complexities of consumption: the case of childcare

72 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

AIMEE DINNIN HUFF AND JUNE COTTE

Complexities of Consumption: The Case of ChildcareMothers face many challenges in choosing a caregiver for a child whenit is time to return to work. In North America, this choice is often madein a context of limited supply with several significant factors constrain-ing choice. Indeed, many mothers have very little effective choice atall. Using in-depth interviews with mothers who have recently chosenchildcare services, we explore the choice of childcare and the post-choice stage of ongoing childcare consumption, and we account for ourinformants’ reframing of choice outcomes that are often not reflectiveof preference. Building on prior research on choice and post-choiceoutcomes, we reveal the inherent complexities in mothers’ ongoinguse of childcare, and we offer policy recommendations based on ourdeep understanding of this intensely personal consumption context.

Imagine a consumer named Maria. Maria has an important consump-tion choice to make, for a service she will use regularly for severalyears. She researches the alternatives and establishes a consideration set.However, as she engages in the choice process, she begins to encounterfrustration and stress. The alternatives are quite expensive, and shehas difficulty determining which are likely to offer the highest qualityservice. Maria needs to make her decision quickly, and she discoversthat most of her preferred service providers cannot take her on as aclient. Ultimately, with time running out, she is forced to use the onlyalternative that became available within her time frame, and this is aservice that was not her first, or even her second, most preferred option.As Maria engages in ongoing use of this service, would the reader besurprised to know that she is satisfied and content with the serviceitself—even though it involves caring for her baby?

In this research we seek to generate a deep understanding of a relevantand widespread social phenomenon: consumption of childcare servicesby mothers who return to the workforce after a maternity leave. This isa unique consumer context because a number of complexities exist in

Aimee Dinnin Huff ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate; June Cotte ([email protected])is Associate Professor, both at Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University (formerlyUniversity of Western Ontario). This article is based on a portion of the first author’s dissertation.This research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research grant to the second author.The authors would like to thank the following individuals who helped refine early versions of thisarticle: Eric Arnould, Russell Belk, David Crockett, Markus Giesler, Lisa Penaloza and Linda Scott.

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Spring 2013: 72–97DOI: 10.1111/joca.12004

Copyright 2013 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

SPRING 2013 VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1 73

childcare consumption: with a highly consequential choice, considerableconstraints on the choice process, and no option to defer choosing,the outcome is often very different from a conventional consumerchoice. Furthermore, in many cases the preferred options are simply notavailable. It is perplexing, then, that mothers are able to adapt to theoutcome such that they are satisfied with their childcare service.

Our research goal is to understand consumption within this uniquecontext from the perspective of the consumer who chooses and thencontinues to consume the childcare service. We fuse together theoreticalperspectives on the choice process, choice constraints, and outcomes ofchoice to illustrate the unique complexities in the childcare consumptionexperience for mothers. Our research question is, what are the outcomesfor the individual consumer if the choice is removed altogether froma consequential consumption decision? That is, how can consumersreconstruct what was an unpleasant and constrained decision processinto a free choice process after the fact? The context we use to explorethis question is one where there is a repeated consumption of a service(rather than a one-time service encounter). Throughout our investigation,we infuse our analysis of the consumer with our understanding of thesocial and regulatory environment surrounding her.

This research contributes to our understanding of consumer choicein several ways. First, we reveal positive consequences of ongoingconsumption even when the outcome was not deliberately selectedand does not reflect unconstrained preferences. On a theoretical level,we account for this counterintuitive satisfaction. Second, by broadlyexploring the complexities of ongoing consumption, we offer additionalsupport for the idea that having few choices in a complex consumptioncontext can nonetheless lead to positive outcomes (Leach 2009). Indeed,we find that these women did not choose in the classic sense of the term inconsumer research literature or lay theories of choice. As we demonstratewith our data, our consumer informants still frame this issue as a choiceafter the fact, which is entirely consistent with the North Americancultural preoccupation with the preeminence of choice and autonomy(Botti and Iyengar 2006). Thus, we contend that the intersection ofmotherhood and consumption is particularly complicated and worthy ofspecial consideration as a consumer context (Botti and McGill 2006).

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Weber’s research on childcare consumption (2011) reveals thatparental decision-making about childcare is informed by the context,


made up of both the family characteristics (e.g., values, beliefs), andthe community characteristics, which include the quality and quantity ofthe childcare supply, the characteristics of the parents’ employment andsocial networks, and consumer education in the community. As Weberdemonstrates, these factors shape preferences as well as perceptions of theopportunities and barriers in the decision context. We situate our researchwithin Weber’s comprehensive model of parental decision-making anddevelop a contribution based on a nuanced understanding of the con-sumer, the choice itself, and the ongoing consumption of that choice. Inthis section, we briefly review literature relevant to understanding con-ventional consumer choices, and we then argue that a broader perspectiveis needed to understand the complexities in childcare consumption.

A sizable body of research on choice focuses on how consumers formpreferences, make decisions, and experience constraints on the choiceprocess (Luce, Bettman, and Payne 2001). From this perspective of con-sumer choice, four key metagoals allow the consumer to identify thepreferred alternative and guide decision-making: maximizing accuracy,minimizing cognitive effort, minimizing negative emotion and maximiz-ing ease of justification. Consumers then use heuristics to navigate thetask of making trade-offs between alternatives, and the difficulty experi-enced when making trade-offs can influence both the process of choosingand the outcome itself (Luce et al. 2001; Payne, Bettman, and Johnson1993). Another area of consumer research examines the outcomes ofchoice, such as satisfaction or regret and the employment of psychologi-cal defenses. We use these bodies of literature as a starting point. We iden-tify how they shed some light on choosing and using childcare, but wealso identify how focusing on either the choice process (i.e., pre-purchasephase) or the outcome (i.e., post-purchase phase) alone compromises ourability to understand how childcare is consumed from the perspective ofthe consumer/mother in a given social and regulatory environment.

Constraints on the Choice Process

In the choice literature, constraints exist as limitations on the act ofchoosing and as restrictions on the number of choices. These constraintsimpact both the choice process and the ultimate decisions (Luce, Bettman,and Payne 2003). Several notable constraints impact the choice of child-care. First, mothers experience time pressure to arrange childcare as theirmaternity leaves draw to an end. Time pressure produces negative emo-tions, which interfere with the choice process (Mittelstaedt, Duke, andMittelstaedt 2009).While there remains a dearth of understanding about


how time constraints influence post-choice outcomes such as regret orsatisfaction, the implication seems to be that consumers are less sat-isfied with choices made under time constraints. Second, even thoughconsumers prefer to defer choice when faced with difficult trade-offs(Edland and Svenson 1993; Maule et al. 2000), mothers experience a lackof ability to defer choice. This forced choice situation influences decisionstrategies and responses to the ultimate decision (Luce et al. 2001). Third,childcare options in the consumer’s consideration set are often not avail-able at the necessary time of consumption. Waiting lists are common-place, and many mothers find themselves hurriedly re-constructing theirconsideration sets as their return to work date looms closer (Dhar 1997;Luce 1998). In summary, the choice of childcare is highly constrainedby time pressure, inability to defer choosing and lack of availability ofcare options such that the outcome may not reflect preference.

A fourth constraint involves the individual consumer’s budget. Child-care is a very substantial monetary outlay for most, if not all, families,and the cost of good quality, regulated childcare for infants is high inCanada. Costs typically range from $8,000 to 10,000 per year for an infor-mal homecare arrangement, to $15,000–$20,000 per year for a licenseddaycare facility, to a minimum $22,000 per year for a nanny.

A fifth constraint, related to the other constraints, is stress. Priorresearch has demonstrated that stress functions as a constraint byinfluencing consumer decision strategies (Moschis 2007; Raghunathan,Pham, and Corfman 2006; Yi and Baumgartner 2004). There areconflicting accounts of how stress impacts choice (Payne and Bettman2004), but certainly negative emotions related to consumption are likelyif consumers feel that they had to compromise on a key metagoal,which, in the case of childcare, is likely to be the goal of finding goodquality care (Leach 2009).

The literature we have reviewed so far helps us to understand howconsumers can experience constrained choices. However, a focusedperspective on constrained choice would not allow us to capture the truenature of childcare consumption from the perspective of the consumerbecause it does not capture the outcomes of these choices. As a result,we use this literature as a springboard for a deep exploration of the waysin which mothers consume childcare on an ongoing basis.

Outcomes of Constrained Choice

Much of the research on consumer choice has examined choice incontexts where the consumer is presented with a number of alternatives


and asked to select her preferred alternative. While choice is distinctlylinked to well-being in Western cultures, consumers are less likely tobe satisfied with outcomes from larger sets of alternatives and moredifferentiation among those alternatives (Botti and Iyengar 2004; Iyengarand Lepper 2000; Markus and Schwartz 2010). Further, research onchoices in a highly consequential context, with significant constraints onchoice processes, forced choice, and limited availability of alternatives,has revealed that consumers often experience post-purchase regret ordissatisfaction (Mittelstaedt et al. 2009). The chooser is unlikely to bepleased with the outcome of her choice under these circumstances, oftenbecause the outcome is not reflective of true preference.

Disappointment and regret are two possible consequences for con-sumers who perceive the choice outcome to be worse than that whichwas expected (Zeelenberg et al. 2000). Disappointment is an emotionalresponse to an adverse outcome that was caused by external circum-stances, while regret arises when the outcome is perceived to be inferiorto the forgone alternatives (Zeelenberg et al. 2000). The distinctionbetween disappointment and regret is important; although both entailnegative emotional consequences, they differ in regard to the role of thechooser. Consumers who feel disappointed with the consequences couldturn to others who they may feel caused the consequences. For example,a consumer disappointed with her childcare solution may place theblame for a severely constrained choice on the government’s failure toprovide adequate childcare solutions for working women. Regret can beexperienced if the chooser feels she made a bad choice (i.e., the outcomeis regrettable), or if the chooser feels her decision process was poor(i.e., the choice process is regrettable) (Pieters and Zeelenberg 2005).This suggests that, in the context of childcare choices, individuals maybe prone to experience regret if the outcome is inferior to non-chosenoutcomes (including staying home to raise one’s children), or if theprocess of actually arriving at an outcome is perceived to have beencompromised. Given the nature of the choice context for childcare,we would expect that many mothers would experience some degree ofregret regarding the childcare being consumed.

Importantly, however, both regret and disappointment toward a chosenoutcome can prompt behaviors that mitigate the negative consequencesof the outcome (Pieters and Zeelenberg 2005). Coping is a possibleoutcome of sub-optimal choices or choice processes, and it typicallyfollows conscious disappointment or regret associated with a choiceprocess (Pavia and Mason 2004). Coping is functional in that it allowsthe individual to diminish negative emotions. Duhachek (2005, 42)


defines coping as “the set of cognitive and behavioral processes initiatedby consumers in response to emotionally arousing, stress-inducinginteractions with the environment, aimed at bringing forth more desirableemotional states and reduced levels of stress.” Consumers developstrategies to cope with negative emotions associated with a regrettable orinferior consumption outcome. These coping strategies can be employedduring the deliberation process or in the post-acquisition phase, asconsumption actually begins (Mick and Fournier 1998).

Adaptability is another possible outcome of sub-optimal choice. Theconcept of adaptability is not well-defined in the literature, and it is oftenused synonymously with resilience (Seery, Holman, and Silver 2010).The two concepts are similar yet distinct in terms of consumer behavior.Resilience is more closely linked to coping and involves the ability tobounce back from adverse situations (Richardson 2002). Individualsfacing an externally determined outcome, rather than the outcome of apersonal choice, can demonstrate resiliency by psychologically adjustingto the circumstances such that they become tolerable (Stephens et al.2009). In contrast, adaptability can be understood as modifying oneselfto the outcome in such a way that the circumstances are embraced andsubjective well-being is enhanced. This conceptualization is in line withthat of Searle and Ward (1990), who also establish a link between adap-tation and personal well-being. Adaptability therefore can be understoodas a good fit between an individual and a circumstance marked by stress(Berry and Sam 1997). Both qualities are functional in that they enableindividuals to reduce negative emotions, but resiliency involves copingwith adverse (sub-optimal) outcomes, whereas adaptability involvesmodifications to the self, such that seemingly sub-optimal outcomescome to improve happiness. More than merely a resolution, adaptinginvolves an improvement. Turning from what other researchers haveestablished on consumer choice, we now outline in more detail thespecific consumption context under investigation herein.

RESEARCH CONTEXT: WORKING MOTHERS AND CHILDCARE

Our research focuses on Canadian mothers choosing childcare servicesfor their infants upon returning to the workforce from a maternity leave.While we recognize the important role that many fathers play in thischoice, in our sample the mothers took or were given the responsibilityfor the consumer search and choice process.1 It is commonplace in

1. In the overwhelming number of cases, mothers are the primary decision makers for childcareservices (Leach 2009).


North America for families to put their young children in some form ofchildcare while both parents, or single parents, return to the workforce.2

However, in Canada, as in many other countries, outsourcing childcareto a market-based service provider is often perceived at both a culturaland individual level to be inferior to maternal care (Hochschild 2012;Zelizer 2005). Consequently, mothers are very concerned with findinggood quality care that they perceive to be an acceptable substitute fortheir own care. In this article, we examine the experiences of motherswho have sought childcare in the last 24 months and who are nowliving with that choice and its consequences, and we illuminate someinteresting phenomena.

Mothers encounter numerous challenges to finding a childcare servicewhen it is time to return to the workforce (Leach 2009). As mothersprepare to return to the workforce, they must navigate the often-confusingmarket of childcare providers (i.e., choosing a nanny, daycare facility,home-based daycare, etc.). They struggle with issues of affordability,quality, and availability, and attempt to manage busy schedules dictatedby their employers and care providers (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach2001).

In Canada, a federal program entitles many working women to a job-protected, paid maternity leave of 15 weeks, and entitles working mothersor fathers to an additional job-protected, 35-week paid parental leave. Thecombined total is 50 weeks of paid, job-protected leave, wherein 35 weekscan be allocated between parents. As of 2012, federal government leavepayments are equal to 55% of insurable earnings prior to the leave, to amaximum of $485 per week, or $45,900 a year. Better workplaces top upthese payments (often providing close to the mother’s full salary) and/oroffer extended leaves (Baines 2009). The result is that many Canadianmothers are able to take a full year of paid leave to care for their infants,and, increasingly, fathers are taking some portion of the 35-week parentalleave.3 However, in spite of the maternity leave program, demand forchildcare often exceeds supply, especially for full-time care of infantsless than 12 months old (Baines 2009; Clarke-Stewart and Allhusen2005). Consequently, most alternatives in a mother’s consideration set

2. Approximately 70% of children under the age of two in Canada have mothers that areemployed (Bezanson 2009).

3. In order to be eligible to take maternity/parental leaves, an individual must be eligible tocollect employment insurance. The individual must have worked a minimum of 600 insurable hoursin the 52 weeks prior to the beginning of leave. Individuals who are self-employed are not eligiblefor employment insurance, or, consequently, for maternity/parental leave.


are simply not available when she needs childcare. Mothers are often“forced into accepting arrangements” with “clear limits on their agency”(Vincent and Ball 2001, 649). Many women put their names on severalwaiting lists as soon as they discover they are pregnant, yet still findthemselves without full-time care for their 12-month-old children.

In addition, choice is limited by the fact that some care arrangementsare simply not compatible with parents’ work schedules. For example,licensed daycares in our Canadian context are not permitted to holda child in care for more than nine hours per day, creating logisticaldilemmas even for parents who need to be at work for a standard 9 a.m.to 5 p.m. day. As a result, the physical location of childcare in relationto parents’ employment and/or home is a critical factor in determiningwhether a particular service provider is acceptable. This problem isexacerbated for families where the parents work exceptionally long hoursor shift work (Henly and Lyons 2000).

Further, as with any service, it can be difficult to assess quality of carebefore it is experienced. In the childcare marketplace very few brandsexist to facilitate choice, and many mothers may find themselves initiallyoverwhelmed when making judgments about individual service providers(Leach 2009).

Finally, childcare consumption is also heavily influenced by normativeconstraints that are external to the mother (Lundgren et al. 2001).One of these involves gender-based expectations that impact women’senactments of motherhood and their use of childcare (Huff and Cotte2013). Socially constructed ideas of motherhood, the romanticization ofchildhood, and the sacralization of domestic life are important influenceson women’s consumption performances in the marketplace (Fischerand Arnold 1990; Giddens 1993; Thompson 1996). Western culturescontinue to embrace a myth of idealized motherhood that is rootedin the 1950s stereotype of exclusive, intensive maternal care (Friedan1997; Scarr 1998), and new mothers can be especially vulnerable toidealizations of motherhood in the marketplace (The VOICE Group2010b). Indeed, conceptions of motherhood, a “basic component of thefemale domain,” contribute to the underlying complexities involved inchildcare consumption, because a child’s successful development is seenas a direct outcome of good, motherly care (Giddens 1993, 177; Vincentand Ball 2006). Although much research has refuted the notion thatinfant–mother relations are negatively impacted by placing an infantin care, this presumption continues to haunt working mothers (Clarke-Stewart and Allhusen 2005; Hochschild 2012). Outsourcing childcare tomarket-based service providers is seen as an inferior option to maternal


care because women are simply expected to form deep emotional bondswith their children, and to want to stay at home (Hochschild 1989).

We use the consumer choice literature reviewed above and ourunderstanding of the consumption context as a springboard for a deepexploration of the complexities of childcare consumption.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH STUDY

The first author conducted in-depth interviews with 14 mothers whohad chosen childcare for their children in the past year. Interviews wereconducted in rural, small town and urban settings throughout Ontario. Theprocedures we followed were approved by our institution’s ethics board,and were as follows: we advertised for respondents currently making thechoice about childcare for the first time. If a mother was interested, shecontacted the first author via phone or email. At that point, a detailedLetter of Information was mailed (or emailed) to her. When she hadread the Letter of Information and decided to participate, she contactedus again to set up an interview time. At the interview, she was giventhe Letter of Information again, and also signed a Consent Form for theinterview and the audio-recording. We sampled to recruit informants whohad experienced difficulty finding childcare, and then conducted one-on-one, face-to-face interviews at informants’ homes (with the exception ofone interview conducted in a bookstore). All the mothers participating inthe study had placed their children in full-time care arrangements, andnone were using multiple care arrangements.

In each case, informants’ children were present for at least part of theinterview, but husbands and other adults were not present. Interviewswere unstructured,4 with informants asked to “share your story aboutchoosing care for your [son, daughter]” and encouraged to “start wher-ever you like” (McCracken 1988). When necessary, we used prompts tomaintain mothers’ comfort, promote deeper reflection and to encouragedialogue about issues that had been identified as important by previousinformants. The interviewer was able to quickly establish a good rapportwith all informants, and we were pleased with the openness and candorwith which informants revealed their experiences. The interviews wereaudiotaped and typically lasted 75 minutes. Detailed field notes werecreated immediately afterward and the audiotapes were transcribed

4. Appendix 1 provides more detail, including the discussion guide approved by our humanethics review board.


verbatim. Informants were not compensated, but were thanked with ahand-written, personalized note.

Our informants ranged in age from 29 to 41 and had one or twochildren. All were married (or living common-law), Caucasian, employedat the time of the interview, and spoke English as a first language. Allinformants had intentionally become parents and had been entitled tothe 50-week, government-funded maternity leave. Six mothers choseto return to work before their maternity leaves formally ended, sevenmothers elected to take the full 50-week leave, and one mother tookadvantage of a 5-year (unpaid) leave offered by her employer. In Table 1we present a summary of participant profiles using pseudonyms.

As is the norm in rigorous qualitative data analysis, we began byreviewing and reflecting on the audiotapes, field notes and transcripts.After thematically coding the individual transcripts, the researchersdiscussed emergent themes and sought to reveal idiosyncratic andshared meanings. The interpretation process involved part-to-wholecomparisons and developed through much iteration (Spiggle 1994;Thompson, Locander, and Pollio 1990; Thompson, Pollio, and Locander1994). Emerging interpretations were challenged and refined duringqualitative data analysis workshops and peer debriefing.

We organize our findings somewhat temporally, starting with theexperience of the choice of care provider, and concluding with theassessment of the ongoing childcare experience. Given the lack ofdemonstratively free choice (in that most informants had, in the end,only one option), we explore informants’ reconstruction of this process,post hoc, into a freely made choice. By looking at childcare servicesas both a choice and an ongoing consumption experience, we are ableto argue that conventional conceptions of the choice process and choiceoutcomes are inherently woven together.

The Choice Process and Constraints on Choice

Even in Canada, with generous maternity leave policies, some mothersare anxious to return to work. While all our informants felt that a one-year leave was a reasonable amount of time for mothers to balance theirdesires to bond with their children and to maintain the family’s incomestream, some of the mothers in our sample wanted to return after a fewmonths, and others wanted to take the full-year leave. Childcare, then,functions as a solution and a necessity for families in which both parentswant or need to work. However, a chronic shortage of childcare supply


TAB

LE

1In

form

antP

rofil

es

Nam

e,Pr

ofes

sion

,Age

Hus

band

’sPr

ofes

sion

Chi

ldre

nin

Car

e(a

ges)

Tim

eSi

nce

Car

eD

ecis

ion

Mad

eC

are

Prov

ider

Sue,

Ret

ail

assi

stan

t,32

Fact

ory

wor

ker

Boy

(15

mon

ths)

3m

onth

sH

omec

are

(unl

icen

sed,

priv

ate

faci

lity)

Cyn

thia

,Phy

sici

an,3

1M

anag

erB

oy(4

mon

ths)

1m

onth

Nan

nyJe

nnif

er,T

each

er,3

1B

anke

rG

irl

(2),

Boy

(14

mon

ths)

19m

onth

s(f

orfir

stch

ild)

Day

care

(lic

ense

d,re

gula

ted

faci

lity)

Jess

ica,

Teac

her,

29Fa

ctor

yw

orke

rB

oy(2

),B

oy(1

1m

onth

s)17

mon

ths

(for

first

child

)M

othe

r-in

-law

Paul

a,M

anag

er,3

5M

anag

erG

irl

(1)

4m

onth

sH

omec

are

(lic

ense

d,pr

ivat

efa

cilit

y)R

ache

l,L

egal

assi

stan

t,30

Fact

ory

wor

ker

Boy

(6m

onth

s)1

mon

thM

othe

r-in

-law

Les

lie,T

echn

icia

n,31

Trad

esm

anB

oy(1

5m

onth

s)6

mon

ths

Hom

ecar

e(u

nlic

ense

d,pr

ivat

efa

cilit

y)Sa

ndra

,Cle

rica

las

sist

ant,

41M

anag

erB

oy(5

),B

oy(3

)2

mon

ths

Day

care

(lic

ense

d,re

gula

ted

faci

lity)

Chr

istin

e,L

awye

r,31

Doc

tor

Gir

l(8

mon

ths)

1m

onth

Nan

nyTr

acy,

Cle

rica

las

sist

ant,

33Tr

uck

driv

erG

irl

(2),

preg

nant

13m

onth

sH

omec

are

(unl

icen

sed,

priv

ate

faci

lity)

Bet

h,N

urse

,34

Self

-em

ploy

edB

oy(2

),B

oy(1

8m

onth

s)24

mon

ths

(for

first

child

)H

omec

are

(lic

ense

d,pr

ivat

efa

cilit

y)C

athy

,Cle

rica

las

sist

ant,

34Fa

ctor

yw

orke

rG

irl

(3)

23m

onth

sH

omec

are

(unl

icen

sed,

priv

ate

faci

lity)


means that regardless of leave duration, mothers face a very constrainedand stressful choice process.

The first aspect to choosing care is what we call the meta-choiceof what type of care provider would be best. We can understand thisoverall choice as influenced by culture, by “sociohistorically shapedpractical experience,” and we might expect that consumers would tryto make choices that fit their social and historical circumstances (Allen2002, 15). In the childcare domain in North America, there are fourgeneral categories from which to choose: licensed daycare facility/center;licensed or unlicensed home-based care; live-in or live-out nanny; and afamily member (e.g., grandparent, sibling). Our informants found thesemeta-choices to be straightforward and not difficult, and even thoughthey were aware of other options, our informants sought specific careproviders from within the choice set determined by the initial meta-choice. They spoke easily of how and why they determined their meta-choices, regardless of whether this meta-choice became their ultimatechoice. For example, Christine, a lawyer who was working long hours tobecome a partner at her firm, began her search for childcare by lookingat daycare facilities, without considering other options like an in-homenanny. Initially, her sense of the sort of woman who would use a nannydid not fit her sense of self as it relates to her own life experience:

I always pictured her as quite a self-absorbed, self-important person who did nothave the desire to take care of her own children. There’s a sense of ‘please dealwith this.’

For Christine, the concept of a drop-off and pick-up daycare wassimply a better fit. As Allen (2002) described, Christine initially felt thatdaycare was predestined for her because of social and historical factorssuch as her social class, her own experiences, and what sort of womanshe was: in short, her habitus.

These meta-choices are spoken about by consumers as intuition, or asa direct negative response to other options. Several informants describednot trusting homecare providers, while others described not trusting theinstitutional setting of a daycare center. When trust was invoked, it wasin a visceral, intuitive sense and reflected the “it just fits me” conceptof meta-choice. Although informants often described these with phraseslike, “I never even considered other options,” they sometimes gave cluesabout the socio-cultural forces at work. For example, Erin, a therapistwith two children, revealed that her own mother had been a stay-at-home mom, and that Erin herself carried some degree of guilt thatshe had chosen to return to work. Her meta-choice to use homecarecame very easily: “I always think that, to me, the in-home was always


a good choice.” Many informants had a similar affinity to homecare,while others had an affinity to daycare centers. Jennifer, a teacher withtwo small children, made her meta-choice for daycare centers based onher own mother’s experience with an informal homecare arrangementwhen Jennifer was a child. She explains her exclusion of homecare with:“It’s a silly reason. My mother had a really bad experience with us.”Although Jennifer did not recall the nature of her mother’s concerns withthe childcare provider, Jennifer’s childcare search process did not includehomecare providers. Cathy, a clerical worker with a young daughter, hadno specific reason for avoiding homecare: “I think it’s just a mental thing.I don’t know. I don’t trust home daycare.” Most mothers find this initialchoice to be relatively easy; one type of care is often experienced asa perfect fit, based on the individual’s sociohistoric circumstances andpractical experience. Unfortunately, as the choice process moves forward,constraints such as time and availability of supply come to the fore.

Cynthia, a 31-year-old physician who returned to work after arelatively short leave of four months, reports being very anxious as shetried to find a nanny for her son: “It’s been my number one source ofstress. No question. I under-estimated how hard it would be.” The needto choose a nanny under the time stress made the choice process verydifficult. Cynthia found that the end date of her maternity leave loomedover her and impeded her ability to choose a nanny. She had initiallyexpected to find a nanny who could work the same long days that shedoes herself, but quickly became frustrated when she realized that herexpectations could not be met:

I first posted our hours as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday to Friday. Which I then realizedis absolutely insane, as you can’t get somebody to do that . . . Nothing about it hasbeen easy. I guess just the lack of – there are no candidates. It’s been eye-openingand it’s been frustrating. Very frustrating. And very emotional because this is yourchild!

Many women described their stressful approaches to choosing poten-tial childcare arrangements as their maternity leaves drew to an end,including Paula, who acknowledges that the time constraints arose partlybecause she had not planned ahead:

[We] are very spontaneous people, so there isn’t a lot of planning to anything wedo . . . We just thought, this is our fault, we didn’t plan, we didn’t know it takeseight months to get childcare . . . But it turned out that it is a really difficult thingto get childcare.

Paula felt acute stress when she realized that daycare facilities hadwaiting lists that were too long to accommodate her return-to-work dateat the end of her maternity leave.


In many cases, stress stemmed from a lack of understanding of how thesystem works and being unprepared for the high cost of childcare. Ourinformants reported feelings of anxiety and stress as they became awareof the waiting lists (often many months long) and learned how to researchvarious options, and they found it challenging to make choices aboutchildcare under this stress. Those who experienced the most stress werethose who took shorter maternity leaves and those who admittedly didnot begin the choice process soon enough. Furthermore, our informantswere concerned that the time pressure would push them to make choicesthat they would ultimately find unsatisfactory.

Because stress complicates consumption, there is an unansweredquestion regarding the consequences for consumers of this stressfulchoice. Many informants were simply unable to defer choosing. As theirmaternity leaves drew to a close, they had to choose something in orderto keep their jobs. Jennifer had put her name on waiting lists at tendaycare centers, but none had openings as her maternity leave ended.Because deferral was not an option, she began to consider alternativesshe had previously found distasteful:

I found out one week before I went back to work that I got in to this spot. [Beforethat,] I had nothing. I had absolutely nothing. I was panicked . . . was going to starthaving to call around and really, really look at homecare.

As our informants struggled to establish consideration sets understress, the choice process became further complicated by the fact thatmany of their short-listed alternatives were simply not available. As timemoved toward a deadline, the choice was increasingly taken away fromthese women by the situation. For example, Beth expresses the frustrationof having her choices externally determined. She had been determinedto use a daycare center, but quickly came to realize that she would notbe able to have her choice of daycares:

Getting an infant spot is difficult. There aren’t enough centers that will take a childthat’s 12 months. A lot of them are 16–18 months . . . And if you wait until yourchild is born [to get on a waiting list] you’re probably already thirty down the listbecause people have called nine months before. There are no options there.

Christine encountered a similar situation in her search for childcare.She and her husband required longer hours for care than standardfacilities would offer, and she learned that there was only one daycarein the area that offered longer hours: “We didn’t have other options fordaycares that would work. That’s the only daycare in the whole city thatwould work for us.”


Paula, in her search for a home-based daycare, tried to be discrimi-nating in the beginning as well, but found it difficult because she wantedto return to work after six months:

We went through a process of months of being picky. We were trying to be veryspecific and picky about our care. But there were so many waiting lists that wegot really frustrated . . . We just weren’t finding any compromise with schedules orpricing or anything that would allow us to make a decision . . . We were screwedand we didn’t prepare . . .

Ultimately, a part-time space became available in a home care locatedan hour from Paula’s home. She and her husband juggled working fromhome and long commutes to make use of this provider because it wasthe only one that became available. Intuitively, we would expect thatoutcomes of a stressful, forced choice situation would be less satisfactorythan those in a non-forced situation; the outcome should be preferredif the chooser has the option to defer if she does not find a suitablealternative. In the next section, we explore the outcomes of these complexchoice situations.

The Choice Outcome: Reframing the Situation

In light of prior research in other choice contexts, we expected, apriori, that there would be unfavorable consequences associated withconsumption outcomes that are not indicative of preference. That is, ifthe consumer does not exercise control by choosing the most preferredoutcome from a list of alternatives, we would expect her to be unsatisfiedwith the outcome. However, we find that this lack of a free choicedoes not play out quite as one would expect from reading extant choiceliterature.

The way our informants embraced the consumption outcome iscounterintuitive, given that the choice process did not follow that ofa typical consumer choice and the outcome itself was not reflective ofpreference. As our informants began to actually consume the outcome,they were able to evaluate their overall satisfaction with the childcare,and most concluded that they were pleased with the care. There remains,however, some degree of tension pertaining to what they consider asub-optimal choice process . That is, the mothers were happy with theoutcome, but unhappy with the process of arriving at the outcome. Thisleads them to a reframing of the choice process that is consistent withbalance theory (Heider 1946, 1958). The choice process—characterizedby constraints and lack of availability—and the childcare outcomeconstitute a unit relation that is in an unbalanced state: mothers had


negative feelings toward the choice process and positive feelings towardthe childcare outcome. This unbalanced state is resolved by engaging in acognitive reorganization, whereby the mothers frame the choice processas a more typical (positive) process, which allows them to arrive at achildcare outcome that is also positive. This reflects an ability to cometo peace with a consumption situation they had little control over in ahighly consequential context.

Most informants raved about their childcare, yet this contrasted greatlywith the ways they spoke of the choice process. Jennifer, who spokeat length of her frustrations in acquiring childcare, also spoke at lengthof her satisfaction with the one daycare center that became available:“I could not have asked for a better care facility . . . It’s unbelievable. It’smore than what I ever expected.” Paula is equally pleased with the singlehomecare provider that was available when she returned to work, and shegushes about how the care provider had surpassed all her expectations:“She’s been more than just care for us.” Beth had initially wanted to usea daycare center, but had to resort to a homecare provider when none ofthe daycare centers had openings on their waiting lists. While she notes,“I think it would be much different if there were just always spotsavailable” in the daycare centers, she was delighted with the homecareprovider: “She has a fantastic program,” and Beth “couldn’t evenimagine” not returning to the same provider after her second maternityleave. Similarly, Rachel had engaged in a long search process to avoidusing her mother-in-law as a childcare provider. However, Rachel laterexpresses satisfaction with the outcome: “She runs a fantastic daycare,”and “I don’t think I could get any better in another home daycare.”However, our mothers did not adapt to the consumption if the care itselfwas unsatisfactory: two mothers who believed their initial care providerwas not good enough coped with their situations until they could find anew provider. If the care was satisfactory they were able to cognitivelyadjust to the idea that they did not actively choose the outcome.

As our informants began the choice process they constructed pref-erences among their childcare options, and these were often clearlyarticulated. Some women were able to enact those preferences, but manyothers were not able to; many informants had to expand their initialchoice set well beyond their initial preferences. However, what is fas-cinating is that all informants still discuss this issue as a choice, whichis entirely consistent with the North American cultural preoccupationwith choosing and autonomy (Markus and Schwartz 2010). For example,Paula describes the frantic and stressful process by which she came tofind childcare after she moved to a new city. A homecare provider had


only offered a part-time spot for their daughter, and the location washugely inconvenient for Paula and her husband to incorporate into theirdaily commutes. Consequently, Paula’s choice process was complex anddid not resemble a conventional consumer choice. However, as Pauladiscusses her use of the childcare, she clearly describes it in languagethat indicates perceived choice and control: “We decided on three days [aweek] because we had to. That’s all she had” (emphasis added). Leslie,who sent her son to an informal homecare, also frames her consump-tion outcome as a choice, despite the fact that she had initially tried toavoid homecare options: “You just have no options. That’s why I chosethis one, because, you know, it was going to work for us” (emphasisadded). The informants’ tendencies to frame the outcome as a choicewas surprising, given their descriptions of the highly constrained choiceprocess during earlier parts of the interviews. However, reframing thechoice this way allows the choice process to become more positive andmore in balance with the positive experience of consuming the choice,and hence aids mothers in their adaptation to the outcome and ongoingconsumption of the service.

At this point, we need to clearly distinguish this adaptation fromcoping. Two coping strategies in the extant literature that appear to berelevant for consumers of childcare include accommodation and positivethinking, but neither explains the behavior we see here. Accommodationis a strategy that involves confrontation and behavioral changes (e.g.,new or modified routines) to conform to a new consumption situation(Mick and Fournier 1998). This form of coping does not account for ourinformants’ distinct satisfaction with their childcare outcomes becauseaccommodation involves the individual being conscious that she doesnot actually like the possession or the emotional effects of consumingit. Another coping strategy, positive thinking , is a form of active copingthat entails conscious reconstruction of the stressor (Duhachek 2005). Theconsumer consciously focuses on the positive aspects of the stressor andlooks at the bright side of things, thus becoming less adversely affected byit. This coping strategy does not account for our informants’ experienceseither, because our data contained no evidence of informants engaging ina conscious process of restructuring an unsatisfactory childcare outcomeinto a satisfactory one.

Given consumers’ preference for making their own choices and theirpropensity to be less satisfied with externally determined outcomes(Botti and Iyengar 2006), it seems intuitive that mothers making choicesabout childcare would have negative reactions to outcomes that aredetermined solely by availability of a service provider, and we would


expect informants’ narratives to involve regret and disappointment.Instead, we found that our informants adapted well to their outcomesin spite of the fact that these outcomes did not reflect true preferenceand the choice process was unpleasant. Thus, it appears that not everyoutcome in a consumption context with constraints on the choice processrequires coping; consumers are actually capable of embracing outcomesin this context, and we suggest that this indicates an ability to adaptto the outcomes of a sub-optimal choice process. This is consistentwith prior research showing that individuals who seek a good-enoughoutcome rather than an optimal outcome are generally more satisfiedwith their choices although they are less satisfied with the choice process(Iyengar, Wells, and Schwartz 2006). Adaptability can play an importantand functional role in subjective well-being by allowing individuals tothrive under adverse personal circumstances (Heidrich and Ryff 1993;Seery et al. 2010). Our cultural conceptions of well-being are linkedto freedom of choice; choice plays an integral role in our lives dueto our cultural preoccupation with autonomy and individual agency(Bellah et al. 2008). Our informants, however, were able to adapt totheir ongoing consumption situations in such a way that their happinessand overall stress levels were greatly improved relative to the choiceprocess. Christine articulates this most concisely as she talked abouther nanny: “She is probably the key reason why going back to work hasbeen palatable, because I’m not worried about [daughter] . . . It’s like I’vebeen able to be duplicated!” These sentiments contrast starkly with theearlier portions of the interview, where Christine stated a clear aversion tonannies, and therefore it appears that her overall well-being has improvedin spite of the negativity of the choice process.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In this study, we investigated the complexities of a highly consequen-tial and highly constrained consumption context from the perspective ofthe consumers immersed in the choice and its ongoing consumption. Ourinformants experienced difficult choices, and the consumption outcomeswere largely determined by external circumstances rather than by theirown preferences. Interestingly, we found that instead of merely copingwith outcomes, our informants reframed the choice and its outcomes insuch a way that their well-being was improved. This finding is in linewith recent arguments by Markus and Schwartz (2010), who suggest thatwell-being can be achieved by adapting to circumstances where choiceis not possible.


On the basis of an understanding of how consumers make choicesand their preference for choosing, we expected that our informantswould be displeased because they did not actually select the outcomefrom among the alternatives; we expected that consumers would employcoping strategies to allow them to mitigate the stress and negativeemotion associated with a consumption outcome not reflective of theirpreferences. Interestingly, however, we find that consumers can actuallybe very happy with the outcomes. This is counterintuitive, because ourinformants experienced significant levels of stress during the choiceprocess. We suggest that this satisfaction is not a form of coping. Rather,it reflects an individual’s ability to adapt to a sub-optimal consumptionprocess , wherein the individual was ultimately not able to exercisecontrol over the consumption outcome. In this expression of consumeradaptability, the individual modifies herself to the outcome in such away that overall subjective well-being is enhanced; our informants werecapable of accommodating the outcome and adapting to the outcome onan emotional and psychological level in a way that contributed to theiroverall happiness. Thus, we demonstrate that adapting is very differentfrom coping, and is linked to resilience and overall well-being.

The ability of these mothers to adapt to their childcare outcomesis remarkable, once we consider that most entered the choice processbelieving they would be able to choose a childcare provider in the sameway that they made other major household decisions. Our informantsexperienced choice processes that were stressful, frustrating and highlyconstrained. They reported feeling naïve and unprepared for the process,and wished there was more community support available for motherschoosing childcare. Once they engaged in ongoing consumption, how-ever, most informants were very satisfied with their childcare providers.If our informants were merely coping with their childcare outcomes ortheir frustrations with their lack of true choice, they would have contin-ued to pursue their initial preferences and switched childcare providers atthe first opportunity. While we do find evidence of coping by some moth-ers, it is only in situations where the outcome itself was unacceptable,and these mothers sought new childcare providers. The highly involvednature of the context prohibits mere coping, especially over the longterm, and the mothers in our study are unwilling to merely cope with theoutcome of having their children in poor-quality childcare.

In comparing our findings with prior research on constrained choiceand consumer satisfaction, it is surprising that our informants are satisfiedwith their choice outcomes. However, it is consistent with research onsmall choice sets and control over choices, which has revealed that


individuals can be satisfied with choices made from small choice sets,or with externally determined outcomes (Botti, Orfali, and Iyengar 2009;Iyengar and Lepper 2000). We must note that our informants were savvyin their information search throughout the choice process; most usedextensive word of mouth, Internet resources and cold-calls on daycares.Thus, although the choice was constrained, it did not appear to be a lackof knowledge about other options.

Recent research has suggested that the study of consumers has muchto gain from a focus on mothers and motherhood as integral aspects ofconsumer culture (Cook 2008; The VOICE Group 2010a, 2010b), and ourresearch has some important implications for understanding how mothersmake important consumption choices for their families. A woman’srole in the household becomes particularly important during times offamily transition (e.g., the end of a maternity leave), and consumptionenactments can both facilitate and complicate her ability to create familyand to shape her identity (Hogg, Curasi, and Maclaran 2004; The VOICEGroup 2010a; Thomsen and Sørensen 2006). This work sheds light onthese processes. Further, we build on more recent work exploring theways that mothers incorporate the marketplace into the performanceof motherhood to illuminate a context where consumption does notnecessarily facilitate the transition from one life stage (stay-at-homemother) to another (working mother) (Epp and Velagaleti 2013; Huffand Cotte 2013). In many of our informants’ narratives, there is a strongsense that full-time motherhood is the socio-cultural ideal, and mothersshould find their time at home rewarding, fulfilling and productive. Ourinformants experienced their maternity leaves in relation to this ideal,and many were troubled by their realization that full-time motherhood,for them, was not how it should have been. Further, our informantsexperienced maternity leave in relation to their careers, which formedthe backbone of personal conceptions of success and productivity. Theresult was that these mothers needed childcare to accommodate theirpersonal conceptions of rewarding, productive motherhood.

The clash between expectations and experience for new mothers inmany ways reflects a conflict surrounding the role of mother itself. Notsurprisingly, all our informants described genuine feelings of love anddevotion to their children, and a desire to do what is best for them.However, while there were differences across women in their experiencesas full-time mothers on maternity leave—many enjoyed their time, andsome decidedly did not enjoy their time—all the women noted that theyfelt they should have enjoyed their time at home more than they did. Thisreflects a social ideal carried in the cultural norm for mothering, where


the role of the selfless mother is romanticized and women are expected toderive fulfillment from providing full-time care to their children (Collins2009; Schor 1992).

Thus, in addition to offering an empirical account of pervasivediscomfort in ongoing, routine consumption, this research illuminatesa deeper phenomenon: childcare is a marketplace solution that wascreated to liberate women but it continues to constrain them. Thewomen’s liberation movement argued that reliable institutional childcarewas necessary for women to engage in the workforce and—broadlyspeaking—urged women to pursue self-fulfillment through work andstudy rather than through intensive motherhood (Clarke-Stewart 1993).Women were encouraged to find paid employment that would foster somedegree of financial self-sufficiency or provide intrinsic rewards. Childcareenables maternal employment, including the employment of women whoprovide childcare (Collins 2009). However, Western societies continueto view marketplace intrusions into the sacred space of the familyas a form of moral corruption (Zelizer 2005). Thus, non-maternalchildcare continues to be problematic for the women it was intended toliberate:

When the young activists of the “1960s” and “1970s” had imagined what lifewould be like for the liberated woman . . . They had expected that men wouldautomatically do their share of household chores. And they believed the governmentwould start providing early child care the same way it provided public education.They had not considered the possibly that society might remain pretty much thesame as always, and simply open the door for women to join the race for successwhile taking care of their private lives as best they could. (Collins 2009, 304)

From a public policy angle, our Canadian context lets us vividlydemonstrate an incredibly constrained choice set. In this we echo the callsof childcare workers, advocates and Canadian parents: there is simply notenough viable daycare capacity in certain parts of Canada. Policy optionsthat encourage and create more childcare options and access would bewelcomed by many parents. This could include policy and tax incentivesthat make it more attractive for businesses to include on-site daycarecenters, and the creation of more government-subsidized spots for lowerincome groups. Currently, most daycare centers operate with a certainratio of fully paying consumers and subsidized consumers. However,there are caps on how many subsidized spots are available due to limitedgovernment funding. In addition, many areas may benefit from a publicdaycare option that provides low-cost infant and toddler care financed bygeneral tax revenues, functioning much as the current elementary schoolsystem.


There are also regulatory issues concerning the timing of daycarecenter operations. Government regulations limit the number of hoursa child can spend in commercial care, and typically these hours arefairly rigid (e.g., 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). The current economic recession meansmore North Americans are taking on more than one job, or shift work ifnecessary, to keep the family financially afloat. This creates a new needfor non-traditional commercial childcare, such as 24-hour daycare centers(Tavernise 2012). This creates a wider problem in a society that demandsextended business hours and 24-hour shopping, because it necessarilycreates demand for non-traditional childcare hours for the employeeswho work these non-traditional hours.

One limitation of our work is our focus on women primarily in themiddle socio-economic classes. It is of course likely that class differenceswill play a role in how mothers respond to their childcare serviceproviders. In our study, we find that the highly consequential natureof the choice prohibited coping with a bad outcome; mothers who hadthe material resources to change their situation did so. Future researchcould expand our investigation. We suspect that a study of mothers withlower levels of social and economic resources could demonstrate differentconsequences of poor consumption outcomes (Weber 2011). Motherswith fewer resources at their disposal may have to adapt and cope withnegative consequences differently (Stephens et al. 2009).

Our research goal was to understand consumption in this uniquecontext and to merge theoretical perspectives on choice, consumption,and well-being in an attempt to unpack the complexities that characterizemothers’ use of childcare. While some of the complex aspects weuncovered do not easily lend themselves to a policy-driven solution,some certainly do. More regulated and licensed access, and more flexibleregulations as to timing, could minimize negative experiences in thechoice process. As more women struggle to maintain a professional rolein addition to a mother role, policies that make the choice process lessnegative will mitigate the stresses mothers feel in choosing daycare,and the extent to which they need to adapt to an ongoing, importantconsumption service.

APPENDIX 1

Discussion Guide for In-Depth Interviews

• Introduction, outline broad purpose of research• Start out with basic biographic questions, including work experience,

education, etc.


• Begin with “grand tour” style questions about decision

Example: Can you tell me your story about choosing childcarefor son/daughter?

• Other questions on the topic will include:

Who else was involved in the decision? How did he/she/theyparticipate?What did you think about or consider when you were deciding?What was the easiest part of your decision?What was the most difficult aspect of your decision?Who else did you consult/where did you search for information?

• Follow-on questions will focus on emotions and cognitions.

Examples: How did you feel about . . . .?What do you think about . . . .?

• Main Prompts throughout the interview:

Can you tell me more about that?Can you tell me how that works?Can you tell me a story about the last time you felt like that?Can you explain that another way?Can you tell me more about what that experience was like?

REFERENCES

Allen, Douglas E. 2002. Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice as Sociohistorically ShapedPractical Experience: The Fits-Like-a-Glove (Flag) Framework. Journal of Consumer Research ,28 (March): 515–532.

Baines, Donna. 2009. Reshaping Gender and the Labour Force: A Comparison of Social andIndustrial Policy Impacts in the Australian and Canadian Community Sectors. In WhoseFlexibility? Families, Firms, Governments and Conflicting Agendas . University of Guelph:Centre for Families, Work & Well-Being.

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 2008.Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Berry, John W. and David L. Sam. 1997. Acculturation and Adaptation. In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology , edited by John W. Berry, Marshall H. Segall, and Cigdem Kagitcibasi.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bezanson, Kate. 2009. Gender, Social Reproduction and Work-Life Balance. In Whose Flexibility?Families, Firms, Governments and Conflicting Agendas . University of Guelph: Centre forFamilies, Work & Well-Being.

Botti, Simona and Sheena S. Iyengar. 2004. The Psychological Pleasure and Pain of Choosing: WhenPeople Prefer Choosing at the Cost of Subsequent Outcome Satisfaction. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology , 87 (3): 312–326.

. 2006. The Dark Side of Choice: When Choice Impairs Social Welfare. Journal of PublicPolicy & Marketing , 25 (1): 24–38.


Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill. 2006. When Choosing Is Not Deciding: The Effect of PerceivedResponsibility on Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research , 33 (September): 211–219.

Botti, Simona, Kristina Orfali, and Sheena S. Iyengar. 2009. Tragic Choices: Autonomy andEmotional Responses to Medical Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research , 36 (October):337–352.

Clarke-Stewart, Alison. 1993. Daycare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Clarke-Stewart, Alison and Virginia D. Allhusen. 2005. What We Know About Childcare. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Collins, Gail. 2009. When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from

1960 to the Present . New York: Little, Brown and Company.Cook, Daniel Thomas. 2008. The Missing Child in Consumption Theory. Journal of Consumer

Culture, 8 (2): 219–243.Dhar, Ravi. 1997. Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option. Journal of Consumer Research ,

24 (September): 215–231.Duhachek, Adam. 2005. Coping: A Multidimensional, Hierarchical Framework of Responses to

Stressful Consumption Episodes. Journal of Consumer Research , 32 (June): 41–53.Edland, Anne and Ola Svenson. 1993. Judgment and Decision Making under Time Pressure: Studies

and Findings. In Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making , edited byOla Svenson and John A. Maule. New York: Plenum Press.

Epp, Amber M. and Sunaina R. Velagaleti. 2013. Outsourcing Motherhood: Managing Assemblagesof Care. In Advances in Consumer Research , edited by Zeynep Gurhan-Canli, Cele Otnes, andJuliet Rui Zhu, vol. 40. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Fischer, Eileen and Stephen J. Arnold. 1990. More than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles andChristmas Gift Shopping. Journal of Consumer Research , 17 (December): 333–345.

Fredriksen-Goldsen, Karen I. and Andrew E. Scharlach. 2001. Families and Work . New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Friedan, Betty. 1997. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Giddens, Anthony. 1993. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love, and Eroticism in Modern

Societies . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Heider, Fritz. 1946. Attitudes and Cognitive Organization. Psychological Review , 51: 358–374.

. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . New York: Wiley.Heidrich, Susan M. and Carol D. Ryff. 1993. The Role of Social Comparisons Processes in the

Psychological Adaptation of Elderly Adults. Journal of Gerontology , 48 (3): 127–136.Henly, Julia R. and Sandra Lyons. 2000. The Negotiation of Child Care and Employment Demands

among Low-Income Parents. Journal of Social Issues , 56 (4): 683–706.Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1989. The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.Hochschild, Arlie. 2012. The Outsourced Self. New York: Metropolitan Books.Hogg, Margaret K., Carolyn Folkman Curasi, and Pauline Maclaran. 2004. The (Re-) Configuration

of Production and Consumption in Empty Nest Households/Families. Consumption, Markets andCulture, 7 (3): 239–259.

Huff, Aimee D. and June Cotte. 2013. Using the Marketplace to Reconceptualize Motherhood. InAdvances in Consumer Research , edited by Zeynep Gurhan-Canli, Cele Otnes, and Juliet RuiZhu, vol. 40. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper. 2000. When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire TooMuch of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (6): 995–1006.

Iyengar, Sheena S., Rachael E. Wells, and Barry Schwartz. 2006. Doing Better but Feeling Worse:Looking for the “Best” Job Undermines Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17 (2): 143–150.

Leach, Penelope. 2009. Child Care Today . New York: Random House.Luce, Mary Frances. 1998. Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer

Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research , 24 (March): 409–433.Luce, Mary Frances, James R. Bettman, and John W. Payne. 2001. Emotional Decisions: Tradeoff

Difficulty and Coping in Consumer Choice. In Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research ,edited by Deborah Roedder John. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


. 2003. Minimizing Negative Emotion as a Decision Goal: Investigating Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty. In The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives,Goals, and Desires , edited by S. Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick and Cynthia Huffman, NewYork: Routledge.

Lundgren, Lena M., Jennifer Fleischer-Cooperman, Robert Schneider, and Therese Fitzgerald. 2001.Work, Family, and Gender in Medicine: How Do Dual-Earners Decide Who Should Work Less?In Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home, edited by Rosanna Hertz andNancy L. Marshall. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Markus, Hazel Rose and Barry Schwartz. 2010. Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well-Being?Journal of Consumer Research , 37 (August): 344–355.

Maule, John A., G. Robert, J. Hockey, and L. Bdzola. 2000. Effects of Time-pressure on Decision-Making under Uncertainty: Changes in Affective State and Information Processing Strategy.Acta Psychologica , 104: 283–301.

McCracken, Grant. 1988. The Long Interview . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Mick, David Glen and Susan Fournier. 1998. Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance,

Emotions, and Coping Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research , 25 (September): 123–143.Mittelstaedt, John D., Charles R. Duke, and Robert A. Mittelstaedt. 2009. Health Care Choices in

the United States and the Constrained Consmer: A Marketing Systems Perspective on Accessand Assortment in Health Care. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing , 28 (1): 95–101.

Moschis, George P. 2007. Stress and Consumer Behavior. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 35: 430–444.

Pavia, Teresa M. and Marlys J. Mason. 2004. The Reflexive Relationship between ConsumerBehavior and Adaptive Coping. Journal of Consumer Research , 31 (September): 441–454.

Payne, John W. and James R. Bettman. 2004. Walking with the Scarecrow: The Information-Processing Approach to Decision Research. In Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and DecisionMaking , edited by Derek J. Koehler and Nigel Harvey. Maldern, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker . NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Pieters, Rik and Marcel Zeelenberg. 2005. On Bad Decisions and Deciding Badly: When Intention-Behavior Inconsistency Is Regrettable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes ,97 (1): 18–30.

Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Michel T. Pham, and Kim P. Corfman. 2006. Informational Propertiesof Anxiety and Sadness, and Displaced Coping. Journal of Consumer Research , 32 (March):596–601.

Richardson, Glenn E. 2002. The Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency. Journal of ClinicalPsychology , 58 (3): 307–321.

Scarr, Sandra. 1998. American Child Care Today. American Psychologist , 53 (2): 95–108.Schor, Juliet B. 1992. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York:

Basic Books.Searle, Wendy and Colleen Ward. 1990. The Prediction of Psychological and Sociocultural

Adjustment During Cross-Cultural Transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations ,14 (4): 449–464.

Seery, Mark D., Alison E. Holman, and Roxane Cohen Silver. 2010. Whatever Does Not Kill Us:Cumulative Lifetime Adversity, Vulnerability, and Resilience. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology , 99 (6): 1025–1041.

Spiggle, Susan. 1994. Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research. Journalof Consumer Research , 21 (December): 491–503.

Stephens, Nicole M., MarYam G. Hamedani, Hazel Rose Markus, Hilary B. Bergsieker, and LiyamEloul. 2009. Why Did They ‘Choose’ to Stay? Perspectives of Hurricane Katrina Observers andSurvivors. Psychological Science, 20 (7): 878–886.

Tavernise, Sabrina. 2012. Day Care Centers Adapt to Round-the-Clock Demand. The New YorkTimes , January 15, 2012.


The VOICE Group. 2010a. Buying into Motherhood? Problematic Consumption and Ambivalencein Transitional Phases. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 13 (4): 373–397.

. 2010b. Motherhood, Marketization, and Consumer Vulnerability. Journal of Macromarket-ing , 30 (4): 384–397.

Thompson, Craig J. 1996. Caring Consumers: Gendered Consumption Meanings and the JugglingLifestyle. Journal of Consumer Research , 22 (March): 388–407.

Thompson, Craig J., William B. Locander, and Howard R. Pollio. 1990. The Lived Meaning ofFree Choice: An Existential-Phenomenological Description of Everyday Consumer Experiencesof Contemporary Married Women. Journal of Consumer Research , 17 (December): 346–361.

Thompson, Craig J., Howard R. Pollio, and William B. Locander. 1994. The Spoken and theUnspoken: A Hermeneutic Approach to Understanding the Cultural Viewpoints That UnderlieConsumers’ Expressed Meanings. Journal of Consumer Research , 21 (December): 432–452.

Thomsen, Thyra Uth and Elin Brandi Sørensen. 2006. The First Four-Wheeled Status Symbol: PramConsumption as a Vehicle for the Construction of Motherhood Identity. Journal of MarketingManagement , 22: 907–927.

Vincent, Carol and Stephen J. Ball. 2001. A Market in Love? Choosing Pre-School Childcare. BritishEducational Research Journal , 27 (5): 633–651.

. 2006. Childcare, Choice and Class Practices. New York: Routledge.Weber, Roberta. 2011. Understanding Parents’ Child Care Decision-Making: A Foundation for Child

Care Policy Making. In OPRE Research-to-Policy, Research-to-Practice Brief OPRE 2011–12 .Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation: Administration for Children andFamilies, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Yi, Sunghwan and Hans Baumgartner. 2004. Coping with Negative Emotions in Purchase-RelatedSituations. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 14 (3): 303–317.

Zeelenberg, Marcel, Wilco W. van Dijk, Antony S.R. Manstead, and Joop van der Pligt. 2000. OnBad Decisions and Disconfirmed Expectancies: The Psychology of Regret and Disappointment.Cognition and Emotion , 14 (4): 521–541.

Zelizer, Vivianna. 2005. The Purchase of Intimacy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

complexities of consumption: the case of childcare

Documents