| Literature DB >> 26265221 |
Rajiv N Rimal1, Pooja Sripad2, Ilene S Speizer3,4, Lisa M Calhoun5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although social norms are thought to play an important role in couples' reproductive decisions, only limited theoretical or empirical guidance exists on how the underlying process works. Using the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB), through a mixed-method design, we investigated the role played by injunctive norms and interpersonal discussion in the relationship between descriptive norms and use of modern contraceptive methods among the urban poor in India.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26265221 PMCID: PMC4533786 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-015-0061-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Descriptive statistics for weighted sample of women across study cities in Uttar Pradesh, India, 2010
| Women with no children ( | Women with 1 child only ( | Women with 2 or more children ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, | 23.8 (5.7) | 26.5 (6.2) | 34.9 (7.3) | <.001 |
| Education (%) | <.001 | |||
| None | 19.82 | 16.76 | 36.67 | |
| <5 years | 2.16 | 1.97 | 2.93 | |
| 5–7 years | 9.44 | 7.16 | 9.66 | |
| 8–9 years | 13.17 | 9.97 | 9.99 | |
| 10–11 years | 12.21 | 12.05 | 11.13 | |
| 12+ years | 43.2 | 52.1 | 29.55 | |
| Wealth (%) | <.001 | |||
| Quintile 1 | 15.21 | 12.21 | 19.67 | |
| Quintile 2 | 21.29 | 14.84 | 18.86 | |
| Quintile 3 | 18.32 | 18.72 | 20.23 | |
| Quintile 4 | 22.61 | 25.17 | 21.03 | |
| Quintile 5 | 22.57 | 29.07 | 20.22 | |
| Religion (%) | >.05 | |||
| Hindu | 81.69 | 79.78 | 79.49 | |
| Muslim & Other | 18.32 | 20.07 | 20.51 | |
| City (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Agra | 31.66 | 34.87 | 33.80 | |
| Aligarh | 17.11 | 12.93 | 17.75 | |
| Allahabad | 26.38 | 30.12 | 26.78 | |
| Gorakhpur | 24.85 | 22.08 | 21.67 | |
| Descriptive norms, | 1.83 (0.59) | 1.82 (0.58) | 1.82 (0.54) | >.05 |
| Injunctive norms (%) | 93.56 | 96.82 | 95.50 | <.001 |
| Interpersonal communication, | 1.92 (0.74) | 2.19 (0.73) | 2.26 (0.67) | <.001 |
| Modern contraceptive use (%) | 4.81 | 35.69 | 53.27 | <.001 |
aCompares differences across the three parity groups. bPerception that others in the community use family planning (4-point scale). cInterpersonal communication around family planning (8-point scale). Unweighted samples: n = 1134, n = 1749, n = 8928
Zero-order Pearson Correlations (N = 11,794)
| (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | −.08*** | .12*** | −.02* | .02* | .50*** | .16*** | .01 | −.01 | .03** |
| 2. Education | 1.00 | .61*** | −.12*** | .11*** | −.19*** | .08*** | .07*** | .10*** | .01 |
| 3. Wealth | 1.00 | −.03*** | −.03*** | −.07*** | .11*** | .06*** | .11*** | .01 | |
| 4. Religion | 1.00 | −.05*** | .01 | −.08*** | −.06*** | −.07*** | −.04*** | ||
| 5. City | 1.00 | −.02** | .01 | .00 | −.02* | −.18*** | |||
| 6. No. children | 1.00 | .29*** | .01 | .04*** | .13*** | ||||
| 7. Contraceptive use | 1.00 | .04*** | .12*** | .15*** | |||||
| 8. Descriptive norm | 1.00 | .02 | −.01 | ||||||
| 9. Injunctive Norm | 1.00 | .09*** | |||||||
| 10. Interpersonal communication | 1.00 |
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Multivariate logistic regressions (Odds Ratios), by parity, assessing modern contraceptive use, urban Uttar Pradesh, India
| No children ( | 1 child only ( | 2 or more children ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control variables | |||
| Age | 1.19 | 1.17* | 1.56*** |
| Education | 1.44** | 1.24*** | 1.03* |
| Wealth | 1.17 | 1.26*** | 1.13*** |
| Religion (Ref = Hindu) | 0.92 | 1.10 | 0.69*** |
| Aligarh (Ref = Agra) | 1.38 | 0.73**** | 0.65*** |
| Allahabad (Ref = Agra) | 1.12 | 0.76**** | 1.02 |
| Gorakhpur (Ref = Agra) | 0.41* | 0.80 | 1.05 |
| Descriptive norms (DN) | 0.86 | 1.15 | 1.09* |
| Injunctive norms (IN) | 1.72 | 2.11**** | 2.57*** |
| Interpersonal communication (IPC) | 1.38**** | 1.28*** | 1.36*** |
| DN × INa | 0.48 | 0.12* | 0.95 |
| DN × IPCa | 2.39** | 2.37*** | 1.45*** |
*p <0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001, ****p <0.1
aWith the exception of interaction estimates, all coefficients are included in the main effects model
Fig. 1Interaction between descriptive norms and injunctive norms (women with one child). Interactions are adjusted for all covariates
Fig. 2Interactions between descriptive norms and interpersonal communication (all three parity groups)