Annotatated Bibliography

Teenage Mothers Today: What We Know and How It Matters

Stefanie Mollborn

University of Colorado Boulder

ABSTRACT—Over the past two decades, births to U.S.

teenagers have fallen and no longer follow overall fertil-

ity patterns. Yet the unique challenges faced by teenage

mothers and their families justify continued research.

Across disciplines, newer work has furthered our under-

standing of teenage motherhood today. In this article, I

highlight four areas of progress: processes of selection

into teenage motherhood, the broader consequences of

teenage childbearing beyond the socioeconomic realm,

heterogeneity of effects, and the application of life

course principles. Emerging societal trends such as com-

plex family structures, a stalled recovery from the reces-

sion for families of low socioeconomic status, and a

rapidly evolving political environment for reproductive

health care continue to challenge the lives of teenage

mothers. Given that the consequences for teenagers of

becoming mothers may change, continued research is

needed. Shifts in policy to favor supporting teenage

mothers and addressing the causes of both teenage preg-

nancy and social disadvantage may help improve the

lives of these mothers and their families.

KEYWORDS—teenage motherhood; teenage childbearing;

life course; adolescence; socioeconomic disadvantage

Teenage motherhood continues to capture attention as a social

problem in the United States, despite recent declines in the

teenage birth rate. In this article, I discuss some of the recent

innovative, cross-disciplinary research on the predictors and

consequences of teenage childbearing. My review focuses on the

United States because of the relatively high prevalence of child-

bearing among U.S. teenagers (1) and the many studies on this

topic. Reflecting most of the literature, in this review, I focus

primarily on teenage mothers, then on their children, examining

the children’s fathers only in terms of their interactions with the

teenage mothers. I incorporate recent research from several dis-

ciplines, including sociology, economics, public health, nursing,

and developmental psychology, but especially demography. The

research reviewed here uses a variety of methods, including sta-

tistical analyses of national and local samples using cross-sec-

tional and longitudinal surveys and in-depth ethnographic

observational and interview studies.

TEENAGE MOTHERHOOD TODAY

Today, births to U.S. teenagers have fallen to historic lows. At

27 births per 1,000 girls aged 15–19 in 2013 (see Figure 1), the U.S. teenage birth rate has dropped by half since 1995. During

this period, teenage birth rates have also declined in many

European countries (1). The highest teenage birth rate since

1940 was in 1957, when it was more than triple today’s rate.

Yet because most teenage births at that time occurred within

the context of marriage, teenage motherhood did not become a

major social problem until later (2). As teenage birth rates began

to fall in the 1960s and 1970s, the proportion of those births

outside of marriage rose steadily, resulting in a public percep-

tion that teenage childbearing was a social problem (see Fig-

ure 1). In 2004, 79% of adults in a national poll judged teenage

pregnancy a “very serious” or “important” problem for the Uni-

ted States (3). But until quite recently, the teenage birth rate

has closely followed trends in the overall birth rate for U.S.

women (see Figure 2). Only in the past 20 years has the teenage

I thank the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)-funded University of Col- orado Population Center (P2C HD066613) grant for the develop- ment, administrative, and computing support. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the author and does not neces- sarily represent the official views of the NICHD or the National Insti- tutes of Health. I thank my coauthors in the cited articles for their contributions to this study.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stefanie Mollborn, University of Colorado Boulder, UCB 483, Boul- der, CO 80309-0483; e-mail: [email protected].

© 2016 The Author

Child Development Perspectives © 2016 The Society for Research in Child Development

DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12205

Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

birth rate decoupled from overall fertility trends, becoming a

distinct phenomenon by falling while the overall birth rate

remained fairly steady. This policy success has been attributed

largely to proximal predictors—decreased levels of sexual activ- ity, but especially increased use of contraception among youth

(4)—yet increases in overall age at first birth and rising female educational attainment may also be distal predictors.

The United States has higher teenage pregnancy and teenage

birth rates than other developed countries, as well as a higher

teenage abortion rate (1). The U.S. teenage birth rate resembles

more closely those of some former Soviet republics or other less

developed countries than those of more developed countries (1).

Researchers attribute this to less consistent contraceptive use

by U.S. teenagers rather than more sexual activity (4).

Teenage birth rates within the United States are considerably

variable, so the likelihood of becoming a teenage mother is much

greater for some girls than for others. The 10 states with the high-

est teenage birth rates are in the South and Southwest, and the

10 with the lowest rates are in the Northeast and Midwest (5).

Birth rates for Latina and African American teenagers are

roughly double what they are for White teenagers, with the rate

for Native Americans/Alaska Native teenagers falling in between

and the rate for Asian American/Pacific Islander teenagers con-

siderably lower than for White teenagers. Teenage motherhood

and poverty are closely intertwined: In 2001–2002, nearly half of families with teenage mothers who had infants lived below the

federal poverty line (compared to about one fifth of families with

older mothers who had infants; 6). At the same time, 56% of

infants in poverty lived with a mother who had been a teenager

at either their own or an older sibling’s birth (7). These statistics

are important for social policy because efforts to help teenage

mothers could improve the lives of many poor families.

RESEARCH

What We Know

Research on teenage fertility has yielded two important insights.

First, the life outcomes of young mothers and their children are

compromised—but those negative consequences are driven lar- gely by the social disadvantage experienced before the preg-

nancy by teenagers who become mothers (see 8 for a review of

older literature). Second, those consequences are more severe in

the short term than in the long term (9, 10). New research has

used innovative statistical approaches (e.g., propensity score

matching, instrumental variables) to support these two conclu-

sions for teenage mothers (11, 12) and their children (13).

Regarding the first conclusion, in one study (12), the negative

effect of teenage childbearing on women’s educational attain-

ment in young adulthood was initially estimated at almost

2 years less education, but improved statistical estimation sug-

gested that the experience of teenage motherhood was responsi-

ble for < 1 of those years. These small average effects may be a result of heterogeneity in the effect of teenage childbearing

across subpopulations, a topic I address later. Regarding the

second conclusion, modest negative effects of teenage childbear-

ing have been identified for some outcomes later in adulthood

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19 40

19 42

19 44

19 46

19 48

19 50

19 52

19 54

19 56

19 58

19 60

19 62

19 64

19 66

19 68

19 70

19 72

19 74

19 76

19 78

19 80

19 82

19 84

19 86

19 88

19 90

19 92

19 94

19 96

19 98

20 00

20 02

20 04

20 06

20 08

20 10

20 12

Birth rate per 1,000 girls age 15-19

% births age 15-19 to unmarried mothers

Figure 1. U.S. birth rates for ages 15–19 and percent of nonmarital births. Source. U.S. vital statistics data (5, 49).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

age 15-19

age 15-44

Figure 2. U.S. birth rates for ages 15–19 compared to U.S. birth rates for ages 15–44. Source. U.S. vital statistics data (5, 49, 50).

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

64 Stefanie Mollborn

but not for others (14–16). Longitudinal research has empha- sized that teenage mothers and their children have tightly inter-

woven lives, with important consequences not only for mothers

but also for the next generation (17).

Trends in Recent Research

Recent research on teenage motherhood has made important

strides. In this article, I focus on four areas of knowledge in

which advances have occurred: processes of selection into teen-

age motherhood, the nonsocioeconomic consequences of teenage

childbearing, the heterogeneity of effects, and the application of

life course principles.

Processes of Selection Into Teenage Motherhood

We now understand more fully the complex processes through

which girls become teenage mothers, processes that may also

lead to heterogeneity in the consequences of teenage childbear-

ing. Teenage mothers are not average Americans; rather, they

tend to come from more disadvantaged segments of the popula-

tion in terms of social class, race and ethnicity, geographic loca-

tion, and other characteristics (2). Understanding the effects of

chronic exposure to disadvantage over time is key to under-

standing teenage motherhood. Chronic exposure to neighborhood

poverty when growing up, especially in adolescence, increases

the likelihood of teenage parenthood (18). In the United States,

chronic exposure to poverty depends heavily on race. Beyond

neighborhood poverty, other features of girls’ localities—higher unemployment, lower religiosity, and expanded access to family

planning—are associated with lower levels of teenage births (19, 20). Media influences may also matter because they can

communicate cultural messages about the prevalence of behav-

iors and their consequences. Exposure to a reality show that

emphasized the downsides of teenage motherhood was associ-

ated with reductions in teenage births and increased online

interest in contraceptive use and abortion in the local area (21).

Individual-level processes of selection into teenage mother-

hood are also important. Previous research had focused on the

effects of teenage childbearing on educational outcomes (22),

but newer research indicates that educational disengagement

affects teenage childbearing. Young women who will soon

become pregnant are already changing their educational trajec-

tories in negative ways that cannot be the result of teenage

motherhood. In interviews with teenage mothers (23), violence,

abuse, risky neighborhoods, and inequalities shaped their lives

—in many cases by creating life worlds of chaos—in ways that led simultaneously to teenage motherhood and other risks.

Understanding girls’ personal narratives and the systems of

inequalities in which they are embedded is crucial to under-

standing how they become teenage mothers.

Nonsocioeconomic Consequences of Teenage Motherhood

A second strand of new research moves beyond the socioeco-

nomic realm to articulate the psychological, interactional, and

emotional consequences of teenage motherhood, finding some

positives and some negatives in the experience. Like the

research mentioned earlier (23), one study (24) identified the

limited options that precede teenage motherhood, and in that

context, becoming a mother can motivate young women to suc-

ceed for the child. Becoming a good caregiver is one kind of

success many young mothers seek (25), and getting an education

is another (24). But severe demands on the time, energy, and

resources of teenagers who try to be both mothers and students

make this motivation difficult to translate into reality (26). As

socioeconomic pressures encumber young mothers’ futures, their

child’s birth disrupts their social and emotional attachments,

making social support complicated and often unreliable (27).

Yet many teenage mothers say they experience positive personal

growth from the stigma and obstacles they have faced (28).

Rather than presenting an unrelentingly negative view of the

consequences of teenage motherhood, new research has identi-

fied complexities that suggest we need to look for differences

among teenage mothers’ experiences. Researchers should apply

these ideas more broadly using nationally representative sam-

ples to document the nonsocioeconomic consequences of teen-

age motherhood.

Different Effects for Different Women

New research is articulating differences in teenage mothers’

experiences by investigating heterogeneity in the effects of teen-

age motherhood. The tendency for statistical methods to focus

on average effects has obscured potential differences in how

teenage motherhood shapes young people’s lives. For example,

the emotional and mental health consequences of teenage moth-

erhood depend in part on whether the pregnancy was intended

or wanted (29). Teenage mothers’ emotional and mental health

after childbearing can also depend on social location (e.g., the

negative impact of discrimination and the protective role of affir-

mation of ethnic identity among Mexican-origin teenage moth-

ers; 30). In other research on the heterogeneity of effects that

examined the effects of teenage childbearing on education and

earnings in young adulthood (31), young women judged the least

likely to become teenage mothers (based on preexisting charac-

teristics such as delinquency, educational expectations, and

self-worth) experienced the largest negative effects of teenage

childbearing on college completion and earnings. Moreover,

girls who were most likely to become teenage mothers may have

experienced positive effects of childbearing. Rather than an

overall propensity to become a teenage mother, another study

focused on race and ethnicity (32): For Black women (but not

White or Latina women), a teenage birth had negative implica-

tions for self-rated health at midlife compared to giving birth

after age 25—yet delaying that birth into the early 20s was not associated with improved health. In the United States, as

women’s ages at first birth have risen into the late 20s on aver-

age, women in their early 20s are becoming more similar to

teenage mothers in their exposure to social disadvantages (33).

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

Teenage Mothers Today 65

Taken together, these studies suggest complex patterns in which

more advantaged groups sometimes experience greater and

sometimes lesser effects of teenage fertility. By focusing on dif-

ferent domains of outcomes, these studies support systematic

investigations of many life experiences among teenage mothers,

which could help us understand more fully how the effects of

teenage childbearing vary across subpopulations.

Qualitative research provides exploratory evidence that can

be used to guide research that aims to generalize to broader

populations. Increasingly, qualitative research differentiates

teenage mothers in exploring consequences, finding differences

among them that are not reducible to single factors (23). For

instance, one study (26) identified three categories of teenage

coparents whose lives and socioeconomic prospects differed in

terms of partnership status; involvement in school, work, and

parenting; and resources provided by extended family. Uncou-

pled coparents usually started out partnered but the relationship

ended, leaving the mother with most or all of the parenting and

breadwinning responsibilities but more extended family support.

Traditional coparents typically remained partnered, with a

female homemaker and a male breadwinner, resulting in short-

term stability but less extended family support and bleak pro-

spects for educational gains. Nontraditional coparents remained

partnered but shared parenting responsibilities as well as

schooling or breadwinning. These coparents’ complicated sched-

ules were particularly vulnerable to disruptions in extended

family support, but their longer term prospects were promising if

they persisted in their educational and career plans. Thus, we

may improve our understanding of the lives of teenage mothers

by examining the complicated interactions among factors and

analyzing heterogeneity in women’s experiences.

Life Course Dynamics

Finally, new research is incorporating principles from the life

course theoretical perspective (34)—such as social convoys, intergenerational transmission, and cumulative disadvantage— in its investigations of teenage motherhood. The life course per-

spective is inherently longitudinal, and new studies are leverag-

ing longitudinal U.S. data to measure complicated dynamics

such as chronicity of social factors, concurrent phenomena

across different domains, simultaneous experiences of multiple

people, and instability in social environments over time. Recent

work has documented the implications of teenage mothers’

social convoys (including their coparents, multigenerational

extended family members, and peers) for their families’ lives.

For example, in one study, grandparents’ education levels mat-

tered independently of mothers’ in understanding variation in

readiness for kindergarten among children of teenage mothers

(35). In other studies, grandparents also mattered because they

could provide material resources and because of the complex

intergenerational, interactional dynamics that play out among

grandparents, mothers, and fathers (36, 37). Because both moth-

ers’ and extended family members’ relationships with fathers are

important for fathers’ involvement and children’s development

and health (38), interactional dynamics like these matter.

Another life course principle—accumulating disadvantages— helps us understand teenage motherhood. Beyond work on the

effects of chronic poverty at the neighborhood level described

earlier (18), persistent socioeconomic disadvantage over time— in income, education, and assets—explains why children of teenage parents lose developmental ground in early childhood

compared to their peers (39). These declines among the children

of teenage parents happen while parents gain socioeconomic

ground. But those gains are not large enough to raise the family

out of a disadvantaged social position, resulting in persistent

disadvantage that translates into compromised school readiness

for the children. Although previous research pinpointed material

resources as important for the futures of the families of teenage

mothers (9), these newer dynamic conceptualizations of

resources have improved our understanding of their importance

for the lives of teenage mothers and their families.

DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY

Modern Pressures on Teenage Mothers

Teenage mothers in the United States and worldwide face eco-

nomic and social strains that put pressure on themselves and

their families (see 40 for more discussion). With the exception

of the Affordable Care Act, some aspects of the public safety

net have shrunk through measures such as welfare reform (e.g.,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, replacing

Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC). For

example, in 2001–2002 after welfare reform, just 18% of teen- age mothers with infants received any TANF benefits (6);

before welfare reform in 1993, 26% of mothers aged 15–19 received AFDC support (41). The incomes of lower income

families have fallen over the past several decades, even as

women have entered the work force in growing numbers. And

teenage births have increasingly occurred outside of marriage

(see Figure 1). Together, these trends mean that teenage moth-

ers today may receive less support from the government,

extended families (including both financial support and child

care), and the fathers of their children (see 40 for a discussion).

Perhaps because of the strain resulting from low resources

available to teenage girls’ extended families, norms discourag-

ing teenage childbearing in lower socioeconomic status com-

munities appear to have become stronger over time. Teenage

mothers have become more rare in many communities as teen-

age birth rates have decreased, resulting in less support from

peers and from the communities in which the teenagers live

(40). These social and economic trends have resulted in a situ-

ation in which the basic needs of many families of teenage

mothers are not being met. Beyond the United States, many

developed countries are also experiencing cuts in social safety

nets, rising socioeconomic inequalities, and increases in non-

marital births.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

66 Stefanie Mollborn

Other emerging societal trends may also begin to make teen-

age mothers’ lives more difficult. Continued increases in the

proportion of teenage births occurring outside of marriage have

been linked to the rise of women having children with differ-

ent partners over the course of their lives (42), with the possi-

bility of increased difficulties for the families that result (43).

Furthermore, as the age at which women typically first give

birth rises (33), teenage mothers may become more isolated

and stigmatized. Increased economic pressures on families with

low socioeconomic status, whose recovery from the Great

Recession has been lackluster (44), may continue to reduce

the support extended families and coparents can give teenage

mothers and their children. Finally, challenges to providing

reproductive health may threaten progress in lowering the

teenage birth rate. The removal of Planned Parenthood from

the Texas Women’s Health Program in 2013 was linked to

increases in unintended births (45). In Colorado, the wide-

spread provision of long-acting reversible contraceptives

through a privately funded pilot program beginning in 2009

contributed to sharp decreases in the state’s teenage birth rate

(46); political opposition in a legislative committee initially

blocked public funding to continue the program, but it has

now been funded.

A Call for Continued Research and for Shifts in Policy

Because the context in which teenage motherhood occurs

changes so quickly and in so many ways, continued research in

the area is fundamental. Many of these trends—such as rising economic inequality and decreasing intergenerational mobility

—point to the possibility that the negative short-term effects of teenage motherhood on women, men, and children could

increase, resulting in as yet unknown changes to the longer term

implications. Researchers have linked teenage motherhood to

broader trends among disadvantaged families such as nonmarital

and multipartner fertility (42, 47). But others have argued that

we cannot know what will happen to families of teenage mothers

in particular by studying low-income families in general (48).

Teenage mothers face unique disadvantages because of their

youth, such as a lack of access to some public programs and the

difficulties of getting an education while parenting. Thus,

researchers need to focus on young mothers as well as on disad-

vantaged families more generally, even as teenage birth rates

fall (48).

But as some have pointed out (9), this does not mean that

policies to reduce teenage childbearing will be the most effec-

tive on which to focus. Because of modest evidence that teenage

motherhood causes negative consequences, it is more promising

to focus on remedying the precursors of both teenage birth and

the negative outcomes that follow it (e.g., individual- and neigh-

borhood-level poverty, inadequate education). Such an approach

is likely to benefit teenage mothers and other disadvantaged

members of society (9). Pairing this approach with policies that

support teenage mothers and their families is promising.

Because research suggests that most families in poverty have

current or former teenage mothers (7), policies on teenage par-

enthood like these may also be effective antipoverty policies.

The lessons we have learned from research on teenage mother-

hood can help us build broader policies that continue to reduce

teenage births and improve the lives of teenage mothers and

their families.

REFERENCES

1. Sedgh, G., Finer, L. B., Bankole, A., Eilers, M. A., & Singh, S. (2015). Adolescent pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates across coun- tries: Levels and recent trends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 223–230. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.007

2. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2003). Teenage childbearing as a public issue and private concern. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 23–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100205

3. Science and integrity survey. (2004). iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ ipoll.html

4. Santelli, J. S., & Melnikas, A. J. (2010). Teen fertility in transition: Recent and historic trends in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 371–383. doi:10.1146/annurev.publ- health.29.020907.090830

5. Ventura, S. J., Hamilton, B. E., & Mathews, T. J. (2014). National and state patterns of teen births in the United States, 1940-2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvs r63_04.pdf.

6. Mollborn, S., & Dennis, J. A. (2012). Investigating the life situations and development of teenage mothers’ children: Evidence from the ECLS-B. Population Research and Policy Review, 31, 31–66. doi:10.1007/s11113-011-9218-1

7. Mollborn, S., & Dennis, J. A. (2012). Explaining the early develop- ment and health of teen mothers’ children. Sociological Forum, 27, 1010–1036. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01366.x

8. Hoffman, S. D. (1998). Teenage childbearing is not so bad after all. Or is it? A review of the new literature. Family Planning Perspec- tives, 30, 236–239, 243. doi:10.2307/2991610

9. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2007). Destinies of the disadvantaged: The politics of teenage childbearing. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foun- dation.

10. Hoffman, S. D. (2015). Teen childbearing and economics: A short history of a 25-year research love affair. Societies, 5, 646–663. doi:10.3390/soc5030646

11. Fletcher, J. M., & Wolfe, B. L. (2009). Education and labor market consequences of teenage childbearing evidence using the timing of pregnancy outcomes and community fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 44, 303–325. doi:10.3368/jhr.44.2.303

12. Kane, J. B., Morgan, S. P., Harris, K. M., & Guilkey, D. K. (2013). The educational consequences of teen childbearing. Demography, 50, 2129–2150. doi:10.1007/s13524-013-0238-9

13. Turley, R. N. L. (2003). Are children of young mothers disadvan- taged because of their mother’s age or family background? Child Development, 74, 465–474. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.7402010

14. Ashcraft, A., Fern�andez-Val, I., & Lang, K. (2013). The conse- quences of teenage childbearing: Consistent estimates when abor- tion makes miscarriage non-random. Economic Journal, 123, 875– 905. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12005

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

Teenage Mothers Today 67

15. Henretta, J. C. (2007). Early childbearing, marital status, and women’s health and mortality after age 50. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 254–266. doi:10.1177/002214650704800304

16. Taylor, J. L. (2009). Midlife impacts of adolescent parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 484–510. doi:10.1177/ 0192513X08329601

17. Whitman, T. L., Borkowski, J. G., Keogh, D. A., & Weed, K. (2001). Interwoven lives: Adolescent mothers and their children. Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18. Wodtke, G. T. (2013). Duration and timing of exposure to neighbor- hood poverty and the risk of adolescent parenthood. Demography, 50, 1765–1788. doi:10.1007/s13524-013-0219-z

19. Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2015). Investigating recent trends in the U.S. teen birth rate. Journal of Health Economics, 41, 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.01.003

20. Strayhorn, J. M., & Strayhorn, J. C. (2009). Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States. Reproductive Health, 6, 1–7. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-14

21. Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2015). Media influences on social outcomes: The impact of MTV’s 16 and pregnant on teen childbear- ing. American Economic Review, 105, 3597–3632. doi:10.1257/ aer.20140012

22. Stange, K. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between fertility timing and schooling. Demography, 48, 931–956. doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0050-3

23. Erdmans, M. P., & Black, T. (2015). On becoming a teen mom: Life before pregnancy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

24. SmithBattle, L. (2007). “I wanna have a good future”: Teen mothers’ rise in educational aspirations, competing demands, and limited school support. Youth & Society, 38, 348–371. doi:10.1177/ 0044118X06287962

25. Brubaker, S. J., & Wright, C. (2006). Identity transformation and family caregiving: Narratives of African American teen mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1214–1228. doi:10.1111/ j.1741-3737.2006.00324.x

26. Mollborn, S., & Jacobs, J. (2015). “I’ll be there for you”: Teen par- ents’ coparenting relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 373–387. doi:10.1111/jomf.12175

27. Jacobs, J., & Mollborn, S. (2012). Early motherhood and the disrup- tion in significant attachments: Autonomy and reconnection as a response to separation and loss among African American and Latina teen mothers. Gender & Society, 26, 922–944. doi:10.1177/ 0891243212459073

28. Gregson, J. (2009). The culture of teenage mothers. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

29. East, P. L., Chien, N. C., & Barber, J. S. (2012). Adolescents’ preg- nancy intentions, wantedness, and regret: Cross-lagged relations with mental health and harsh parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 167–185. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00885.x

30. Uma~na-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Gonzales-Backen, M. A. (2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychoso- cial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140–157. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9511-z

31. Diaz, C. J., & Fiel, J. E. (2016). The effect(s) of teen pregnancy: Reconciling theory, methods, and findings. Demography, 53, 85– 116. doi:10.1007/s13524-015-0446-6

32. Williams, K., Sassler, S., Addo, F., & Frech, A. (2015). First-birth timing, marital history, and women’s health at midlife. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 56, 514–533. doi:10.1177/ 0022146515609903

33. Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., Osterman, M. J. K., & Curtin, S. C. (2015). Births: Preliminary data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64, 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_06.pdf

34. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4– 15.

35. Fomby, P., James-Hawkins, L., & Mollborn, S. (2015). Family resources in two generations and school readiness among children of teen parents. Population Research and Policy Review, 34, 733– 759. doi:10.1007/s11113-015-9363-z

36. Bravo, D. Y., Uma~na-Taylor, A. J., Zeiders, K. H., Updegraff, K. A., & Jahromi, L. B. (2016). Incongruent teen pregnancy attitudes, coparenting conflict, and support among Mexican-origin adolescent mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 531–545. doi:10.1111/jomf.12271

37. Contreras, J. M., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Rhodes, J. E., Diener, M. L., & Brunson, L. (1999). Parent–child interaction among Latina adoles- cent mothers: The role of family and social support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 417–439. doi:10.1207/ s15327795jra0904_3

38. Fagan, J. (2014). Adolescent parents’ partner conflict and parenting alliance, fathers’ prenatal involvement, and fathers’ engagement with infants. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1415–1439. doi:10.1177/ 0192513X13491411

39. Mollborn, S., Lawrence, E., James-Hawkins, L., & Fomby, P. (2014). How resource dynamics explain accumulating developmen- tal and health disparities for teen parents’ children. Demography, 51, 1199–1224. doi:10.1007/s13524-014-0301-1

40. Mollborn, S., & Jacobs, J. (2012). “We’ll figure a way”: Teen- age mothers’ experiences in shifting social and economic con- texts. Qualitative Sociology, 35, 23–46. doi:10.1007/s11133- 011-9213-1

41. United States Census Bureau. (1995). Mothers who receive AFDC payments: Fertility and socioeconomic characteristics. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/stat briefs/sb2-95.html

42. Carlson, M. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban U.S. parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 718–732. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2006.00285.x

43. Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1059– 1077. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x

44. United States Department of Labor. (2015). Earnings and unemploy- ment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved from http:// www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

45. Stevenson, A. J., Flores-Vazquez, I. M., Allgeyer, R. L., Schenkkan, P., & Potter, J. E. (2016). Effect of removal of planned parenthood from the Texas women’s health program. New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 853–860. doi:10.1056/ NEJMsa1511902

46. Ricketts, S., Klingler, G., & Schwalberg, R. (2014). Game change in Colorado: Widespread use of long-acting reversible contraceptives and rapid decline in births among young, low-income women. Per- spectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 46, 125–132. doi:10.1363/46e1714

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

68 Stefanie Mollborn

47. Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

48. Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015). Has adolescent childbearing been eclipsed by nonmarital childbearing? Societies, 5, 734–743. doi:10.3390/soc5040734

49. Ventura, S. J., Mathews, T. J., & Hamilton, B. E. (2001). Births to teenagers in the United States, 1940–2000. National Vital Statistics

Reports, 49, 1–23. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

50. Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Menacker, F., Park, M. M., & Sutton, P. D. (2002). Births: Final data for 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports, 51, 1–104. Retrieved from https://www.cdc. gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_02.pdf

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 11, Number 1, 2017, Pages 63–69

Teenage Mothers Today 69

Copyright of Child Development Perspectives is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.