Poster #103 - Typologies and Predictors of Pregnancy Intention and Prenatal Father Involvement

• In Event: 2-055 - Poster Session 06
  In Poster Session: PS 06 Section - Family Context & Processes

Integrative Statement

Nearly one-half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are classified as unintended (Finer & Zolna, 2016). Unintended pregnancy is associated with a number of risk factors including young maternal age, low SES, delayed prenatal care, and low birth weight (Mohllajee et al., 2007). Limited father involvement during the prenatal period is also associated with poor pre- and postpartum child outcomes (e.g., Martin et al., 2007). Here we seek to extend such work by (1) identifying types of families based on pregnancy intention and father involvement during the pregnancy and (2) exploring parental risky histories—mother childhood adversity and mother/father history of criminality—as predictors of family type.
Latent-class analysis was applied to mother-reported pregnancy intention (i.e., timing of pregnancy, maternal intention to conceive) and father involvement during pregnancy (e.g., wanted baby, attended sonogram) using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (N = 9,900). Four types of families were identified (see Table 1): High Pregnancy Intention-High Father Involvement (Group I: n = 6,650), Moderate Pregnancy Intention-Low Father Involvement (II: n = 1,400), Moderate Pregnancy Intention-Very Low Father Involvement (III: n = 400), and Low Pregnancy Intention-Moderate Father Involvement (IV: n = 1,450). Parental history measures used to distinguish the four family types focused on self-reported criminality (e.g., drinking/drug problem, prior arrests) and maternal childhood adversity (e.g., childhood SES, father absence, use of welfare). Chi-square tests were used to illuminate differences between family types on measures of self-reported criminality and maternal childhood adversity; see Tables 1 and 2. Group-I families scored lowest on father criminality, mother criminality, and mother childhood adversity, whereas Group IV scored highest on all these variables (although maternal childhood adversity was not significantly different than Group III). Groups II and III scored intermediate on parental history and did not differ from each other.
It was not unexpected that Group I, High Pregnancy Intention-High Father Involvement, scored lowest on parental risky histories. What was surprising, however, was that Group IV—Low Pregnancy Intention-Average Father Involvement—scored highest on mother criminality, father criminality, and mother childhood adversity. These results may indicate that having an unintended pregnancy is an especially strong indicator, more so than prenatal father involvement, for families that have risky backgrounds. Additionally, these findings might also suggest that fathers with at-risk backgrounds may be compensating for their adverse histories by becoming more involved during the pregnancy. Subsequent research may seek to illuminate whether these types of families, identified during the prenatal period, predict later parenting and child outcomes.

Authors

• Sarah Hartman, University of California, Davis
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kristina Renee Sayler, University of California, Davis
  Presenting Author

• Jay Belsky, University of California, Davis
  Non-Presenting Author