. J. AGING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 64(4) 299-330, 2007
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND THE “NORMATIVE” LIFE
COURSE: THE IMPLICATIONS OF CHILDLESSNESS,
FERTILITY TIMING, AND MARITAL STATUS FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING IN LATE MIDLIFE
TANYA KOROPECKYJ-COX
University of Florida, Gainesville
AMY MEHRABAN PIENTA
University of Michigan
TYSON H. BROWN
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
ABSTRACT
We explore women’s psychological well-being in late midlife in relation to
childlessness and timing of entry into motherhood. Using two U.S. surveys,
Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (1992) and National Survey of Families
and Households (NSFH) (Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1988), we assess the
well-being of childless women in their 50s compared to mothers with early,
delayed, or normatively timed first births. We focus on the cohorts born
between 1928 and 1941, who experienced strong normative pressures during
the baby boom with regard to marriage and child-bearing. We find few
differences among childless women but lower well-being among early
mothers, related to singlehood and poorer socioeconomic status. Unmarried
mothers are significantly disadvantaged regardless of maternal timing, controlling for socioeconomic status. Current maternal demands are independently related to well-being and help to explain observed differences in
family satisfaction. Overall, childlessness and off-time child-bearing are
related to midlife well-being through their link with more proximate factors,
particularly current marital status, health, and socioeconomic status.
299
Ó 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
300 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
INTRODUCTION
“The institution of marriage had a power and inevitability in the fifties that it has
never had since. You simply didn’t ask yourself if you wanted marriage and
children; the only relevant questions were when and how many? And the answers
were, as soon as possible and as many as possible” (Harvey, 1993, p. 69).
Women who were adolescents or young adults during the 1950s experienced
the historically and demographically unique post-World War II, baby-boom era.
These “mothers of the baby boom” are distinguished by early and near-universal
marriage (median age of 19-20), earlier fertility (most first births occurred
between 19 and 25), and higher fertility (Rindfuss, Morgan, & Swicegood,
1988). Only 8 to 10% of women born between 1928 and 1941 remained permanently childless, and voluntary childlessness was regarded as “nearly extinct”
(Whelpton, Campbell, & Patterson, 1966, pp. 162-163). For women born in the
late 1920s and 1930s, the distinctiveness of their birth cohorts reflects childhood experiences of the Great Depression, which steered many toward seeking
economic stability and domestic home lives as adults (Elder, 1974). Their early
hardships and modest expectations, combined with having been born into a small
birth cohort, placed them in a position to benefit greatly in the postwar years
(Easterlin, 1980). Those born in the late 1930s or early 1940s had little experience
of the Great Depression, but were young children during the economic and social
upheavals of World War II. For both the younger and older cohorts, the prosperity
of the 1950s represented a tremendous boost in economic well-being that occurred
as they were reaching adolescence or young adulthood, getting married, and
starting families. This era offered unprecedented opportunities for home ownership, higher education, and new amenities and lifestyles (May, 1988; Modell,
Furstenberg, & Hershberg, 1976).
Beyond economics, the social and political cultures of the era contributed to the
distinctive demographic profile. The ethos of the 1950s emphasized the nuclear
family as a haven and as the locus for personal fulfillment, encouraging universal
marriage, child-bearing, and homemaking roles for women (May, 1988, p. 11;
see also Coontz, 1992, 2005). May (1988) has argued that the anxieties of the
atomic age and Cold War further increased pressures to conform to societal norms.
Men and women who did not take part in heterosexual marriage, child-bearing,
and breadwinner-homemaker gender roles were labeled as deviant, “unnatural,”
or dangerous (Coontz, 1992, 2005; May, 1988, 1995). The personal and social
implications of marrying late or not at all, remaining childless, or having children
early or late compared to their peers, therefore, may have been especially salient
for women of this cohort.
The current article explores the extent to which psychological well-being in
late midlife among these women of the 1950s is linked with parental status and
past fertility timing. We focus on women in their 50s, an age at which the
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
301
implications of earlier life history may be particularly significant in terms of
employment and economic circumstances as well as relationships and personal
self-evaluations. In light of earlier normative pressures and current concerns in
midlife, we expect that women’s psychological well-being will be related to
whether or when they became mothers. Specifically, we ask, Do women who
became mothers “on time” have a psychological advantage in midlife compared
to earlier and later mothers and women who have remained childless, and do
these differences vary with current marital or partner status? To what extent
are advantages explained by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics?
Finally, to what extent do objective differences in the current and past demands
on mothers explain any psychological differences between normative and
“off-time” mothers?
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Social Norms, Age Timetables, and Fertility
Though the 50s have been described as the “prime of life” for women (Mitchell
& Helson, 1990), psychological well-being in later midlife depends on the
implications of earlier life paths (Barrett, 2000; Wheaton, 1990). Late midlife
includes the physiological transition of menopause, signifying the end of childbearing or the permanence of childlessness, as well as social transitions around the
launching of children, changes in employment, marital and relationship changes,
and possible entry into grandparenthood. By their 50s, mothers who began
child-bearing in their teens or early 20s have launched their young adult children.
Their concerns in midlife may include the needs of younger children still at
home, the transitions of young adults, and the needs of grandchildren. For
women who became mothers in their late 20s to 40s, midlife may still be defined
by parental responsibilities as well as relationships with adolescents and
young adults. In addition, earlier experiences, including marital history (Wilmoth
& Koso, 2002), child-bearing, and child-rearing (Moen, 2001; O’Rand &
Henretta, 1982), may leave lasting and cumulative effects on women’s status in
midlife, including their economic resources, employment, and psychological
well-being.
We draw on Neugarten’s (1968; Neugarten, Moore, & Lowe, 1965) conceptualization of “on-time” and “off-time” life transitions to explore whether timing
of entry into motherhood is linked to psychological well-being in middle age.
As originally described within role theory, the occurrence and timing of life
course transitions (i.e., role entries and exits) are governed by social norms
that include social sanctions when individuals do not conform to expectations
(Clausen, 1972; Neugarten & Datan, 1973). Age timetables have been described
more recently within the life course framework as the normatively defined
302 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
expectations regarding the sequence and timing of life transitions (Settersten &
Hagestad, 1996a, 1996b). Transitions that occur “off-time” rather than “on-time,”
as defined by social norms, more often result in adverse consequences (Brim
& Ryff, 1980; Neugarten et al., 1965; Neugarten & Datan, 1973). Social changes
in recent decades have brought greater life course variability and acceptance of
different life paths, but concerns about the timing of life transitions have remained
relevant, as is evident in current research on grandparents (e.g., Landry-Meyer &
Newman, 2004), caregivers for persons with AIDS (Land, Hudson, & Steiffel,
2003; Wight, 2000), and the death of a parent (Cait, 2004).
Remaining childless represents the absence of an expected, normative transition. In the 1950s, strong pro-natalist ideologies prescribed universal marriage
and child-bearing, and both men and women were subjected to social pressures if
they did not conform. Childless women in particular reported feeling stigmatized
(Houseknecht, 1977; May, 1995; Veevers, 1980). Infertility was regarded with
pity, whereas voluntary childlessness was met with scorn or suspicion (May,
1995). Further, the centrality of motherhood for women’s development, mental
health, and fulfillment was stressed in both psychological and popular books of
the time (e.g., Erikson, 1963; Farnham & Lundberg, 1947; see Epstein, 2003), and
opinion surveys reflected widespread pro-natalist attitudes (Veroff, Douvan, &
Kulka, 1981; see May, 1988, 1995).
Though norms encouraging parenthood were strong, expectations regarding
the timing of this transition were more flexible. Becoming a parent was contingent
on “readiness,” including marriage and economic circumstances, and expectations varied in response to prevailing social and economic conditions (Rindfuss
et al., 1988). As a result, ages of entry into motherhood have varied historically
and within cohorts. At the same time, societal age norms became more potent in
the postwar era with the decline of familial influence on life course transitions
(Hareven & Masaoka, 1988; Modell et al., 1976). Several studies have documented specific norms for marriage and fertility timing as well as variations
by cohort (Fallo-Mitchell & Ryff, 1982; Gee, 1990; Neugarten, Moore, &
Lowe, 1965; Rindfuss & Bumpass, 1976). For example, a survey of middle-class
Americans in the 1960s identified ages 19 to 24 as the best ages for women
to marry, with child-bearing expected to begin soon thereafter (Neugarten
et al., 1965).
The concepts of normative and “off-time” transitions have been applied to
women’s transitions to motherhood, with first births in the 20s generally defined
as normative in the mid- to late-twentieth century (Rindfuss et al., 1988).
“Off-time,” teen births have received the most attention, but less is known about
normative and later births and their potential implications later in the life course
(Rindfuss et al., 1988). Research on midlife well-being, on the other hand, has
focused primarily on midlife transitions (e.g., Marks, Lambert, & Choi, 2002;
Turner, Killian, & Cain, 2004) with less attention to longer term effects of
earlier life paths.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
303
Psychological Well-Being of Women in Midlife
Studies of the psychological strains and benefits of parenting have generally
reported few differences in happiness, life satisfaction, loneliness, or depression
related to parental status in older adulthood (Glenn & McLanahan, 1981;
Koropeckyj-Cox, 1998a; Rempel, 1985), and few psychological advantages
have been found for parents of all ages (Evenson & Simon, 2005). In midlife,
empty-nest, married parents (aged 45-59) have reported greater satisfaction
with their family lives but similar overall life satisfaction compared to the
childless (Bell & Eisenberg, 1985). However, qualitative research has identified
midlife as a potentially difficult time for childless women, drawing on retrospective accounts from older women (e.g., Alexander, et al., 1992; KoropeckyjCox, 1998b; Lang, 1991) and younger women’s concerns about the future
(Ireland, 1993; Vissing, 2002).
The long-term effects of fertility timing have received less attention. The most
comprehensive study to date (Mirowsky & Ross, 2002) has reported a U-shaped
relationship between age at first birth and depression for women, with particularly
high levels among early mothers. Their greater distress is attributed to economic
factors, family structure, and health. The observed increase in depression among
later mothers (late 30s or later) is less definitive because of their small number
(Mirowsky & Ross, 2002). Other studies have focused primarily on the longterm effects of early fertility, especially non-marital child-bearing (Furstenberg,
Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987; Wu, 1996), which has been linked to a variety
of social, economic, and psychological disadvantages. These include lower
educational attainment, limited employment prospects, and lower incomes in
adulthood, though these differences largely reflect predisposing factors for teen
motherhood, including childhood poverty (Anderton, Tsuya, Bean, & Mineau,
1987; Geronimus & Korenman, 1993; Moore & Sugland, 1999). Psychological
well-being in midlife reflects these material disadvantages and the associated
risks of poorer health and singlehood (Mirowsky & Ross, 2002), which may
also diminish the quality of parenting and mothers’ midlife self-evaluations
and assessments of their mothering (Keyes & Ryff, 1999; Ryff, Lee, Essex, &
Schmutte, 1994).
Women who became mothers at older ages, on the other hand, may enter
their 50s with on-going responsibilities and financial obligations to younger
children. For example, Choi (2002) has found that mothers in late midlife with
at least one child at home are less likely to see themselves as retired compared
to childless women and empty-nest mothers, though they are equally likely to
engage in paid work. Different perceptions of work and retirement status, as
well as the potential demands of current maternal responsibilities, may reduce
psychological well-being among later mothers in midlife. On the other hand,
higher education levels and other social and economic advantages may help to
buffer these stresses (Mirowsky & Ross, 2002).
304 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
The women born between the late 1920s and early 1940s are among the
first women to notably increase their labor force attachment throughout the
life course (Anderson, 1981). Expanding work opportunities, employment, and
greater economic resources may have reduced the implications of maternal timing
or childlessness in midlife. However, these structural changes have disproportionately benefited married, dual-earner couples at a time when the odds of
divorce and single motherhood increased. In midlife, therefore, we expect to see
greater disadvantage among women who are unmarried or have been single
mothers in the past.
Beyond economic considerations, psychological well-being in midlife is also
shaped by social and internal processes over the life course. Research on midlife
has linked distress or well-being with the relative importance of social roles, like
marriage and parenthood, and combinations of multiple roles (Thoits, 1992).
Greater distress among mothers is related to the demands of parenting and the need
to balance multiple responsibilities, such as employment and caring for older
parents. The symbolic importance of parenting roles may exacerbate the stresses
of parents who are highly committed to their parenting identities (Simon, 1992).
Attitudes about non-normative life paths and experiences of stigma—both in
social interaction and in internalized self-appraisals—may also reduce well-being.
Popular culture has reinforced negative images of off-time transitions and their
consequences, particularly with regard to off-time motherhood and childlessness (Harvey, 1993; May, 1995; Neugarten, 1979). The normative emphasis on
motherhood for women’s identity may challenge the self-concepts of childless
women and off-time mothers, though the effects may be mitigated by supportive reference groups and positive attitudes (Carr, 2004; Houseknecht, 1977;
Koropeckyj-Cox, 2002).
Finally, perceptions of choice or mastery over the life course may also contribute to more positive outcomes, such as among women who are childless by
choice (Connidis & McMullin, 1993; Jeffries & Konnert, 2002) or who deliberately delayed motherhood to pursue educational and career goals. Among
mothers, a sense of mastery and more positive self-evaluations are linked with
better psychological well-being (Keyes & Ryff, 1999; Ryff et al., 1994). Involuntary childlessness, on the other hand, is linked with greater distress (Connidis
& McMullin, 1993; King, 2003; McQuillan, Griel, White, & Jacob, 2003) and
regrets in midlife (Jeffries & Konnert, 2002).
In sum, studies that have compared childless women with mothers have ignored
the diversity of maternal timing among mothers. Although age patterns of fertility
have been studied extensively, little research has examined the implications of
maternal timing on psychological well-being over the life course. Further, a focus
on economic and biological correlates of fertility timing has ignored the ways
that historical, social, and cultural factors may have shaped the meanings and
implications of fertility timing (see discussion in Mirowsky & Ross, 2002).
The current analyses, therefore, begin to explore whether earlier social ideas about
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
305
“normative” vs. “non-normative” or “off-time” life transitions are related to
women’s psychological well-being in midlife.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
We define “on-time” motherhood operationally as the ages at which about half
of the women of the study cohorts gave birth to their first child (ages 19 to 24)
based on the observed distributions in two surveys. These distributions concur
with historical demographic data for these cohorts (Heuser, 1976). Drawing on
the concept of “on-time” and “off-time” life transitions, we expect normative
mothers to report greater psychological well-being in midlife than women with
non-normative life paths, particularly those with early first births. Early mothers’
psychological resources in midlife are likely to be further reduced by socioeconomic disadvantages and the greater likelihood of marital instability over the
life course. Normative timing, on other hand, is linked with generally higher
education levels and a greater likelihood of being married, thus amplifying any
normative advantages and leading to greater happiness and satisfaction.
The psychological implications of remaining childless or delaying motherhood
are less clear. Although likely to benefit psychologically and economically from
higher levels of education and greater labor force participation, these women may
find that they are out-of-step with regard to normative midlife transitions. The
psychological consequences may be negative for delayed mothers who are still
actively engaged in the demands of parenting in their 50s, while their peers with
earlier fertility may be launching their young adult children, redirecting their
energies into work or other pursuits, or becoming grandmothers. At the same time,
delayed motherhood may offer psychological advantages through the personal
satisfactions and integrative nature of active parenting compared to childless and
empty-nest women (Burton, 1998).
DATA AND METHODS
Our analyses use data from two national surveys. The Health and Retirement
Study, conducted in 1992, includes women aged 51 to 61 who were born between
1931 and 1941. The National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) provides a comparable sample from 1987-1988. Limiting our analyses to women
aged 51-61, the NSFH sample includes the births cohorts of 1926 to 1938,
providing substantial overlap with the HRS cohorts. We use the first waves of
these surveys, both of which utilized representative sampling designs. We use
sample weights provided with the data to account for the over-sampling of
racial-ethnic minorities and other population sub-groups (e.g., cohabiting couples
and other specific living arrangements in the NSFH).
Our parallel, cross-sectional analyses are motivated by several reasons. First,
because childless women are relatively rare in this cohort of women, examining
306 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
data from two nationally representative surveys strengthens our findings. Detailed
information on fertility and other factors allows us to test hypotheses about the
links between psychological well-being and parental status and timing; using both
surveys allows for a conservative approach, seeking confirmation of findings
across the two samples. Further, as neither survey is explicitly designed to study
psychological status in detail, our parallel analyses allow for a wider range of
psychological well-being measures than if we had included only one study.
We acknowledge that using surveys from different years raises questions about
comparability with regard to age, period, and cohort. Our primary aim is to
compare well-being across subgroups of women, as defined by maternal status and
timing. As psychological status, particularly depression, is known to vary with
age (e.g., Kessler, Foster, Webster, & House, 1992; Mirowsky & Ross, 1992), we
examine the same age groups in both surveys. Focusing on the women aged 51
to 61 (born 1928-38 in the NSFH vs. 1931-41 in the HRS) allows for substantial
overlap of birth cohorts, with both covering the most distinctive cohort fertility
patterns among women born in 1931 to 1938 (see Rindfuss et al., 1988). Other
scholars have noted that the post-war baby boom patterns are shared across
the range of women born between the late 1920s through the early 1940s,
with distinct breaks distinguishing them from the cohorts born before and after.
Finally, we note that the different sampling designs and measures argue against
comparing the same cohorts at different ages.
Health and Retirement Study
The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (see Juster & Suzman, 1995) is a
national longitudinal survey of adults ages 51 to 61. Interviews began in 1992
with biannual follow-up interviews. Our analyses use cross-sectional data from
women in the first wave. HRS is a valuable data source on marriage and fertility
history, physical health, mental health, life satisfaction, and numerous socioeconomic indicators. Moreover, the historical significance of the HRS cohort
has allowed us to examine psychological well-being among women who have
likely faced harsher midlife implications of deviating from normative marital and
fertility patterns. Our sample includes 4,984 women after excluding cases with
missing data on key variables.
National Survey of Families and Households: The National Survey of Families
and Households was conducted in 1987-88 through face-to-face interviews and
self-administered questionnaires completed by randomly chosen adult respondents from each household (see Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1988). The NSFH
has provided invaluable data on marriage and cohabitation, fertility and family
histories, attitudes about family life, and various indicators of adults’ and
children’s well-being. We restrict our analyses to women aged 51 to 61 years to
match the HRS sample ages. In order to focus on the contrast between biological
parenthood and childlessness, we exclude from both surveys any biologically
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
307
childless women with adopted children. Excluding women with incomplete or
missing data on the key variables of interest, the NSFH analyses are based on
samples of 792, 744, and 719 women with data available for the dependent
variables, loneliness, depression, and happiness, respectively.
Dependent Variables
We examine several measures of psychological well-being—family satisfaction, life satisfaction, reported happiness, depressive symptoms, and loneliness.
Family Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction
Family satisfaction and life satisfaction are measured in the HRS using a
5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied.
Family satisfaction and life satisfaction measures are derived from the survey
questions, “Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, evenly satisfied and
dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with your family life (or
life as a whole)?” Both response distributions are highly skewed, with “very
satisfied” chosen by the majority of women. We therefore analyze a collapsed,
dichotomous measure that compares the very satisfied with all other women.
Self-Reported Happiness
Self-reported happiness is measured in the NSFH in the self-administered
questionnaire with a single, global assessment that asks, “Taking things all
together, how would you say things are these days?” The responses range
from 1 “very unhappy” to 7 “very happy,” with an average value of 5.34. We
analyze both the original responses and a dichotomous indicator of being very
happy (nearly 27% of women), though only the former analyses are reported
in the tables.
Depressive Symptoms
Depressive symptoms are measured in both surveys using modified versions
of the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff,
1977). Both surveys ask about the frequency of feelings, such as loneliness and
fearfulness, experienced by respondents over the past week. In the HRS, the
scale includes 14 items with a four-category response set ranging from 4 for
“most of the time” to 1 for “none of the time.” The 14 items are summed to
create an index of depressive symptoms, ranging from 14 to 56, with an internalconsistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of .87. In the NSFH, respondents
are asked in the self-administered questionnaire how often in the last week
they experienced each of 12 depressive symptoms, on a scale from 0 (none) to 7.
The total depression score is the sum of the 12 items and ranges from 0 to 84.
Higher scores in both surveys indicate greater reported frequency of depressive
308 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
symptoms. This shortened version of the CES-D is not a diagnostic tool of
depression per se, but is a useful measure of distress in the general population.
Loneliness
Loneliness is measured in both surveys using a single item that appears as part
of the CES-D, asking respondents how frequently in the past week they have felt
lonely. Responses in the HRS range from all or almost all of the time to never or
almost none of the time. These responses are collapsed into a dichotomous
indicator of reporting loneliness all or most of the time compared to everyone else.
In the NSFH, scores range from 0 to 7, with a high score indicating greater
frequency of loneliness. The loneliness score is highly correlated with the total
CES-D score (r = .56 in the HRS and .78 in the NSFH) and with the CES-D score
excluding the loneliness item (r = .51 and .72, respectively). However, loneliness
and CES-D scores show different patterns of covariation with the independent
variables of interest and are therefore analyzed and discussed separately (see
Koropeckyj-Cox, 1998a, 2002). Further, analyses using a dichotomous measure
of high loneliness (the highest 20%, with scores greater than 2; results available
from first author) confirm the findings from the interval measure of loneliness.
Independent Variables
Parental Status and Timing
Parental status and timing is the main independent variable in the analyses.
We define childlessness as the absence of either biological or adopted children.
Mothers are divided into three groups based on the timing of their first birth
in order to compare childless women with normative and off-time parents. The
designations of early, normative, and late motherhood are based on the distributions of first-birth timing in the two surveys, which correspond with the
historical distributions of maternal timing among women in the cohorts born
between 1927 and 1941 (Heuser, 1976). The “normative” group includes about
half of the mothers in the middle of the range of ages at maternity, with first
births between the ages of 19 and 24. The early and delayed categories are defined
as the lowest and highest quartiles of the distribution. Early mothers are those
whose first birth occurred at age 18 or younger. Delayed motherhood is defined
as having had a first birth at age 25 or later.
Marital Status
Marital status is coded as a set of dummy variables describing current marital
or cohabitation status (never married, married/cohabiting, divorced/separated,
widowed). As marital status is closely tied to fertility and is a well-documented
correlate of psychological well-being, we examine the intersection of marital
status and maternal status and timing with a series of mutually exclusive dummy
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
309
variables: childless never married, childless formerly married, childless married,
early unmarried, early married, normative married, normative unmarried, late
married, and late unmarried. In analyses of mothers only with the larger HRS
sample, we also test detailed interactions between fertility timing and current
marital status (results not shown).
Other Variables
Socio-demographic controls included in the models are measured the same
way in both surveys. Age is measured in years, ranging from 51 to 61. Education
is coded as a set of dummy variables for completed schooling (less than high
school, high school, beyond high school). Self-rated health is a single-item,
ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Current labor force status indicates
whether the respondent worked full-time (35 hours or more per week), part-time,
or less than five hours per week at the time of the interview. Income represents
the total household income at the time of the interview. We use the natural
logarithm to reduce the skewed income distribution. Missing values for income
are estimated using multiple imputation methods.
Finally, in analyses of mothers only, we include several characteristics of the
mothers’ histories and current responsibilities. These include the total number of
children ever born, whether their youngest child is under the ages of 18 or 22,
whether there are any children under 18 or grandchildren in the household,
whether the first birth occurred outside of marriage, and whether the respondent
had been a single mother.
Analytical Methods
We compare and test for bivariate differences among the parental status groups—
childless, early mothers, normative mothers, and late mothers—computing
Chi-square statistics for categorical variables and analyses of variance for means
comparisons of scalar variables. We use multiple regression methods to test for
differences among the parental status groups, controlling for marital status, and
among the combined marital and parental status groups, controlling for age, race,
health, work status, and household income. Finally, for mothers only, we run
separate models testing each potential mediator between maternal timing and
psychological well-being. Logistic regressions are used to analyze binary outcome
variables: life satisfaction, family satisfaction, and loneliness (HRS). We use OLS
regression methods to analyze the interval variables: depression (both surveys),
happiness, and loneliness (NSFH).
RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of women in each maternal status group
in both surveys. Maternal status and timing are associated with each outcome
measure, with stronger differences in the negative outcomes. The majority of
NSFH 1987-1988
HRS 1992
Early Normative Delayed
Childless mothers mothers mothers
Early Normative Delayed
Childless mothers mothers mothers
N
84
203
420
150
Positive outcome measures
High Family Satisfaction (%)
High Life Satisfaction (%)
Happiness (mean; 0-7)
—
—
5.25
—
—
5.15
—
—
5.29
—
—
5.70
—
1.03
—
11.6
17.4
—
1.48
—
19.5
31.5
—
1.27
—
15.9
22.0
—
0.65
—
10.5
13.2
45.7
5.2
11.2
37.9
63.7
19.2
15.8
1.3
73.4
13.5
12.4
0.7
74.6
16.2
8.1
1.1
Negative outcome measures
Ever Lonely (%)
Loneliness (mean; 0-7)
CES-D (mean; 14-56)
CES-D (mean; 0-84)
High Depression (%)
Control variables
Marital Status (%)
Married/Cohabiting
Divorced/Separated
Widowed
Never Married
**
**
***
***
***
379
692
2,715
1,270
*
**
68.3
55.5
—
65.2
51.9
—
70.6
59.5
—
67.1
55.5
—
***
27.0
—
22.5
—
—
34.6
—
24.3
—
—
25.5
—
22.6
—
—
24.8
—
22.1
—
—
47.5
15.2
7.7
29.7
64.7
19.8
14.0
1.5
74.7
15.1
9.4
0.8
74.4
15.9
8.5
1.2
***
***
310 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Table 1. Sample Characteristics of Women (Aged 51-61) by Maternal Status and Timing of First Birth:
National Survey of Families and Households (1987-88) and the Health and Retirement Study (1992)a
—
**
Education (%)
Less than high school
High school
More than high school
***
Self-Rated Health (mean; 1-5 hi)
Working (%)
Little or no (0-5 hrs.)
Part-time (6-34 hrs.)
Full-time (35+ hrs.)
Household Income (mean log)
Characteristics of Mothersb
Children ever born (mean)
Age of youngest child (mean)
Youngest under 18 (%)
Youngest under 22 (%)
Anyone in home under 18 (%)
Grandchild in home (%)
Non-marital first birth (%)
Single mother of child < 18 (%)
***
—
56.3
23.0
55.6
30.0
55.7
17.3
55.7
17.6
27.9
42.1
30.0
58.8
34.5
6.7
24.4
52.8
22.8
21.0
33.7
45.3
4.0
3.5
3.9
3.9
***
42.5
7.0
50.5
9.3
47.7
15.5
36.8
9.1
47.8
14.7
37.5
9.8
42.3
19.6
38.1
10.4
***
***
**
***
**
*
***
***
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.6
27.4
13.1
24.8
9.9
14.4
22.6
53.2
3.8
26.1
12.1
27.4
10.4
12.8
6.2
26.3
2.7
22.5
21.9
46.3
20.9
5.2
3.2
25.1
55.6
22.5
55.6
35.2
55.8
16.6
56.1
17.8
15.8
35.1
49.1
55.1
31.6
13.2
20.4
50.0
29.6
14.4
37.4
48.2
3.6
3.0
3.5
3.7
***
29.9
12.2
57.9
10.1
44.3
13.8
41.9
9.7
37.5
17.9
44.6
10.2
35.3
17.5
47.1
10.4
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.3
27.2
8.3
17.0
8.0
15.4
23.2
51.5
3.4
26.5
6.3
18.4
7.3
8.8
7.3
33.8
2.4
23.3
13.2
34.1
16.1
5.2
4.4
27.6
*
***
***
***
***
/ 311
aResults are based on weighted data. Maternal status groups are defined as follows: Childless = no biological or adopted children. Early = first
birth at age 18 or younger; Normative = first birth between the ages of 19-24; Delayed = first birth at age 25 or older.
bBetween-group differences are tested for mothers only.
*Difference is statistically significant at p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE
Age (mean)
Non-White (%)
312 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
women in each group report high satisfaction, though the proportions with
high life satisfaction are greatest for normative mothers (59.5%) and lowest for
early mothers (51.9%). Early mothers report the most loneliness and depresion, whereas the other three groups are generally similar, with delayed mothers
showing an advantage with regard to happiness and loneliness in the NSFH data
but not in HRS.
As expected, maternal status and timing are strongly associated with current
marital status. Normative and delayed mothers are predominantly married (about
73-75%). Childless women are disproportionately never married (30% in HRS,
38% in NSFH); the difference between the two samples may reflect lower
marriage rates among the slightly earlier birth cohorts in the NSFH or differences in sampling. Early mothers are most likely to be divorced or widowed
and non-white, whereas normative mothers are disproportionately white (83%).
Delayed mothers are the most educated, followed by childless women, normative
mothers, and early mothers; more than half of early mothers have less than a high
school education. Self-reported health is highest among childless women and
delayed mothers, followed closely by normative mothers, with early mothers
reporting the poorest health. Employment levels vary between the two surveys,
potentially reflecting increases in mothers’ full-time employment among the
somewhat younger cohorts in the HRS. In both surveys, more than half of the
childless women work full-time. Relative income levels also vary between the
two surveys, but delayed mothers have the highest incomes and early mothers
have the lowest in both surveys.
Next we compare characteristics related to motherhood itself, including
overall fertility levels and current maternal responsibilities. Total fertility is linked
predictably with timing—early mothers have more children on average than
normative or delayed mothers. As a result, the average age of the youngest child
is about the same for early and normative mothers though several years younger
for delayed mothers. The delayed mothers are most likely to have a minor child,
a child living in the home, or one under 22. Early mothers, on the other hand, are
most likely to live with a grandchild (about 15% in both surveys). Finally,
non-marital first births are disproportionately found among early mothers, and
over half have been single mothers compared to about one-quarter to one-third
of normative and delayed mothers.
Regression models show no differences between childless women and normative mothers, controlling for demographic and socio-economic characteristics
(Table 2). The disadvantages seen among early mothers in bivariate analyses
disappear when marital and socio-economic statuses are controlled. The results
for delayed mothers are mixed, with a significant advantage in happiness and
lower loneliness and depression in the NSFH but lower life satisfaction in the
HRS. Divorced and widowed women show strong, consistent disadvantages
compared to married women. Because of the strong association between maternal
and marital status, particularly the multicollinearity between childlessness and
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
313
remaining single, we next turn to the combined indicators of marital and maternal
status and timing.
Table 3 summarizes the results of regression models for the three positive
outcomes (happiness, life satisfaction, and family satisfaction) and four negative
measures (loneliness and depression in both surveys). To simplify the group
comparisons and maintain adequate cell sizes, we have split the childless women
into three marital status groups—never married, formerly married (widowed or
divorced), and currently married or cohabiting. Mothers are split into the currently
married or cohabiting and those who are unmarried (mostly divorced or widowed,
with a small fraction of never-married mothers). In more detailed analyses, we
find that the unmarried mothers are generally quite similar across specific marital
status groups.
Examining the intersection of parental and marital status, we find that
unmarried mothers—whether early, normative, or delayed—are less likely to be
satisfied with family and life, are more lonely (in both surveys), and are more
depressed (in HRS but not NSFH) than normative, married mothers. Disadvantages among early and normative unmarried mothers are evident in both surveys,
but differences among delayed, unmarried mothers are found only in the HRS.
Never-married, childless women are also less likely to be satisfied with family and
with life in general (for life satisfaction, b = –.693, or 50% lower odds). Single,
childless women are more likely to be lonely and are more depressed in the HRS,
but are not statistically different in the NSFH (and coefficients are in the opposite
direction). In both surveys, the married childless women are no different from the
married, normatively timed mothers, but the childless, formerly married women
are disadvantaged on life satisfaction and ever feeling lonely in the HRS. In
general, differences among the parental-marital status groups are driven by the
impact of marital status. Health is strongly related to well-being in all of the
models, and age, full-time employment, and being non-white are linked with more
positive outcomes in most of the models.
Table 4 summarizes the results for mothers only, controlling for marital status
and the demographic and socioeconomic variables. Again, the bivariate disadvantages observed among early mothers are attenuated when marital status and
other variables are controlled. Results for delayed mothers are mixed, with a
relative advantage seen in the NSFH but lower satisfaction in HRS. In both
surveys and on all but one outcome measure (depression in NSFH), we see the
strong negative impact of being unmarried. More detailed analyses and tests of
the interactions between maternal timing and marital status find a statistically
significant interaction only in the models predicting family satisfaction (results
available from the authors). Family satisfaction is significantly lower among
unmarried mothers with early or delayed first births, but early mothers who are
widowed show a smaller disadvantage compared to other widows.
Finally, using the models in Table 4 as a base, we examine whether specific
aspects of motherhood are related to maternal timing and its connection with
Positive outcome
Happiness
(NSFH)b
a
Maternal status and timing
Childless
Early mothers
Normative mothers (ref.)
Delayed mothers
Marital/Partner status
Married/cohabiting (ref.)
Divorced/separated
Widowed
Never married
Control variables
Age
White
Life
Satisfaction
(HRS)c
b
Negative outcomes
Family
Satisfaction
(HRS)c
c
Loneliness
(NSFH)b
d
Ever
Lonely
(HRS)c
e
Depression
(NSFH)b
f
Depression
(HRS)b
g
–.161
(.248)
.085
(.145)
.007
(.128)
–.125)
(.100)
.155
(.136)
–.177
(.102)
–.160
(.310)
.002
(.188)
–.098
(.147)
.061
(.108)
–1.909
(2.680)
.470
(1.598)
–.141
(.337)
.130
(.263)
.301
(.157)
–.241***
(.072)
–.165*
(.074)
–.478*
(.200)
.096
(.083)
–3.848*
(1.677)
.123
(.188)
–.505***
(.150)
–.635***
(.158)
–.087
(.340)
–.760***
(.086)
–.707***
(.104)
–.661***
(.188)
–.647***
(.085)
–.540***
(.104)
–.744***
(.189)
.510**
(.192)
1.256***
(.201)
.408
(.411)
.871***
(.092)
1.396***
(.107)
1.014***
(.199)
1.063
(1.635)
3.730*
(1.697)
–2.607
(3.706)
1.175***
(.228)
1.924***
(.277)
1.351**
(.502)
.043*
(.018)
–.225
(.133)
.031**
(.010)
–.210**
(.081)
.019
(.010)
–.018
(.082)
–.033
(.023)
.422*
(.172)
–.031**
(.011)
–.051
(.087)
–.106
(.195)
2.889*
(1.463)
–.144***
(.025)
.523*
(.212)
314 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Table 2. Psychosocial Well-Being of Women (Aged 51-61) by Maternal Status and Timing:
National Survey of Families and Households (1987-88) and the Health and Retirement Study (1992)a
Education
Less than high school
High school (ref.)
More than high school
Working
Little or none (ref.)
Part-time
Full-time
Household Income (log)d
Intercept
F
R2
Wald chi-square
2 log likelihood
N
.139
(.084)
.182*
(.088)
–.034
(.185)
.147
(.090)
1.691
(1.567)
.094
(.147)
.420***
(.061)
–.058
(.071)
.459***
(.029)
–.170*
(.073)
.218***
(.030)
.113
(.187)
–.482***
(.079)
–.284***
(.084)
–.345***
(.032)
1.459
(1.572)
–6.381***
(.667)
.065
(.184)
.151
(.132)
.016
(.029)
–.092
(.090)
–.181*
(.072)
.013
(.016)
–.102
(.095)
–.185*
(.075)
.016
(.017)
–.297
(.229)
–.460**
(.169)
–.026
(.039)
–.322**
(.106)
–.213**
(.081)
.004
(.018)
–3.215
(1.965)
–2.685+
(1.421)
–.195
(.345)
1.348
7.15***
.12
–2.629***
–.816
416.66***
6864.55
4975
184.93***
6045.98
4975
719
4.806***
8.44***
.13
792
1.664*
497.99***
5255.91
4975
.320
(.222)
–.708***
(.186)
–2.328***
(.075)
–.635**
(.236)
–.526**
(.187)
–.115**
(.043)
45.735***
11.36***
.18
39.631***
116.45***
.25
744
4975
/ 315
aResults are based on weighted data. Maternal timing groups defined by age at first birth. Early = age 18 or younger; Normative = ages 19-24;
Delayed = age 25 or older.
bUnstandardized OLS regression coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses).
cLogistic regression coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses).
dRegressions use imputations for cases with missing data on total household income for both HRS and HSFH.
*.01 < p <= .05. **.001 < p <= .01. ***p < .001.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE
Self-Rated Health
.135
(.144)
Positive outcome
Negative outcomes
Life
Family
Happiness Satisfaction Satisfaction Loneliness
(NSFH)b
(HRS)c
(NSFH)b
(HRS)c
a
b
d
c
Maternal and marital status
Childless, never married
Childless, formerly married
Childless, currently married
Early, unmarried mothers
Early, married mothers
Normative, unmarried mothers
Normative, married mothers (ref.)
Delayed, unmarried mothers
Delayed, married mothers
Control variables
Age
White
Ever
Lonely
(HRS)c
e
Depression Depression
(HRS)b
(NSFH)b
g
f
–.618**
(.200)
–.686**
(.229)
–.058
(.165)
–.759***
(.160)
–.193
(.120)
–.768***
(.096)
–.693***
(.200)
–.375
(.234)
.107
(.183)
–.652***
(.158)
–.320*
(.126)
–.731***
(.097)
–.716
(.434)
–.048
(.482)
–.021
(.441)
.948***
(.265)
.160
(.259)
1.111***
(.220)
.958***
(.213)
1.017***
(.238)
–.114
(.211)
1.002***
(.162)
.189
(.134)
1.132***
(.103)
–5.914
(3.721)
.084
(4.117)
–3.375
(3.726)
2.676
(2.252)
1.957
(2.183)
3.724*
(1.849)
1.168*
(.541)
1.179
(.611)
–.067
(.432)
1.873***
(.423)
–.034
(.318)
1.418***
(.255)
–.274
(.241)
.317
(.198)
–1.034***
(.126)
–.232**
(.083)
–.759***
(.123)
–.225*
(.088)
.082
(.307)
–.173
(.258)
1.201***
(.131)
.103
(.102)
–1.464
(2.590)
–3.268
(2.147)
1.502***
(.330)
.131
(.218)
.043*
(.018)
–.251
(.132)
.032**
(.010)
–.209*
(.081)
.020*
(.010)
–.006
(.082)
–.025
(.023)
.466**
(.173)
–.026*
(.011)
–.048
(.086)
–.065
(.194)
3.124*
(1.467)
–.138***
(.025)
.544*
(.213)
.838*
(.346)
–.314
(.399)
–.523
(.336)
–.579**
(.203)
.144
(.195)
–.607***
(.170)
316 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Table 3. Psychosocial Well-Being of Women (Aged 51-61) by Maternal Status and Timing and Marital Status:
National Survey of Families and Households (1987-88) and the Health and Retirement Study (1992)a
Education
Less than high school
High school (ref.)
More than high school
Working
Little or none (ref.)
Part-time
Full-time
Household Income (log)d
Intercept
F
R2
Wald chi-square
2 log likelihood
N
.142
(.084)
.190*
(.088)
–.022
(.187)
.164
(.089)
1.731
(1.574)
.088
(.147)
.417***
(.060)
–.062
(.071)
.460***
(.029)
–.174*
(.073)
.218***
(.029)
.092
(.189)
–.465***
(.080)
–.297***
(.084)
–.337***
(.032)
1.399
(1.579)
–6.285***
(.667)
.059
(.184)
.163
(.131)
.013
(.029)
–.091
(.091)
–.180*
(.072)
.013
(.016)
–.099
(.095)
–.181*
(.075)
.016
(.017)
–.291
(.231)
–.502**
(.169)
–.023
(.039)
–.328**
(.106)
–.237**
(.081)
.005
(.018)
–3.241
(1.973)
–2.951*
(1.423)
–.139
(.345)
–.635**
(.236)
–.543**
(.187)
–.114**
(.043)
1.371*
41.867***
9.90***
.18
39.305***
101.50
.25
744
4975
1.392
6.92***
.14
719
–2.640***
417.96***
6864.55
4975
–.849
188.48***
6041.73
4975
4.169**
6.93***
.13
792
485.58
5271.91
4975
.344
(.222)
–.724***
(.186)
–2.320***
(.075)
/ 317
aResults are based on weighted data. Maternal timing groups defined by age at first birth. Early = age 18 or younger; Normative = ages 19-24;
Delayed = age 25 or older.
bUnstandardized OLS regression coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses).
cLogistic regression coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses).
dRegressions use imputations for cases with missing data on total household income for HRS and sample mean for HSFH.
*.01 < p <= .05. **.001 < p <= .01. ***p < .001.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE
Self-Rated Health
.126
(.144)
Positive outcome
Main Independent variables
Maternal status/timing
Early mothers
Normative mothers (ref.)
Delayed mothers
Marital Status
Married/cohabiting (ref.)
Unmarried
Control variables
Age
White
Negative outcomes
Happiness
(NSFH)b
a
Life
Satisfaction
(HRS)c
b
Family
Satisfaction
(HRS)c
c
Loneliness
(NSFH)b
d
Ever
Lonely
(HRS)c
e
Depression
(NSFH)b
f
Depression
(HRS)b
g
.071
(.145)
–.125
(.100)
–.180
(.103)
.018
(.192)
.056
(.108)
.605
(1.633)
.112
(.265)
.329*
(.157)
–.239**
(.072)
–.170*
(.075)
–.509*
(.203)
.095
(.083)
–3.971*
(1.709)
.130
(.189)
–.637***
(.130)
–.752***
(.073)
–.673***
(.073)
.818***
(.169)
1.042***
(.078)
2.377
(1.439)
1.578***
(.193)
.038*
(.019)
–.262
(.141)
.031**
(.010)
–.219*
(.085)
.015
(.011)
–.113
(.087)
–.024
(.025)
.402*
(.186)
–.019
(.012)
–.075
(.090)
–.135
(.208)
2.891
(1.582)
–.134***
(.027)
.493*
(.223)
318 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Table 4. Psychosocial Well-Being of Mothers Only (Aged 51-61) by Timing of First Birth:
National Survey of Families and Households (1987-88) and the Health and Retirement Study (1992)a
Education
Less than high school
High school (ref.)
More than high school
Working
Little or none (ref.)
Part-time
Full-time
Household Income (log)d
Intercept
F
R2
Wald chi-square
2 log likelihood
N
.147+
(.087)
.181*
(.091)
–.030
(.199)
.147
(.092)
1.749
(1.687)
.059
(.155)
.376***
(.063)
–.097
(.074)
.449***
(.030)
–.189*
(.077)
.224***
(.031)
.078
(.201)
–.437***
(.084)
–.285**
(.088)
–.329***
(.033)
1.394
(1.697)
–5.824***
(.712)
–.029
(.190)
.163
(.137)
.021
(.031)
–.083
(.093)
–.175*
(.075)
.016
(.017)
–.119
(.099)
–.228**
(.078)
.017
(.017)
–.258
(.241)
–.443*
(.179)
–.042
(.042)
–.305**
(.109)
–.247**
(.084)
.003
(.019)
–3.575
(2.070)
–2.996*
(1.513)
–.269
(.375)
–.631*
(.244)
–.611**
(.195)
–.104*
(.045)
1.799
7.93***
.12
–2.591***
–.464
(.630)
4.295**
8.00***
.11
.983
(.684)
46.036***
11.15***
.16
38.963***
138.78***
.25
672
4600
652
385.92***
6336.91
4600
188.16***
5756.87
4600
713
442.28***
5366.34
4600
.289
(.229)
–.748***
(.194)
–2.318***
(.078)
/ 319
aResults are based on weighted data. Parental groups defined by age at first birth. Early = age 18 or younger; Normative = ages 19-24; Delayed =
age 25 or older.
bOLS regression coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses).
cLogistic regression coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses).
dRegressions use imputations for cases with missing data on total household income for HRS and sample mean for HSFH.
*.01 < p <= .05. **.001 < p <= .01. ***p < .001.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE
Self-Rated Health
.125
(.152)
320 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
psychological well-being. Table 5 shows the coefficients for early and late
mothers and being currently unmarried, and how they compare when each
potential mediator is added alone to the basic model. Controlling for maternal
timing, we find that living with at least one grandchild is related to significantly
lower happiness (Panel A), lower family satisfaction (Panel B), and more
depression (Panel D). The coefficients for early mothers are again not statistically
significant and change only slightly when grandchild coresidence is included in
the models. Having a child under 18 increases loneliness and depression in the
NSFH (Panels C and D); adding this variable increases the salutary effect of
delayed motherhood, suggesting that the advantages for delayed mothers are
suppressed by the demands of having minor children. None of these variables is
significant in predicting life satisfaction or loneliness in the HRS (not shown).
Among the outcome measures, we find that the specific characteristics of
mothers are most related to family satisfaction (Panel B). Having a non-marital
first birth or having been a single mother with minor children reduces family
satisfaction, and each of these variables helps to attenuate the marginally significant, negative effect of early motherhood. Having been a single mother with
minor children also substantially reduces the negative effect of being currently
unmarried (by 17%, or about one-sixth). For delayed mothers, on the other hand,
lower family satisfaction is partially explained by their lower fertility and having
younger children.
DISCUSSION
Our results confirm earlier findings that childlessness is not linked with psychological disadvantage in midlife, even among women who experienced the strong
pro-natalist pressures of the 1950s. Among mothers, we find consistently poorer
psychological status among those with early first births, related to their greater
odds of being unmarried and their lower socioeconomic status. We find strong,
consistent disadvantages among unmarried mothers, regardless of maternal
timing, and some advantages for delayed mothers. We find similar patterns for
happiness, loneliness, and depression in the NSFH and some similarities in
loneliness and depression across the two surveys. We therefore focus first on these
more standard indicators of psychological status, and then return to discuss the
intriguing differences in satisfaction with family and with life more generally.
Overall, childless women appear no different from mothers in both the bivariate
and regression analyses, though results are mixed when childlessness and marital
status are combined. Childless, never-married women are happier in the NSFH,
but both never- and formerly married childless women in the HRS are less
satisfied, more likely to be lonely, and more depressed compared to the normatively timed, married mothers. Married, childless women, however, are no
different from married, normatively-timed mothers. These findings largely concur
with earlier studies, though the significant differences in the larger HRS sample
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
321
suggest some psychological disadvantages among the childless that merit closer
examination. Further, neither survey provides information on the reasons for
childlessness and whether it was involuntary or chosen; the observed findings may
therefore mask important differences among childless women in midlife.
Early mothers’ lower psychological well-being in the bivariate analyses is
largely explained by their greater likelihood of being single and economically
disadvantaged. These results are consistent across the two surveys and concur
with other studies (Mirowsky & Ross, 2002). Delayed mothers, on the other hand,
report more positive well-being (in NSFH), even after controlling for their higher
educations and incomes. This advantage becomes even stronger for loneliness
and depression when we account for the presence of a potentially dependent child.
The lack of adverse outcomes among late mothers, despite their greater current
maternal demands, suggests that the “off-time” transition of delayed motherhood
may have positive benefits for women, including greater economic and personal
resources among midlife mothers (see Cooney, Pedersen, Indelicato, & Palkovitz,
1993). However, the HRS analyses failed to confirm these findings, indicating
the need for caution in interpreting the results and for further research into
the potential positive and negative effects of delayed motherhood on women’s
well-being.
The strongest and most consistent predictors of well-being are current marital
status, self-reported physical health, and current employment. Unmarried women
report more negative psychological status in both surveys, regardless of fertility
timing, though the difference is more pronounced for early and normative
mothers. The centrality of physical health in shaping psychological well-being is
clear and underscores the importance of better understanding these cumulative and
interwoven life course processes that influence women’s physical and mental
health, including the role of earlier economic status and child-bearing. Living with
a grandchild is independently related to lower psychological outcomes but does
not explain differences among early or single mothers. Finally, racial-ethnic
differences in psychological well-being are inconsistent, but also support the need
to explore well-being over the life course in its larger social context.
As noted earlier, satisfaction with family and with life in general reveals different patterns compared to other indicators of psychological well-being. Whereas
loneliness and depression are measures of affective status—how a person has been
feeling in the past week—the satisfaction items in HRS represent more global
appraisals. These items do not provide a specific timeframe, and the questions ask
for an overall evaluation of satisfaction, not the frequency of a specific feeling.
Further, the question about satisfaction with family is the only outcome that is
explicitly linked in its content and wording to the main predictors in our models.
It is therefore not surprising but quite informative that the two satisfaction
measures show the most distinctive patterns of covariates in Table 3 and the most
connections with characteristics of motherhood in Table 5. Indeed, nearly all
of the parental-marital status groups in Table 3 show lower family satisfaction
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Potential
Mediator
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Early First
Birth
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Delayed
First Birth
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Currently
Unmarried
F
R2
Panel A: Happiness (NSFH)
Basic Modela
Grandchild in the home
—
.071
(.145)
.329* (.157)
–.637*** (.130)
7.93***
.12
–.472* (.191)
.062
(.145)
.312 (.156)
–.649*** (.129)
7.83***
.13
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Delayed
First Birth
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Currently
Unmarried
Wald
chi-square
–2 Log
Likelihood
Panel B: Family Satisfaction (HRS)
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Potential
Mediator
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Early First
Birth
—
Basic Modela
–.180+ (.103)
–.170* (.075)
–.673*** (.073)
188.16***
5756.87
(.021)
–.198+ (.104)
–.141+ (.078)
–.673*** (.073)
189.74***
5756.87
Youngest child under 22
–.137+ (.082)
–.187+ (.103)
–.147+ (.076)
–.676*** (.073)
190.60***
5756.87
Has been a single mother
with child(ren) under 18
–.241** (.077)
–.150
(.103)
–.184* (.075)
–.556*** (.082)
196.94***
5756.87
First birth occurred outside
of marriage
–.198+ (.118)
–.157
(.104)
–.175* (.075)
–.663*** (.074)
190.66***
5756.87
Grandchild in the home
–.335** (.115)
–.174+ (.103)
–.182* (.075)
–.655*** (.074)
195.52***
5756.87
Number of children ever born
.028
322 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Table 5. Potential Mediators of the Relationship between Timing of First Birth and
Psychosocial Well-Being of Mothers (Aged 51-61):
National Survey of Families and Households (1987-88) and the Health and Retirement Study (1992)a
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Potential
Mediator
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Early First
Birth
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Delayed
First Birth
Coefficient (s.e.)
for Currently
Unmarried
F
R2
Panel C: Loneliness (NSFH)
Basic Modela
.484*
(.214)
.018
(.192)
–.509*
(.203)
.818*** (.169)
8.00***
.11
.016
(.191)
–.567** (.204)
.774*** (.170)
7.80***
.12
Panel D: Depression (NSFH)
Basic Modela
—
.605 (1.633)
–3.971* (1.709)
2.377
(1.439)
11.15***
.16
Youngest child under 18
3.281+ (1.813)
.665 (1.631)
–4.315* (1.717)
2.106
(1.444)
10.53***
.16
Grandchild in the home
4.737*
.702 (1.629)
–4.187* (1.710)
2.299
(1.437)
10.55***
.16
(2.142)
Panel E: Depression (HRS)
Basic Modela
.112 (.265)
.130
(.189)
1.578*** (.193)
138.78***
.25
Youngest child under 22
.405+
—
(.211)
.134 (.265)
.061
(.193)
1.585*** (.194)
127.59***
.25
Child under 18 at home
.357
(.287)
.122 (.265)
.096
(.191)
1.584*** (.194)
127.37***
.25
aModels include controls for age, race, being unmarried, education, health, current work status, and logged household income. These basic
models, including the coefficients and standard errors for control variables, are shown in Table 4.
+.10 < p <= .05. *.05 < p <= .01. **p < .01. ***p <= .001.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE
Youngest child under 18
—
/ 323
324 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
compared to the normative married mothers. The exceptions are the currently and
formerly married childless women (who are no different from the normative
married mothers), though both never- and formerly married childless women
report lower satisfaction with life in general. Among mothers, being unmarried
is highly predictive of lower satisfaction with both family and life in general.
Single motherhood and having a non-marital first birth both reduce family
satisfaction and help to explain the lower satisfaction among early mothers.
Having been a single mother with minor children also substantially reduces the
difference among the currently unmarried, though the predictor remains highly
significant. For delayed mothers, lower fertility and having a child under 22
help to explain lower family satisfaction. Having a grandchild in the home is
independently related to lower satisfaction, and, interestingly, controlling for
grandchild coresidence further reduces the odds of high family satisfaction for
delayed mothers. These results indicate that current demands and earlier characteristics of motherhood are important components of mothers’ appraisals of family
satisfaction, but are less connected to the specific, time-limited, affective measures
of psychological status (i.e., loneliness and depression).
Overall, the relatively weak links between psychological well-being and
maternal status and timing are noteworthy given the social pressures experienced
by these cohorts, who were of child-bearing age during the post-war baby boom.
On the other hand, the stronger connections with family and life satisfaction
suggest that “non-normative” statuses may be salient components of women’s
appraisals of themselves and their circumstances in midlife. Although current
factors, such as marital status, health, and full-time employment, appear to
influence conventional measures of psychological well-being most strongly,
our results indicate that maternal timing and childless status may be important
in retrospective self-assessments and need to be understood within the sociohistorical contexts experienced by different cohorts.
That said, it is striking that the observed maternal status and timing differences
are quite small despite the strong family ideologies and overt pressures experienced by men and women of these cohorts (Coontz, 2005; May, 1988, 1995). The
very conformity within these cohorts (Stevens, 1990; Uhlenberg, 1974) suggests
that “early” or “delayed” child-bearing within the narrow range of maternal ages
may represent relatively small deviations from the modal behavior. Further, the
quartiles based on the distribution of maternal timing may not reflect actual
perceptions of “off-time” behavior (Marini, 1984). Indeed, Fallo-Mitchell and
Ryff (1982) have noted that preferred ages for family transitions have generally been
greater than actual ages, particularly among the early-marrying cohorts we study here.
Finally, our analyses are guided by historical evidence that public images and
discourse have emphasized universal (and often idealized), white middle-class
standards against which non-conforming behaviors have been judged (May,
1988, 1995). However, recent research has increasingly noted variations in social
norms about marriage and fertility related to social class and its intersection with
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
325
racial minority status (see for example, Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Geronimus, 2003).
Focusing on modal behaviors in a population may mask or ignore important subgroup variations in social norms (Marini, 1984) and in the meanings and consequences of marital and fertility timing. At the same time, however, Geronimus
(2003) has argued that macro-level beliefs and expectations have been very
powerful in problematizing early motherhood despite sub-group norms that may
define it as adaptive or desirable. While beyond the scope of the current analyses,
we encourage future research that examines more local or specific sub-group variations in normative expectations, their interplay with larger societal norms, and
their relative importance for well-being throughout the life course and in midlife.
A major strength of the current research is its use of multiple data sets and
multiple outcome measures. Parallel analyses allow us to confirm strong relationships (e.g., the impact of single motherhood) while also tempering the less
consistent differences. The smaller NSFH sample size in particular provides for
more conservative results compared to the much larger HRS survey. Emerging
new data, including the expanded HRS sample and new waves of both surveys,
will allow for further examination of these questions with more current data
and successive age cohorts. Despite the strengths of the two surveys, questions
remain about the quality of the outcome measures. We acknowledge that singleitem measures are problematic; in particular, the absence of positive well-being
measures with stronger psychometric properties is a limitation in both surveys.
Future surveys that combine detailed data on life course, family, and household
characteristics with a wider range of psychological well-being measures will be
crucial for understanding how social statuses and life course experiences influence
psychological well-being.
In conclusion, the current research provides some insights into the salience of
earlier life transitions for women in midlife—specifically, whether and when they
became mothers. Social changes in attitudes and behaviors have increased the
diversity of life paths and have altered the meanings and implications of different
life course experiences. At the same time, the proliferation of Internet sites,
discussion groups, and popular books on relationships, marriage, and childbearing or remaining childless/childfree underscores their continued social and
personal significance, especially in women’s lives. Our research has focused on
an earlier set of cohorts, whose lives were shaped in many ways by more structured
social circumstances (Dannefer, 2003). Further research is needed to explicate
the relative impact of cohort experiences, social changes in norms and attitudes,
and subjective evaluations on the well-being of successive cohorts entering
midlife and old age.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Meetings of the
Gerontological Society of America, November 2003, in San Diego. The authors
326 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
thank Elaine Wethington, Deborah Carr, Connie Shehan, and John Henretta for
helpful comments and suggestions. This research was conducted with funding
support from the University of Florida Provost’s Opportunity Fund and the
Department of Sociology, University of Florida. Tyson Brown’s participation has
been supported through an NRSA fellowship from the National Institute on Aging
and Traineeship at the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, with prior support at the University of Florida from an AARP Andrus
Foundation Scholarship, AGHE Emerging Scholars Award, and Graduate
Minority Fellowship, University of Florida.
The HRS (Health and Retirement Study) is sponsored by the National Institute
on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740) and is conducted by the University
of Michigan. The first wave of the NSFH (National Survey of Families and
Households) was funded by a grant (HD21009) from the Center for Population
Research of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The
survey was designed and carried out at the Center for Demography and Ecology
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison under the direction of Larry Bumpass
and James Sweet. The field work was done by the Institute for Survey Research
at Temple University.
REFERENCES
Alexander, B., Rubinstein, R. L., Goodman, M., & Luborsky, M. (1992). A path not taken:
A cultural analysis of regrets and childlessness in the lives of older women. The
Gerontologist, 32, 618-626.
Anderson, K. (1981). Wartime women: Sex roles, family relations, and the status of women
during World War II. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Anderton, D. L., Tsuya, N. O., Bean, L. L., & Mineau, G. (1987). Intergenerational
transmission of relative fertility and life course patterns. Demography, 24, 467-480.
Barrett, A. E. (2000). Marital trajectories and mental health. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 41, 451-464.
Bell, J. E., & Eisenberg, N. (1985). Life satisfaction in midlife childless and empty-nest
men and women. Lifestyles: A Journal of Changing Patterns, 7, 146-155.
Brim, O. G., Jr., & Ryff, C. D. (1980). On the properties of life events. In P. B. Baltes &
O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 367-388).
New York: Academic Press.
Burton, R. P. D. (1998). Global integrative meaning as a mediating factor in the relationship
between social roles and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
39, 201-215.
Cait, C. A. (2004). Spiritual and religious transformations in women who were parentally
bereaved as adolescents. Omega, 49, 163-181.
Carr, D. (2004). “My daughter has a career; I just raised babies”: The psychological consequences of women’s intergenerational comparisons. Social Psychological Quarterly,
67, 132-154.
Choi, N. G. (2002). Self-defined retirement status and engagement in paid work among
older working-age women: Comparison between childless women and mothers. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 43-71.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
327
Clausen, J. A. (1972). The life course of individuals. In M. W. Riley, M. Johnson,
& A. Foner (Eds.), Aging and society, Vol. 3: A sociology of age stratification
(pp. 457-514). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Connidis, I. A., & McMullin, J. A. (1993). To have or have not: Parent status and the
subjective well-being of older men and women. The Gerontologist, 33, 630-636.
Cooney, T. M., Pedersen, F. A., Indelicato, S., & Palkovitz, R. (1993). Timing of fatherhood: Is on-time optimal? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 205-215.
Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap.
New York: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history. New York: Viking.
Dannefer, D. (2003). Toward a global geography of the life course: Challenges of late
modernity for life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook
of the life course. New York: Kluwer.
Easterlin, R. A. (1980). Birth and fortune: The impact of numbers on personal welfare.
New York: Basic Books.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood
before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Elder, G. H., Jr., (1974). Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
Epstein, R. H. (2003). Emotions, fertility, and the 1940s woman. Journal of Public Health
Policy, 24, 195-211.
Evenson, R. J., & Simon, R. W. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between parenthood
and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 341-358.
Fallo-Mitchell, L., & Ryff, C. D. (1982). Preferred timing of female life events: Cohort
differences. Research on Aging, 4, 249-267.
Farnham, M., & Lundberg, F. (1947). The modern woman: The lost sex. New York:
Harper.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S. P. (1987). Adolescent mothers in
later life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gee, E. M. (1990). Preferred timing of women’s life events: A Canadian study. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 34, 279-294.
Geronimus, A. T. (2003). Damned if you do: Culture, identity, privilege, and teenage
childbearing in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 881-893.
Geronimus, A. T., & Korenman, S. (1993). The socioeconomic costs of teenage childbearing: Evidence and interpretation. Demography, 30, 281-290.
Glenn, N. D., & McLanahan, S. (1981). The effects of offspring on the psychological
well-being of older adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 409-421.
Hareven, T. K., & Masaoka, K. (1988). Turning points and transitions: Perceptions of
the life course. Journal of Family History, 13, 271-289.
Harvey, B. (1993). The fifties: A women’s oral history. New York: HarperCollins.
Health and Retirement Study, public use dataset. (1992). Produced and distributed by
the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant
number NIA U01AG009740). Ann Arbor, MI.
Heuser, R. L. (1976). Fertility tables for birth cohorts by color: United States, 1917-73.
Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
National Center for Health Statistics.
328 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Houseknecht, S. (1977). Reference group support for voluntary childlessness: Evidence
for conformity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 285-292.
Ireland, M. S. (1993). Reconceiving women: Separating motherhood from female identity.
New York: Guilford Press.
Jeffries, S., & Konnert, C. (2002). Regret and psychological well-being among voluntarily
and involuntarily childless women and mothers. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 54, 89-106.
Juster, F. T., & Suzman, R. (1995). An overview of the Health and Retirement Study.
Journal of Human Resources, 30, S7-S56.
Kessler, R. C., Foster, C., Webster, P. S., & House, J. S. (1992). The relationship between
age and depressive symptoms in two national surveys. Psychology and Aging, 7,
119-126.
Keyes, C. L. M., & Ryff, C. D. (1999). Psychological well-being in midlife. In S. L. Willis
& J. D. Reid (Eds.), Life in the middle: Psychological and social development in
middle age. San Diego: Academic Press.
King, R. B. (2003). Subfecundity and anxiety in a nationally representative sample. Social
Science and Medicine, 56, 739-751.
Koropeckyj-Cox, T. (1998a). Loneliness and depression in middle and old age: Are
the childless more vulnerable? Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B,
S302-S312.
Koropeckyj-Cox, T. (1998b). The conditional benefits of parenthood (or childlessness)
for subjective well-being in older adulthood. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Koropeckyj-Cox, T. (2002). Beyond parental status: Psychological well-being in middle
and old age. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 957-971.
Land, H., Hudson, S. M., & Steifel, B. (2003). Stress and depression among HIV-positive
and HIV-negative gay and bisexual AIDS caregivers. AIDS and Behavior, 7, 41-53.
Landry-Meyer, L., & Newman, B. M. (2004). An exploration of the grandparent caregiver
role. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1005-1025.
Lang, S. S. (1991). Women without children: The reasons, the rewards, the regrets.
Holbrook, MA: Adams Media Corporation.
Marini, M. M. (1984). Age and sequencing norms in the transition to adulthood. Social
Forces, 63, 229-244.
Marks, N., Lambert, J., & Choi, H. (2002). Transitions to caregiving, gender, and psychological well-being: A prospective U.S. study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,
657-668.
May, E. T. (1988). Homeward bound: American families in the Cold War era. New
York: Basic Books.
May, E. T. (1995). Barren in the promised land: Childless Americans and the pursuit of
happiness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McQuillan, J., Griel, A. L., White, L., & Jacob, M. C. (2003). Frustrated fertility: Infertility and psychological distress among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65,
1007-1018.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2002). Depression, parenthood, and age at first birth.
Social Science and Medicine, 54, 1281-1298.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1992). Age and depression. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 33, 187-205.
WOMEN OF THE 1950s AND “NORMATIVE” LIFE COURSE /
329
Mitchell, V., & Helson, R. (1990). Women’s prime of life: Is it the 50s? Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 14, 451-470.
Modell, J., Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Hershberg, T. (1976). Social change and transitions
to adulthood in historical perspective. Journal of Family History, 1, 7-32.
Moen, P. (2001). The gendered life course. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.),
Handbook of aging and the life course (pp. 179-196). San Diego: Academic Press.
Moore, K. A., & Sugland, B. W. (1999). Piecing together the puzzle of teenage childbearing. Policy and Practice, 57, 36-42.
Neugarten, B. L. (1968). Middle age and aging: A reader in social psychology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Neugarten, B. L. (1979). Time, age, and the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry,
136, 887-894.
Neugarten, B. L., & Datan, N. (1973). Sociological perspectives on the life cycle. In
P. B. Baltes & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Life span and developmental psychology: Personality and socialization (pp. 53-79). New York: Academic Press.
Neugarten, B. J., Moore, J. W., & Lowe, J. (1965). Age norms, age constraints, and
adult socialization. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 710-717.
O’Rand, A. M., & Henretta, J. C. (1982). Women at middle age: Developmental transitions.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 464, 57-64.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Rempel, J. (1985). Childless elderly: What are they missing? Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 47, 343-348.
Rindfuss, R. R., & Bumpass, L. L. (1976). How old is too old? Age and the sociology
of fertility. Family Planning Perspectives, 8, 226-230.
Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, S. P., & Swicegood, C. G. (1988). First births in America.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ryff, C. D., Lee, Y. H., Essex, M. J., & Schmutte, P. S. (1994). My children and
me: Midlife evaluations of grown children and self. Psychology and Aging, 6, 195-205.
Settersten, R. A., & Hagestad, G. O. (1996a). What’s the latest? Cultural age deadlines
for family transitions. The Gerontologist, 36, 178-188.
Settersten, R. A., & Hagestad, G. O. (1996b). What’s the latest? II. Cultural age deadlines
for educational and work transitions. The Gerontologist, 36, 602-613.
Simon, R. W. (1992). Parental role strains, salience of parental identity and gender
differences in psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 25-35.
Stevens, D. A. (1990). New evidence on the timing of early life course transitions: The
United States 1990 to 1980. Journal of Family History, 15, 163-178.
Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the National
Survey of Families and Households. NSFH Working Paper 1, University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital
status comparisons. Social Psychological Quarterly, 55, 236-256.
Turner, M. J., Killian, T. S., & Cain, R. (2004). Life course transitions and depressive
symptoms among women in midlife. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 58, 241-265.
Uhlenberg, P. (1974). Cohort variations in family life cycle experiences of U.S. females.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 284-292.
330 / KOROPECKYJ-COX, PIENTA AND BROWN
Veevers, J. E. (1980). Childless by choice. Toronto: Butterworths.
Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1981). The inner American: A self-portrait from
1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books.
Vissing, Y. (2002). Women without children: Nurturing lives. New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press.
Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and mental health. American Sociological Review, 55, 209-223.
Whelpton, P. K., Campbell, A. A., & Patterson, J. E. (1966). Fertility and family
planning in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wight, R. G. (2000). Precursive depression among HIV infected AIDS caregivers over
time. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 759-770.
Wilmoth, J., & Koso, G. (2002). Does marital history matter? Marital status and wealth
outcomes among preretirement adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 254-268.
Wu, L. L. (1996). Effects of family instability, income, and income instability on risk
of premarital birth. American Sociological Review, 61, 386-406.
Direct reprint requests to:
Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox
Department of Sociology
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117330
3219 Turlington Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-7330
e-mail: tkcox@soc.ufl.edu