Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 22, Issue 5–6, pp 427–555 | Cite as

Channels of Social Influence on Reproduction

  • Laura Bernardi


The article investigates the different types of social mechanisms responsible for the interdependence of couples' reproductive preferences predicted by diffusion models of fertility and family behavior. We analyze the transcripts of in-depth interviews carried out with 54 women in the northern part of Italy. The rich information on observations and conversations about fertility and family choices with relatives and peers enables us to distinguish four different ways in which social interaction influences reproductive preferences, namely social learning, social pressure, subjective obligation and contagion. Second, we show how the efficacy of each mechanism affecting fertility behavior depends on the kind and the structure of personal relationships involved in the interaction. Finally, we discuss the ways in which individual attitudes and values associated with the transition to parenthood are produced and negotiated in face-to-face interactions, and the importance of focusing on the process of preference-formationand modification for understanding fertility behavior.

Low fertility transition to parenthood qualitative research social interaction Italy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barbagli, M., Castiglioni, M. & Dalla Zuanna, G. (2003), Fare famiglia in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  2. Barbelet, J.M. (2001[1998]), Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure. A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P.L. & Kellner, H. (1970), Marriage and the construction of reality, pp. 50–72 in H-P.-Dreitzel (ed.), Recent Sociology No. 2: Patterns of Communicative Behavior. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bernardi, L. (2002), Personal relationships and reproductive choices: Evidence from a low fertility context, Ph.D. Dissertation. Universita' di Roma La Sapienza and Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
  5. Billari, F. & Kohler, H.-P. (2000), The impact of union formation dynamics on first births in West Germany and Italy: Are there signs of convergence? Working Paper. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
  6. Billari, F. & Wilson, C. (2001), Convergence towards diversity? Cohort dynamics in the transition to adulthood in contemporary Western Europe. Working Paper. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
  7. Bledsoe, C. (2002), Contingent lives. Fertility, Time, and Aging in West Africa. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bledsoe, C., Banja, F. & Hill, A. (1998), Reproductive mishaps and western contraception: An African challenge to fertility theory, Population and Development Review 24(1): 15–57.Google Scholar
  9. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. & Jakobi, L. (1998), Evidence for a spatial diffusion of contraception at the onset of the fertility transition in Victorian Britain, Population: An English Selection 10(1): 181–204.Google Scholar
  10. Bongaarts, J. & Watkins, S. (1996), Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions, Population and Development Review 22: 639–682.Google Scholar
  11. Bowen, G., Richman, J. & Bowen, N. (2000), Families in the context of communities across time, pp. 117–128 in S. Price, P. McKenry & M. Murphy (eds.), Families Across Time. A Life Course Perspective. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Bulatao, R.A. (1981), Values and disvalues of children in successive childbearing decisions, Demography 18: 1–25.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, E. (1985), The Childless Marriage. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Cleland, J. & Wilson, C. (1987), Demand theories of the fertility transition: an iconoclastic view, Population Studies 41(1): 5–30.Google Scholar
  15. Dalla Zuanna, G. (2001), The banquet of Aeolus. A familistic interpretation of Italy's lowest low fertility, Demographic Research 4(5): 133–162.Google Scholar
  16. Del Boca, D. (2002), The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy, Population Economics 15(3): 549–573.Google Scholar
  17. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), The Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Festinger, L. (1973[1957]), Teoria della Dissonanza Cognitiva. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  19. Filippucci, P. (2000), A place in the world. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cambridge, Department of Social Anthropology.Google Scholar
  20. Hernes, G. (1972), The process of entry into first marriage, American Sociological Review 37 (April): 173–182.Google Scholar
  21. Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior. Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.Google Scholar
  22. Huinink, J. (2001), The macro-micro-link in demography: Explanations of demographic change, Discussion Paper. Presented at the Euroconference The Second Demographic Transition, Bad Herrenalb, 23–28 June.Google Scholar
  23. Kiernan, K. (1998), Parenthood and family life in the United Kingdom, Review of Population Studies and Social Policy 7: 63–81.Google Scholar
  24. Kiernan, K. (1999a), Childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe, Population Trends 98(Winter): 11–19.Google Scholar
  25. Kiernan, K. (1999b), Cohabitation inWestern Europe, Population Trends 96(Summer): 25–32.Google Scholar
  26. Knippenberg, D. van (2000), Prototypicality and persuasion, pp. 157–170 in D. Terry & M. Hogg (eds.), Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context. The Role of Norms and Group Membership. London: Lawrence Elbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Knodel, J. & van de Walle, E. (1979), Lessons from the past: policy implications of historical fertility studies, Population and Development Review 5(2): 217–245.Google Scholar
  28. Kohler, H.-P. (2001), Fertility and Social Interaction. An Economic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Micheli, G. (2000), Kinship, family and social networks, Demographic Research 3 (article 13).Google Scholar
  30. Montgomery, M.R. & Casterline, J.B. (1993), The diffusion of fertility control in Taiwan: Evidence from pooled cross-section time-series models, Population Studies 47(3): 457–479.Google Scholar
  31. Montgomery, M.R. & Casterline, J.B. (1996), Social learning, social influence and new models of fertility, pp. 151–175 in J.B. Casterline, R.D. & K.A. Foote (eds.), Population and Development Review (Supplement 22: Fertility in the United States: new patterns, new theories).Google Scholar
  32. Morgan, P. & King, B.R. (2001), Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice, European Journal of Population 17: 3–20.Google Scholar
  33. Moscovici, S. & Personnaz, B. (1980), Studies in social influence, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16: 270–282.Google Scholar
  34. Nazio, T. & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2002), The diffusion of cohabitation among young women in West Germany, East Germany and Italy. Working Paper. Globalife.Google Scholar
  35. Palloni, A. (1998), Theories and models of diffusion in sociology. Working paper. University of Wisconsin. Centre for Demography and Ecology.Google Scholar
  36. Pearce, D. & Bovagnet, F.-C. (2001), The demographic situation in the European Union, Population Trends 104(Summer): 6–11.Google Scholar
  37. Pollak, R. & Watkins, S. (1993), Cultural and economic approaches to fertility: proper marriage or misalliance?, Population and Development Review 19(3): 467–496.Google Scholar
  38. Preston, S. (1986), Changing values and falling birth rates, pp. 176–195 in K. Davis, M.S. Bernstam & R. Ricardo-Campbell (eds.), Population and Development Review (Supplement 12: Below-replacement fertility in industrial societies: causes, consequences, policies).Google Scholar
  39. Rindfuss, R., Morgan P. & Swicegood, G. (1988), First Births in America. Changes in the time of parenthood. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rutemberg, N. & Watkins S. (1997), The buzz outside the clinics: Conversations and contraception in Nyanza Province, Kenya, Studies in Family Planning 28(4): 290–307.Google Scholar
  41. Santini, A. (1995), Continuita' e discontinuita' nel comportamento riproduttivo delle donne italiane nel dopoguerra: tendenze generali della fecondita' nelle coorti nelle ripartizioni tra il 1952 ed il 1991. Working Paper. Universita' degli Studi di Firenze. Dipartimento di Statistica.Google Scholar
  42. Townsend, N., ed. (2002), The Package Deal. Marriage, Work and Fatherhood in Men's Lives. Philadelphia: Temple.Google Scholar
  43. Upton, R. (2000), The next one changes everything: Parental adjustment to the second child among middle-class American families. Working Paper. University of Michigan, Center for the Ethnography of Everyday Life.Google Scholar
  44. Watkins S. (1987), The fertility transition: Europe and the third world compared, Sociological Forum 2(4): 645–673.Google Scholar
  45. Watkins, S. (1986), Conclusions, pp. 420–449 in A Coale & S. Watkins (eds.), The Decline of Fertility in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Bernardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations