After a long search through the printed journals at Armacost Library, I was unfortunately unable to find anything that directly focused on my topic (natural childbirth). However, I was able to find an article in the Journal of Applied Psychology, a peer-reviewed journal that the library has a small stack of, that had a study about the correlation between motherhood and employment. The article is titled “Motherhood: A Potential Source of Bias in Employment Decisions” by Madeline E. Heilman and Tyler G. Okimoto. The topic of the study was mothers in the workforce, and the research question was asking whether or not the gender stereotypes about mothers interfere with their potential promotion in the workforce. The type of data that was needed for the study was shallow opinions and attitudes. The way that this data was collected was through questionnaires, and the data was analyzed by comparing the results from them.
The first experiment was done with a group of undergraduate students from an introductory psychology course, and the second was done with MBA students who were also full-time employees of businesses. These students were given limited information about four people who were supposedly applying for promotions: one mother, one father, one male (with no children), and one female (with no children). Based on the information given about each candidate, these students had to decide who would be the best fit for the job. The study concluded that the bias due to stereotypes toward motherhood does inhibit the advancement of women in the workforce.
The topic and question are interesting, but I think that the study could have been done in a better way. It would have been fascinating to interview some of the participants of the study to see why they felt the way that they did, and what lead them to make their hiring decision, rather than just getting the numbers.
The article:
Heilman, Madeline E. and Tyler G. Okimoto. 2008. “Motherhood: A Potential Source of Bias in Employment Decisions.” The Journal of Applied Psychology volume 93(1). 189-198.