IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v10y2021i5p177-d556969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Data from Large Personal Networks Support Cultural Evolutionary Ideas about Kin and Fertility?

Author

Listed:
  • Gert Stulp

    (Department of Sociology & Inter-University Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Louise Barrett

    (Department of Psychology, Science Commons, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada
    Applied Behavioral Ecology and Ecosystems Research Unit, University of South Africa, Private Bag X6, Florida 1710, South Africa)

Abstract

The fertility decline associated with economic development has been attributed to a host of interrelated causes including the rising costs of children with industrialization, and shifts in family structure. One hypothesis is that kin may impart more pro-natal information within their networks than non-kin, and that this effect may be exacerbated in networks with high kin-density where greater social conformity would be expected. In this study, we tested these ideas using large personal networks (25 associates of the respondent) collected from a sample of Dutch women ( N = 706). Kin (parents) were perceived to exert slightly more social pressure to have children than non-kin, although dense networks were not associated with greater pressure. In contrast, women reported talking to friends about having children to a greater extent than kin, although greater kin-density in the network increased the likelihood of women reporting that they could talk to kin about having children. Both consanguineal and affinal kin could be asked to help with child-care to a greater extent than friends and other non-kin. Overall, there was mixed evidence that kin were more likely to offer pro-natal information than non-kin, and better evidence to suggest that kin were considered to be a better source of child-care support.

Suggested Citation

  • Gert Stulp & Louise Barrett, 2021. "Do Data from Large Personal Networks Support Cultural Evolutionary Ideas about Kin and Fertility?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:177-:d:556969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/5/177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/5/177/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans-Peter Kohler & Jere Behrman & Susan Watkins, 2001. "The density of social networks and fertility decisions: evidence from south nyanza district, kenya," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 43-58, February.
    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. Gert Stulp, 2023. "Describing the Dutch Social Networks and Fertility Study and how to process it," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(19), pages 493-512.
    2. Paula Sheppard & Kristin Snopkowski, 2021. "Behavioral Ecology of the Family: Harnessing Theory to Better Understand Variation in Human Families," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.

    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. S Anukriti & Catalina Herrera‐Almanza & Praveen K. Pathak & Mahesh Karra, 2020. "Curse of the Mummy‐ji: The Influence of Mothers‐in‐Law on Women in India†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1328-1351, October.
    2. Sania Ashraf & Jinyi Kuang & Upasak Das & Alex Shpenev & Erik Thulin & Cristina Bicchieri, 2022. "Social beliefs and women’s role in sanitation decision making in Bihar, India: An exploratory mixed method study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Chimbiri, Agnes M., 2007. "The condom is an 'intruder' in marriage: Evidence from rural Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(5), pages 1102-1115, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Edmonds, Joyce K. & Hruschka, Daniel & Bernard, H. Russell & Sibley, Lynn, 2012. "Women’s social networks and birth attendant decisions: Application of the Network-Episode Model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 452-459.
    6. David E. BLOOM & Michael KUHN & Klaus PRETTNER, 2017. "Africa’s Prospects for Enjoying a Demographic Dividend," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 63-76, March.
    7. Jere Behrman & Hans-Peter Kohler & Susan C. Watkins, 2003. "Social Networks, HIV/AIDS and Risk Perceptions," PIER Working Paper Archive 03-007, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    8. Hensvik, Lena & Nilsson, Peter, 2010. "Businesses, buddies and babies: social ties and fertility at work," Working Paper Series 2010:9, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    9. Viviana Amati & Giulia Rivellini & Susanna Zaccarin, 2015. "Potential and Effective Support Networks of Young Italian Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 807-831, July.
    10. Jing Zhao & Zhijie Zou & Jianfei Chen & Yujia Chen & Wanfa Lin & Xianbo Pei & Enjing Li & Yajing Dong & Xiaoli Chen, 2024. "Offline social capital, online social capital, and fertility intentions: evidence from China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Nie, Peng & Wang, Lu & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso, 2020. "Peer Effects and Fertility Preferences in China: Evidence from the China Labor-Force Dynamics Survey," IZA Discussion Papers 13448, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2022. "Honesty and Epistemological Implementation of Social Choice Functions with Asymmetric Information," CARF F-Series CARF-F-549, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    13. Michael Kremer & Edward Miguel, 2003. "Networks, social learning, and technology adoption: The case of deworming drugs in kenya," Natural Field Experiments 00312, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Cormac Ó Gráda, 2006. "Dublin Jewish Demography a Century Ago," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 37(2), pages 123-147.
    15. Kabeya Clement Mulamba, 2023. "The role of male partners in modern contraceptive use by women in South Africa: Does space also matter?," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 1-23, June.
    16. Takagi, Daisuke & Yokouchi, Nobutada & Hashimoto, Hideki, 2020. "Smoking behavior prevalence in one's personal social network and peer's popularity: A population-based study of middle-aged adults in Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    17. Huimin Song & Wei Zeng & Jamie M. Chen & Emily Ma, 2024. "COVID-19 Impacts on the Spatial Network of City Tourism in Fujian Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, April.
    18. Arieli, Itai & Babichenko, Yakov & Peretz, Ron & Young, H. Peyton, 2020. "The speed of innovation diffusion in social networks," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102538, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Kandpal, Eeshani & Baylis, Kathy, 2019. "The social lives of married women: Peer effects in female autonomy and investments in children," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 26-43.
    20. Francesco C. Billari & Hans-Peter Kohler, 2002. "Patterns of lowest-low fertility in Europe," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2002-040, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    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:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:177-:d:556969. 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.