Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Sep 4;61(5):e70264. doi: 10.1002/ijop.70264

Wanting, Yet Doubting: Moderating Role of Gender on the Relationship Between Ambivalence and Childbearing Desires

Joanna Leśniak 1,✉, Monika Mynarska 1
PMCID: PMC13545014  PMID: 42697831

ABSTRACT

Childbearing ambivalence—the coexistence of positive and negative evaluations regarding having children—has become an important focus in fertility research. Prior studies have primarily examined its role in contraceptive use and parenthood postponement, yet little is known about how ambivalence relates to the desire for children, particularly in the early, motivational stages of reproductive decision‐making. This study investigates the association between subjective ambivalence towards childbearing and individuals' childbearing desires, with particular attention to gender differences. The analysis covers a sample of 831 childless individuals (520 women and 311 men) aged 20–35, who participated in a nationwide study on childbearing motivations in Poland, in December 2022. Respondents completed measures of subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire. Regression and moderation analyses were applied. Our findings indicate that higher ambivalence was associated with lower childbearing desire among men but with stronger desire among women. Although generally modest, these associations suggest that ambivalence may reflect distinct evaluative processes in women and men. Because the data are cross‐sectional, it remains unclear whether ambivalence shapes desire differently by gender, whether stronger desire heightens ambivalence specifically among women, or whether reciprocal processes are involved. Longitudinal research is needed to clarify the direction and mechanisms of these associations.

Keywords: childbearing attitudes, childbearing decisions, childbearing desire, subjective ambivalence

1. Introduction

The main goal of this study is to explore the link between subjective ambivalence towards childbearing and individuals' childbearing desires, and to offer preliminary evidence on the gendered nature of this relationship. Ambivalence—defined as holding mixed positive and negative feelings and thoughts about childbearing—constitutes an important topic in research on reproductive decision‐making, with two dominant perspectives. First, a vast body of literature documents the relationship between pregnancy ambivalence and contraceptive use aiming to understand how this relationship affects the risk of unplanned pregnancies (Kremer et al. 2024; Yoo et al. 2014). Second, the role of ambivalence is considered for childbearing intentions and their fulfilment. This strand of the literature focuses primarily on the postponement of childbearing prompted by unclear (including ambivalent) feelings and thoughts about parenthood (Pinquart et al. 2010; Temmesen et al. 2023).

While existing studies illustrate the importance of ambivalence in human reproduction, several gaps in our knowledge remain. First, researchers typically examine only one particular stage of the broader, multi‐step process of reproductive decision‐making—namely, the transition from intentions to behaviours. This emphasis often overlooks the deeper motivational orientations driving reproductive choices long before concrete plans (i.e., intentions) are formed. However, these earlier stages may be crucial in determining later decisions and behaviours, making it essential to understand the dynamics that precede more deliberate intentions (Rackin and Bachrach 2016).

Moreover, many existing studies consider ambivalence as functionally similar to uncertainty or indifference (LaCross et al. 2019; Miller et al. 2016). However, in the attitudinal literature, ambivalence, indifference and uncertainty are conceptualised as theoretically distinct constructs. Ambivalence refers to the coexistence of conflicting positive and negative evaluations towards the same object, whereas indifference reflects weak or absent evaluative orientations, and uncertainty denotes difficulty in forming a definite judgement. Whereas indifference reflects weak or absent evaluative orientations, ambivalence entails a more cognitively complex stance—recognising and weighing competing values or potential consequences of parenthood. Although both ambivalence and uncertainty may contribute to hesitation in decision‐making, they do so through different underlying mechanisms (Gómez et al. 2019; Miller et al. 2016). Only a few studies consider ambivalence as a distinct state, examining the strength of the internal conflict (Pinquart et al. 2010). In particular, limited attention has been devoted to subjective ambivalence, understood as the conscious awareness of holding conflicting positive and negative evaluations and experiencing them as difficult to reconcile. This metacognitive and affective dimension of ambivalence has rarely been examined at the level of childbearing desire.

Another important gap in the literature stems from the gender imbalance in studies on childbearing (Puur et al. 2008). While the predominance of studies involving women is understandable, given the biological and social context of reproduction, this imbalance has limited our understanding of men's perspectives. In the childbearing ambivalence research, some studies focus exclusively on women (Huber et al. 2017), while others yield mixed results. Some studies suggest that the ambivalence is more common among men (Sennott and Yeatman 2018; Yoo et al. 2014). However, other results imply that ambivalence towards having children (e.g., conflict between rewards and regrets of parenthood) may be more characteristic of mothers, while fathers are more likely to feel indifferent (Groat et al. 1997). There are also studies on gender differences in contraceptive use and its links with pregnancy ambivalence, but no clear pattern has emerged (Kremer et al. 2024; LaCross et al. 2019). The present research offers initial insights into these understudied aspects of reproductive decision‐making.

2. Theoretical Considerations and Research Questions

Our study builds on the Traits–Desires–Intentions–Behaviour (TDIB) model (Miller 1994, 2011), which posits that the motivational process leading to reproductive behaviour begins with motivational traits—biologically rooted and developmentally shaped psychological predispositions to respond positively or negatively towards childbearing and its consequences. These affective reactions form the early motivational foundation for the entire decision‐making process related to childbearing (Miller 1994, 2011). As they interact with individual characteristics and life course developments, childbearing desires are shaped, reflecting what a person generally wants. Intentions, in turn, develop as more context‐sensitive commitments, formed at the intersection of individuals' desires and the opportunities or constraints they face. These factors may operate at both the individual level (e.g., health status, partnership and economic stability) and the broader contextual level (e.g., family policies, access to health services). Ultimately, these intentions translate into specific behaviours, such as becoming pregnant or avoiding pregnancy, to the extent that circumstances enable their realisation.

Within the TDIB framework, childbearing motivations are conceptualised as two independent dimensions: a positive and a negative predisposition towards childbearing (Miller 1994). All individuals exhibit some degree of each. Operationally, these motivational dispositions are expressed in how individuals respond to the anticipated positive and negative consequences of parenthood—experiencing certain outcomes as intrinsically rewarding and others as intrinsically costly or aversive (Miller 1995, 2011). When one markedly outweighs the other, motivational direction is generally unambiguous, leading to a clear desire for or against parenthood and directing the subsequent steps of the decision‐making process. However, when these predispositions are more closely balanced, the motivational system may provide no clear directional signal. This absence of dominance may reflect either generally weak evaluative tendencies, resulting in indifference, or the concurrent strength of both orientations, resulting in ambivalence. In the latter case, individuals may perceive parenthood as simultaneously highly rewarding and highly costly.

In the present study, we adopt a subjective perspective on ambivalence, conceptualising it as the experienced tension that arises when anticipated rewards and anticipated costs of parenthood are both salient and perceived as difficult to integrate (Lipkus et al. 2001; van Harreveld et al. 2015). By adopting this perspective, we move beyond identifying ambivalence through the simple coexistence of positive and negative evaluations (i.e., structural ambivalence). While structural ambivalence may exist without psychological discomfort, subjective ambivalence requires self‐awareness and metacognitive insight. As correlations between structural and subjective measures tend to be modest (Armitage and Arden 2007), distinguishing between the two is both theoretically and empirically justified. Although some studies have already explored subjective ambivalence in the context of childbearing (Pinquart et al. 2008, 2010), this self‐reflective perspective has received limited empirical attention in fertility research.

This study contributes to the existing literature by directing attention to the early motivational stage of reproductive decision‐making as conceptualised in the TDIB model (Miller 2011) and by focusing specifically on subjective ambivalence—understood as a distinct and graded psychological experience, the intensity of which can be meaningfully measured (Pinquart et al. 2010; van Harreveld et al. 2015). Unlike later stages of intentions or behaviour, this early motivational level remains relatively understudied, despite its theoretical importance for shaping subsequent reproductive pathways. Our primary research question therefore asks: How is the intensity of subjective ambivalence towards childbearing associated with individuals' childbearing desire?

Previous research has shown that subjective ambivalence is related to lower agreeableness and higher neuroticism (Pinquart et al. 2008)—personality traits that have been linked to lower fertility (Jokela et al. 2011). Moreover, Pinquart et al. (2010) found that subjective ambivalence was associated with greater perceived costs of childbearing. Based on these findings, it can be expected that higher levels of subjective ambivalence towards childbearing will be associated with lower childbearing desire. However, the role of gender needs to be considered, as the relationship may differ between men and women.

Differences between women and men in reproductive decision‐making reflect the interplay of biological, psychological, social and cultural factors. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, reproductive behaviour has been shaped by sex‐specific adaptive challenges related to reproduction and parenthood, including reproductive costs, parental certainty and mate choice (Buss and Schmitt 1993; Edlund et al. 2006; Lippa 2007; Trivers 1972). Women, in particular, face a more limited reproductive window and higher biological costs of pregnancy and childbirth, which evolutionary accounts associate with greater selectivity in reproductive decisions (Trivers 1972).

These biological asymmetries are further reinforced by socially and culturally structured gender roles. Women have historically assumed greater responsibility for household work and childcare, and despite sociocultural change and the gender revolution, parenthood continues to entail different roles and greater consequences for women than for men (Goldscheider et al. 2015; Raybould and Sear 2021).

Consequently, women and men may differ in how they perceive and evaluate parenthood. Women are more likely to view family formation as an important life transition (Rönkä et al. 2003), assign different weights to the costs and benefits of having children (Mynarska and Rytel 2020), and experience the challenges of parenthood differently (Park 2005). These differences in the anticipated and experienced consequences of parenthood may, in turn, shape the balance of positive and negative evaluations of childbearing and thus reproductive ambivalence.

These gendered considerations may be further accentuated by the Polish context. At the time of data collection, Poland was characterised by highly restrictive abortion legislation, explicitly pronatalist family policies and a cultural legacy in which Catholic and traditional family norms have historically played an important role (Cook et al. 2023; Kotowska et al. 2008). These contextual features may increase the perceived stakes of childbearing, particularly for women. Indeed, evidence from a recent factorial survey experiment in Poland suggests that access to legal abortion in cases of incurable foetal defects is particularly consequential for childless women's fertility intentions (Kurowska et al. 2026).

In general, ambivalence tends to be stronger when a decision is personally consequential and associated with substantial anticipated trade‐offs (Costarelli and Colloca 2007; Rothman et al. 2017). It is thus plausible that the gendered responsibilities and consequences associated with parenthood may render subjective ambivalence more salient and more strongly linked to childbearing desire among women. Meanwhile for men, whose biological investment is lower and for whom the immediate costs of reproduction may be less pronounced, subjective ambivalence may have a different motivational meaning. However, previous findings on gendered patterns of pregnancy ambivalence and contraceptive behaviour have yielded mixed results (Kremer et al. 2024; LaCross et al. 2019), suggesting that these differences may not follow a straightforward pattern. Considering these inconsistencies, we refrain from advancing a directional hypothesis and instead examine whether gender moderates the association between subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

For the purpose of our study, a stratified random sample of childless men and women aged 20–35 was drawn from an online panel of Accorp/Pollster—a research agency, certified by the Polish Association of Public Opinion and Market Research Firms. The sample was stratified by gender, age, geographical region and municipality size. The study was conducted online using Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) methodology in December 2022. The study and its procedures were approved by the Ethical Board for Scientific Research of the Institute of Psychology at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw (decision number: 28/2022). All respondents received information about the study's scope, anonymity and voluntary nature and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Informed consent was obtained online from all participants.

The online questionnaire was completed by 847 respondents. Participants were asked to indicate their ‘płeć’ (the standard Polish term used in surveys to denote sex; Polish does not linguistically distinguish between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’), using a binary response format (woman/man). For consistency with terminology commonly used in fertility research, we refer to this variable as gender throughout the manuscript. An additional ‘other’ option was available. Three respondents who selected ‘other’ or refused to answer were excluded from the analyses. Additionally, 13 individuals who reported being aware of a biological inability to conceive were also not included in analyses. The final dataset includes complete information on 311 childless men (37.43%; M age = 27.70; SDage = 4.63) and 520 childless women aged 20–35 (62.58%; M age = 26.98; SDage = 4.30). The data is available at https://osf.io/mxdk9/overview?view_only=d42a7f8b88cc4a3cbeef974f7bb7ab18.

Participants were asked about their highest level of education: 4.8% indicated secondary vocational or lower, 35.3% reported upper secondary and more than half (53.1%) had tertiary education. Approximately a quarter of the respondents (24.3%) lived in villages, whereas 27% resided in the largest municipalities (with more than 500,000 residents). Employed or self‐employed respondents made up 71.2% of the sample, 9.5% were unemployed and students accounted for 16.1% of the sample. When asked about their life situation, 41.5% of respondents reported being in a relationship (including marriage) and 58.5% had no coresident partner. The corresponding percentages for sociodemographic variables by gender are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Sample characteristics by gender.

Variables Categories Women (n = 520) Men (n = 311)
n % n %
Place of residence Village 123 23.7 79 25.4
City under 100,000 118 22.7 82 26.4
City 100,000 to 500,000 128 24.6 77 24.8
City with 500,000+ residents 151 29.0 73 23.5
Education Low (basic vocational or lower) 14 2.7 26 8.4
Medium (secondary or postsecondary) 193 37.1 157 50.5
High (bachelor's degree or higher) 313 60.2 128 41.2
Union status Married or cohabiting 251 48.3 94 30.2
No coresident partner 269 51.7 217 69.8
Open in a new tab

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Subjective Ambivalence Towards Childbearing

To capture subjective ambivalence—understood as both the recognition of simultaneously held positive and negative evaluations and the experienced tension arising from this co‐activation—participants were asked five questions adapted from the work of Pinquart et al. (2010) and Lipkus et al. (2001). The first two items assess the acknowledgment of substantial rewards and costs of childbearing, whereas the remaining three tap the felt conflict and mixed affect associated with these competing evaluations. The final set included the following items: (1) ‘I think that childbearing has many advantages, but at the same time has a lot of disadvantages.’; (2) ‘I believe that parenthood brings a lot of joy, but also many worries.’; (3) ‘When I think about becoming a parent in the future, I feel torn.’; (4) ‘On the one hand, I would like to have a child in the future, on the other hand, I wouldn't.’ and (5) ‘When I imagine myself as a parent, I have mixed feelings.’ Participants rated each statement on a 5‐point scale, from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 5 (completely applies to me). The final score of the subjective childbearing ambivalence was calculated as the mean of the five items, with a higher score indicating a stronger intensity of perceived or experienced subjective ambivalence. The scale showed satisfactory reliability coefficients (α = 0.71 for men and α = 0.79 for women), which is considered acceptable for exploratory research purposes (Hair et al. 2010). Item‐level descriptives are provided in Supporting Information Material 1, available at https://osf.io/mxdk9/overview?view_only=d42a7f8b88cc4a3cbeef974f7bb7ab18.

3.2.2. The Desire to Have a Child

The strength of childbearing desire was measured with a short scale which was previously used and validated as a part of the Childbearing Questionnaire (e.g., CBQ‐SF, Huczewska et al. 2023). The childbearing desire scale consists of three questions: ‘Assuming you are able to have a child whenever you choose’: (1) ‘How much would you like to have a child?’; (2) ‘How important is it for you to have a child?’ and (3) ‘How happy would you be if you had a child?’. Participants responded on a 10‐point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (as much as possible). The overall childbearing desire score was calculated by summing the three responses for each participant, with a higher score indicating a stronger desire to have a child. In the present study, the childbearing desire scale demonstrates excellent reliability, with internal consistency coefficients above 0.95, regardless of respondents' gender.

3.3. Data Analyses

First, we examined the descriptive statistics and assessed gender differences in subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire. Next, Hayes' PROCESS macro (Version 4.2, Hayes 2022) for IBM SPSS was used to explore the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire. To further scrutinise these relationships, separate regression models were applied for each gender, including control variables. Age and partnership status were included as control variables due to their well‐established associations with childbearing desires and reproductive decision‐making. Both variables reflect key life‐course developments important for the perceived desirability of parenthood. Education and place of residence were also controlled for, as they are linked to opportunity structures, normative contexts and fertility preferences. Moreover, given the online recruitment strategy and the known overrepresentation of highly educated and urban individuals in such samples (cf. Table 1), including these variables helped account for potential compositional biases. Age was treated as a linear variable due to the limited age range and the absence of a non‐linear pattern of its relationship with the dependent variable in both genders. Place of residence, education and union status were entered into regression analysis as dummy variables (cf. Table 1). All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 28.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

The basic descriptive statistics for the studied variables are presented in Table 2. Both men and women exhibited relatively high levels of subjective ambivalence: 60% of women and 55% of men scored above 3.0 on the subjective ambivalence scale (ranging from 1 to 5, with 3.0 as the midpoint). Only 7.3% of women and 6.4% of men scored below 2.0. In the overall sample, there was no significant relationship between childbearing desire and experienced ambivalence towards having a child. However, when examining gender differences, opposing correlations between childbearing desire and subjective ambivalence emerged. Among women, the relationship is slightly positive, whereas, among men, it is weaklynegative.

TABLE 2.

Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates and correlations between studied variables by gender.

Women (n = 520) Men (n = 311)
M (SD) S K α r a M (SD) S K α r a
Childbearing desire 14.67 (10.72) −0.05 −1.43 0.98 0.14** 17.04 (9.67) −0.44 −0.95 0.97 −0.12*
Subjective ambivalence 3.40 (0.97) −0.37 −0.34 0.79 3.24 (0.79) −0.16 0.34 0.71
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: K, kurtosis; S, skewness.

a

Pearson's correlation between childbearing desire and subjective ambivalence.

*

p < 0.05 (two‐tailed).

**

p < 0.01 (two‐tailed).

4.2. Multivariate Analysis

To evaluate whether childbearing desire differed by gender, a Mann–Whitney U test was performed due to the differences in sample sizes between men and women and the deviation of the childbearing desire distribution from normality. The results indicated that men scored significantly higher on the childbearing desire scale than women, |Z| = 2.845, p = 0.004, although the effect was small (η 2 = 0.01; d = 0.2). There was also a significant difference between women and men in subjective ambivalence, t(756.291) = 2.522, p = 0.012, d = 0.2. Women scored slightly higher on the subjective ambivalence scale.

To test the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between subjective ambivalence and desire, a moderation analysis was conducted (Table 3). Because mean‐centering does not affect the estimation or statistical significance of the interaction effect, the original metric of subjective ambivalence was retained (Hayes 2022).

TABLE 3.

Moderating effect of gender on the childbearing desire—subjective ambivalence (Subj. Ambiv.) relationship.

β t p
Subj. Ambiv. 0.13 3.277 0.001
Gender 0.58 4.207 < 0.001
Gender × Subj. Ambiv. −0.48 −3.482 0.001
F 8.428 < 0.001
Adj. R 2 0.026
Open in a new tab

The main effects model, which included only subjective ambivalence and gender as predictors of childbearing desire, was significant [F(2, 828) = 6.494, p = 0.002], and explained 1.3% of the variance in the dependent variable. In this model, gender was the only significant predictor of childbearing desire. The addition of the interaction term resulted in a slight increase in R 2 [ΔF(1, 827) = 12.121, p < 0.001; ΔR 2  = 0.014]. After including the interaction term, subjective ambivalence was significantly associated with childbearing desire in the group of women (‘0’ value on gender), and the interaction term indicated that this association differed significantly between genders. This suggests that the relationship between subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire differs by gender, as indicated by the significant interaction effect (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Illustration of the moderating effect of gender on the association between childbearing desire and subjective ambivalence. Note: Conditional effects (95% CI) of subjective ambivalence on childbearing desire at each level of gender; for women b = 1.51 [0.61, 2.42], SE = 0.46, t = 3.28, p = 0.001; for men b = −1.51 [−2.96, −0.07], SE = 0.74, t = −2.05, p = 0.040.

To scrutinise the above finding and gain additional insights into gender differences, we applied multivariate regression separately for men and women, predicting their desire to have a child based on subjective ambivalence while controlling for socio‐demographic characteristics (Table 4). For both women [F(8, 511) = 5.368, p < 0.001] and men [F(8, 302) = 2.532, p = 0.011], regression models were significant. All included variables accounted for 6% and 4% (adjusted R 2 for women and men, respectively) of the dependent variable's variance (the model with subjective ambivalence alone explained approx. 1% and 2% of the dependent variable's variance, respectively). Among women, subjective ambivalence was a positive predictor of the childbearing desire, β = 0.145, t(511) = 3.386, p < 0.001, whereas for men, this relationship was negative β = −0.116, t(302) = −2.046, p = 0.042. Additionally, robustness checks were performed using logistic regression analysis with a dichotomised dependent variable (childbearing desire), yielding corresponding results (Supporting Information Material 2, available at https://osf.io/mxdk9/overview?view_only=d42a7f8b88cc4a3cbeef974f7bb7ab18).

TABLE 4.

Linear regression analysis: Subjective ambivalence predicting childbearing desire.

Variables Women (n = 520) Men (n = 311)
β t p β t p
Age −0.13 −2.85 0.005 −0.03 −0.60 0.551
Place of residence (ref. City with 500,000+ residents)
Village 0.15 3.00 0.003 0.16 2.32 0.021
City under 100,000 0.15 2.95 0.003 0.15 2.10 0.036
City with 100–500,000 0.05 0.97 0.333 −0.01 −0.13 0.899
Education (ref. high)
Low 0.09 2.00 0.046 −0.06 −1.00 0.316
Medium 0.02 0.33 0.743 0.01 0.09 0.928
Union status (ref. married/cohabiting)
No coresident partner −0.11 −2.49 0.013 −0.14 −2.50 0.013
Subjective ambivalence 0.15 3.39 0.001 −0.12 −2.05 0.042
Adj. R 2 0.063 0.038
F 5.37 2.53
p(F) < 0.001 0.011
Open in a new tab

5. Discussion

Previous research has documented how mixed feelings towards having children—most commonly operationalised as pregnancy ambivalence or hesitation in childbearing intentions—are linked to reproductive behaviour (Huber et al. 2017; LaCross et al. 2019; Yoo et al. 2014). However, findings regarding gender differences have remained inconsistent, and relatively little attention has been devoted to the role of ambivalence at the level of childbearing desire rather than intentions or behaviours. Against this background, and drawing on the TDIB framework, in which evaluations of the anticipated costs and benefits of parenthood are foundational to reproductive motivation (Miller 1994, 2011), the present study explored the association between subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire and whether it differed by gender. We found that women reported slightly higher ambivalence and men somewhat stronger desire. More importantly, ambivalence was positively associated with childbearing desire among women but negatively associated with desire among men.

The somewhat higher ambivalence reported by women is consistent with evidence that ambivalence becomes more pronounced when an issue is personally consequential and involves substantial anticipated trade‐offs (Costarelli and Colloca 2007; Rothman et al. 2017). For women, the stakes involved in childbearing reflect the combined effects of biological asymmetries in reproduction (Trivers 1972) and the persistently unequal social consequences of parenthood (Raybould and Sear 2021). Women may therefore have stronger reasons to pay attention simultaneously to both the attractive and the aversive aspects of having a child. The Polish context may further reinforce this tendency: pronatalist influences and traditional family norms increase the normative significance of motherhood, while restrictive reproductive conditions increase the potential consequences of pregnancy (Kurowska et al. 2026). Rather than reflecting greater indecision in general, women's higher subjective ambivalence may thus arise from the particularly high personal stakes involved in motherhood.

Importantly, however, among women, higher subjective ambivalence did not correspond with weaker childbearing desire. On the contrary, the positive association suggests that anticipated costs and concerns can remain salient without overriding the positive motivation to have a child. This pattern is compatible with the TDIB framework, in which positive and negative responses to childbearing are not opposite ends of a single continuum and may therefore be simultaneously strong (Miller 1994, 2011). Among women, a strong desire for a child may thus coexist with substantial conflict about what motherhood would entail.

Among men, lower ambivalence and somewhat stronger childbearing desire may reflect the absence of direct biological costs of pregnancy and childbirth and, on average, less extensive social and occupational consequences of parenthood (Goldscheider et al. 2015; Trivers 1972). In this context, ambivalence may become salient primarily when negative evaluations are strong enough to challenge a positive orientation towards fatherhood, which would be consistent with its negative association with desire. Although this interpretation requires further investigation, the contrasting patterns suggest that subjective ambivalence may arise from a different balance of positive and negative evaluations among women and men.

Taken together, these gender differences indicate that subjective ambivalence related to childbearing cannot be understood as uniformly inhibiting reproductive desires. Recent research conceptualises ambivalence not only as a source of tension and decisional delay, but also as a potentially constructive state associated with a more balanced and reflective evaluation of personally consequential domains (van Harreveld et al. 2015; Rothman et al. 2017). This perspective appears particularly relevant to the positive association observed among women, but it also raises the question of directionality between subjective ambivalence and childbearing desire.

The interpretations considered so far follow the motivational sequence proposed in the TDIB framework, in which positive and negative responses to childbearing precede and shape desire. However, the reverse relationship should also be considered, particularly in explaining the positive association observed among women. A stronger desire for a child may increase the personal relevance of motherhood, prompting closer consideration of its anticipated rewards and costs and potentially intensifying the affective response to these conflicting evaluations. From this perspective, ambivalence does not strengthen desire; rather, stronger desire may make the conflicting implications of motherhood more salient and emotionally consequential. These processes may also operate reciprocally, with evaluative conflict shaping desire while desire simultaneously increases engagement with conflicting evaluations. The cross‐sectional design of the present study does not allow us to distinguish between these possibilities.

This alternative interpretation also calls for greater conceptual clarity in defining and measuring subjective ambivalence in fertility research. Following previous literature, we defined subjective ambivalence as comprising both the cognitive recognition of conflicting evaluations and an affective response to this conflict (Pinquart et al. 2010; van Harreveld et al. 2015). In line with this definition, our measure considered both these elements, combining them into a single score. However, these components may not always co‐occur to the same degree and may have distinct implications for childbearing desire. Future research should therefore assess these components separately, while also capturing positive and negative evaluations independently. This would help determine whether low ambivalence scores reflect consistent positivity, consistent negativity, or mixed evaluations that do not generate substantial emotional conflict.

More broadly, recognising subjective ambivalence as a distinct and consciously experienced state may help bridge more explicitly rational models of reproductive decision‐making with more affective perspectives. Rather than assuming a strictly linear progression from motivational predispositions to desires and behaviours, attention to ambivalence highlights the dynamic interplay between reflection and emotion within the motivational process. This perspective is particularly relevant given that a substantial proportion of pregnancies occur without prior clear intentions, indicating that reproductive outcomes do not always result from fully articulated or stable desires (Bearak et al. 2020).

At the same time, the observed effects were modest, and ambivalence accounted for only a small proportion of variability in childbearing desire. The findings should therefore be interpreted as identifying a potentially meaningful pattern in the organisation of reproductive motivation, particularly in relation to gender differences, rather than as indicating that subjective ambivalence is a strong predictor of childbearing desire. The generalisability of our results may also be limited by the cultural specificity of the Polish sample, as the normative meaning and perceived consequences of parenthood may differ across institutional and cultural contexts. Replication in other populations is needed to establish the robustness of the observed pattern and clarify the mechanisms underlying it.

Overall, our findings indicate that subjective ambivalence towards parenthood cannot be reduced to hesitation or treated as an unequivocal indicator of weakened reproductive motivation. The same experience of conflict may carry a different meaning depending on individual characteristics, including gender and cultural context. Accounting for these differences can improve how researchers interpret fertility‐related attitudes and model the early motivational stages of reproductive decision‐making.

Author Contributions

Joanna Leśniak: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, conceptualization, writing – original draft. Monika Mynarska: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, funding acquisition, supervision.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (grant number 2018/30/E/HS4/00449).

Ethics Statement

The study received the approval of the Ethical Board for Scientific Research of the Institute of Psychology at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw (decision number: 28/2022). This study involved only adult human participants and adhered to all relevant ethical guidelines for research involving humans. The study was designed to ensure that participants faced no risks or harm, as the survey was conducted online and did not involve sensitive or potentially distressing content. No animals were used in this research, and therefore, animal ethics considerations do not apply.

Consent

The research concerned adult respondents recruited from an online panel who gave informed consent in the online system and were provided with the information about the scope of the study and its anonymous and voluntary nature.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting Information: Material 1. Subjective ambivalence scale item‐level descriptives and inter‐item correlations.

Table 1. Subjective ambivalence scale item‐level descriptive statistics and inter‐item correlations, N = 831.

Table 2. Item‐level descriptive statistics for the subjective ambivalence scale by gender.

Table 3. Frequency distributions of responses to subjective ambivalence item 1 by gender.

Table 4. Frequency distributions of responses to subjective ambivalence item 2 by gender.

Supporting Information: Material 2. Logistic regression analyses.

Table 1. Frequencies for two values of the childbearing desire variable after dichotomisation.

Table 2. Logistic regression: Predicting the childbearing desire—control variables model.

Table 3. Logistic regression: Predicting the childbearing desire—childbearing ambivalence added.

IJOP-61-e70264-s001.zip (302.1KB, zip)

Acknowledgements

The authors have nothing to report.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analysed during the current study are available at https://osf.io/mxdk9/overview?view_only=d42a7f8b88cc4a3cbeef974f7bb7ab18.

References

  1. Armitage, C. J. , and Arden M. A.. 2007. “Felt and Potential Ambivalence Across the Stages of Change.” Journal of Health Psychology 12, no. 1: 149–158. 10.1177/1359105307071749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bearak, J. , Popinchalk A., Ganatra B., et al. 2020. “Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion by Income, Region, and the Legal Status of Abortion: Estimates From a Comprehensive Model for 1990–2019.” Lancet Global Health 8, no. 9: e1152–e1161. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Buss, D. M. , and Schmitt D. P.. 1993. “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating.” Psychological Review 100, no. 2: 204–232. 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cook, L. J. , Iarskaia‐Smirnova E. R., and Kozlov V. A.. 2023. “Trying to Reverse Demographic Decline: Pro‐Natalist and Family Policies in Russia, Poland and Hungary.” Social Policy and Society 22, no. 2: 355–375. 10.1017/S1474746422000628. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Costarelli, S. , and Colloca P.. 2007. “The Moderation of Ambivalence on Attitude–Intention Relations as Mediated by Attitude Importance.” European Journal of Social Psychology 37, no. 5: 923–933. 10.1002/ejsp.403. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Edlund, J. E. , Heider J. D., Scherer C. R., Farc M. M., and Sagarin B. J.. 2006. “Sex Differences in Jealousy in Response to Actual Infidelity.” Evolutionary Psychology 4, no. 1: 147470490600400137. 10.1177/147470490600400137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldscheider, F. , Bernhardt E., and Lappegård T.. 2015. “The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior.” Population and Development Review 41, no. 2: 207–239. 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gómez, A. M. , Arteaga S., Villaseñor E., Arcara J., and Freihart B.. 2019. “The Misclassification of Ambivalence in Pregnancy Intentions: A Mixed‐Methods Analysis.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 51, no. 1: 7–15. 10.1363/psrh.12088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Groat, H. T. , Giordano P. C., Cernkovich S. A., Pugh M. D., and Swinford S. P.. 1997. “Attitudes Toward Childbearing Among Young Parents.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59, no. 3: 568–581. 10.2307/353946. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hair, J. F. , Black W. C., Babin B. J., and Anderson R. E.. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson College Division. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hayes, A. F. 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. 3rd ed. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Huber, S. , Esber A., Garver S., Banda V., and Norris A.. 2017. “The Relationship Between Ambivalent and Indifferent Pregnancy Desires and Contraceptive Use Among Malawian Women.” International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43, no. 1: 13–19. 10.1363/43e3417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Huczewska, I. , Leśniak J., Mynarska M., and Miller W. B.. 2023. “A Short Measure of Childbearing Motivations: Development and Psychometric Evaluation in Polish Samples of Adults and Adolescents.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 32, no. 6: 1823–1838. 10.1007/s10826-022-02497-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jokela, M. , Alvergne A., Pollet T. V., and Lummaa V.. 2011. “Reproductive Behavior and Personality Traits of the Five Factor Model.” European Journal of Personality 25, no. 6: 487–500. 10.1002/per.822. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kotowska, I. , Jóźwiak J., Matysiak A., and Baranowska A.. 2008. “Poland: Fertility Decline as a Response to Profound Societal and Labour Market Changes?” Demographic Research 19: 795–854. 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.22. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kremer, S. , Gerlach A. L., and Erbe D.. 2024. “Depression, Contraception, and Ambivalence Concerning Fertility.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 53, no. 7: 2727–2736. 10.1007/s10508-024-02879-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurowska, A. , Matysiak A., and Grabowska M.. 2026. “Beyond Usual Suspects: Revisiting Barriers to Childbearing Decisions in a Low Fertility Setting.” Population and Development Review 52, no. 1: 94–134. 10.1111/padr.70046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. LaCross, A. , Smaldone A., and Angelson J.. 2019. “Ambivalence Toward Pregnancy as an Indicator for Contraceptive Nonuse: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 64, no. 4: 385–394. 10.1111/jmwh.12969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lipkus, I. M. , Green J. D., Feaganes J. R., and Sedikides C.. 2001. “The Relationship Between Attitudinal Ambivalence and Desire to Quit Smoking Among College Smokers.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, no. 1: 113–133. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02485.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lippa, R. A. 2007. “The Preferred Traits of Mates in a Cross‐National Study of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women: An Examination of Biological and Cultural Influences.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 36, no. 2: 193–208. 10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Miller, W. B. 1994. “Childbearing Motivations, Desires, and Intentions: A Theoretical Framework.” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 120, no. 2: 223–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, W. B. 1995. “Childbearing Motivation and Its Measurement.” Journal of Biosocial Science 27: 473–487. 10.1017/S0021932000023087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller, W. B. 2011. “Comparing the TPB and the T‐D‐I‐B Framework.” Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 9: 19–29. 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s19. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller, W. B. , Jones J., and Pasta D.. 2016. “An Implicit Ambivalence‐Indifference Dimension of Childbearing Desires in the National Survey of Family Growth.” Demographic Research 34, no. 7: 203–242. 10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mynarska, M. , and Rytel J.. 2020. “Fertility Desires of Childless Poles: Which Childbearing Motives Matter for Men and Women?” Journal of Family Issues 41, no. 1: 7–32. 10.1177/0192513X19868257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Park, K. 2005. “Choosing Childlessness: Weber's Typology of Action and Motives of the Voluntarily Childless.” Sociological Inquiry 75, no. 3: 372–402. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00127.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Pinquart, M. , Stotzka C., and Silbereisen R. K.. 2008. “Personality and Ambivalence in Decisions About Becoming Parents.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 36, no. 1: 87–96. 10.2224/sbp.2008.36.1.87. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pinquart, M. , Stotzka C., and Silbereisen R. K.. 2010. “Ambivalence in Decisions About Childbearing.” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 28, no. 2: 212–220. 10.1080/02646830903295034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Puur, A. , Oláh L. S., Tazi‐Preve M. I., and Dorbritz J.. 2008. “Men's Childbearing Desires and Views of the Male Role in Europe at the Dawn of the 21st Century.” Demographic Research 19, no. 56: 1883–1912. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26349297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rackin, H. M. , and Bachrach C. A.. 2016. “Assessing the Predictive Value of Fertility Expectations Through a Cognitive–Social Model.” Population Research and Policy Review 35, no. 4: 527–551. 10.1007/s11113-016-9395-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Raybould, A. , and Sear R.. 2021. “Children of the (Gender) Revolution: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis of How Gendered Division of Labour Influences Fertility.” Population Studies 75, no. 2: 169–190. 10.1080/00324728.2020.1851748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rönkä, A. , Oravala S., and Pulkkinen L.. 2003. “Turning Points in Adults' Lives: The Effects of Gender and the Amount of Choice.” Journal of Adult Development 10, no. 3: 203–215. 10.1023/A:1023418414709. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rothman, N. B. , Pratt M. G., Rees L., and Vogus T. J.. 2017. “Understanding the Dual Nature of Ambivalence: Why and When Ambivalence Leads to Good and Bad Outcomes.” Academy of Management Annals 11, no. 1: 33–72. 10.5465/annals.2014.0066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sennott, C. , and Yeatman S.. 2018. “Conceptualizing Childbearing Ambivalence: A Social and Dynamic Perspective.” Journal of Marriage and Family 80, no. 4: 888–901. 10.1111/jomf.12489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Temmesen, C. G. , Faber Frandsen T., Svarre‐Nielsen H., Petersen K. B., Clemensen J., and Andersen H. L. M.. 2023. “Women's Reflections on Timing of Motherhood: A Meta‐Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence.” Reproductive Health 20, no. 1: 30. 10.1186/s12978-022-01548-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Trivers, R. 1972. “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection.” In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, edited by Campbell B., 136–179. Aldine. [Google Scholar]
  37. van Harreveld, F. , Nohlen H. U., and Schneider I. K.. 2015. “The ABC of Ambivalence: Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Consequences of Attitudinal Conflict.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by Olson J. M. and Zanna M. P., vol. 52, 285–324. Academic Press. 10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Yoo, S. H. , Guzzo K. B., and Hayford S. R.. 2014. “Understanding the Complexity of Ambivalence Toward Pregnancy: Does It Predict Inconsistent Use of Contraception?” Biodemography and Social Biology 60, no. 1: 49–66. 10.1080/19485565.2014.905193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information: Material 1. Subjective ambivalence scale item‐level descriptives and inter‐item correlations.

Table 1. Subjective ambivalence scale item‐level descriptive statistics and inter‐item correlations, N = 831.

Table 2. Item‐level descriptive statistics for the subjective ambivalence scale by gender.

Table 3. Frequency distributions of responses to subjective ambivalence item 1 by gender.

Table 4. Frequency distributions of responses to subjective ambivalence item 2 by gender.

Supporting Information: Material 2. Logistic regression analyses.

Table 1. Frequencies for two values of the childbearing desire variable after dichotomisation.

Table 2. Logistic regression: Predicting the childbearing desire—control variables model.

Table 3. Logistic regression: Predicting the childbearing desire—childbearing ambivalence added.

IJOP-61-e70264-s001.zip (302.1KB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analysed during the current study are available at https://osf.io/mxdk9/overview?view_only=d42a7f8b88cc4a3cbeef974f7bb7ab18.

Articles from International Journal of Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES