Antecedents of Pregnancy Intention and Prenatal Father Engagement: A Dyadic and Typological Approach

Abstract

Prior research indicates that unintended pregnancy is associated with poorer maternal well-being, decreased relationship stability, and compromised child health and development, whereas prenatal father engagement is linked to lower maternal stress and enhanced infant health. Here we extend such research, considering unintended pregnancy and prenatal father engagement in typological perspective to (1) identify different types of (prenatal) families; (2) explore whether problematic antecedent factors predict family type; and (3) whether family type forecasts postnatal parenting attitudes, father involvement, and marital conflict. Latent-class analysis using a subsample of participants from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (n = 6100) revealed four types of families: High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement (22.6%), Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement (14%), Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement (58.2%), and Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement (5.2%). Associational findings indicated having a highly involved father prenatally mitigates potential risks associated with an unintended pregnancy vis-à-vis family functioning.

Keywords

dyadic relationship/quality/satisfaction father–child relationship family processes pregnancy intention,parenting

Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are considered unintended (Finer & Zolna, 2016). Unintended pregnancy is associated with a number of factors known to undermine child well-being, including young maternal age, low SES, delayed prenatal care, and low birth weight (Aztlan-James, McLemore & Taylor, 2017; Mohllajee et al., 2007; Shah et al., 2011; Wildsmith, Guzzo & Hayford, 2010). In addition, limited father engagement during the prenatal period is also associated with poor fetal and child development (Alio et al., 2010, 2011; Martin et al., 2007; Padilla & Reichman, 2001). Although the cited work chronicles linear relations between prenatal risk factors (e.g., unintended pregnancy and low father engagement) and postnatal family dynamics, there are no studies, to our knowledge, exploring different types of families during the prenatal period. While there is a positive association between unintended pregnancy and low prenatal father engagement, documented associations are not so strong as to indicate that this is always the case. Indeed, it seems possible that these pregnancy intention and prenatal father engagement go together in other ways in other households (e.g., unintended pregnancy and high prenatal father engagement).

Thus, in the current study, we seek to extend work by endeavoring to identify different types of families based on pregnancy intention and father engagement during the pregnancy, drawing on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). In addition, we explore both predictors of identified prenatal-family types (e.g., maternal childhood adversity and parental risky history) and evaluate whether different types of families differ in terms of postnatal father involvement, parenting behavior, and couple conflict. Finally, and purposefully, we adopt a dyadic perspective when it comes to operationalizing pregnancy intention, considering both mother and father perspectives.

Pregnancy Intention

Pregnancies are typically categorized as intended (i.e., wanted at the time of conception), mistimed (i.e., not wanted at conception, but wanted sometime in the future), or unwanted (i.e., not wanted at the time of conception or ever), with the latter two conditions considered unintended (Lindberg, Kost & Maddow-Zimet, 2017). Despite evidence that the number of unintended pregnancies has declined in the US, the US rate is substantially higher than in other industrialized countries (Finer & Zolna, 2016). Then there is the widely appreciated fact that rates of unintended pregnancies vary greatly across sociodemographic conditions, being especially high among the poor, racial/ethnic minorities, the unmarried, and those with limited education (Finer & Zolna, 2014).

In terms of correlates, unintended pregnancy is associated with young maternal age (Finer & Henshaw, 2006), adverse health behaviors (e.g., smoking and drug use) (Oulman, Kim, Yunis & Tamim, 2015), delayed prenatal care, and low birth weight (Kost & Lindberg, 2015). Additional work indicates that women with unintended pregnancies report greater alcohol exposure within their first trimester, a risk factor itself for abnormal fetal growth and morphogenesis (Han, Nava-Ocampo & Koren, 2005; Oulman et al., 2015).

In terms of sequelae, unintended pregnancy is associated with adverse consequences for maternal well-being (Barton, Redshaw, Quigley & Carson, 2017), couple relationship stability (Maddow-Zimet, Lindberg, Kost & Lincoln, 2016), and child health and development (for recent review, see Hall, Benton, Copas & Stephenson, 2017). Furthermore, pregnancy intention is thought to affect birth outcomes through the impact fathers can have on maternal stress via emotional and financial support (Padilla & Reichman, 2001). Overall, unintended pregnancy is associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction and increased risk of relationship dissolution (Sonfield, Hasstedt, Kavanaugh, & Anderson, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that parents who plan their pregnancy tend to have more positive couple interactions, whereas those with unplanned pregnancies have more negative ones (Cox et al., 1999).

The existing literature on pregnancy intention is largely based on reports from mothers only and while studies examining father’s pregnancy intentions have increased (Lindberg & Kost, 2014), very little research has focused on pregnancy intention from a dyadic perspective (Arteaga, Downey, Freihart, & Gómez, 2020; Waller & Bitler, 2008; Gipson, Koenig, & Hindin, 2008). Yet, decision making related to prospective pregnancy intentions often operates at the dyadic level (e.g., contraceptive use and family planning), and qualitative research reveals that for most couples, even when partners’ desires differ, the couple ultimately arrives at a joint intention (Arteaga et al., 2020). Just as notably, the proportion of fathers who report that a pregnancy was unplanned is similar to that of mothers (Lindberg & Kost, 2014). Further support for embracing a dyadic perspective when considering pregnancy intention comes from work showing that when pregnancy intention is measured at both the individual and dyadic level (by combining parents-to-be reports), the two approaches prove to be positively related (Moreau et al., 2014). Then there are the results of a nationally representative study of married couples indicating that when partners hold contrasting desires for pregnancy (i.e., both for and against), couples shifted toward not continuing with the pregnancy (Thomson, 1997). It was for these reasons we decided to adopt a dyadic approach to operationalizing mother-to-be and father-to-be pregnancy intentions. Important to appreciate, though, is that father intentions are self-reported in the work reported herein based on the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). This would seem to be a good data set to draw upon given prior work ECLS-B work showing that when one or both partners did not intend the pregnancy, the consequences were the same—increased risk of inadequate prenatal care and, perhaps as a result, of preterm birth (Hohman-Marriott, 2009).

Fathers’ pregnancy intentions, in particular, may exert indirect influences on children’s attachment security (Bronte-Tinkew, Scott, Horowitz, 2009), socioemotional (Saleem & Surkan, 2014), and cognitive development (de La Rochebrochard & Joshi, 2013). Investigators using a subsample of biological resident fathers and their children from the ECLS-B cohort observed that men’s unwanted or mistimed pregnancies predicted poorer mental development and greater likelihood of insecure attachment early in life (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2009). Notably, the chronicled “effects” of fathers’ pregnancy intentions worked indirectly through men’s prenatal engagement (e.g., attending a sonogram and felt the baby move), postnatal involvement, and/or couple conflict (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2009). In yet other ECLS-B research, Bronte-Tinkew, Ryan, Carrano, and Moore (2007) observed that in the case of men for whom the pregnancy was intended fathering prove less warm after the baby was born than was the case for fathers who desired the pregnancy to have occurred sooner than it did. Men who characterized the pregnancy as unintended were less likely than others to exhibit parental warmth following the child’s birth.

Prenatal Father Engagement

Evidence indicates that prenatal father engagement is linked to positive health outcomes for both mothers (e.g., less maternal stress levels and healthier maternal behavior prenatally; Cheng et al., 2016) and children (e.g., reduced low birthweight; for review, see Plantin, Olukoya & Ny, 2011). In fact, Martin et al. (2007) reported, using the ECLS-B cohort, that greater prenatal father engagement was associated with an increased likelihood of mother receiving prenatal care—even when mothers themselves did not want to become pregnant; but if the fathers wanted the pregnancy, then mothers were also more likely to receive prenatal care.

There is also evidence that the benefits of prenatal father engagement extend beyond mother and child—to the father himself, especially the development of his identity, early on in pregnancy, as a parent (Plantin et al., 2011; Zvara, Schoppe-Sullivan & Kamp Dush, 2013). The possibility that such beneficial effects may extend to the child can be found in work showing that fathers’ perceptions of themselves as parents and their adjustment to their parental role are associated with children’s more positive behavioral development (Opondo, Redshaw, Savage-McGlynn & Quigley, 2016).

This could be because greater prenatal father engagement itself predicts increased father involvement postnatally (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Cabrera, Fagan & Farrie, 2008). During pregnancy, expectant fathers have time to engage the idea that they are about to become a parent, thus setting the stage for potential future involvement in their child’s life. A father who has been actively involved in supporting his pregnant partner (e.g., buying things for the baby and attending doctors’ visits) and in experiencing the unborn child (e.g., attending ultrasound and listening to heartbeat) is unsurprisingly more likely to be involved with his partner and infant following birth (e.g., physical play and caregiving) than less supportive fathers (Cabrera, Fagan & Farrie, 2008; Lindberg, Kost & Maddow-Zimet, 2017).

However, even if fathers want to be actively involved in both the antenatal and intrapartum periods, several barriers may impede their participation, including quality of the couple relationship, attitudes toward such involvement, and fathers’ own parental relationship and sociodemographic characteristics (for recent review, see Xue, Shorey, Wang & He, 2018). More specifically, a problematic couple relationship can undermine father’s psychological well-being in addition to their involvement with the child (Boyce et al., 2007). Zvara et al. (2013) reported, for example, that primiparous fathers’ self-perceived influence in child health-related decision making was associated positively with the fathers’ direct involvement in child health care and overall prenatal father engagement. This suggests that fathers’ perceived influence in health-care related decision making during pregnancy motivated men to attend more prenatal visits and in turn created more opportunities for sharing important prenatal experiences (e.g., hearing heartbeat or attending sonogram appointment) which may help to orient fathers to their new role (Zvara et al., 2013). Additionally, fathers’ own parenting experience in childhood and adolescence, including their relationship with their mother, has been found to predict levels of engagement, and this seems particularly so when they had more adverse experiences in the family while growing up (Bouchard, 2012). Sociodemographic factors like income and age are known to predict levels of father engagement, with fathers reporting higher economic employment status (Bhatta, 2013) and older fathers (Castillo et al., 2011)displaying greater engagement. In sum, there are many factors (i.e., barriers) that may undermine father involvement during pregnancy despite evidence that prenatal engagement is an important indicator of later father involvement.

Current Study

As the preceding evidence makes clear, past work has identified two characteristics of the prenatal period which appear to increase the risk for compromised parent and child functioning: unintended pregnancy and limited father engagement. Although these two factors are considered—and have been found—to be positively related to each other (Martin et al., 2007), there are most surely families in which these two factors do not co-vary in such a linear way (Finer & Zolna, 2016). Such families would go undetected in standard correlation and regression analyses which assume a dose–response, or linear, relation between these factors, thereby calling attention to the possible empirical utility of looking more closely at the variation under consideration. This view led us to adopt a typological approach to capture such variation, modeled on prior work on types of families raising young children (i.e., Belsky & Fearon, 2004). Here we extend such typological work, relying on latent-class analysis (LCA) to identify different types of families during the prenatal period, using a dyadic index of mother and father pregnancy intention (self-reported for both mother and father) and a self-reported index of father prenatal engagement. In addition to identifying types of families, we sought to determine whether parental antecedent risks (i.e., maternal childhood adversity and parental risky history) differentiate prenatal-family types, and whether prenatal-family type is associated with postnatal parenting attitudes, father involvement, and couple conflict. The evidence already summarized led us to predict that when pregnancy was unintended, and father was not engaged prenatally that antecedent risks would be greater; that postnatal father involvement would be lower; and that negative parenting attitudes and couple conflict would be higher.

Method

Participants and Design

This study relies on data from the first, second, and third waves of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), which is a nationally representative sample of the 2001 US birth cohort. In 2001, 14,000 births were sampled, and 10,700 parent interviews were completed at baseline when children were approximately 9 months of age with interviews ending in kindergarten. (Note: all samples sizes have been rounded to the nearest 50 per IES/NCES regulations.) A subsample from the ECLS-B restricted to biological parents residing together with the focal child resulted in a final analytic sample of n = 6100. Non-biological fathers were not asked about their pregnancy intentions or their prenatal behaviors and were excluded from our analysis. See Table 1 for descriptive information.

Table 1.

Demographics for the Sample of Biological Mothers and Fathers (N = 6100).

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD
Maternal age (years)	15	51	28.38	6.36
Paternal age (years)	15	75	32.03	6.84
			#	%
Maternal race/ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic)			3316	54.3
African American or Black (non-Hispanic)			386	6.3
Hispanic			911	14.9
Asian (non-Hispanic)			1212	19.9
Other (non-Hispanic)			270	4.6
Paternal race/ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic)			3400	55.7
African American or Black (non-Hispanic)			404	6.6
Hispanic			915	15
Asian (non-Hispanic)			1123	18.4
Other (non-Hispanic)			254	4.3
Maternal education
12^th grade or below			583	9.5
High school diploma or equivalent			1268	20.8
Vocational or technical program			179	2.9
Some college			1547	25.4
Bachelor’s degree			1507	24.7
Graduate or professional school			1016	16.7
Paternal education
12^th grade or below			697	11.5
High school diploma or equivalent			1190	19.6
Vocational or technical program			361	5.9
Some college			1334	21.8
Bachelor’s degree			1321	21.6
Graduate or professional school			1197	19.6
Total household income (at baseline)
US$30,000 or less			1510	24.2
US$30,001 to US$35,000			358	5.9
US$35,001 to US$40,000			411	6.8
US$40,001 to US$50,000			675	11.3
US$50,001 to US$75,000			1269	21
US$75,001 to US$100,000			861	14.1
US$100,001 to US$200,000			870	14.2
US$200,001 or more			146	2.5

Measures

All measured constructs delineated below were treated in a manner in line with cumulative-risk thinking (Evans, Li & Sepanski-Whipple, 2013). Thus, items considered on an a-priori basis to reflect the underlying construct being studied were summed together, as there was no a-priori reason to assume that the relevant items would themselves be highly correlated. Descriptive statistics for key study variables are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables.

	Mean	SD	Range
Pregnancy Intention	.49	.50	0–1
P. Father Engagement	6.88	.92	6–12
M. Child. Adversity	1.23	1.08	0–5
M. Risky History	2.71	.58	0–6
P. Risky History	2.39	.80	0–6
P. Father Involvement	.02	.51	-1–3.09
M. Parenting Attitude	14.88	3.33	5–20
P. Parenting Attitude	15.13	2.62	5–20
Couple Conflict	31.28	4.03	13–40

Notes: P. Father Engagement = prenatal father engagement. M. Child. Adversity = maternal childhood adversity. M. Risky History = maternal risky history. P. Risky History = paternal risky history. P. Father Involvement = postnatal father involvement. M. Parenting Attitude = maternal parenting attitude. P. Parenting Attitude = paternal parenting attitude. All variables were within limits of normality.

Prenatal measures

At 9-month postpartum, mothers and fathers each retrospectively reported on their own pregnancy intention (e.g., timing), and (only) fathers reported on their prenatal engagement. Parents were asked if they and, separately, their partner “wanted to have a baby at some time” and “if the pregnancy was sooner than they wanted, later or about the right time”. For each parent, the pregnancy was classified as (1) intended if the parent answered “yes” to wanting to have a baby at some time, while indicating that the pregnancy was either “about the right time” or “later” than they wanted; it was classified as (2) unintended if the parent responded “no” or “not sure” to the question about wanting a baby at some time or if they indicated that the pregnancy was “sooner” than they wanted. For the final dyadic pregnancy-intention variable used in the primary analyses, pregnancy was considered intended if the pregnancy was classified as “intended” for both mother and father (n = 2700) and unintended if the pregnancy was classified as unintended by at least one member of the dyad (n = 2850).

Father engagement during pregnancy was self-reported and was based on answers to six questions which asked if they “discussed the pregnancy” with the mother, “saw a sonogram or ultrasound” of the baby, “listened to the baby’s heartbeat,” “felt the baby move,” “attended childbirth or Lamaze classes with the mother,” or “bought things for the child”. Items were summed based on affirmative responses, resulting in scores ranging from 0–5. Other studies using the ECLS-B to examine pregnancy intention have also employed this measure (Bronte-Tinkew, Ryan, Carrano & Moore, 2007; Martin et al., 2007).

Parental antecedent risks

At 9-month postpartum, mothers were queried about adverse experiences in childhood, as well as their own and their partner’s criminal behavior, if any. A maternal childhood-adversity composite was created by summing five binary (yes/no) items: father absent during childhood, family receipt of welfare during childhood, raised by a teen mother, high-school graduate (reverse-scored), and racial/ethnic minority. Maternal risky history included six items which asked if she “been put in jail, arrested, or convicted of a crime other than drunk driving,” “been convicted of driving while intoxicated or drunk driving,” “spent the night in a facility for a psychological or mental health problem,” “had a drug or drinking problem,” was “fired or laid off from a job because of behavior, attitude, or work performance,” and if she ever “had been expelled from school”. Paternal risky history was based on the same six self-reported items.

Postnatal family functioning

Postnatal family variables assessed paternal involvement (9-month postpartum), maternal and paternal parenting attitudes (at 2 and 3 years postpartum), and couple conflict (9-month, 2 years, and 3 years postpartum). Postnatal father involvement was self-reported and included 10 items about child-related activities such as playing games, preparing meals, changing diapers, bathing, and dressing. Parenting attitude included five items addressing things like if the parent felt they were “giving up more than they expected to meet the child’s needs,” “unable to do new and different things” since the birth of the child, and if they felt “trapped by their responsibilities as a parent”. Answers were made using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Parenting-attitude scores were averaged separately for each parent, resulting in a total parenting scores for maternal parenting attitude and for paternal parenting attitude. Higher scores indicated more positive parenting attitudes.

Couple conflict was based on 10 items which asked about how often the couple argues about chores, children, money, affection, sex, religion, leisure, other men/women, drinking, and in-laws (α = .83). Answers ranged from “often,” “sometimes,” “hardly ever” to “never,” yielding total marital-quality scores for each parent across the three waves of measurement that yielded reliability coefficients ranging from .80–.82. Other items assessing couple relationship “quality” more broadly were only given to couples at the second wave of measurement and were not included in the third, hence our focus on couple conflict only in the current study. Because mother and father total couple conflict scores were highly and positively correlated across time points, these were averaged yielding a total across-time and across-respondent couple conflict score.

Data analyses

All variables used in analyses were standardized (mean = 0, SD = 1). Those that were non-normal or skewed were log-transformed. Full information maximum likelihood was used to deal with missing values. Table 3 presents the bivariate correlations between all measured constructs.

Table 3.

Correlations Among Key Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Pregnancy Intention	_
2. P. Father Engagement	−.15^∗^∗	_
3. M. Child. Adversity	−−18^∗^∗	.14^∗^∗	_
4. M. Risky History	.12^∗^∗	−.07^∗^∗	−.13^∗^∗	_
5. P. Risky History	.12^∗^∗	−.07^∗^∗	−.08^∗^∗	.28^∗^∗	_
6. P. Father Involvement	.01	.20^∗^∗	−.05^∗^∗	.02	−.01	_
7. M. Parenting Attitude	.07^∗^∗	−.19	−.02	.03^∗	.01	−.06^∗^∗	_
8. P. Parenting Attitude	.07^∗^∗	−.04^∗^∗	−.03	−.01	.01	−.07^∗^∗	.26^∗^∗	_
9. Couple Conflict	.11^∗^∗	−.06^∗^∗	−.01	.10^∗^∗	.17^∗^∗	−.07^∗^∗	.25^∗^∗	.28^∗^∗	_

Notes: P. Father Engagement = prenatal father engagement. M. Child. Adversity = maternal childhood adversity. M. Risky History = maternal risky history. P. Risky History = paternal risky history. P. Father Involvement = postnatal father involvement. M. Parenting Attitude = maternal parenting attitude. P. Parenting Attitude = paternal parenting attitude. ^∗ p < .05, ^∗^∗p < .01.

Latent-class analysis (LCA), a person-centered approach, was used in the first step of our primary analyses to identify subtypes of families based on pregnancy intention and prenatal father engagement. We began our class enumeration procedure by first estimating a one-class model on our full sample using the statistical software program Mplus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998). Classes were added to the model successively until there were no empirical improvements to model fit. Model fit was determined by consulting four statistical indices (Bayesian information criterion [BIC], Akaike information criterion [AIC], adjusted Bayesian information criterion, and Lo–Mendell–Rubin statistic [LMR]) which are typically used to analyze LCA models (Nylund, Asparouhov, Muthén, 2008). Lower values on these indices indicate an improved fit from a model with fewer classes.

Four latent classes were identified (see Table 4 for fit indices) based on the lowest AIC and lowest adjusted BIC. Lowest adjusted BIC is thought to be superior to other statistical criterion (Nylund, Asparouhov, Muthén, 2008), so we took this into consideration when selecting the number of classes. Adjusted BIC was lowest for 1–4 classes. The LMR test compares improvements in fit between different class models and provides a p value which indicates if there is statistically significant improvement in fit for the inclusion of one more class (see Table 4). Working with the four identified types of families, subsequent analyses used chi-square analyses to illuminate differences across selected groups in antecedent family-risk factors and family and child sequelae.

Table 4.

Fit Information for LCA: Modeling Pregnancy Intention and Prenatal Father Engagement (N = 6100).

Classes	LL^a	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	aLRT^b
1		32,823.21	32,850.07	32,837.36
2	−16,007.72	32,029.43	32,076.44	32,054.20	.91	0.00
3	−15,225.60	30,471.21	30,538.36	30,506.58	.98	0.00
4	−15,215.77	30,457.53	30,544.84	30,503.53	.88	0.00
5	−11,966.01	16,368.60	16,476.04	16,425.20	.99	0.01
6	−11,956.28	23,613.09	23,740.69	23,680.31	.99	0.02

^aLoglikelihood for class solution.

^bp-values for the Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test comparing n class solution fit to n-1 class solution.

Results

After first delineating the four types of families identified using LCA, attention turns to the correlates of these groups.

Four Latent Classes

As depicted in Table 5, LCA using pregnancy intention and prenatal father-engagement variables revealed four distinct family types: High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement (n = 1378), Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement (n = 848), Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement (n = 3550), and Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement (n = 319).

Table 5.

4-Class Solution Means of Prenatal Paternal Involvement During Pregnancy, Pregnancy Intention, and Parental Antecedent Predictors and Postnatal Family Outcomes.

	Pregnancy Class
	I High Pregnancy Intention High Father Engagement (n = 1378)	II Low Pregnancy Intention High Father Engagement (n = 848)	III Avg. Pregnancy Intention Avg. Father Engagement (n = 3550)	IV Low Pregnancy Intention Low Father Engagement (n = 319)
A. Pregnancy Characteristics
Pregnancy Intention	.76 (.02)	−.70 (.02)	−.10 (.02)	−.33 (.06)
Father Engagement	1.04 (.01)	1.04 (.00)	−.41 (.01)	−2.68 (.04)
B. Risky Antecedents
M. Child. Adversity	−.45 (.03)	−.29 (.04)	−.12 (.02)	.08 (.06)
M. Risky History	−.20 (.03)	−.06 (.04)	.04 (.02)	.15 (.07)
P. Risky History	−.19 (.03)	−.07 (.04)	.09 (.02)	.07 (.06)
C. Postnatal Family Outcomes
Father Involvement	.19 (.03)	.19 (.04)	−.05 (.02)	−.60 (.07)
M. Positive Parenting Attitude	.04 (.03)	−.04 (.05)	.01 (.02)	−.13 (.07)
P. Positive Parenting Attitude	.06 (.03)	−.01 (.04)	.02 (.02)	−.24 (.07)
Couple Conflict	−.12 (.03)	.03 (.04)	−.01 (.02)	.20 (.06)

Note. Mean (SE); all variables were standardized prior to analysis. N = 6100; entropy = .88.

Antecedents and Sequelae of Family Type

When studying the correlates of multiple types identified using LCA, many investigators simply run comparisons across all identified types. Rather than proceed in this way—and generate a plethora of findings that might not be particularly informative conceptually—we adopted Belsky and Fearon’s (2004) approach of making fewer and more strategic—and thus conceptually meaningful—comparisons. This led us to conduct three sets of comparisons using the four identified groups and, in so doing, reduce the number of statistical tests and thus the possibility of chance findings. Of note is that the same analytic strategy will be used in the next subsection focused on sequelae of family type.

The first antecedent comparison contrasted the two sets of families with low pregnancy intention, but which differed on prenatal father engagement (Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement vs. Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement), thus revealing potential determinants of father engagement among families with low pregnancy intention. The second compared two sets of families characterized by high prenatal father engagement but that differed on pregnancy intention (High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement vs. Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement), thus seeking to illuminate effects of intention on marital conflict. The third comparison compared three sets of families varying systematically—and linearly—on pregnancy intention and prenatal father engagement (e.g., high, average, and low intention/engagement). Results of the comparisons, by means of four chi-square difference tests, are displayed in Table 6 for both risky antecedents and postnatal family outcomes and summarized below.

Table 6.

Chi-Square Family Group Comparisons: Antecedents and Outcomes.

Parental Antecedents	I vs. II	I vs. IV	II vs. III	II vs. IV	III vs. IV
M. Child. Adversity	9.30^∗^∗	63.48^∗^∗^∗	15.45^∗^∗^∗	26.00^∗^∗^∗	9.92^∗^∗
M. Risky History	8.38^∗^∗	22.75^∗^∗^∗	4.67^∗	6.47^∗	2.27^†
P. Risky History	5.37^∗	14.78^∗^∗^∗	12.56^∗^∗^∗	3.29^†	0.14
Postnatal Family Outcomes	I vs. II	I vs. IV	II vs. III	II vs. IV	III vs. IV
Father Involvement	0.01	115.27^∗^∗^∗	35.87^∗^∗^∗	104.26^∗^∗^∗	61.04^∗^∗^∗
M. Parenting Attitudes	1.72	5.00^∗	0.99	1.23	3.77^†
P. Parenting Attitudes	1.37	14.79^∗^∗^∗	0.47	7.79^∗^∗	12.68^∗^∗^∗
Couple Conflict	9.45^∗^∗	21.86^∗^∗^∗	0.68	5.27^∗	9.54^∗^∗

Low-Pregnancy Intention Groups

For risky antecedents, chi-square tests revealed that the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group scored significantly higher than the Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group on maternal childhood adversity, maternal risky history, and paternal risky history (marginal significance). As for postnatal family outcomes, chi-square tests showed that the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group scored significantly lower on postnatal father involvement and higher on paternal negative parenting attitude, and couple conflict, but not maternal negative parenting attitude when compared to the Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group. In sum and as expected, antecedent risks were greater and family functioning more problematical when low pregnancy intention was coupled with low father prenatal engagement than with high father prenatal engagement (see Figure 1). As such, these results reveal an apparent buffering effect of high father prenatal engagement and/or an amplifying (negative) effect of low father prenatal engagement on postnatal family functioning in the case of couples with low pregnancy intention.

Figure 1.

Comparison between Low Pregnancy Intention groups with differing levels of Prenatal Father Engagement (High and Low) on Parental Antecedents and Postnatal Outcomes. ^∗ p < .05, ^∗^∗ p < .01, ^∗^∗^∗ p < .001.

High-Father Engagement Groups

For risky antecedents, chi-square tests revealed that the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group scored significantly lower on maternal childhood adversity, maternal risky history, and paternal risky history compared to the Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group. When considering postnatal family functioning, the two groups did not significantly differ on postnatal father involvement, maternal parenting attitude, or paternal parenting attitude (see Figure 2). Interestingly, even though the two groups evinced the same amount of prenatal father engagement and did not significantly differ on later postnatal involvement or parental parenting attitudes, the lower intention group displayed higher levels of couple conflict. This suggests that high prenatal father engagement prenatally buffer the effects of an unplanned pregnancy on parenting even if not on the adult-partner relationship.

Figure 2.

Comparison between High Prenatal Father Engagement Groups with differing levels of Pregnancy Intention (high and low) on Parental Antecedents and Postnatal Outcomes. ^∗ p < .05, ^∗^∗p < .01, ^∗^∗^∗p < .001.

High, Average and Low Pregnancy Intention and Father Engagement Groups

For parental antecedents, the three groups were all significantly different from each other on maternal childhood adversity and paternal risky history—and in a manner reflecting most, intermediate, and least antecedent risk in the case, respectively of the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group, Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group, and the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group. The Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group scored marginally lower, however, on maternal risky history and did not differ on paternal risky history when compared to the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group.

For family outcomes, significant differences between all three groups emerged on postnatal father involvement with the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group scoring the highest, the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group scoring the lowest, and the Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group falling in between (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Comparison of High, Average and Low Pregnancy Intention/Prenatal Father Engagement Groups on Parental Antecedents and Postnatal Outcomes.

As for maternal negative parenting attitudes, the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group scored significantly lower than the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group but was not significantly different from the Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group. The Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group scored marginally lower than the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group on maternal negative parenting attitudes.

When it came to paternal negative parenting attitudes, the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement scored significantly lower than the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group but was not significantly different from the Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group. The Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group scored significantly lower on paternal negative parenting attitudes than the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group. With regard to couple conflict, all groups were significantly different from each other with the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group scoring the highest, the Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement group falling second, and the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group scoring the lowest.

Discussion

Prior research examining the relation between prenatal factors and their influence on postnatal family functioning has often relied on approaches which presume linear relations between predictors and outcomes (e.g., regression and correlation) and rely on individuals, rather than couples, as the unit of analysis. The current inquiry was based on the notion that such methods may fail to capture important nuances when it comes to characterizing families and illuminating their antecedents and sequelae. It was for this reason that we relied on latent-class analysis to identify different types of families based on pregnancy intentions and prenatal father involvement and combined reports regarding both parents to create a dyadic index of pregnancy intention. Readers should appreciate that our intent has not been to suggest that typological dyadic approaches are inherently better than variable-centered ones that focus on individuals, only that these can be informative, as we believe our results indicate.

Four types of families could be meaningfully distinguished, those with High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement, Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement, Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement, and Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement. Clearly, these families did not conform to a simple linear characterization. As a result, treating them in such a traditional manner would have led to a loss in potentially important information. At the very least, these results suggest that typological approaches should be considered in future work or, at the least, that interactions between pregnancy variables be evaluated, not just main effects, as has been the case in most prior work.

After identifying four types of prenatal families, we tested whether these differed on risky antecedents and postnatal family functioning by making conceptually guided, strategic comparisons—rather than comparing all four groups with each other in the case of each and every dependent variable. The first comparison contrasted groups that experienced an unintended pregnancy yet differed on level of prenatal father involvement. With regard to risky antecedents, the Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement group had significantly riskier histories, scoring higher on maternal childhood adversity and parental risky histories than the Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group. This increased risk appeared to carry over to postnatal family functioning with the Low–Low group scoring significantly lower on postnatal father involvement and higher on paternal negative parenting attitudes and couple conflict, but not maternal negative parenting attitudes, when compared to the Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group.

These results indicate that despite an unintended pregnancy, having a father who is highly involved during the prenatal period mitigates at least some of the potential risk that may accompany an unintended pregnancy. Thus, having an uninvolved father during the prenatal period may be an especially potent marker of both (antecedent) risk and (family) prospects—and perhaps more so than whether the pregnancy was intended or not. This finding may inform intervention efforts focused on increasing father engagement during pregnancy to help improve postnatal family functioning, perhaps especially when a pregnancy is not planned.

The second comparison contrasted groups that were both high on prenatal father engagement but differed on pregnancy intention status, thereby illuminating the importance of the latter when the former is the same. Results indicated that the Low Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group had significantly riskier histories than the High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement group, scoring higher on maternal childhood adversity, maternal risky history, and paternal risky history. Despite these differences, the groups did not differ on father involvement, maternal negative parenting, or paternal negative parenting. The Low–High group did experience significantly higher couple conflict, however, when compared to the High–High group, thereby revealing an apparent effect of father engagement postnatally on at least one aspect of family functioning when pregnancies are unplanned. Just as important was the fact that even though the Low–High group experienced adverse paternal histories and unintended pregnancy, parents in this type of family evinced high-quality parenting similar to the High–High group. Once again it appears that high prenatal father engagement may attenuate the potential adverse effects of an unintended pregnancy on parenting (even if not on later couple conflict).

Finally, we examined potential linear relations across three selected groups, High Pregnancy Intention/High Father Engagement, Average Pregnancy Intention/Average Father Engagement, and Low Pregnancy Intention/Low Father Engagement. Recall that results revealed, consistent with expectations, that the Low–Low group scored highest on risky antecedents (i.e., maternal childhood adversity and parental risky history), the High–High group the lowest, and the Average–Average group in between. Notably, the same predicted linear pattern emerged for the postnatal family outcomes of father involvement (i.e., HH>AA>LL) and negative parenting attitudes and couple conflict (i.e., HH<AA<LL). In sum, then, even though the typological analysis enabled us to identify four family types based on pregnancy intention and prenatal father engagement (that did not conform to linear scaling), a linear pattern still emerged in the case of three of the groups—those with high, average, and low pregnancy intention/father engagement. This finding is consistent with other work which classifies various prenatal characteristics using cumulative risk scores (e.g., Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2009).

Several limitations of the current work should be acknowledged. Notably, pregnancy intention was reported retrospectively by mothers and fathers when the infants were 9 months old. Recall of pregnancy intention is likely to be influenced by the experience of the pregnancy, relationship with the other parent, and relationship with the infant. Despite this, operationalizing pregnancy intention status in dyadic terms (i.e., combination of both mother and father intention) is a clear strength of this study as intention status is often limited to the mother.

In addition, it should be noted that the sample included only biological-resident fathers. This focus allowed for the inclusion of the father’s report on both parenting and couple conflict, but parents were not considered if their relationships ended either before the baby’s birth or shortly thereafter. Obviously, results of this study cannot—and should not--be generalized to fathers not residing with their partner at the time of the interviews. Needless to say, only future inquiry will determine whether results would differ were non-resident fathers the focus of inquiry.

Despite these limitations, this analysis revealed four distinct groups based on pregnancy intention and prenatal father engagement in a large, national sample of mothers and fathers. Importantly, this study found that fathers who were highly involved during the pregnancy remained highly involved postnatally and had positive parenting experiences even if the pregnancy was unintended. This finding underscores the importance and benefits of father engagement during the prenatal period. Based on this result, programs aimed at improving father involvement and parenting in children’s lives should include the prenatal period as a critical time to support father engagement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kristina Sayler

References

Alio

A. P.

Kornosky

J. L.

Mbah

A. K.

Marty

P. J.

Salihu

H. M.

(2010). The impact of paternal involvement on feto-infant morbidity among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 14(5), 735-741.

Alio

A. P.

Mbah

A. K.

Kornosky

J. L.

Wathington

Marty

P. J.

Salihu

H. M.

(2011). Assessing the impact of paternal involvement on racial/ethnic disparities in infant mortality rates. Journal of Community Health, 36(1), 63-68. doi:10.1007/s10900-010-9280-3

Arteaga

Downey

M. M.

Freihart

Gómez

A. M.

(2020). “We kind of metin‐between”: A qualitative analysis of young couples’ relationship dynamics and negotiations about pregnancy intentions. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, (52, pp. 87-95). doi:10.1363/psrh.12136

Aztlan-James

E. A.

McLemore

Taylor

(2017). Multiple unintended pregnancies in U.S. women: A systematic review. Women's Health Issues, 27(4), 407-413. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2017.02.002

Barton

Redshaw

Quigley

M. A.

Carson

(2017). Unplanned pregnancy and subsequent psychological distress in partnered women: A cross-sectional study of the role of relationship quality and wider social support. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 17(1), 44. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1223-x

Belsky

Fearon

(2004). Exploring marriage-parenting typologies and their contextual antecedents and developmental sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 501-523. doi:10.1017/S095457940400464X

Bhatta

D. N.

(2013). Involvement of males in antenatal care, birth preparedness, exclusive breast feeding and immunizations for children in Kathmandu, Nepal. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13, 14. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-14

Bouchard

(2012). Intergenerational transmission and transition to fatherhood: A mediated-moderation model of paternal engagement. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 747-755. DOI:10.1037/a0029391.

Boyce

Condon

Barton

Corkindale

(2007). First-time fathers’ study: Psychological distress in expectant fathers during pregnancy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 718-725. doi:10.1080/00048670701517959

10.

Bronte-Tinkew

Ryan

Carrano

Moore

K. A.

(2007). Resident fathers? pregnancy intentions, prenatal behaviors, and links to involvement with infants. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 977-990. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00425.x

11.

Bronte-Tinkew

Scott

M. E.

Horowitz

(2009). Male pregnancy intendedness and children’s mental proficiency and attachment security during toddlerhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(4), 1001-1025. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00649.x

12.

Cabrera

N. J.

Fagan

Farrie

(2008). Explaining the long reach of fathers’ prenatal involvement on later paternal engagement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5), 1094-1107. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00551.x

13.

Castillo

Welch

Sarver

(2011). Fathering: The relationship between fathers’ residence, fathers’ Sociodemographic characteristics, and father involvement. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1342-1349. DOI:10.1007/s10995-010-0684-6.

14.

Cheng

E. R.

Rifas-Shiman

S. L.

Perkins

M. E.

Rich-Edwards

J. W.

Gillman

M. W.

Wright

Taveras

E. M.

(2016). The influence of antenatal partner support on pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Women's Health, 25(7), 672-679. doi:10.1089/jwh.2015.5462

15.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

Burchinal

Payne

C. C.

(1999). Marital perceptions and interactions across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 611-625. doi:10.2307/353564

16.

de La Rochebrochard

Joshi

(2013). Children born after unplanned pregnancies and cognitive development at 3 years: Social differentials in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort. American journal of epidemiology, 178(6), 910-920. doi:10.1093/aje/kwt063

17.

Evans

G. W.

Whipple

S. S.

(2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1342-1396.

18.

Finer

L. B.

Henshaw

S. K.

(2006). Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38(2), 90-96.

19.

Finer

L. B.

Zolna

M. R.

(2014). Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001-2008. American Journal of Public Health, 104(Suppl 1), S43-S48. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301416

20.

Finer

L. B.

Zolna

M. R.

(2016). Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(9), 843-852. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1506575

21.

Gipson

J. D.

Koenig

M. A.

Hindin

M. J.

(2008). The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature. Studies in Family Planning, 39(1), 18-38. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4465.2008.00148.x

22.

Hall

J. A.

Benton

Copas

Stephenson

(2017). Pregnancy intention and pregnancy outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal and Child HealthJournal, 21(3), 670-704. doi:10.1007/s10995-016-2237-0.

23.

Han

J.-Y.

Nava-Ocampo

A. A.

Koren

(2005). Unintended pregnancies and exposure to potential human teratogens. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology, 73, 245-248. doi:10.1002/bdra.20132

24.

Hohman-Marriott

(2009). The couple context of pregnancy and its effects on prenatal care and birth outcomes. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13, 745. doi:10.1007/s10995-009-0467-0

25.

Kost

Lindberg

(2015). Pregnancy intentions, maternal behaviors, and infant health: investigating relationships with new measures and propensity score analysis. Demography, 52(1), 83-111. doi:10.1007/s13524-014-0359-9

26.

Lindberg

L. D.

Kost

(2014). Exploring U.S. Men’s birth intentions. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 625-633. doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1286-x.

27.

Lindberg

L. D.

Kost

Maddow-Zimet

(2017). The role of men's childbearing intentions in father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(1), 44-59. doi:10.1111/jomf.12377.

28.

Maddow-Zimet

Lindberg

Kost

Lincoln

(2016). Are pregnancy intentions associated with transitions into and out of marriage?. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 48(1), 35-43. doi:10.1363/48e8116.

29.

Martin

L. T.

McNamara

M. J.

Milot

A. S.

Halle

Hair

E. C.

(2007). The effects of father involvement during pregnancy on receipt of prenatal care and maternal smoking. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 11(6), 595-602. doi:10.1007/s10995-007-0209-0.

30.

Mohllajee

A. P.

Curtis

K. M.

Morrow

Marchbanks

P. A.

(2007). Pregnancy intention and its relationship to birth and maternal outcomes. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(3), 678-686.

31.

Moreau

Bohet

Le Guen

Régnier Loilier

Bajos

(2014). Unplanned or unwanted? A randomized study of national estimates of pregnancy intentions. Fertility and Sterility, 102(6), 1663-1670. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.08.011.

32.

Muthén

L.K.

Muthén

B.O.

(1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide (Seventh Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

33.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2008). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study”: Erratum. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(1), 182. doi:10.1080/10705510701793320.

34.

Opondo

Redshaw

Savage-McGlynn

Quigley

M. A.

(2016). Father involvement in early child-rearing and behavioural outcomes in their pre-adolescent children: evidence from the ALSPAC UK birth cohort. BMJ open, 6(11), e012034. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012034.

35.

Oulman

Kim

T. H. M.

Yunis

Tamim

(2015). Prevalence and predictors of unintended pregnancy among women: an analysis of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 15, 260. doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0663-4

36.

Padilla

Y C.

Reichman

N E.

(2001). Low birthweight: Do unwed fathers help? Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4-5), 427-452.

37.

Plantin

Olukoya

A. A.

(2011). Positive health outcomes of fathers' involvment in pregnancy and childbirth paternal support: A scope study literature review. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 9(1), 87-102. doi:10.3149/fth.0901.87

38.

Saleem

H. T.

Surkan

P. J.

(2014). Parental pregnancy wantedness and child social-emotional development. Maternal and child health journal, 18(4), 930-938. doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1320-z

39.

Shah

P. S.

Balkhair

Ohlsson

Beyene

Scott

Frick

(2011). Intention to become pregnant and low birth weight and preterm birth: A systematic review. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15, 205-216. doi:10.1007/s10995-009-0546-2

40.

Sonfield

Hasstedt

Gold

(2014). Moving forward: Family planning in the era of health reform. NY, USA: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/family-planning-and-health-reform.pdf

41.

Thomson

(1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34(3), 343-354. doi:10.2307/3038288

42.

Waller

M. R.

Bitler

M. P.

(2008). The link between couples’ pregnancy intentions and behavior: does it matter who is asked?. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 40(4), 194-201. doi:10.1363/4019408

43.

Wildsmith

Guzzo

K. B.

Hayford

S. R.

(2010). Repeat unintended, unwanted and seriously mistimed childbearing in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42, 14-22. doi:10.1363/4201410

44.

Xue

W. L.

Shorey

Wang

H.-G.

(2018). Fathers’ involvement during pregnancy and childbirth: An integrative literature review. Midwifery, 62, 135-145. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.013

45.

Zvara

B. J.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Dush

C. K.

(2013). Father’ involvement in child health care: Associations with prenatal involvement, parents’ beliefs, and maternal gatekeeping. Family Relations, 62, 649-661.