The Role of Family Orientations in Shaping the Effect of Fertility on Subjective Well-being: A Propensity Score Matching Approach
- 899 Downloads
This article investigates whether and how having a child impacts an individual’s subjective well-being, while taking into account heterogeneity in family attitudes. People with different family orientations have different values, gender attitudes, preferences toward career and family, and expectations about how childbearing can affect their subjective well-being. These differences impact fertility decisions and the effect of parenthood on an individual’s life satisfaction. We define three groups of people based on their family orientations: Traditional, Mixed, and Modern. Applying propensity score matching on longitudinal data (British Household Panel Survey), we create groups of individuals with very similar socioeconomic characteristics and family orientations before childbearing. We then compare those who have one child with those who are childless, and those who have two children with those who have only one child. We show that parents are significantly more satisfied than nonparents, and this effect is stronger among men than among women. For men, we do not find significant differences across family orientations groups in the effect of the birth of the first child on life satisfaction. Among women, only Traditional mothers seem to be more satisfied than their childless counterparts. Women who have a second child are never more satisfied than those who have only one child, regardless of their family orientations. Traditional and Mixed men experience a gain in life satisfaction when they have a second child, but this effect is not found for Modern men.
KeywordsLife satisfaction Fertility Family orientations Propensity score matching
The authors would like to thank Letizia Mencarini and Arnstein Aassve for their useful comments. Moreover, the authors are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for the careful review of the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council under the European ERC Grant Agreement no StG-313617 (SWELL-FER: Subjective Well-being and Fertility, P.I. Letizia Mencarini).
- Billari, F. C. (2009). The happiness commonality: Fertility decision in low-fertility settings. In UNECE (Ed.), How generations and gender shape demographic change (pp. 7–38). New York, NY, and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, H., & Healy, M. J. R. (1995). The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 158, 175–177.Google Scholar
- Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, L. W., & Hoffman, M. L. (1973). The value of children to parents. In J. T. Fawcett (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on population (pp. 19–76). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Imai, K., & Kim, I. S. (2014). On the use of linear fixed effects regression estimators for causal inference. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from http://imai.princeton.edu/research/files/FEmatch.pdf
- Imbens, G. W. (2014). Matching methods in practice: Three examples (NBER Working Paper No. 19959). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Normand, S.-L. T., Landrum, M. B., Guadagnoli, E., Ayanian, J. Z., Ryan, T. J., Cleary, P. D., & McNeil, B. J. (2001). Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: A matched analysis using propensity scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pouwels, B. J. (2011). Work, family, and happiness: Essays on interdependencies within families, life events, and time allocation decisions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 3, 33–38.Google Scholar