In literature there are many models which can be used to understand decision- making procedures. Significant among them are the consumer choice model, the heuristics and biases model, and the social network model. These models can be applied to a wide array of situations in which human beings make choices or decisions, including parental choices of childcare settings.
Consumer Choice Model
. Chaudry, Henly and Meyers (2010) reviewed all the three models (in addition to a fourth, of their own), and explained how they can be applied to explain childcare decisions. According to the consumer choice model, consumers make decisions based on the theory of constrained optimization; that is, by weighing the trade-offs between alternatives relative to their preferences. The benefits of using this model for understanding the decision-making process lies in the fact that it is well structured, easily analysed, empirically testable, and has a predictive capacity. Consumer choice models are especially useful in explaining and predicting changes in the type of care that families choose in light of cost-benefitissues. For example, in predicting that higher-income families make greater use of a more expensive, formal centre-based care, and put greater emphasis on the quality of care, whereas lower-income families put a premium on utilitarian values, such as time, and location. Similarly, it would predict that a decrease in day-care prices, such as childcare subsidies, results in great enrollment by low-income families in centre- based care.
Accordingly, the consumer choice model is likely the most prevalent framework used by researchers in order to understand parental choices in this area. For instance, Peyton et al., (2001) examined the various factors that influence parental decisions when choosing a childcare setting – whether it is home, extended family, or child centre care – as well as subsequent maternal satisfaction with the care received. The authors categorized reasons for choosing care settings under the categories of quality, practicality, and preference for a specific type of arrangement. Findings revealed significant influence of family income in choosing a childcare option, with higher-income families being more inclined to choose care based upon quality, whereas mothers in high stress situations (such as low-income households) tend to base their choices on pragmatic factors. While not explicitly using a consumer choice model, the types of questions posed by the authors to mothers suggest that they naturally gravitated to this model. For instance, questions asked concerning the perceived importance of such factors as quality of care providers, quality of environment/equipment, quality of program, fees, hours, location, availability, preference for a relative to provide care, preference for a home environment, and preference for a centre environment: all of which can be located on cost-benefit axis. Furthermore, even though they do raise the issue of the influence of maternal sensitivity and parenting stress on childcare choices, for the most part, they consider these factors negligible in parents’ preference for one aspect of childcare over another (such as choosing quality care over pragmatic factors). Thus, they concluded,
overall, the present study adds to the existing literature on child care choices by examining conditions that are related to mothers’ child care decisions. The results point to the need to enhance mothers’ abilities to be knowledgeable consumers of child care (p. 206).
Heuristics and Biases Model.
Albeit the predominance of the consumer choice model in understanding parental childcare choices, other studies have come to recognize the centrality of non-rational models by which people often make significant life choices. According to Haselton, Nettle, and Andrews (2005), human beings mediate their perception of the world through a set of socially constructed images. The process follows here innate, subconscious mechanisms for perceiving, and interpreting reality– mechanisms that do not necessarily follow logical rules, such as relied upon by the consumer choice models. These ‘cognitive biases’ often express themselves through heuristic choices. Pescosolido (1992) lays out the principles by which people make decisions based upon non-rational factors, and the way in which social interactions and social networks provide the means through which individuals learn about and are able to deal with challenges in life. According to him, it is the framework of social interaction, rather than individual action that results in choices and decisions that are intertwined in social life, and carry their own inner rationality to instigate social action.Chaudry et al. (2010) suggested the heuristic framework as a way to account for biases and non-rational factors in the parental decision making processes about childcare. The framework contributes to understanding the role of subjective interpretation in making determining decisions, and cognitive biases that include the predisposition to favour familiar factors or the influence of prior knowledge of a particular class or category to aid in decision making. The authors stated that, at least as of the publication of their whitepaper in 2010: "there has been no formal application of a heuristics and biases framework within the child care decision making literature, either at a conceptual level or empirically" (p.10).
Social Network Model.
A third way of understanding parental choices is through the social network framework, defined by Chaudry et al. (2010) as a “framework of decision making [that] considers how individual decisions are shaped by social interactions and the resources embedded within them" (p. 17). The authors also examined four areas in which this approach influences childcare choices: (1) social networks as a source of information; (2) social networks as a system of support (both in terms of decision making, and actual childcare, thus influencing other choices); (3) Social networks as sources of social status and social credentialsfor their members; (4) the pressure social networks exert on their members, and the values and behaviour that such networks favour.
Duncan and Irwin (2004) stated that household economic decisions are not always made on standard, individualized rational factors. Rather, studies of working mothers have determined that values and the decisions based upon them are often socially patterned according to class and ethnicity. Rather, "Cost-benefit type economic questions are not separable from these social and moral decisions” (p.392). These types of choices are reflected in the values that working class mothers look for first in childcare, such as emotional, development or group issues. This is as opposed to middle-class mothers, who based childcare choices in terms of educational and social development. The authors concluded that mothers evaluate the suitability of childcare options on factors other than mere affordability and availability. Top- down, cost-benefit theories do not take into account the relational and socially moral negotiated frameworks in which child-rearing decisions are made.
Meyers and Jordan (2006) reviewed and compared literature on both individual consumption choices and models of socially constructed or situated patterns of action, and concluded that both approaches are present in parental decision-making. When viewed from the perspective of consumer choice models, childcare decisions can be seen as a matter of labour supply and consumption choices, with the mother weighing factors such as work benefits against childcare costs, which include such issues as hours of employment, work schedules, parental characteristics, and socio- demographic variations. However, such choices are rarely made based upon information about preferences and alternatives alone, or personal cost/benefit analysis, but entail "a variety of shortcuts to simplify and rationalize their choices", which develop through "repeated interactions within a social environment” (p.59).
Albeit the different approaches of these concepts, Chaudry et al. (2010) find a common thread among them in that they both entail trade-offs and accommodation. In the first case, the choice is between optimal program quality and convenience of location, hours, and cost, and in the second case, it is the accommodation to limited, imperfect and socially constructed information about alternatives and resources. In both cases, the result is often socio-economic stratification in childcare arrangements.
Several researchers have tried to combine the various approaches discussed above. Kim and Fram (2009) examined parental choices from a person-centered, holistic perspective. Citing numerous other studies, they listed the factors that contribute to parental decision making such as: (1) what they consider is best for the child; (2) cost and convenience; (3) parent and child characteristics; (4) characteristics of childcare services, and (5) questions of availability. While they recognize non-rational factors in the decision making process and seek to explore these patterns through a holistic lens, for the most part, they seem to be analysing data following a consumer based approach, in that they regard the primary constraints on decision-making as availability, access and cost. Where cost is not a factor, such as among higher-income family, the greatest proportion of parents choose care-centres based on the quality of learning and care. On the other hand, they also identified the large group of parents that make decisions based upon practical considerations: "when a mother is working outside the home, parents are more likely to be in the ‘practicality-focused’ class than in either the ‘learning and quality-focused’ or the ‘something else’ class" (p.88).
Finally, in addition to presenting a comprehensive discussion of all the three models, Chaudry et al. (2010) offer a fourth model, which they called the Accommodation Model, inasmuch as it recognizes both the validity and the interwoven nature of the other three models. For instance, they demonstrated how the consumer choice framework also functions within a social framework, by limiting the number of choices available for parents, both in terms of geographical considerations, and due to the opportunities or constraints imposed upon an individual through the mediation of social interactions. Similarly, social circumstances influence heuristic decisions as to the effectiveness or favourability of various programs.
As argued by Chaudry et al. (2010), different frameworks for childcare choice can be regarded as complementary, rather than competing, and that "different frameworks may be most useful for particular research questions and for different methodological approaches" (p.31). Accordingly, the current study did not depend exclusively on any of these models in the interpretations of the results; however, they
helped in understanding some aspects of the stakeholders’ perspectives in relation to ECCE arrangements.