• 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

Couples’ childbearing behaviour in Italy: which of the partners is leading it?

    Maria Rita Tester, Laura Cavalli, Alessandro Rosina

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011, pp. 157-178, 2012/02/02

doi: 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s157


PDF
X
BibTEX-Export:

X
EndNote/Zotero-Export:

X
RIS-Export:

X 
Researchgate-Export (COinS)

Permanent QR-Code

doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011s157


Abstract

Using data on 2356 Italian couples from the longitudinal survey on Family and Social Subjects conducted between 2003 and 2007, we examine the relationship between child-timing intentions and subsequent reproductive outcomes. Our hypothesis is that in Italy the lack of agreement between partners has an inhibiting effect on couple’s pregnancy-seeking behaviour because inertia and social norms favour the partner who does not want to have a(nother) child. We find that this holds true only for couples who have already two or more children whereas at lower parities conflicting intentions result in either a middle fertility outcome or childbearing levels similar to those observed for couples who agree on having a child. Women have a greater influence on childbearing decisions than men. The explicit consideration of a partner’s disagreement increases the predictive accuracy of fertility intentions. Our findings strongly support the adoption of a couple-oriented approach in fertility research.

Published Online: 2012/02/02 15:24:22

Object Identifier: 0xc1aa5572 0x002a70fa

Document viewed: Calculating...

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

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and HumanBarret, G. and K. Wellings 2002. What is a “planned” pregnancy? Empirical data from a British study. Social Science & Medicine 55: 545-557.Becker, S. 1996. Couples and reproductive health: a review of couple studies. Studies in Family Planning 27(6): 291-306.Beckman, L., R. Aizenberg, A.B.Forsythe and T. Day 1983. A theoretical analysis of antecedents of young couples’ fertility decisions and outcomes. Demography 20(4): 519-533.Beckman, L.J. 1983. Communication, power, and the influence of social network in couple decisions on fertility. In Determinants of fertility in developing countries, ed. R.A.Bulatao and R.D. Lee, Vol.2: 415-443. New York: Academic Press.Beckman, L.J. 1984. Husbands’ and wives’ relative influence on fertility decisions and outcomes. Population and Environment: Behavioral and Social Issues 7: 182-197.Berrington, A. 2004. Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertilità intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends 117: 9-19. Bulatao, R.A. 1981. Values and disvalues of children in successive childbearing decisions. Demography 18(1): 1-25.Cavalli, L. 2010. Fertility intention for a second child within the Italian couples: a bargaining process approach. Doctoral Thesis. Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.Coombs, L.C. and M.C. Chang 1981. Do husbands and wives agree? Fertility attitudes and later behavior. Population and Environment 4(2): 109-127.Corijn, M., A.C. Liefbroer and J. De Jong Gierveld 1996. It takes two to tango, doesn’t it? The influence of couple characteristics on the timing of the birth of the first child. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 117-126.Davidson, A.R. and L.R. Beach. 1981. Error patterns in the prediction of fertility behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 11: 475-488.Decision Processes 50: 179-211.Del Boca, D., S. Pasqua and C. Pronzato 2004. Why are fertility and women’s employment rates so low in Italy? Lessons from France and the U.K. IZA Discussion Papers 1274.Fisher, K. 2000. Uncertain aims and negotiation: birth control practices in Britain, 1925- 1950. Population and Development Review 26(2): 295-317.Freedman, R., D.S. Freedman and A.D. Thornton 1980. Changes in fertility expectations and preferences between 1962 and 1977: relation to final parity. Demography, 17(4): 365-378.Fried, E.S., S.L. Hofferth and J.R. Udry 1980. Parity-specific and two-sex utility models of reproductive intentions. Demography 17(1): 1-11.Fried, E.S., and J.R. Udry 1979. Wives’ and Husbands’ expected costs and benefits of childbearing predictors of pregnancy. Social Biology 26: 256-274.Jansen, M., and A.C. Liefbroer, 2006. Couple’s attitudes, childbirth, and the division of labor. Journal of Family Issues 27(11): 1487-1511.Lee, R. 1980. Aiming at moving target: period fertility and changing reproductive goals. Population Studies 34(2): 205-226.Miller, W. B. and D. J. Pasta 1995. Behavioural intentions: which ones predict fertility behaviour in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25: 530-555.Miller, W.B. 1994. Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: a theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 120(2): 223-258.Miller, W.B., L.J. Severy, and D.J. Pasta 2004. A framework for modeling fertility motivation in couples. Population Studies 58(2): 193-205.Miller, W.B., and D.J. Pasta 1996. Couple disagreement: effects on formation and implementation of fertility decisions. Personal Relationships 3: 307-336.Morgan, S.P. 1985. Individual and couple intentions for more children: a research note. Demography 22(1): 125-132Morgan, S.P. 2001. Should fertility intentions inform fertility forecast? In Proceedings of U.S. Census Bureau Conference: the direction of fertility in the United States, ed. G.K. Spencer. Alexandria, VA: Council of Professional Associations of Federal Statistics.Namboodiri, N.K. 1972. Observations on the economic framework for fertility analysis. Population Studies 26(2): 185-206.Neal, A.G., and H.T. Groat. 1980. Fertility decision making, unintended births, and the social drift hypothesis: a longitudinal study. Population and Environment 3(3-4): 221-236.Pinnelli, A. 1995. Women’s condition, low fertility, and emerging union patterns in Europe. In Gender and family change in industrialized societies, ed. K.O. Mason and A.M. Jensen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Rille-Pfeiffer, C. 2009. Kinder - jetzt, später oder nie? Generatives Verhalten und Kinderwunsch in Österreich, Schweden und Spanien. Schriftenreihe des Österreichischen Instituts für Familienforschung (ÖIF) 21. Vienna: Budrich UniPress.Rindfuss, R.R., P.S. Morgan, and G. Swicegood 1988. First births in America: changes in the timing of parenthood. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Rosina, A. and M.R. Testa 2009. Couples’ first child intentions and disagreement: an analysis of the Italian case. European Journal of Population 25(4): 487-502.Ryder, N. 1973. A critique of the National Fertility Study. Demography 10(4): 495-506.Saraceno, C. 1994. The ambivalent familism of Italian welfare state. Social Politics 1.Testa, M.R. 2006. Childbearing preferences and family issues in Europe. Special Eurobarometer 253/Wave 65.1 – TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission.Thomson, E. 1997. Couple childbearing desires, intentions and births. Demography 34(3): 343-354.Thomson, E. and J. Hoem 1998. Couple childbearing plans and births in Sweden. Demography 35(3): 315-322.Thomson, E., E. McDonald, and L.L. Bumpass 1990. Fertility desires and fertility: hers, his and theirs. Demography 27(4): 579-588.Townes, B.D., L.R. Beach, F.L. Campbell and R.L. Wood 1980. Family building: a social psychological study of fertility decisions. Population and Environment 3(3-4): 210-220.Voas, D. 2003. Conflicting preferences: a reason fertility tends to be too high or too low. Population and Development Review 29(4): 627-646.