Desire for Parenthood among Childless Homosexual and Heterosexual Women and Men
Master’s Thesis Preventive Youth Care and Parenting Graduate School of Child Development and Education University of Amsterdam J. T. van Houten 5950538 Supervisor dr. H.M.W. Bos Co-supervisor dr. L. van Rijn-van Gelderen Amsterdam June 2017
Abstract
In two studies, we investigated parental desires among American childless homosexual and heterosexual people in reproductive age. In study 1, using representative data from the 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth, we assessed whether associations between attitudes regarding parenthood (idealization, impact) and the intention to become a parent were mediated by the desire for parenthood and dependent on sexual orientation and gender. Simple mediation analyses showed that desire mediated the relationship between attitudes and intention. Moderated moderation analyses revealed that the mediation model predicted by idealization of parenthood was not significant for gay men. In Study 2, using data from the Intended Parents Project, we examined whether attitudes, social norms, and perceived
behavioral control predicted desire for parenthood depending on sexual orientation and gender. Moderated moderation analyses revealed that perceived behavioral control predicted parental desires of gay men and heterosexual women. Social norms of extended family members predicted heterosexual men’s parental desires.
Desire for Parenthood among Childless Homosexual and Heterosexual Women and Men Parenthood is highly valued in all kinds of societies (Nauck & Klaus, 2007). From an early age, the majority of women and men assume that they will become a parent in the future (Purewal & Van den Akker, 2007). However, this universal, common and fundamental assumption to be a parent in the future, may not be obvious for lesbian women and gay men, because they are less likely than heterosexual women and men to have children (Gates, Badgett, Macomber, & Chambers, 2007). Nevertheless, that does not mean that lesbian women and gay men have no desire to have children after their coming out (Gates et al., 2007; Riskind & Patterson, 2010). The desire to have children refers to a personal belief about parenthood in a hypothetical situation (Ajzen, Brown, & Carvajal, 2004). It can be followed by the intention to become a parent, which refers to a belief about parenthood in a behavioral situation. If the belief about parenthood in both the hypothetical and behavioral situation corresponds, people will show behavior that can result in pregnancy. In practice, the number of homosexual couples that have children after coming out is increasing (Bos, Van Balen, & Van den Boom, 2003; Murphy, 2013). Notwithstanding the fact that it is more common now for lesbian women and gay men to get children, still little is known about their decision-making process towards parenthood in which the desire for parenthood plays an important role (Mezey, 2013).
Understanding homosexual people’s desire for parenthood in relation to its predictors and the intention to become a parent is important for making policy and legislation on
non-traditional parenthood and on access to reproductive technology. For instance, a Dutch State Commission recognized the importance of the subjects and recommended legislation on multiple parenting and on surrogacy (Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap, 2016). Hence, the current research will focus, in two separate studies, on the desire for parenthood of individuals, who identified themselves as lesbian women, gay men and heterosexual women
and men. In addition, the focus will be on their intention to become a parent and on aspects such as attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioral control, which are assumed to be relevant to this desire (Armitage & Conner, 2001).
Though little is known about the desire for parenthood of homosexual people, previous researches based on American data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth showed that more than one-third of childless lesbian women and more than half of childless gay men, in reproductive age between 15 and 44 years old (Chandra, Martinez, Mosher, Abma, & Jones, 2005), seem to desire parenthood (Gates et al., 2007; Riskind & Patterson, 2010). In comparison with childless heterosexual people in the same age range as the above lesbian women and gay men, it appeared that approximately two-thirds of heterosexual women and three quarters of heterosexual men seem to desire parenthood (Gates et al., 2007; Riskind & Patterson, 2010). Research from Riskind and Patterson (2010) showed that childless gay men, who desire parenthood, seem to have the intention to become a parent less often than
childless heterosexual men desiring parenthood (67% and 90% respectively). This was not the case for childless lesbian women. Like childless heterosexual women, if childless lesbian women desired parenthood, most of the time they also seemed to have the intention to become a parent.
A theoretical model to understand and represent the social-psychological processes resulting in the intention to become a parent is the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen & Klobas, 2013). According to this theory, behavior is predicted by the intention to perform that behavior, which in turn is predicted by attitudes, subjective norms and perceived
behavioral control towards that behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The predictor attitude refers to a positive or negative valuation of the behavior. The predictor subjective norms refers to people’s perception of the expectations of people around them to perform or not to perform the behavior. Finally, the predictor perceived behavioral control refers to one’s understanding
of the level of easiness or difficulty to perform a behavior, depending on the context (Ajzen, 1991), that is external factors in the context (Armitage & Conner, 2001).
Applying the TPB on parenthood, would suggest that behavior, which can result in pregnancy, would be predicted by the intention to become a parent (Ajzen & Klobas, 2013). This intention in turn would be predicted by personal values – attitudes –, social expectations, and perceived behavioral control regarding parenthood. Missing in this theoretical model is the desire for parenthood. However, findings from a meta-analytic review of the efficacy of the TPB indicate that the TPB predictors are stronger associated with desire than with intention (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Intention in turn, seems to be a stronger predictor of behavior than desire. In addition, results of the research of Bagozzi and Kimmel (1995) indicate that the association between attitudes and intention is largely mediated by desire.
Findings from the research of Riskind and Patterson (2010) suggest that the desire for parenthood and the intention to become a parent are strongly related for heterosexual people and lesbian women. What is not examined is whether attitudes regarding parenthood and the intention to become a parent are related, whether this association is mediated by the desire for parenthood, and whether this is different for homosexual and heterosexual people and for women and men. Therefore, the research questions of the first study are: Is the desire for parenthood a mediator in the assumed association between attitudes regarding parenthood and the intention to become a parent? Does this mediation model differ for homosexual and heterosexual people and for women and men? A mediation model is expected, based on the study of Bagozzi and Kimmel (1995) and the meta-analytic review of Armitage and Conner (2001). In view of the work from Riskind and Patterson (2010), it is expected that sexual orientation and biological sex are significant moderators for this mediation model (see Figure 1). It appeared that heterosexual people expressed parental desires more often than
homosexual people. Furthermore, hetero men, given the desire for parenthood, expressed the intension to become a parent more often than homosexual people and heterosexual women.
Based on the findings from the meta-analytic review of Armitage and Conner (2001), it is assumed that attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control regarding parenthood are related to the desire for parenthood. Less is known about what the role is of biological sex and sexual orientation. Therefore, the second study investigates whether the assumed
association between attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioral control, and the desire for parenthood, is different for women and men, and for heterosexual and homosexual people (see Figure 2). Firstly, this association is expected to be stronger for women than for men, because women appear to have a stronger desire to have children than men (Van Balen & Trimbos-Kemper, 1995). Secondly, this association is expected to be stronger for
homosexual people than for heterosexual people, because lesbian women and gay men can experience parenthood as a victory (Erez & Shenkman, 2016; Van Rijn-Van Gelderen et al., submitted). Having children as a lesbian woman or gay man is not in accordance with the general social expectations (Armesto, 2002) and requires motivation to overcome social, structural and institutional barriers (Berkowitz & Marsiglio, 2007).
Study 1 Method Procedure
We conducted secondary data analyses on the Female and Male Respondent Data Files from the American 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (National Center for Health Statistics, 2016). These quantitative data files were selected for the current study because they contained information on sexual orientation of participants in reproductive age, and on other variables which were of interest in the current study. The data were based on a
multi-stage probability-based sample, which was representative for the American household population aged 15-44 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2016).
Since we performed analyses on secondary data, the recruitment procedure was fixed and the recruitment was already carried out. Participants were interviewed at their home by professional, female interviewers from the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center. The interviewers typed the answers into a laptop computer (National Center for Health Statistics, 2014). Answers to sensitive questions like sexual orientation were to be typed, privately, by participants themselves. Participating was confidential, voluntary and rewarded with $40. The NSFG has been given official approval by a federal law, Section 306(b)1(H) of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC 242k) (National Center for Health Statistics, n.d.).
For the current study, we selected participants based on three questions that were
included in the NSFG survey. First, we determined childlessness based on the questions “Did you have any live births?” or “What is the number of biological children you have ever fathered?” and “What is the number of biological, adopted, related, or legal children under the age of 18 in your household?”. To be included in the analytical sample, participants had to answer these questions with no and zero. Subsequently, we determined sexual orientation by the question “Do you think of yourself as heterosexual or straight, or homosexual, gay, or lesbian?”. Just as in the original sample, the age range in the analytical sample was held to 44 years. We made this choice because previous research showed that despite a decrease in women’s fertility, still 33% of women between 35 and 44 expressed to expect to have a child (Daugherty & Martinez, 2016).
Participants
The total NSFG sample consisted of 10,205 participants. Of them, 4,802 (47.1%) were childless. Because of the topic of the current study (desire for parenthood), these 4,802 childless participants were included in our analytical sample: 2,255 women (47.0%) and
2,547 men (53.0%). Of the childless participants, 187 (3.9%) identified themselves as homosexual (93 women, 94 men) and 4,615 (96.1%) as heterosexual (2,162 women, 2,453 men). Their age ranged from 15 to 44 years (M = 24,20, SD = 7.62). Almost half of the participants in our analytical sample (43.6%) attended and finished 9th to 12th grade in school. Approximately a third (31.3%) attended and finished one year of college or less, to three years of college, and a quarter (26%) attended and finished four to seven or more years of college or grad school. In terms of race, 69.0 % of the participants in our analytical sample was white (N = 3,311) and 31% was non-white (N = 1,491).
As Table 1 shows, there were significant differences in the analytical sample between homosexual and heterosexual participants in age, level of education and race. On average, lesbian women were older and less educated than heterosexual women. Lesbian women were less likely to be white than heterosexual women. Gay men were older than heterosexual men. However, gay men and heterosexual men were equally educated and equally likely to be white or non-white. Concerning the entire analytical sample, homosexual participants were older and less likely to be white than heterosexual participants. Comparing all women and men, women were higher educated than men.
Measures
The studied variables, in which the current study was interested, were asked by single questions, as is common practice in major national surveys. One of these variables, attitude, was measured by two single questions. It was expected that the used single questions were acceptably valid. A support for the validity of single questions was demonstrated by findings from a study conducted by Cheung and Lucas (2014).
Importantly, the survey questions were equal for women and men, except that for males, the word “baby” was replaced by “child” in the questions. Due to the equality of the
Attitude. Two separate ordinal items measured participants’ value of parenthood. The first item attitude happy referred to the idealization of parenthood. Attitude happy had responses on a 5-point Likert scale: “People cannot be really happy unless they have children.” (1 = strongly disagree – 5 = strongly agree). The second item attitude bother referred to the impact of parenthood. Attitude bother had responses on a 4-point Likert scale: “How bothered would you be if you did not have children?” (1 = not at all – 4 = a great deal).
Desire. The desire for parenthood was measured by one ordinal item with responses on a 4-point Likert scale: “Looking to the future, if it were possible, would you, yourself, want to have a baby some time?” (1 = no, 2 = probably do not want, 3 = probably want, 4 = yes).
Intention. The intention to become a parent was measured by one dichotomous item: “Looking to the future, do you intend to have a baby at some time?’ (0 = no, 1 = yes). This question was only asked if respondents had expressed their desire for parenthood.
Social demographics. Age was determined by the question: “What is your age?”. Responses ranged from 15 to 44. Participants’ level of education was measured by the question: “What is your current grade in school or the highest grade/year you attended?”. Response ranged from 9th grade to 7 or more years of college and/or graduate school. We recoded the level of education into low, medium and high (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high). The low level of education ranged from 9th grade to 12th grade. The medium level of education ranged from 1 year college or less to 3 years of college. The high level of education ranged from 4 years of college and/or grad school to 7 or more years of college and/or grad school. Race was assessed by “Race of respondent”, which we recoded into non-white or non-white (0 = non-non-white, 1 = non-white).
Analyses of variance were conducted to measure differences in age, education, attitude and desire between homosexual and heterosexual women and men. This formed the
descriptive analyses for this study. Differences in race and intention were measured by Chi-squared tests. Since differences in demographic characteristics existed in the sample,
preliminary Pearson r correlation analyses between demographic and content variables were conducted. These analyses were conducted for the analytic sample. Participants’ age
appeared to be associated with attitude bother (r = -.17, p = .000), desire (r = -.27, p = .000), and the intention for parenthood (r = -.22, p = .000). Participants’ level of education was associated with attitude happy (r = -.12, p = .000), attitude bother (r = .05, p = .000), desire (r = -.03, p = .013) and intention for parenthood (r = -.08, p = .000). Lastly, race was associated with attitude happy (r = -.09, p = .000) and desire (r = -.03, p = .042). Hence, all next
analyses were controlled on the influence of respondents’ age, level of education and race on the content variables.
Analyses with the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) were conducted to investigate whether desire for parenthood mediated the association between the attitude and intention regarding parenthood, and whether sexual orientation and biological sex moderated this possible mediation model. Because the variable attitude was measured by two separate items, all analyses were conducted separately for both attitude happy and attitude bother. First, a simple mediation analysis was conducted, model 4 from Hayes’ PROCESS, with attitude happy as independent variable, intention as dependent variable, and desire as mediator. Desire for parenthood was considered a significant mediator under the condition that its 95% confidence interval did not contain the value 0. Secondly, a moderated moderation analysis was conducted, model 3 from Hayes’ PROCESS. This model analyzed whether the
association between attitude happy and desire was moderated by sexual orientation, and whether this moderation was moderated by biological sex. In short, in this model, attitude
happy was the independent variable, desire the dependent variable, sexual orientation the primary moderator and biological sex the secondary moderator. Thirdly, a moderated moderation analysis was conducted, model 3 from Hayes’ PROCESS, with desire as independent variable, intention as dependent variable, sexual orientation as primary moderator, and biological sex as secondary moderator. It was analyzed whether the
association between desire and intention was moderated by sexual orientation, and whether this moderation was moderated by biological sex. Finally, the simple mediation model 4 from Hayes’ PROCESS and the moderated moderation model 3 from Hayes’ PROCESS, were conducted again with attitude bother as independent variable in the theoretical model.
Results
Descriptive Statistics of Attitude, Desire and Intention
Regarding the attitude towards parenthood, lesbian women and heterosexual women did not score significantly different on attitude happy (see Table 2). However, lesbian women scored significantly lower on attitude bother than heterosexual women did. So, lesbian participants would be less bothered if they did not have children. Compared to heterosexual women, lesbian women expressed significantly less desire for parenthood. If lesbian women expressed the desire for parenthood, they less often expressed the intention to become a parent.
Gay men scored significantly lower on both attitudes happy and bother than heterosexual men (see Table 2). Also, gay men expressed significantly less desire for parenthood than heterosexual men. Of the male participants who expressed the desire for parenthood, gay men were significantly less likely to express the intention to become a parent than heterosexual men did.
Regarding the entire analytical sample, homosexual participants scored significantly lower on both attitudes happy and bother than heterosexual participants. In addition,
homosexual participants expressed significantly less desire for parenthood than heterosexual participants. Moreover, if participants desired parenthood, homosexual participants expressed significantly less often the intention to become a parent. Compared to men, women scored significantly lower on attitude happy but higher on attitude bother. So, women believed to a lesser extent that people cannot be really happy unless they have children, but women would be more bothered if they did not have children. Women expressed a significantly lower level of the desire for parenthood than men. If participants expressed the desire for parenthood, women and men were equally likely to express the intention to become a parent.
All results discussed below, were related to the entire analytical sample. Attitude Happy as Independent Variable in the Theoretical Model
The mediation model with attitude happy as independent variable, the intention to become a parent as dependent variable, and desire for parenthood as the mediator was significant (CIlow= .01, CIhigh = .04) (see Figure 3).
As shown in Table 3, the moderated moderation analyses with attitude happy as independent and desire as dependent variable, and with sexual orientation as primary- and biological sex as secondary moderator, showed no significance for the interaction between attitude happy, sexual orientation and biological sex. However, there seemed to be a trend (p = .075). Because the p-value was close to the limited p-value of .05 and the analytical sample consisted of four groups, we inspected what this trend looked like. The trend appeared to be meaningful. The effect from attitude happy on desire was significant for lesbian women (B = 0.56, p = .000), heterosexual women (B = 0.16, p = .000) and for heterosexual men (B = 0.14, p = .000). But this effect was not significant for gay men (B = 0.17, p = .163).
The moderated moderation analyses with desire as independent- and intention as dependent variable, and with sexual orientation as primary- and biological sex as secondary
moderator, showed no significance for the interaction between desire, sexual orientation, and biological sex (see Table 3).
Attitude Bother as Independent Variable in the Theoretical Model
As we expected, the mediation model with attitude bother as independent variable, the intention to become a parent as dependent variable, and desire for parenthood as mediator was significant (CIlow= .02, CIhigh = .06) (see Figure 4). The more people would be bothered if they did not have children, the more they desired parenthood. The more people desired parenthood, the more likely they were to have the intention to become a parent.
The moderated moderation analyses with attitude bother as independent and desire as dependent variable, and with sexual orientation as primary- and biological sex as secondary moderator, showed no significance for the interaction between attitude happy, sexual orientation and biological sex (see Table 3). As mentioned before, the interaction between desire, sexual orientation, and biological sex was not significant either.
Conclusion
This was the first study that investigated whether the desire for parenthood mediates the assumed association between attitudes regarding parenthood and the intention to become a parent, and whether this model differs for homosexual and heterosexual women and men. The results of the current analyses indicate that, for American people between 15 and 44 years old, the desire for parenthood mediates the relation between the attitude regarding parenthood and the intention to become a parent. Contrary to what we expected, the results designate that the mediation model with attitude bother as independent variable does not depend on sexual orientation or biological sex, but is equal for homosexual and heterosexual women and men. As expected, the results suggest that for attitude happy, the mediation model depends on sexual orientation and biological sex. The more lesbian women,
they have children, the more they seem to desire parenthood. Opposite to our expectations, the results indicate that whether gay men believe that people cannot be happy unless they have children, does not affect gay men’s intention to become a parent.
Study 2 Method Procedure
Quantitative data was analyzed from the Intended Parents Project of the Penn State University in Altoona. Dr. S. L. Tornello was the principal investigator (P.I.) and Dr. H. M. W. Bos the co-investigator of the project. This dataset was selected for the current study because independent of sexual orientation and gender, all participants were intended parents. The sample was an American community-based sample. Participants were recruited through advertising on social media and lit serves for homosexual and heterosexual people. For homosexual people, the research was also advertised on LGBTQA websites. People who wanted to participate sent an email to the P.I. of the Intended Parents Project. They received an email back with a link to a password-protected online survey in Qualtrics. The
Institutional Research Board of the Penn State University in Altoona had approved the study. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. Participants received no reward for
participation. Participants
The total sample consisted of 292 participants. Of them, four had no desire to have children and were excluded from our analytical sample. The analytical sample included 288 childless homosexual and heterosexual women and men who desired to become a parent: 194 women (67.4%) and 94 men (32.6%). One hundred twenty-four participants identified
themselves as homosexual (66 women, 58 men) and 164 as heterosexual (128 women, 36 men). Their age ranged from 18 to 52 years (M = 27.82, SD = 5.87). For approximately one
third of the participants (35.4%), the highest level of education participants obtained was lower than a bachelor degree. About two third (64.6%) had a bachelor degree or higher. In terms of race, most of the participants (79.1%) identified themselves as white/Caucasian and the minority (20.1%) as non-white/non-Caucasian.
There were some significant demographic differences between homosexual and heterosexual participants, but not between women and men (see Table 4). Lesbian women had obtained a bachelor or a higher degree less often than heterosexual women. Compared to heterosexual men, gay men were less likely to be white/Caucasian. In the entire analytical sample, only significant differences regarding race existed. Homosexual people were less likely to be white/Caucasian, than heterosexual people.
Measures
The questionnaires were relevant for the current research because they include desire for parenthood and theoretical predictors of the desire as well. Questions were equal for women and men, so conclusions about the role of biological sex could be made. Because this
research was based on a community sample, the generalizability was expected to be limited. Attitude. The following three scales measured the attitude towards parenthood: positive impact, negative impact, and idealization. The scale positive impact (α = .80) consisted of nine items with responses on a 5-point Likert scale, for example: “To what extent do you agree with specifying possible (or experienced) consequences of parenthood: I will develop another view on what is important in life” (1 = unimportant – 5 = very important) (Lampic, Svanberg, Karlström, & Tydén, 2006). The scale negative impact (α = .77) consisted of five items with responses on a 5-point Likert scale, for example: “To what extent do you agree with specifying (or experienced) consequences of parenthood: Poorer status on labor market” (1 = disagree – 5 = entirely agree) (Lampic et al., 2006). The scale idealization (α = .74) consisted of eight items with responses on a 5-point Likert scale, for example: “Parents
experience a lot more happiness and satisfaction in their lives compared to people who have never had children” (1= strongly disagree – 5 = strongly agree) (Eibach & Mock, 2011).
Social norms. In the Intended Parents Project, the researchers developed three separate questions for social norms regarding parenthood with responses on a 6-point Likert scale: “How accepting are the people below regarding your wish to become a parent? 1. Your parents. 2. Your siblings. 3. Extended family members” (0 = not accepting at all – 5 = fully accepting). These questions formed the separate variables social norms parents, social norms siblings, and social norms extended family.
Perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control was operationalized based on the importance that people attach to specific circumstances to have a child. The scale circumstances (α = .73) consisted of 13 items with responses on a 5-point Likert scale, for example: “We want to ask you to assess the importance of specific circumstances for your decision to become a parent: That I/we have a home that is sufficiently large” (1 =
unimportant – 5 = very important) (Lampic et al., 2006).
Desire. Two items measured the desire for parenthood. Desire give up referred to the strength of desire with responses on a 6-point Likert scale: “What are you willing to give up to have children?” (1= it does not matter whether or not I become a parent – 6 = I will do everything to become a parent) (Van Balen & Trimbos-Kemper, 1995). Desire time referred to the reflection on desire with responses on a 4-point Likert scale: “How often do you spend time thinking about becoming a parent?” (0 = never – 3 = very often) (Van Balen & Trimbos-Kemper, 1995).
Social demographics. The age of the participants was ascertained by the question: “What is your age?”. Participants’ level of education was determined by the question “What is the highest level of education you have received?”. The responses ranged from less than high school to graduate degree. We recoded the level of education into low (1 = lower than
bachelor degree) and high (2 = bachelor degree or higher). Race was determined by the question “What is your racial/ethnic group?” and recoded into white/ Caucasian or other (1 = white/ Caucasian, 2 = other).
Analyses
For the descriptive analyses, to assess differences in age between homosexual and heterosexual women and men, analyses of variance were conducted. Differences in level of education and race between these groups were determined by Chi-squared tests. Due to significant differences in race in the entire analytical sample, analyses of covariance were controlled for the influence of race. These analyses were conducted to investigate whether homosexual and heterosexual people, and whether women and men scored differently on the content variables. Next, preliminary Pearson r correlation analyses between the demographic variable race and the content variables were conducted. Race was significantly correlated with attitude negative impact (r = -.10, p = .050), attitude idealization (r = .15, p = .007), social norms parents (r = -.17, p = .003), social norms siblings (r = -.12, p = .026), social norms extended family (r = -.16, p = .006), and perceived behavioral control (r = .11, p = .036). Because race was associated to most content variables, all following analyses were controlled for its influence.
To investigate whether sexual orientation and gender moderated the supposed association between attitude, social norms, perceived behavioral control, and desire for parenthood, moderated moderation analyses with PROCESS macro, model 3 from Hayes’ PROCESS (Hayes, 2013), were conducted. These analyses were conducted separately for the independent variables, in sequence: attitude positive impact, attitude negative impact, attitude idealization, social norms parents, social norms siblings, social norms extended family, and perceived behavioral control. Because the dependent variable desire was measured by two separate items, all moderated moderation analyses were firstly conducted with desire give up
as dependent variable and secondly with desire time as dependent variable. The above regression analyses by Hayes, were run seven times per dependent variable. In all analyses, sexual orientation was the primary moderator and gender the secondary moderator: It was analyzed whether an association between an independent variable and desire was moderated by sexual orientation, and whether this moderation was moderated by biological sex.
Results
Descriptive Statistics of Attitude, Social norms, Perceived Behavioral Control and Desire
Significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual people existed on social norms (see Table 5). Homosexual people scored significantly lower than heterosexual people on all social norms items: They reported a lower acceptance of their parents, siblings, and extended family members regarding their wish to become a parent. Significant differences between women and men existed on desire. Women scored significantly higher on both desire give up and desire time than men. So, women expressed more willingness to give up things to have children and spent more time thinking about becoming a parent.
Moderated Moderation Analyses
Desire give up as dependent variable. As shown in Table 6, the moderated moderation analyses with desire give up as dependent variable showed only a significant interaction between the independent variable perceived behavioral control, sexual orientation and
gender. There was an association between perceived behavioral control and desire give up for gay men and heterosexual women, but not for lesbian women and heterosexual men (see Figure 5). If gay men and heterosexual women assigned little importance to specific circumstances to have a child, they were likely to have a strong desire.
Desire time as dependent variable. The moderated moderation analyses with desire time as dependent variable showed two significant interactions (see Table 7). First, the
interaction between social norms extended family, sexual orientation and gender was significant. Only for heterosexual men, social norms extended family was associated with desire time (see Figure 6). There was no such association for lesbian women, gay men, and heterosexual women. If heterosexual men reported high acceptation of extended family members, they often thought about becoming a parent. Secondly, the interaction between perceived behavioral control, sexual orientation and gender was significant. There was an association between perceived behavioral control and desire time for heterosexual women, but not for lesbian women, gay men, and heterosexual men (see Figure 7). If heterosexual women assigned little importance to specific circumstances to have a child, they were likely
to think often about becoming a parent.
Conclusion
The results in Study 2 suggest that for American intended parents aged 18 to 52, only a few associations between predictors from the TPB and the desire for parenthood, depend on intended parents’ sexual orientation and biological sex: the associations between the
perceived behavioral control and the strength of- and reflection on the desire, and the association between social norms of extended family members and the reflection on the desire for parenthood. Somewhat in line with our expectations, the findings suggest that the less importance gay men and heterosexual women attachto specific circumstances to have a child, the stronger their desire is. Contrary to our expectation – that associations would be stronger for homosexual than for heterosexual people –, the results suggest that perceived behavioral control and social norms of extended family members only predict heterosexual intended parents’ reflection on desire, not homosexual intended parents’ reflection. The more heterosexual men experience acceptation of extended family members regarding their desire to have children, the more often they reflect on their desire to become a parent. Also, the less
often they reflect on their desire for parenthood. Finally, contrary to our expectations, the results suggest that the assumed associations between attitudes and the desire for parenthood, and between the experienced social norms of parents and siblings and the desire for
parenthood do not depend on intended parents’ sexual orientation or biological sex. Discussion
The current research, which consists of two studies, is unique in investigating the role of desire for parenthood in the TPB among American childless homosexual and heterosexual women and men in reproductive age: investigating desire’s role of mediator in the TPB, and desire as outcome of TPB’s predictors depending on sexual orientation and gender. Study 1 revealed generalizable information about the desire for parenthood among childless
homosexual and heterosexual people with and without parental desires. It was investigated if and for whom attitudes towards parenthood predicted the mediator desire for parenthood, and if and for whom the mediator desire for parenthood predicted the intention to become a parent. Study 2 gave insight into the desire for parenthood among childless homosexual and heterosexual people who already had parental desires. In Study 2, the relationship between all three TPB predictors (attitude, social norms, and perceived behavioral control) and the desire for parenthood was investigated.
Our findings suggest that the desire for parenthood mediates the association between attitudes regarding parenthood and the intention to become a parent. These outcomes support the findings from the study of Bagozzi and Kimmel (1995). The mediation model seems to depend on sexual orientation and biological sex if desire for parenthood is predicted by the idealization of parenthood. This suggests that sexual orientation and biological sex are related to estimating or underestimating the value of gratification or enrichment related to
Our findings also suggest that depending on sexual orientation and gender, the TPB predictors perceived behavioral control and social norms of extended family members could predict the desire for parenthood. Firstly, if intended gay fathers attach little importance to specific circumstances to have a child, they seem to have a strong desire. The perceived behavioral control might be relevant for gay men, because compared to the other investigated groups, they must overcome more boundaries to have children, not at least in terms of
pregnancy. In addition, parenthood is still associated with heterosexuality and it belongs to the natural domain of women (Mallon, 2004). As a result, intended gay fathers have the least personal control on their own parenthood. However, homosexual people who already
expressed their desire for parenthood, like these intended gay fathers, are likely to be psychosocially- and in terms of gay identity well developed (Patterson, 2000). If gay men manage to overcome boundaries, then their specific circumstances to have a child may have become more appropriate, which may increase their desire for parenthood. An alternative explanation is linked to the following finding, which shows a similarity of gay men with heterosexual women. For intended heterosexual mothers, attaching little importance to specific circumstances seems to strengthen their desire too and stimulates them to reflect on their desire. Like heterosexual women, most gay men tend to have feminine interests (Lippa, 2000, 2005). This includes feminine interests in participation in daily life activities such as care tasks (Lippa, 2005). Most lesbian women tend to have masculine interests, for example being independent. Because of differences in femininity and masculinity, specific
circumstances to have a child – perceived behavioral control – may be relevant for gay men and heterosexual women but not for lesbian women and heterosexual men for desiring parenthood. Lastly, the experienced acceptation of extended family members seems to influence the desire of only heterosexual men. An explanation might be that the desire to become a parent is less strong for heterosexual men than for women (Van Balen &
Trimbos-Kemper) and homosexual people. Consequently, heterosexual men are probably less
intrinsically motivated to become a parent. Experiencing high acceptation of extended family members regarding their potential fatherhood can extrinsically motivate heterosexual men to think more often about the desire for parenthood.
Although some of our hypotheses were supported by the results, we did not find support for a moderating role of sexual orientation and gender in the mediation model with attitude bother as independent variable. Even though heterosexual people appeared to be more bothered if they did not have children, expressed more desire for parenthood, and expressed more often the intention to become a parent than homosexual people, the relationship between attitude bother and the intention to become a parent, mediated by desire, was equal for all groups. Suggesting that whether being homosexual or heterosexual, if people would be bothered a lot if they did not have children, they are likely to desire parenthood and to have the intention to become a parent. Probably the desire and the intention, that is the personal beliefs about parenthood in a hypothetical and behavioral situation, predicted by being bothered match quite well. Hence, behavior resulting in having a child is to be expected in the future (Ajzen, Brown, & Carjaval, 2004). Consequently, attitude bother would be equally relevant for homosexual as for heterosexual people. In addition, the question regarding how bothered you would be, may appeal to one’s universal and fundamental assumption to be a parent in the future.
Additionally, we did not find support that depending on sexual orientation and gender, the TPB predictors attitudes and social norms of parents and siblings, can predict the desire for parenthood. This finding might reflect a characteristic of the participants in the sample of Study 2. The sample consisted of intended parents who must have acted to participate in the study. Presumably, they were all highly motivated by the topic of research independent of sexual orientation and gender. Noteworthy, none of TPB predictors directly predicted how
often intended parents reflected on their desire. Also, attitudes and the experienced social norms of extended family members regarding intended parents’ desire to have a child did not predict the strength of desire directly. However, as mentioned before, it is possible that an association between a TBP predictor and desire only exist dependent on sexual orientation and gender. According to Patterson (2000), intended parents are presumably well developed psychosocially and in terms of identity. From Study 1 we know that the TPB predictor attitude seems to predict the desire for parenthood. However, if people already intend to become a parent, perhaps their attitudes regarding parenthood and the social norms of people who are close to them do no longer influence their desire. Maybe the perceived behavioral control and the social norms of people who are less close to them, like extended family members, still influence parental desires at a later stage of the decision-making process to have children or to stay childless.
A remarkable finding concerns the lack of a mediation model for gay men, in case the intention to become a parent was predicted by the idealization of parenthood. Compared to heterosexual people and lesbian women, gay men seem to be more likely to underestimate the rewarding and enriching value of parenthood (Baiocco &Laghi, 2013). This may be due to, like we argued before, gay men having least personal control on their own parenthood and must overcome most boundaries from all studied groups. Also, like lesbian women, gay men belong to a sexual minority being extremely exposed to stigma, prejudice and discrimination attributable to their sexual orientation (Meyer, 2003). However, gay men seem to experience higher levels of stigmatization because of their sexual orientation than lesbian women (Baams, Beek, Hille, Zevenbergen, & Bos, 2013). In addition, gay men seem to be more likely to have psychological distress because of gender nonconformity than lesbian women (Skidmore, Linsenmeier, & Bailey, 2006). Experiencing stigma might contribute to
2014). As a result, gay men would not idealize parenthood. According to Mezey (2013), besides parental desires, internalizing homophobia is also an important factor in the decision-making process towards parenthood or remaining childless.
An interesting by-catch finding in Study 1 is that 87% of the gay men desiring parenthood also expressed the intention to become a parent. This finding represents an increase of 20% in childless gay men’s intention to become a parent, given the desire, since the 2002 NSFG (Riskind & Patterson, 2010). This endorses the relevance of the studied topic.
The current research had some noteworthy limitations. First, both Study 1 and 2 had cross-sectional designs, thus caution is advised with causal interpretations. Additionally, it might be that the mediation models found in Study 1 reflect a longitudinal process instead of mediation (Maxwell, Cole, & Mitchell, 2011). However, such an outcome would not negate the predictive value of desire for the intention to become a parent. We recommend future longitudinal research to investigate the role of the desire for parenthood in the TPB and its effects over time. Secondly, the finding that the mediation model with attitude happy was not significant for gay men was based on a trend. We suggest interpreting this finding carefully. Thirdly, in Study 2 we analyzed data from a convenience sample. Hence, these findings cannot be generalized to the entire population of American homosexual and heterosexual women and men in reproductive age. Lastly, in both Study 1 and 2 any influences of the relationship status of the participants on their desire for parenthood were not considered. When people are single, they are likely to have a low desire for parenthood (Gray, Evans, & Reimondos, 2011). Including participants in the sample who were single or had not a
committed relationship, may have contributed to fewer effects. We suggest including the variable relationship status in future research.
Despite these limitations, the current research contributes to the insight into the role of the desire for parenthood in the TPB for homosexual and heterosexual people. One major
strength of this research is that the two studies had complementary strengths and together provided insight into if and how desire might fit into the complexity of the TPB. Post hoc power analyses, multiple linear regression random model (α = .05), conducted with G*Power 3.1.9.2. (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009), showed adequate power for all moderated moderation analyses (lowest power: 1-ß error probability = 0.99).
A strength of the first study concerns investigating the TPB in a large-scale population survey, which can be very useful in supplying data about the decision-making process towards parenthood (Ajzen & Klobas, 2013). This sample was multi-stage probability-based and representative for American childless people in reproductive age (National Center for Health Statistics, 2016). The representative sample contained a subsample of homosexual people that was sufficiently large to draw statistical conclusions. This is quite exceptional, because population-based surveys often include extraordinary small numbers of homosexual people, and questionnaires do often not include questions about sexual orientation (Prickett, Martin-Storey, & Crosnoe, 2015). Another strength of the first study is that the NSFG interviewers neither focused on sexual orientation nor on biological sex. Therefore, it was unlikely that bias existed in observing or detecting data (Riskind & Patterson, 2010).
A strength of the second study is that we zoomed in on- and studied the relationship between TPB predictors and the desire for parenthood with sufficient reliable scales, which we assumed to have sufficient construct validity. Secondly, participants were recruited based on their intention to become a parent. Therefore, this sample gave additional information about the desire for parenthood and its fit in the TPB. Lastly, because participants were also recruited based on their sexual orientation, relatively many gay men and lesbian women were included in the sample.
The prevalence of the desire for parenthood among homosexual people could eventually, after more research is done, be used as an indicator for behavior resulting in a (surrogate)
pregnancy or adoption. Such information could be useful for making policy and legislation on access to reproductive technology and adoption opportunities. The percentage of
American gay men who have the intention to become a parent increased with 20% in the last decade. Consequently, developments in parental desires of homosexual people will involve new issues regarding non-traditional parenthood like the parental status of homosexual parents. Important is to keep in mind that the relationship between TPB predictors and parental desire seems to differ not only for homosexual and heterosexual people, but also for lesbian women and gay men. Considering diversity in the decision-making process towards parenthood is not only relevant for politicians and policy makers, but also for counselors. Because the decision-making process to have children can vary not only dependent on sexual orientation, but also dependent on both sexual orientation and biological sex.
Overall, this research supports the assumption that desire for parenthood fits in the TPB. It suggests that most predictors of the TPB may predict the desire for parenthood in an early stage of the decision-making process towards parenthood. Some TPB predictors seem to predict desire dependent on sexual orientation and biological sex, revealing a distinction in the prediction of parental desire of gay men. Presumably, the distinctive position of gay men reflects the consequences of stigmatization attributable to being gay. This endorses the importance of making a distinction between the decision-making process towards parenthood between heterosexual and homosexual people and especially between lesbian women and gay men. Otherwise, gay men will be stigmatized in their decision-making process towards parenthood.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1108-1121. doi:10.1177/0146167204264079 Ajzen, I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of
planned behavior. Demographic Research, 29, 203-233. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8 Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers'
parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 67-78. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.67
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
doi:10.1348/014466601164939
Baams, L., Beek, T., Hille, H., Zevenbergen, F. C., & Bos, H. M. (2013). Gender
nonconformity, perceived stigmatization, and psychological well-being in Dutch sexual minority youth and young adults: A mediation analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 765-773. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0055-z
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of goal-directed behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 437-461.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Bagozzi/publication/229895236_A_Comp
Baiocco, R., Argalia, M., & Laghi, F. (2014). The desire to marry and attitudes toward same-sex family legalization in a sample of Italian lesbians and gay men. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 181-200. doi:10.1177/0192513X12464872
Baiocco, R., & Laghi, F. (2013). Sexual orientation and the desires and intentions to become parents. Journal of Family Studies, 19, 90-98. doi:10.5172/jfs.2013.19.1.90
Berkowitz, D., & Marsiglio, W. (2007). Gay men: Negotiating procreative, father, and family identities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 366-381.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00371.x
Bos, H. M., Van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. C. (2003). Planned lesbian families: Their desire and motivation to have children. Human Reproduction, 18, 2216-2224.
doi:10.1093/humrep/deg427
Chandra, A., Martinez, G. M., Mosher, W. D., Abma, J. C., & Jones, J. (2005). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of US women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics, 23, 1-160. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf
Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2809-2818. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4
Daugherty J, Martinez G. (2016). Birth expectations of U.S. women aged 15–44. NCHS data brief, no 260. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Eibach, R. P., & Mock, S. E. (2011). Idealizing parenthood to rationalize parental investments. Psychological Science, 22, 203-208. doi:10.1177/0956797610397057 Erez, C., & Shenkman, G. (2016). Gay dads are happier: Subjective well-being among gay
and heterosexual fathers. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1-18. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1102668
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Gates, G. J., Badgett, M. V. L., Macomber, J. E., & Chambers, K. (2007). Adoption and foster care by gay and lesbian parents in the United States. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.
Gray, E., Evans, A., & Reimondos, A. (2013). Childbearing desires of childless men and women: When are goals adjusted?. Advances in Life Course Research, 18, 141-149. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2012.09.003
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lampic, C., Svanberg, A. S., Karlström, P., & Tydén, T. (2006). Fertility awareness,
intentions concerning childbearing, and attitudes towards parenthood among female and male academics. Human Reproduction, 21, 558-564. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei367 Lippa, R. A. (2000). Gender-related traits in gay men, lesbian women, and heterosexual men
and women: The virtual identity of homosexual-heterosexual diagnosticity and Gender diagnosticity. Journal of Personality, 68, 899-926.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00120
Lippa, R. A. (2005). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 16, 119-153. doi:10.1080/10532528.2005.10559831
Mallon, G. (2004). Gay men choosing parenthood. New York: Columbia University Press. Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of
longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 816-841.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Mezey, N. J. (2013). How lesbians and gay men decide to become parents or remain childfree. In A.E.Goldberg & K.R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 59–70). New York: Springer Science Business Media.
Murphy, D. A. (2013). The desire for parenthood gay men choosing to become parents through surrogacy. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 1104-1124.
doi:10.1177/0192513X13484272
National Center for Health Statistics, 2014. NSFG survey participants. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/participant.htm
National Center for Health Statistics, 2016. 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth public use data and documentation. Hyattsville, MD: CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
National Center for Health Statistics, n.d. NSFG Question and Answer Brochure. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/nsfg2013-2015_questionanswerbrochure.pdf Nauck, B., & Klaus, D. (2007). The Varying Value of Children Empirical Results from
Eleven Societies in Asia, Africa and Europe. Current Sociology, 55, 487-503. doi:10.1177/0011392107077634
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052-1069. Retrieved from
Prickett, K. C., Martin-Storey, A., & Crosnoe, R. (2015). A research note on time with children in different-and same-sex two-parent families. Demography, 52, 905-918. doi:10.1007/s13524-015-0385-2
Purewal, S., & van Den Akker, O. (2007). The socio-cultural and biological meaning of parenthood. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 79-86.
doi:10.1080/01674820701409918
Riskind, R. G., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting intentions and desires among childless lesbian, gay, and heterosexual individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 78-81. doi:10.1037/a0017941
Skidmore, W. C., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2006). Gender nonconformity and psychological distress in lesbians and gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 685-697. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9108-5
Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap (2016). Samenvatting Kind en Ouders in de 21ste eeuw. Den Haag: Xerox/OBT.
Van Balen, F., & Trimbos-Kemper, T. C. (1995). Involuntarily childless couples: Their desire to have children and their motives. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics &
Gynecology, 16, 137-144. doi:10.3109/01674829509024462
Van Rijn-Van Gelderen, L., Bos, H.M.W., Jorgensen, T. T. D., Ellis-Davies, K., Winstanley, A, Golombok, S., . . . Lamb, M. E. (submitted). Wellbeing of gay fathers with children born through surrogacy: A comparison with lesbian-mother families and heterosexual IVF families.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics for the Analytical Sample
Homosexual people Heterosexual people X2/F p
Women, n (%) 93 (4.1) 2,162 (95.9) Age1 6.59 .010 M 26.10 24.04 SD 8.03 7.55 Education2, n (%) 10.21 .006 Low 41 (44.1) 818 (37.9) Medium 37 (39.8) 661 (30.6) High 15 (16.1) 682 (31.6) Race3, n (%) 9.85 .002 White 50 (53.8) 1,496 (69.2) Non-white 43 (46.2) 666 (30.8) Men, n (%) 94 (3.7) 2,453 (96.3) Age 21.88 .000 M 27.88 24.14 SD 8.45 7.58 Education 3.21 .201 Low 39 (41.5) 1,197 (48.8) Medium 28 (29.8) 729 (29.7) High 27 (28.7) 526 (21.5) Race, n (%) 0.00 .975 White 65 (69.1) 1,700 (69.3) Non-white 29 (30.9) 753 (30.7) Analytical Sample, n (%) 187 (3.6) 4,615 (89.2) Age 26.25 .000 M 26.99 24.09 SD 8.27 7.57 Education 2.26 .323 Low 80 (42.8) 2,015 (43.7) Medium 65 (34.8) 1,390 (30.1) High 42 (22.5) 1,208 (26.2) Race, n (%) 5.05 .025 White 115 (61.5) 3,196 (69.3) Non-white 72 (38.5) 1,419 (30.7)
Note. 1No difference between women and men (F(1) = .483, p = .487). 2Compared to men, relatively fewer women had a low level of education and relatively more women had medium and high levels of education (X2 = 69.32, p = .000). 3No difference between women and men (X2 = .305, p = .581).
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Attitude, Desire, and Intention by Sexual Orientation Homosexual people n = 187 Heterosexual people n = 4,615 X2/F p Women, n (%) 93 (4.1) 2,162 (95.9) Attitude happy1 0.26 .609 M 1.54 1.58 SD 0.64 0.76 Attitude bother2 30.18 .000 M 2.24 2.89 SD 1.18 1.11 Desire3 65.65 .000 M 2.66 3.57 SD 1.48 1.04 Intention4, n (%) 12.07 .001 Yes 43 (87.8) 1,348 (96.9) No 6 (12.2) 43 (3.1) Men, n (%) 94 (3.7) 2,453 (96.3) Attitude happy 11.41 .001 M 1.44 1.73 SD 0.80 0.80 Attitude bother 36.33 .000 M 1.76 2.48 SD 1.03 1.15 Desire 120.99 .000 M 2.56 3.67 SD 1.49 0.93 Intention, n (%) 17.04 .000 Yes 43 (87.8) 1,730 (97.5) No 6 (12.2) 44 (2.5) Analytical sample 187 (3.9) 4,615 (96.1) Attitude happy 8.27 .004 M 1.49 1.66 SD 0.72 0.79 Attitude bother 62.112 .000 M 1.99 2.67 SD 1.13 1.15 Desire 180.845 .000 M 2.61 3.62 SD 1.48 0.98 Intention, n (%) 29.136 .000 Yes 86 (87.8) 3,078 (97.3) No 12 (12.2) 87 (2.7)
Note. 1Women scored lower than men (F(1) = 39.018, p = .000). 2Women scored higher than men (F(1) = 152.196, p = .000). 3Women scored lower than men (F(1) = 10.38, p = .001) (F(1) = .004, p = .950). 4 No difference for women and men (X2 = 1.191, p = .275).
Table 3
Summary of Moderated Moderation Analyses for the Analytical Sample.
B se p
A. Attitude happy as independent variable in the theoretical Modela. Dependent variable: desire.
Sexual orientation1 -0.57 0.50 .249
Biological sex2 0.25 0.36 .477
Attitude happy 0.46 0.31 .146
Attitude happy x sexual orientation -0.33 0.30 .266
Attitude happy x biological sex -0.34 0.21 .107
Sexual orientation x biological sex -0.41 0.34 .231
Attitude happy x sexual orientation x biological sex 0.36 0.20 .075 B. Attitude bother as independent variable in the theoretical
Modelb. Dependent variable: desire.
Sexual orientation1 -1.99 0.42 .000
Biological sex2 -1.09 0.30 .000
Attitude bother -0.48 0.21 .018
Attitude bother x sexual orientation 0.60 0.20 .002
Attitude bother x biological sex 0.32 0.13 .011
Sexual orientation x biological sex 0.42 0.27 .124
Attitude bother x sexual orientation x biological sex -0.17 0.12 .152 C. Desire as independent variable in the theoretical modelc.
Dependent variable: intention.
Sexual orientation1 3.52 9.52 .712
Biological sex2 0.52 6.79 .939
Desire 4.12 2.83 .146
Desire x sexual orientation -1.37 2.46 .577
Desire x biological sex -0.43 1.75 .808
Sexual orientation x biological sex -0.24 5.59 .966
Desire x sexual orientation x biological sex 0.16 1.45 .910 Note. Analyses were controlled for age, level of education and race.
aR2 = .13*, 1-ß error probability = 1.00 (N = 4802, p < .05). bR2 = .27*, 1-ß error probability = 1.00 (N = 4802, p < .05). cCox & Snell R2 = .06 and Nagelkerke R2 = .26, 1-ß error
probability = 1.00 (N = 4802, p < .05).
Table 4 Demographic Characteristics Homosexual people n = 124 Heterosexual people n = 164 X2/F p Women, n (%) 66 (34.0) 128 (66.0) Age1 1.28 .260 M 28.09 27.15 SD 6.22 5.09 Education2, n (%) 7.74 .005 Low 33 (50) 38 (29.7) High 33 (50) 90 (70.3) Race3, n (%) 0.10 .755 White/caucasian 54 (81.8) 107 (83.6) Other 12 (18.2) 21 (16.4) Men, n (%) 58 (61.7) 36 (38.3) Age 0.11 .744 M 28.71 28.25 SD 7.16 5.51 Education n (%) 0.92 .337 Low 17 (29.3) 14 (38.9) High 41 (70.7) 22 (61.1) Race, n (%) 9.97 .002 White/ caucasian 36 (62.1) 33 (91.7) Non-white 22 (37.9) 3 (8.3) Total Sample, n (%) 124 (43.1%) 164 (56.9%) Age 2.01 .158 M 28.38 27.39 SD 6.65 5.19 Education n (%) 2.29 .130 Low 50 (40.3) 52 (31.7) High 74 (59.7) 112 (68.3) Race, n (%) 7.18 .007 White/ caucasian 90 (72.6) 140 (85.4) Non-white 34 (27.4) 24 (14.6)
Note. 1No difference between women and men (F(1) = 2.08, p = .150). 2No difference between women and men (X2 = .36, p = .547). 3No difference between women and men (X2 = 3.62, p = .057).
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Attitude, Social norms, Perceived Behavioral Control and Desire
Sexual Orientation Gender F-value
Homosexual people
Heterosexual
people Women Men Total
Sexual orientation Gender Sexual orientation x gender M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F p F p F p Attitude Positive impact 3.08 0.72 3.15 0.75 3.17 0.76 3.01 0.68 3.12 0.74 0.44 .509 2.65 .105 0.52 .471 Negative impact 2.63 0.87 2.68 0.76 2.64 0.80 2.69 0.82 2.66 0.81 0.20 .658 0.53 .469 0.01 .916 Idealization 2.67 0.60 2.69 0.59 2.64 0.60 2.76 0.56 2.68 0.59 1.59 .208 1.91 .168 1.03 .310 Social norms Parents 4.20 1.19 4.68 0.90 4.48 1.09 4.48 0.99 4.48 1.05 10.94 .001 1.12 .292 0.03 .862 Siblings 4.42 0.90 4.72 0.73 4.63 0.84 4.52 0.77 4.59 0.82 5.05 .026 0.02 .886 0.09 .761 Extended family 3.83 1.38 4.79 0.64 4.48 1.02 4.21 1.27 4.39 1.11 45.87 .000 0.00 .977 0.35 .558 Perceived behavioral control 3.83 0.49 3.72 0.56 3.76 0.56 3.78 0.49 3.77 0.53 2.67 .103 0.06 .811 0.15 .250 Desire Give-up 4.30 1.26 4.18 1.34 4.38 1.27 3.92 1.34 4.23 1.31 0.96 .329 8.99 .003 2.44 .120 Time 1.77 0.91 1.82 0.97 1.97 0.94 1.44 0.84 1.80 0.94 1.29 .256 21.96 .000 0.97 .325 Note. Analyses were controlled for race.
Table 6
Summary of Moderated Moderation Analyses with Desire Give Up as Dependent Variable
B se p
A. Attitude positive impact as predictora.
Sexual orientation1 -1.78 2.43 .464
Gender2 -0.32 2.25 .887
Attitude positive impact 1.17 1.31 .373
Attitude positive impact x sexual orientation 0.46 0.78 .559
Attitude positive impact x gender 0.04 0.71 .959
Sexual orientation x gender 1.83 1.39 .189
Attitude positive impact x sexual orientation x gender -0.46 0.44 .295 B. Attitude negative impact as predictorb.
Sexual orientation1 -1.43 2.11 .498
Gender2 -2.31 2.02 .253
Attitude negative impact -1.67 1.31 .202
Attitude negative impact x sexual orientation 0.28 .75 .709
Attitude negative impact x gender 0.75 0.72 .295
Sexual orientation x gender 1.04 1.19 .384
Attitude negative impact x sexual orientation x gender -0.19 0.43 .648 C. Attitude idealization as predictorc.
Sexual orientation1 1.75 3.25 .590
Gender2 3.23 3.08 .295
Attitude idealization 2.82 2.03 .166
Attitude idealization x sexual orientation -0.75 1.15 .516
Attitude idealization x gender -1.15 1.09 .292
Sexual orientation x gender -0.66 1.79 .715
Attitude idealization x sexual orientation x gender 0.36 0.64 .570 D. Social norms parents as predictord.
Sexual orientation1 8.18 3.70 .028
Gender2 6.28 3.62 .084
Social norms parents 3.27 1.44 .024
Social norms parents x sexual orientation -1.84 0.78 .019
Social norms parents x gender -1.35 0.76 .075
Sexual orientation x gender -3.21 1.97 .105
Social norms parents x sexual orientation x gender 0.78 0.42 .064 E. Social norms siblings as predictore.
Sexual orientation1 7.33 3.65 .046
Gender2 5.39 3.48 .123
Social norms siblings 2.92 1.33 .029
Social norms siblings x sexual orientation -1.71 0.78 .031
Social norms siblings x gender -1.21 0.74 .103
Sexual orientation x gender -2.85 2.05 .166
B se p F. Social norms extended family as predictorf.
Sexual orientation1 4.81 5.53 .321
Gender2 4.22 5.65 .455
Social norms extended family 2.21 2.23 .321
Social norms extended family x sexual orientation -1.11 1.14 .332
Social norms extended family x gender -0.93 1.16 .421
Sexual orientation x gender -1.86 2.90 .520
Social norms extended family x sexual orientation x
gender 0.51 0.60 .395
G. Perceived behavior control as predictorg.
Sexual orientation1 11.28 4.52 .013
Gender2 10.24 3.99 .011
Perceived behavior control 4.78 1.93 .014
Perceived behavior control x sexual orientation -3.19 1.19 .008
Perceived behavior control x gender -2.83 1.06 .008
Sexual orientation x gender -6.20 2.57 .017
Perceived behavior control x sexual orientation x gender 1.80 0.68 .008 Note. Analyses were controlled for race.
aR2 = .27*, 1-ß error probability = 1.00 (N = 288, p < .05). bR2 = .14*, 1-ß error probability = 1.00 (N = 288, p < .05). cR2 = .13*,1-ß error probability = 1.00 (N = 288, p < .05). dR2 = .09*, 1-ß error probability = 0.99 (N = 288, p < .05). eR2 = .11*, 1-ß error probability = 1.00 (N = 288, p < .05). fR2 = .08*, 1-ß error probability = 0.99 (N = 288, p < .05). gR2 = .08*, 1-ß error probability = 0.99 (N = 288, p < .05).
