Abstract
The existing literature shows that the social interactions in personal networks affect individuals’ reproductive attitudes and behavior through three mechanisms: social influence, social learning, and social support. In this article, we discuss the extent to which the socio-psychological model of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) takes these social mechanisms into account when used in modeling fertility intentions and behavior. We argue that by integrating all three social network mechanisms, the ability of the TPB to explain reproductive events could be enhanced in two respects. First, social influence explains why some beliefs and practices are reproduced at the individual level even in the face of macro-level changes, and social learning mechanisms are crucial to distinguish who finally adopts new behavioral beliefs and practices in response to changes at the macro level. Second, social support relationships represent a capital of services to complement institutional provision (informal child care) as well as a capital of knowledge which helps individuals navigate in a complex institutional environment, providing a crucial element to explain heterogeneity in the successful realization of fertility intentions across individuals. The integration of the three social network mechanisms into the TPB helps to address the connection between changes in what the theory indicates as background factors and variation in individual intentions and behavior. We develop specific hypotheses concerning the effect of social interactions on fertility intentions and their realization and conclude with a critical review of the existing surveys that could serve to test these hypotheses and their limits.
Résumé
La littérature existante montre que les interactions sociales dans les réseaux interpersonnels influent sur les attitudes et comportements reproductifs des individus à travers trois mécanismes : par l’influence sociale, par l’apprentissage social et par le soutien social. Dans cet article, nous examinons dans quelle mesure le modèle psycho-social connu sous le nom de Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) tient compte de ces trois mécanismes, en particulier lorsqu’il est utilisé pour modéliser les intentions et comportements féconds. Nous soutenons que la capacité de la TPB à expliquer les événements reproductifs pourrait être doublement accrue en intégrant l’ensemble des effets liés aux réseaux sociaux. Tout d’abord, si l’influence sociale explique pourquoi certaines croyances et pratiques sont reproduites au niveau individuel en dépit de changements intervenus au niveau macro, les mécanismes d’apprentissage social sont quant à eux cruciaux pour comprendre l’adoption de nouvelles croyances et pratiques en réponse à des changements macro. Deuxièmement, les réseaux de relations représentent un capital de services informels de garde d’enfant complémentaires aux services institutionnels, ainsi qu’un capital de connaissances qui aide les individus à naviguer un environnement institutionnel complexe, fournissant ainsi des éléments essentiels pour comprendre l’hétérogénéité dans la réalisation des intentions de fécondité constatée entre individus. L’intégration des trois effets liés aux réseaux sociaux dans la TPB aide à faire le lien entre des changements au niveau de ce que la théorie appelle des facteurs contextuels et des variations au niveau des intentions et comportements individuels. Nous développons des hypothèses spécifiques concernant l’effet des interactions sociales sur les intentions de fécondité et leur réalisation, et concluons avec une revue critique des données d’enquêtes qui pourraient servir à tester ces hypothèses et leurs limites.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Social capital, also sometimes used, is a generic term that includes individuals’ social networks (their size and shape) as well as the diverse mechanisms which take place within them. It is interesting to note that social capital has a positive connotation, when defined as individuals’ social networks and the resources these networks produce. For example, the literature of the influence of networks on individuals’ health often emphasizes how belonging to tight social groups lowers individuals’ stress levels, and how social support is crucial for the well-being of dependants. Morgan and Berkowitz King (2001) remind us, however, that social capital (defined more completely as individuals’ social networks and the mechanisms which take place within them) can have negative outcomes as well, as, for example, when minority youth forfeit the chance of upward mobility because they wish to conform to and stay within their group of affiliation.
Ajzen's recent work refers to how "observation" can be incorporated in measurement of "descriptive norms, i.e., whether important others themselves perform the behavior in question" (http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf, p. 6).
References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Bankole, A. (1995). Desired fertility and fertility behavior among the Yoruba of Nigeria: A study of couple preferences and subsequent fertility. Population Studies, 49(2), 317–328.
Barber, J. S. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: attitudes toward childbearing and computing alternatives. Social Psychological Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.
Bennett, P., & Bozionelos, G. (2000). The theory of planned behaviour as predictor of condom use a narrative review. Psychology Health & Medicine, 5(3), 307–326.
Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 527–555.
Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed methods study in eastern and western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 23–47.
Billari, F. C., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? The impact of age norms on leaving home. Demography, 44, 181–198.
Billari, F., Philipov, D., & Testa, M.-R. (2005). Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control as predictors of union formation intentions. In IUSSP conference, Tours, France.
Bongaarts, J. (2001). Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Global fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 27(Suppl), 260–281.
Bonvalet, C. (2003). The local family circle. Population, 58(1), 9–42.
Bonvalet, C., Gotman, A., & Grafmeyer, Y. (2007). Family kinship and place in France. London: Southern Universities Press.
Bonvalet, C., Maison, D., Le Bras, H., & Charles, L. (1993). Proches et parents. Population, 48(1), 83–110.
Bühler, C., & Fratczak, E. (2005). Learning from others and receiving support: The impact of personal networks on fertility intentions in Poland. MPIDR working paper, 2005–2017.
Bühler, C., & Philipov, D. (2005). Social capital related to fertility: Theoretical foundations and empirical evidence from Bulgaria (pp. 53–81). Vienna: Vienna yearbook of population research 2005.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behaviour. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Helleringer, S., & Kohler, H.-P. (2005). Social networks, perceptions of risk, and changing attitudes towards HIV/AIDS : New evidence from a longitudinal study using fixed-effects analysis. Population Studies, 59(3), 228–265.
Keim, S., Klärner, A., & Bernardi, L. (2009). Fertility-relevant social networks: composition, structure, and meaning of personal relationships for fertility intentions. MPIDR Working Paper, 2009–2028.
Kohler, H.-P. (2001). Fertility and social interaction: An economic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kohler, H.-P., Behrman, J. R., & Watkins, S. C. (2007). Social networks and HIV/AIDS risk perceptions. Demography, 44(1), 1–33.
Liefbroer, A. C. (2005). The impact of perceived costs and rewards of childbearing on entry into parenthood: Evidence from a panel study. European Journal of Population, 21(4), 367–391.
Livi Bacci, M. (2001). Comment: Desired family size and the future course of fertility. Global fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 27(Suppl), 282–289.
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1995). Behavioral intentions: Which ones predict fertility behavior in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(6), 530–555.
Montgomery, M. A., & Casterline, J. B. (1996). Social learning, social influence and new models of fertility. In J. B. Casterline, R. D. Lee, K. A. Foote (Eds.), Fertility in the United States: New patterns, New theories. Supplement to Population and development Review, 22, 151–175.
Morgan, P. S., & Berkowitz King, R. (2001). Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice. European Journal of Population, 17(1), 3–35.
Philipov, D., Spéder, Z., & Billari, F. (2006). Soon, later, or ever: the impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 271–288.
Rindfuss, R. R., Bumpass, L. L., Choe, M. K., & Tsuya, N. O. (2004). Social networks and family change in Japan. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 838–861.
Salles, A., Rossier C., & Brachet S. (2008). Understanding the long term effects of family policies on fertility: the diffusion of different family models in France and Germany. In EAPS Conference, Barcelona. 10–12 July 2008.
Sheeran, P., & Taylor, S. (1999). Predicting intentions to use condoms: A meta-analysis and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1624–1675.
Symeonidou, H. (2000). Expected and actual family size in Greece: 1983–1987. European Journal of Population, 16(4), 335–352.
Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions and births. Demography, 34(3), 343–354.
Toulemon, L. (1995). Très Peu De Couples Restent Volontairement Sans Enfant. Population (French Edition), 50(4/5), 1079–1109.
Toulemon, L., & Testa, M.-R. (2006). Fertility intentions and actual fertility: A complex relationship. Population and Societies, (415), 4.
Van Landingham, M., et al. (1995). Two views of risky sexual practices among northern Thai males: The health belief model and the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 195–212.
Williams, L. B. (1992). Who decides? Determinants of couple cooperation and agreement in U.S. fertility decision. Populations Studies Center, University of Michigan Research Reports, No. 92–238.
Zabin, L. S., et al. (2000). Partner effects on a woman’s intention to conceive: Not with this partner. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(1), 39–45.
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out as part of the project “Fertility intentions and outcomes: The role of policies to close the gap” supported by the European Commission, DG “Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities” (Contract Number: VS/2006/0685).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rossier, C., Bernardi, L. Social Interaction Effects on Fertility: Intentions and Behaviors. Eur J Population 25, 467–485 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9203-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9203-0