Abstract
This article examines the effect that intentions to start studying and to enter into employment may have on childbearing intentions and subsequent childbearing. The analysis also includes the impact of the corresponding behaviour: currently studying or being employed. The theoretical background draws on Barber’s study of competing attitudes, with an emphasis on competing intentions. Based on survey and register data for Bulgaria, the analyses reveal the effect of competing intentions. For example, the intention to start studying hampers the construction and subsequent realisation of intentions to have a child within 2 years. The actual behaviour of currently studying has the same effect; both effects are most pronounced for intentions to become a parent and for actual entry into parenthood. Inversely, an intention to enter into employment facilitates childbearing intentions and, for men, so does the behaviour of being employed. The latter result holds for women’s intention to have a second child. The findings indicate that when childbearing intentions and realisation are analysed, it is preferable to consider persons with a competing intention to start studying either as a separate group or group them with those who are currently studying, not with those who are not. Logistic regression models and interaction effects are applied for the analyses.
Résumé
Cet article examine l’effet que l’intention de commencer des études et l’intention d’entrer dans la vie active peuvent exercer sur les intentions de procréation et la procréation ultérieure. L’analyse tient compte également de l’impact du comportement correspondant : être en cours de scolarité, ou être en situation emploi. Le cadre théorique s’appuie sur l’étude par Barber des attitudes concurrentes, et met l’accent sur les intentions concurrentes. A partir de données d’enquêtes et d’état civil rassemblées en Bulgarie, les analyses menées révèlent l’effet des intentions concurrentes. Par exemple, l’intention de commencer des études entrave la construction et la réalisation ultérieure des intentions d’avoir un enfant dans les deux années à venir. Il en est de même pour le fait de d’être en cours de scolarité. Les deux effets sont le plus prononcés pour l’intention de devenir parent et pour l’entrée dans la parentalité. A l’opposé, l’intention d’entrer dans la vie active favorise les intentions de procréation, et, pour les hommes, il en est de même pour le fait d’être en situation d’emploi. Pour les femmes, être en situation d’emploi favorise l’intention d’avoir un second enfant. Tout ceci indique que pour analyser les intentions de procréation et la réalisation de ces intentions, il est préférable d’étudier séparément les personnes ayant exprimé l’intention concurrente de commencer des études, ou de les grouper avec celles qui sont en cours de scolarité, plutôt qu’avec celles qui ne le sont pas. Des modèles de régression logistique et des effets d’interaction ont été mis en œuvre dans les analyses.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I use the term ‘explanatory’ here to mean ‘study’ variables because one of the variables of interest refers to studying.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anttonen, A., & Sipilä, J. (1996). European social care services: is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2), 87–100.
Barber, J. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: attitudes towards childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.
Barber, J., & Axinn, W. (2005). How do attitudes shape childbearing in the United States? In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.), The new population problem (why families in developed countries are sinking and what it means). Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Barber, J., Axinn, W., & Thornton, A. (2002). The influence of attitudes on family formation processes. In R. Lesthaeghe (Ed.), Meaning and choice value orientations and life course decisions. Brussels/The Hague: NIDI/CBGS Publications.
Billari, F., & Philipov, D. (2004). Education and the transition to motherhood: A comparative analysis of Western Europe. European Demographic Research Papers No. 3. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography.
Billari, F., Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2009). The proximate antecedents of fertility intentions: An application of the theory of planned behaviour in the case of Bulgaria. European Journal of Population. doi: 10.1007/s10680-009-9187-9.
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. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 143–168.
Blossfeld, H.-P., Klijzing, E., Mills, M., & Kurz, K. (Eds.). (2005). Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. London: Routledge.
Corijn, M., & Klijzing, E. (Eds.). (2001). Transitions to adulthood in Europe (Vol. 10). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gauthier, A. (2007). Becoming a young adult: An international perspective on the transitions to adulthood. European Journal of Population, 23, N3–4, special issue, 217-223.
Koytcheva, E. (2006). Social-demographic differences in fertility and family formation in Bulgaria before and after the start of the societal transition. Rostock: University of Rostock.
Koytcheva, E., & Philipov, D. (2008). Bulgaria: Ethnic differentials in rapidly declining fertility. Demographic Research, 19, article 13, http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/13/.
Liefbroer, A. (2009). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population, doi: 10.1007/s10680-008-9173-7.
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1994). The psychology of child timing: A measurement instrument and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 218–250.
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1995). Behavioural intentions: Which ones predict fertility behaviour in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 530–555.
Moors, G. (2008). The valued child. In search of a latent attitude profile that influences the transition to motherhood. European Journal of Population, 24(1), 33–57.
Mulder, C., & Smits, J. (1999). First-time home-ownership of couples: The effect of inter-generational transmission. European Sociological Review, 15(3), 323–337.
Norton, E., Wang, H., & Ai, C. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal, 4(2), 154–167.
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), 289–308.
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(5–6), 497–525.
Rindfuss, R., & Brauner-Otto, S. (2008). A review of policies and practices related to the “highest-low” fertility in Sweden. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 57-88.
Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., & Nathanson, C. A. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behaviour? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 790–799.
Symeonidou, H. (2000). Expected and actual family size in Greece: 1983–1997. European Journal of Population, 16, 335–352.
Testa, M. R., & Toulemon, L. (2006). Family formation in France: Individual preferences and subsequent outcomes. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2006, 41–75.
Thomson, E., & Brandreth, Y. (1995). Measuring fertility demand. Demography, 34, 343–354.
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out within 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). Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research provided the survey data. I acknowledge the helpful comments to an earlier draft by A. Liefbroer and J. Barber, as well as the thoughtful reviews of anonymous referees.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Philipov, D. The Effect of Competing Intentions and Behaviour on Short-Term Childbearing Intentions and Subsequent Childbearing. Eur J Population 25, 525–548 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9197-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9197-7
Keywords
- Childbearing intentions
- Fertility intentions
- Competing intentions
- Realisation of intentions
- Competing attitudes
- Fertility behaviour