« Roubini on Structural Problems in the World Economy | Main | Pr(Sarah Palin=President)>Pr(John McCain=President)? »
Abstinence pledges
It seems to boil down to Larry Iannaccone's model of religion:
Bearman and Brückner have also identified a peculiar dilemma: in some schools, if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses. Pledgers apparently gather strength from the sense that they are an embattled minority; once their numbers exceed thirty per cent, and proclaimed chastity becomes the norm, that special identity is lost. With such a fragile formula, it’s hard to imagine how educators can ever get it right: once the self-proclaimed virgin clique hits the thirty-one-per-cent mark, suddenly it’s Sodom and Gomorrah.
Here is much more, on the general question of why the teenage children of evangelicals get pregnant so often. The first question is whether they do, adjusting for all the proper demographics. Second, I wonder if there isn't also a combined lifecycle/genetic effect. Maybe if you're rowdy when you're young, you're religious when you're old, but the kids that pop out are on average rowdy too.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 31, 2008 at 07:30 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I love all of these analyses of chastity that have no historical perspective at all and appeal to some notion of biological determinism.
Here are some facts. In the past (going back decades), contraceptives were harder to obtain. In the past, abortions were harder to obtain. In the past, the illegitimacy rates were much lower.
And these facts lead you to conclude ... kids are going to do it anyway?
Posted by: K T Cat at Oct 31, 2008 7:55:27 AM
Unfortunately I can't remember who wrote this:
King Solomon and King David
Led very merry lives
With very many concubines
And very many wives.
Until old age came creeping
With very many qualms
Then Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And David wrote the Psalms.
Posted by: zydrate at Oct 31, 2008 8:14:11 AM
Pay them. Then, kids with longer time preferences, the ones we really 'care' about ruining their lives and giving their children the best foundation, will self-select. You either get college or child-care. Parents should make this offer. And if you can't make this offer, don't have kids.
I think you'd also have to adjust for the level that religion is just "what you do." I wasn't religious as a kid, but was much more moral and ethical than the average evangelical. I don't attribute that to their religion. Where I was from, there was a stigma if you didn't go to church. So, less ethical, more corruptible, and people seeking acceptance are in some sense more likely to feign religiosity (as are those seeking power). But what liberal sociologist is going to delve into that one? After all, that ultimately takes you down the road that leads to humanist government as the church of atheists.
Besides, what's so wrong with having kids?
That article is just irritating. People who write columns like that just don't get it. It's like statistical titillation. Anyone really interested in illumination doesn't think in terms of red/blue states. It's all about population density. Really, who gives a crap anymore about whether liberals or conservatives are more fallacious or which has more cunning linguists?
"pop out"?
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 31, 2008 8:15:10 AM
K. T. - alas it is you who are factually challenged here. Yes kids have always done it, it's just in the past there were more shotgun weddings, thus less illegitimacy. Our Puritan ancestors actually as you know let kid sleep together ( the bundling board) and really didn't mind that much if the kids hopped the board - but with the understanding that once she's preggers, you're married. New England records appear to show that many teen brides were showing on their wedding day. And who cares? Sin in Puritanism is assumed; but it's your duty to get right with God, so once you're married there's no stigma. This is also practical as the concern that a woman could bear sons was crucial, so everyone understands that you want to ensure she can conceive before you go forward! Also look at books like Gillis' For Better Or For Worse: British Marriages 1600 to Present. Most people were conceived out of wedlock for much these periods as marriage was expensive, required hard to obtain parental and legal approval - thus Gretna Green - and the lower classes often had to wait several years before making themselves "respectable."
Posted by: StreetWalker at Oct 31, 2008 8:43:04 AM
Pay them. Then, kids with longer time preferences, the ones we really 'care' about ruining their lives and giving their children the best foundation, will self-select.
There are many rational reasons that people have children while young:
1) many evangelicals and conservative Catholics see children as a net good not as a "ruining their lives." They see the children as the purpose for their life, and the career is just to help take care of the children. The career isn't the purpose for their life.
2) As the couple gets older their ability to have kids decreases and the risk of genetic problems/complications increases.
3) When you are young you have more time and energy, but less money/experience.
4) Many of them don't want to go into a career that is heavily front-loaded with lots of education. (Doctor, Professor, etc) But rather have a trade because the money is pretty good as you can start building the money earlier. (Plumber, Electrician, Mechanic, etc) This could be seen as a time preference of just that they like the other career better.
Everyone here seems to make the assumption that long time preference = good and short time preference = bad. While this is true in a number of situations, its not inherently true, and its not good for economists to try to judge behavior in abstract terms. Instead of trying to judge and modify people's behavior, we should instead try to understand why they make their life choices better.
Economics is not and should not be religion!, where we impose our ideas of better behavior on others. Instead it should be like a science where we build models for human choices to try to explain human behavior.
Posted by: Jorge Landivar at Oct 31, 2008 8:48:32 AM
Hi Alex,
Those were interesting articles (though I admit to only skimming the denser one by Iannaccone). One thing that stood out to me in the New Yorker article was that the author accepted the language (pre-marital sex is bad) from the evangelical organizations rather than looking at the action and results. The actions and results are that evangelicals tend to get have children and marry much earlier than non-evangelicals, young adults who are married with young children tend associate more closely to their church than those who are single and pursuing post-secondary education (I need a citation for this, but it seems to be reasonable from casual observation).
If you run an evangelical organization, is this not the desired outcome? Think of it as a rational and successful recruiting and retention program. Promote abstinence, which many studies indicate are unsuccessful, make the use of contraception socially unacceptable, make abortion morally repugnant. The result is a surfeit of young pregnant teens. Then make teen pregnancy welcome and socially accepted within a formula where they get married in your church. You retain that generation within your organization (and may well recruit some new members whose own family or religion is less tolerant of teen pregnancies).
It would be unwise to assume that merely because they exhibit irrational (religious) thought, that they are not exceedingly sharp business men. The growth of their businesses strongly indicate that they are indeed very capable at what they do.
Posted by: David Rotor at Oct 31, 2008 8:52:28 AM
Tyler, are you serious?
This sort of drivel is so appallingly unscientific, it continues to amaze me that intelligent people give it creedence.
Amazing how the states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are the most Anglo states in the country, and the states with the highest rates are the states with the highest concentrations of low income and minorities. The cultural values of evangelicals of different ethnicities vary wildly. Neither side of the sex-ed debate seems to be able to clearly show a significant advantage to the other. Thinking that some 1-hour pep talk is going to significantly change behavior is like Obama sending out Suze Orman DVDs as a centerpiece of his economic plan. Incentives matter. When you have a high concentration of people on the government dole, you eliminate the financial costs and social stigma of sub-optimal behavior.
Posted by: Anonymous at Oct 31, 2008 8:54:29 AM
"The movement is not the complete washout its critics portray it as: pledgers delay sex eighteen months longer than non-pledgers, and have fewer partners. Yet, according to the sociologists Peter Bearman, of Columbia University, and Hannah Brückner, of Yale, communities with high rates of pledging also have high rates of S.T.D.s. This could be because more teens pledge in communities where they perceive more danger from sex (in which case the pledge is doing some good); or it could be because fewer people in these communities use condoms when they break the pledge."
Could this be an application of Landsburg's "More Sex is Safer Sex"?
Posted by: Charlie at Oct 31, 2008 9:38:45 AM
Thinking that some 1-hour pep talk is going to significantly change behavior is like Obama sending out Suze Orman DVDs as a centerpiece of his economic plan.
This is a candidate for the best sentence I read today.
Posted by: at Oct 31, 2008 9:40:53 AM
By the way, here's a site with videos of people who are crying while eating. With the reason why they are crying.
Many good ones here, but I especially like
Deirdre
What she's eating:
Gummi worms
What she's crying about:
Can't reconcile love of horses with love of gelatin.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, gelatin.....
Posted by: at Oct 31, 2008 9:51:54 AM
Streetwalker,
That's a really good parroting of the current excusing of the situation. Too bad it's not true. Maybe you ought to spend some time in retirement homes talking to the people that actually lived back then and less time reading the current sociology literature.
Posted by: K T Cat at Oct 31, 2008 10:01:10 AM
Cat,
There are Puritans and British from the 1600s in the nursing homes around you? Now THATS the level of care I want when I get old.
Posted by: Tom at Oct 31, 2008 10:19:11 AM
You are going to have to try harder than that.
Gathering reliable evidence on this issue is difficult, to say the least.
But is the difference in behavior the likelihood of teenage sex, the likelihood of sex resulting in pregnancy, or the likelihood of an abortion which is kept hush-hush. My guess is that the third factor is what is different, but that is hard to prove.
Posted by: B.H. at Oct 31, 2008 10:19:13 AM
Why do evangelical children get pregnant so often?
I don't if it's true, but from my experience going to a very conservative fundamentalist school from kindergarten to senior year of high school, my hunch is that evangelicals are less likely to have sex but much more likely to have a child when they do have sex.
Sex for an evangelical kid is far more likely to be a spontaneous crime of passion than it is to be a planned event, and partners are usually virgins, so pregnancy becomes far more likely. In addition, abortion carries enormous personal and social costs, even if done in secret, so a pregnancy is more likely to be carried to term and might lead to availability bias.
Posted by: Jeff H. at Oct 31, 2008 10:27:14 AM
Given how many "vaginal virgins" are practicing anal sex to appease their rapacious boyfriends, it's probably Sodom and Gomorrah already.
Posted by: Anderson at Oct 31, 2008 10:28:43 AM
K T Cat,
could you list the addresses of retirement homes of former bundlers? I would love to talk with them.
Posted by: Douglas Knight at Oct 31, 2008 10:41:52 AM
My daddy always said early 2 ripe, early 2 rot. :).
Posted by: Mr. Beefy at Oct 31, 2008 11:17:20 AM
Could it be that they are not getting pregnant too young but getting married too late?
Posted by: floccina at Oct 31, 2008 11:38:12 AM
The first question is whether they do, adjusting for all the proper demographics. Second, I wonder if there isn't also a combined lifecycle/genetic effect.
There are a few other questions, too, including whether secular girls are more likely to get abortions and thus not be counted in the birth total. The other, more notable issue is whether evangelicals receive substantially different sex education than non-evangelical teens, and whether their resulting practices are different as well. The education issue might be substantial: we wrote about much of the research behind it in a post regarding the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program, which you can read at the link.
Posted by: Jake at Oct 31, 2008 11:40:12 AM
It has been found that the most effective way to reduce births in third would countries is to offer women opportunities outside of their roll as wives and mothers. Since part the "family values" agenda is to reverse the trend toward equality for women, evangelical teenage girls are more likely to seen their life choices restricted.
Posted by: joan at Oct 31, 2008 11:56:24 AM
This is just anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt, but I have noticed that the strongest correlation between the age of "sexual debut" for girls and the relationship they have with their fathers. This applies across socio-economic, geographic, and religious lines. Girls who feel ignored or otherwise marginalized by their fathers tend to seek out male affection elsewhere and are more likely to give in to sexual pressure. Girls who have good relationships with their dads, in which they feel valued and worthy, are much less likely to buy some stupid boy's come-on lines. The positive value of an engaged and responsible father cannot be overstated.
Posted by: Christina at Oct 31, 2008 1:38:05 PM
To K. T. Cat:
My great-great-grandma was 3 months pregnant when she married my great-great-grandpa in 1880 at age 16. I think this was pretty common back then.
Posted by: Muttley at Oct 31, 2008 3:08:20 PM
If there really is substance to this I wonder if it applies to political beliefs as well?
Posted by: Marcus at Oct 31, 2008 4:34:39 PM
From the New Yorker article: "The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas (all red); the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine (blue except for North Dakota)."
The difference that stands out to me in that statement is less "Republican-leaning states vs. Democratic-leaning states" and more "Warm states vs. cold states" (which I suppose is red vs. blue in a different sense).
Posted by: Kevin at Oct 31, 2008 4:50:04 PM
The positive value of an engaged and responsible father cannot be overstated.
Agreed.
One side effect is they scare away the most irresponsible boys....
Posted by: at Oct 31, 2008 5:42:19 PM
