Even though teen birth rates steadily declined from 1957 (Ventura et al.
2014), an influential report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (1976) declared an epidemic of teen pregnancies. The so-called epidemic fuelled public concerns and generated scientific interest in the causes and conse-quences of teen mothering. Alarm intensified as study after study suggested that giving birth as a teen ‘stunts’ or derails the future of mother and child and burdens taxpayers (Hayes 1987; Hoffman 2006). Results from this early research were consistent and compelling: teen mothers fared poorly on multiple outcomes. Compared with later childbearers, teen mothers were more likely to drop out of school, rely on welfare and become impov-erished. They also tended to be single and have unstable relationships with partners. They were less competent parents, and more neglectful and harsh
with their children (Hofferth 1987b; Westman 2009). Their children also fared worse than the offspring of older mothers (Hofferth 1987a; Ventura et al. 2014; Westman 2009). These early findings implied that poor out-comes, including poverty, welfare dependence and poor parenting, were caused by young maternal age. Following this logic, poor outcomes were avoidable if teens would postpone having children.
Drawing on Fletcher and Wolfe (2009), Weed, Nicholson and Farris (2015) provided a succinct overview of how the research on teen mother-ing evolved after teen mothermother-ing was ‘discovered’. First generation studies, as described above, contributed to an alarmist paradigm by attributing unfavourable maternal-child outcomes to young maternal age (Hayes 1987;
Weed et al. 2015). If a comparison group had been used at all in early studies, teens were compared with older mothers without controlling for impor-tant differences between them. Although some researchers recognized the limitations of their studies, the limitations were often downplayed or disregarded by policymakers, advocacy groups and the media (Furstenberg 2007; Luker 1996).
The limitations of first generation studies were clearly identified in early critiques and included inadequate comparison groups, unmeasured back-ground factors, the preponderance of cross-sectional studies and the use of theories and instruments consistent with middle-class norms (Geronimus 1991; Luker 1996; Phoenix 1991). These factors exaggerated the negative effects of young maternal age by obscuring the differences between young mothers and later childbearers. Hotz, McElroy and Sanders (2008) explain why these background differences matter:
The assertion that adolescent childbearing causes the poor socioeconomic outcomes […] implies that a teen mother was on the same upwardly mobile life course as her counterpart who did not have a child as a teenager but, by having her first birth as a teenager, altered the remainder of her life detrimentally. For these two groups of women to be comparable, teen mothers and the women with whom they are being compared would have to have virtually identical socioeconomic and background characteristics before the age at which teen mothers had their first child. In fact, this is not the case. (2008: 59, emphasis in original)
Second generation studies used simple regression analyses to statistically control for other influences on the outcomes; these studies found that
poor outcomes were reduced relative to findings from first generation stud-ies (Weed et al. 2015). Third generation studstud-ies represented a significant advance, since they used experimental designs and statistical methods to address the following important question: how much of the effect of teen mothering is due to differences that precede the pregnancy and how much to young maternal age? Studies in this vein used innovative comparison groups to more effectively control for unmeasured background factors. In one approach, teen mothers were compared with teens who miscarried or had an abortion (Fletcher & Wolfe 2009; Hotz, McElroy & Sanders 2005;
Patel & Sen 2012). These teens were considered similar to teen mothers, since they would have had a baby if they hadn’t miscarried or had an abor-tion. In another approach, teen mothers were compared with their sisters or cousins who shared family and community characteristics but avoided a teen birth, thereby controlling for subtle and unmeasured differences (Corcoran & Kunz 1997; Coyne, Fontaine, Långström, Lichtenstein &
D’Onofrio 2013; Geronimus & Korenman 1992; Webbink, Martin &
Visscher 2011). A third approach, referred to as propensity score matching, matched teen mothers to teens who avoided early childbearing but had a statistical probability of becoming teen mothers (Assini-Meytin & Green 2015; Levine & Painter 2003). These three approaches allowed researchers to examine whether differences in outcomes were due to the timing of the birth or to mothers’ pre-existing characteristics.
These approaches have consistently reduced, and in a few cases elimi-nated, the poor outcomes attributed to young maternal age, suggesting that pre-existing differences account for most of the adverse effects of teen mothering (Weed et al. 2015). As Hotz, McElroy and Sanders (2008) explained above, the life-course trajectories of teen mothers diverge mark-edly from those of their more affluent peers, beginning in childhood, and these childhood differences are primarily responsible for poor outcomes (Amato & Kane 2011; Levine & Painter 2003). As Luker (1996) asserted two decades ago, young maternal age is not the primary factor leading to poverty and other poor outcomes; rather, poverty threatens child and family health and development in insidious ways that predispose disad-vantaged youth to engage in unprotected sex. Young maternal age may worsen disadvantaged girls’ future prospects slightly, but their prospects
are seriously eroded well before conceiving a pregnancy. Based on this evidence, deferring parenthood would not greatly improve the life course of disadvantaged girls.
Early third generation studies sparked a lively debate in the US litera-ture (Furstenberg 1991, 1992; Geronimus 1991, 1992). Two camps emerged around the interpretation of the newer findings. The ‘revisionist’ camp was led by Geronimus, whose groundbreaking research paired teen mothers with their sisters or cousins (Geronimus & Korenman 1993; Geronimus, Korenman & Hillemeier 1994). Because the timing of the birth had little effect on outcomes for the disadvantaged African Americans studied by Geronimus, she argued that teen mothering was best conceptualized as an adaptive response to perverse social conditions, which contribute to chronic illness, premature aging and early death (Geronimus 2003; Geronimus, Hicken, Keene & Bound 2006; Geronimus, Pearson, Linnenbringer, Schulz, Reyes, Epel & Blackburn 2015). Furstenberg was not convinced by her argument or research design. His initial scepticism subsided as additional third generation studies documented a sizable reduction in the magnitude of the effect of teen mothering on poor maternal-child outcomes (Furstenberg 2007).
More recent quantitative studies have taken advantage of the advances made by third generation researchers to determine if the choice of com-parison group or statistical approach makes a difference in outcomes. For example, Webbink et al. (2011) compared teen mothers with sibling sisters and twin sisters with an Australian sample and reported about a half year reduction in education for teen mothers when matched to sibling sisters.
This gap, however, was eliminated when matching was based on identical twin sisters. Another example is provided by Patel and Sen (2012), who compared teen mothers with two groups on long-term physical and mental health outcomes. One comparison group included women who became pregnant as teens but had a miscarriage, abortion or stillbirth (teen preg-nancy only), and the other group consisted of women who reported having unprotected sex as teens but did not become pregnant (teen unprotected sex only). Consistent with prior research, poor physical health among the teen mothers was reduced but not eliminated when background characteristics were adjusted statistically. These differences were eliminated when teen
mothers were compared with both groups. As for mental health, the teen pregnancy only group and the teen mothering group had similarly nega-tive outcomes, suggesting that unmeasured factors leading to pregnancy contribute to poor outcomes regardless of how the pregnancy ended (in miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion or a live birth).
Kane, Morgan, Harris and Guilkey (2013) also demonstrated that the choice of statistical approach makes a difference in the magnitude of reduction on teen mothers’ educational attainment. When no adjust-ments were made, teen mothers had two to three fewer years of education compared with later childbearers. When four statistical approaches were compared, the educational gap between teen mothers and later childbear-ers was further reduced (from 0.70 to 1.9 fewer years). In evaluating the strengths and limitations of the four approaches, the researchers preferred the approach based on semi-parametric maximum likelihood estimation, which yielded the estimate of about three-quarters of a year less schooling for teen mothers. Based on their results, Kane et al. suggested that ‘the wide-ranging estimates in past research are related more to the choice of statistical strategy than to the use of different data sets (focused on differ-ent cohorts)’ (2013: 2145).
Although we can have much stronger confidence in the findings of third generation studies, they also have limitations. While comparing teen mothers with their sisters or cousins who avoid early parenting adjusts for many pre-existing family and community characteristics, this approach does not adjust for differences between teen mothers and their sisters or cous-ins. These differences may include cognitive ability, school performance or childhood adversities, to name a few. To my knowledge, no known studies have adjusted for these differences, perhaps because obtaining an adequate sample of sister or cousin pairs is difficult, even with a national data base.
The science is clear: teen mothers differ in important and substantial ways from mothers who defer parenting. Equally important, teen mothers are a more diverse group than our stereotypes and media images suggest.
Not all teen mothers are black or brown or grow up in disadvantaged families (Taylor 2009; Williams, Sassler, Addo & Frech 2015). In the event of pregnancy, some white middle-class girls reject abortion and become mothers (SmithBattle 2010). Many teen mothers are alienated from school
as children and drop out prior to pregnancy (Levine & Painter 2003; Pillow 2004), but others have strong academic records before and after giving birth (SmithBattle 2006b, 2007a). Researchers have taken advantage of this naturally occurring heterogeneity among teen mothers to examine variations in outcomes (Borkowski, Farris, Whitman, Carothers, Weed and Keogh 2007; Hillis, Anda, Dube, Felitti, Marchbanks and Marks 2004;
Kennedy & Adams 2016). An elegant example of this type of study is pro-vided by Diaz and Fiel (2016). Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), they examined the long-term consequences of teen fertility on earnings and educational attainment for pregnant teens who differed based on their level of disadvantage. Poor educational attain-ment (as measured by high school completion and college completion) and reductions in long-term earnings were more clear-cut among the more affluent teens and less pronounced among the more disadvantaged teens.
Diaz and Fiel concluded that girls who grow up in disadvantaged fami-lies and communities are not substantially harmed by a teen birth, while teens with better prospects for advancing their education and income are harmed the most. Other variations in teen mothers’ backgrounds have also been shown to affect short and long-term outcomes. For example, teen mothers who are exposed to more childhood adversities (Hillis et al.
2004) and violence (Kennedy & Adams 2016) face greater difficulties and worse health and educational outcomes than teen mothers with less expo-sure to traumatizing experiences. Teen mothers who were white or who remained single reported better self-reported health at mid-life than their African American or married counterparts (Williams, Sassler, Addo &
Frech 2015). The authors conjecture that young single mothers, who are disproportionately low income, may have avoided the stress associated with marriages to partners whose economic prospects are limited.
Social scientists and health researchers have also explored outcomes for teen mothers’ children. Early studies portrayed teens as inept parents who jeopardized their children’s development. This depiction is increas-ingly challenged by studies that mirror the trajectory of research on teen mothers; that is, early studies exaggerated children’s adverse outcomes (for example, in schooling, behavioural problems, delinquency/incarceration, early parenting and earnings/employment). Consistent with the research
on teen mothers, unfavourable child outcomes are largely reduced when researchers control for mothers’ pre-existing characteristics. The reader is referred to recent reviews of this research (Coyne & D’Onofrio 2012;
Weed et al. 2015).
While teen mothering has always been a marker of social disadvantage, several birth cohort studies suggest that disadvantage is rising among recent cohorts of teen mothers relative to earlier cohorts in the United States (Driscoll 2014; Woodward, Friesen, Raudino, Fergusson & Horwood 2013); the United Kingdom (McCall, Bhattacharya, Okpo & Macfarlane 2015); New Zealand (Donelan-McCall, Eckenrode & Olds 2009); Finland (Väisänen & Murphy 2014); and Sweden (Coyne et al. 2013). In the Swedish study, there was no difference in criminal convictions between teen and adult mothers in an early cohort, but differences emerged in later cohorts as disadvantage became more pronounced among teen mothers. The growing disadvantage of teen mothers is worrisome, but not unexpected given the growing income inequality in the US and elsewhere (Marmot 2015) and the collapse of the welfare system in the United States (Edin & Shaefer 2015). It remains to be seen if contemporary teen mothers, who face greater levels of disadvantage (Driscoll 2014; Mollborn & Jacobs 2012), will ‘catch up’ over time like their predecessors (Furstenberg 2007).
In summary, the first generation of quantitative research exaggerated the poor outcomes associated with young maternal age. Unfavourable outcomes were used to shine a national spotlight on teen pregnancy and births to advance socio-political agendas, even though rates were declining (Furstenberg 2007; Luker 1996). Early critiques identified the limitations of these studies (Geronimus 1991; Luker 1996; Phoenix 1991). With stronger research designs, studies confirmed that teen mothers’ pre-existing char-acteristics (which ‘select’ or predispose youth into parenting) are largely responsible for poor outcomes. These selection factors are substantial, since teen mothers are disproportionately of colour and tend to grow up in low-income families and segregated neighbourhoods where they are exposed during childhood to many social and environmental threats (Coyne &
D’Onofrio 2012; Driscoll 2014; Farber 2014). The broad conclusion from third generation studies is strikingly at odds with the prevailing paradigm:
waiting to have a child does not greatly improve the lives of teens who are
already disadvantaged. Another unexpected finding also challenges con-ventional wisdom; the anticipation of mothering motivates some teens to improve their lives and reduce drug use, binge drinking or illegal activity (Amato & Kane 2011; Fletcher 2011; Walker & Holtfreter 2016). A tsunami of qualitative research corroborates and extends these findings.