Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011
|
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 |
|
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)
|
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
doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011 2012, 344 Seiten, 24x17cm, broschiert € 50,–
Saskia Hin,
Anne Gauthier,
Joshua Goldstein,
Christoph Bühler
S. 131 - 156 doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011s131 Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
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: 0xc1aa5576 0x002a70f9 Rights: .
Introduction
|
||
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.pdf |
||
European 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. Womens 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=100717 |
||
Miller, 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=165 |
||
Perugini, 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.pdf |
||
Testa, 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. |
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 |