Essays

"My Father's Going to Kill You"

Are Baby Simulators Effective in Preventing Underage Pregnancy? 

To enlighten teenage attitudes on parenthood, many high schools provide girls with baby simulators. An effective educative tool, they are efficient in dispelling myths and false ideas many adolescents share in regards to motherhood. On the surface, baby simulators are intended to dissuade girls from considering motherhood. In fact, they are used to inform teenage girls of the hardships, disadvantages and changes that result from bearing children – particularly when they are not intended (Roberts, 2004).

In truth baby simulators are used to educate young women about the hardship of mothering in order to prepare them for motherhood and discourage them from having unprotected sex, rather than discourage them from motherhood completely. They mimic real-life infants, requiring frequent attention, handling, feeding and burping (Roberts, 2004).

With electronic chips recording how the "infant" is treated (Tingle, 2002), participants are marked for their performance, instilling a sense of maternal care (Barnett, Jerrold & Hurst, 2004). However, in preventing teenage pregnancy, there is small supportive evidence for baby simulators (Herrmann, Waterhouse & Chiquoine, 2011). Their value as a form of education and awareness building, on the other hand, is clear.

In one study (Barnett, Jerrold & Hurst, 2004), a greater percentage of participants agreed that: 1) Simulators broadened their understanding of what motherhood would be like (73%). 2) They were dissuaded from having babies in their teenage years (76%). 3) Caring for the simulator was neither easy nor fun (70%). 4) They would postpone sexual intercourse (65%).

As multiple studies demonstrate, the effectiveness of simulators in changing attitudes to the point of influencing actual choices is more debatable. Supportive evidence is largely inconclusive, prone to subjectivity and insufficient testing (Herrman, Waterhouse & Chiquoine, 2011) and are overly reliant on anecdotal evidence (Space & Wood, 1998).

However, to question simulator efficacy in changing attitudes is too broad a question, failing to grasp the greater problem. Teenage pregnancy is often the consequence of cultural circumstances, which are subjective and variable in nature (Burton, 2012). In defence of simulators, their principal objective – education, rather than prevention – must be acknowledged (Roberts, 2004). To judge their effectiveness in directly influencing teenagers to reconsider early parenthood or sexual intercourse without contraception is overly simplistic.

Failing to address a greater concern, we risk abandoning a program that is still worthwhile. Educational value is one thing. Permanent ability to change not only attitudes but behaviour is another. This binary outcome can only be achieved with programs taking two important areas into consideration: environmental surroundings (geographical, social and familial) and behavioural tendencies (subject to race, religion, personality and other factors).

Simulators will be most effective as the educative component of a broader-ranging intervention. Some studies adopt a three-part strategy: using simulators for experience-based education, having girls meet and observe real-life teenage mothers, then concluding with counsellor sessions, reinforcing the facts learned through the program, as well as helping participants personally understand their responsibilities (Space & Wood, 1998). Studies have approached these areas with insignificant effect. There is also disagreement between taking the personalised approach with high-risk individuals and addressing the issue at a broader scale.

Regarding environmental influence, wide-ranging studies are considered more suitable (Zhou, Puradiredja & Abel, 2016). Patterns are more discernible when they address the larger picture. For example, it is known that since the 1950s, in developed countries, teenage pregnancies have declined. Birth rates have increased, however, in low-wage and suburban areas. Also it has been observed that simulator programs have a stronger influence on rural students than those in densely populated cities (Herrman et al, 2011). These findings on their own present little exploration into what alternative causations may exist: religious values, average income and employment, availability of services, crime rate, healthcare and educational facilities (McCall, Bhattacharya, Okpo & Macfarlane, 2015).