1,922
Views
63
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
REVIEW

Teen motherhood in cross-cultural perspective

&
Pages 613-628 | Received 17 Jun 2009, Accepted 11 Dec 2009, Published online: 07 Mar 2010
 

Abstract

Teen motherhood is the prevalent childbearing pattern in most traditional populations. Yet early motherhood is associated with negative biological and social outcomes in the developed world. We review the teen pregnancy literature in light of this discrepancy, emphasizing two core debates. The first debate centers on whether teens have poor pregnancy outcomes compared to older women, and whether negative outcomes are biologically based. Second, we consider the debate over the confounding effects of socio-economic conditions associated with being young. When teens are considered as a group, results are inconsistent across studies. When teens are disaggregated by age, the strongest finding across studies is that biological risk is concentrated in only the youngest of mothers. Negative consequences are associated with teen motherhood not because of chronological age per se, but because of relative developmental maturity and the availability of non-maternal support. In most traditional societies as well as in some sectors of developed societies, teen motherhood occurs within the context of extended kin networks and is subsidized through reliable economic and childcare assistance. Child-rearing practices, rather than pregnancy per se, may explain much of the discrepancy in the prevalence, success and attitudes toward teen motherhood in traditional and developed societies.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Notes

1. Teen birth rates: Pumé foragers 195 per 1000 (Kramer Citation2008); Macajai Yanomama 266 per 1000 (Early and Peters Citation1990, p. 48); Xilixana Yanomami 279 per 1000 (Early and Peters Citation2000, p. 196); Ache (reservation) 253 per 1000 (Hill and Hurtado Citation1996, p. 262); Ache (forest) 151 per 1000 (Hill and Hurtado Citation1996, p. 261); !Kung 135 per 1000 (Howell Citation1979, p. 24).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.