Childfreeness is a relatively unexplored topic in some regions. Although substantial research provides information on the childfree population in countries like the USA, Italy and Canada (Avison & Furnham, 2015; Stobert & Kemeny, 2003; Tanturri & Mencarini, 2008), little data are available on Poland. The same applies to exploring the reasons behind the decision not to procreate. Some research pertinent to the Polish childfree population does exist, showing reasons for childfreeness, such as seeing children as an obstacle to achieving one’s goals or lack of emotional need; however, these results were obtained on small samples, providing little information on the actual image of the phenomenon (Wacławik, 2012a, b).

The case of Poland is fascinating when considering the current situation. Over the past eight years, the Polish government has focused on increasing childbirths via different methods. These attempts stem from the decrease in births by over half in the previous 40 years and a visible decline in births yearly (Statistics Poland, 2022a). This decline, in turn, poses a severe threat to the continuity of the pension system. This led to multiple pro-birth activities, such as 500 + (a programme that gives 500 PLN monthly to parents for each child they have (up until they are 18 y.o.)) and pensions for mothers of four children (without the requirement of work) (Ministry of Family, Work and Social Policies, 2016; Witwicka, 2022). There are also propositions for imposing higher taxes on childless citizens as a way for them to balance out the fact that they have no children to contribute to the pension system (MJ, 2018). These actions are visible to all citizens and are supposed to address why people do not have children (mostly perceived as a lack of funds). It is important to observe whether the reasons for not wanting children perceived by the government are consistent with the reasons for not wanting children stated by the childfree population.

This article presents two studies. The first one (quantitative) addresses the gap in knowledge concerning the demographic characteristics of childfree people in Poland based on research performed on a stratified random sample (n = 665) and replicates previous foreign studies on the value of demographic variables in predicting the procreational decision. The second study (qualitative, n = 461) explores the reasons for choosing childfreeness in Poland on a large sample, addressing the limitations of previous studies that were conducted on smaller samples. The mixed method provides a comprehensive look at the topic of childfreeness.

Childfreeness

Childfreeness (a.k.a. voluntary childlessness – for the discussion on terminology and preferred nouns, please see Neal & Neal, 2024) is treated in this article as a decision not to have children. This decision may be made at any point in fertile life and is not the result of being infertile (unless due to one's own choice) or the consequence of a different decision (for example, becoming a Catholic priest – a path that forbids having children). Since many psychological theories, especially developmental ones, state that being a parent is necessary for proper development (e.g. Erikson, 1980; Havighurst, 1981; Levinson, 1986), the population that chooses not to procreate has become a focus of interest for psychologists. At first, researchers treated it as a deviation; however, that changed, and they later became interested in the psychological characteristics of childfree people and their lives without children (Lynch et al., 2018).

In the past, having children was more crucial from an economic point of view than it is today. First, children provided assistance in the household (both household chores and help in the field or workshops), helped parents in their old age and preserved the family lineage (Dyczewski, 2003; Hird & Abshoff, 2000). They were also a symbol of fulfilled love between a man and a woman, and marriages that did not have children were seen as inferior to those that did (Dyczewski, 2003). However, with time, the utilitarian value of having children has decreased substantially. Children provide little to no help in the household, do not offer financial support and require substantial funds for high-level upbringing (e.g. extra-curricular activities, trips, etc.) (Cieślińska, 2014). Because of this, the economic value of a child has plummeted. Furthermore, the value of having children as senior adults is not apparent, as there are pension plans (such as the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) in Poland) that usually provide sufficient support in the early days of vocational deactivation. However, these plans later provide inadequate support, as the health needs rise with each year of living on retirement (e.g. Rutecka, 2015). Therefore, in later years, support from one's children can still be a valuable factor in determining economic well-being, increasing the child’s economic value.

Thanks to women’s rights movements, women are now seen as more than mothers and have the right to choose whether they want to procreate (e.g. Aarssen & Altman, 2006). Also, free access to birth-control methods, as well as their advancement, has allowed more control in terms of family planning (e.g. Garncarek, 2022). These developments (among others) have led to the popularisation of childfreeness in developed societies (Aarssen & Altman, 2006).

Becoming childfree

Some studies have explored the prevalence of childfreeness. Past research suggests that the number of childfree adults can vary from approximately 7% (e.g. Canada) to 30% (e.g. Great Britain) of the population (McQuivey, 2021; Neal & Neal, 2022; Stobert & Kemeny, 2003; Tanturri & Mencarini, 2008). In Poland, it was estimated that between 6%–25% of all women would be childless (without distinction between voluntary and involuntary childlessness) (Cieślińska, 2014; Slany & Szczepaniak, 2003).

The decision to be childfree is found to be made in most cases before the age of 18, with 29% becoming aware in childhood, 30% in adolescence and 9% after the age of 30 (Avison & Furnham, 2015). Due to differences in the age of decision, childfree people are distinguished into two groups: early articulators (people who decide early and are firm in their conviction) and postponers (people who postpone having a child until it is, in their opinion, too late to become parents) (e.g. Veevers, 1974). In a 2013 study, Gray et al. (2013) showed that some people change their procreation decision (both wanting and not wanting to have children) due to health problems, dissatisfaction with their finances or being in an intimate relationship during the study. However, the total proportion of both groups (childfree and parents) is approximately constant.

Reasons for not wanting to have children vary and can be broadly divided into two categories (Wacławik, 2012b). The first category covers reasons that focus on pursuing things that are impossible when one becomes a parent (for example, someone wants to be free to pursue their dreams). The second group of reasons focuses on the negative aspects of being a parent (for example, someone does not want to be limited by a child). Often, the difference between these two groups of reasons is only apparent in the narrative of the childfree person. Some of the most cited reasons for being childfree include perceiving a child as an obstacle to pursuing one’s life objectives, lack of emotional need, negative attitude towards children, fear of losing one’s current standard of living, fear of the health consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, considering parenting as too time-consuming, seeing parenting as too much of a challenge, negative attitude towards long-term intimate relationships, being more environmentally friendly (avoiding to bring a new human with its own carbon footprint) and feeling immature (Avison & Furnham, 2015; Callan, 1983; Cieślińska, 2014; Doyle et al., 2013; Wacławik, 2012a, b). Some childfree people also point to experiencing childhood trauma (such as witnessing or experiencing domestic violence) as a reason to forgo being a parent (e.g. Matthews & Desjardins, 2019).

How are childfree people different?

Some research has explored the differences between childfree individuals and those who have or want children. Childfree people usually grew up in smaller families compared to those who want or have children, though they are not necessarily only children (Avison & Furnham, 2015; Tanturri & Mencarini, 2008). Women who did not want to be mothers often rebelled against traditional gender roles (Mollen, 2006). Moreover, on average, childfree individuals live with their parents for a longer period compared to those who want or have children (Hagestad & Call, 2007). Some studies also indicate that childfree people are less religious and more liberal than their peers (Avison & Furnham, 2015; Neal & Neal, 2021; Stobert & Kemeny, 2003).

Some older research also provides insight into the differences between childfree people and those who want/have children. Bloom and Pebley (1982) showed that childfree people are, on average, better educated, live in larger cities more often and have higher incomes; differences in income were also confirmed by Somers (1993). However, a more recent Canadian study did not confirm the difference in education level (Stobert & Kemeny, 2003). Other differences have not yet been refuted. However, it should be noted that cited studies are from the past century and should be considered cautiously.

Living childfree

Others often do not accept the decision to be childfree (Mollen, 2006). Family and friends attempt to change the attitudes of childfree people, saying they will change their minds and later regret their decision (Doyle et al., 2013). However, there is currently little evidence to support these statements. In DeLyser’s (2012) research, childless (primarily voluntary) perimenopausal women were interviewed to find out if they regretted not being mothers. Only two out of 15 women stated that they regretted not pursuing motherhood but were not troubled by it. Other women said they did not regret their decision, although they had moments of doubt.

Another study showed that 30% of childfree women regretted not being mothers but never said so spontaneously, only when asked about it directly (Jeffries & Konnert, 2002). On average, childfree women were no different from other women regarding their level of well-being (Jeffries & Konnert, 2002). The same results concerning well-being were confirmed by Rothrauff and Cooney (2008), who identified generativity as a more important predictor of well-being. The more complex image ensues when analysing the well-being of parents and childless individuals in general. Here, results are mixed, showing a multitude of moderators (such as children's age, age of parent, extensiveness of social network or economic stability) and not providing a definite answer as to whether parents have higher/lower or the same level of well-being as childless adults (e.g. Becker et al., 2019; Hansen, 2012; Nelson et al., 2014).

Research questions and hypotheses

This research aims to bridge the knowledge gap regarding the Polish childfree population. First, it addresses the lack of information on the demographic characteristics of Polish childfree people and whether these characteristics are related to their procreative decisions. This is important because there is no such research on Poland, while there are some such works on other countries (e.g. Sobotka, 2017). Next, broader qualitative research concerning childfree people’s motivations to remain childless is addressed, which is crucial for understanding the childfreeness phenomenon (mainly whether the results differ among studies from different areas and if the reasons cited are associated with some local developments (such as the abortion law in Poland)).

The research is divided into two studies. Study 1 used a stratified random sample to describe childfree people in terms of demographic features. Past research showed that childfree adults are more liberal (Avison & Furnham, 2015), live in larger cities and have higher incomes (Bloom & Pebley, 1982) compared to those who want or have children. The education of childfree adults has been verified by two studies, which disagree with each other on whether the childfree adults had higher education than parents (Bloom & Pebley, 1982; Stobert & Kemeny, 2003). Based on past research, six hypotheses were proposed to verify which of the variables explored in the past could significantly predict the decision to want to have children. It is assumed that lower age (H1), higher education (H2), larger place of living (H3), left (H4) and liberal (H5) beliefs, and a worse evaluation of one’s economic situation (H6) predict the decision to be childfree in adults.

Study 2 explored the reasons for childfreeness in Poland. To this end, a large sample (n > 400) of individuals were asked to describe their motivations for not having children.

Data from both studies are available at OSF (https://osf.io/ft7y8/).

Study 1

Method

Study 1 used data collected monthly by Prejudice Lab (an interdisciplinary team of scientists working on prejudice, collective narcissism and intergroup conflict; the data were collected for Collective Narcissism Monitor (https://collectivenarcissism.com/)). Data were collected via an online survey by Ariadna Research Panel (a Polish research panel) in October 2021. Participants received gratification in the form of points they could later exchange for different goods.

Participants

Participants were invited by email or notification on their Ariadna profile. The study was completed by 1,096 participants aged between 18 and 80 (M = 44.92, SD = 15.80). This was a random sample drawn from an online panel, stratified to reflect the Polish population in terms of age groups, gender and place of living. The sample size was the standard size used by Ariadna to report this kind of data. To include only adults of reproductive age (to exclude people who might have wanted to have children in the past, but it is too late for them to have them now), a filter was implemented to retain only adults who are younger than 51 years old, as this is the mean age of menopause in Europe (De Bruin et al., 2001). This resulted in a sample of 665 participants aged 18 to 50 (M = 34.14, SD = 9.22). Women comprised 50.08% of the sample (only men and women options were available, as the question was about sex and not gender to ensure the sample was stratified based on census data). Most participants lived in a village (37.44%). In comparison, a small town was represented by 12.63% of the sample, a moderate-size city was represented by 20.15% and a large city was represented by 17.29%. A city with more than 500,000 inhabitants was represented by 12.48% of the sample. More than half of the sample had higher than secondary education (58.50%). The full demographic report can be found in Table 1s on OSF (https://osf.io/ft7y8/).

Measures

Participants were asked demographic questions (place of living, age, etc.) and queries about their political beliefs both in terms of left–right orientation (on a scale of 1. Left-wing to 5. Right-wing, with Answer 3 as ‘centre’ and 6 as ‘I don’t know/it’s hard to say’) and liberal–conservative orientation (on a scale of 1. Liberal to 5. Conservative, with Answer 3 as ‘it’s hard to say, somewhat conservative and somewhat liberal’). To provide comparability between left–right orientation and liberal–conservative orientation, Answer 6 in left–right orientation (‘I don’t know’) was coded as 3 (next to ‘centre’), as in the liberal–conservative orientation question.

Participants were also asked how they perceived their economic situation (on a scale from "1. very bad" to "7. very good").

In the end, they were also asked whether they had children ("yes" or "no"). If they answered no, they were asked if they wanted to have children in the future (with answers ranging from “1. Definitely no” to “4. Definitely yes”, with a fifth option “It’s hard to say”). To convert this into a categorical variable, ‘definitely no’ and ‘no’ answers were merged into one category, ‘yes’ and ‘definitely yes’ answers were combined into the second category, and ‘it’s hard to say’ into a third category.

Results

It was revealed that 14.89% of the total sample had no children and did not want to have them in the future. This means that childfree people account for 14.89% of adults who are in their reproductive age in Poland. Demographic data of the childfree people in comparison to adults that decided differently about their procreation are available in Table 1s on OSF (https://osf.io/ft7y8/).

Logistic regression was performed to check the hypotheses. Participants were divided into those who do not have children and do not want to have them (coded as 0; n = 99) and participants who have children or want to have them (coded as 1; n = 526), resulting in a dichotomous dependent variable. Participants who want to have children and who have children were combined into one group, as both these groups made the same procreational decision; although in the case of people who want to have children, this decision might change, it is not likely, as only one-third of people who want to have children might experience a decline in their childbearing desires (Gray et al., 2013). Participants who did not know whether they wanted to have children (and did not have them) were excluded (n = 40), as they represented a different subgroup than the other two groups. They did not have an established procreational decision and, in the future, could belong to either of the two previously mentioned groups.

The effects of age, gender, education level, place of residence, liberal–conservative orientation, left–right political orientation and self-assessed economic situation were tested. The logistic regression model was statistically significant (χ2 (7) = 53.10, p < .001). The model explained 14.0% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in the procreation decision and correctly identified 84.2% of cases. Of all the variables provided, only three were significant predictors: age (with each year of living, it was 1.06 times more probable that the participant will want to have children or will have them), liberal orientation (Exp (B) = 1.49) and left–wing orientation (Exp (B) = 1.37). The details of the analysis are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Logistic regression of decision to have children
Full size table

Study 2

Internet Study 2 aimed to explore the motivations of childfree people in Poland. The responses were analysed to identify the specific reasons and motives behind participants' decision to be childfree.

Method

Data were collected between May 2020 and January 2021 using a survey created in Google Forms (https://about.google/intl/forms/) program. Participants were volunteers and did not receive any gratification upon completion of the study. Data were collected using the snowball technique (started by asking a blogger to post about the survey) and opportunity sampling.

Participants

Participants were recruited via social media (Facebook) and university mailing lists. The inclusion criteria for participants to be included in the analysis were being a childfree person, being an adult (18 years or older) and not having children or having significant experience with them (being a caretaker for a sibling because parents were absent, being pregnant, losing a child, etc.).

Five hundred four participants took part in the study; however, two were excluded for not meeting the age criteria (minimum age of 18 years),Footnote 1 and one was excluded for disclosing in the short answer question that they did not meet the inclusion criteria (had experience with parenthood); another one was excepted for seriously considering adoption (thus not being childfree), and 39 were left out for not filling in anything in the short answer question or providing an incoherent answer. The final sample comprised 461 participants aged between 18 and 58 (M = 29.07, SD = 7.01). There was an assumption of a minimum sample size of 100 participants – the sample size estimated for analysis performed in Ciesielski (2021) study; the analysis used the same sample but different qualitative data. However, there was no maximum sample size assumption. The majority of the sample consisted of women (77.22%) and people with higher education (69.20%; secondary school education accounted for 28.63%, and other levels of education accounted for less than 2.3%). Three-quarters of the sample also declared that they were heterosexual (75.92%). A little over half of the sample lived in a city with more than 500,000 inhabitants (52.93%) and were in an intimate relationship (56.62%). The sample was not representative of the Polish population nor the childfree population.

Measures

Participants answered a short sociodemographic questionnaire (concerning their age, gender (with possible answers of woman, man and other), place of living, sexual orientation (with possible answers of heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and other), etc.). Then, they were asked about their procreation plans. They were asked three closed questions: whether they want to have children (yes/no/I don’t know – only those who answered no were considered for this study), how firm their decision is ("1 – I have many doubts", "6 – I am entirely confident of my decision") and how much time (in years) has passed since they made that decision.

The participants were then asked the reason for this decision. This was a short answer question, where typing space increased as the participants typed their answers.

Analytical strategy

Participants’ answers for not wanting to have children were analysed qualitatively. First, a list of possible reasons was constructed based on previous research presented in the theoretical chapter (e.g. Avison & Furnham, 2015; Wacławik, 2012a, b). The list consisted of 14 possible reasons (Table 2). The theory-driven approach to the analysis was preferred (in opposition to the data-driven approach) to provide comparability to past research. For the sake of not omitting any valuable data, the category ‘other’ was constructed to allow insight into reasons that were not compatible with the created list.

Four competent judges (last year’s psychology students and the first author) were to analyse the participants’ answers. The students were trained by the first author on how to analyse data and were provided with detailed instructions. Analysis concerning the reasons was dichotomous in design (present vs absent). The only exception was the category other, where the judges were asked to type in what the other reason was.

At first, the judges evaluated the same 11 answers. In later assessments, consistency was checked with Krippendorff’s alpha using SPSS Macro (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). In the first tier of consistency check, the analysis of reasons was consistent among judges (each category was analysed separately, and alphas ranged from α = 0.78 to α = 1.00, with a mean of 0.97. The category ‘other reasons’ was not analysed due to the qualitative character of the answers).

Upon achieving consistency, judges were assigned some of the participants’ answers for analysis. Each judge analysed approximately 115 answers. On average, the participants' answers were relatively short (word count M = 23.22, SD = 30.65, min = 1, max = 238).

Results

Reasons for not wanting to have children

Participants, on average, gave more than two reasons why they did not want to have children (M = 2.19), with a minimum of 0 (answers such as ‘I don’t know’ or ‘many’) and a maximum of 8. Most often, participants gave one (37.09%) or two (26.03%) reasons. The reasons and examples of participants’ answers are provided in Table 2. The most common reasons for not wanting to have children were lack of parental instinct (37.36%), not liking children (29.49%) and desire for autonomy (21.35%).

Among the ‘other’ category, several motives were present in the multiple responses of participants, such as health reasons (bad genes, physical or psychological sickness; n = 26), lack of a partner and unwillingness to be in a long-time relationship (n = 9). Other reasons were mostly personal (e.g. ‘doing so to spite the family’).

There were no significant differences between men and women in the frequency of a given reason in their responses (ps >.10) except for the no parental instinct reason, which was more frequent in women (φ = .15, p = .002).

Age and strength of decision

Overall, participants decided they did not want to have children in their adolescence (M = 16.06, SD = 7.18), with some stating that they had known ‘since birth’ and no later than the age of 35. Only 32.82% of the participants said they decided after the age of 18, and only 20.79% after 21. Only 2.41% decided not to have children after the age of 30. Four of the participants did not answer this question or answered inconsistently.

On average, participants were sure of their decision (M = 5.19, SD = 1.17). Only 9.33% expressed having doubts (Answers 1 to 3).

Table 2 Reasons for not wanting children
Full size table

Discussion

Childfreeness is a topic that is still largely unexplored. Data collected about the demographics of childfree people shed some light on what this phenomenon looks like in Poland (and perhaps more globally). The study provides an estimation of the percentage of the childfree population in Poland (which is 14.89% of adults who are in their reproductive age). However, it is crucial to notice the difficulties and imperfections of such estimations. Official statistics (in opposition to surveys) are considered a more reliable source of estimation concerning the group’s representation in the population, although they often focus on women only (e.g. fertility rate is given as the number of children per woman) and ignore migrations (Kreyenfeld & Konietzka, 2017). Meanwhile, surveys are biased by including only volunteers and, therefore, are not entirely representative (Kreyenfeld & Konietzka, 2017). Although the sample analysed in Study 1 was a stratified random sample in terms of gender, age and place of living, it was not representative in terms of education; the sample had higher education than the one reported by Statistics Poland (2022b). Furthermore, the topic of estimating the childfree population is more complex, as it is not clear when the estimation should take place – during the procreational age (as is in this study), when the decision is declarative, or at the end of procreational age, as this is the moment when the decision to have/not have children is final. The age that marks the end of the procreative period is possible to determine for women (as it is associated with menopause) but impossible for men, who are fertile even in late adulthood; even though sexual dysfunctions appear and semen quality lowers, the possibility of conception remains (e.g. Martins da Silva & Anderson, 2022). Meanwhile, even people who want to have children may define themselves as childfree if they do not manage to become parents (such as so-called postponers, who postpone procreation in time up to the moment when they believe that it is too late for them to have children) (e.g. Veevers, 1974). Therefore, it is vital to note that while the estimation proposed in this study is methodologically sound, it is subject to limitations inherent in the complexity of accurately measuring the childfree population. The global situation might have also influenced the estimation. The data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was found to be in association with an increase in declarations of being childfree (Micelli et al., 2020). It is not yet clear whether the pandemic (or other global events) permanently influences the procreational decision or if the procreational decision changes again after the disturbing situation settles. It is also possible that there was an increase in childfreeness in Poland due to the implementation of a strict abortion law, which was recalled by some of the participants of Study 2.

The decision to become childfree was predicted in the past by some demographic variables. Compared to older data, the decision not to have children was not predicted by educational level, which supports Stobert and Kemeny's (2003) findings rather than the older research by Bloom and Pebley (1982). The place of living also did not predict procreational decisions. However, the differences in political beliefs explored in Avison and Furnham’s (2015) study on a multinational English-speaking sample and Stobert and Kemeny’s (2003) research (based in Canada) between childfree people and the rest of the population seem to hold in the presented research, as both liberal and left-wing political beliefs are significant predictors of the procreational decision. Moreover, lower age was associated with a declaration of being childfree in opposition to being a parent or a desire to become one.

Although previous research has shown that childfree people earn more money (Bloom & Pebley, 1982), Study 1 did not find a significant effect of participants’ evaluation of their economic situation as a predictor of procreational decision. This may be attributable, among other things, to the government’s 500 + programme that supports parents with 500 zl (~ 113 USD) monthly for each child they have (until they reach the age of 18), which may result in an improved evaluation of personal economic situation among parents. It is important to note, however, that although the 500 + programme aimed to promote procreation in Poland, and even though finances are cited as one of the reasons for not wanting to have children by Study 2 participants, the evaluations of the programme state that it did not result in a significant increase in childbirths (Kucharska, 2021).

The age of decision to become childfree in Study 2 is consistent with the data presented by Avison and Furnham (2015), with the majority of the group deciding not to want children before the age of 21. This might suggest that making a decision concerning procreation could be primarily related to identity formation. Future intercultural studies are needed to confirm that the procreational decision is related to identity formation.

On average, participants in Study 2 were willing to share their reasons for not wanting to have children, with a mean response of 23 words. This suggests that despite the social stigma of childfreeness (e.g. Doyle et al., 2013), participants want to talk about their decisions, especially in the safe environment of an anonymous study. The most common reasons for not wanting children were a lack of parental instinct or need to have children, dislike of children, need for personal autonomy and fear of not being a good parent, which is partially consistent with Avison and Furnham's (2015) research (although the different methodology of Study 2 does not allow a direct comparison) and Wacławik’s (2012b) findings. What is worth investigating is that there were almost no differences in the frequencies of reasons given by men and women. This is particularly interesting in the case of fears concerning pregnancy and childbirth, which were not significantly more often cited by women as could have been expected. This suggests that men are also very conscious of the effect of pregnancy on women’s bodies.

Also noteworthy is the prevalence of anti-natalism and global problems in the participants' answers. This suggests that some people do not want to have children not because of perceived difficulties in parenting or seeing having children as an obstacle but because they see the world as dangerous and unfriendly for raising children. This is an important topic discussed in both social media (e.g. Shead, 2021) and research (e.g. Langdridge et al., 2005; Park, 2005). It is also interesting to explore in the future who resigns from having children due to the global situation and whether this is the actual reason or masking of a different one (e.g. lack of Eriksonian basic trust).

In both studies, a significant pattern emerges. Political beliefs and perceptions of the surrounding world seem to be important factors associated with not wanting to have children. However, a much more significant and prevalent factor is the one concerning personality and one’s own goals. The lack of desire to have children seems more connected to individual reasons than to some ideological trends or external factors.

Further research and limitations

Although Study 1 presented data from a stratified random sample of Poland, it was only a sample. A larger sample would be required to obtain a more accurate estimate (preferably a census). It is also important to mention that the population of the Ariadna Research Panel may be somewhat biased, as only a fraction of all citizens use it (therefore, it does not represent well the population that is not present on the Internet), and the sample used was overrepresented by adults with a higher education level. Furthermore, using these kinds of panels is burdened with the risk of professional survey participants, who are focused on speeding through surveys (for greater reward) and not on the survey itself.

The analysis of Study 2 was performed using the competent judges' method. Although the process was supervised and attention was paid to the consistency of the judges, there might be some degree of bias in the assessments provided by the judges.

It is also important to point out that the studies were conducted via the Internet, preventing direct control over participants' commitment. There were no control questions in either of the studies (such as 2 + 2 =?) or ballot stuffing controls in Study 2 (such as one answer per IP address), which could have resulted in participants answering the questionnaire twice. However, the quality of Study 1 was controlled by Ariadna, who controls the data based on participants’ answer patterns (e.g. speeding). In contrast, Study 2 was not likely an object of interest for ‘professional survey participants’, as it offered no gratification.

In the future, it would be valuable to explore childfreeness on a larger sample in Poland and other countries to check whether some of the effects shown in the studies are global or local. It would also be interesting to explore the reasons for childfreeness in Poland using a more qualitative approach, such as that employed by Avison and Furnham (2015). Similarly, it would be interesting to investigate whether changes in abortion laws have an impact on the procreation decisions of Poles.

Compliance with ethical statements

The methodology of the study and used tools were extensively consulted by an Ethics Committee member, who determined that the Committee’s approval was not necessary due to the survey nature of the study. The authors did not identify any threats beyond the risks associated with the daily functioning of the participants. Furthermore, the study's authors took precautions to protect the participants' psychological integrity, privacy and dignity. All participants were informed about the procedure of the study, that their participation was anonymous and that they had the right to terminate their participation. All of the participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study.

Summary

Childfreeness will most likely cause controversy in public debate for many years. It is essential to explore people’s motivations for not having children. This article provides insight into Polish childfreeness, describing the phenomenon's scope and the reasons behind it. However, further research is needed to provide more detailed data.