Planned lesbian families: The process of becoming a parent and the influence of donor status for children growing up within lesbian families
Author of the manuscript:
Evalijn M. Draijer
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Preface
A lot of research about new family forms has focused on planned lesbian families and the development of their children. In this manuscript, two studies about planned lesbian families will be discussed, namely the process of becoming a parent and the influence of donor status for children growing up in planned lesbian families.
The first study is a descriptive study, which examined the differences in child-related subjects between birthmothers and co-mothers. Both birthmothers and co-mothers were asked about their desire to have a child, about their ideas about sex preference, and about the ideas about how a child could influence thoughts about personal relationships, medical choices and legal issues.
The second study examined whether there are differences on gender identity and
psychological adjustment for children, who are growing up with two mothers. Furthermore, it was examined whether this is different for children who have a known donor or children with an as-yet unknown donor.
Abstract
This descriptive study has examined the differences in child-related subjects between birthmothers and co-mothers. Seventy families were interviewed by telephone about their desire to have a child, about their ideas about sex preferences and about the ideas about how a child could influence personal relationships, medical difficulties and legal issues. No
significant differences were found on the differences between the birthmother and co-mother on socio-demographical characteristics, with an expectation of personal income. Significant differences were found on the desire to have children, sex preferences, and medical
difficulties. Birthmothers showed more desire to give birth to their own child, whereas co-mothers had a stronger preference to help raising a biologically-related child of the partner. Moreover, birthmothers significantly preferred girls and they showed more medical
difficulties in comparison with co-mothers. It can be concluded that lesbian partners
experiences the period towards parenthood somewhat differently. These experiences can be explained by the differences in behaviors and roles that are assigned towards the individuals that are parenting. To further investigate the differences between birthmothers and co-mothers in parenting and how they experience parenthood, more research seems necessary.
There still is ongoing research about planned lesbian families and the development of their children. These researchers focus on a variety of topics, for example on the mental health of lesbian mothers, the parenting ability of lesbian parents, the psychological adjustment and social functioning of children growing up in lesbian families, but also about the gender development and sexual orientation of children reared by lesbian parents (Allen & Burrell, 1996; Bos & Sandfort, 2009; Tasker, 2005). In most of these studies it was found that
children from lesbian families do not differ in child adjustment with children of heterosexual families (Bos, van Balen, & van de Boom, 2007; Golombok, Tasker, & Murray, 1997). However, less is known about the transition towards parenthood for lesbian families and how lesbian families experience the period of pregnancy.
There are different options for lesbian couples to fulfill their child wish. Thanks to new reproductive techniques, one option for the couples is artificial insemination, which resulted in a true baby boom (Gartrell et al., 1996). With artificial insemination, couples could choose for self-insemination (of which the donor will be known), or they could choose for donor insemination in a clinical setting (of which the donor will be known or unknown; Bos & Hakvoort, 2007). Couples can also decide to adopt a child, but a study by Goldberg and Smith (2008) found that lesbian couples are less likely to pursue international adoption. According to these authors, a possibility for this change could be the recent shift in adoption policies and practices, as some countries now require signed affidavits of heterosexuality. Still, lesbian couples try all possible options to have a biological child (of one of the partners). They were not less likely to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) or to use other fertility medications in comparison with heterosexual families (Goldberg & Smith, 2008).
Birthmothers and co-mothers could experience the period towards parenthood differently, for example in the way roles and behaviors are assigned towards gender
perspectives. Although the gender theory focuses on how behaviors and roles are assigned towards gender, it is possible to study ‘mothering’ and ‘fathering’ as roles, independent of the gender of the individuals who are parenting (Fox & Murray, 2000). Goldberg and Perry-Jenkins (2007) clarify that the gender theory explains the different behavior and roles within lesbian families. According to the theory, lesbians will maintain a relatively equal sharing of unpaid labor across the transition to parenthood. Moreover, gender theory considers that gender is created through action and interaction. If non-biological mothers engage in activities of ‘mothering’, they will feel alike and be experienced by their children as mothers, and not so much as secondary parents.
Moreover, research has investigated whether there are differences in lesbian families with children and lesbian families without children, in comparison with heterosexual families. The presence of children in gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents (GLB) did not influence the results of demographic factors as much as expected (Henehan, Rothblum, Solomon, & Balsam, 2007). It was found that women without children were more educated, but they did not have higher occupational status or incomes than women with children. This difference was not found for lesbian families with or without children separately. Lesbian parents, however, are more likely to raise their children within a religious community and lesbian parents were found to be more politically active in GLB rights movements than lesbian couples without children. As differences were found between lesbian couples with and without children, it seems interesting to investigate the differences between birthmothers and co-mothers, as they could differ in child related subjects, which are prior to parenthood.
The present study examines the differences between the birthmother and the co-mother in planned lesbian families. The analyses of this study are based on data of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS; Gartrell et al., 1996; Gartrell et al., 1999;
Gartrell et al., 2005; Gartrell, Rodas, Deck, Peyser, & Banks, 2006), which follows a group of lesbian families since the children are conceived through donor insemination and will follow the mothers and children as they become older. It is an ongoing study, of which the data collection of the fifth phase (children are around the age of 18 years old) has just finished and will be analyzed soon. For this study, data of the first phase (T1) will be used. The aim of T1 was to interview the prospective mothers about the subjects’ parental relationships, social supports, pregnancy motives and preferences, stigmatization concerns, and coping strategies (Gartrell et al., 1996).
The study will be a descriptive study, as less research has been done about differences in child-related subjects between birthmothers and co-mothers. It will be examined whether birthmothers and co-mothers differ in their desire to have a child. Couples need to decide which of the parent will be the biological parent and the desire to have a child could influence this difference. It will be examined whether there are differences between the birthmother and the co-mother on their ideas about sex preference and whether there is a relation between desires to have a child and sex preference differences between the mothers. Moreover, it will be examined whether birthmothers and co-mothers have different ideas about how a child could influence thoughts about (a) their relationship, (b) medical issues, and (c) legal issues.
Method
Participants
The participants in the present study were lesbian partners, who were actively in the process of inseminations or pregnant by a donor and partners who planned to share parenting. The participants were recruited with the use of informal networking and via announcements at
lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers in the three metropolitan areas Boston, Washington D.C. and San Francisco. People, who were interested in the study, were asked to contact the researchers by telephone, where they were informed about the study and where they could decide to join the research program.
The final group of participants consisted of 84 families of which the children were conceived by donor insemination. Seventy families included both a birthmother and a co-mother and 14 families were single co-mother families.
Procedure
The interviews in T1 were scheduled during the time the birthmother and co-mother were in the process of insemination or during the pregnancy of their child. The prospective birthmothers and co-mothers were interviewed separately in their homes. Before the interview, mothers were asked to fill out consent forms.
Interviews A semi structured interview schedule was developed for this study of which the questions were open-ended. The interviews were designed to begin with some questions about socio-demographic characteristics. The interviewer made written reports of the participant’s responses and as a backup the interviews were audiotaped.
T1 consisted of eight areas of decision-making and aspirations towards motherhood. The questions about decision-making covered the anticipated effects of becoming a mother on daily living, friendship patterns, personal relationships, career choices, family of origin, political involvement, and overall satisfaction. Moreover, concerns about legal, financial, and medical/health issues were addressed. For this study, three main topics will be discussed, namely the topics pregnancy motivations, sex preferences, and the importance of concerns in
decision-making to become a parent (i.e. concerns on personal relationships, medical choices and legal issues).
Within pregnancy motivations, the participants were asked about the desire to become a parent (e.g. “Which of the following categories would satisfy your desire to become a parent?”). Mothers could choose between four categories, namely (1) to give birth to own child, (2) raise a biologically-related child, (3) raise a child which is biologically-related to the partner and (4) to adopt an unrelated child. Mothers were asked which of the categories would apply and which of these categories their first choice was. Furthermore, mothers were asked whether they had a strong preference about the methods they would use to become pregnant (i.e. a known with involved or uninvolved father, an unknown donor, or sex with a man).
The topic sex preferences consisted of questions about preferences about the gender of the child (e.g. “Do you have a strong preference about the gender of the child?”). If mothers had a preference, they were asked what their preference was and whether they have
considered using special techniques to influence the gender of the child. Moreover, mothers were asked whether they anticipated any medical difficulties becoming pregnant, or during pregnancy.
Lastly, some topics of concerns were listed and the mothers were asked to rate the importancy of these topics on the desire to have a child. First of all, mothers were asked if the presence of a child would have effects on personal relationships (with a current partner, a future partner, or with other friends). Moreover, mothers were asked whether they would experience any particular medical problem (e.g. how would you become a parent?) and whether they had concerns about legal issues.
Analyses
First of all, a description of the socio-demographic characteristics will be clarified separately for birthmothers and co-mothers and significant differences will be explained. Secondly, differences for birthmothers and co-mothers on their desire to have a child and differences on their idea about sex preference will be explained and whether there is a relationship between differences in desires to have a child and ideas about sex preference. Also, the concerns about personal relationships, medical choices, and legal issues and the importance of these concerns will be explained separately for birthmothers and co-mothers.
Results
The final group of participants consisted of 140 mothers, namely 70 birthmothers and 70 co-mothers. Information about single mothers was not used in this analysis, as a
comparison will be made between birthmothers and co-mothers. On average, the couples had been together for 5.95 years (SD =3.48). Table 1 presents the socio-demographic
characteristics of both birthmothers and co-mothers.
Socio-demographic characteristics
Birthmothers The age of the birthmothers ranged between 23 and 41 years old, with a mean age of 33.59 years old (SD = 4.21). Seventeen birthmothers have done some college education (25%), whereas 21 birthmothers have done some graduate or professional education and 29 birthmothers finished graduate or professional education (resp. 31% and 43%). Of the 70
birthmothers, 24 were Catholic (34%), 20 were Jewish (29%) and 17 birthmothers were Protestant (24%). Only 4 birthmothers had another religion (6%) and 4 birthmothers were not religious (6%). Most birthmothers came from a middle class (58%) and earned between the 20.000 and 30.000 dollar (27%) or 30.000 and 40.000 dollar a year (35%).
Co-mothers The age of co-mothers ranged between 25 and 49 years old, with a mean age of 35.10 years (SD = 5.30). Of the total group of co-mothers, most co-mothers have done some college (21%), some graduate or professional education (23%) or finished graduate or professional education (46%). One co-mother only did high school and only 4 mothers graduated high school. Twenty-one co-mothers were Jewish (30%) and 23 co-mothers were Protestant (33%). The rest of the co-mothers were either Catholic (19%), followed some other religion (13%), or were non-religious (3%). Almost half of the co-mothers had a middle class background (46%) and earned between 20.000 and 30.000 dollar (34%) or over 40.000 dollar a year (31%).
Differences in socio-demographical characteristics No significant differences were found on age of the mother, education, religion, and social class between birthmothers and co-mothers. A significant difference, however, was found on personal income, X2 (4) = 10.12, p < .05. Most birthmothers earned between 30.000 and 40.000 dollar a year (33%), whereas most co-mothers earned between 20.000 and 30.000 dollar a year (34%) or over 40.000 dollar a year (31%) (See table 1).
Desire to have a child, sex preferences and medical issues
Birthmothers The amount of years that birthmothers are thinking of having a child ranged between 2 and 30 years, with a mean of 7.63 years (SD = 5.27). Of the different categories which would satisfy birthmother’s desire to become a parent, most birthmothers choose to give birth to their own child (84%). Of the 70 birthmothers, 13 preferred a known donor and an involved father (19%), 15 preferred a known donor and an uninvolved father (21%), 37 preferred an unknown donor (53%), and 2 mothers preferred having sex with a man (3%). More than the half of the birthmothers (60%) preferred having a girl and 10 birthmothers (14%) would use sex preference techniques. Thirty-two birthmothers (46%) anticipated any medical difficulties in becoming pregnant, or during the pregnancy.
Co-mothers The amount of years that co-mothers were thinking about having a child ranged between 1 year and 21 years with a mean of 6.72 years (SD = 4.97). Half of the co-mothers (50%) choose to help raising a biologically-related child of the partner as a first choice of the desires to have a child and 19 co-mothers choose to give birth to their own child (27%). Thirteen co-mothers (19%) preferred a known donor with an involved father, whereas 16 preferred a known donor with an uninvolved father (23%), 34 co-mothers preferred an unknown donor and one co-mother preferred having sex with a man (resp. 49% and 1%). Almost half of the co-mothers preferred having a girl (47%) and 14 co-mothers (20%) would use sex preference techniques. Eighteen co-mothers (26%) anticipated any medical difficulties while their partner was trying to become pregnant or during the pregnancy of the partner (See table 2).
Differences in desire to have a child, sex preferences and medical issues No significant differences were found on the amount of time of thinking of having a child, on method preferences and on using sex preference techniques. Significant differences was found on the first choice of the desire to have a child (X2 (3) = 49.08, p < .01). Birthmothers showed more desire to give birth to an own child and co-mothers showed more desire to help raising a biologically-related child of the partner. Moreover, significant differences were found on sex preferences (X2 (2) = 5.55, p < .10) and medical difficulties of the mother (X2 (1) = 5.86, p < .05). Birthmothers significantly preferred girls and they showed more medical difficulties in comparison with co-mothers.
Concerns on personal relationships, medical choices, and legal issues
Because of missing values, these analyses are based on 26 birthmothers and 30 co-mothers.
Birthmothers The importance of the concerns about personal relationships were found less important for 1 birthmother (4%), somewhat important for 7 mothers (27%) and very important for 18 birthmothers (69%). Seven birthmothers found concerns about medical choices less important (27%), 7 birthmothers found these concerns somewhat important (27%) and 12 birthmothers found concerns about medical choices very important in their decision to become a parent (46%). Lastly, the concerns about legal issues were found less important for 4 birthmothers (15%), somewhat important for 11 birthmothers (42%) and very important for 11 birthmothers (42%).
Co-mothers Three co-mothers found concerns about personal relationships less important in their decision to become a parent (10%), whereas 4 mothers (13%) found it somewhat
were less important for 11 co-mothers (37%), somewhat important for 6 mothers (20%) and very important for 13 mothers (43%). Half of the co-mothers found concerns about legal issues very important in their decision to become a parent (50%), whereas 4 co-mothers found it less important and 11 co-mothers found it somewhat important (resp. 13% and 37%).
Differences in concerns No significant differences were found between birthmothers and co-mothers on concerns about personal relationships, medical choices, and legal issues in their decision to become a parent.
Discussion
The present study focused on differences between birthmothers and co-mothers in child-related subjects. It was examined whether birthmothers and co-mothers differed in their desire to have a child, in their ideas about sex-preference. Moreover, it was examined whether they have different ideas about how a child could influence thoughts about their relationship, medical issues and legal issues.
No significant differences were found on socio-demographical characteristics, with an expectation on personal income. This result was not surprisingly, as earlier research also found that the presence of children in lesbian families did not influence these characteristics (Henehan et al., 2007). Although the authors found that lesbian families without children were more educated, they did not find that families without children have a higher occupational status or a higher income than lesbian families with children. Moreover, it was found that most lesbian partners are in dual-earner relationships (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). This means that neither of the partner is an exclusive breadwinner and each partner has some sort of economic independence. Although significant differences between the birthmother and
co-mother on personal income were found, these differences were not extreme and it, therefore, could be that the founded differences were accidental.
The participating lesbian couples were asked about their desire to have a child and these were divided into four categories. Differences were found on the desire to give birth to an own child and the desire to help raising a biologically-related child of the partner, with birthmothers showing more desire to give birth to their own child and co-mothers having a stronger preference to help raising a biologically-related child of the partner. Lesbian partners experience the period towards parenthood differently. For example, one of the dimensions that are added to the process of conception, which is not a part of heterosexual pregnancies, is the decision of which partner will become the birthmother or biological mother. Renaud (2007) found different factors that are included in the decision making process, for example considerations about employment and health insurance, age, health, and each of the partner’s family of origin. These factors could have had an influence on the desire to have a child for the birthmothers and co-mothers. Other choices that were made by the lesbian couples concerned making plans for maternity or family leave, planning for infant care, but it also included negotiation of roles and responsibilities. As said earlier, the gender theory focuses on how roles and behaviors are assigned towards gender perspectives. Fox and Murray (2000) explain that it is possible to study the aspects ‘mothering’ and ‘fathering’ as roles,
independent of the gender of the individuals who are parenting. In this way, co-mothers need to redefine their role of motherhood and they need to incorporate the responsibilities and activities which are associated with their role as co-mother (Dunne, 2000). It is possible that co-mothers will focus more on the ‘fathering’ role, which also includes helping raising a (biologically-related) child.
Furthermore, significant differences were found on sex preferences and medical
difficulties of the mother. Birthmothers showed more medical difficulties in comparison with co-mothers. The process of insemination is a difficult time for both lesbian partners (Renaud, 2007), but it is probably more stressful for the birthmother. Prior to pregnancy, the
birthmother needs to monitor ovulation, she needs to time the inseminations and she needs to take different hormones to prepare her body for insemination. These aspects could be an explanation for the differences in medical difficulties.
This study is one of the first descriptive studies that examined differences in child-related subjects between birthmothers and co-mothers and their experiences regarding the transition towards parenthood. It can be concluded that birthmothers and co-mothers
experience the transition towards parenthood somewhat different. These experiences can be best explained by the different behaviors and roles that are assigned towards the individuals that are parenting. It is important to further investigate the differences between birthmothers and co-mothers in parenting and how they experience parenthood.
References
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 19-35.
Bos, H. M. W., & Hakvoort, E. M. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families with known and as-yet unknown donors. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 121-129.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38-48.
Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. M. G. (2009). Children’s gender identity in lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Manuscript to be submitted for publication.
Dunne, G. A. (2000). Opting into motherhood: Lesbians blurring the boundaries and
transforming the meaning of parenthood and kinship. Gender and Society, 14, 11-35.
Fox, G. L., & Murray, V. M. (2000). Gender and families: Feminist perspectives and family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1160–1172.
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., & Bishop, H. (1996). The National Lesbian Family Study: 1. Interviews with prospective mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272-281.
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., & Rodas, C. (1999). The National Lesbian Family Study: 2. Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 362-371.
Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518-524.
Gartrell, N., Rodas, C., Deck, A., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2006). The USA National Lesbian Family Study: Interviews with mothers of 10-year-olds. Feminism and Psychology, 16, 175-192.
Goldberg, A. E., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2007). The division of labor and perceptions of parental roles: Lesbian couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 297-318.
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2008). Social support and psychological well-being in lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples. Family Relations, 57, 281-294.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F., and Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socio-emotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38, 783-791.
Henehan, D., Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, S. E., & Balsam, K. F. (2007). Social and
demographic characteristics of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adults with or without children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 35-79.
Parke, R. D. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 365-399.
Patterson, C. J. (2002). Lesbian and gay parenthood. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of Parenting: Being and becoming a parent vol. 3 (pp. 317-338). New York: Erlbaum.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbian and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405-424.
Renaud, M. T. (2007). We are mothers too: Childbearing experiences of lesbian families. Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 36, 190-199.
Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 224-240.
Appendix 1
Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of birthmothers and co-mothers
Birth Mother Co-mother X2/F
Age 33.59 (4.21) 35.10 (5.30) 1.08
Relationship (years) 5.66 (3.51) 5.97 (3.50) .23
Education 4.95
High school 0 (0%) 1 (1%)
High school graduate 0 (0%) 3 (4%)
Some college 17 (24%) 15 (21%) Some graduate/professional 21 (30%) 16 (23%) Graduate/professional 29 (41%) 32 (46%) Religion 6.78 Catholic 24 (34%) 13 (19%) Jewish 20 (29%) 21 (30%) Protestant 17 (24%) 23 (33%) Other 4 (6%) 9 (13%) Non-religious 4 (6%) 2 (3%) Social class 2.14 Low 13 (19%) 13 (19%) Middle 40 (57%) 32 (46%) High 16 (23%) 23 (33%) Personal Income 10.12* < 10.000 2 (3%) 5 (7%) 10.000-20.000 6 (9%) 7 (10%) 20.000-30.000 18 (26%) 24 (34%) 30.000-40.000 23 (33%) 8 (11%) > 40.000 17 (24%) 22 (31%) * p < .05
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of mothers’ desire to have a child and sex preferences
Birthmother Co-mother X2/F
Thinking children (years) 7.63 (5.27) 6.72 (4.97) .49
Total desire 49.08**
Give birth 59 (84%) 19 (27%)
Raise child 2 (3%) 4 (6%)
Help raising child 3 (4%) 35 (50%)
Adopt unrelated child 3 (4%) 6 (9%)
Methods preferences .42
Known & involved father 13 (19%) 13 (19%)
Known & uninvolved father 15 (21%) 16 (23%)
Unknown donor 37 (53%) 34 (49%)
Sex with a man 2 (3%) 1 (1%)
Sex preferences 5.55+
Girl 42 (60%) 33 (47%)
Boy 2 (3%) 9 (13%)
No preference 25 (36%) 26 (37%)
Using sex preference techniques .88
Yes 10 (14%) 14 (20%)
No 59 (84%) 54 (77%)
Medical difficulties of mother 5.86*
Yes 32 (46%) 18 (26%)
No 37 (53%) 50 (71%)
Abstract
The present study examined psychological adjustment and gender identity between children with a known donor (n = 24) and children with an as-yet unknown donor (n = 35) ranged between 8-12 years old. Data were collected by means of parental reports on psychological adjustment and child reports on both gender identity and psychological adjustment. No differences between psychological adjustment and gender identity were found for children with a known donor or an as-yet unknown donor. Some differences between psychological adjustment and gender identity were found on children’s sex. Girls scored higher on
children’s sex role inventory femininity and feminine occupational aspirations, whereas boys showed higher masculine occupational aspirations. Children’s sex role inventory masculinity, children’s sex role inventory femininity and feminine occupational aspirations were
significant predictors of psychological adjustment for boys, whereas children’s sex role inventory masculinity was a significant predictor of psychological adjustment for girls. Moreover, the gender identity characteristics for boys interacted differently for donor status with psychological adjustment. Boys with an as-yet unknown donor, who rated himself as more masculine, or as more feminine, are more socially competent than boys with a known donor. Boys with a known donor, on the other hand, who rated him as more feminine, are more socially competent, than boys with an as-yet unknown donor.
There is a lot of concern about planned lesbian family children, as these children grow up with two mothers, or more importantly, without a father. Growing up without a father could be confusing for children, which could have an influence on their gender identity
development (especially for boys), and it could influence children’s psychological adjustment. But within planned lesbian families, there are children who know the donor and there are children who do not know the donor. In the present study, it will be examined whether donor status (having a known donor or an unknown donor) influences children’s gender identity development and children’s psychological adjustment.
Most studies examine gender identity with the use of masculinity and feminine personality traits or children’s aspiration to traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine occupations and activities and show contradictory findings. For example, research found that boys growing up in lesbian families showed more feminine personality traits than boys growing up in two-parent heterosexual families (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004) and girls in lesbian families have a stronger preference for non-traditional gender occupations than girls in heterosexual families (Green, Mandel, Hotveld, Gray, & Smith, 1986). But other studies did not find any differences on gender identity between children of lesbian families and
heterosexual families (Breweays, Ponjaert, van Hall, & Golombok, 1997; Fulcher, Sutfin, & Patterson, 2008; Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, 1983).
Studies that examined the psychological adjustment of children growing up in planned lesbian families show comparable results. Bos, van Balen, and van de Boom (2007), for example, found that children from lesbian families did not differ in child adjustment compared with children from heterosexual families. Brewaeys (2001) reviewed different empirical research about donor insemination families and their children. She found no differences in children’s emotional and behavioral development, growing up in planned
lesbian families. Golombok, Tasker, and Murray (1997), however, found that children with lesbian families perceived themselves as less cognitively and physically competent than their peers from two-parent heterosexual families. The authors suggested that the presence of a father might be important for the development of the child’s self-esteem.
These studies all investigated gender identity or psychological adjustment, but these studies did not investigate the diversity within lesbian families. One aspect of diversity within planned lesbian families is donor status. Bos and Hakvoort (2007), for example, examined psychological adjustment between children with a known donor and with an unknown donor. They found that there are no differences on internalizing, externalizing and total problem behavior scales of the Child Behavior Checklist, nor did they find differences on parental stress and child rearing. But children with a known donor showed more social problems and boys with a known donor showed more attention problems. In contrast, Gartrell, Deck, Rodas, Peyser, and Banks (2005) did not find significant differences in competencies or problems between children with a known donor and children with an unknown donor on the Child Behavior Checklist. Moreover, they found that children with a known donor were not likely to be more “out” about growing up in a planned lesbian family than children with an unknown donor. None of these studies have examined the influence of donor status on gender identity development and the relation between gender identity and psychological adjustment, which could be different for children with a known donor or an unknown donor.
Since the 1980’s, new reproductive techniques made it easier for planned lesbian families to have children. Especially the access to donor insemination has resulted in a baby boom within lesbian families (Gartrell, 1996). As there are different options within artificial inseminations, most families choose for self –insemination of which the donor is known, or they choose for donor insemination in a clinical setting (Bos & Hakvoort, 2007). The donors
of children conceived by donor insemination in a clinical setting are unknown until the age of 16 years old. Since 2003, the situation in the Netherlands for unknown donors has changed, namely that all donors are required to registration. In this way, children who have turned 16 years old, have the opportunity to establish the identity of the donor. This made the donor not anonymous, but an as-yet unknown donor. For this study, however, the children are ranged in age between 8-12 years old, which means they are born before the changed situation of 2003. These children have an unknown donor, but they have the option o know who the donor is when they reach the age of 16 years old.
Some researchers are convinced that having a father within the family is important (Cameron & Cameron, 1996; Knight, 1997). Without having a father, it could be more difficult, for example, to develop an own identity. As Erik Erikson emphasized, the main challenge in life is to form an identity, which he found the most stable character in personality (Erikson, 1968b). Erikson developed a theory in which children need to accomplish multiple stages in order to move to the next stage in development. For example, around the age of 12, children need to accomplish the stage “identity versus role confusion”. In this stage, teenagers are trying to establish a sense of identity as part of their social group. When teenagers do not establish this, they become confused about whom they are and what they want in life. Around this stage, it could be possible that children want to find out where they come from to take into consideration while establishing a sense of identity. As Erikson mentioned, a child, who is developing an understanding of his or her self, is tied to developing a relationship to community and culture (Erikson, 1963). Therefore, having a known donor or an as-yet unknown donor could have an important influence on developing a sense of identity.
Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and Brewaeys (2003) were interested in the differences in psychological adjustment between children who want to know more about the
donor and children who do not want to know more. Children were made sure that Belgium only works with anonymous donor, but if they had the opportunity to know the donor, if they would use this opportunity. They found that whether children wish to know more about the donor or they wish not, is not reflected in the child’s self esteem and their emotional and behavioral functioning. Openness about the donor seems to rouse curiosity about the donor in several children and these children wanted to find out more information about the donor. Scheib, Riordan and Rubin (2005), on the other hand, found that youths appeared to be positive and comfortable about their origins and are looking forward to obtaining their donor’s identities. These studies show that children have curiosity about their donors and this could have an influence on their development.
It seems interesting to investigate whether there are differences on gender identity and psychological adjustment between children with a known donor and children with an as-yet unknown donor. From earlier research (Egan & Perry, 2001), it is known that gender identity could influence psychological adjustment. But it is interesting to investigate the influence of gender identity and psychological adjustment for children, who grow up with two mothers, and whether this is different for children who have a known donor or an as-yet unknown donor.
Method
Procedure
The present study is part of an ongoing research about planned lesbian families. The families were recruited in three different ways, namely by consulting the patient files of the Medical Center for Birth Control, by approaching people who were on the mailing list of a
Dutch interest group for gay/lesbian parents, and by giving information about the study during meetings organized by Dutch health care centers about lesbian and gay parenthood. At the time the research started, 100 planned lesbian families started. Of these 100 planned lesbian families, 63 percent were willing to participate when the children were between 8 and 12 years old.
Data were collected by means of questionnaires about gender identity and child adjustment. The children filled out questionnaires about gender identity and children’s competencies during a one-hour session in their home’s environment. A questionnaire about problem behavior was left for the parents to fill out. Also, the parents were asked to fill out information about the donor status and socio-demographic characteristics.
Participants
In total, 59 families were used for analyses, 24 children with a known donor and 35 children with an as-yet unknown donor. The mean age of the participating children with a known donor and as-yet unknown donor from the original study did not differ significantly (known donor: M = 9.76, SD = 1.42, as-yet unknown donor: M = 9.97, SD = 1.56). The proportions boys and girls, however, did differ significantly (9 boys and 15 girls with a known donor and 22 boys and 13 girls with an as-yet unknown donor).
The parent’s mean age of both donor status groups did not differ significantly (known donor: M = 41.20, SD = 2.81, as-yet unknown donor: M = 40.94, SD = 3.36). Most parents were Dutch from origin in both groups (100% of the known donor group and 97% of the as-yet unknown donor group). Also, most parents in both donor status groups were highly educated. In the known donor group, 96% of the parents had a higher or academic agree, and
in the as-yet unknown donor group, 80% of the parents had a higher or academic agree. No significance difference was found on both ethnicity of the parents and education of the parents. Lastly, most of the parents in both donor status groups were non-religious (92% of the known donor group and 77% of the as-yet unknown donor group). Also, within religion no significant differences were found.
No significant differences were found on the amount of children the families had (known donor: M = 1,80, SD = .41, as-yet unknown donor: M = 1.89, SD = .58). The number of siblings between children with a known donor and children with an as-yet unknown donor also did not differ significantly. Thirty-eight percent of the children with a known donor had one or more brothers and 46% of the children with a known donor had one or more sisters. For children with an as-yet unknown donor this was, respectively, 63% and 37%. Significant differences, however, were found on birth order, whereas the mean birth order of children with a known donor (M = 1.88, SD = .53) was smaller than the mean birth order of children with an as-yet unknown donor (M = 2.11, SD = .76).
Measures
Questionnaires were used to measure gender identity and both psychological
adjustment, where children filled out questionnaires for both aspects and parents filled out a questionnaire for psychological adjustment.
Gender identity Gender identity was measured with the use of the Children’s Sex Role
Inventory (Boldizar, 1991) and the Occupational Choices for children (Antill, Cotton, Russell, & Goodnow, 1996).
The Children’s Sex Role Inventory (CSRI) measures masculine and feminine traits and is an adaptation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974). The questionnaire consists of 20 items, of which the children were asked to rate “how true of you” each item was on a 4-point scale with 1 being ‘not true at all’ and 4 being ‘very true’. The questionnaire included ten traditionally masculine items of which an example is “ When I play games, I really like to win”. Cronbach’s alpha for masculine traits was .63. The other 10 items were traditionally feminine items (e.g., “ I care about what happens to others”), of which
Cronbach’s alpha was .72.
To measure gender role behavior, two subscales of the Occupational Choices Scale for children were used. The subscales consisted of six stereotypical masculine occupations (for example “a police officer”) and six stereotypical feminine occupations (for example “a teacher”). The children were asked to rate how interested they were on each of the occupations on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all; 5 = Very much). Cronbach’s alpha for
respectively stereotypical male occupations and stereotypical feminine occupations were .50 and .55.
Before obtaining the questionnaires, different socio-demographical characteristics were asked. Also, the mothers were asked whether child had a known donor or an as-yet unknown donor.
Psychological adjustment Psychological adjustment was assessed with the use of two questionnaires, namely the Perceived Competence Scale for Children (van den Bergh & Marcoen, 1999) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goedhart, Treffers, & van Widenfelt, 2003)
A Dutch version of the Harter Perceived Competence Scale (PCSC) for Children was used to assess three subscales, namely social competence, physical competence, and general self-worth. Each scale consisted of 7 items, and children were asked to rate on a 4-point whether the statements were true for them, with 1 being ‘not true at all’ and 4 being ‘very true’.
With the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) five subscales were assessed, namely emotional problems, conduct problems, peer problems, hyperactivity, and pro-social behavior. Parents were asked to answer 25 items (5 items per subscale) to rate whether the statements were ‘not true at all’, ‘somewhat true’, or ‘very true’. For the analyses, a total score of problem behavior was calculated. This score is based on the subscales emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, and peer problems, and is calculated by adding all scores of the subscales. The subscale ‘pro-social behavior’ is not used in the total score for behavioral problems and is mentioned as a separate scale.
Donor status and socio-demographic characteristics Parents were asked to fill out a
questionnaire about the donor status of the child. The included items concerned whether the mother had become pregnant through self-insemination or donor insemination at a clinic. For mothers who used self-insemination, it was asked whether the child had contact with the donor and for mothers who used donor insemination at a clinic, it was asked whether the donor is known or unknown. The children were all conceived before the Dutch law had changed the law on anonymous sperm donors.
Information about socio-demographic characteristics (gender and age of parent and child, education, ethnicity, religion, family size, amount of brothers/sisters, and birth order) were collected by means of questionnaires.
Analyses
Analyses were conducted within two steps. In the first step a 2 (donor status: 1 = known donor; 2 = as-yet unknown donor) by 2 (child gender: 1 = boy; 2 = girl) multivariate analyses of variance was conducted with children’s report of gender identity and
competencies and parent’s report about problem behavior as the dependent variables. Wilks’ lambda was used to test significance of the main effects and interaction effects (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
In the second step, correlations between the different variables were calculated to examine the relations between the gender identity variables and the psychological adjustment variables. As the proportion boys and girls differ significantly from each other between the two donor status groups, it was decided to calculate the correlations separately for boys and girls.
The third step was a set of multiple regression analyses, to analyse the associations between gender identity and psychological adjustment and whether these associations are different for children with a known donor and for children with an as-yet unknown donor. As the proportion boys and girls differ significantly from each other between the two donor status groups, it was also decided to conduct two multiple regression analyses, one for boys and one for girls. In Step 1, the gender identity variables, and donor status were entered. In Step 2, the interactions of donor status with gender identity variables were entered. Interactions between the variables are considered if the ∆R2
Results
Donor status, psychological adjustment and gender identity
A significant main effect was found for gender of the child (Wilks’ Lambda = .55, F (9, 47) = 4.32, p < .001). The main effect of donor status was not significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .85, F (9, 47) = .89, p > .10), nor was the interaction between donor status and gender of the child (Wilks Lambda = .93, F (9, 47) = .41, p >.10).
As shown in Table 1, three significant main effects of gender of the child were found on gender identity variables, namely femininity, masculine occupational aspirations, and feminine occupational aspirations. Girls scored higher on children’s sex role inventory femininity (F (9, 47) = 8.29, p < .01), and showed higher feminine occupational aspirations than boys (F (9, 47) = 16.83, p < .01). Boys, on the other hand, showed higher masculine occupational aspirations than girls (F (9, 47) = 5.73, p < .05). No significant main effects of gender of the child were found for psychological adjustment.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Association between psychological adjustment and gender identity
To investigate the association between psychological adjustment and gender identity, the correlations between the gender identity and psychological adjustment variables were calculated, separately for boys and girls (see Table 1).
For boys, children’s sex role inventory masculinity correlated significantly with social competence and physical competence, whereas children’s sex role inventory femininity
correlated significantly with general self-worth and pro-social behavior. Boys, who scored higher on children’s sex role inventory masculinity, showed higher levels of social
competence and physical competence. Boys, who scored higher on children’s sex role inventory femininity, on the other hand, showed higher levels of general self-worth and pro-social behavior. Lastly, feminine occupational aspirations were significantly correlated with pro-social behavior and the total score of problem behavior. Boys, who showed more aspirations towards feminine occupations, were more likely to show higher levels of pro-social behavior and total problem behavior.
For girls, on the other hand, children’s sex role inventory masculinity was significantly correlated with social competence, general self-worth, and pro-social behavior. Girls, who scored higher on children’s sex role inventory masculinity, showed higher levels of social competence, general self-worth, and pro-social behavior. Children’s sex role inventory
femininity was significantly correlated with social competence and pro-social behavior. Girls, who scored higher on children’s sex role inventory femininity, showed higher levels of social competence and pro-social behavior.
Interactions donor status and gender identity
Boys. Table 2 shows the results of the sequential regression analyses with donor status and the gender identity variables children’s sex role inventory masculinity, children’s sex role inventory femininity, masculine occupational aspirations, and feminine occupational
aspirations (Step 1), and the interactions of donor status with the gender identity variables (Step 2) on the psychological adjustment variables social competence, physical competence, general self-worth, pro-social behavior, and the total score of problem behavior. Step 1
showed a significant R2 for pro-social behavior. The interactions of donor status with the gender identity variables in Step 2 produced one significant ∆R2 for social competence on the interactions donor status x the gender identity variables children’s sex role inventory
masculinity, children’s sex role inventory femininity, and feminine occupational aspirations.
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Children’s sex role inventory masculinity was related to social competence. Boys with a higher score on sex role inventory masculinity showed higher levels of social competence. Or in other words, Boys, who rated themselves as more masculine, are considered more social competent.
Children’s sex role inventory femininity, and feminine occupational aspirations were related to pro-social behavior. Boys with a higher score on sex role inventory femininity showed higher levels on pro-social behavior. Also, Boys who scored higher on feminine occupational aspirations showed higher levels on pro-social behavior. Boys, who rated themselves as more feminine and boys, who felt more aspirations towards feminine occupations, showed more pro-social behavior.
Three interactions between donor status and gender identity variables were
significantly related to social competence, namely children’s sex role masculinity, children’s sex role femininity, and feminine occupational aspirations. For boys with an as-yet unknown donor, the score on children’s sex role inventory masculinity was significantly correlated with social competence (r = .64, p < .001). The score on children’s sex role inventory masculinity for boys with a known donor, on the other hand, was not significantly correlated with social
competence (r = .02, p >.10). Boys with an as-yet unknown donor, who rated themselves as less masculine, are less social competent, than boys with a known donor.
Although the interaction between children’s sex role inventory femininity and social competence was significant (β = .35, t = 1.97, p < .10), this correlation is not significant for one of the two donor status groups. However, boys with a known donor, show a higher correlation (r = .36, p > .1) between children’ sex role inventory femininity and social competence, than children with an as-yet unknown donor (r = .06, p > .10). Known donor status boys who rated themselves as more feminine, are more social competent, than boys with an as-yet unknown donor.
Also, the correlations between feminine occupational aspirations and social
competence for the two donor status groups were not significantly different. Boys, with an as-yet unknown donor, show higher correlations between feminine occupational aspirations and social competence (r = .34, p >.10) than boys with a known donor (r = -.46). Boys with an as-yet unknown donor, who feel less aspirations toward feminine occupations, are less social competent, than boys with a known donor.
Girls. Table 3 presents the results of the sequential regression analyses for girls, with donor status and the gender identity variables children’s sex role inventory masculinity, children’s sex role inventory femininity, masculine occupational aspirations, and feminine occupational aspirations (Step 1) and the interactions between donor status and the gender identity variables (Step 2) for the psychological adjustment variables. Step 1 produced a significant R2 for social competence. The interactions between donor status and the gender identity variables in Step 2, on the other hand, did not produce a significant ∆R2 for the psychological adjustment variables.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Children’s sex role inventory masculinity was significantly related to social competence. Girls, who rated themselves more masculine and girls who rated themselves more feminine showed higher levels of social competence.
Discussion
The results of the present study showed that there were no differences between psychological adjustment and gender identity between children with a known donor and an as-yet unknown donor. Differences were found on children’s sex, with girls scoring higher on children’s sex role inventory femininity and feminine occupational aspirations than boys and boys showing higher masculine occupational aspirations than girls. Children’s sex role inventory
masculinity, children’s sex role inventory femininity and feminine occupational aspirations were significant predictors of psychological adjustment for boys, whereas children’s sex role inventory masculinity was a significant predictor of psychological adjustment for girls. Moreover, the gender identity characteristics for boys interacted differently for donor status with psychological adjustment.
The findings that girls scored higher on femininity and feminine occupational
aspirations and boys scored higher on masculine occupational aspirations are in contrast with the concern that children raised by two mothers and without a father will show atypical gender development. Moreover, Anderssen, Amlie and Ytterøy (2002), who reviewed studies that assessed outcomes among others about gender role behavior and gender identity did not find remarkable differences on both aspects. Children of lesbian families do not have specific
problems with gender identity and do not show differences in sex role behavior. Also, in comparison with heterosexual families, no differences were found on gender identity (Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004).
For boys, social competence was predicted by children’s sex role inventory masculinity, whereas pro-social behavior was predicted by children’s sex role inventory femininity and feminine occupational aspirations. Moreover, three interactions were found between the three aspects of gender identity (children’s sex role inventory masculinity,
children’s sex role inventory femininity, and feminine occupational aspirations). Boys with an as-yet unknown donor, who rated himself as more masculine, or as more feminine, are more socially competent than boys with a known donor. Boys with a known donor, on the other hand, who rated him as more feminine, are more socially competent, than boys with an as-yet unknown donor. It is not surprisingly that these results were only found for boys and not for girls. As Egan and Perry (2001) stated, boys are more sex typed than girls and they experience more pressure for sex typing than girls do. And as there are correlations between gender identity and psychological adjustment, it seems logic that this interacts between each other. From these results it can be concluded that it seems independent whether children grow up with knowing the donor or without knowing the donor. As showing in this research that donor status does not affect gender identity negatively and previous research showing that it does not affect psychological well-being (Bos & Hakvoort, 2007; Vanfraussen et. al, 2003), it seems possible to say that donor status is something that yields curiosity.
A limitation of this study is that the findings are based on a small sample size. Small sample sizes increase the possibility of type II errors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), which means that wrong conclusions can be made. It is important that future studies will use larger samples to confirm findings. A second limitation is that this study only used questionnaires.
Although both child and parent reports are used, it seems important to use different
instruments, like observations or interviews. Until now, most studies used questionnaires to examine psychological adjustment and gender identity within planned lesbian families, whereas other instruments could result in different and more reliable outcomes.
The present study is one of the first studies that examined both gender identity and psychological adjustment and whether this could be different for children’s donor status. As Tasker (2005) mentioned, the differences between children from planned lesbian families and heterosexual families are known. This study adds an important new aspect towards research about children growing up in planned lesbian families. Still, it seems interesting to further investigate gender identity and psychological adjustment between children with a known donor and an as-yet unknown donor, for example when the children have passed age 16. As the Dutch law requires all donors to registration, children have the opportunity to establish the identity of the donor at age 16. Children’s curiosity about the donor could have an influence on gender identity and psychological wellbeing. Moreover, it is interesting to investigate what drives children with an as-yet unknown donor to meet with the donor. In conclusion, whether children have a known donor or an as-yet unknown donor does not influence a child’s
psychological adjustment or a child’s gender identity negatively
It can be concluded that whether children have a known or as-yet unknown donor does not influence a child’s psychological adjustment or a child’s gender identity.
References
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytterøy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian and gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.
Antill, J. K., Cotton, S., Russell, G., & Goodnow, J. J. (1996). Measures of children’s sex-typing in middle childhood II. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 35-44.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Boldizar, J. P. (1991). Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children: The children’s sex role inventory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 505-515.
Bos, H. M. W., & Hakvoort, E. M. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families with known and as-yet unknown donors. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 121-129.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38-48.
Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. M. G. (2009). Children’s gender identity in lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Manuscript to be submitted for publication.
Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., van Hall, E. V., & Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination: Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction, 12, 1349-1359.
Brewaeys, A. (2001). Review: parent-child relationships and child development in donor insemination families. Human reproduction update, 7, 38-46.
Cameron, P., & Cameron, K. (1996). Homosexual parents. Adolescence, 31, 757-776.
Cole, M., Cole, S. R., Lightfoot, C. (2005). The Development of Children (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451-463.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968b). Life cycle. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol. 9. New York: Crowell, Collier.
Fulcher, M., Sutkin, E. L., & Patterson, C. (2008). Individual differences in gender
development: Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles, 58, 330-341.
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., & Bishop, H. (1996). The National Lesbian Family Study: 1. Interviews with prospective mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272-281.
Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518-524.
Goedhart, A., Treffers, F., van Widenfelt, B. (2003) Vragen naar psychische problemen bij kinderen en adolescenten: de Strenghts and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, 58, 1018-1035.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian families and single parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F., and Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socio-emotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38, 783-791.
Green, R., Mandel, J., Hotveld, M., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 167-184.
Knight, R. H. (1997). Homosexual parents are not in a child’s best interests. In T. L. Roleff (Eds.). Gay rights (pp. 84-89). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
MacCullum, F., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of children and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1407-1419.
Scheib, J. E., Riordan, M., & Rubin, S. (2005). Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12-17 year olds. Human Reproduction, 20, 239-252.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Developmental and behavioral pediatrics, 26, 224-240.
Van den Bergh, B. R. H., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Harter’s self-perception profile for children: Factor structure, reliability, and convergent validity in a Dutch-speaking Belgian sample of fourth, fifth and sixth graders. Psychologica Belgica, 39, 29-47.
Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2003). Why do children want to know more about the donor? The experience of youngsters raised in lesbian families. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 24, 31-38.
Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child development, 75, 1886-1
Appendix 2
Table 1 Means (standard deviations) and correlations (boys above diagonal, girls below diagonal) of gender identity and psychological adjustment
Boys Girls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Known As-yet unknown Known As-yet unknown
Masculinity (1) 2.11 (.35) 2.35 (.38) 2.23 (.47) 2.15 (.39) - .15 -.07 .06 .48** .44** .17 -.09 .09
Femininity (2) 2.60 (.42) 2.81 (.49) 3.06 (.36) 3.02 (.37) .47* - -.16 .35+ .13 .13 .34+ .70** .20
Masculine occupational aspirations (3) 2.49 (.74) 2.24 (.65) 2.11(.67) 1.75 (.61) .10 .01 - .19 .01 -.03 -.01 -.06 -.03 Feminine occupational aspirations (4) 2.15 (45) 2.30 (.69) 2.91 (.67) 2.96 (.59) -.15 -.15 .20 - .20 .15 .11 .46** .44* Social competence (5) 2.95 (.34) 2.86 (.35) 2.95 (.61) 2.86 (.35) .58** .50** -.09 -.25 - .58** .41* -.11 .25 Physical competence (6) 2.94 (.47) 3.10 (.50) 2.86 (.42) 2.88 (.47) .29 -.07 .08 -.11 .30 - .50** .10 .30+ General self-worth (7) 3.14 (.37) 3.24 (.40) 3.02 (.33) 3.09 (.40) .40* .31 .01 -.13 .60** .38* - .12 .31+ Pro-social behavior (8) 2.84 (.41) 2.77 (.51) 2.91 (.32) 2.89 (.33) .33+ .32+ .17 -.04 .48* .30 .49** - .35+ Total score problem behavior (9) 9.79 (2.71) 10.54 (5.53) 8.47 (2.76) 9.13 (3.47) -.23 -.13 .05 .15 -.23 -.54** -.13 .00 -
Table 2 Summary of Sequential Regression Analysis for variables predicting boy’s psychological adjustment (N = 31)
Variable Social Competence Physical Competence General Self-worth Pro-social behavior Total score SDQ
B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE β B SE B β Step 1 Masculinity 0.50 0.17 .51** 0.55 0.24 .43* 0.12 0.20 .12 -0.19 0.16 -.15 0.75 2.34 .06 Femininity 0.01 0.15 .01 0.01 0.20 .01 0.28 0.17 .34 0.65 0.14 .66** 0.14 2.01 .01 Masc. Occup. -0.00 0.10 -.01 -0.02 0.14 -.02 0.04 0.11 .06 -0.04 0.09 -.05 -0.84 1.36 -.12 Fem. Occup. -0.11 0.11 .19 0.10 0.15 .13 -0.02 0.13 -.03 0.21 0.10 .27+ 3.56 1.52 .46 Donor status 0.11 0.15 .14 -0.02 0.20 -.01 -0.03 0.17 -.03 0.20 0.14 .20 0.19 2.00 .02 R2 .28 .21 .14 .62** .22 Step 2 Masculinity (M) 0.36 0.17 .37* 0.56 0.25 .44* -0.01 0.22 -.01 -0.14 0.18 -.11 1.11 2.77 .09 Femininity (F) 0.15 0.14 .19 0.12 0.21 .12 0.32 0.19 .39 0.62 0.163 .63** -0.08 2.34 -.01
Masc. Occup. (MO) 0.05 0.10 .10 0.09 0.15 .12 0.10 0.13 .18 -0.01 0.11 -.01 -1.01 1.62 -.14
Fem. Occup. (FO) -0.09 0.12 -.14 -0.05 0.18 -.06 -0.16 0.16 -.26 0.24 0.13 .32+ 4.17 1.96 .54*
Donor status (DS) -0.03 0.16 -.04 -0.09 0.24 -.08 -0.21 0.21 -.25 0.19 0.18 .19 0.64 2.65 .06 M x DS -1.01 0.41 -.44* -0.26 0.62 -.09 -0.70 0.55 -.30 0.10 0.46 .04 0.66 6.91 .02 F x DS 0.66 0.34 .35+ -0.32 0.51 -.13 0.06 0.45 .03 -0.51 0.37 -.21 -0.19 5.60 -.01 MO x DS -0.03 0.21 -.02 -0.37 0.32 -.24 0.17 0.28 .14 -0.06 0.23 -.04 -0.13 3.54 -.01 FO x DS -0.85 0.33 -.53* -0.51 0.49 -.25 -0.64 0.43 -.39 0.27 0.36 .13 3.30 5.43 .16 R2 .54* .39 .24 .65 .23 ∆R2 .35* .13 -.08 .50 -.10 + p < .10 * p < .05 **
Table 3 Summary of Sequential Regression Analysis for variables predicting girl’s psychological adjustment (N = 28)
Variable Social Competence Physical Competence General Self-worth Pro-social behavior Total score SDQ
B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE β B SE B β Step 1 Masculinity 0.52 0.21 .45* 0.41 0.23 .41+ 0.27 0.18 .33 0.16 0.17 .21 -1.45 1.67 -.20 Femininity 0.37 0.25 .27 -0.34 0.27 -.28 0.15 0.23 .15 0.19 0.20 .22 -0.14 1.98 -.02 Masc. Occup. -0.10 0.13 -.14 0.06 0.14 .08 0.02 0.11 .03 0.08 0.10 .17 0.35 1.03 .08 Fem. Occup. -0.09 0.13 -.11 -0.08 0.14 -.11 -0.04 0.11 -.07 -0.01 0.10 -.02 0.49 1.05 .10 Donor status 0.08 0.16 .08 -0.06 0.18 -.07 -0.10 0.14 -.14 -0.03 0.13 -.04 -0.65 1.29 -.11 R2 .44* .16 .20 .17 .08 Step 2 Masculinity (M) 0.47 0.22 .41* 0.31 0.28 .30 0.29 0.21 .35 0.15 0.19 .20 -0.54 2.01 -.08 Femininity (F) 0.55 0.26 .40+ -0.28 0.33 -.23 0.24 0.25 .24 0.12 0.23 .14 -1.36 2.37 -.16
Masc. Occup (MO) -0.09 0.14 -.11 -0.00 0.17 -.00 0.07 0.13 .14 0.03 0.12 .07 0.61 1.21 .13
Fem. Occup (FO) 0.01 0.14 .01 -0.11 0.17 -.16 -0.07 0.13 -.11 0.02 0.12 .06 0.20 1.22 .04
Donor status (DS) 0.08 0.16 .08 -0.03 0.19 -.04 -0.13 0.15 -.18 -0.00 0.13 -.00 -0.84 1.40 -.14 M x DS 0.33 0.46 .14 0.35 0.57 .17 -0.04 0.44 -.02 0.17 0.40 .12 -2.14 4.14 -.15 F x DS 0.83 0.53 .30 -0.74 0.66 -.31 0.14 0.51 .07 0.05 0.46 .03 0.83 4.80 .05 MO x DS 0.16 0.28 .10 0.11 0.34 .08 -0.08 0.26 -.07 0.00 0.24 .00 -2.50 2.47 -.25 FO x DS 0.29 0.28 .18 -0.08 0.34 -.06 0.41 0.26 .36 -0.34 .24 -.33 -0.65 2.47 -0.07 R2 .60 .22 .30 .28 .15 ∆R2 .40 -.17 -.05 -.08 -.28 + p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01
