Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 478–487 | Cite as

Pregnancy Wantedness and Child Attachment Security: Is There a Relationship?

  • Warren Bailley MillerEmail author
  • Marjorie R. Sable
  • Annamaria Csizmadia


Objectives Few studies examine the consequences of unwanted pregnancy on child development, and most of those that do, use measures of pregnancy intention. Here we use measures of pregnancy wantedness, together with measures of maternal motivation, to examine the potential effect of wantedness on the child’s attachment relationship with its mother. Methods Using data collected from 78 primiparous Black women who had applied for an Early Head Start program in a Midwestern city and who had completed a pregnancy acceptance questionnaire, we created four measures: Pregnancy Wantedness, Positive Maternal Motivation, Negative Maternal Motivation, and Social Reinforcement for the pregnancy. Each child had been assessed at about 11 months of age for Difficult Temperament and at about 14 months of age for Attachment Security. We then tested both regression and linear structural equation models in order to predict the child’s attachment security with the remaining variables. Results Pregnancy Wantedness is predicted with an R2 of .198 by Negative Maternal Motivation and Social Reinforcement but does not predict Attachment Security, which is predicted with an R2 of .375 by Positive Maternal Motivation, Negative Maternal Motivation, and Difficult Temperament. Conclusions Our analyses indicate that in a multivariate context there is no relationship between the wantedness of a pregnancy and the subsequent attachment security of the child for this sample of low-income Black primiparous mothers. This finding is related to some conceptual and measurement issues of pregnancy wantedness, the irrelevance of some aspects of wantedness to parent–child interaction, and the powerful effect of maternal motivations on child attachment security.


Pregnancy wantedness Maternal motivation Attachment security Low-income Early head start 



The authors thank Kathy Thornburg, Jean Ispa, and Mark Fine for permission to use data collected as part of their independent research with one of 17 programs participating in the national Early Head Start evaluation. The evaluation was conducted by the Early Head Start Research Consortium, which consisted of representatives from 17 programs, 15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and the Administration for Children and Families, DHHS.


  1. 1.
    Trussell, J., Vaughan, B., & Stanford, J. (1999). Are all contraceptive failures unintended pregnancies? Evidence from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. [see comment]. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(5), 246–247, 260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afable-Munsuz, A., Speizer, I., Magnus, J. H., & Kendall, C. (2006). A positive orientation toward early motherhood is associated with unintended pregnancy among New Orleans youth. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(3), 265–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klerman, L. V. (2000). The intendedness of pregnancy: a concept in transition. [comment]. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 155–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sable, M. R. (1999). Pregnancy intentions may not be a useful measure for research on maternal and child health outcomes. [see comment][comment]. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(5), 249–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sable, M. R., & Libbus, M. K. (2000). Pregnancy intention and pregnancy happiness: Are they different? Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 191–196. Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    London K., Peterson L., & Piccinino, L. (1995). The national survey of family growth: principle source of statistics on unintended pregnancy: Supplement to Chapter 2. In S. S. Brown L. & Eisenberg (Eds.), The best intentions (pp. Appendix C, 286–295). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bachrach, C., & Newcomer, S. (1999). Intended pregnancies and unintended pregnancies: Distinct categories or opposite ends of a continuum? Family Planning Perspectives, 31(5), 251–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stanford, J. B., Hobbs, R., Jameson, P., DeWitt, M. J., & Fischer, R. C. (2000). Defining dimensions of pregnancy intendedness. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 183–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, W. (1994). Reproductive decisions: How we make them and how they make us. In L. Severy (Ed.), Advances in Population (pp. 1–27). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baydar, N. (1995). Consequences for children of their birth planning status. Family Planning Perspectives, 27(6), 228–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Axinn, G., Barber, J. S., & Thornton, A. (1998). The long-term impact of parents’ childbearing decisions on children’s self-esteem. Demography, 35, 435–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kubicka, L., Matejcek, Z., David, H. P., Dytrych, Z., Miller, W. B., & Roth, Z. (1995). Children from unwanted pregnancies in Prague, Czech Republic revisited at age thirty. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 91(6), 361–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kubicka, L., Roth, Z., Dytrych, Z., Matecjcek, Z., & David, H. P. (2002). The mental health of adults born of unwanted pregnancies, their siblings, and matched controls: A 35-year follow-up study from Prague, Czech Republic. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 190, 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, W. B., & Rodgers, J. L. (2001). The ontogeny of human bonding systems: Evolutionary origins, neural bases, and psychological manifestations. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, W. B. (1992). Personality traits and developmental experiences as antecedents of childbearing motivation. Demography, 29(2), 265–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller, W. B. (1995). Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 473–487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120, 223–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crowe, C. (1985). Women want it: In vitro fertilization and women’s motivations for participation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Condon, J. T. (1993). The assessment of antenatal emotional attachment: development of a questionnaire instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66(Pt 2), 167–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Condon, J. T., & Corkindale, C. (1997). The correlates of antenatal attachment in pregnant women. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70(Pt 4), 359–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cranley, M. S. (1981). Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment during pregnancy. Nursing Research, 30(5), 281–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muller, M. E. (1993). Development of the prenatal attachment inventory. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(2), 199–211 discussion 211–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachment and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vaughn, B. E., & Bost, K. K. (1999). Attachment and temperament: Redundant, independent, or interacting influences on interpersonal adaptation and personality development. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 198–225). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, W. B., Feldman, S. S., & Pasta, D. J. (2002). The effect of the nurturant bonding system on child security of attachment and dependency. Social Biology, 49(3–4), 125–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (1999). Temperament and attachment: One construct or two? Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 27, 181–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McElwain, N. L., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2006). Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress as predictors of infant-mother security. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 247–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ispa, J. M., Sable, M. R., Porter, N., & Csizmadia, A. (2007). Pregnancy acceptance, parenting stress, and toddler attachment in low-income Black families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (2002). The motivational substrate of unintended and unwanted pregnancy. Journal of Applied and Biobehavioral Res, 7(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rothbart, M. K. (1981). Measurement of temperament in infants. Child Development, 52, 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waters, E. (1995). Appendix A. The attachment Q-set (Version 3.0). In E. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models: New growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the society for research in child development (pp.234–246). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amos Development Corporation. (2005). Amos 6.0 User’s Guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cacioppo, J. T., & Bernston, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davidson, R. J., & Irwin, W. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 11–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Warren Bailley Miller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marjorie R. Sable
    • 2
  • Annamaria Csizmadia
    • 3
  1. 1.Transnational Family Research InstituteAptosUSA
  2. 2.University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Social WorkColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Human Development and Family StudiesUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations