Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 625–633 | Cite as

Exploring U.S. Men’s Birth Intentions

  • Laura Duberstein LindbergEmail author
  • Kathryn Kost


While recently there have been renewed interest in women’s childbearing intentions, the authors sought to bring needed research attention to understanding men’s childbearing intentions. Nationally representative data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was used to examine pregnancy intentions and happiness for all births reported by men in the 5 years preceding the interview. We used bivariate statistical tests of associations between intention status, happiness about the pregnancy, and fathers’ demographic characteristics, including joint race/ethnicity and union status subgroups. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios of a birth being intended, estimated separately by father’s union status at birth. Using comparable data and measures from the male and female NSFG surveys, we tested for gender differences intentions and happiness, and examined the sensitivity of our results to potential underreporting of births by men. Nearly four out of ten of births to men were reported as unintended, with significant variation by men’s demographic traits. Non-marital childbearing was more likely to be intended among Hispanic and black men. Sixty-two percent of births received a 10 on the happiness scale. Happiness about the pregnancy varied significantly by intention status. Men were significantly happier than women about the pregnancies, with no significant difference in intention status. Potential underreporting of births by men had little impact on these patterns. This study brings needed focus to men’s childbearing intentions and improves our understanding of the context of their role as fathers. Men need to be included in strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy.


Unintended pregnancy Pregnancy intentions Childbearing Men Fathering NSFG 



This study was supported by award R01HD068433 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD or the National Institutes of Health.


  1. 1.
    Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2011). Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception, 84(5), 478–485.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 topics and objectives (2010). Washington, D.C., US Government Printing Office. 8-30-2011.
  3. 3.
    Klerman, L. V. (2000). The intendedness of pregnancy: A concept in transition. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 155–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santelli, J. S., Lindberg, L. D., Orr, M. G., Finer, L. B., & Speizer, I. (2009). Toward a multidimensional measure of pregnancy intentions: Evidence from the United States. Studies in Family Planning, 40(2), 87–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (1998). Nurturing fatherhood: improving data and research on male fertility, family formation, and fatherhood. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Korenman, S., Kaestner, R., & Joyce, T. (2002). Consequences for infants of parental disagreement in pregnancy intention. Perspective Sex Reproduction Health, 34(4), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams, L., Abma, J. C., & Piccinino, L. (1999). The correspondence between intention to avoid childbearing and subsequent fertility: A prospective analysis. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(5), 220–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leathers, S. J., & Kelley, M. A. (2000). Unintended pregnancy and depressive symptoms among first-time mothers and fathers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(4), 523–531.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waller, M. R., & Bitler, M. P. (2008). The link between couples’ pregnancy intentions and behavior: Does it matter who is asked? Perspective Sex Reproduction Health, 40(4), 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bronte-Tinkew, J., Ryan, S., Carrano, J., & Moore, K. A. (2007). Resident fathers pregnancy intentions, prenatal behaviors and links to involvement with infants. Journal Marriage Family, 69, 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bronte-Tinkew, J., Scott, M., & Horowitz, A. (2009). Male pregnancy intendedness and childrens mental proficiency and attachment security during toddlerhood. Journal Marriage Family, 71, 1001–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campbell, A. A., & Mosher, W. D. (2000). A history of the measurement of unintended pregnancies and births. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(3), 163–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinez, G.M., (2006). Fertility, contraception, and fatherhood: Data on men and women from Cycle 6 2002 of the National Survey of Family Growth. Report No.: 26 National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abma, J. C., Chandra, A., Mosher, L., & Piccinino, L. (1997). Fertility, family planning, and women’s health: new data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Statistic, 23(19), 1–114.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer, R. C., Stanford, J. B., Jameson, P., & DeWitt, M. J. (1999). Exploring the concepts of intended, planned, and wanted pregnancy. Journal of Family Practice, 48(2), 117–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moos, M. K., Petersen, R., Meadows, K., Melvin, C. L., & Spitz, A. M. (1997). Pregnant women’s perspectives on intendedness of pregnancy. Womens Health Issues, 7(6), 385–392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller, W. B. (1994). Reproductive decisions: How we make them and how they make us. Advances in Population: Psychosocial Perspectives, 2, 1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartnet, C. (2012). Are Hispanic women happier about unintended births? Population Research and Policy Review, 31(5), 683–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ventura, S. J. (2009). Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics, 18, 1–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Furstenberg, F. (2009). If Moynihan had only known: Race, class, and family change in the late twentieth century. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Joyner, K., Peters, H., Hynes, K., Sikora, A., Rubenstein, J., & Rendall, M. (2012). The quality of male fertility data in major U.S. surveys. Demography, 49(1), 101–124.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lepkowski, J. M., Mosher, W. D., Davis, K. E., Groves, R. M., & Van, H. J. (2010). The 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth: sample design and analysis of a continuous survey. Vital Health Statistic, 2(150), 1–36.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, R. K., & Kost, K. (2007). Underreporting of induced and spontaneous abortion in the United States: an analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Studies in Family Planning, 38(3), 187–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mosher, W.D., Jones, J., Abma, J.C. (2012). Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010. Report No.: 55. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stata Statistical Software [computer program]. Version Release 12. College Statio, TX: StataCorp LP; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smock, P., & Greenland, F. (2010). Diversity in pathways to parenthood: patterns, implications, and emerging research directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zolna, M. R., & Lindberg, L. D. (2012). Unintended pregnancy: Incidence and outcomes among young adult unmarried women in the United States, 2001 and 2008. New York: Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Manning, W., & Landale, N. (1996). Racial and ethnic differences in the role of cohabitation in premarital childbearing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson, T., O’Rourke, D., Chavez, N., Sudman, S., Warnecke, R., & Lacey, L. (1997). Survey cognition and response to surveys questions among culturally diverse populations. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. D. De Leeuw, & C. Dippo (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 87–114). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stewart, A. L., & Napoles-Springer, A. M. (2003). Advancing health disparities research: can we afford to ignore measurement issues? Medical Care, 41(11), 1207–1220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bachrach, C., & Sonenstein, F. (1998). Male fertility and family formation: Research and data needs on the pathways to fatherhood. In Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family statistics (Ed.), Nurturing fatherhood: Improving data and research on male fertility, family formation and fatherhood (pp. 45–98). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Office of Family Planning,Department of Health and Human Services.(2007) Title X male involvement prevention services.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chabot, M., Lewis, C., de Bocanegra, H., & Darney, P. (2011). Correlates of receiving reproductive health care services among US men aged 15–44 years. America Journal Mens Health, 5(4), 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Guttmacher InstituteNewyorkUSA

Personalised recommendations