 |
 |
Vienna Institute of Demography (Ed.)
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011
Markus Kotte,
Volker Ludwig
S. 207 - 226 doi: 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s207
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Abstract:
This study investigates whether the fertility behaviour of significant others, in particular of one’s parents and siblings, affects individuals’ own fertility intentions and behaviour. Using the data of three cohorts of young Germans, we test the hypothesis that ‘contagion’ by siblings with young children explains the transmission of fertility patterns across generations. In theory, transmission might be explained by contagion, or transmission and contagion might operate independently of each other. The results show strong evidence for the transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour from parents to their offspring. Evidence for contagion by siblings is weak and contagious effects therefore do not explain transmission.
2012/02/02 15:29:57 Object Identifier:
0xc1aa5572 0x002a70fc
Rights:All rights reserved.For questions regarding copyright and copies please contact us by email.
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
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Ajzen, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211.
|
|
|
Anderton, D.L., N.O. Tsuya, L.L. Bean and G.P. Mineau 1987. Intergenerational transmission of relative fertility and life course patterns. Demography 24(4): 467-480.
|
|
|
Axinn, W.G., M.E. Clarkberg and A. Thornton 1994. Family influences on family size preferences. Demography 31(1): 65-79.
|
|
|
Barber, J.S. 2001. The intergenerational transmission of age at first birth among married and unmarried men and women. Social Science Research 30: 219-247.
|
|
|
Billingsley, S. 2010. The post-communist fertility puzzle. Population Research and Policy Review 29(2): 193-231.
|
|
|
Bloom, D.E., D. Canning, I. Günter and S. Linnemayr 2008. Social interactions and fertility in developing countries. Harvard School of Public Health: Working Paper 34.
|
|
|
Bongaarts, J. and S.C. Watkins 1996. Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review 22(4): 639-682.
|
|
|
Booth, A.L. and H.J. Kee 2009. Intergenerational transmission of fertility patterns. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 71: 183-208.
|
|
|
Bühler, C. and D. Philipov 2005. Social capital related to fertility: theoretical foundation and empirical evidence for Bulgaria. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. Vol. 3: 53-81.
|
|
|
Ciliberto, F.A.R. Miller, H.S. Nielsen and M. Simonsen 2010. Playing the fertility game at work. University of Virginia: mimeo.
|
|
|
Goldstein, J.R. and M. Kreyenfeld 2011. Has East Germany overtaken West Germany? Recent trends in order-specific fertility. Population and Development Review 37: 453-472.
|
|
|
Hank, K. and M. Kreyenfeld 2003. A multilevel analysis of child care and womens fertility decisions in Western Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family 65(3): 584-596.
|
|
|
Huinink, J., J. Brüderl, B. Nauck, S. Walper, L. Castiglioni and M. Feldhaus 2011. Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (Pairfam) conceptual framework and design. Journal of Family Research 23(1): 77-100.
|
|
|
Kohler, H.-P., F.C. Billari and J.A. Ortega 2002. The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review 28: 641-680.
|
|
|
Kohler, H.-P., J.L. Rodgers and K. Christensen 1999. Is fertility behavior in our genes: findings from a Danish twin study. Population and Development Review 25: 253-88.
|
|
|
Kohler, H.-P., J.L. Rodgers, W.B. Miller, A. Skytthe, K. Christensen 2005. Bio-social determinants of fertility. International Journal of Andrology 29:46-53.
|
|
|
Kohler, H.-P., J.R. Behrman, S.C. Watkins 2001. The density of social networks and fertility decisions: evidence from South Nyanza district, Kenya. Demography 38(1): 43-58.
|
|
|
Kuziemko, I. 2006. Is having babies contagious? Estimating fertility peer effects between siblings. Mimeo, Harvard University.
|
|
|
Lyngstad, T.H. and A. Prskawetz 2010. Do siblings fertility decisions influence each other? Demography 47(3): 923-934.
|
|
|
Manski, C. 1993. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies 60(3): 531-542.
|
|
|
McDermott, R., J.H. Fowler and N.A. Christakis 2009. Breaking up is hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal sample followed for 32 years. Mimeo.
|
|
|
Miller, B.C., B. Benson, K.A. Galbraith 2001. Family relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk: a research synthesis. Developmental Review 21: 1-38.
|
|
|
Montgomery, M.R. and J.B. Casterline 1996. Social learning, social influence, and new models of fertility. Population and Development Review 22: 151-175.
|
|
|
Murphy, M. and D. Wang 2001. Family-level continuities in childbearing in low-fertility societies. European Journal of Population 17: 75-96.
|
|
|
Murphy, M. and L.B. Knudsen 2002. The intergenerational transmission of fertility in contemporary Denmark: the effects of number of siblings (full and half), birth order, and whether male or female. Population Studies 56(3): 235-248.
|
|
|
Pullum, T.W. and D.A. Wolf 1991. Correlations between frequencies of kin. Demography 28(3): 391-409.
|
|
|
Widmer, E.D. 1997. Influence of older siblings on initiation of sexual intercourse. Journal of Marriage and the Family 59: 928-938.
|
Home
Order
Print
References
Share
