Advertisement

European Journal of Population

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 259–285 | Cite as

Family Attitudes and Fertility Timing in Sweden

  • Jennifer A. Holland
  • Renske Keizer
Article

Abstract

Employing a novel latent attitude profile approach, as developed by Moors (Eur J Popul 24:33–57, 2008), within the theory of planned behavior, this paper models the association between attitudes and the transition to parenthood. We use survey data from the Young Adult Panel Study (1999) and linked prospective population register data (1999–2009) to investigate the family attitudes and fertility timing of a sample of three birth cohorts in Sweden, a country at the leading edge of family change in Europe. We generate latent attitude profiles of men and women based on attitudes related to the Value of Children, the Second Demographic Transition, and Competing Alternatives. We then show that compared with Children- and Partnership-Oriented individuals, the Partnership-Oriented and Non-Family-Oriented were less likely to transition to parenthood. We found greater diversity in fertility behavior by latent attitude profiles than previous work, suggesting that more attention should be given to the role of attitude profiles in determining modern-day fertility intentions and behavior.

Keywords

Transition to parenthood Fertility Attitudes Sweden Latent class analysis Administrative register data 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful suggestions from Eva Bernhardt, Helga de Valk, Dana Garbarski, Kia Sorensen, Elizabeth Thomson, Kimberly Turner; two anonymous reviewers; and the participants of the international conference on “Changing Families and Fertility Choices,” sponsored by the Research Council of Norway and Statistics Norway (Oslo, Norway; June 2013). This work was supported in part by the European Research Council Starting Grant project “Families of migrant origin: a life course perspective” (project number 263829) and a Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research Veni grant (grant number 016.125.054).

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic Research, 29(8), 203–232.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, G. (2008). Family forerunners? Family dynamics in the Nordic countries versus Europe. Paper presented at the Nordic Demographic Symposium, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  5. Bachrach, C. A., & Morgan, S. P. (2013). A cognitive–social model of fertility intentions. Population and Development Review, 39(3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., & Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(4), 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balbo, N., Billari, F. C., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: a review of research. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 29(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barber, J.S. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 101–127.Google Scholar
  12. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Bernhardt, E. (2004). Cohabitation or marriage? Preferred living arrangements in Sweden. Austria: Austrian Institute for Family Studies publication.Google Scholar
  14. Billari, F. C., & Philipov, D. (2004). Education and the transition to motherhood: a comparative analysis of Western Europe. European Demographic Research Paper No.3. Vienna Institute of Demography.Google Scholar
  15. Billari, F. C., Philipov, D., & Testa, M. (2009). Attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control: explaining fertility intentions in Bulgaria. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Billari, F.C., & Wilson, C. (2001). Convergence towards diversity? Cohort dynamics in the transition to adulthood in contemporary Western Europe. MPIDR Working Paper, 2001(39).Google Scholar
  17. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Huinink, J. (1991). Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family formation. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brewster, K. L., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2000). Fertility and women’s employment in industrialized nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bulatao, R. A. (1981). Values and disvalues of children in successive childbearing decisions. Demography, 18(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Butz, W. P., & Ward, M. P. (1979). The emergence of countercyclical U.S. fertility. The American Economic Review, 69(3), 318–328.Google Scholar
  21. Carlson, M., VanOrman, A., & Pilkauskas, N. (2013). Examining the antecedents of U.S. nonmarital fatherhood. Demography, 50(4), 1421–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Castles, F. G. (2003). The world turned upside down: below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 13(3), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis for the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. De Heer, W. (1999). International response trends: results of an international survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 129–142.Google Scholar
  25. Dearden, K., Hale, C., & Blankson, M. (1994). Family structure, function, and the early transition to fatherhood in Great Britain: Identifying antecedents using longitudinal data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 844–852.Google Scholar
  26. Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dommermuth, L., Klobas, J., & Lappegård, T. (2011). Now or later? The theory of planned behavior and timing of fertility intentions. Advances in Life Course Research, 16(1), 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duvander, A.-Z., & Johansson, M. (2012). What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers’ parental leave use? Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Incomplete revolution: adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fawcett, J. T. (1988). The value of children and the transition to parenthood. Marriage & Family Review, 12(3–4), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foner, N. (1997). The immigrant family: cultural legacies and cultural changes. International Migration Review, 31(4), 961–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  33. Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The end of “lowest-low” fertility? Population and Development Review, 35(4), 663–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. (2003). Families that work: policies for reconciling parenthood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Guo, G. (1993). Event-history analysis for left-truncated data. Sociological Methodology, 23, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Holland, J. A. (2013). Love, marriage, then the baby carriage? Marriage timing and childbearing in Sweden. Demographic Research, 29(11), 275–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keizer, R., Dykstra, P. A., & Jansen, M. D. (2008). Pathways into childlessness: evidence of gendered life course dynamics. Journal of Biosocial Science, 40(6), 863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lesthaeghe, R. J., & Surkyn, J. (1988). Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 14(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liefbroer, A. C. (2009). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: a life-course perspective. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 25(4), 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: the efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, W. B. (2011). Comparing the TPB and the TDIB framework. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., Velde, E. T., & Force, E. R. S. T. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6), 848–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Misra, J., Budig, M. J., & Moller, S. (2007). Reconciliation policies and the effects of motherhood on employment, earnings and poverty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 9(2), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moors, G. (2008). The valued child. In search of a latent attitude profile that influences the transition to motherhood. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 24(1), 33–57. doi: 10.2307/40271477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morgan, S. P. (2003). Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography, 40(4), 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgan, K. J. (2006). Working mothers and the welfare state: religion and the politics of work-family policies in Western Europe and the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Morgan, S. P., & Taylor, M. G. (2006). Low fertility at the turn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, É. (2012). Fertility postponement is largely due to rising educational enrolment. Population Studies, 66(3), 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD. (2011). OECD factbook 2011–2012: economic, environmental and social statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Ohlsson-Wijk, S. (2011). Sweden’s marriage revival: an analysis of the new-millennium switch from long-term decline to increasing popularity. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 65(2), 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Philipov, D. (2009). Fertility intentions and outcomes: The role of policies to close the gap. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 25, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Settersten, R. A, Jr, Furstenberg, F. F, Jr, & Rumbaut, R. G. (2008). On the frontier of adulthood: theory, research, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Settersten, R. A, Jr, & Ray, B. (2010). What’s going on with young people today? The long and twisting path to adulthood. Transition to Adulthood, 20(1), 19–41.Google Scholar
  56. Singh, S., Sedgh, G., & Hussain, R. (2010). Unintended pregnancy: worldwide levels, trends, and outcomes. Studies in Family Planning, 41(4), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sobotka, T. (2004). Is lowest-low fertility in Europe explained by the postponement of childbearing? Population and Development Review, 30(2), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19(6), 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Statistics Sweden. (2011). Olika generationers barnafödande [Childbearing patterns of different generations]. Demographic reports. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  60. Statistics Sweden. (2013). Summary of Population Statistics 1960–2012. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  61. Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. J. (2004). Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in northern, western and southern Europe: an update. Demographic Research, S3(3), 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomson, E., & Eriksson, H. (2013). Register-based estimates of parents’ coresidence in Sweden, 1969–2007. Demographic Research, 29(42), 1153–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Balen, F., & Inhorn, M. C. (2002). Interpreting infertility, a view from the social sciences. In F. van Balen & M. C. Inhorn (Eds.), Interpreting infertility: childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies in global perspective (pp. 3–32). Berkeley: UCLA Press.Google Scholar
  64. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1994). The second demographic transition revisited: theories and expectations. In G. C. N. Beets (Ed.), Population and family in the low countries 1993 (pp. 81–126). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  65. van Rooij, F. B., van Balen, F., & Hermanns, J. M. A. (2006). Migrants and the meaning of parenthood: involuntary childless Turkish migrants in The Netherlands. Human Reproduction, 21(7), 1832–1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Statistics and DemographyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic InstituteThe HagueThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SociologyErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Research Institute of Child Development and Education (CDE), Faculty of Social and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations