Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Societal Agreement on Gender Role Attitudes and Childlessness in 38 Countries

  • Published:
European Journal of Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many authors argue that levels of childlessness and fertility are a function of changing gender relations, but the mechanisms behind this association remain unclear and mainly untested. This study argues that the societal variation in gender role attitudes explains the link: a great variation in attitudes among potential partners leads to uncertainty and conflicts, which depresses people’s propensity for parenthood. This idea is tested with multilevel logistic regression models for 6305 individuals in 38 countries on all continents, using ISSP 2012 data. Measures for the average gender role attitude in the society as well as the dispersion in attitudes are regressed on whether individuals have at least one child or are childless. Attitudes are captured using factor analysis and are opinions towards the gendered division of given tasks and privileges, such as childrearing or the uptake of parental leave. The dispersion in attitudes is the standard deviation of the factor variable in the given country. The analysis gives support to the hypothesis: the greater the variation in gender role attitudes, the higher the chance for individuals to remain childless. The association is significant and holds against various robustness checks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To describe different forms of gender relations, mainly the contrast between the male breadwinner and the dual earner gender roles, various terms are used: gender-asymmetric, traditional, old or unequal versus gender-symmetric, new, modern, gender-equal or gender-equitable. Particularly, the term ‘gender-equitable’ could be misleading though as different societies and societies at different times might regard different gender roles as equitable (cf. McDonald 2013).

  2. In an endnote next to a graph on the ‘Relationship between gender egalitarianism and partnership stability, late 1980s’ Esping-Andersen and Billari (2015, p. 22) discuss the comparison of two measures for ‘the hegemony of gender norms: either a simple headcount (share of egalitarians in the population) or the coefficient of variation (to capture the degree of value uniformity in the population). Our estimations produce essentially the same result’ (Esping-Andersen and Billari 2015, p. 26). For binary variables, coefficient of variation is no suitable indicator for the degree of uniformity or variation (Vogt and Johnson 2011, p. 59). Standard deviation and variance are measures for the degree of variation in a dummy variable, but a distinct interpretation of variation and mean value provides little insight: variation and mean value determine each other mathematically. For each mean value, there is only one mathematically possible value for variance of standard deviation. For each value of standard deviation, there are two possible corresponding mean values, one being \(.5+x\), the other \(.5-x\). An example: if the mean value of a binary variable is .75, the standard deviation is forced to be .44. A population with a standard deviation of .44 could have one of the two mean values \(.5+.25=.75\) or \(.5-.25=.25\). In the case of Esping-Andersen and Billari (2015), all mean values are greater than .5. Thus, within their range of data, mean values perfectly predict levels of variation and vice versa. Using the coefficient of variation, the standard deviation divided by the mean value, is not a suitable measure for the degree of variation of a dummy variable. To give an example, let us compare two populations of each 100 individuals. Population A is egalitarian: 90 individuals hold egalitarian views, 10 non-egalitarian ones. Population B is the opposite case: 10 individuals hold egalitarian views, 90 non-egalitarian ones. Intuition and standard deviation (or variance) would suggest that both populations have the same degree of variation or hegemony in attitudes (standard deviation = .30, variance = .09). The coefficient of variation would show a very different picture: it is 3.02 for population A and .36 for population B (consider also that on binary outcomes the assignment of ones and zeros is arbitrary: there is no compelling reason why egalitarians should be coded one and non-egalitarians zero, rather than the other way around). In fact by using the coefficient of variation Esping-Andersen and Billari (2015) measure practically nothing else than the mean value: in the range of their mean values, going from around .5 to close to 1, the correlation between mean value and coefficient of variation is − .99 (tested on a dummy dataset).

  3. Research shows that societal attitudes/public opinion (among numerous other factors) influence policy in democratic systems; how big this influence is, and how much it relies on salience of a specific policy/a policy field, is largely contested though (Burstein 2003). Most, but not all, countries in the sample are democratic. Research on public opinion and policy in non-democratic settings is very limited, but also suggests potential influences (Horne 2010).

  4. For some countries, ISSP 2012 was part of a larger national survey, e.g. in the USA, ISSP 2012 was part of the General Social Survey 2012, and in Germany, it was part of the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) 2012.

  5. Country-level shares of parenthood in the ISSP sample are largely consistent with other sources (see online appendix for details).

  6. The goal is to find a convincing variable that captures gender role attitudes—and it is no problem if that variable is correlated with other measures and attitudes—so promax, which does not force the different factors to be uncorrelated, is chosen here.

  7. These countries are: Argentina, Canada, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia and USA

  8. This seems to be especially valid for some European countries: in Switzerland, France or Germany more than one in four agrees to the statement that ‘All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job’. Among those who agree with this statement, the majority rejects traditional gender-separated spheres (‘A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family’) and a third or more expresses gender-egalitarian childrearing ideals (stated view that parental leave should be equally distributed between the mother and the father).

  9. This seems to be especially valid for some countries in Eastern Europe and outside of Europe. In Russia, China or Mexico, the majority believes that mothers of young children should work at least part-time. (‘Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all under the following circumstances? When there is a child under school age’.) Nevertheless, the majority of this group believe that this will actually have negative consequences for the child (agreement to: ‘A pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works’.) Also, more than a third of those who favour maternal employment actually support gender-separate spheres (agreement to: ‘A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family’).

  10. Predicted value for parenthood and childlessness Germany: 87.9 and 12.1%, for United Kingdom: 92.5 and 7.5%. This equals a difference of 4.6% points and a difference of 5.2% in parenthood or 38.0% in childlessness.

  11. Running the base model with the restricted sample of model 5 brings coherent results which suggests that the sample-restriction does not confound the picture.

References

  • Arpino, B., Esping-Andersen, G., & Pessin, L. (2015). How do changes in gender role attitudes towards female employment influence fertility? A macro-level analysis. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbo, N., Billari, F. C., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population, 29(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauernschuster, S., Hener, T., & Rainer, H. (2016). Children of a (policy) revolution: The introduction of universal child care and its effect on fertility. Journal of the European Economic Association, 14(4), 975–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., Buchler, S., Perales, F., & Western, M. (2015). A life-changing event: First births and men’s and women’s attitudes to mothering and gender divisions of labor. Social Forces, 93(3), 989–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C. (2015). Integrating macro- and micro-level approaches in the explanation of population change. Population Studies, 69(sup1), S11–S20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2015.1009712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H. P. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J., & Sobotka, T. (2012). A demographic explanation for the recent rise in European fertility. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 83–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, M. (2008). Using Egalitarian items to measure men’s and women’s family roles. Sex Roles, 59(9–10), 644–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (2016). A happy ending to a half a century of family change? Population and Development Review, 42(1), 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantin, A., & Voicu, M. (2015). Attitudes towards gender roles in cross-cultural surveys: Content validity and cross-cultural measurement invariance. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 733–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0758-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, L. P. (2004). The gendered division of labor and family outcomes in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1246–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G., & Billari, F. C. (2015). Re-theorizing family demographics. Population and Development Review, 41(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleckenstein, T. (2011). The politics of ideas in welfare state transformation: Christian democracy and the reform of family policy in Germany. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furuoka, F. (2009). Looking for a J-shaped development-fertility relationship: Do advances in development really reverse fertility declines. Economics Bulletin, 29(4), 3067–3074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangl, M., & Ziefle, A. (2015). The making of a good woman: Extended parental leave entitlements and mothers’ work commitment in Germany 1. American Journal of Sociology, 121(2), 511–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hank, K., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2003). A multilevel analysis of child care and women’s fertility decisions in western Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00584.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hantrais, L. (1994). Comparing family policy in Britain, France and Germany. Journal of Social Policy, 23(02), 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harttgen, K., & Vollmer, S. (2014). A reversal in the relationship of human development with fertility? Demography, 51(1), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, J. M., Prskawetz, A., & Neyer, G. (2001). Autonomy or conservative adjustment? The effect of public policies and educational attainment on third births in Austria, 1975–1996. Population Studies, 55(3), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohmann-Marriott, B. E. (2006). Shared beliefs and the union stability of married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1015–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, C. D. (2010). The structure and significance of public opinion in non-democratic contexts. Dissertation, University of Georgia.

  • Hudde, A., & Engelhardt, H., (2017a). Heterogamy in gender role attitudes among young couples—Evidence from Germany. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Hudde, A., & Engelhardt, H. (2017b). Politik und Fertilität. In K. Stüwe & E. Hermannseder (Eds.), Familie im Wandel: Deutschland und Korea im Vergleich (Kulturelle Ökonomik) (13th ed., pp. 129–154). Berlin: LIT-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISSP Research Group. (2015). International social survey programme: Family and changing gender roles IV-ISSP 2012. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 2.0.0.

  • Kan, M. Y., & Hertog, E. (2017). Domestic division of labour and fertility preference in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Demographic Research, 36(18), 557–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., & Konietzka, D. (2017). Analyzing childlessness. In Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, causes, and consequence (pp. 3–15). Springer.

  • Laroque, G., & Salanié, B. (2014). Identifying the response of fertility to financial incentives. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29(2), 314–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luci-Greulich, A., & Thévenon, O. (2013). The impact of family policies on fertility trends in developed countries. European Journal of Population, 29(4), 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luci-Greulich, A., & Thévenon, O. (2014). Does economic advancement ’cause’ a re-increase in fertility? An empirical analysis for OECD countries (1960–2007). European Journal of Population, 30(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9309-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2000a). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2000b). Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility. Journal of Population Research, 17(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2013). Societal foundations for explaining low fertility: Gender equity. Demographic Research, 28(34), 981–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen, A., Lainiala, L., & Rotkirch, A. (2015). Women’s housework decreases fertility. Evidence from a longitudinal study among Finnish couples. Acta Sociologica, 58(2), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., Mencarini, L., Tanturri, M. L., & Begall, K. (2008). Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 18, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.18.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H.-P., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature, 460(7256), 741–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H. P., & Billari, F. C. (2011). High development and fertility: Fertility at older reproductive ages and gender equality explain the positive link. Population Studies, 49(0), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyer, G. (2003). Family policies and low fertility in Western Europe. Journal of Population and Social Security, 1, 46–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyer, G., & Andersson, G. (2008). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: Effects or artifacts? Population and Development Review, 34(4), 699–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perales, F., Lersch, P. M., & Baxter, J. (2017). Birth cohort, ageing and gender ideology: Lessons from British and Australian Panel Data. Life Course Centre Working Paper Series (2017-01).

  • Rindfuss, R. R., Guilkey, D. K., Morgan, S. P., & Kravdal, Ø. (2010). Child-care availability and fertility in Norway. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 725–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00355.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, N., & Bujard, M., (2013). Das “Gedöns” und die Geschlechter. Zeit Online.

  • Schneider, T. (2016). Children from planned and unplanned pregnancies: The importance of education, unemployment and partnership. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 68(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., & Braun, M. (2009). Changing public views of gender roles in seven nations: 1988–2002. http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/242230. Accessed 01 Aug 2017.

  • Svallfors, S. (2010). Policy feedback, generational replacement, and attitudes to state intervention: Eastern and Western Germany, 1990–2006. European Political Science Review, 2(01), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanturri, M. L., Mills, M., Rotkirch, A., Sobotka, T., Takács, J., Miettinen, A., & Nasiri, D. (2015). State-of-the-art report Childlessness in Europe. Families and Societies Working Paper Series 32.

  • Testa, M. R. (2012). Family sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer survey. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/edrp_2_2012.pdf. Accessed 01 Aug 2017.

  • Thévenon, O. (2009). Does fertility respond to work and family reconciliation policies in France?. Fertility and public policy: How to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. Accessed 01 Aug 2017.

  • Vogt, W. P., & Johnson, R. B. (2011). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S. (1994). Methodological and theoretical issues in the comparative analysis of gender relations in western Europe. Environment and Planning A, 26(9), 1339–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Henriette Engelhardt-Wölfler, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, and Francesco Billari for their advice and support. The work has also benefited from very helpful comments from Léa Pessin and Michael Gebel. Further thanks go to the participants of the EDUREP conference in Vienna 2015, the Internal BAGSS Conference 2016 in Bamberg, the Annual Meeting of the German Demographic Association 2016 in Leipzig and the 2nd Human Fertility Database Symposium in Berlin 2016.

Funding

This work was supported by the Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under the German Excellence Initiative (GSC1024).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences (BAGSS), University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Ansgar Hudde

Authors
  1. Ansgar Hudde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ansgar Hudde.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1070 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudde, A. Societal Agreement on Gender Role Attitudes and Childlessness in 38 Countries. Eur J Population 34, 745–767 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9459-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9459-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation