Fertility Intentions, Counterintentions, and Subintentions: A Theoretical Framework and Graphic Model
W. Miller
Abstract:Fertility intentions are theoretical constructs of great importance to the fields of family planning and demography. Using a motivational traits-desires-intentions-behavior theoretical framework, I develop a graphic model that demonstrates how the two unipolar dimensions of positive and negative childbearing motivations are transformed via conscious desires and intentions into a single bipolar dimension of conception-oriented behavior. I then use this model to define and discuss the constructs of fertility intentions, counterintentions, and subintentions. I also use the model to clarify how fertility desires affect conception–oriented behavior. Finally, I discuss different ways that the graphic model may be tested and applied. Fertility Intentions, Counterintentions, and Subintentions: A Theoretical Framework and Graphic Model Intentions have a long and significant history in the field of fertility research. In the area of family planning, unintended pregnancies have been the focus of considerable interest because the all-too-common unwantedness of the ensuing pregnancy often imposes burdensome consequences on both the parents and the child itself (Brown & Eisenberg, 1995; Santelli et al., 2003). In the area of demography, fertility intentions, and the closely related construct of fertility expectations, have long been viewed as indicators of fertility decisions made and, therefore, as potentially important predictors of future fertility (Hendershot & Placek, 1981; Ryder & Westoff, 1971; Forrest & Singh, 1990). My goal in this paper is to expand upon a theoretical framework about the motivational structure that underlies fertility intentions, as well as the behavioral consequences of those intentions and their antecedent motivations. My hope is that this framework will strengthen the use of intentions and related motivational constructs in both family planning and demographic research and application. A Theoretical Framework Intentions and Motivation In order to fully understand fertility intentions it is first important to consider the central role that they play in the process through which fertility motivations produce fertility behaviors in humans. In previous work, I have characterized this process in terms of a traits-desires-intentions-behavior sequence (Miller, 1994; Miller & Pasta, 1995a). In this sequence, motivational traits are conceptualized as latent dispositions to be positively or negatively motivated toward fertility-related experiences, including everything from pregnancy and birth, through childcare and child rearing, to interacting with one’s partner, family, and friends in the community as a parent. Motivational traits like these are the major source of childbearing desires (Miller, 1994), which represent what the individual would like to do about having or not having a child. When the individual decides to pursue a particular fertility goal, such as getting pregnant or avoiding a pregnancy, those desires are the major source of his or her childbearing intentions, which represent what the individual actually plans to do. Such intentions then lead to instrumental behaviors that are meant either to achieve or avoid the goal of childbearing. In summary then, the TDIB sequence characterizes the process through which latent motivations enter consciousness in the form of specific desires, which then generate specific intentions, which in turn lead to goal-related behaviors. The TDIB framework proposes that conscious intentions, and the conscious desires that underlie them, derive their motivational force from a system of latent dispositions (traits) that I have called a motivational substrate (Miller & Pasta, 2002). Elsewhere, I have described how this substrate consists of neural-based nurturant schemas (Miller & Rodgers, 2001), which themselves have complex genetic and experiential origins (Miller et al., 1999; Miller et al, 2000; Miller, 1992). The motivational dispositions that are resident in that substrate have two important features. First, they vary in intensity, which accounts for much of the strength of the desires and intentions that flow from them. Second, and more important for this discussion, they differ in their valence, that is to say, in whether they are positive or negative. These two features correspond to the theoretical model of emotion and motivation developed by Lang, Bradley, and Cuthbert (1998). These authors argue that there are two basic motive systems in the brain, appetitive and defensive, and that each can vary in terms of intensity of activation or arousal. According to Cacioppo, Gardner, and Bertson (1999), the appetitive and aversive (defensive) motivational systems are not reducible to a single valence or good-bad dimension because they are not necessarily reciprocally activated in the relevant brain structures. They conclude that two unipolar dimensions, with one varying from high to low positive valence and the other varying from high to low negative valence, fit the observed facts better than a single bipolar dimension, which varies from a high positive to a high negative valence. In accord with the two dimensional approach to motivational valence, I have developed a measure of explicit childbearing motivation, the Childbearing Questionnaire (CBQ), that separates motivational traits into separate positive and negative components (Miller, 1995). Positive Childbearing Motivation (PCM) is based on respondent ratings of 27 positive consequences of having a child, whereas Negative Childbearing Motivation (NCM) is based on respondent ratings of 20 negative consequences of having a child. Of particular interest for this discussion and in line with there being two separate dimensions of motivational valence, PCM and NCM tend not to be significantly correlated with each other. Given a sample of sufficient size, it might be anticipated that there would be one group with high PCM and low NCM -those motivated for childbearingand one group with low PCM and high NCM -those motivated against childbearing. But, in fact, there would also be a group with both high PCM and high NCM -those ambivalently motivated for childbearingand another group with both low PCM and low NCM -those indifferently motivated for childbearing (Miller, 2007). The two unipolar dimensions of motivational traits extend their influence forward through the next three steps of the TDIB sequence to find expression in desires, intentions, and behavior. Thus in the formation of desires individuals with high PCM will tend to have strong desires to have a child, whereas those with high NCM will tend to have strong desires not to have a child. Further, as might be expected, those who are ambivalently motivated will tend to both desire and not desire a child and those who are indifferently motivated will tend not to care one way or the other. When it comes to the formation of intentions, the effect of two separate valences changes because intentions involve a decision and a commitment to action. Cognitively, these two features make it virtually impossible to both intend to have a child and intend to not have one, although one might find a few instances where extremely ambivalent individuals vacillated in their intentions across relatively short periods of time. Conception Oriented Behaviors When it comes to extending the two motivational valence dimensions all the way to behavior, a further transformation occurs due to the instrumentality of behavior. Whereas the TDI component of the TDIB framework is related to the motivational push toward the goal (having or avoiding having a child), the B component has to do with real-world implementation of behaviors that achieve that goal. Congruent with the two motivational dimensions, there are two types of instrumental behaviors that are meant to implement the goal, namely proceptive and contraceptive behavior. Proceptive behavior (Miller, 1986; Miller & Pasta, 1995a; Miller & Pasta, 1996) is behavior that is designed to achieve conception. In terms of both the underlying strength of positive motivation and the probability of achieving conception (Miller, 1986), it has two forms: passive proception, characterized by the initiation of unprotected sexual intercourse with the intent to conceive; and active proception, characterized by efforts to increase the chances of conception by timing sexual intercourse around the time of ovulation, as well as by other, related behaviors. In contrast, contraceptive behavior is designed to avoid conception while continuing to have sexual intercourse and makes use of a variety of hormonal, mechanical, and behavioral methods to achieve that goal. In terms of the underlying strength of negative motivation and the probability of preventing conception, contraceptive behavior has many forms. These can be graded along two primary continua: the effectiveness of the method used and the regularity with which that method is used (Miller & Pasta, 2002). Even more so than is the case with intentions, the two types of conception-oriented behaviors tend not to be present in the same individual at the same time. It would be highly unusual for someone to be simultaneously behaving in a way that both lead to conception and avoided conception, although as in the case of desires it may happen that someone vacillates between these two behaviors during a some short time interval, especially if the individual is involved with two different partners . This mutually exclusive feature of conception-oriented behaviors suggests that they may be placed on a bipolar continuum that extends from a highly effective proception pole through a middle point that involves neither proception nor contraception to a highly effective contraception pole. Indeed, both Lang, Bradley, and Cuthbert (1998) and Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson (1999) argue that the exigencies of motor systems and reality constraints both act to channel multidimensional motivational systems into bipola