• Vienna Institute of Demography (Ed.)

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011

Bild

Introduction
Maria Rita Testa, Tomás Sobotka and Philip S. Morgan: Reproductive decision-making: towards improved theoretical, methodological and empirical approaches.
Demographic Debate
S. Philip Morgan and Christine A. Bachrach: Is the Theory of Planned Behaviour an appropriate model for human fertility?
Warren B. Miller: Comparing the TPB and the T-D-I-B framework
Jennifer Barber: The Theory of Planned Behaviour: considering drives, proximity and dynamics
Dimiter Philipov: Theories on fertility intentions: a demographer's perspective
Jane Klobas: The Theory of Planned Behaviour as a model of reasoning about fertility decisions
Aart C. Liefbroer: On the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour for fertility research
Icek Ajzen: Reflections on Morgan and Bachrach's critique
Christine A. Bachrach and S. Philip Morgan: Further reflections on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and fertility research
Refereed Articles
Warren B. Miller: Differences between fertility desires and intentions: implications for theory, research and policy
Máire Ní Bhrolcháin and Éva Beaujouan: Uncertainty in fertility intentions in Britain, 1979–2007
Saskia Hin, Anne Gauthier, Joshua Goldstein and Christoph Bühler: Fertility preferences: what measuring second choices teaches us
Maria Rita Testa, Laura Cavalli and Alessandro Rosina: Couple´s childbearing behaviour in Italy: which of the partners is leading it?
Nicoletta Balbo and Melinda Mills: The influence of the family network on the realisation of fertility intentions
Markus Kotte and Volker Ludwig: Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: the role of contagion
David De Wachter and Karel Neels: Educational differentials in fertility intentions and outcomes: family formation in Flanders in the early 1990s
Clémentine Rossier, Sara Brachet and Anne Salles: Family policies, norms about gender roles and fertility decisions in France and Germany
Anna Rotkirch, Stuart Basten, Heini Väisänen and Markus Jokela: Baby longing and men's reproductive motivation
Anna Baranowska and Anna Matysiak: Does parenthood increase happiness? Evidence for Poland
Data and Trends (non-refereed contributions)
Jennifer S. Barber, Yasamin Kusunoki and Heather Gatny : Design and implementation of an online weekly survey to study unintended pregnancies
Beatrice Chromková Manea and Petr Fucík: Couples disagreement about fertility preferences and family-friendly policy measures in the Czech Republic

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400
https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: verlag@oeaw.ac.at

Bestellung/Order


Bild
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011
ISSN 1728-4414
Print Edition
ISSN 1728-5305
Online Edition
ISBN 978-3-7001-7235-2
Print Edition
ISBN 978-3-7001-7252-9
Online Edition



Send or fax to your local bookseller or to:

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2,
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400
https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: bestellung.verlag@oeaw.ac.at
UID-Nr.: ATU 16251605, FN 71839x Handelsgericht Wien, DVR: 0096385

Bitte senden Sie mir
Please send me
 
Exemplar(e) der genannten Publikation
copy(ies) of the publication overleaf


NAME


ADRESSE / ADDRESS


ORT / CITY


LAND / COUNTRY


ZAHLUNGSMETHODE / METHOD OF PAYMENT
    Visa     Euro / Master     American Express


NUMMER

Ablaufdatum / Expiry date:  

    I will send a cheque           Vorausrechnung / Send me a proforma invoice
 
DATUM, UNTERSCHRIFT / DATE, SIGNATURE

BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT, WIEN (IBAN AT04 1100 0006 2280 0100, BIC BKAUATWW), DEUTSCHE BANK MÜNCHEN (IBAN DE16 7007 0024 0238 8270 00, BIC DEUTDEDBMUC)
Bild

Fertility preferences: what measuring second choices teaches us

    Saskia Hin, Anne Gauthier, Joshua Goldstein, Christoph Bühler

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011, pp. 131-156, 2012/02/02

doi: 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s131


PDF
X
BibTEX-Export:

X
EndNote/Zotero-Export:

X
RIS-Export:

X 
Researchgate-Export (COinS)

Permanent QR-Code

doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011s131


Abstract

This article aims to strengthen the research methodology for studies of fertility preferences. Knowledge of personal fertility ideals is important both for demographers and policy makers, but the measurement techniques currently employed are not very refined. We suggest that the information provided by asking people about their personal ideal number of offspring can be improved in quality when asking them to also consider alternative preferences. The results of a survey conducted in the Netherlands demonstrate how measuring second (and, if desired, further) choices improves our ability to differentiate between different population subgroups. Moreover, it brings to light individuals’ openness to their ‘second best ideals’. Including questions on alternative ideals in surveys thus enhances the qualitative potential of studies on fertility ideals and adds a new dimension to research on the how and why of fertility gaps between desired and achieved fertility.

Published Online: 2012/02/02 15:20:29

Object Identifier: 0xc1aa5572 0x002a70f9

Document viewed: Calculating...

Rights: All rights reserved. For questions regarding copyright and copies please contact us by email.

REFERENCES Ahmed, N.R. 1981. Family size and sex preferences among women in rural Bangladesh. Studies in Family Planning 12.3, 100-109.Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50, 179-211.Axinn, W.G., M.E. Clarkberg and A. Thornton 1994. Family influences on family size preferences. Demography 31(1): 65-79.Bongaarts, J. 2001. Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Population and Development Review Supplement 27: 260-281.Bühler, C. 2010. Measuring preferred family size. Unpublished manuscript. Rostock and Hannover: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and Leibniz University.Coombs, L. 1974. The measurement of family size preference and subsequential fertility. Demography 11(4): 587-611.Coombs, L. 1979. Reproductive goals and achieved fertility: a fifteen-year perspective. Demography 16(4): 523-534.Coward, J. 1981. Ideal family size in Northern Ireland. Journal of Biosocial Science 13(4): 443-454.Dey, I. and Wasoff, F. 2010. Another child? Fertility ideals, resources and opportunities. Population Research and Policy Review 29: 921-940.Engelhardt, H. 2004. Fertility intentions and preferences: effects of structural and financial incentives and constraints in Austria. Working Paper 2004(02), Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography. http://www.oeaw.at/vid/download/WP2004_2.pdfEuropean Commission 2005. Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations. Green Paper COM 2005(94), Brussels: Communication from the Commission of the European Communities.Gallup, G. and C. Robinson 1938. American Institute of Public Opinion surveys, 1935- 1938. Public Opinion Quarterly 2(3): 373-398.Goldberg, D. and C.H. Coombs 1963. Some applications of unfolding theory to fertility analysis. In Emerging Techniques in Population Research, Milbank Memorial Fund, 105-129. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund.Goldstein, J., W. Lutz and M.R. Testa 2003. The emergence of sub-replacement family size ideals in Europe. Population Research and Policy Review 22: 479-496.Hakim, C. 2003. A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: preference theory. Population and Development Review 29(3): 349-374.Hakim, C. 2004. Childlessness in Europe: summary of research results for the Economic and Social Research Council. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Hakim, C. 2011. Women’s lifestyle preferences in the 21st century: implications for family policy. In The future of motherhood in Western societies, ed. G. Beets, J. Schippers and E. R. te Velde, 177-195. The Netherlands: Springer.Heiland, F., A. Prskawetz and W.C. Sanderson 2008. Are individuals’ desired family sizes stable? Evidence from West German panel data. European Journal of Population 24: 129-156.Knodel, J. and V. Prachuabmoh 1973. Desired family size in Thailand: are the responses meaningful? Demography 10(4): 619-637.Lee, R.D. 1980. Aiming at a moving target: period fertility and changing reproductive goals. Population Studies 34(2): 205-226.Liefbroer, A. 2008. Kinderwens wordt in de loop van het leven bijgesteld. Demos 24(3): 4-6.Liefbroer, A. 2009. Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: a lifecourse perspective. European Journal of Population 25(4): 363-386.Lightbourne, R.E. and A.L. MacDonald 1982. Family size preferences. World Fertility Survey Comparative Studies Cross National Surveys 14. United Kingdom: Charlesworth Ltd.Merz, E.-M. and A.C. Liefbroer 2010. Attitudes about voluntary childlessness across Europe: the role of individual and cultural factors. Paper presented at the European Population Conference 2010, Vienna, 1-4 September 2010. http://epc2010.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=100717Miller, W.B. 1994. Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: a theoretical framework. Genetic, Social and Psychology Monographs 102(2): 225-258.Morgan, S.P. 2001. Should fertility intentions inform fertility forecasts? In Proceedings of U.S. Census Bureau Conference: The Direction of Fertility in the United States, ed. U.S. Census Bureau, 151-184. Washington D.C., USA. http://www.copafs.org/UserFiles/file/reports/The%20Direction%20of%20Fertility%2 0in%20the%20United%20States.pdf#page=165Perugini, M. and R.D. Bagozzi 2001. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goaldirected behaviours: broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 79-98.Philipov, D. and L. Bernardi. Forthcoming. Reproductive decisions: concepts and measurement in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Comparative Population Studies.Pullum, T.W. 1983. Correlates of family size desires. In Determinants of fertility in developing countries: a summary of knowledge, ed. R.A. Bulatao, R.D. Lee, P.E. Hollerback and J. Bongaarts, 278-298. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.Rasul, A. 1993. Fertility preference: a study of some basic concepts and considerations. The Journal of Family Welfare 39(1): 24-32.Schaeffer, N.C. and E. Thomson (1992) The discovery of grounded uncertainty: developing standardized questions about strength of fertility motivation. In Sociological Methodology 22, ed. Marsden, P.V, 37-82. Oxford: Blackwell.Sobotka, T. and M.R. Testa 2008. Attitudes and intentions toward childlessness in Europe. In People, population change and policies. Lessons from the Population Policy Acceptance Study, Vol. 1: Family change, ed. C. Höhn, D. Avramov and I.E. Kotowska, 177-211. The Netherlands: Springer.Stoezel, J. 1954. Les attitudes et la conjoncture démographique: la dimension idéale de la famille. In Proceedings of the World Population Conference 1954 (Rome), Vol. 6, ed. United Nations, 1019-1035. New York: United Nations.Terhune, K.W. and S. Kaufman 1973. The family size utility function. Demography 10(4): 599-618.Testa, M.R. 2006. Childbearing preferences and family issues in Europe. Special Eurobarometer 253/Wave 65.1, TNS Opinion & Social. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_253_en.pdfTesta, M.R. and L. Grilli 2006. The influence of childbearing regional contexts on ideal family size in Europe. Population 61(1-2):109-138.Trent, R.B. 1980. Evidence bearing on the construct validity of “ideal family size”. Population and Environment 3(3-4): 309-324.Van de Kaa, D. 2001. Postmodern fertility preferences: from changing value orientation to new behaviour. Population and Development Review 27: 290-331.Voas, D. 2003. Conflicting preferences: a reason why fertility tends to be too high or too low. Population and Development Review 29(4): 627-646.Westoff, C.F. 1981. The validity of birth intentions: evidence from U.S. longitudinal studies. In Predicting fertility: demographic studies of birth expectations, ed. G.E. Hendershot and P.J. Placek, 51-59. Lexington: Lexington Books.Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. 2007. A theory of regret regulation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17(1): 3-18.