IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v39y2018i16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stability and change in personal fertility ideals among U.S. women in heterosexual relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Colleen Ray

    (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

  • Sela Harcey

    (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

  • Arthur Greil

    (Alfred University)

  • Stacy Tiemeyer

    (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences)

  • Julia McQuillan

    (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

Abstract

Background: Demographers typically ask about societal, not personal, fertility ideals. Societal ideals are probably more stable than personal ideals. Assessing whether personal fertility ideals are as stable as societal ideals could inform models of population fertility change and models of well-being associated with fertility outcomes. Methods: We use the two-wave National Survey of Fertility Barriers (NSFB) to model stability and change in fertility ideals among 879 women in heterosexual couples that persisted for both waves. Results: Personal fertility ideals are stable for most (69%) women, but roughly one-third adjust their ideal number between waves. Of the women who changed their personal fertility ideal, approximately half increase and half decrease their personal fertility ideal over time. Multinomial logistic regression indicates that women with a higher fertility ideal at Wave 1 had higher odds of increasing and lower odds of decreasing their fertility ideal by Wave 2. Higher education was associated with lower likelihood of increasing fertility ideals. In addition, full-time employment at the initial interview was associated with higher likelihood of decreasing fertility ideals. Conclusions: Individual characteristics, attitudes, life course, and social cues are associated with changes in personal fertility ideals. More characteristics were associated with decreases than increases in personal fertility ideals. Contribution: By demonstrating that many women change personal fertility ideals over three years, the current study advances understanding of variations in fertility experiences. Importantly, these findings can also inform policies and interventions designed to support child and maternal health.

Suggested Citation

  • Colleen Ray & Sela Harcey & Arthur Greil & Stacy Tiemeyer & Julia McQuillan, 2018. "Stability and change in personal fertility ideals among U.S. women in heterosexual relationships," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(16), pages 459-486.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:39:y:2018:i:16
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol39/16/39-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.16?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. Ian Dey & Fran Wasoff, 2010. "Another Child? Fertility Ideals, Resources and Opportunities," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 29(6), pages 921-940, December.
    2. Christine Bachrach, 2014. "Culture and Demography: From Reluctant Bedfellows to Committed Partners," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(1), pages 3-25, February.
    3. Sarah Hayford, 2009. "The evolution of fertility expectations over the life course," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(4), pages 765-783, November.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Warren Miller, 1992. "Personality traits and developmental experiences as antecedents of childbearing motivation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 29(2), pages 265-285, May.
    6. 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.
    7. William Axinn & Arland Thornton, 1996. "The influence of parents’ marital dissolutions on children’s attitudes toward family formation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 33(1), pages 66-81, February.
    8. David Voas, 2003. "Conflicting Preferences: A Reason Fertility Tends to Be Too High or Too Low," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 627-646, December.
    9. John Bongaarts & John Casterline, 2013. "Fertility Transition: Is sub-Saharan Africa Different?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 38, pages 153-168, February.
    10. Heather M. Rackin & Christine A. Bachrach, 2016. "Assessing the Predictive Value of Fertility Expectations Through a Cognitive–Social Model," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 35(4), pages 527-551, August.
    11. Judith Blake, 1966. "Ideal family size among white Americans: A quarter of a century’s evidence," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 3(1), pages 154-173, March.
    12. Kohler, Hans-Peter, 2001. "Fertility and Social Interaction: An Economic Perspective," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199244591.
    13. Christine A. Bachrach & Philip S. Morgan, 2011. "Further reflections on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and fertility research," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 71-74.
    14. Frank Heiland & Alexia Prskawetz & Warren C. Sanderson, 2005. "Do the More-Educated Prefer Smaller Families?," VID Working Papers 0503, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    15. William Axinn & Marin Clarkberg & Arland Thornton, 1994. "Family influences on family size preferences," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(1), pages 65-79, February.
    16. S. Philip Morgan & Heather Rackin, 2010. "The Correspondence Between Fertility Intentions and Behavior in the United States," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 91-118, March.
    17. Henriette Engelhardt, 2004. "Fertility Intentions and Preferences: Effects of Structural and Financial Incentives and Constraints in Austria," VID Working Papers 0402, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    18. S. Philip Morgan & Rosalind Berkowitz King, 2001. "Why Have Children in the 21st Century? Biological Predisposition, Social Coercion, Rational Choice," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 3-20, March.
    19. Susan Gustavus & Charles Nam, 1970. "The formation and stability of ideal family size among young people," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 7(1), pages 43-51, February.
    20. Caroline Berghammer & Dimiter Philipov, 2007. "Religion and fertility ideals, intentions and behaviour: a comparative study of European countries," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 5(1), pages 271-305.
    21. Elizabeth Thomson, 1997. "Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 34(3), pages 343-354, August.
    22. Anne Gauthier & Christoph Bühler & Joshua Goldstein & Saskia Hin, 2011. "Fertility preferences: what measuring second choices teaches us," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 131-156.
    23. Etienne Walle, 1992. "Fertility transition, conscious choice, and numeracy," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 29(4), pages 487-502, November.
    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. Jennifer Barber & Heather Gatny, 2021. "The social context of retrospective-prospective changes in pregnancy desire during the transition to adulthood: The role of fathers and intimate relationships," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(38), pages 899-940.
    2. Yongkun Yin, 2022. "Intergenerational Transmission of Fertility: Evidence from China’s Population Control Policies," Working Papers wp2022_2211, CEMFI.

    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. Frank Heiland & Alexia Prskawetz & Warren C. Sanderson, 2008. "Are Individuals’ Desired Family Sizes Stable? Evidence from West German Panel Data," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 24(2), pages 129-156, June.
    2. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    3. Heather M. Rackin & Christine A. Bachrach, 2016. "Assessing the Predictive Value of Fertility Expectations Through a Cognitive–Social Model," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 35(4), pages 527-551, August.
    4. Christine A. Bachrach & S. Philip Morgan, 2013. "A Cognitive–Social Model of Fertility Intentions," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 459-485, September.
    5. Maria Rita Testa & Danilo Bolano, 2021. "When partners’ disagreement prevents childbearing: A couple-level analysis in Australia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(33), pages 811-838.
    6. Sara Yeatman & Christie Sennott & Steven Culpepper, 2013. "Young Women’s Dynamic Family Size Preferences in the Context of Transitioning Fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(5), pages 1715-1737, October.
    7. Tomáš Sobotka & Éva Beaujouan, 2014. "Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 391-419, September.
    8. Clémentine Rossier & Laura Bernardi, 2009. "Social Interaction Effects on Fertility: Intentions and Behaviors," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 25(4), pages 467-485, November.
    9. Máire Ní Bhrolcháin & Éva Beaujouan, 2011. "Uncertainty in fertility intentions in Britain, 1979-2007," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 99-129.
    10. Frank Heiland & Alexia Prskawetz & Warren C. Sanderson, 2005. "Do the More-Educated Prefer Smaller Families?," VID Working Papers 0503, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    11. Natalie Nitsche & Sarah Hayford, 2018. "Preferences, Partners, and Parenthood: Linking Early Fertility Desires, Union Formation Timing, and Achieved Fertility," VID Working Papers 1810, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    12. Anne Gauthier & Christoph Bühler & Joshua Goldstein & Saskia Hin, 2011. "Fertility preferences: what measuring second choices teaches us," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 131-156.
    13. Abhishek Kumar & Valeria Bordone & Raya Muttarak, 2016. "Like Mother(-in-Law) Like Daughter? Influence of the Older Generation’s Fertility Behaviours on Women’s Desired Family Size in Bihar, India," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 629-660, December.
    14. Maria Rita Testa, 2012. "Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behaviour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(3), pages 63-98.
    15. Maria Rita Testa & Valeria Bordone & Beata Osiewalska & Vegard Skirbekk, 2016. "Are daughters’ childbearing intentions related to their mothers’ socio-economic status?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(21), pages 581-616.
    16. Vida Maralani & Samuel Stabler, 2018. "Intensive Parenting: Fertility and Breastfeeding Duration in the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(5), pages 1681-1704, October.
    17. Maria Rita Testa & Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Rosina, 2014. "The Effect of Couple Disagreement about Child-Timing Intentions: A Parity-Specific Approach," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 31-53, March.
    18. Zuzanna Brzozowska & Isabella Buber-Ennser & Bernhard Riederer, 2021. "Didn’t Plan One but got One: Unintended and sooner-than-intended Parents in the East and the West of Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 37(3), pages 727-767, July.
    19. Eva Beaujouan & Anne Solaz, 2019. "Is the Family Size of Parents and Children Still Related? Revisiting the Cross-Generational Relationship Over the Last Century," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(2), pages 595-619, April.
    20. Eva Beaujouan & Caroline Berghammer, 2019. "The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(4), pages 507-535, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fertility intentions; fertility desires; United States of America;
    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:39:y:2018:i:16. 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.