategies guided the study from the inception of the study of the study to the analysis of the data to ensure rigor. Their strategies include researcher responsiveness, methodological coherence, saturation, theoretical sampling, theoretical thinking, and theory development. Researcher responsiveness refers to the researcher‘s willingness to be open, sensitive, creative, and flexible throughout the research process (Morse et al., 2002). The researcher in this study was open and flexible to the changing nature of the grounded theory study. For example, the researcher
73 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 expanded the recruitment criteria in response to contacts from possible participants. The researcher paid attention to the fact that couples who had not made their decision was responding to the advertisement looking for couples who did not have children by choice and responded accordingly, demonstrating sensitivity. During the analysis, the researcher documented how the researcher responded to the data and data analysis in memos.
Methodological coherence refers to ―congruence between the research question and the component of the method‖ (Morse et al., 2002, p. 12). Method components in this study such as sampling and data collection procedure were selected with efforts to maximize the methodological congruence. First, the grounded theory method was used because it is best suited for a process study. Second, the unit of analysis and interviews were chosen carefully based on the research question. Third, the interview questions were developed to capture the process (i.e., when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences). Fourth, data analysis was guided by the procedure outlined by the creators of grounded theory methods.
The data collection continued until the researcher reached saturation in core categories. However, the current study did not use theoretical sampling to its fullest. This was mainly due to the difficulty in recruitment. As discussed earlier, the voluntarily childless population is still small. Thus, for practical reasons, the researcher could not find participants who could refute the existing categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Morse,
2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However, the researcher used the evolving theory and categories to guide the interviews so that every interview could verify and supplemented the evolving theory.
74 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
The last two strategies, theoretical thinking and theory development, can be evaluated by the readers. This study presents a theoretical model and delineates the model with the researcher‘s analytic comments and quotes from the interviews, which are the product of the researcher‘s theorizing.
Morse and colleagues‘ (2002) strategies and the steps taken in this study to ensure the rigor based on their strategies were discussed here because many of their strategies are meant to be built into the study process. On the other hand, Strauss and Corbin‘s
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) strategies are designed to evaluate the theory after it is developed. Thus, the verification of the current study based on their strategies is presented in the Discussion section.
75 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter reports the findings of the study including a substantive theory delineating the couple processes of decision-making to remain voluntarily childless. First, the theoretical model is presented and the core categories are defined. Next, the relationships between the core categories are explained.
From Agreement to Acceptance and Closing of the Door
The couple decision-making process of remaining voluntarily childless consists of three distinguishable phases: agreement, acceptance, and closing of the door (Figure 1).
Agreement is the first phase of the decision-making process. In the agreement phase, some couples reach an agreement together not to have children. Hank explained their agreement: ―There was a just mutual idea that, no, we didn‘t, we didn‘t wanna have kids.‖
For other couples, the agreement is not to have children for now. Brenda recalled their discussion: ―When we first married we talked about having kids, but we didn‘t want to have them right after because we wanted to be financially able for one of us to stay home and still provide everything that was needed.‖ Their agreement is characterized by the indecision: indecision as to either whether they will ever have children or not, or when they will have a child.
76 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
The importance of the Relationship
Acceptance
Discussion Agreement
Closing of the Door
The Strength of the Conviction
Figure 1 Theoretical Model of Couple Decision-Making Process of Remaining Voluntarily Childless
77 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
The acceptance phase is characterized by feeling ―at peace‖ with the decision as
Marie stated, ―I also feel at peace with my decision not to have children.‖ Moreover, the issue of being voluntarily childless ―fades into the background.‖ Gina explained:
The reasons and the fact of my childlessness seem so obvious and self-evident that it's faded into the background, and isn't as much of an immediately notable defining part of me (at least to me) as it was ten years ago.
The main characteristic of the closing of the door phase is the physical inability to have a child due to either old age or sterilization. Although, strictly speaking, sterilization means the closing of the door only to the sterilized spouse, spouses perceive their partner‘s sterilization as the closing of the door as a couple.
Whereas agreement, acceptance, and closing of the door are the markers of the process of remaining voluntarily childless, two factors, the importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction, seem to be the driving forces of the process: essentially what makes these couple remain voluntarily childless together. The importance of the relationship refers to the spouses‘ desire to continue the relationship with their spouse as well as to the efforts they express to maintain a good relationship. Steele explained how his belief about marriage influenced his decision to remain voluntarily childless although he initially had wanted a child:
I also believe in our faith that our marriage comes first before the kids and then I'm not really interested in trying to have kids and breaking a vow of trying to support her. To me, it's is just real important that she's a number one.
For Vincent, checking in from time to time with his wife, Betty, to find out whether she has changed her mind or not is a way of ensuring she is happy in the relationship,
78 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
I‘m a very, I‘m a very convincing person and very, uh, solid. I, I make things happen, like I don‘t want, I will not manifest my theory of life on my wife. I will give her the opportunity to do however she wants her life with us, our lives. So, I need to watch very closely that I‘m not pushing my, my idea of, ―No, no kids.‖
These are some of the examples of how the importance of the relationship influence which path couples take to reach a certain phase of the process or why they are where they are in the process.
The spouses seem to have varying levels of conviction about their choice to remain childless or about their desire to have a child, depending on the initial positions they hold regarding parenthood. Some spouses in this study had such a strong conviction that they could not imagine starting a relationship without making their childless wish clear. Lisa explained:
So early on I knew that I wanted to go and do these different things with my career and I just didn‘t see how a child would fit into that. Um and for me it was such a strong feeling that it was important that for anybody I felt like I would ever have a serious relationship with, that [she didn‘t want to have children] was sort of out there because the, the normal expectation is that, that the girl will have babies.
One the other hand, there were spouses for whom having or not having children did not matter much. Mark described how he thought he would be ―okay‖ either way when Brenda broached the subject of having a child:
Mark: It‘s kind of like, ―Well, if it happens, it happens.‖
Brenda: Um-hm.
Mark: ―If she really, if that‘s what she really wants…
Brenda: [laughs]
Mark: …then we‘ll probably end up having a child, but [pause] if it doesn‘t happen, I‘m okay with that, too, and I‘ll, I‘ll kinda learn to [pause], I‘ll, I‘ll, if we have a child, I‘ll learn how to be a parent.‖ [laughs]
79 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Another characteristic of the strength of conviction is that it changes over time.
Brenda who, with her husband, initially decided to wait for awhile before they had a child explained how her desire to have a child decreased over time:
So I kinda had an attitude [pause] so to speak at that point, and that, a lot of that came from, from the babysitting of, of the nieces and nephews and cousins, and stuff, too. So, I mean I can kind of see where, yeah, I was kinda, I was already getting kind of to that point [of not wanting a child] before the realization of, ―Uh we‘re just too old.‖
Again, the strength and the direction of the conviction are essentially individual factors. However, it is the balance between the husband‘s and the wife‘s convictions that keep these couples voluntarily childless. Regardless of the configurations of each spouse‘s conviction, the balance remains such that the scale stays tipped towards not having children.
In this section, the core categories of the theoretical model were introduced and defined along with the visual representation of the model. The relationships among these categories are explicated in the following sections. For example, the different paths of remaining voluntarily childless and how the importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction drive the couples to a certain path are discussed. Furthermore, the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of the process are also delineated.
Reaching an Agreement
As mentioned above, spouses in this study started the relationship with different directions and levels of the conviction regarding having or not having children. The processes of reaching an initial agreement vary depending on the configurations of each spouse‘s conviction. Based on the configurations of spouses‘ conviction, three different
80 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 patterns of reaching an initial agreement emerged: mutual early articulator couples, mutual postponer couples, and non-mutual couples. Each couple‘s decision-making type is presented in Table 2.
Mutual early articulator couples. Mutual couples are characterized by a shared conviction in terms of the direction and the strength of their decision. When two early articulator individuals meet, they form a mutual early articulator couple. The early articulator individuals in this study had strong childless convictions before they met their spouses. Thus, usually one of the spouses brought up the subject ―early‖ in their relationship in a matter that was more ―informing‖ their partner of their conviction or
―laying it down‖ on their partner rather than inviting a discussion. Gina explained how their first discussion about not having children went:
Gina: So, really the only joint decision making process that happened and it wasn‘t even really a decision making as so much as it was informing was when I met him, I had just scheduled my tubal ligation, which I had decided to do like months and months previously before I even knew about him, his existence. So, um, and I had, had gone through a whole lot of thinking about it and it was, you know, I was going to go and have this operation and everything, so, it wasn‘t, it wasn‘t something that I would normally have brought up early on in our, in a relationship cuz I mean I think it was the first date.
Klaus: The second.
Gina: The second date and I said, ―You know,‖ and things seemed to be going really well. So I said, ―I don‘t, you know, I wouldn‘t normally bring this up this early but if it is very important for you to be a father, you should probably know that I‘m fixing to go and have my tubes tied‖ and ….. ―You know, I don‘t wanna have children. I‘m having my tubes tied. I hope that‘s not, you know, a big requirement for you to want to have a relationship‖ so that he would know if, you know, because I didn‘t know him very well and I didn‘t know maybe he wanted to have a bunch of kids and I was hoping to be in a long-term relationship and I, you know, kind of sensed that he was, too, so I wanted to let him know in case it was a big factor for him. If it was a sort of a deal breaker that he wanted to have
81 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
kids with somebody so that he would know and could make, you know, a decision about whether to continue dating me.
As illustrated by Gina, the desire of a potential partner to have children was ―a deal breaker‖ and this is true for many early articulator individuals:
Bob: The thing about it is that you find someone you are attracted to and I don‘t think, I don‘t think, to be honest, if she would‘ve said she wanted kids that I would‘ve married her. I mean I was attracted to her, I cared about her, and I fell in love with her but I really, I would‘ve probably run screaming away from her, ―There‘s no way I‘m getting into that.‖
Penelope: And I felt the same.
Bob: So…
Penelope: Absolutely, yeah, it was a big part of who I dated, who I went to bed with, who I hung around with.
These announcements of one partner‘s childless conviction are usually followed by an instant and often joyful mutual agreement not to have children for the mutual early articulator couples. Veronica described her first discussion about her wish to remain childless with Jake: ―The conversation probably was just a basic, ‗Yeah, I don't want any kids‘ and he was like ‗No, I don't either‘ and it was like, ‗Oh, awesome! We don't have to worry about that.‘‖ It seems that finding out about their shared childless conviction evokes strong emotions for these early articulator couples. Many spouses of the mutual early articulator couples described these emotions as ―excited,‖ ―glad,‖ ―happy,‖ and
―great.‖ Spot‘s account describes how strong the feeling of happiness can be:
I started, I never cry, but I started sort of tearing up because I was so happy, because I didn't want kids either and it didn't seem like, I very often met women that didn't want kids but she looked at me and saw me tearing up and tells me that she thought ―Oh geez, too bad. I thought this was going somewhere but I am not gonna have kids and if he doesn't like it, that‘s too bad‖ and then I explained ―No, I'm really happy‖ and that settled it.
82 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Mutual postponer couple. Whereas the short agreement process of mutual early articulator couples is due to the shared strong conviction of voluntary childlessness, the quick process in which mutual postponer couples reach an agreement not to have children for awhile is marked by the lack of the conviction regardless of the direction: The feelings about having or not having children were not strong for the spouses in the mutual postponer couples in this study. Many spouses in mutual postponer couples ―assumed‖ they would have children someday as Derek described: ―When we got married, it was just kind of one of those things that we assumed that we‘d get around to wanting one. It just hasn‘t happened.‖ For others, the agreement was to ―wait and see‖ because they were not certain about how they felt about having children. Kate described their discussion on the issue:
When I met Wade, that was kind of, you know, he wasn‘t like, ―I don‘t want children.‖ It was kind of like, ―I don‘t want children straight away.‖ It just, kind of, it was like, ―Okay, I‘m on the same page as you.‖ … I think it was more of a wait-and-see kind of like, ―We are okay not having kids for now.‖
On the contrary to the spouses in the mutual early articulator couples, the mutual postponer spouses did not mention any emotions related to their initial agreement.
However, the processes of reaching an initial agreement of mutual early articulator and mutual postponer couples are similar in that they both are short and simple.
Non-mutual couples. The process of reaching an agreement for the non-mutual couples is not as simple as that of mutual couples. The non-mutual couples in this study consisted of an early articulator with a strong childless conviction and one with various degrees of parenthood wishes. In two of the non-mutual couples in this study, the wife
83 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 was the early articulator and in the rest of the three couples, the husband was the early articulator. The process usually begins when the early articulator partner broaches the subject to the other partner for the same reasons that the partners in mutual early articulator couples started the process: the strength of their childless conviction and, consequently, the potential that their conviction will be a ―deal-breaker.‖ Natalie explained her position at that time:
Well, it‘s like anything in any relationship. There are deal breakers. There are things that has to be said and before things can move forward and It has to, it has to be said or otherwise it‘s not, it‘s not gonna be successful relationship … it was me saying, ―You know, if we are gonna get engaged, get married, this is one thing I won‘t budge on.‖
Kary also described how firm his decision was: ―We wouldn‘t have gotten married if she hadn‘t said okay.‖
The responses of the partners with the initial parenthood wish to this ultimatum from their partner vary depending on how strongly each wanted to have children. Some spouses in this study ―had to assess‖ whether their partner‘s wish to remain childless was a ―deal-breaker‖ for them or not and whether they would be ―okay‖ with remaining voluntarily childless. Floyd explained this process:
I had to assess whether, whether that was a deal breaker or not. You know, ―Is everything, is, is, is that enough? Having everything but not kids, is that enough?‖ Right? … and I had to work it out. I had to work it through … it was basically me having to shed the things, the hopes that I had. There were things that I had to let go of, you know … you can‘t just go, ―Okay, Doop-di-doo, okay.‖ It‘s, ―Now I‘ve gotta think about it and work it out‖ and say, you know, ―What things can I accept? What can‘t [I accept]?‖ you know. ―What, what does this mean for me? What does it mean for us? How does that gonna change?‖
Dana, Kary‘s wife, and another spouse who initially wanted children, called this process ―reconciliation:‖
84 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
I think there was some times I thought, I hoped he would change his mind. I reconciled that, in my mind, that, ―Okay, let‘s say we don‘t get married, let‘s say I wait. Okay, by the time, if I wait, I will be too old to have kids.‖ I thought maybe we might adopt, you know. He might change his mind and we might adopt kids. So, I had a lot of reconciliation going on in my mind … I think in my heart of hearts, I really must not have wanted‘em that badly? Because I don‘t think I would‘ve married him [if I wanted them that badly].
These individual assessments of the partners with the initial parenthood wish were usually accompanied by ―discussions‖ with their partner. The early articulator partners would explain to their partner ―the reasons‖ why they made their childless decision.
Some partners with the initial parenthood wish understood their partner‘s reasoning with relative ease:
Steele: When she said it, I listened to her and, but I guess in the back of my mind, I was like, ―Well, I see her point and I understand what she's saying and I don't really have a good comeback to say, ‗No, they won't take charge of your life.‘‖
For Natalie and Floyd, the process took longer: Natalie, who was the early articulator, would bring up the issue and Floyd met her ―arguments‖ sometimes with silence and sometimes with counter arguments:
Floyd: … she would come with different arguments even though I never ever brought it up… so she would go and I, I'd usually be quiet… and there were times where she would bring it to me and I‘m like, you know….
Natalie: Still working?
Floyd: ―I‘m still working on it‖… and then eventually I would go, "You know what? I don't know if you want an argument on this. Like if this is a real discussion, because I can refute some of the arguments that you have. I mean, just as a, if you're gonna do it because of this, let me tell you why that's not gonna work,‖ right?
The assessments and discussions continue until they reach an agreement not to have children.
85 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
There is one more factor that is unique to non-mutual couples: the hope that their partner might change his or her mind. This hope seems to help the partners who had an initial parenthood wish to agree to their partner‘s childless wish. Steele described how he believed that Ginger would change her mind although he understood Ginger‘s reasoning and agreed to remain voluntarily childless:
… I was probably like, ―She might be just young‖ and... I had lots of, since I'm older. I'm five years older. I've had friends who've been in similar relationships where the female said that initially in the relationship and then around like 30 years of age all of a sudden got this just out of the blue craving to have a child so... but at the same time [that I agreed], I never really want to close the door all the way, because I knew there was still a possibility that she may change her mind. So I don't know if I took it as a permanent decision at that point.
It is important to note that the agreement to remain childless was not based on the possibility that their partner would change his or her mind later. Through the individual assessments and the discussions with their partner, they came to the conclusion that they would be ―okay‖ if they remained childless. They were not ―holding out hope.‖ Rather, they did not see any ―reason not to wait,‖ in case their spouse changes his or her mind.
Floyd explained the reason: ―It‘s not unreasonable to think that there are [women who have changed their mind] because there are many, many cases showing that there have been women who have changed their minds.‖
Non-mutual couples‘ process of reaching an agreement not to have children seems to elicit emotions from the partners with the initial parenthood wish as well as the partners with the childless conviction. ―Disappointment‖ was the most common emotion of the partners with the initial parenthood wish after finding out about their partner‘s childless conviction. Christina described: ―I was a little disappointed when I found out
86 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 that Juan was absolutely not interested in the subject at all.‖ The early articulator spouses in the non-mutual couples expressed feelings of ―sadness‖ and ―gratefulness‖ in regard to their partner‘s agreement to remain childless. After listening to Floyd‘s account of his struggle before he could agree to remain childless during the interview, Natalie told
Floyd, ―That really means a lot to me. I didn‘t, I didn‘t know you‘d gone through that process and it really means a lot to me that you did.‖ Later, she once more expressed her feelings about Floyd‘s decision:
I'd had no idea that before we married, Floyd had wrestled so much with the prospect of not being a dad. I was sad that I'd inflicted that on him, but also deeply grateful that he was willing to give that up to stay with me.
As these accounts illustrated, spouses in the non-mutual couples had to weigh their desire to have children against their partner‘s wish to remain childless as well as their desire to maintain the relationship. It is when the spouses with the initial parenthood wish finally tell their spouse ―okay‖ that they reach an agreement. The agreement to remain voluntarily childless for these couples represents a tipped scale, an illustration of one partner‘s childless conviction and the other partner‘s wish to stay in the relationship winning over the latter‘s initial parenthood wish.
Staying in the Agreement Phase
The process of remaining voluntarily childless as a couple does not end when the spouses reach the initial agreement. Regardless of the decision-making patterns, most voluntarily childless couples stay in agreement for awhile before they move on to either the acceptance phase or the closing of the door phase. The time they spend in the agreement phase again depends on the importance of the relationship and the strength of
87 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 the conviction, thus also on the decision-making types. It is important to note that one spouse can move on to the acceptance phase while the other spouse stays in the agreement phase. These couples, however, still need to be considered to be in the agreement phase as a couple because the issue of remaining voluntarily childless continues to be introduced by the partner still in the agreement phase.
The fact that they are childless does not reside in the forefront of the voluntarily childless spouses‘ minds continuously. Months can go by without either spouse thinking about it or mentioning anything about the topic to their spouse. However, something would bring the subject up to the surface of their mind from time to time. Once the subject is brought up, it can lead to a serious reconsideration or discussion of the decision, or it can just be registered in their consciousness and disappear shortly. These processes are called revisitations in this study. Another experience of the voluntarily childless spouses that is closely related to revisitations is ―reaffirmation.‖ Reaffirmation refers to a process wherein the spouses realize that they made the ―right‖ decision. For the spouses in this study, every revisitation ended with a reaffirmation of their decision not to have children or not to have children for now. However, reaffirmation can also be a separate process independent of revisitations. In the following sections, several concepts related to the spouses‘ experiences over the course of the process of remaining voluntarily childless besides revisitations and reaffirmations including musings, wistfulness, and dealing with inquiries from other people are discussed. However, it is important to note that they are described here in detail not because they are aspects of the process that are unique only to
88 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 the agreement phase but because the agreement phase is the first phase in which they appear.
Triggers of revisitations. Revisitation and reaffirmation processes usually begin with a ―trigger.‖ Although there are some situations that most spouses in this study identified as a trigger, the sensitivity to a certain trigger varies across spouses. For example, some spouses reported that they never revisited the decision on their own except for when their spouse brought it up.
The triggers mentioned in this study can be categorized into three groups: external, internal, and relational triggers. Many external triggers are related to babies or children: someone‘s pregnancy or birth of a baby, observing babies or children, and interactions with babies or children including their own nieces and nephews. There are also triggers that are related to inquiries from people. These inquiries range from questions about parenthood intentions or the reasons for being childless to pressuring they should have children. The following account from Derek and Meredith, a mutual postponer couple, summarizes these external triggers:
Derek: I guess it‘s usually, there‘s always a trigger for the conversation. So it will be, something having to do with kids, whether it‘s a birthday party of a family member that has kids, or someone we know having kids or whatever, so that usually…if it doesn‘t start the conversation right then, I kind of keep it in the back of mind and I‘ll…bring it up later that day or something.
Meredith: Yeah, and it, a lot of times, many of the triggers involve people, friends, family members saying, ―Why don‘t you have kids? Where‘s your little one?‖
89 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Death of a young family member was also mentioned as an external trigger. Lily, who is an early articulator, explained her first serious revisitation experience after
Christian‘s cousin died:
Lily: … I was solid until five or so year later when his cousin was killed in Iraq and that was a very charged time in his family and it seemed to bring about a lot of feelings about procreation, oddly, you know, people were like, ―I wanna have another baby.‖ We were sitting at, you know, we were at the funeral and afterwards people were saying, ―I wanna have another baby.‖ ―I wanna have another baby‖ and, and I, I started to waver, then I started to feel like maybe that was, um, spiritual thing? It felt like spiritual? It almost felt like mystical? At the time? And, and he was feeling the same way? … and so we talked about it and we felt like that was something that maybe we could do, that maybe felt almost like the universe was leading us in that, in that direction.
Revisitations can also be sparked by internal triggers. One of the internal triggers is the realization that they are getting old. Kate (age 36) and Wade (age 40) recalled how this realization triggered their discussion:
Kate: … then you get to the point where, we‘ve started now thinking like, you know, ―We don‘t want to be old parents.‖
Wade: Yeah, that‘s, towards later, end of our relationship, I think that‘s been more of a factors like, you know, it‘s not really so much the responsibility aspect of it but ―Do we wanna be, you know, approaching 60 and having kids in high school?‖ I mean, so that‘s kind of been a thought process, too.
Some emotions also were identified as internal triggers. Fear evoked by various reasons can serve as an internal trigger. Steele, who initially wanted to have children, described his fears about the future without children and how they started his revisitation process:
Steele: Yeah, I think the first thing is, it's a fear reaction that you are missing out on something in life. I think that's the first thing, like, "Oh my God! What if I'm 90 on my death bed and I regret not having children?
Ginger: Tell her why.
90 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Steele: Why? Oh.
Ginger: Steele's worried that no one's gonna take care of us when we are old.
Steele: [laughing] That‘s not the only...
Ginger: Well, I say, "We are gonna be millionaires. We'll hire someone.‖ [laugher] I'm just kidding .
Steele: It's kind of like, I mean, the experiences that, we both talk about experiences. We really enjoy things. I mean there is things in your childhood you remember that are great memories, you know? So, sometimes I get worried, I'll be 90 and I don't have any those memories with, you know, my kids to have that. But, you know. So that's kind of the first fear mechanism that kicks in. And then, I think it creates an emotional response.
For Natalie, the trigger was a fear of disappointing Floyd. To the question why she kept bringing up the issue even after Floyd had agreed to remain childless, she answered, ―Uh, insecurity about not necessarily being loved but [to her husband] I was afraid I was disappointing you [by not wanting to have children and consequently having asked him to remain childless despite his parenthood wish].‖ Natalie‘s account also illustrates her struggles between her conviction to remain childless and desire not to disappoint Floyd. The feeling of anxiety that they ―may be missing out on something‖ by not having children may also trigger revisitations. A mutual early articulator couples,
Vincent and Betty, explained the following:
Vincent: … with all our family and friends, everyone‘s like, ―You‘re not having kids, yet? You‘re not having kids?‖ and then you go on Facebook, everybody‘s showing their kids and you‘re like, ―Ooh, now I‘m behind the train.‖ You know it‘s like…
Betty: Yeah, it almost feels that way sometimes.
Vincent: …so strange. I feel like I‘m, I almost feel like I‘m missing out…
91 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Finally, wistfulness, a feeling of ―longing,‖ can trigger the revisitation process.
Betty again explained how seeing cute babies elicited the feeling of ―longing‖ or
―nostalgia,‖ followed by a quick revisitation:
Betty: … it‘s like a heart-tug a little bit, you know. You start to have, um, feelings of [pause], some feelings of longing, um, you know, maybe if you think about it, feelings of nostalgia because whenever you‘re a little girl and you have a doll and as a little girl you‘re raised with that doll and you were raised to nurture the doll and so forth and even little boys have…
Vincent: I had trucks.
Betty: … uh, boy dolls and whatever. The trucks but they do have dolls, too. Um, so, maybe nostalgia plays a part and you don‘t realize it, it‘s in the subconscious somewhere but definitely, uh, some longing, a little bit of longing but it doesn‘t last long … yeah, it‘s like there‘s this little twinge in your heart that makes you think about it but ultimately there‘s so many more reasons why it‘s just like my holistic view of it? The answer says no.
Some spouses bring up the issue to their partner after observing their spouse interacting with or reacting to babies or children; thus, these situations are considered as a relational trigger. In these situations, however, the process is more of ―checking-in‖ to find out whether they are ―still on the same page‖ rather than a discussion or a revisitation of the decision:
James: One of the things that I think happens is where it‘s the holidays. It‘s Christmas. I‘m playing with my niece for a good period of time. We get along great. We have a great relationship. Lisa‘s mom is looking at her the whole time and going, you know, thinking, whether she thinks, says, or otherwise and then we get home and I feel like Lisa wants to check-in … I think Lisa wants to say ―You look so happy with your niece. Are you sure you don‘t want one?‖ or something.
Spouse‘s illness can also begin the process of revisitation. To the question whether Jake‘s motorcycle accident triggered a revisitation process, Veronica recalled:
Veronica: You know what? I've never told you that but I actually, it did yes.
92 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Jake: Some progeny to say that I was...
Veronica: A piece of you.
Jake: ... of them. Yeah.
Veronica: I would have wanted a piece of him.
Jake: So under the extreme duress of me on ICU and everything that, I can see that being kinda "If he goes I won't, I don't have him."
Veronica: I haven't thought about that. I thought that about that, yeah.
Jake: Yeah, interesting.
Veronica: And I would have wanted a boy. I remember thinking that.
Jake: So a little Jake kind of, in the sense.
Pregnancy scares and pregnancy are other examples of relational triggers. It is not surprising that pregnancy scares and pregnancy triggers serious revisitations and discussions between the spouses because all of the sudden the possibility of having a child becomes real and imminent, something that will happen in less than 9 months and the decision to have an abortion or to have the baby must be made in a shorter amount of time than that. Joe recalled the times when they thought they might be pregnant: ―We've had a couple of scares. You know, that goes along with, you know, it just happens, I guess. Obviously, I start drumming up all these scenarios and what-ifs, and you know what we will do.‖ Discussions following the pregnancy are discussed in detail later.
In addition to being a trigger of a revisitation, pregnancy has a potential to make some of the voluntarily childless couples change their mind regardless of the decision- making patterns. It is not surprising that all the mutual postponer couples in this study mentioned that they would happily have the baby if they find out that they are pregnant as
93 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Charlotte described: ―If we find out like, ‗Oh my God, I just found out I‘m pregnant.
Yay!‘ I would be genuinely excited.‖ Some mutual early articulator couples also mentioned that they would never have an abortion if they get pregnant.
The Process of revisitation to reaffirmation. Many spouses recalled having experienced individual revisitations without necessarily letting the other spouse know.
Most of the time, it is because they came to the reaffirmation of the initial decision on their own and did not feel the need to share the experience with their spouse. In other situations, the process was so ―fleeting‖ and ―short‖ that it disappeared from their mind quickly. The process of individual revisitation itself is similar to the process the spouses in non-mutual couples go through before they initially agreed to remain voluntarily childless: assessing what is more important to them and what having a child means to their life together. Lisa, an early articulator, described an individual revisitation she experienced the day before the interview:
Lisa: To be honest, sometimes, I mean, I question myself, you know. Um, I think that comes from just like yesterday, everyday really, I feel, I feel every week more realistically, somebody calls me, one of my good friends, and says ―I‘m pregnant,‖ you know, and so then um, I‘m constantly balancing is ―Are the choices I‘m making the right choices and for the right reasons?‖ And my job is very demanding and ―Am I getting out of my job what I ultimately want and is that the right choice?‖ And I do, I question it and then I always end up in the same place … it‘s gotten to be a pretty quick like, it, it, it goes through my whole head, the whole thing in two minutes … like when I came home and I told James, ―Guess what? They‘re pregnant.‖ We didn‘t sit and have a talk about ―Did you think about what you want?‖
James: Right, right.
Lisa: I mean I think he knows that it probably makes me do the two-minute drill and obviously by the fact that I didn‘t bring anything up about that, you know, ―I
94 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
feel differently,‖ I think it‘s kind of an assumption that, of course it makes us both go ‗Hm, okay.‘
James, an early articulator, also described how his revisitation process always ended with reaffirmation,
… right now, I bubble down to ―no,‖ and so, and my likelihood of meeting the other things in my life that would make my life feel successful, um, it doesn‘t, it just doesn‘t even come close to outweighing those things. Being able to dedicate enough time to my wife and being able to have enough time to do different things as I so chose at different times is huge to me.
Couple revisitations start either when they experience a trigger situation together, or when one spouse brings up the subject to the other spouse. One of the common couple revisitation patterns that emerged from the data is ―checking-ins.‖ Spouses check with their spouse to find out whether they are still ―on the same page.‖ Spouses want to give their spouse room to change their mind just in case and to make sure that the decision remains mutual. Lisa and James again explained:
Lisa: We also always wanna check-in and make sure because we know we‘re human and people grow and they change and we‘ve always wanted to have open dialogue so that the other person didn‘t feel like, you know, ―If I woke up one day and there was something in there that was different, that I wouldn‘t have an open forum to talk about that and be respected for wanting that.‖ That‘s never happened to us. I mean you know we…
James: We‘ve always believed very much in open communication, absolutely a hundred percent talk about everything and that‘s really been a real strength for us. I mean, I think, you know, and so neither one of us wanted to have what I would consider a pressure cooker of wondering.
Interestingly, these checking-ins usually happen among mutual early articulator couples. These checking-in processes demonstrate that, for these spouses, maintaining a good relationship with their partner in which both spouse can be themselves and grow together at the same time is at least as much important as their childless conviction.
95 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
For the same reasons, spouses can move from a decision not to have children to a decision not to have children for now. Early articulators, Jane and Joe decided they did not want to have children before they got married. However, Jane experienced a serious revisitation, what Joe called a ―baby-crazy,‖ a situation where one spouse, usually the wife, expresses that she wants to have a child, whereas other revisitations are usually a general reconsideration or discussion about couple‘s decision not to have children. A baby-crazy revisitation refers to a situation when one spouse wants to have a baby. Joe explained what his response to Jane‘s baby-crazy was:
I was not sure what to do because we had been so set in not having kids and suddenly she was doing this complete 180. And Jane and I‘ve, you know, from the day we got serious, we figured you either change together or you change apart. And that was the direction, we were changing apart. Because I was very set on ―I'm not ready. I don't want kids,‖ and here she is getting all, ―I want kids. I want kids,‖ you know? I was like, ―No‖ … I don't wanna say it caused problems. Jane struggled with it a bit. You know, she‘s never been wanting kids, but knowing that she could, you know, asked someday if we decided, but then that's when we both kind of settled on the adoption thing.
Joe‘s account illustrates what his idea of a good relationship is and what the relationship means to him. Through this process, Joe and Jane decided that they would adopt a child when the time is ―right,‖ and became a mutual postponer couple since then.
When spouses experience a baby-crazy episode or a serious wavering moment, the responses of their partner to it seem to depend on the strength of the childless conviction. Most spouses in mutual couples tend to be supportive and try to figure out whether having a child is what their spouse really wants or not and whether it is the right decision for them as a couple. Lily and Christian, a mutual early articulator couple,
96 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 described how they reaffirmed their decision through questions about what they want in their life:
Lily: … I remember saying to him because [sigh] we always went, we love to go to bookstores together, like Borders and Barnes and Noble and just sit there for hours and read in the big comfy leather chairs.
Christian: And talk
Lily: Yeah, it‘s, it‘s, a lot of times we observe that when we are there, we‘re just enjoying ourselves. Parents come in pushing strollers and they try to sit down and enjoy themselves and they try to, like, get into a book but like with 5, 10, 15 minutes they‘re ripped out of the book. They have to leave the store and I said to him, ―You know, what do you want? Do you want a child or do you want Borders?‖
Christian: [laughing] And you know what? That was more powerful than you can even imagine. I was like, ―I want Borders‖ … you have to ask the good questions, you know. When I‘m 80 years old, then I‘m in a rocking chair, what do I wanna look back and say I‘ve done? I asked Lily that and she said ―I wanna have a book published.‖ I said ―you wanna have, if you had a choice, if you had to choose having a book published or having children, which one would you?‖ She said ―A book.‖
As in the process of reaching the initial agreement, reasoning plays a big part in the revisitation process. Mark and Brenda, a mutual postponer couple, described:
Mark: … then [I] finally just go, ―Oh, There‘s not, we‘re not, it‘s still not in the position that we‘d like to be.‖ And we have friends and relatives who have said, ―Well, you never are in the position where you can really afford to have a child,‖ and right, well, yeah, but ―We‘re not satisfied with what we would be able to do, and what we would have to sacrifice is that we would have to make uh, in our present lifestyle maybe. If we had a, another person to feed, or another person to clothe, or another person we had to buy school supplies for, or another person we had to pay for travel expenses, or whatever. We‘re just, uh like, well, we‘re just not comfortable.‖
Brenda: And I‘m, I‘m logical. I have a logical mind, so I understood what he, what he was talking about and that made sense to me. So it never was an argument or nothin‘ like that. It was just kind of like a [pause] discussion.
97 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
For Brenda, Mark‘s reasons for why that was not the right time to have a child made sense easily and they reaffirmed their decision jointly. However, some spouses may come up with counter arguments as Christina, who initially wanted to have children, described:
Christina: … he would say things like, ―We have the house [with one bedroom]. We have the way we are. We have to totally move. We don‘t have the money. Uh, we would need help, so we would have to like move back to your hometown and be with your mother,‖ and stuff, you know. He would say things that like, made me think, ―Wow, that‘s pretty dreadful,‖ you know. Um…
Juan: I tried to make her think of all the…
Christina: All the bad…
Juan: Negatives. [laughs]
Christina: … all the negative things, yeah, and I was like, ―Well, we wouldn‘t have to move back with my mom. We could do it, you know, it‘s not that expensive,‖ but um…but yeah, it just never, he never said, ―Yes, let‘s do it,‖ or ―maybe,‖ or anything. He never gave me any, any inkling of like, ―I could change my mind‖ or ―I could be cool with it.‖
As in Christina and Juan‘s case, early articulators in non-mutual couples tend not to engage in the discussion eagerly. They try to ―avoid the subject‖ or ―change the subject‖ because for them the decision is already made when their spouse agreed to remain voluntarily childless. To the question of what his response to Dana‘s revisitation was,
Kary described:
It wasn‘t that big of a deal for me because it was already settled before we got married in my mind but I think what brought it up on her was, cuz I think that was about the time we started going to her niece‘s high school play and stuff like that … I‘m [long pause] stubborn, hard-headed, uh, set in my ways, I don‘t know how you wanna put it, but the discussion‘d already been done and it‘s already, the decision‘s already been made. There‘s no point bringing it up again … you know [laughing], what‘s the point?
98 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
For some early articulators like Kary, the strength of the childless conviction is such that the decision to remain childless does not seem to be negotiable. Thus, it seems that, most of the time, spouses with initial wish to have children in a non-mutual couple had to reach reaffirmation with less help from their spouse than the spouses in other decision-making types. Their spouse usually makes it clear to them that they would not change their mind rather than engages in a discussion to find out what would be the best decision for them as a couple.
Many spouses mentioned some reaffirming moments that helped them to end the revisitation process in addition to the discussions with their spouse. For Brenda and Mark, it was usually after ―babysitting‖ nieces or nephews, and for Jane, it was an uncooperative baby at her job as a photographer:
I had a really, really, bad, bad day at work [laughter] and I could not get a baby to [cooperate], and yeah, it was not good. It was a bad, bad day and I started realizing, "Okay, he is in school, I'm in school. There's no way."
In the agreement phase, the spouses who initially wanted to have children sometimes still hold on to the possibility that their spouse might change his or her mind.
Steele explained why he was still waiting for Ginger to change her mind:
Steele: I have no reason not to keep waiting. In Dallas, you see a lot of like 50- year old parents.
Ginger: Yeah, we saw a lot of older parents.
Steele: So, as far as I'm concerned, I mean, we're both very strong in our beliefs, and I always believe God can make a major change in your life and change a lot of your values and thought processes on things in a heartbeat if he wanted to and if that's something he wanted to change with us?
Ginger: Yeah, if he gave me the desire?
Steele: Yeah.
99 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Ginger: So be it.
As illustrated in this exchange between Steele and Ginger, some early articulator spouses in a non-mutual couple do not deny the possibility that they may change their mind out of respect for their spouse‘s wish to have children. A mutual postponer couple,
Derek and Meredith, also talked about Derek waiting for Meredith to ―come around:‖
Derek: We‘ve talked about it a lot, but it‘s never been, ―Okay, we‘re gonna figure this out today.‖
Meredith: Yeah.
Derek: Um, yeah, it‘s never been like that cuz I don‘t think we could come to a decision like that, um, and I guess for a while, I think, I still think that I‘m more open to the idea than Meredith and I think for several years, I‘m like, ―Well, she‘ll come around.‖
Meredith: [laughs]
Derek: And it‘s been several years since, and so I‘m like, ―Well, is she coming around?‖ [laughs]
Meredith: ―What‘s the deal?‖ [laughs]
Derek: Yeah, ―What‘s the deal?‖ So yeah, I mean we‘ve never just sat down to say, ―Here, we‘re gonna decide this, right here right now.‖
Later, Meredith mentioned how Derek‘s wish to have children was influencing her revisitation processes:
…it does kind of give me a little bit more motivation cuz if he never brought it up, I‘d probably, well I‘d think about it but not as much as, as he would. Um, so, yeah, I mean part of me wants to, you know since he‘s really thinking about it a lot more. I mean, you know, he, he‘s good enough and he said, ―You know if we don‘t have kids that, you know, we‘d always wonder, but we‘d be okay,‖ but I mean at the same time knowing that, that he wants that, makes me want to, it, it, uh, it makes me more open to the idea, yeah.
These two couples‘ accounts illustrate how much these spouses try to respect each other‘s wishes and how their efforts influence their decision-making processes.
100 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
The revisitation process of mutual postponer couples always ends with
―indecision,‖ which is reaffirmation of their initial decision as described in the exchange between Derek and Meredith above. Regarding this indecision, most of the mutual postponer couples mentioned that they are still ―waiting‖ or that they are ―not ready, yet‖ as reasons for the indecision. To the question what they were waiting for, their answer is usually that they are waiting for the ―urge to have a child‖ to hit them or for ―the right time‖ to have a child. Harry and Charlotte explained:
Harry: I guess we think that the light bulb would just go off and be like, ―You are gonna have kids now.‖ We‘ll go, ―Okay‖ [laughing] … I think that, I don‘t know, maybe personally I felt like, I‘m just hoping that it just goes off like, ―Hey, I really wanna have kids‖ but until, you know, that happens I‘m not, I‘m not really worried about it.
Charlotte: … I just felt we wanted to do whatever on our own pace and I think that‘s really what it is is it‘s not necessarily we don‘t want children, we just wanna do it at our own pace and where it feels right and I guess that‘s the thing, the light bulb hasn‘t gone off to where it feels right.
The idea of ―the right time‖ is different from couple to couple. However, they all agreed that they had not felt that they were ready to have a child yet, thus ending their revisitations with reaffirmation of indecision.
Reaffirming moments. Besides marking the end of the revisitation processes, reaffirmation is also a separate experience that solidifies the voluntarily childless spouses‘ decision over time. As with the revisitation process, the process of reaffirmation also starts with a trigger. The most mentioned trigger in this study was the realization of the
―freedom‖ they have because they do not have children: freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want, financial freedom, freedom to change careers, freedom to
101 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 move to a new city, and so on. Hank, a husband in a mutual early articulator couple, explained:
Instead of having to plan, say, uh, all of a sudden we want to go somewhere, we can get in the car, get on the bike and go. If there‘s a kid, you can‘t do that, you have to plan around the child and there‘s a lot of places where you can‘t just up and go with a child.
Other triggers include the realization of the parent‘s responsibilities: witnessing a screaming babies at a grocery store or a restaurant; observing the deterioration of the marital relationships of other couples after they start having children; the realization that the world is not very safe for the children; witnessing death of a baby, or illness of a baby or a child; witnessing parents having trouble with their adolescent children; and the realization that they would have not been a good parent.
Whereas there were spouses who never experienced revisitations individually, every spouse in this study, even the spouses who initially wanted to have children, reported that they had experienced many reaffirming moments. Interestingly, the spouses with the initial parenthood wish may consciously or unconsciously look for situations that reaffirm they made the right choice. Juan and Christina described:
Juan: And sometimes actually you‘re more anti-kid than I am. Christina: I know, I sometimes like…
Juan: Like, Christina says that she‘s not, but it‘s like, she also makes comments and I‘ll be like, ―I don‘t even say that,‖ but you know.
Christina: Well and I also think that‘s a little defensive mechanism for the fact that I sort of at one time wanted kids, so I sort of uh, get a little, you gotta make yourself uh…[pause]
Interviewer: Overcompensate?
102 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Christina: Exactly. Overcompensate for it because like ―I don‘t want to ever feel those instincts again because it‘s too late now.‖ Um, so I kind of like…uh, keep myself mentally, uh, not liking it.
Interviewer: So are there moments when you go, ―Thank God, we don‘t have kids?‖
Christine: Oh yeah.
Juan: Uh, almost daily. [laughs]
Christine: Yeah.
Juan: And you, again, I don‘t know if you‘re overcompensating, but you say it a lot more than I do.
Floyd also explained how he intentionally focused on positive aspects of the childless life whenever he felt wistful about not having children:
It‘s like,‖ All right! Let‘s focus on the things.‖ Really, what happens is you go, ―What are the things that I can do because I don‘t have kids?‖ ―Well, then, let‘s go do that,‖ you know. ―What‘s keeping me from? Oh, that thing. All right, let‘s do, let‘s, 41, let‘s start a band,‖ you know. I let music go for quite a while. There‘s no reason why I can‘t do it now. ―Oh, yeah, okay, I‘ll do it.‖ ―Hey, I can be part of sketch comedy trip now. All right, let‘s do it. Let‘s go try.‖ That‘s kind of what ended [feeling wistful] … and because of that [being childless], I‘ve been able to have a varied, rich life, you know. Because of the one thing, the one choice that I made, it‘s given me the opportunity to, in July, ―Hey, I‘m gonna drive to Portland with my sister and my dog‖ … I wouldn‘t be able to, I wouldn‘t be able to do that if I was a father. And uh, so there are, it‘s not like I focus on that, ―Yes, but I‘m not a father,‖ you know. It‘s, it‘s, but I‘ve got these other things that I can, that and they are not substitutions. They‘re, it‘s almost like the, everything you do in life has a, has a result and effect. Every decision you make, there are consequences. They can be good, they can be bad. So I make sure that I take advantage of the good consequences of not being a parent … yes, I got to do those things and so because I‘m not gonna let my life stop just because I didn‘t become a father, I‘m gonna let my life continue and, and see what path it takes because of that.
For some couples, reaffirming is the only conversation they have about being childless. Karen described her usual conversations with Richard on the subject: ―It wasn't
103 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 ever a conversation should we or shouldn't we. It was more of a conversation of ‗Yay, we don't!‘‖
The experience of reaffirmations itself is not limited to the agreement phase. In fact, the spouses experience reaffirmations in all the phases of the process. The reaffirmation process was described in detail here only because the agreement phase is the first phase of the process.
Musings. Many voluntarily childless couples also described experiences of wondering about what it would be like to be a parent or what the child would be like, which is called ―musings‖ in this study. The spouses in this study characterized these moments as ―fun,‖ something like a ―joke.‖ Gertrude, an early articulator, explained:
I think I‘ve wondered what the baby would look because I think, you know, he [Tony] has beautiful eyes but then to me, it seems so fleeting, like it‘s more entertainment, you know, like an art piece or something. Um, but yeah, I do wonder. I think maybe, maybe that‘s a feminine thing. I don‘t know but it‘s kind of like, you are curious how they look like, what kind of clothes you can put on. Of course you know, I like that kind of thing but it‘s just a play. It‘s fun.
Musings can be either individual or couple experiences. Derek and Meredith‘s account illustrate their musings about their child:
Meredith: Derek was a really cute baby. So I do tell him, ―I want a little boy that looked just like you?‖ [laughter]
Derek: Yeah, I don‘t know why she says that sometimes because I‘m like…
Meredith: You were so cute.
Derek: I know, but why would you want a baby because you don‘t want a baby?
Everybody: [Laughter]
Meredith: I don‘t know, if we have one, then I‘d want it to look like you. You were cute.
104 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Derek: Yeah, I think about it. This is kind of silly, I think about it in terms of, of athletics, cuz both Meredith and I are kind of clumsy and so I‘m like, ―Oh my God, this kid wouldn‘t have a chance. It would be like uncoordinated.‖
Meredith: We would have to make it smart.
These musings are short-lived and usually do not lead to a revisitation. As
Gertrude did, many spouses qualified the experiences by adding that these were ―fleeting,‖ that these were different from regret or longing, or that these musings did not make them want to have a baby. As with revisitations, not all spouses experienced musings. However, for most of the spouses in this study, musings are an integral component throughout the process of remaining voluntarily childless.
Dealing with inquiries, pressure, and stigma. Another important part of remaining voluntarily childless is dealing with other peoples‘ inquiries about whether the couple has any children and when they plan to start having children. The sources of the inquiries include their family members, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, or strangers.
Interestingly, the inquiries usually do not begin with the question whether they plan to have any children: It appears that other people have underlying assumptions that married couples will have children. Lisa described:
We were buying a new car recently and we were getting a two-door car and the guy is saying to James, ―Well, enjoy it now because as soon as, you know, she‘ll have her first baby and then you‘ll have to bring it back and get a mini-van.‖
Another assumption that many people have is that these couples want to have children. When voluntarily childless couples who have been married for awhile tell people they do not have any children, people assume that they are waiting to conceive, or that they are having some problems with their marriage or with conceiving. Jake
105 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 described people‘s reaction: ―I get that blank look like, ‗What do you mean you don't have kids?‘ ‗I don't,‘ then, then it's a tragic, ‗Oh, well there must have been something
[wrong]?‘‖ The last assumption is that these couples will change their mind. Lily remembered what her supervisor told her after learning Lily and Christian‘s decision not to have children:
She said, ―You know, you just get to be a certain age and you‘ve done all that stuff, you know, you‘ve traveled, you and your husband traveled a lot. I mean you were on an 18 wheeler and went all over the country.‖ She was like, ―So, you just get to a point where you just wanna have a kid cuz you get bored.‖
Considering these assumptions that the couples in this study reported people hold, it is not surprising that the most common reaction the voluntarily childless couples get from people is disbelief. Lily also described Christian‘s cousin‘s reaction:
… she said to me, ―When are we gonna get a little Christian and Lily?‖ and I looked at her and then I said, ―Never,‖ and she looked at me like I just had pulled a gun on her, like that‘s how she looked at me, like horrified, stunned.
Gertrude and Tony, a mutual early articulator couple, speculated the reasons behind these reactions:
Gertrude: … they can‘t seem to comprehend the, it doesn‘t make sense to them, I guess. I don‘t know.
Tony: I think it bothers them more with you than it does with me.
Gertrude: Uh-hm.
Tony: I mean …
Gertrude: They think I should want.
Tony: …because they are all females, something like, ―That‘s your roles that you should wanna have…‖ I don‘t think it bothers them as much with me…
Gertrude: Hmm…
106 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Tony: …as it does with you. I mean people bothered with…
Gertrude: Yes.
Tony: …the fact that you don‘t want kids.
Gertrude: I probably get asked more also.
After the shock of learning the couples‘ decision not to have children, some people want to know why they made the decision. When answering these questions, many spouses in this study tried to find ―pat answers‖ that would not lead them to unnecessarily long discussions or that would not offend those who have children. Natalie and Floyd explained their struggle in dealing with the inquiries:
Natalie: People don‘t say, ―When are you gonna have kids?‖ Uh, it‘s just assumed that, because I‘m a working woman and I‘m in my early 30s, that I have a family. Um, and so sometimes co-workers would be like, ―Yeah, when you get home and your kids blah-blah-blah,‖ I don‘t usually say, ―Oh, I don‘t have kids.‖ Um, just because I know, well, one, I might get grilled about it or two, they might be sensitive about it. I know it might be a big deal to them … so there‘s gonna be that assumption and that doesn‘t bother me at all but, yeah, I haven‘t really been, I haven‘t been prodded to the, to getting annoyed. It‘s been more like, ―How can I answer this and not upset this person because I don‘t know what their stance is on it?‖
Floyd: That‘s pretty much, yeah, that‘s why you come up with the pet answer…
Natalie: Like, I don‘t know if they are….
Floyd: … the safest one that I can say…
Natalie: … I don‘t know if they are Catholic or if they are, yeah.
Floyd: … and that I really mean, too. It‘s, that‘s the other thing. It has to be something I really mean. I‘m not gonna do a pat answer that‘s not what I mean, you know, just to make someone feel better. I‘m gonna say, ―Look, I‘m gonna put this in words that you understand, so then we are not gonna have an issue.‖
Natalie: Yeah, cuz it is a pretty, most, most of my friends, it‘s not an issue but for some folks, it really is.
107 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Another reason why these spouses are careful when answering those inquiries is to avoid being stigmatized. Tony and Gertrude explained how their jobs as teachers in a rural community made it easy for them to get stigmatized:
Tony: Working as, uh, as a teacher, I have a lot of kids and, or parents asking me if I have kids, you know, and that‘s, and having to say no and having to come up with a way of, a way of saying no and it doesn‘t like, sound like I hate kids. I don‘t hate kids, you know. There‘s, there‘s some distrust of at least in the rural, we live, we work in a very rural place. There‘s a distrust of a couple who doesn‘t have kids and doesn‘t want kids. It‘s either, either feel like, they feel like there‘s something wrong with me, uh, psychologically or something wrong with one of us physically, you know. There‘s why-don‘t-they-want-kids type of thing. So, it comes up a lot.
Gertrude: Yeah, that‘s the things is, it, with our jobs, it does come up. You know whenever I meet, uh, when I have a student, I meet their parents and that‘s one of the first thing they ask me, which is very, you know, kind of off-putting to me is I feel like their reaction is different when I say no, do, they say, ―Do you have any children?‖ and I say, ―No,‖ ―Oh,‖ you know. ―Oh, okay.‖
Tony: They, they, a lot of people, I think, assume you don‘t know how to take care of kids or how to talk to kids because you haven‘t happened to have a kid.
Wade also explained how his pat answer tended to stop people from prying further:
Wade: … and they just wanna find out more, ―Well, why don‘t you have any kids?‖ And it‘s much easier to just kind of cut off the discussion by err that, the discussion process by just saying, ―Cuz we don‘t wanna have any‖ … It‘s the small talk approach, you know? ―You don‘t have kid? Why not?‖ ―Because we don‘t wanna have any?‖ ―Oh, okay.‖ And then that‘s the end of the conversation right there. So, at least on that subject.
Besides using pat answers to the inquiries, the voluntarily childless spouses use other strategies such as ―changing subjects‖ or ―blaming their spouse‖ in an effort not to engage in a lengthy discussion. Some couples with dogs or cats answer the question whether they have children or not with ―we have cats‖ or ―we have dogs.‖ Other couples mentioned that they had considered telling people that they were infertile.
108 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
It seems that how often and how much these spouses get asked about children, pried upon, or stigmatized varies depending on many factors. With many factors, combined with the limited number of the participant couples, however, it was hard to find patterns. For example, in some couples, the wives were asked about children more than the husbands, whereas in other couples, the opposite was true. One common aspect found in this study, however, is that the number of inquiries decreases over time. Many spouses attributed the decrease to the age and others‘ assumption that if they do not have children by now, there must be some problems:
Kate: It‘s the age thing now? Where I‘ve got to an age when you say, ―No, I don‘t have children‖ and people just, well they presume that because you can‘t…
Wade: I think it‘s a subject people don‘t wanna…
Kate: They don‘t wanna get pry on it.
Wade: …they don‘t wanna get pry on it because there could be like a medical reason why you don‘t have any. There could be a personal reason why you don‘t have and people realize, ―Okay, that‘s a very personal question and I don‘t really wanna like, seem like I‘m prying.‖
It is not always that the inquirers respond to the couples‘ decision to remain voluntarily childless with disbelief. The spouses in this study had friends and family who
―understood‖ and ―accepted‖ their decision without any question. Some spouses also received envious remarks from friends and family members who were parents. Harry recalled a remark of his friend: ―Oh, you‘re so lucky, you don‘t have kids. You can do whatever you want.‖ Encouragement not to change their mind was also reported as a response from families and friends. Christian explained why his brother wanted Christian and Lily to remain childless: ―He‘s single and he likes, he likes to see a relationship that
109 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 works. So, he‘s like, ‗Don‘t get a kid, don‘t have a kid. I want you to have a good relationship‘ because it gives him hope.‖
Although the inquiries themselves can often be perceived as ―pressure‖ by the voluntarily childless couples, they are different from the more direct pressure of ―you need to have children.‖ As with the inquiries, how much pressure to have children the voluntarily childless couples receive from their family members varies and the pressure decreases over time. Many spouses in this study reported having been pressured by their family members, especially their parents. Their parents were usually described as
―pressuring,‖ being ―pushy,‖ or ―hinting.‖ Sometimes, the births of their nieces or nephews release some of the pressure off of them. Joe explained how pressure from
Jane‘s mother had changed over time:
... Jane was the one that really hounded, because, you know, we were the second, she was the second of her sisters to get married. The first one had no intention of children for the longest time and so Jane‘s mom really hounded, "I don't have any grand kids. You guys need to have a child, blah-blah-blah. You're being really selfish, cuz there're other people who want a child from you guys. What about Joe?" and Jane's like, "You know Joe and I have talked about this. He knows this is how it is gonna be." So finally her other two sisters that are about the same age, her step sister and her real sister, happened to have a kid about two weeks apart. So she got two grandbabies at the same time. So she is kind of, "Okay, I'm good" and leaves us alone.
Moreover, some parents of the voluntarily childless spouses become resigned to the fact that the couples will not have a child once they realizethat the couple‘s decision is solid. Veronica and Jake, a mutual early articulator couple, described:
Veronica: … I would say probably, we've been married ten years, I'd say about five years into our marriage...
Jake: Yeah and she got it.
110 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Veronica: ... she pretty much started putting pictures of the cats up as her grandbabies and ...
Jake: And then the dogs.
Veronica: ...she has pictures of the dogs and she's resigned herself to the fact.
Apparently, just as some voluntarily childless couples consider their pets as their children, their parents can also regard pets as substitute grandchildren. However, it seems that parents‘ acceptance or resignation also evoke emotions from the parents such as
―sadness‖ or ―disappointment.‖ Lisa observed her mom:
Lisa: … it‘s been hard for them to, they have finally, I would say in the last two or three years, stopped bringing it up constantly, you know. I mean like James said the look in my mother‘s eyes says enough. She doesn‘t need to bring it up, but she, she wants to be supportive and so she‘ll say, ―You know what I want to say, but I respect you opinion.‖
James: She‘s a really sweet, wonderful woman.
Lisa: She tries so. My mom is wonderful and she does understand where I‘m coming from. It breaks her heart.
On the other hand, James‘ father ―understood‖ or ―accepted‖ their decision without any prying, pressure, or emotion, which is not uncommon among parents of the spouses in this study. He described:
My dad‘s response was really more ―Okay, I can understand that.‖ He is a father of six, uh and um, he just kind of more said ―I can understand that. I might not agree with that. I might not have made the same choice, but I can understand that.‖
Some parents had taught their children from when they were young that having or not having a child is a choice, or being a parent implies responsibilities, and thus, is not something to take lightly. Mark recalled his parents‘ attitude on the issue while he was growing up:
111 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Mark: My, my parents always kind of took the attitude that, ―You better not have‗em, if you can‘t take care of them yourself.‖ And so that‘s a lot of where my own attitude came from, and, uh because they had, they kind of always put forth even as I was growing up that, ―We don‘t wanna raise your children. If you‘re going to have children, you need to be responsible from them yourselves.‖ And so, they, they wouldn‘t mind havin‘ another grandchild or two, but my, my uh brother has two children with, of, of his own, and but then they wouldn‘t mind it, but there wasn‘t ever really any pressure and I remember my dad cuttin‘ uh, I think it was an Ann Lander‘s column or somethin‘ out about, uh about the, the, about people who were childless and how bad it is, that they can drop everything and go on vacation when they want to, and that kind of, it was a neat little piece and my dad actually sent that to us.
Brenda: With a, ―Ha-ha.‖ [laughs]
These parents accept and respect their children‘s decision to remain childless readily and easily.
Although the frequency and the seriousness of the inquiries decrease over time, dealing with inquiries, prying, and stigma are another integral component of remaining voluntarily childless throughout the process.
From Agreement to Acceptance
For many voluntarily childless couples, the next phase of the agreement is the acceptance phase. However, the processes of moving from the agreement phase to the acceptance phase are different depending again on the strength of the conviction and the importance of the relationship. Some mutual early articulator couples, whose spouses share a strong conviction to remain voluntarily childless, move to the acceptance phase rather quickly after the initial agreement. The main characteristic of these couples is that they rarely experience revisitations after the initial agreement. Thus, once the agreement is made, these couples easily settle into the acceptance phase. To the question whether
112 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 they had ever discussed the subject of having or not having children after the initial agreement, Richard, an early articulator, answered, ―Probably it would have been, ‗We are glad we don‘t have one.‘‖ For these couples, the transition from the agreement phase to the acceptance phase is seamless and the difference between being in one phase and the next one is not apparent.
For other couples, however, the difference is more visible. Floyd described the difference between agreement and acceptance:
I‘ve accepted that I love her for everything and, and so I accept that this [having a child] is never gonna happen, right? So like, or, yeah, it‘s, that‘s kind of, that‘s like a real, you know, where I agree and agree and accept are really, you know, agreeing was the first, really the first thing. Acceptance was the second thing … now that I think about it. It‘s like, true because she said, ―I‘m not gonna have kids‖ and I would go, ―Okay.‖ That‘s me agreeing. Accepting it took a little bit longer … I mean, I accept that‘s what it is, right? … the accepting means, I totally get it now. I mean, I, that, we should not have kids. I mean, that, that, having kids, well, like by the time we are 30, it‘s like, ―It‘s never going to happen.‖ It‘s really total acceptance. ―This is never gonna happen.‖ It‘s like, ―Alright.‖
The spouses who stayed in the agreement phase for awhile usually could identify what provided the last push toward acceptance. However, what pushes them to the acceptance phase differ across spouses and couples. Pregnancy and subsequent abortion is one of those pushes. Even for the early articulator spouses with strong childless conviction, the decision to get an abortion was described as not an easy decision. Lily and
Christian described how they ―went back and forth‖ on the decision to have an abortion:
Lily: I didn‘t take it lightly, I took it very seriously and, and of course, right away I started to tell myself stories about the child, what they can be like, what they can look like, what our life together..
Christian: ―She would have curly hair, she would look like this and..‖
113 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Lily: Yeah and that‘s a very, it was very compelling but I still, again, I had that thing inside of me in here, that just felt like a no, that I could never get past, no matter how powerful the stories were that I told myself, I could never get past that feeling … and it was, you know, it was, um, cuz we went back and forth and, and he was still more open to it and so, and when I would tell the stories, he would say, ―Let‘s have it‖ and then the ―No‖ would..
Christian: And then we‘d tell other stories and then we would be like, ―Let‘s not have it‖
Lily: Yeah [laughing]
Christian: [laughing] So I was back and forth. I was such a Charlie Brown for this, you know, I was like back and forth and ―Oh, I can just see, it could be so good but then I like the freedom but then [sigh]‖
After these ―agonizing‖ discussions, Lily and Christian decided to have an abortion and that decision was the push they needed to move on to the acceptance phase, especially for Christian:
Lily had an abortion and then that was a big, I don‘t know what you would call it, like you make a decision, that‘s one thing but if you, if you are letting, you know, there is a point of decision where you don‘t go back and I think for me, it was building up, building up, building up and, and the abortion … I would say for me the abortion was a very big trigger and from that point on I have, it‘s been solid, a solid decision for me.
When faced with the decision, even the husbands with a strong childless conviction felt that the decision would be ultimately their wives to make and tried to be supportive. Spot described how he felt during the process:
Spot: I wanna be honest but I also don't, so that when we were talking about "does she get an abortion?" I was walking a bit of a tight rope because part of me wanted her to say "I don't want kids, don't even think about it" and another part of me wanted to be, you know, what, ―It's your body and you, this is an important moral decision and I'm gonna just let you make it and stay out of your way.‖ And I thought we negotiated, I was happy with how we negotiated.
Marie: I felt like you, I felt like you did a good job. I, I felt completely supported but not, I felt completely supported.
114 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Spot: Not encouraged [laughter]
Marie: [laughing] Right
Spot: [laughing] Yeah, well, that's what I was trying to do.
Spot‘s account illustrates again how important the relationship itself is to these spouses. He was trying to set aside his wish to remain childless to be supportive of his wife. At the same time, Marie was also thinking about what her decision to have the child would mean to their initial agreement and relationship:
I did feel like you know if I, if it felt like it was a big violation of personal values and I said ―Well, we need to do this and we'll just see what happens,‖ I know you would have been supportive but I also know that it would have been the end of, I actually felt like I would be breaking a marriage vow to do that cause we had really promised each other that we weren't gonna do that.
Another factor that helps the voluntarily childless spouses to move from the agreement phase to the acceptance phase is age. It seems that many voluntarily childless spouses have a certain time frame in which they allow themselves a chance to change their mind. Once pass the time frame they set, the spouses move to the acceptance phase.
Natalie, an early articulator, explained:
… I was like, ―I don‘t wanna take any definitive action until I‘m 30 just in case.‖ I mean, looking at it [becoming a parent] logically and personally and, you know, financially, I was like, ―I don‘t think I can, you know, I don‘t think I wanna do this. I don‘t think I can do this.‖ But I did, you know, I did make sure to leave the possibility open and then after I, I figured, ―Well, my biological clock hasn‘t gone off and, you know, I‘m 31 now.‖ I‘m 32 now but I was like, ―Yeah, I think that‘s, I think it has come and gone.‖
For some mutual postponer couples, it seems that their indecision ends not because they finally make the decision but because the decision is made by their age, pushing them to the acceptance phase. Brenda and Mark explained:
115 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Brenda: There really wasn‘t a time, it‘s kind a progression actually, to that point and then, then we stopped and thought, ―Do you realize if we had kids now, how old we would be when they were twenty?‖ and their grandkids, their grandkids, you know later on. It would be [pause] older, a lot older. [laughs]
Mark: Yeah.
Interviewer: So when was it? How old do you think you were?
Brenda: [deep breath]
[filled pause]
Mark: I think I was probably around thirty-five,…
Brenda: Yeah.
Mark: …when I decided, ―Well, that‘s, that ship‘s pretty much already sailed.‖
Age also helps the spouses with the initial wish to have children to move to the acceptance phase:
I always felt like forty was that magic age. If I didn‘t have a child by the time I was forty then I really should just you know…realize that it‘s not gonna to happen and, it‘s almost like, once I hit forty, it uh, it made it easier to uh, not think about it anymore. Um, I sort of, since I made that my goal, and I was like, ―Oh well, you know it didn‘t happen, so it didn‘t happen.‖
These different paths illustrated above all lead the voluntarily childless couples to the acceptance phase. Once the couples reach the acceptance phase, the processes between the acceptance phase and the closing of the door phase again takes several forms.
Staying in the Acceptance Phase
Most of the voluntarily childless couples stay in the acceptance phase for awhile before they move on to their final phase, closing of the door. However, the reasons for the delay between the acceptance and the closing of the door phases are different from those for the delay between the agreement and the acceptance phases. In the agreement
116 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 phase, the voluntarily childless spouses solidify their decision through repeated revisitations and reaffirmations, shedding any doubt or hope. Many voluntarily childless spouses in the acceptance phase, however, feel confident and comfortable with their decision. For them, the decision is made and there is no question that they would remain childless. The fact that they are childless ―fades into the background.‖ Thus, it is not surprising that some of them are not in a hurry to close the door as long as their current contraceptive method is effective. Jon explained: ―I mean it‘s working for us, you know, so we just figured you know, why do anything if you know, if our current method is working for us.‖
There are other reasons why these spouses have not been sterilized even after they get to the acceptance phase. Many spouses do not like the idea of having an ―elective surgery‖ done to their body or they are afraid of going through the procedure. Karen explained:
I read a little bit about the ESSURE. It's a procedure where they stick a little spring in your fallopian tubes and it scars over. I really do not like having things messed with. Imagining, this would be pretty painful and then there's the part where they, the after part actually seems scary than doing it part where they test with dye to see if it‘s, it‘s sufficiently scarred. [laughing] That kind of gives me the willies.
Some husbands expressed a different kind of fear: losing their manliness. James explained why he was scared of getting sterilized:
I‘m scared to death of it … yeah, I‘m dead serious. I mean that is absolutely, I am, uh, why I‘m afraid of it? It is because I don‘t wanna lose, I‘m afraid that I lose some of my, uh, passion, uh, and those kinds of things, so yeah, it scares me out of my mind.
117 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
For other spouses, it was the doctors‘ refusal or a huge amount of paperwork that prevented them from being sterilized. Several wives in this study had experienced a doctors‘ refusal to perform sterilization due to their young age. Jane explained the doctors‘ responses to her interest in being sterilized:
Jane: If I could have my way, I probably just go ahead and fix myself [laughter]. Um, but they won't do that yet.
Joe: All the doctors said that she wasn't old enough to realize whether or not she wanted to have a kid, so they weren't gonna do that.
Jane: They weren't gonna do that.
Interviewer: How old were you?
Jane: When I started thinking about that, that was...
Joe: Mid 20s?
Jane: Mid 20s. I wanted to go ahead and...
Joe: We've talked to them every year she goes back for her annual check-up.
Jane: They are like, "You are not quite..."
Joe: Yeah, "We need to give you more time just to make sure. You know, if we do this, it's permanent." I'm like, "You know? We talked about this for years and years and we know that's what we don't want."
Jane: And I told her. I said, "If we end up having kids, it's not gonna be for me to have, we'll adopt, and there is really no point in having this [pointing her belly area] [laughter], if, you know, don't plan on it" and she is like, "Let's wait a little bit longer" and I'm like, "Good God."
Joe: She has no health reasons to get rid of it, so it's all a choice and I don't think they want to resign to a choice so....
Interviewer: Did the doctor tell you how old you would have to be?
Joe: She said after 30.
Jane: She said after 30.
118 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Joe: She wouldn't even consider until she was 30 and she just turned 30 and we haven't been back yet. So…
For Marie, it was a huge amount of paperwork that dissuaded her from pursuing a tubal ligation:
… when we decided that we didn't wanna have children, I did pursue the idea of having my tubes tied and uh, I actually had an appointment to have it done and I went the day before to fill out all the paperwork and there was, there was so much, this risk and that risk and that risk and ―Are you sure?‖ and, and I said, ―Well, you know what? I have never had a problem with birth control. This is really overkill.‖ So then I said ―Never mind. I don't wanna bother with this.‖ So I had decided not to have a tubal ligation because I had, cause I'm really careful with birth control.
Gina who had a tubal ligation described another process she had to go through other than the paperwork before the procedure:
I looked into my company‘s, my, my job‘s insurance and asked if they did, would cover tubal ligation and then they said they would, and, but they wanted me to see a psychologist to make sure that I really wanted to do this and he asked me a bunch of questions like, ―What if you meet somebody who wants to have children?‖ and all these other questions and I apparently answered them in a satisfactory enough way that he signed off on it.
Finally, medical reasons can also prevent the couples from getting sterilized.
Some wives in this study were on the birth control pill not just for a contraceptive reason but also for medical reasons, usually to control cyst formation. As illustrated above, the strength of the conviction cannot be measured by sterilization alone.
Most of the couples agreed that male sterilization is more practical than female sterilization in terms of money, recovery time, and the risks involved with the procedure.
In this study, more husbands than wives were sterilized: five husbands and two wives. In one case, the wife was sterilized because the husband was afraid of the procedure.
119 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Another pattern as to which spouse gets sterilized emerged. It seems that the spouses with a stronger childless conviction in the couple tend to be the one who gets sterilized.
In the acceptance phase, voluntarily childless couples still experience reaffirmations and musings. They still have to deal with inquiries from other people.
However, as discussed above, the frequency of the inquiries decreases over time. One significant difference between the agreement and acceptance phase is the experience of wistfulness, a feeling of longing. Whereas the feelings of wistfulness begin a process of revisitation in the agreement phase for many spouses, in the acceptance phase, they are experienced as just feelings because spouses truly have accepted that they will remain childless: There is no going back. At the same time, however, because they accepted their childlessness, feelings of wistfulness can lead to other emotions such as sadness and regret. Floyd explained:
You know, and I mean, honestly there are still times that I get sad about it but, but it‘s, I, I truly accept it, you know. It‘s just like anything in your life where you go, ―God, I wish I could‘ve.‖ You do that. Everybody does that every now and then … it‘s the little things. I mean society throws that stuff at you all the time.
However, these moments do not last long and the reaffirmation process takes over.
Brenda and Mark explained:
Brenda: Well, if you do, you just make yourself, stressed out, miserable, um, upset about something that you‘re not going to change anyway. So um, I think you should just go on with life and do things right the best you can, to help those around you … , if a couple doesn‘t have children, the world isn‘t lost. There‘s still life even if you don‘t have children. Um it‘s, you know, it‘s a little bit different than those who do, as far as um, things you‘re able to do, you know, but [pause] it‘s not something that‘s a horrendous, horrible thing that should, should be depressed, everything about it. There‘s still good life. [laughs]
Mark: Yeah, I mean you, you can sit around and, and wonder about and, and get depressed, ―No, we don‘t have children. We don‘t have, we won‘t ever have
120 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
grandchildren. We don‘t have anybody to be our heirs, or pass our stuff along to, or what,‖ and to me it‘s kind of a pointless exercise. It‘s a trade-off of, ―Okay, yeah, we‘ve got, quote unquote freedom to do what we want to do and to live the lifestyle we wanna live by not having children,‖ and so the trade-off is down the road, um when, maybe we don‘t have somebody, if you want to call them rewards, of things like grandchildren.
Most of the spouses in this study were ―happy‖ with their decision. Even the spouses who initially wanted children reported that they were ―glad‖ and even ―thankful‖ to their spouse for the decision. Christian said: ―Now I look at some of the stuff I do, and um, and I‘m like, ‗You know, it really would‘ve been hard with a child‘ and I‘m kinda,
I‘m glad I‘m childfree now.‖ Steele, who initially wanted children, explained why he was thankful to Ginger:
Actually I'm kind of thankful to Ginger … I'm thankful for that, because I think, if I would've, I think about what would my life had been like, had I married someone who wanted kids right off the bat. I would be stuck in a suburban town and I would've, I don't know, I just, and I, I probably would've fell into one of the relationships that, I've, as I'm getting older, seen my friends go into these relationships, and there's not much of a marriage and everything centers around the children, and when the parents were together, they tend to fight, not get along and they are stressed.
The second significant difference between the agreement and acceptance phases is the lack of revisitation in the acceptance phase except for under one condition: pregnancy.
As discussed above, for the spouses in the acceptance phase, the decision to remain voluntarily childless is irreversible for them although physically they may still be able to have a child. However, pregnancy can force these couples to revisit their decision one last time. Nicole and Jon is one of the couples who moved to the acceptance phase almost immediately following their initial agreement not to have children. Both of them seldom
121 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 experienced revisitation. When they found out they were pregnant, however, they revisited the decision. Jon and Nicole described:
Jon: I mean I think the only time we, when she did get pregnant, I think, during that time, I mean we, you know, think about it, like you know, cuz at that point in time you have, you have to make a decision. It‘s like…
Nicole: And we thought it out.
Jon: …and I think we were back and forth and at that point just decided no. I mean it could have been, you know like her, what was going on in our lives at the time, that maybe played a role, but um, yeah I‘m not, I think just at that one point in time, you know, we may have had the discussion like you know, you know, ―If there was ever a time, here‘s the time to, to think about it,‖ you know, and we decided you know, that we didn‘t [want to have a baby] …
The pregnancy and the subsequent abortion in the acceptance phase may play a crucial role in pushing couples to close the door permanently as discussed in the next section.
From Acceptance to Closing of the Door
The closing of the door can happen in either an active or a passive form. Some spouses actively close the door by getting sterilized to ―finalize‖ the decision. Gina expressed the reason why she chose to get sterilized:
My brother basically, just wondered if I had really thought about the fact that I was closing that door permanently, you know, I wasn‘t, because I didn‘t have to get my tube tied. I could‘ve, I had been in birth control and so forth and I could‘ve continued doing that. There was not really that much, and I, I react well to birth control. I never had any problems with it, and I‘ve never actually been pregnant as far as I know. Um, so I could‘ve just continued doing it that way, and that way I would‘ve had the option to change my mind later but to me I just wanted to make that final decision.
122 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Some couples who experienced an abortion also choose to be sterilized to make sure that they would not have to go through the same experience. To the question whether the abortion played a role in his getting sterilized, Spot answered:
Absolutely, yep, I mean basically at that point she said "Hey, uh we don't want this to happen again. You take care of it. It's a much simpler operation for a guy.‖ And I said ―Yeah, you‘re right. That's fair‖ and so I was, I had a vasectomy that summer.
For other couples, the door gets closed either due to medical reasons or old age.
To a question whether they had ever considered sterilization, Ray explained: ―I thought about it but it was kind of late.‖ For Penelope, an early articulator, being sterilized via hysterectomy was not her choice:
Penelope: [the doctor said,] ―It‘s grown to the size of your uterus and so you have to remove it and you also have a big cyst in there, blah-blah-blah‖ and….
Bob: It was a tumor. How big?
Penelope: A big tumor, the size of a cantaloupe, really gross to think about and I said, ―I don‘t wanna remove my ovaries and uterus, I, you know, I don‘t wanna do it‖ but they said, ―You have to.‖
Bob: It wasn‘t a choice. It was growing around it.
Penelope: Yeah.
The reason why Penelope did not want to have the hysterectomy was similar to the reason why some of the husbands did not want to be sterilized: For her, hysterectomy meant a loss of her femininity. She explained:
They said this was a myth but I think it‘s made me asexual. I used to enjoy being female and felt very sexual and I think it dried my skin a lot, aged me a lot, made me enjoy sex less and feel less sexual and that is a huge part of being a human being, I think, and I miss that and, um, and I think it‘s more than just aging. I think having that, being whole is very important.
123 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Veronica, on the other hand, welcomed the hysterectomy because she had been refused to be sterilized due to her age. She elected for the full hysterectomy although a partial hysterectomy was an option. She explained the reason:
My doctor said, "You know we, these are your options. What you can do is, what you can do, can leave your ovaries or whatever." So I, we opted for the full hysterectomy. Just, ―I don't have to worry about any of that anymore.‖
Either actively or passively, the door gets closed for all the voluntarily childless couples at some point. It is important to note that although, strictly speaking, sterilization means the closing of the door only to the sterilized spouse and men still can procreate after their spouses‘ menopause, spouses perceive their partner‘s sterilization or menopause as the closing of the door as a couple.
To Acceptance through Closing of the Door
The path from the agreement to the acceptance through the closing of the door phase is unique to non-mutual couples. Some spouses with the initial parenthood wish move to the acceptance phase without having to close the door. However, others intentionally close the door before they can truly reach the acceptance phase. Christina, who initially wanted to have children, explained how she urged Juan to get sterilized in an attempt to close the door, which ultimately helped her to ―get over it:‖
It‘s like, ―Look if we‘re not gonna have a kid, there is no reason why you‘re not going to get a vasectomy because I don‘t want that even um, possible.‖ You know, it‘s kind of like. ―Cut it off now,‖ not cut it, but…but ―Stop it now,‖ you know, it was, it‘s almost like a tease, like I could still get pregnant. It‘s like you know, ―Why, why is that happening?‖ So I just sort of wanna fin, I wanted to finalize it and that was my way of finalizing it … actually that may be really what got me over. I, you know, I just needed, uh, somebody to say stop, you know, stop thinking about it.
124 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Their urge to close the door seems to come right after a serious revisitation process. Thus, by the time they ask their partner to get sterilized, they may seem to have moved over to the acceptance phase on the surface. These spouses described their experiences of accepting their situation. For Christina, it was passing the time frame she had set as described earlier and for Dana, realizing that she would not be able to stay home and raise her child if she had a child. She described,
… if we did have kids, we would‘ve still both had to work and that, I really think that helped me a lot to, to, because my sisters both stay at home, raise their kids and, and, you know, the dad went out and worked and, you know my mom was with me until I was in kinder garden and she went back to work. I mean that‘s how our immediate family roles and so for me not be able to do that really would have bothered me a lot. So, I think that‘s really clenched it.
However, as Christina explained above, the act of closing the door for these spouses is to eliminate the possibility of the future revisitation rather than the possibility of pregnancy. It seems that these spouses can actually be in the acceptance phase only after the door is closed. Thus, their path is better described as from the agreement to the acceptance through the closing of the door phase.
After the door is closed
There is no apparent difference between the acceptance and the closing of the door phases other than the physical inability to conceive a child. In addition to being happy and content with their decision as the couples in the acceptance phase are, however, most spouses felt ―relieved‖ ―glad‖ or ―liberated‖ after the door was closed. To the question of how they felt after the sterilization, Michelle and Hank answered in unison:
―Relived!‖ Veronica, who had a hysterectomy, answered the same question: ―Liberated.
125 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
It's funny when my friends are all like ‗Oh God, I have cramps. Do you got anything?‘
I'm like ‗Nope, don't. Forgot what that's like.‘ I love it.‖
The fact that they are childless, which faded into the background once they reached the acceptance phase, can resurface as the voluntarily childless spouse get older.
Some spouses start thinking of the possibility of being alone. Adrian (age 53) described:
I have, like recently, the last few years, I thought about it and so I‘m trying to keep him really healthy. I said, because, you know, I said, ―I don‘t wanna be, you know, a widow at a younger age and then I‘d either gonna be all alone or get a cat or what?‖
The issue of being alone can also be brought up by the spouse‘s illness. Penelope explained how Bob‘s cancer diagnosis made her aware of being childless:
Penelope: I feel very scared that, now, if you die, because I always thought I would die first, ―No problem, I‘ll die first and let you sweat it out. You go and live your life, marry or remarry, whatever you wanna do. I‘m not gonna have to go through your loss.‖ Now I‘m worried because of the diagnosis that I may be wrong and you may die first and I feel very alone.
Bob: So you wanna go out and get a couple of kids?
Penelope: Not really … but it‘s really scared me and I felt very alone and I really didn‘t feel that alone when either of my parents died but now I do. Now I‘m very scared and now I‘m very conscious of the fact that I made the decision not to have kids whereas before I never really thought about it too much. Now I‘m very aware and part of it is when I tell people about your cancer diagnosis?
Bob: Uh-hm
Penelope: Their reaction is…
Bob: ―Oh, what are you gonna do when you‘re all by yourself?
Penelope: They will sometimes bring up that choice I made not to have children. So this choice is more in my face now than, similar to how it was probably in my 20‘ and 30‘s when most women have children. Now it‘s coming up again. Other people are reflecting that choice back to me now. So, before it was always just kind of, ―No big deal,‖ whatever but now again, because in my 20‘s and 30‘s, people would say, ―Do you have children? Are you gonna have children?‖ they
126 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
would ask lots of questions about it and now it‘s interesting that it‘s bringing up fear in me and I feel very alone.
When asked about not having children to take care of them in old age, most of the spouses in this study, regardless of which phase they were in, answered that they did not worry much about it. Many of them mentioned that having children does not necessarily guarantee that the children would take care of them. Derek and Meredith explained:
Derek: …when my parents are trying to convince me, ―Well who‘s going to care of you?‖ So when I relay that to Meredith, of course she comes up with excuses, ―Oh, we‘ll have enough money. We can….‖
Meredith: We can pay somebody to take care of us.
Derek: We can pay someone to take care of us. And, yeah a lot of times you see kids, especially in the United States, that they won‘t take care of their parents. I mean, it‘s just, just because you have a kid doesn‘t guarantee you‘re, you‘re…
Meredith: You‘re gonna be taken care of.
Derek: ...you‘re gonna be taken care of at the, toward the end of your life.
However, once they get to a point where they have to face the possibility of being alone, as Adrian and Penelope, it is possible that they may start feeling somewhat differently.
There were some voluntarily childless spouses who did regret that they did not have a child. Adrian said: ―I am sorry I did not have my own children.‖ To the question whether she would have a child if she could go back, she answered: ―Yes, definitely.‖
Her husband, Ray, also said: ―If I had been 40 instead of 50, I probably would‘ve considered it.‖ Adrian and Ray, a non-mutual couple, got married when she was 41 and he was 50 years old. By the time they started the relationship, Ray had decided that he
127 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 was too old to have children. Although they wish they had a child, they do not dwell on it.
To the question what they did when they felt regretful, they explained:
Adrian: We just move on.
Ray: Yeah
Adrian: It‘s not a biggy.
Ray: Yeah, we don‘t, we really don‘t discuss it that much anymore.
Adrian: We don‘t feel like we are missing anything.
However, most of the voluntarily childless spouses in this study, including those who are in the closing of the door phase, said that they did not regret their decision. Many of them compared the decision to remain voluntarily childless with other choices they have made over the course of their lives. Marie, an early articulator, explained:
I mean it's not a huge deal, it's kind of like "well yeah, I might've wanted to be a professional musician, too" It would have been nice, but I made other choices and I'm okay with that, I can still think, you know, when I hear someone play the violin, I think, "Oh wow, I miss that."
These spouses believe that it was the right decision for them. They made the best choice they could as all these participants said:
Floyd: Everything is a life choice and that was the life choice. That was a life choice that took me a little bit longer to understand. That‘s all.
Natalie: I realize, like, this is the life, this is the choice that‘s best for me, uh, and, you know, of the options that are available, this one is the, you know, not having kids is the way that I should go considering what I wanna do, who I am, the way my personality is.
Lisa: This is our choice.
Christian: … now I do make a choice, now I do decide I don‘t want this [having children].
Lily: I still feel like I‘ve made the right and loving choice for us, for our life.
128 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Karen: It was always a choice, not a necessary part of adult life. Choosing to be with Richard is choosing a life without children.
Penelope: Some procreate. I didn‘t, and know I made the right choice for me.
As with any choice people make throughout their lives, the voluntarily childless couples may or may not regret their choice. What is important to the voluntarily childless couples in this study was that they made the choice and they were living with the choice every day.
129 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the theoretical model developed from the current study is evaluated. First, the model is evaluated in relation to the existing literature by highlighting the contributions of the study to the literature on voluntarily childless couples. Next, the rigor of the study is assessed using Morse and colleagues‘ (2002) and
Strauss and Corbin‘s (1998) strategies. Third, the limitations of the study are discussed.
Based on these evaluations, directions for future research are also discussed. Lastly, a conclusion of the study with summary of the findings is presented.
Decision-Making Types
This study identified three different decision-making types: mutual early articulator couples, mutual postponer couples, and non-mutual couples. These three types are similar to Cooper and colleagues‘ decision-making patterns (1978), which was an expansion of Veevers‘ typology (1973, 1980). Cooper and colleagues‘ typology was based on interviews with 22 voluntarily childless couples. They interviewed the spouses separately. Mutual early articulator couples in this study are similar to independents in
Cooper and colleagues‘ study, which was defined as couples with two spouses who had made the decision to be childless independently before they met each other. They also identified another pattern of decision-making called negotiators, who made the decision to remain childless after a series of post marital discussions between the spouses in regard to the merits of parenthood and childlessness.
130 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
The difference between postponers in Veevers‘ study and negotiators in Cooper and colleagues‘ study is that negotiators were characterized by the indecision as to whether they want to have children or not, whereas postponers in Veevers‘ study were characterized by a series of postponements of having a child. Moreover, negotiators include three sub-types of decision-making: mutuals, wife-influentials, and husband- influentials. Mutual couples refer to couples who reach an agreement without one spouse having stronger influence than the other. In the current study, both Veevers‘ postponers and Cooper and colleagues‘ mutuals are considered to be mutual postponer couples because they were postponing making a decision of either whether they wanted to have children or when to have children. Whereas Cooper and colleagues‘ differentiated couples in regard to which spouse‘s conviction to remain childless was stronger, in the current study, they are both called non-mutual couples.
Interestingly, in both Veevers‘ and Cooper and colleagues‘ studies, approximately one third of their participants belonged to mutual early articulator couples, whereas a little more than half of the couples, 12 out of 21, in this study were mutual early articulator couples. This difference seems to be the results of the steady increase in the voluntarily childless population for the past two decades (Abma & Martinez, 2006).
The contribution of this study regarding decision-making patterns is that this study expanded previous findings by delineating the different chronological paths the couples follow throughout the process, depending on their decision-making types.
Veevers (1973, 1980) and Cooper and colleagues (1978) only examined how the couples reached the initial agreement. Moreover, their studies lacked information on how the
131 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 spouses in each decision-making type reach an agreement. Based on couple conjoint interviews, however, this study discovered different couple interactions in the process of reaching an agreement, depending on the decision-making types.
Childlessness as a Process
Another significant contribution of this study is that the theoretical model developed conceptualizes the decision to remain voluntarily childless as a process which encompasses temporal elements. The theoretical model in this study identified three distinct phases voluntarily childless couples move through over time: agreement, acceptance, and closing of the door. Episodic information on how spouses reach an agreement to remain voluntarily childless can be found in many previous studies
(Burgwyn, 1981; Brooks, 2007; Cain, 2001; Carroll, 2000; Cooper et al., 1978; Doyle,
1999; Kwon, 2005; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005; Nason & Poloma, 1976; Veevers,
1973, 1980). However, little has been known beyond the initial agreement.
The current study found that the processes of remaining voluntarily childless indeed go beyond the initial agreement. The agreement phase includes the process of reaching the initial agreement not to have children or not to have children for now, as well as other experiences such as revisitations, reaffirmations, musings, and dealing with inquiries from other people. In the acceptance phase, couples perceive the decision as irreversible regardless of their physical capability of conceiving a child. The closing of the door phase represents the physical inability to procreate.
The current study discovered that voluntarily childless couples navigate these phases differently. Some couples move from the agreement phase to the closing of the
132 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 door phase through the acceptance phase, whereas other couples reach the acceptance phase through the closing of the door phase. The identification of the subsequent phases beyond the agreement and the delineation of the processes between the phases in this study expand our understanding of voluntarily childless couples substantially.
The current study found the role of age in the process of remaining voluntarily childless: another temporal element that has been ignored in the literature. Age plays an important role in the process in two ways. First, many voluntarily childless spouses individually or as a couple set a certain time frame consciously or unconsciously. Once they pass the time frame, they either realize that it is already too late to have a child or that ―the desire‖ to have a child has not and would not come. The second way age influences the process is by closing the door for the couples: Physical inability to conceive a child. Different from the anecdotal reports in some studies (Carroll, 2000;
Lunneborg, 1999; Morell, 1994), the role of age is incorporated in the theoretical model as one of the catalysts that help voluntarily childless couples with the transition from one phase to another.
In the current study, the experiences that are integral to remaining voluntarily childless such as revisitations and reaffirmations are also integrated into the processes, delineating their roles in specific phases as well as in helping the couples with the transition to the next phase. This study found many triggers of revisitation that are previously identified in other studies such as the birth of a baby (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll,
2000; Mawson, 2005), interactions with babies or children (Cain, 2001; Carroll, 2000;
Doyle, 1999; Lunneborg, 1999; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994), the feeling that time is
133 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 running out (Burgwyn, 1981; Carroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005; Morell, 1994; Vissing, 2002), inquiries or pressure from other people (Brooks, 2007, Carroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005), and pregnancy (Bartlett, 1994; Brooks, 2007; Campbell, 1994; Veevers, 1980). In addition to identifying the triggers and the experiences of revisitation and reaffirmation as previous studies have, however, the current study delineated the relationship between revisitation and reaffirmation. Moreover, the changes in the experiences of revisitations and reaffirmations over time as the couples move from one phase to another are integrated into the process.
Childlessness as a Dyadic Process
One of the most important gaps in the literature on voluntarily childless couples is the lack of our understanding on how two partners ―act, interact, or engage‖ (Creswell,
1998, p. 56) throughout the process of remaining voluntarily childless (Bulcroft &
Teachman, 2004, Houseknecht, 1978). The current study is the first to examine these dyadic aspects of the process of remaining voluntarily childless. Using intensive couple conjoint interviews, the current study obtained information on what each partner said, did, and felt during their discussions about remaining voluntarily childless. Furthermore, spouses‘ reactions to what their spouse said, did, and felt were found to be another important aspect of the process.
The couple conjoint interviews in this study provided the researcher with rich data that individual interviews could not. During the interview, the spouses talked to each other rather than to the researcher; prompted each other; corrected each other; asked questions to each other; offered details the other could not remember; and checked with
134 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 their partner to make sure their account of events was correct. Their interactions with each other during the interview can be found in many quotes used in this study. The interactions between spouses during the interview also gave the researcher a glimpse of what their discussions about remaining voluntarily childless may have looked like. Most of all, the conjoint interviews were useful to obtain detailed information on the process of how the discussions started, how the spouses reacted, or what they said or did. The researcher could ask each partner what they themselves thought, felt, said, and did in a certain situation without resorting to their partner‘s recollections or perceptions. These interactional processes are integrated in each phase as well as in the transition processes between the phases in the theoretical model.
Gender is another dyadic aspect of the process that needs to be discussed. In general, there was no apparent evidence of gendered experiences of remaining voluntarily childless in this study. In regard to the gender of the early articulator spouses in the non- mutual couples, wives were the early articulator in two couples, and husbands were the early articulator in three couples. The decision of who is getting sterilized was made based on practicality, fear of the procedure, and the strength of the childless conviction.
Gendered experiences were also expected in terms of social pressure and inquiries from other people. There was evidence that wives received more social pressure and inquiries from other people in rural, conservative communities. However, in this study, the experiences of social pressure and inquiries from other people depended more on the spouses‘ age, jobs, social network, and their parents‘ wish to be a grandparent than participants‘ gender. The frequency of the inquiry and the strength of social pressure
135 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 decreased over time. Spouses with jobs involved with children received more inquiries than others. Many spouses had a social network consisting of singles and childless couples. Some spouses mentioned that they specifically distanced themselves from people who did not respect their decision to remain voluntarily childless. Parents of the spouses in this study usually inquired of their own children, regardless of the gender, about the couples‘ fertility intention and pressured their own children to have children.
These findings may be due to the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Twenty out of twenty one couples were Caucasian. Moreover, on average, they are well- educated and many of them had professional occupations such as lawyer, teacher, professor, and high level management. It may be that these factors together create an environment where they are surrounded by people who are more open to diverse lifestyles. Another possible explanation of these findings is that more people are accepting voluntary childlessness as a viable lifestyle choice than in the past. Lastly, it may be that the previous literature failed to observe the fact that men also get inquired about their parenthood intention and get pressured to have children.
Two Driving Forces: The Importance of the Relationship and the Strength of the Conviction
In addition to identifying three phases and delineating the paths the voluntarily childless couples move through, the current study discovered two driving forces behind the process of remaining voluntarily childless: The importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction. The current study discovered that the voluntarily childless
136 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 status of these couples at any moment is a result of couples‘ delicate balancing acts with these two factors.
Previous studies reported situations where partners who initially wanted to have children choose the relationship over their parenthood wish, or the partners with a strong childless conviction give their partners an ultimatum (Brooks, 2007; Cain, 2001; Caroll,
2000; Nason & Poloma, 1976; Mawson, 2005). However, they failed to understand that even early articulators with strong conviction sometimes try to set aside their conviction for their spouses because the relationship is more important to them than their childless conviction. One mutual early articulator couple in this study changed to a mutual postponer couple after the wife had a serious revisitation episode because for him
―changing apart‖ was not an option. Moreover, when faced with pregnancy, a husband was willing to be supportive of his wife‘s decision despite his wish to remain childless.
―Checking-ins‖ are another example of prioritizing of the relationship. Many spouses in this study emphasized the importance of open communication in their relationship. Many spouses in the mutual early articulator couples periodically check with each other to make sure they are still ―on the same page.‖ What is implied in the act of
―checking-in‖ is that they are open to re-discuss their agreement to remain voluntarily childless if their partner changes his or her mind. In the current study, these balancing acts or prioritizing were integrated into the model as the driving forces of the process, which is another dyadic aspect of the model.
On the other hand, many early articulator spouses reported that they would not have married their spouse if their spouse had not shared the childless conviction or agreed
137 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 not to have children. The evidence of the strong childless conviction is also evident among some early articulator spouses in non-mutual couples. They tend to not engage in the discussion when their spouses revisited their decision because, for them, the decision was not reversible.
Emotional Aspects of the Process
In addition to what spouses do during the process of remaining voluntarily childless, this study also paid special attention to the emotional aspects of the process.
Cognitive aspects of the process, why they decided to remain childless, may be the area that has received the most attention in voluntary childlessness literature (e.g., Baker, 2002;
Bram, 1985; Burgwyn, 1981; Burman & de Anda, 1985; Carroll, 2000; Dever &
Saugeres, 2004; Housekneckt, 1987; Gillespie, 1999, 2003; Langdridge et al., 2005;
Lunneborg, 1999; Mollen, 2006; Park, 2005; Sommers, 1993; Veevers, 1980; Vissing,
2002; Weston & Qu, 2001). Contrary to the cognitive aspects, however, emotional aspects of the process of remaining voluntarily childless has been largely ignored in the literature except for when being described in an anecdotal fashion (e.g., Baker, 2002.
Brooks, 2007, Caroll, 2000; Mawson, 2005).
The current study discovered that emotions can be both a beginning and an end of many experiences integral to remaining voluntarily childless: Certain emotions such as fear and anxiety can start a revisitation process; reaching an agreement evokes positive emotions; and sterilization gives most couples a sense of relief. In non-mutual couples, the initial agreement elicited sadness and disappointment to the spouses who wanted
138 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 children but appreciation to the spouses with the childless conviction. The integration of the emotions in the theoretical model is another contribution of the current study.
With any choices people make, there is always a possibility of regret. The spouses in this study reported feelings of wistfulness and regret over the course of their lives without children. However, most of them indicated that they did not regret making the decision to remain childless. This finding is consistent with findings in Jeffries and
Konnert‘s study (2002). Almost all voluntarily childless participants in their study did not reported feelings of regret: They rather reported musings or wistfulness. Some scholars argued that voluntarily childless individuals engage in ―selective perception,‖ in which they focus on the negative aspects of parenthood and the positive aspects of childlessness to deal with stigmatization or to develop a positive identity as a childless individual
(Alexander, 1992; Veevers, 1973, 1980). The reaffirmation processes in the current study can be considered as selective perception. However, it is hard to determine whether the selective perception is the consequence of being childless or the reason for being childless.
Verification of the Study
Strauss and Corbin‘s (1998) strategies were developed specifically for grounded theory methods and are used to evaluate the theoretical model developed in this study.
Strauss and Corbin‘s criteria to evaluate the theory (1998) include concept generation, systematic relationships among concepts, density of categories, variation, broader conditions, presence of process, significance, and generalizability. Concepts and the relationships among concepts are building blocks of a theory. A good grounded theory
139 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 research should be able to demonstrate systematic linkages among concepts (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). This study identified three decision-making types, three phases of remaining voluntarily childless, and two driving forces of the process. The relationships among these concepts were delineated throughout the result section. For example, first, the decision-making types were identified based on the spouses‘ strength of the conviction. Next, how each spouse‘s strength of the conviction and importance of the relationship play out and, consequently, shape the process to reach the initial agreement to remain voluntarily childless were described. Moreover, transitions from one phase to the next were explained in regard to what keeps the couples from moving to the next phase and what pushes the couples to the next phase.
Density of categories ―refers to the presence of categories such as conditions, context, and consequences that are dimensionalized through properties‖ (Hall & Callery,
2001, p. 260). Many concepts and categories in the current study are dimensionalized.
For example, the three decision-making types serve as conditions or context of the process of remaining voluntarily childless. This study delineated the different paths and different ways of transitions from one phase to the next depending on the decision- making types.
Variation criterion is used to examine whether ―a concept has been examined under a series of different conditions and developed across its range of dimensions.‖
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 271). Strauss and Corbin (1998) argue that micro- and more macro-conditions which influence the phenomenon as well as processes which can explain actions over time under changing conditions need to be built into the theory. The
140 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 current study illustrated how voluntarily childless spouses balance varying degrees of the strength of the conviction and the importance of the relationship, how these two forces influence spouses‘ decision-making behaviors, and how the balancing acts themselves change over time.
The research findings are considered less significant if they do not produce new information. Strauss and Corbin (1998) emphasize the researcher‘s creativity and theoretical sensitivity in producing significant findings. The significance of the current study lies more on the relationships among categories and concepts rather than new found concepts. The goal of the current study was to develop a cohesive framework to encompass various aspects of the process of remaining voluntarily childless. As discussed extensively above, the current study is the first to conceptualize remaining voluntarily childless as a process with chronological sequences and to explicate the relationships among categories and concepts.
Generalizibility, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998), means the ability of the theory to endure ―continued testing through discourse, research, and application‖ (p. 272) over time. This is one criterion that cannot be currently evaluated. Generalizibility of the theoretical model developed in the current study need to be tested in future studies. Thus, suggestions for future research and the limitations of this study are discussed next.
Limitations and Future Research
The limitation of the current study is the homogeneous sample. Theoretical sampling for grounded theory requires a certain degree of homogeneity of the sample in that the participants have to contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon being
141 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 studied. However, a certain degree of diversity also is required to ensure variation (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Morse, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Sandelowski, 1995). The sample for this study consisted of married couples of various ages and lengths of the relationship and marriage. The spouses also were different in regard to the strength of the childless conviction. The diversity of the sample made it possible for the researcher to examine the concepts and the relationships among the concepts under different conditions. However, these conditions can only be considered as micro-conditions. All couples except for one couple were Caucasian and most of the spouses had an education level of high school graduation or higher in this study. To test the theoretical model under macro-conditions, more diverse samples in terms of ethnicity and socio-economic status would be needed.
Considering different beliefs and values on family and children across ethnicity, there may be other driving forces in the process of remaining voluntarily childless for different ethnicity groups that are not discovered in this study. Different socio-economic status also needs to be considered because ethnicity and socio-economic status can be closely related in many cases.
Another approach to test the theoretical model in this study would be to study individuals who were divorced because of a disagreement with their former spouses in regard to having or not having children or couples who became parents despite their initial agreement not to have children. For example, in what conditions did these spouses decide having a child or remaining childless was more important than staying in the relationship? By comparing their revisitation process and the mechanisms of how their revisitation ended with desertion of the agreement rather than reaffirmation, as with those
142 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 in this study, the ability of the models to explain the couples who stay childless can be tested.
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to develop a cohesive framework to explain couples‘ process of remaining voluntarily childless using grounded theory. Based on in-depth interviews with 21 married couples, a theoretical model illustrating the process was developed. It conceptualizes the process of remaining voluntarily childless as a dyadic process with chronological sequences. Moreover, efforts were made to incorporate cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of the process into the model.
Three decision-making types were identified: mutual early articulator couples, mutual postponer couples, and non-mutual couples. Mutual early articulator couples consisted of two early articulator individuals. Spouses in mutual postponer couples started their marriage either assuming they would have children someday or not knowing whether or not they wanted to have children. In non-mutual couples, couples‘ decision is made due to one spouse‘s strong conviction of childlessness.
Three phases of the decision-making process were identified: Agreement, acceptance, and closing of the door phases. The different groups of voluntarily childless couples tend to move through these three phases differently. Specifically, the process of reaching the initial agreement not to have children, or at least not for now, was different across the three decision-making groups. Mutual early articulator and mutual postponer couples reached an agreement instantly and easily. In contrast, the process was longer and more complicated for spouses in non-mutual couples. Spouses who wanted to have
143 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 children had to ―assess‖ whether they would be ―okay‖ with not having children before they could agree not to have children. Sometimes, spouses in this group would argue and counter-argue with one another about the merits of having vs. not having children.
During the agreement phase, many couples revisited their decision. However, each revisitation ended with a reaffirmation that they had made the right decision. They also reported many reaffirming situations, independent of revisitation, which had made their childless conviction stronger. Voluntarily childless couples sometimes wondered what it would have been like to have children, or what their child would have been like, which is called musings. These couples also had to deal with inquiries about their parenthood intention and pressure to have children from family. The strength of the conviction, experiences of pregnancy and subsequent abortion, and passing a certain age helped couples move from the agreement to the acceptance phase.
The most apparent difference between the agreement and the acceptance phase is the lack of revisitation with only one exception, when they got pregnant. However, couples in the acceptance phase still experienced reaffirming moments and musings. The inquiries and pressure from other people tended to decrease by the time couples reached the acceptance phase. The closing of the door phase is characterized by the physical inability to conceive a child.
Some couples moved from agreement to closing of the door through the acceptance phase, whereas others moved to acceptance through the closing of the door.
Couples stayed in the acceptance phase because they did not want to go through sterilization for several reasons; doctor‘s refusal, not wanting to have an elective surgery,
144 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 and fear of the surgery. These couples waited until the door was closed for them when they become physically unable to conceive a child due to either old age or sterilization for medical reasons. Some couples actively chose to close the door to finalize their decision. The path from agreement to acceptance through the closing of the door phase is unique for some non-mutual couples. Spouses who initially wanted to have children seemed to be able to reach the acceptance phase only after they got rid of the possibility of ever having children, i.e., sterilization.
In addition to the three phases of the process, two factors that drive the process were identified: The importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction.
The balance between these two forces of both spouses is what made these couples remain voluntarily childless. Moreover, these two forces influenced how couples reached a certain phase, how long they stayed in a certain phase, and how they navigated through the three phases.
In conclusion, the current study confirmed that remaining voluntarily childless as a couple needs to be understood as an interactive dyadic process in which couples navigate through phases over time. Moreover, their voluntary childlessness is the result of the balancing acts between the importance of the relationship and the strength of the conviction to remain childless so that the scale remains tipped toward childlessness.
145 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
EPILOGUE
My interest in voluntarily childlessness began while I was reading two novels.
The first book is about a married couple who struggle with conflicting wishes of the spouses in regard to whether or not they will have children. Both spouses were early articulators when they met and this fact was a strong attraction for both of them. However, after several years of marriage, the husband suddenly wanted to have a child. They could not reconcile their difference and got divorced. In the second book, the couple gets divorced after they found out that the husband was infertile. The wife wanted to have a biological child with both her and her (future) husband.
These stories were interesting to me because of the strength of their conviction to have or not to have a child, which could end a relationship or a marriage. As a single woman without a child in her late 30s, I was not sure whether or not having a child was important to me. I felt that having a child or not would depend on whether or not I would get into a serious relationship soon enough for the option of having a biological child to be viable, or whether my future partner would want to have a child or not. Thus, I wanted to understand how people decide not to have children. Because my general research interest has been couple processes in intimate relationships, it was natural for me to conceptualize the decision as a dyadic process. Even after finishing the study, I still do not know what I will do in terms of having or not having a child. However, I have a better understanding of what to expect.
I had been exclusively a quantitative researcher for a long time and this was my first qualitative inquiry. I enjoyed every minute of the process. Throughout the data
146 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 analysis, I found myself thinking like a quantitative researcher on many occasions, wanting the results to be tidy and simple and, thus, forcing my data to fit my ideas. I had to shed the quantitative researcher in me so that a qualtitative researcher could emerge. I am still a novice qualitative researcher. However, I feel that I am a better researcher thanks to this exciting, yet agonizing journey of mine.
147 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abma, J. C., & Martinez, G. M. (2006). Childlessness among older women in the United States: Trends and profiles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1045-1056.
Alexander, B. (1992). A path not taken: A cultural analysis of regrets and childlessness in the lives of older women. The Gerontologist, 32, 618-626.
Allan, G. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 205-210.
Ambert, A.-M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluation qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 879-893.
Amundsen, G. A., & Ramakrishnan, K. (2004). Vasectomy: A seminal analysis. Southern Medical Journal, 97, 54-60.
Arksey, H. (1996). Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update, 15, 1–4.
Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Has the price of motherhood declined over time? A cross-cohort comparison of the motherhood wage penalty. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 597-607.
Baker, D. M. (2002). Voluntary childless women: Choices and challenges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Bartlett, J. (1994). Will you be mother? Women who choose to say no. New York: New York University Press.
Bartz, D., & Greenberg, J. A. (2008). Sterilization in the United States. Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1, 23- 32.
Bean, F. D., & Leach, M. A. (2005). A critical disjuncture? The culmination of post- World War II socio-demographic and economic trends in the United States. Journal of Population Research, 22, 63-78.
Beck, C. T. (1993). Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15, 263-266.
Becker, S. (2007). Fertility intentions: Are the undecided more like those who want more or want no more children? Journal of Biosocial Science, 39, 137-145.
148 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Beitin, B. K. (2007). Qualitative research in marriage and family therapy: Who is in the interview. Contemporary Family Therapy, 30, 48–58.
Benn, P., & Lupton, M. (2002). Ethics in practice: Sterilisation of young, competent, and childless adults. British Medical Journal, 330, 1323-1325.
Bennett, L. A., & McAvity, K. (1994). Family research: A case for interviewing couples. In G. Handel & G. G. Whitchurch (Eds.), The psychosocial interior of the family (pp. 87-107). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Billari, F. (2005). Partnership, childbearing and parenting: Trends of the 1990s. In M. Macura, A. L. MacDonald, & W. Haug (Eds.), The new demographic regime: Population challenges and policy responses (pp. 63-94). New York and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
Blake, J. (1985). Catholicism and fertility: On attitudes of young Americans. Population and Development Review, 10, 329-340.
Bongaarts, J. (2002). The end of the fertility transition in the developed world. Population and Development Review, 28, 419–443.
Boring, C. C., Rochat, R. W., & Becerra, J. (1988). Sterilization regret among Puerto Rican women. Fertility & Sterility, 49, 973–81.
Botkin, J. R. (2001). Protecting the privacy of family members in survey and pedigree research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 207-211.
Bottorff, J. L., Lalaw, C., Johnson, J. L., Stewart, M., & Greaves, L. (2005). Tobacco use in intimate spaces: Issues in the study of couple dynamics. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 564-577.
Bram, S. (1978). Through the looking glass: Voluntary childlessness as a mirror for contemporary changes in the meaning of parenthood. In W. R. Miller & L. F. Newman (eds.), The first child and family formation (pp. 368-391). Chapel Hill, NC: Carolona Population Center.
Bram, S. (1985). Childlessness revisited: A longitudinal study of voluntarily childless couples, delayed parents, and parents. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 8, 46-66.
Brooks, C. (2007). "Being true to myself": A ground theory exploration of the process and meaning of the early articulation of intentional childlessness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, Palo Alto, CA.
149 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Bulcroft, R., & Teachman, J. (2004). Ambiguous constructions: Development of a childless or child-free life course. In M. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 116-135). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Burgwyn, D. (1981). Marriage without children. New York: Harper & Row.
Burkett, E. (2000). The baby boon: How family-friendly America cheats the childless. New York: The Free Press.
Burman, B., & de Anda, D. (1985). Parenthood or nonparenthood: A comparison of intentional families. Lifestyles: A Journal of Changing Patterns, 8, 69-84.
Burnside, B. M. (1977). Gender roles and lifestyle: A sociocultural study of voluntarily childlessness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Cain, M. (2001). The childless revolution: What it means to be childless today. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Callan, V. J. (1983). Factors affecting early and late deciders of voluntary childlessness. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 261-268.
Callan, V. J. (1987). Personal and marital adjustment of mothers and voluntarily and involuntarily childless wives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49, 847-856,
Callan, V. J., & Que Hee, R. W. (1984). The choice of sterilization: Voluntarily childless couples, mothers of one child by choice, and males seeking reversal of vasectomy. Journal of Biosocial Science, 16, 241-2489.
Campbell, A. (1999). Childfree and sterilized: Women's decisions and medical responses. London, UK: Wellington House.
Campbell, E. (1985). The childless marriage: An exploratory study of couples who donot want children. London, UK: Tavistock Publications.
Carroll, L. (2000). Families of two. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. (pp.81-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
150 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, R. E., Cumber, B., & Hartner, R. (1978). Decision-making patterns and postdecision adjustment of childfree husband and wives. Alternative Lifestyle, 1, 71-94.
Corin, M., Liefbroer, A. C., & Gierveld, J. J. (1996). It takes two to tango, doesn't it? The influence of couple characteristics on the timing of the birth of the first child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 117-126.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents. New York: Basic Books.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daniluk, J. C. (1999). When biology isn‘t destiny: Implications for the sexuality of women without children. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 33, 79-94.
Dever, M., & Saugeres, L. (2004). I forgot to have children: Understanding links between feminism, careers and voluntary childlessness. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, 6, 116-126.
Downs, B. (2003). Fertility of' American women: June 2002. (Current Population Rep., No. P20-548). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
Doyle, P. W. (1999). The lived experience of couples who are childless - A phenomenological study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX.
Durham, W. T. (2008). The rules-based process of revealing/concealing the family planning decisions of voluntarily child-free couples: A communication privacy management perspective. Communication Studies, 59, 132-147.
Edmondson, B., & Waldrop, J. (1993). Childless couples. American Demographics, 15, 34-35.
Emden, C., & Sandelowski, M. (1998). The good, the bad and the relative, part one: Conceptions of goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 4, 206-212.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
151 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Feldman, H (1981). A comparison of intentional parents and intentionally childless couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43, 593-600.
Finer, L. B., & Henshaw, S. K. (2006). Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38, 90-96.
Flynn, G. (1996). Backlash: Why single employees are angry. Personnel Journal, 75, 58- 65.
Gillespie, R. (1999). Voluntary childlessness in the United Kingdom. Reproductive Health Matters, 7, 43-53.
Gillespie, R. (2000). When no means no: Disbelief, disregard and deviance as discourses of voluntary childlessness. Women's Studies International Forum, 23, 223-234.
Gillespie, R. (2003). Childfree and feminine: Understanding the gender identity of voluntarily childless women. Gender & Society, 17, 122-136.
Gillespie, R. (2005). Contextualizing voluntary childlessness within a post modern model of reproduction: Implications for health and social needs. Critical Social Policy, 21, 139-159.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glauber, R. (2007). Marriage and the motherhood wage penalty among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 951-961.
Glick, P. C. (1975). Some recent changes in American families (Current Population Rep., No. P23-52). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 257-272.
Heaton, T. B., Jacobson, C. K., & Fu, Z. N. (1992). Religiosity of married couples and childlessness. Review of Religious Research, 33, 244-255.
152 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Heaton, T. B., Jacobson, C. K., & Holland, K. (1999). Persistence and change in decisions to remain childless. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 531-539.
Hertz, R. (1995). Separate but simultaneous interviewing of husband and wives: Making sense of their stories. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 429-451.
Hillis, S. D., Marchbanks, P. A., Tylor, L. R., & Peterson, H. B. (1999). Poststerilization regret: Findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 93, 889-895.
Hird, N, J., & Abshoff, K. (2000). Women without children: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31, 347-366.
Hodge, R. W., & Ogawa, N. (1991). Fertility change in contemporary Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Houseknecht, S. K. (1977). Reference group support for voluntary childlessness: Evidence for conformity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 39, 285-292.
Houseknecht, S. K. (1979a). Childlessness and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 259-265.
Houseknecht, S. K. (1979b). Timing of the decision to remain voluntarily childless: Evidence for continuous socialization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 81-96.
Houseknecht, S. H. (1987). Voluntary childlessness. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 369-395). New York: Plenum Press.
Jacobson, C. K., & Heaton, T. B. (1991). Voluntary childlessness among American men and women in the late 1980s. Social Biology, 38, 79-93.
Jamieson, D. J., Kaufman, S. C., Costello, C., Hillis, S. D., Marchbanks, P. A., Peterson, H. B., et al. (2002). A comparison of women's regret after vasectomy versus tubal sterilization. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 99, 1073-1080.
Jeffries, S., & Konnert, C. (2002). Regret and psychological well-being among voluntarily and involuntarily childless women and mothers. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 54, 89-106.
Jordan, B., James, S., Kay, H., & Redley, M. (1992). Trapped in Poverty? Labour-market decisions in low-income households. London, UK: Routledge.
153 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Kariminia, A., Saunders, D. M., & Chamberlain, M. (2002). Risk factors for strong regret and subsequent IVF request after having tubal ligation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 42, 226-529.
Kaufman, G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 128-144.
Kemkes-Grottenthaler, A. (2003). Postponing or rejecting parenthood: Results of a survey among female academic professionals. Journal of Biosocial Science, 35, 213–226.
Kiernan, K. E. (1989). Who remains childless? Journal of Biosocial Science, 21, 387-398.
Krishnan, V. (1993). Religious homogamy and voluntary childlessness in Canada. Sociological Perspectives, 36, 83-93.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kwon, S. A. (2005). Childless by choice: A qualitative exploration of Asian-White interracial couples in a childfree marriage (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA.
Lafayette, L. (1995). Why don't you have kids? Living a full life without parenthood. New York: Kensington Books.
Langdridge, D., Sheeran, P., & Connolly, K. (2005). Understanding the reasons for parenthood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23, 121-133.
LaRossa, R. (1978). Conjoint marital interview as a research strategy. Case Analysis, 1, 141-149.
LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837–857.
LaRossa, R., Bennett, L. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1981). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43, 303-313.
Leader, A., Galan, N., George, R., & Taylor, P. (1983). A comparison of definable traits in women requesting reversal of sterilization and women satisfied with sterilization. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 145, 198-202.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.
154 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95-115). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Letherby, G. (2002). Childless and bereft?: Stereotypes and realities in relation to ‗voluntary‘ and ‗involuntary‘ childlessness and womanhood. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 7-20.
Letherby, G. & Williams, C. (1999) Non-motherhood: Ambivalent autobiographies. Feminist Studies, 25, 719-728.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lisle, L. (1999). Without child: Challenging the stigma of childlessness. New York: Routledge.
Lunneborg, P. (1999). The chosen lives of childfree men. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Magarick, R. H., & Brown, R. A. (1981). Social and emotional aspects of voluntary childlessness in vasectomized childless men. Journal of Biosocial Science, 13, 157-167.
Maguire, M. C. (1999). Treating the dyad as the unit of analysis: A primer on three analytic approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 213-223.
Majumdar, D. (2004). Choosing childlessness: Intentions of voluntary childlessness in the United States. Michigan Sociological Review, 18, 108-135.
Marciano, T. D. (1978). Male pressure in the decision to remain childfree. Alternative Lifestyles, 1, 95-112.
Marcil-Gratton, N. (1988). Sterilization regret among women in metropolitan Montreal. Family Planning Perspectives, 20, 222-7.
Marshall, E. (1993). Not having children. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mawson, D. L. (2005). The meaning and experience of voluntary childlessness for married couples (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada.
155 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-300,
McClement, S. E., & Woodgate, R. L. (1998). Research with families in palliative care: Conceptual and methodological challenges. European Journal of Cancer Care, 7, 247-254.
Merriam-Webster (2004). The Merriam-Webster English dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.
Meyers, D. T. (2001). The rush to motherhood: Pronatalist discourse and women's autonomy. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26, 735-773.
Mollen, D, (2006). Voluntarily childfree women: Experiences and counseling considerations. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 269-284.
Morell, C. M. (1994). Unwomanly conduct: The challenges of intentional childlessness. New York: Routledge.
Morgan, S. P. (1991). Late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century childlessness. American Journal of Sociology, 97. 779-807.
Morse, J. M. (1998). What‘s wrong with random selection? Qualitative Health Research, 8, 733-735.
Morse, J. M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Carmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229-244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, Article 2. Retrieved April 2, 2009 from http://www.ualberta, ca/~ijqm
Mosher, W. D., Martinez, G. M., Chandra, A., Abma, J. C., & Willson, S. J. (2004). Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982– 2002. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, 350, 1– 36.
Myers, S. M. (1997) Marital uncertainty and childbearing. Social Forces, 75, 1271-1289.
Nason, E. M., & Poloma, M. M. (1976). Voluntarily childless couples: The emergence of a variant lifestyle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
156 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
O‘Connell, M. (1991). Late expectations: Childbearing patterns of American women for the 1990’s (Current Population Rep., No. P23-176). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Park, C. (2002). Stigma management among the voluntarily childless. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 21-45.
Park, K. (2005). Choosing childlessness: Weber's typology of action and motives of the voluntarily childless. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 372-402.
Paul, P. (2001). Childless by choice. American Demographics, 23, 44-50.
Pearce, L. (2002). The influence of early life course religious exposure on young adults‘ dispositions toward childbearing. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 325 – 340.
Peck, E., & Senderowitz, J. (Eds.). (1974). Pronatalism: The myth of mom and apple pie. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pitaktepsombati, P., & Janowitz, B. (1991). Sterilization acceptance and regret in Thailand. Contraception, 44, 623-37.
Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341-351.
Poston, D. L. (1990). Voluntary and involuntary childlessness among Catholic and Non- Catholic women: Are the patterns converging? Social Biology, 37, 251-265.
Poston, D. L., & Kramer, K. (1986). Patterns of childlessness among Catholic and Non- Catholic women in the US: A log-linear analysis. Sociological Inquiry, 54, 507- 522.
Raspa, R. F. (1993). Complications of vasectomy. American Family Physician, 48, 1264- 1268.
Robinson, J. D., & Skill, T. (2001). Five decades of families on television: From the 1950s through the 1990s. In J. Bryant & J. A. Bryant (Eds.), Television and the American family (2nd ed., pp. 139-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
157 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Rovi, S. L. D. (1994). Taking 'NO' for an answer: Using negative reproductive intentions to study the childless/childfree. Population Research and Policy Review, 13, 343- 365.
Rowland, D. T. (2007). Historical trends in childlessness. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1311-1337.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Focus on qualitative methods: Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 179-183.
Sandelowski, M., Holditch-Davis, D., & Harris, B. G. (1992). Using qualitative and quantitative methods: The transition to parenthood of infertile couples. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 301-322). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schoen, R., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., Fields, J., & Astone, N. M., (1997). Why do Americans want children? Population and Development Review, 23, 333-358.
Secombe, K. (1991). Assessing the costs and benefits of children- Gender comparisons among childfree husbands and wives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 191- 202.
Shain, R. N. (1986). Psychosocial consequences of vasectomy in developed and developing countries. In G. I. Zatuchni, A. Goldsmith, J. M. Spieler, & J. J. Sciarra (Eds.), Male contraception: Advances and future prospects (pp. 34-53). Philadelphia: Harper & Row.
Silka, L., & Kiesler, S. (1977). Couples who choose to remain childless. Family Planning Perspectives, 9, 16-25.
Somers, M. D. (1993). A comparison of voluntarily childfree adults and parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 643-650.
Spanier, G., Lewin, R., & Cole, R. (1975). Marital adjustment over the family life cycle: The issue of curvilinearilty. Journal of Marriage and Family, 37, 263-275.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
158 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Thompson, B., MacGillivray, I., & Fraser, C. (1991). Some factors in the choice of male or female sterilisation in Aberdeen. Journal of Biosicoal science, 23, 359-363.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 889-900.
Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34, 343-354.
Towill, K. L. (2003). The meaning and experience of starting a family for couple who were initially undecided about having children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada.
Valentine, G. (1999). Doing household research: Interviewing couples together and apart. Area, 31, 67-74.
Veevers, J. E. (1973). Voluntarily childless wives: An exploratory study. Sociology and Social Research, 57, 356-366.
Veevers, J. E. (1980). Childless by choice. Toronto: Butterworth.
Vissing, Y. M. (2002). Women without children: Nurturing lives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Weston, R., & Qu, L. (2001). Men's and women's reasons for not having children. Family Matters, 58, 10-15.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.
Wilcox, L. S., Chu, S. Y., Eaker, E. D., Zeger, S. L., & Peterson, H. B. (1991). Risk factors for regret after tubal sterilization: 5 years of follow-up in a prospective study. Fertility & Sterility, 55, 927–933.
World Health Organization (2001). Improving access to quality care in family planning: Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (2nd ed.). Geneva: Family and Reproductive Health, World Health Organization.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15, 283-290.
159 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX A
RECRUITMENT MATERIALS
1. University‘s daily email announcement:
Don’t have kids by Choice? Participate in a study and earn $50!
If you are older than 18 years (wife‘s age between 30 to 55), married for more than 5 years, don‘t have kids by choice, don‘t have any children or parenting experience from previous relationships, you and your spouse are invited to participate in a study entitled ―Journey to remain childless‖ and receive $50. If you are interested in talking about how you and your spouse decided not to have kids, please contact Kyunghee ―Kay‖
Lee at [email protected] or (806) 535-0705. Kay will contact you to answer questions and schedule an appointment. This study has been approved by the Institutional
Review Board at Texas Tech University.
2. Advertisement in newspapers and the Craig‘s List:
Don’t have kids by Choice? Participate in a study and earn $50!
If you are older than 18 years (wife‘s age between 30 and 55), married for more than 5 years, don‘t have kids by choice, don‘t have any children or parenting experience from previous relationships, you and your spouse are invited to participate in a study entitled ―Journey to remain childless‖ and receive $50. If you are interested in talking about how you and your spouse decided not to have kids, please contact Kyunghee ―Kay‖
160 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Lee at [email protected] or (806) 535-0705. Kay, a doctoral student at Texas
Tech University, will contact you to answer questions and schedule an appointment.
3. Email recruitment:
To whom it may concern:
My name is Kyunghee ―Kay‖ Lee and I am a doctoral student currently working on a
dissertation in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Texas
Tech University. I am conducting a research for my dissertation entitled ―Journey to
remain childless‖ and need couple participants. I am requesting your help in
spreading the word about my research. If you know any couple who may be
interested in participating, I ask that you please forward this information to them.
They will receive $50 for their participation.
To be able to participate in the study, they have to meet the criteria below:
Both partners are older than 18; especially wife has to be between 30 and 55
They are married for more than 5 years
They do not have kids by choice
They do not have any children or parenting experience from previous
relationships
I can be reached at [email protected] or 806-535-0705.
Thanks for your help,
Kyunghee ―Kay‖ Lee
161 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Flyer:
162 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX B
TELEPHONE INTERVIEW GUIDE
Hello! This is Kay from the childless couples study. I am the one who will be conducting the interview. I am calling because you expressed interest in our study.
Is your spouse with you? I have a few questions to ask you and your spouse separately to make sure that you qualify for our study.
(If the spouse is not available, get the contact number and time he/she can be reached).
First, I will tell you more about the study.
What I am interested in learning from you is how and when you and your spouse came to decide not to have children, and what you have done and are doing to stay childless. If you volunteer to participate, I would need 1-2 hours of your time for an interview. You and your spouse will be interviewed together by me. The interview will be recorded. You can decide when and where you want to have the interview. After the interview, I will ask you to write a journal about the interview. It can be short or long. It is totally up to you. I will ask you to write any thoughts and feelings you did not share during the interview for any reason, or thoughts and feelings that came to you after the interview, thoughts and feelings about the interview experience itself, any conversation you had with your spouse after the interview. You will have to write it within a week after the interview and send it to me. You can email it to me or I can provide a return envelope. For your time and effort, you will be compensated with $50.00 cash.
163 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Do you have any questions regarding the study and what participating in the study entails?
(answer any questions or concerns the participant may have)
Are you still interested in participating in the study?
No: Thank you very much for your interest and you can always call me back if you change your mind.
Yes: Great! Now I need to ask you some questions. Is it ok? Just to remind you, you are not required to answer any of the following questions should you feel uncomfortable.
How old are you?
How long have been married?
Do you have any biological or adoptive children from this or previous relationships?
Do you have any fertility problem which may prevent you from having a biological child, to your knowledge?
Have you and your spouse agreed that you do not want to have children?
When did you and your spouse first talk about having or not having children?
Did you and your spouse have same feelings about not having children from the beginning?
When did you and your spouse first reach an agreement not to have children?
How long has it been since you and your spouse decided to remain childless?
164 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
If the other spouse is not available: I will need to talk to your spouse before we can go any further. After I talk to your spouse, I will contact you again to let you know if you qualify for the study and schedule for the interview.
(Go through the procedure from 1 to 6 except for 2 with the other spouse when possible and inform they if they are qualified or not following the script in 8)
If the other spouse is available: Thank you very much for answering the questions.
Now can I talk to your spouse?
(Go through the procedure with the other spouse from 1 to 6 except for 2)
If not eligible: I‘m sorry to tell you that you do not exactly fit the requirements of the population I am studying at this point. I thank you very much for your interest and time.
If eligible: Great: I‘m happy to tell you that you qualify for the study. If you and your spouse are still interested in the study, we can set up a time and place for the interview.
165 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
You are invited to participate in a research study entitled ―Journey to Remain
Voluntarily Childless: A Grounded Theory of the Couples‘ Decision-Making Process.‖
This research is being conducted by Kyung-Hee ―Kay‖ Lee, under the guidance of Dr.
Anisa Zvonkovic (806-742-3000 ext. 279) of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Texas Tech University.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to understand what is the couples‘ process of remaining voluntarily childless. The main focus of the study is to learn how and when you and your spouse came to the decision not to have children, and what you have done and are doing to stay childless.
Procedure
If you volunteer to participate, 1-2 hours of your time for an interview will be required. Before the interview, you will be asked to fill out a short questionnaire asking for your background information and personal history charts. You and your spouse will be interviewed together by me. You do not have to answer questions you do not feel comfortable answering. The interview will be recorded. You can decide when and where you want to have the interview. After the interview, you will be asked to write a journal about the interview. It can be short or long. It is totally up to you. You may write any thoughts and feelings you did not share during the interview for any reason, or thoughts
166 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 and feelings that came to you after the interview, thoughts and feelings about the interview experience itself, and/or any conversation you had with your spouse after the interview. You will have to write it within a week after the interview and send it to me.
You can email it to Kay at [email protected] or a return envelope will be provided to you so that you can place it in the mail. I may contact you later with some additional questions.
Risks and Discomforts
There are no significant physical risks to participate in this study. Psychological risks are minimal; however, you may experience feelings of discomfort and distress. You can withdraw from the study anytime without losing what is promised to you, or decide not to answer any questions which make you uncomfortable. If you experience serious difficulties as a result of this research, you may also contact the Texas Tech University
Counseling Center at 806-742-3674 or the Marriage and Family Clinic at 806-742-3074.
If this research project causes to seek psychological help, you or your insurance will have to pay for treatment. The University does not have insurance to cover such treatment.
More information about these matters may be obtained from Dr. Hathleen Harris, Senior
Associate Vice President for Research, (806) 742-3884, Room 203 Holden Hall, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409.
Benefits
There are direct and indirect benefits for you by participating in the study. You will receive $50 in cash for participation. You will have a chance to learn more about
167 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 yourself, your spouse, and your relationship by talking about things that you have not thought about or talked about. You will also help other people who are considering to be childless because the findings of this study will illuminate how spouses make decisions to remain childless, what remaining voluntarily childless entails, and how spouses deal with everyday challenges of being voluntarily childless.
Confidentiality
Your participation is confidential. Any identifying information about you, except for age and ethnicity, will be changed in the written report so that nobody can identify you. All computer files including the digital recordings and transcripts of the interview and the journal will be kept in a password protected computer. You will be identified only with ID numbers and pseudonyms in all transcripts. Any printouts of the transcripts will be kept in a locked cabinet when they are not used for analysis.
Participation and Refusal
By signing this form you agree that your participation in this research study is strictly voluntary and that refusal to participate involves no penalty or loss of benefit.
Further, if you should choose to withdraw your participation at any time, you understand that you may do so with no penalty whatsoever.
Subject Rights
Dr. Zvonkovic and Kyunghee ―Kay‖ Lee will answer any questions you have about the study. The researcher conducting this study is Kyunghee ―Kay‖ Lee and she can be reached at [email protected] or 806-535-0705. Dr. Zvonkovic is her
168 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011 faculty adviser and can be reached at 806-742-3000 ext. 279. For questions about your rights as a subject or about injuries caused by this research, contact the Texas Tech
University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of
Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Or you can call (806)
742-3884.
By signing below, you are acknowledging that you read this form and that all of your questions were answered. You are also agreeing to participate in the study and to the recording portion of the project.
______
Signature of Participant Date
This consent form not valid after 10/30/2010.
169 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
I would like to get some information from you on your personal background. Please answer the following questions as completely and accurately as you can. Thank you!
1. How old are you? ______Years
2. How long have been married to your spouse? ______Years
3. Have you ever been divorced? ______Yes ______No
4. What is your race/ethnicity? Please indicate which of the following groups describes you best.
______Caucasian/White/Non-Hispanic ______African American/Black religiosity ______Hispanic/Latino ______Native American/American Indian or Alaska Native ______Asian/Asian American ______Multiracial ______Other (please explain ______)
5. Please indicate your own highest level of education. ______Some high school ______High school graduate ______Associates degree ______Technical school ______Some college ______Bachelor’s degree ______Master’s degree (Graduate school/law school, medical school) ______Doctoral degree
170 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
6. What is your current work status?
Working full-time Full-time students/not working Working part-time Full-time homemaker Working full-time while attending school Unemployed/looking for work Working part-time while attending school Other ______
7. What is your occupation? ______
8. What (approximately) is YOUR OWN annual income?
9. What (approximately) is YOUR HOUSEHOLD annual income?
10. What is your religious denomination?
______Baptist ______Buddhist ______Catholic ______Evangelical Christian ______Hindu ______Jewish ______LDS (Mormon) ______Muslim ______Protestant ______No formal religious affiliation ______Other (please explain ______)
171 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
11. On a scale from 0 (not at all religious) to 5 (very religious), how religious are you?
Not at all religious 0 ----- 1 ----- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 Very religious
12. In the last 12 MONTHS, how often have you been attending religious services, not including weddings, baptisms, and funerals?
______More than once a week ______Once a week ______2-3 times a month ______Many times a year ______Few times a year ______Never
172 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX E
PERSONAL HISTORY CHART
PERSONAL HISTORY CHART
Year: ______Year: ______15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 First time you, individually decided to remain childless Met your spouse Started living together Engagement Wedding First time you and your spouse talk about having or not having kids You and your spouse decided to remain childless together Major changes in work Birth of a baby of a family member or a friend Illness of a family member Own illness Partner’s illness Death of a family member Menopause abortion Sterilization Sterilization of my spouse
173 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
PERSONAL HISTORY CHART
Year: ______Year: ______39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 First time you, individually decided to remain childless Met your spouse Started living together Engagement Wedding First time you and your spouse talk about having or not having kids You and your spouse decided to remain childless together Major changes in work Birth of a baby of a family member or a friend Illness of a family member Own illness Partner’s illness Death of a family member Menopause abortion Sterilization Sterilization of my spouse
174 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW GUIDE
I‘d like to learn about things you had to do and are doing to remain childless as a couple and how you two make decisions on those matters.
1. Tell me about your decision to remain childless. Would you walk me through the discussions you two had to reach the agreement, starting with the first discussion you two had about having or not having kids?
2. I‘d like to know how you announced your decision to your family and friends after you two made the decision. Would you walk me through what happened when you told your family or friend that you did not plan to have kids for the first time?
Whether and how they discussed about the announcement
Other occasions
3. Would you tell me about the strongest confrontation you experienced with anybody, for example family, friends, or co-workers, about your decision?
4. How do you handle when people ask you about kids? Would you walk me through a typical situation?
Whether their responses are different depending on the situations
How they decide which response to use
175 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
5. Now, can you tell me about times when you felt pressure to have kids and what you did about it?
6. Now I‘m going to ask you about times when you revisited or doubted the decision and times when you were convinced that you made the right decision. Let‘s start with times when you revisited the decision. Would one of you first walk me through the time when you most seriously revisited the decision? I will come back to the other later with the same question.
How do they or don‘t they share the experience with their spouse
What the other spouse did or didn‘t
Other occasions
7. Now let‘s move on to the times when you were so glad that you didn‘t have kids.
Again, would one of you first walk me through the time when you were most strongly glad that you didn‘t have kids first?
How do they or don‘t they share the experience with their spouse
Other occasions
8. Now I‘d like to know what you had to and are doing to prevent pregnancy. First, I‘d like you to tell me how your contraceptive methods have changed since the beginning of your relationship till present and how you two made decisions on contraceptive methods.
176 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
Would you walk me through the changes and the decisions, starting with the first contraceptive method you used?
9. I‘d also like to know whether you have used an abortion to stay childless. Have you?
If they say yes: would you walk me through how you decided?
10. What advice would you give to a couple who just decided not to have kids about the whole process?
11. Is there anything else I should know about what you had to do and are doing to remain childless as a couple? Is there anything you want to add?
177 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX G
REFLECTIVE JOURNAL WRITING INSTRUCTIONS
For this part of the study, I want you to reflect on the interview and write down:
What the interview experience was like for you;
What feelings or thoughts you had during or after the interview;
What kind of conversation you had with your spouse about the interview experience;
Anything you thought of after the interview that you think will be helpful for me;
You can write as much or as little as you like. It can be hand-written or typed on the computer. It can take any forms: drawings; a letter to yourself, your spouse, or to me; a diary entry; a list and so on. You can be as creative as you want to be.
Please complete it within a week after the interview. You can email it to me or mail it to me in the pre-addressed envelope I provided to you.
If you don‘t want to share what is in your journal—either a part of it or the whole journal— with your spouse, please indicate it as such so that I don‘t use that part of your journal in my written report.
If you have any questions about the journal writing, please feel free to contact me via email or phone.
178 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX H
AN EXAMPLE OF OPEN CODING
179 Texas Tech University, Kyung Hee Lee, August 2011
APPENDIX I
AN EXAMPLE OF AXIAL CODING
180