IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8610-d614710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Pets Replace Children? The Interaction Effect of Pet Attachment and Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Fertility Intention

Author

Listed:
  • Zhen Guo

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xiaoxing Ren

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Jinzhe Zhao

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Liying Jiao

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Yan Xu

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

A growing number of young people tend to regard their pets as their surrogate children, yet research examining the relationship between pet attachment and fertility intention remains scarce. Moreover, individuals’ fertility intention is affected by economic resources. Therefore, we conducted two studies to examine the interaction effect of pet attachment and subjective socioeconomic status (SES) on childbearing-aged individuals’ fertility intention. In Study 1, we utilized questionnaires to measure Chinese pet owners’ pet attachment, subjective SES, and fertility intention. In Study 2, participants’ pet attachment was experimentally manipulated by reading articles about the benefits of petkeeping. The results of the two studies consistently demonstrated that the effect of pet attachment on fertility intention was moderated by subjective SES. Specifically, pet attachment was negatively associated with fertility intention when individuals had a high level of subjective SES, whereas this effect disappeared when individuals had low subjective SES. These findings suggest an explanation for why individuals with high subjective SES delay or even opt out of childbearing. The limitations and implications of the current study are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhen Guo & Xiaoxing Ren & Jinzhe Zhao & Liying Jiao & Yan Xu, 2021. "Can Pets Replace Children? The Interaction Effect of Pet Attachment and Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Fertility Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8610-:d:614710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8610/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8610/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cutt, H. & Giles-Corti, B. & Knuiman, M. & Timperio, A. & Bull, F., 2008. "Understanding dog owners' increased levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(1), pages 66-69.
    2. Wood, Lisa & Giles-Corti, Billie & Bulsara, Max, 2005. "The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1159-1173, September.
    3. 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.
    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. Jose A. Algarra & María M. Ramos-Lorente & Paloma Cariñanos, 2024. "Is the Spanish Population Pro-Conservation or Pro-Utilitarian towards Threatened Flora? Social Analysis on the Willingness to Protect Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-34, June.
    2. C Diederich, 2024. "The beauty of the beast: Suggestions to curb the excesses of dog breeding and restore animal welfare - Invited review," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(11), pages 369-380.

    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. Gregg K. Takashima & Michael J. Day, 2014. "Setting the One Health Agenda and the Human–Companion Animal Bond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Clément Meier & Jürgen Maurer, 2022. "Buddy or burden? Patterns, perceptions, and experiences of pet ownership among older adults in Switzerland," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1201-1212, December.
    3. Emily Shoesmith & Lion Shahab & Dimitra Kale & Daniel S. Mills & Catherine Reeve & Paul Toner & Luciana Santos de Assis & Elena Ratschen, 2021. "The Influence of Human–Animal Interactions on Mental and Physical Health during the First COVID-19 Lockdown Phase in the U.K.: A Qualitative Exploration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Esther M. C. Bouma & Marsha L. Reijgwart & Arie Dijkstra, 2021. "Family Member, Best Friend, Child or ‘Just’ a Pet, Owners’ Relationship Perceptions and Consequences for Their Cats," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Arland Thornton & Prem Bhandari & Jeffrey Swindle & Nathalie Williams & Linda Young-DeMarco & Cathy Sun & Christina Hughes, 2020. "Fatalistic Beliefs and Migration Behaviors: A Study of Ideational Demography in Nepal," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(4), pages 643-670, August.
    6. Monika Mynarska & Zuzanna Brzozowska, 2022. "Things to Gain, Things to Lose: Perceived Costs and Benefits of Children and Intention to Remain Childless in Poland," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 160-171.
    7. Zuleika Ferre & Patricia Triunfo & José-Ignacio Antón, 2024. "The short- and long-term determinants of fertility in Uruguay," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 51(10), pages 267-322.
    8. Stephanie L. Orstad & Kristin Szuhany & Kosuke Tamura & Lorna E. Thorpe & Melanie Jay, 2020. "Park Proximity and Use for Physical Activity among Urban Residents: Associations with Mental Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-13, July.
    9. Emily Shoesmith & Panagiotis Spanakis & Emily Peckham & Paul Heron & Gordon Johnston & Lauren Walker & Suzanne Crosland & Elena Ratschen, 2021. "The Role of Animal Ownership for People with Severe Mental Illness during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Study Investigating Links with Health and Loneliness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Polina Zvavitch & Michael S. Rendall & Constanza Hurtado-Acuna & Rachel M. Shattuck, 2021. "Contraceptive Consistency and Poverty After Birth," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(6), pages 1277-1311, December.
    11. Natalie Nitsche & Sarah R. Hayford, 2020. "Preferences, Partners, and Parenthood: Linking Early Fertility Desires, Marriage Timing, and Achieved Fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(6), pages 1975-2001, December.
    12. Alison Gemmill, 2019. "From Some to None? Fertility Expectation Dynamics of Permanently Childless Women," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(1), pages 129-149, February.
    13. Paloma Morales-Flores & Carlos Marmolejo-Duarte, 2021. "Can We Build Walkable Environments to Support Social Capital? Towards a Spatial Understanding of Social Capital; a Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Heather Rackin & S. Philip Morgan, 2018. "Prospective versus retrospective measurement of unwanted fertility: Strengths, weaknesses, and inconsistencies assessed for a cohort of US women," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(3), pages 61-94.
    15. Ida Marie Henriksen & Aksel Tjora, 2014. "Interaction Pretext: Experiences of Community in the Urban Neighbourhood," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(10), pages 2111-2124, August.
    16. Richard leBrasseur, 2023. "Citizen Sensing within Urban Greenspaces: Exploring Human Wellbeing Interactions in Deprived Communities of Glasgow," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Eva Beaujouan, 2018. "Late Fertility Intentions and Fertility in Austria," VID Working Papers 1806, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    18. Rebecca Utz, 2014. "Walking the Dog: The Effect of Pet Ownership on Human Health and Health Behaviors," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 327-339, April.
    19. Kuhnt, Anne-Kristin & Buhr, Petra, 2016. "Biographical risks and their impact on uncertainty in fertility expectations: A gender-specific study based on the German Family Panel," Duisburger Beiträge zur soziologischen Forschung 2016-03, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Sociology.
    20. Matsumura, Kenta & Hamazaki, Kei & Tsuchida, Akiko & Inadera, Hidekuni, 2022. "Pet ownership during pregnancy and mothers' mental health conditions up to 1 year postpartum: A nationwide birth cohort—the Japan Environment and Children's Study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8610-:d:614710. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.