[C HILDFREEDOM AND STIGMA IN A USTRALIA ] Summary of Preliminary Results, August 2020
Dr Bronwyn Harman Supervised by Dr Eyal Gringart and Dr Craig Harms
ABOUT THE RESEARCH This research has been conducted in partial fulfilment of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Psychology. It has been approved by Edith Cowan University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (#12095).
STUDY ONE The purpose of the first study was twofold. Firstly, it aimed to determine how people without children define themselves, through the narratives they use to describe their pathways to non-parenthood. Secondly, it sought to understand how people without children perceive society’s views of them as non-parents.
P ARTICIPANTS Participants were recruited via social media (Twitter and Facebook). They were drawn from all states and territories in Australia. Responses of 199 participants made up the data set.
T HE SURVEY The survey firstly collected demographic data. It then asked people to determine if they were childless (somebody who wanted a child at the present time but did not have one) or childfree (somebody who did not want a child at the present time and did not have one). Participants were then encouraged to tell the story of their pathway to nonparenthood in their own words. Finally, participants were invited to reflect on how they thought they were perceived by society.
R ESULTS There are two main categories of non-parents (childless and childfree), and five subcategories (Medically Childless, Socially Childless, Choosers, Procrastinators, and Noncontemplators). Medically Childless are people who do not have children due to medical reasons, most commonly, infertility (own or partner’s) and/or the inability to carry a baby to term. The participants reported that they felt misunderstood by society (as people assumed that they were childfree) and viewed as “sad, pathetic and lonely”. Socially Childless are people who do not have children due to social reasons, mostly because they did not have a partner during child-bearing years. As with the medically childless, these participants reported that they were viewed with pity for having “missed their opportunity”. Choosers are people who do not have children by active choice. They usually make this choice around late teen years (16 to 18 years). The participants reported that they were
1
viewed negatively by society and treated with disdain. Common reactions to their declarations of choosing childfreedom were “don’t you like children?”, “you’ll change your mind later”, and “you haven’t met the right person yet”. Procrastinators are people who have not decided whether they want children or not, they may have children later and have prioritised other life goals for now (career, travel, home ownership, etc.). Procrastinators either become parents, become Choosers, or delay the decision for so long that it is too late. The participants reported that they felt supported by society, because when they explained that they did not have children right now but “might have them later”, people stopped asking questions. Non-contemplators are people who never considered parenting as an option. They did not choose not to have children “in the same way I did not choose not to collect stamps”. These participants reported that they did not know how society viewed them, nor did they care.
S UMMARY While the experiences of people who are childless are important, the present research did not add anything that we did not already know from prior research. Secondly, there was a small response rate from people who are childless as opposed to childfree (41 and 158 participants, respectively), presumably because it is a very confronting topic to discuss for childless people. Therefore, further research in the present program will concentrate on people who are childfree. In this first study, Choosers reported that they are viewed negatively, Procrastinators reported that they are viewed positively, and Noncontemplators said they were unaware of how they were viewed. The next stage of the research examined attitudes towards people who are childfree.
STUDY TWO The purpose of the second study aimed to determine how people without children are perceived by society, that is, what are the attitudes towards people who identify as childfree? Previous research on attitudes towards people who are childfree have examined the group as a whole; that is, have not separated the responses into the subgroups of Choosers, Procrastinators and Non-contemplators. The results of Study One indicate different societal perceptions towards these sub-groups.
P ARTICIPANTS Participants were recruited via social media (Twitter and Facebook). They were drawn from all states and territories in Australia. Responses of 476 participants made up the data set.
2
T HE SURVEY The survey firstly collected demographic data. It then asked people to complete a social desirability scale (to determine if whether participants’ responses were biased by them trying to present themselves in a socially desirable, rather than honest and genuine manner). Participants were then presented with a randomly selected short vignette about a fictional couple, Charlotte and Mark. There were four vignettes and the only variable was Charlotte and Mark’s parental status (Chooser, Procrastinator, Non-contemplator, Parent). Participants were then asked to complete a 28-item scale, rating personality items on a 6-point Likert-type scale, for both Charlotte and Mark.
R ESULTS A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to test differences in attitudes towards Charlotte and Mark based on their childfree status. Childfree status has a significant effect on attitudes towards Charlotte but not towards Mark. A one-way analysis of covariance was conducted to compare social desirability and the effect of childfree status on attitudes towards Charlotte. This analysis found that Procrastinators and Noncontemplators were viewed more negatively than Parents, whereas there was no statistically significant difference in societal attitudes between Choosers and Parents.
S UMMARY Based on these results, attitudes towards the male target, Mark, did not change, regardless of whether he presented as a Parent, Chooser, Procrastinator or Noncontemplator. This is consistent with previous research, and as the present study has nothing to add to what we already know, no further research on childfree men will be pursued in the current research program. Based on the results of Study One, it was hypothesised that a female target who is a Chooser would be viewed significantly more negatively than a female target who is a Parent, and that there would be no significant differences between a female target who is a Procrastinator or a Non-Contemplator and a female target who is a Parent. However, the results show the opposite; specifically, that Procrastinators and Non-contemplators were viewed more negatively than Parents, and that there was no statistically significant difference in societal attitudes between Choosers and Parents. The next part of the research program will use a qualitative approach to explore in-depth how childfree women perceive society views them.
QUERIES Please contact Dr Bronwyn Harman, b.harman@ecu.edu.au
3