Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influences on the Link Between Fertility Intentions and Behavioural Outcomes

Lessons from a European Comparative Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reproductive Decision-Making in a Macro-Micro Perspective

Abstract

This chapter aims to provide an insight into fertility decision making, concentrating in particular on links between fertility intentions and actual behaviour. Both the discussion of theoretical approaches and the empirical analysis enable us to gain a more accurate insight into the intention–behaviour link. After surveying the relevant literature, the chapter gives a broad overview of different kinds of factors that may contribute to the success or failure of the realisation of fertility intentions. The empirical section investigates the realisation of time-related positive fertility intentions using a comparative approach and exploiting the unique advantages of a longitudinal panel design. Four medium-sized European countries are compared, all with rather different fertility regimes, namely the Netherlands and Switzerland (Western), and Hungary and Bulgaria (post-Communist). Using four harmonised longitudinal panel surveys, a typology of fertility intentions and outcomes is constructed, and common patterns and country-specific factors are studied. By employing multinominal logistical regression models, factors influencing postponement, abandonment and realisation of childbearing intentions are uncovered. Our results indicate that in all four countries age, partnership status and education influence the realisation of fertility intentions in comparable ways; however, the specific effects of some of these factors differ. Our theoretical considerations and empirical results reveal aspects of the intention–behaviour link that could – to some extent – be easily accommodated to the TPB approach, but which also pose challenges to this theoretical framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Miller and Pasta’s sequential decision-making model (Miller and Pasta 1994, 1995), the relationship between intention and behaviour is also direct. As Testa and Toulemon (2006) state, intentions are almost viewed as actions, “decision made but not yet executed”.

  2. 2.

    We should not forget that Ajzen and Fishbein suggest measuring the intention with a seven-point scale, ranging from likely to unlikely (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, pp. 107ff., 140).

  3. 3.

    Additional insights that emerged from REPRO are summarized in Chap. 7. Eds.

  4. 4.

    See also the argument of Rodin (2011).

  5. 5.

    The fact that the time frame of the intention and the time period for realisation do not exactly match is due to the limitations of the different surveys we utilised.

  6. 6.

    Testa and Toulemon’s “involuntary postponement” corresponds perfectly with our “postponer” category.

  7. 7.

    Shown by Leridon (2008).

  8. 8.

    Since biological age limits differ according to gender, consciousness could also differ accordingly. Unfortunately, due to low sample size in some countries, in this study we cannot carry out a separate analysis by gender.

  9. 9.

    Although he found several interaction effect of age with other variables, we do not report it here since (a) we could not include such kinds of interaction effects in our model, and (b) he has a different intention variable (expected number of children) than we use, and therefore not all of his findings are applicable to our analysis.

  10. 10.

    The intention did not refer to any specific time frame.

  11. 11.

    There is no space here to examine mutual relationships between childbearing and partnership behaviour.

  12. 12.

    Usually both the theoretical framework and availability of data shape the building of hypotheses. In our case the latter had a much stronger limitation: using a harmonised data set and the very limited number of comparable indicators narrowed down our options. Since we see the harmonised variables as roughly differentiated, we do not develop specific hypotheses. However we include the relevant literature review.

  13. 13.

    Employment motivations also differ. For example, career dominates among those with a higher level of education whilst those with a lower level of education are more concerned with making ends meet.

  14. 14.

    Both surveys are part of the Generations and Gender Programme (GGP) (Vikat et al. 2007).

  15. 15.

    The Bulgarian survey was carried out as part of the project “The Impact of Social Capital and Coping Strategies on Reproductive and Marital Behavior”, organised by the MPDIR Rostock and the Bulgarian Academy of Science (see Bühler and Philipov 2005).

  16. 16.

    The exact wordings of the questions are presented in the Appendix, Table 4.5.

  17. 17.

    The Spéder and Kapitány (2014) study is devoted to describing and explaining country-specific differences in the rate of realisation.

  18. 18.

    The descriptive statistics in the Appendix (Table 4.6) also serve to highlight the features of the variables included in the models.

  19. 19.

    It should be noted that many people living alone have longstanding partnerships, but do not permanently cohabit.

  20. 20.

    All four studied countries are religiously mixed, and differ in the ratio of the different denominations. In Hungary, Roman Catholics form the majority and Protestants (Calvinists and Lutherans) the minority. In Switzerland Protestants and Roman Catholics are equally represented. The Netherlands can be seen as a secular country, although Roman Catholics and Protestants are present. In Bulgaria, the majority of the population belongs to the Greek Catholic (orthodox) church.

  21. 21.

    We experimented with additional non-linear and interaction effects with age as showed by Liefbroer 2009 and Iacovou and Tavares 2011, but were unable to find significant effects (see Kapitány and Spéder 2012).

  22. 22.

    Although the odds are clearly lower for parity2+ than for parity0, the difference is not statistically significant.

  23. 23.

    Here it should be noted that for Hungary, where it was possible to run separate models for women and men, we find significant differences among women. Considering negative intentions cohabitors had a higher chance of realising their negative fertility intentions than married people (Spéder and Kapitány 2009).

References

  • Adsera, A. (2005). Differences in desired fertility and actual fertility: An economic analysis of the Spanish case (IZA DP. No. 1584, p. 40). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2011). Reflections on Morgan and Bachrach’s critique. In Vienna yearbook of population research (Vol. 9, pp. 63–69). Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avdeev, A. (2003). On the way to one-child life: Are we beyond the point to return? Some considerations concerning the fertility decrease in Russia. In I. E. Kotowska & J. Joźviak (Eds.), Population of central and eastern Europe. Challenges and opportunities (pp. 139–163). Warsaw: Statistical Publishing Establishment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, J. S. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrington, A. (2004). Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends, 117, 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2009). Attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control: Explaining fertility intention in Bulgaria. European Journal of Population, 25, 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., Goisis, A., Liefbroer, A. C., Settersten, R. A., Aassve, A., Hagestad, G., & Spéder, Z. (2010). Social age deadlines for the childbearing of women and men. Human Reproduction. Published December 15, 2010. doi:10.1093/humrep/deq360.

  • Bohinger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., & Fabriger, L. R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, pp. 159–190). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 707–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, C., & Philipov, D. (2005). Social capital related to fertility: Theoretical foundations and empirical evidence from Bulgaria. In W. Lutz & G. Feichtinger (Eds.), Vienna yearbook of population research (pp. 53–81). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, A. R., & Beach, L. R. (1981). Error patterns in the prediction of fertility behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(6), 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relations: Results from a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 475–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorbritz, J., & Ruckdeschel, K. (2005). Kinderlosigkeit in Deutschland – Ein europäischer Sonderweg? Daten, Trends und Gründe. In D. Konietzka & M. Kreyenfeld (Eds.), Ein Leben ohne Kinder. Kinderlosigkeit in Deutschland (pp. 45–81). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H. (2007). Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship panel study, a multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, Wave 2 (NKPS Working Paper No. 6). The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermisch, J. F. (2002). Economic models of women’s employment and fertility. In J. J. Siegers, J. de Jong-Gierveld, & E. van Imhoff (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility. A rational choice approach (pp. 179–190). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M. (1972). Toward an understanding of family planning behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(3), 214–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fokema, T., de Valk, H., de Beer, J., & van Duin, C. (2008). The Netherlands: Childbearing within the context of a “Poldermodel” society. Demographic Research, 19, art. 21, 743–794. http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/21/

  • Heaton, T. B., Jacobson, C. K., & Holland, K. (1999). Persistence and change in decisions to remain childless. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2), 531–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Fleeson, W. (2001). Developmental regulation before and after developmental deadline: The sample case of “biological clock” for childbearing. Psychology and Aging, 16(3), 400–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1214–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacovou, M., & Tavares, L. (2011). Yearning, learning and conceding: Reasons man and women change their childbearing intentions. Population and Development Review, 37, 89–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J. J., & Davidson, A. R. (1976). The relation of psychological, social and economic variables to fertility related decisions. Demography, 13(3), 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapitány, B. (2003). Módszertan és dokumentáció [Methodes and documentation]. Életünk fordulópontjai Műhelytanulmányok DRI Budapest, No. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapitány, B., & Spéder, Zs. (2012). Success and failure in the realisation of childbearing intentions comparing influencing factors in four European countries. Population–E, 67(4), 599–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koytcheva, E., & Philipov, D. (2008). Bulgaria: Ethnic differentials in rapidly declining fertility. Demographic Research, 19, Art. 13, 361–402. http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/13/

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2001). Employment and fertility – East Germany in the 1990s. PhD dissertation, MPDIR, Rostock, p. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, pp. 1–24). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leridon, H., (2008). La baisse de la fertilité avec l’âge. In Fiche d’Actualité, Octobre 2008, Paris: INED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. (2001). Postponement and recuperation. Recent fertility trends and forecasts in six Western European countries (Working paper IPD-WP-2001-1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C. (2005). The impact of perceived costs and rewards of childbearing on entry into parenthood: Evidence from a panel study. European Journal of Population, 21, 367–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C. (2009). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., & Billari, F. C. (2010). Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population Space and Place, 16, 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1994). The psychology of child timing: A measurement instrument and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 218–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1995). Behavioral intentions: Which ones predict fertility behavior in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 530–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (2004). The psychology of child timing: A measurement instruments and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 218–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monnier, A. (1989). Fertility intentions and actual behaviour. A longitudinal study: 1974, 1976, 1979. Population: An English Selection, 44(1), 237–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. S., & Rackin, H. (2010). The correspondence between fertility intentions and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 36(1), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mynarska, M. A. (2009). Deadline for parenthood: Fertility postponement and age norms in Poland. European Journal of Population. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9194-x. Published online: 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noack, T., & Østby, L. (2002). Free to choose – but unable to stick to it? Norwegian fertility expectations and subsequent behavior in the following 20 years. In E. Kijzing & M. Corijn (Eds.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe. Insights and lessons from comparative research (Vol. 2). New York/Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelli-Harris, B. (2005). The path to lowest-low fertility in Ukraine. Population Studies, 59(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. E. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, pp. 93–130). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D. (2009). The effect of competing intentions and behaviour on short-term childbearing intentions and subsequent childbearing. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 525–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D., & Berghammer, C. (2007). Religion and fertility ideals, intentions and behaviour: A comparative study of European countries. In Vienna yearbook of population research (pp. 271–305). Vienna: Vienna Institute of demography.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D., Spéder, Zs., & Billari, F. C. (2006). Soon, later or ever: The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 497–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, S. P., & Swicegood, G. (1988). First births in America: Changes in the timing of parenthood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, J. (2011). Fertility intentions and risk management: Exploring the fertility decline in Eastern Europe during transition. Ambio, 40, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 790–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settersten, R. A., & Hagestad, G. O. (1996). What’s the latest? Cultural age deadlines for educational and work transition. The Gerontologist, 36(5), 602–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Zs., & Kamarás, F. (2008). Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period fluctuations. Demographic Research, 19, Article 18, 599–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Zs., & Kapitány, B. (2009). How are time-dependent childbearing intentions realized? Realization, postponement, abandonment, bringing forward. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 503–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Z., & Kapitány, B. (2014). Failure to realize fertility intentions: A key aspect of the post-communist fertility transition. Population Research and Policy Review, 33(3), 393–418. doi:10.1007/s11113-013-9313-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, M. R., & Toulemon, L. (2006). Family formation in France: Individual preferences and subsequent outcomes. In Vienna yearbook of population research (pp. 41–75). Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34(3), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., Fokkema, T., Hoem, J. M., MacDonald, A., Neyer, G., Pailhé, A., Pinnelli, A., & Solaz, A. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research on-line Journal, 17, Article 14, 389–440. www.demographic-research.org

  • Voorpostel, M., Tillmann, R., Lebert, F., Weaver, B., Kuhn, U., Lipps, O., Ryser, V.-A., Schmid, F., & Wernli, B. (2009). Swiss Household Panel Userguide (1999–2008), Wave 10, December 2009. Lausanne: FORS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L., & Galagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoff, C., & Ryder, N. (1977). The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 4, 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to the researchers of the REPRO project for providing useful feedback about an earlier draft of our paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary

    Zsolt Spéder & Balázs Kapitány

Authors
  1. Zsolt Spéder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balázs Kapitány
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsolt Spéder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wittgenstein Ctr for Demography and Human Capital, Vienna Institute of Demography, Vienna, Austria

    Dimiter Philipov

  2. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Aart C. Liefbroer

  3. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics, Centre for Arts, Science and Knowledge, University Bocconi, Milan, Italy

    Jane E. Klobas

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4.4 The main characteristics of the four surveys used
Full size table
Table 4.5 The formulation of the fertility intention questions in the different questionnaire programmes
Full size table
Table 4.6 Mean and standard deviation of independent variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Spéder, Z., Kapitány, B. (2015). Influences on the Link Between Fertility Intentions and Behavioural Outcomes. In: Philipov, D., Liefbroer, A., Klobas, J. (eds) Reproductive Decision-Making in a Macro-Micro Perspective. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9401-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation