IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v23y2010i13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Age, relationship status, and the planning status of births

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah R. Hayford

    (Ohio State University)

  • Karen Guzzo

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Abstract

In the United States historically, births to older mothers have been more likely to be planned than births to younger mothers, and births to unmarried women have been less likely to be planned than births to married women. As the average age of mothers has increased and more births have occurred outside of marriage in the United States, the intersection of these trends may have weakened the traditional linkage between age and birth planning status. In this article, we examine differences by maternal age in planning status of births using The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. We find that age is strongly associated with planning status, but the association is reduced in magnitude when controlling for relationship status and is stronger for first and second births than for higher-parity births. Further, the association between union status and the planning status of births varies by race-ethnicity.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah R. Hayford & Karen Guzzo, 2010. "Age, relationship status, and the planning status of births," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 23(13), pages 365-398.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:23:y:2010:i:13
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol23/13/23-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.13?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kelly Musick, 2007. "Cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and the marriage process," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 16(9), pages 249-286.
    2. Warren Miller, 1986. "Proception: An important fertility behavior," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 23(4), pages 579-594, November.
    3. Lawrence Wu & Kelly Musick, 2008. "Stability of Marital and Cohabiting Unions Following a First Birth," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 27(6), pages 713-727, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikko Myrskylä & Rachel Margolis, 2014. "Happiness: Before and After the Kids," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(5), pages 1843-1866, October.
    2. Mikucka, Malgorzata, 2015. "How does parenthood affect life satisfaction in Russia?," MPRA Paper 65376, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Sowmya Rajan & S. Philip Morgan & Kathleen Mullan Harris & David Guilkey & Sarah R. Hayford & Karen Benjamin Guzzo, 2017. "Trajectories of Unintended Fertility," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(6), pages 903-928, December.
    4. Anna Kurowska & Michal Myck & Katharina Wrohlich, 2012. "Family and Labor Market Choices: Requirements to Guide Effective Evidence-Based Policy," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1234, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Megan Sweeney & Teresa Castro Martín & Melinda Mills, 2015. "The reproductive context of cohabitation in comparative perspective," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(5), pages 147-182.
    6. Elizabeth Thomson & Maria Winkler-Dworak & Éva Beaujouan, 2019. "Contribution of the Rise in Cohabiting Parenthood to Family Instability: Cohort Change in Italy, Great Britain, and Scandinavia," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(6), pages 2063-2082, December.
    7. Mikko Myrskylä & Rachel Margolis, 2014. "Happiness - before and after the Kids," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 642, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer Manlove & Elizabeth Wildsmith & Erum Ikramullah & Suzanne Ryan & Emily Holcombe & Mindy Scott & Kristen Peterson, 2012. "Union Transitions Following the Birth of a Child to Cohabiting Parents," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 31(3), pages 361-386, June.
    2. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2014. "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 437-464, November.
    3. Anna Rotkirch & Heini Väisänen & Markus Jokela & Stuart Basten, 2011. "Baby longing and men’s reproductive motivation," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 283-306.
    4. Júlia Mikolai & Ann Berrington & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2018. "The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(27), pages 753-794.
    5. Aiva Jasilioniene, 2007. "Premarital conception and divorce risk in Russia in light of the GGS data," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2007-025, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    6. Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Bucciol & Paolo Pertile & Veronica Polin & Nicola Sartor & Alessandro Sommacal, 2012. "Modelling life-course decisions for the analysis of interpersonal and intrapersonal redistribution," Working Papers 25/2012, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    7. Kelly Musick & Katherine Michelmore, 2018. "Cross-National Comparisons of Union Stability in Cohabiting and Married Families With Children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(4), pages 1389-1421, August.
    8. James M. Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Larry Bumpass, 2008. "Cohabitation and Family Formation in Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 0714, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Warren B. Miller, 2011. "Comparing the TPB and the T-D-I-B framework," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 19-29.
    10. Christine Schnor, 2014. "The Effect of Union Status at First Childbirth on Union Stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(2), pages 129-160, May.
    11. Daniel T. Lichter & Katherine Michelmore & Richard N. Turner & Sharon Sassler, 2016. "Pathways to a Stable Union? Pregnancy and Childbearing Among Cohabiting and Married Couples," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 35(3), pages 377-399, June.
    12. Wendy Manning & Jessica Cohen, 2015. "Teenage Cohabitation, Marriage, and Childbearing," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(2), pages 161-177, April.
    13. Warren B. Miller, 2011. "REFEREED ARTICLES - Differences between fertility desires and intentions: implications for theory, research and policy," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 75-98.
    14. Christoph Bühler, 2008. "On the structural value of children and its implication on intended fertility in Bulgaria," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 18(20), pages 569-610.
    15. Sowmya Rajan & S. Philip Morgan & Kathleen Mullan Harris & David Guilkey & Sarah R. Hayford & Karen Benjamin Guzzo, 2017. "Trajectories of Unintended Fertility," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(6), pages 903-928, December.
    16. James Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Larry Bumpass, 2009. "Cohabitation and family formation in Japan," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(4), pages 785-803, November.
    17. Christoph Bühler, 2006. "On the structural value of children and its implication on intended fertility in Bulgaria," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2006-003, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    18. Laura Tach & Alicia Eads, 2015. "Trends in the Economic Consequences of Marital and Cohabitation Dissolution in the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(2), pages 401-432, April.
    19. Oluwatobi Abel Alawode, 2021. "Analysis of Non-Marital Fertility in Nigeria and Implications for Intervention and Future Research," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Elizabeth Thomson & Maria Winkler-Dworak & Éva Beaujouan, 2019. "Contribution of the Rise in Cohabiting Parenthood to Family Instability: Cohort Change in Italy, Great Britain, and Scandinavia," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(6), pages 2063-2082, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cohabitation; marriage; fertility timing; fertility intentions; nonmarital fertility; fertility plans;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:23:y:2010:i:13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.