“My Religion Picked My Birth Control”: The Influence of Religion on Contraceptive Use

Abstract

This research investigates the influence of religious preference and practice on the use of contraception. Much of earlier research examines the level of religiosity on sexual activity. This research extends this reasoning by suggesting that peer group effects create a willingness to mask the level of sexuality through the use of contraception. While it is understood that certain religions, that is, Catholicism does not condone the use of contraceptives, this research finds that Catholics are more likely to use certain methods of contraception than other religious groups. With data on contraceptive use from the Center for Disease Control’s Family Growth Survey, a likelihood probability model is employed to investigate the impact religious affiliation on contraception use. Findings suggest a preference for methods that ensure non-pregnancy while preventing feelings of shame and condemnation in their religious communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The log-likelihood function L(β) has a gradient and hessian given by:

    \( \begin{gathered} \frac{\partial L(\beta )}{\partial \beta } = \sum {\left[ {\theta^{\prime } (C_{i} - e^{{\beta^{\prime } \theta }} )} \right]} = 0 \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial^{2} L(\beta )}}{\partial \beta \partial \beta '} = \sum {\left[ { -^{\prime } (C_{i}^{\prime } C_{i} )e^{{\beta^{\prime } \theta }} )} \right]} < 0 \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \)

    Equating the gradient to zero solves for β, and the negativity of the hessian ensures a global maximum of the log-likelihood estimator of the coefficients in β. If the contraception method during sexual activity in question is binary in that the individual engages in it (S i  = 1) or not (S i  = 0), then a Logit specification of C i is:

    \( {\text{Prob}}(C_{i} = 1|x) = \Upphi (\beta \theta ) \)

    where Φ(·) is a standard normal distribution. The log-likelihood function is

    \( L(\beta ) = \ln [(1 - \Upphi (\beta^{\prime } \theta )] + \ln \Upphi (\beta^{\prime } \theta ). \)

  2. 2.

    Adhoc Methods include, (Condom, withdrawal, Rhythm, temperature, Diaphragm, Female condom, Foam, Suppository and Emergency Contraception) and Non Adhoc Methods include (Pill, Vasectomy, Sterilization, Injectables, Implants, IUD, hormones, Patch).

References

  1. Arano, K. G., & Blair, B. (2008). Modeling religious behavior and economic outcome: Is the relationship bicausal? Evidence from a Survey of Mississippi households. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2043–2053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Azzi, C., & Ehrenberg, R. (1975). Household allocation of time and church attendance. Journal of Political Economy, 83(1), 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Billy, J. O. G., Brewster, K. L., & Grady, W. R. (1994). Contextual effects on the sexual behavior of adolescent women. Journal of Marriage Family, 56, 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gaydos, L. M., Smith, A., Hogue, C., & Bevins, J. (2010). An emerging field in religion and reproductive health. Journal of Religion and Health, 49, 473–484.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grady, W., Klepinger, D., & Billy, J. (1993). The influence of community characteristics on the practice of effective contraception. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(1), 4–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Granger, M., & Price, G. N. (2004). Does religion have an impact on risky sexual behavior?: An economic approach. MURC PA-04-115.

  8. Granger, M. D., & Price, G. N. (2007). The tree of science and original sin: Do christian religious beliefs constrain the supply of scientists? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(1), 144–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grasmick, H., Bursik, R., & Cochran, J. (1991). Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s: Religiosity and taxpayers’ inclinations to cheat. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansson, I., & Stuart, C. (1990). Malthusian selection of preferences. American Economic Review, 80(3), 529–544.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heineck, G. (2001). The determinants of church attendance and religious human capital in Germany: Evidence from panel data. DIW discussion paper no. 263, pp. 1–23.

  12. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hollander, G., Kahana, N., & Lecker, T. (2003). Religious and secular human capital: An economic model. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 489–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lammers, C., Ireland, M., Resnick, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Influences on adolescents’ decision to postpone onset of sexual intercourse: A survival analysis of virginity among youths aged 13 to 18 years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26(1), 42–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lehrer, E. (1995). The effects of religion on the labor supply of married women. Social Science Research, 24, 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McCleary, R. M., & Barros, R. J. (2006). Religion and economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meier, A. M. (2003). Adolescents’ transition to first intercourse: Religiosity, and attitudes about sex. Social Forces, 81(3), 1031–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from The National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rogers, A. R. (1994). The evolution of time preference by natural selection. American Economic Review, 84(3), 460–481.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stark, R. (1996). Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of Religion, 57, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thornier, A., & Camburn, D. (1987). The influence of the family on premarital sexual attitudes and behavior. Demography, 24(3), 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marriage Family, 51, 641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Whitbeck, L. B., Yoder, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Early adolescent sexual activity: A developmental study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 934–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilcox, B. L., Rostosky, S. S., Randall, B. A., et al. (2001). Reasons for hope: A review of research on adolescent religiosity and sexual behavior. In B. D. Whitehead, B. L. Wilcox, & S. S. Rostosky (Eds.), Keeping the faith: The role of religion and faith communities in preventing teen pregnancy (pp. 31–82). Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas J. Hill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hill, N.J., Siwatu, M. & Robinson, A.K. “My Religion Picked My Birth Control”: The Influence of Religion on Contraceptive Use. J Relig Health 53, 825–833 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-013-9678-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contraception
  • Family planning
  • Religiosity
  • Religion
  • Race
  • Poverty
  • Choice