Pregnancy wantedness: attitude stability over time.

L Williams, L Piccinino, J Abma, F Arguillas
{"title":"Pregnancy wantedness: attitude stability over time.","authors":"L Williams,&nbsp;L Piccinino,&nbsp;J Abma,&nbsp;F Arguillas","doi":"10.1080/19485565.2001.9989036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this analysis we have compared two attitudinal reports, from interviews two years apart, of the same event for consistency over time. We have looked at women's self-reports, and at their proxy reports for partners' attitudes as well. The inconsistent reports of women's own views tended to shift slightly toward more favorable reports at the second interview (15 percent more positive versus 10 percent more negative). More specifically, 7.5 percent of women who reported at Time 1 that their most recent births had been unwanted switched to more favorable reports at Time 2, and about the same percentage of women who reported Table 4, the findings would suggest that some of the groups typically considered to be most \"at risk\" were those who were also most apt to report inconsistently. This findings should signal some concern in the policy community. Net of other factors, there is no effect of income, but a number of at-risk groups remained significantly more likely than others to change their reports over time. Of particular concern is the finding that women who reported their pregnancies as mistimed or unwanted were so much more likely to change their reports over time than were women who initially said that their pregnancies had been well timed. When we look at the direction of change, it is clear that, with some exceptions, the more \"at risk\" groups were more likely to shift in a more negative direction, while the less \"at risk\" groups were less likely to do so; and at times they were more likely to report more favorably at the second interview. Although somewhat hampered by small sample sizes in the analysis of Time 1 mistimed and unwanted reports, results confirmed that certain subgroups were not only more apt to report inconsistently, they were also more likely to do so in specific directions. To the extent that future survey questions can emphasize to respondents that they should focus on the time of conception, and not on current status, inconsistency across groups may be reduced.</p>","PeriodicalId":76544,"journal":{"name":"Social biology","volume":"48 3-4","pages":"212-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19485565.2001.9989036","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2001.9989036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

In this analysis we have compared two attitudinal reports, from interviews two years apart, of the same event for consistency over time. We have looked at women's self-reports, and at their proxy reports for partners' attitudes as well. The inconsistent reports of women's own views tended to shift slightly toward more favorable reports at the second interview (15 percent more positive versus 10 percent more negative). More specifically, 7.5 percent of women who reported at Time 1 that their most recent births had been unwanted switched to more favorable reports at Time 2, and about the same percentage of women who reported Table 4, the findings would suggest that some of the groups typically considered to be most "at risk" were those who were also most apt to report inconsistently. This findings should signal some concern in the policy community. Net of other factors, there is no effect of income, but a number of at-risk groups remained significantly more likely than others to change their reports over time. Of particular concern is the finding that women who reported their pregnancies as mistimed or unwanted were so much more likely to change their reports over time than were women who initially said that their pregnancies had been well timed. When we look at the direction of change, it is clear that, with some exceptions, the more "at risk" groups were more likely to shift in a more negative direction, while the less "at risk" groups were less likely to do so; and at times they were more likely to report more favorably at the second interview. Although somewhat hampered by small sample sizes in the analysis of Time 1 mistimed and unwanted reports, results confirmed that certain subgroups were not only more apt to report inconsistently, they were also more likely to do so in specific directions. To the extent that future survey questions can emphasize to respondents that they should focus on the time of conception, and not on current status, inconsistency across groups may be reduced.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
想要怀孕:态度随时间的稳定。
在这个分析中,我们比较了两份态度报告,从相隔两年的采访中,同一事件随时间的一致性。我们研究了女性的自我报告,以及她们对伴侣态度的代理报告。在第二次采访中,关于女性自己观点的不一致的报道倾向于略微转向更有利的报道(15%的正面报道对10%的负面报道)。更具体地说,在时间1中报告自己最近的生育是意外的女性中,有7.5%的人在时间2中转向了更有利的报告,而在表4中报告的女性中,大约有相同比例的人,研究结果表明,一些通常被认为是最“危险”的群体,也是那些最容易报告不一致的群体。这一发现应该表明政策界的一些担忧。除其他因素外,收入并没有影响,但随着时间的推移,一些高危人群比其他人更有可能改变他们的报告。特别值得关注的是,报告自己怀孕不合时宜或不希望怀孕的女性比最初说自己怀孕时机合适的女性更有可能随着时间的推移改变自己的报告。当我们观察变化的方向时,很明显,除了一些例外,“风险”越大的群体更有可能向更消极的方向转变,而“风险”越低的群体则不太可能这样做;有时,他们更有可能在第二次面试中表现得更积极。虽然在分析时间1的错误时间和不需要的报告时,由于样本量小而受到一定的阻碍,但结果证实,某些亚组不仅更倾向于报告不一致,而且更有可能在特定的方向上这样做。在某种程度上,未来的调查问题可以向受访者强调,他们应该关注受孕的时间,而不是目前的状态,这可能会减少群体之间的不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Size‐dependent reproductive success in Gambian men: Does height or weight matter more? Introduction to Part II Fatherhood history and later life health and mortality in England and Wales: A record linkage study Men's life course trajectories: Exploring the differences by cohort and social class The marriage squeeze in Colombia, 1973–2005: The role of excess male death
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1