Qualifying Social Influence on Fertility Intentions

Abstract

Although the relevance of social interactions or social networks for fertility research has been increasingly acknowledged in recent years, little is known about the channels and mechanisms of social influences on individuals’ fertility decision-making. Drawing on problem-centred interviews and network data collected among young adults in western Germany, the authors show that qualitative methods broaden our understanding of social and contextual influences on couples’ fertility intentions, by exploring the phenomenon, taking subjective perceptions into account, analysing interactions within networks as well as the dynamics of networks. Qualitative methods allow for the collection and analysis of rich retrospective information on network dynamics in relation to life course events. This can also be helpful both to complement the still rare longitudinal data on social networks and to develop parsimonious and efficient survey instruments to collect such information in a standardized way.

Social networks and fertility

“…These discussions give rise to both social learning and social pressure about timing choices (cf. Keim, Klärner, and Bernardi 2009;Mynarska 2010). Parental investments in children are primarily explained with reference to the expected social consequences of having children: i.e., the acquisition of social capital, social recognition for the parental role, and the social prestige of having -good quality‖ children.…”

Does the kin orientation of a British woman’s social network influence her entry into motherhood?

“…In recent years, a substantial amount of research has been done on the effects of social network characteristics on various reproductive attitudes and behaviours (Montgomery and Casterline 1993;Kohler 1997;Montgomery and Chung 1999;Kohler, Behrman, and Watkins 2000;Kohler, Behrman, and Watkins 2001;Behrman, Kohler, and Watkins 2002;Bernardi 2003;Madhavan, Adams, and Simon 2003;Rindfuss et al 2004;Helleringer and Kohler 2005;Sandberg 2005;Kuziemko 2006;Musalia 2006;Avogo and Agadjanian 2008;Borgerhoff Mulder 2009;Keim, Klarner, and Bernardi 2009;Mace and Colleran 2009;Hensvik and Nilsson 2010). Relatively few of these studies on social networks have focused on actualised fertility outcomes, with the exception of Madhavan et al (2003), Kuziemko (2006), and Hensvik and Nilsson (2010).…”

“…High-density networks will facilitate social influence, while low-density networks are conducive to the spread of information. Less attention has been paid to the composition of the network, with only a few studies looking at the question of whether alters are genetically related to the measured individual (although there are exceptions: e.g., Madhavan, Adams, and Simon 2003;Bernardi 2003;Musalia 2005;Kuziemko 2006;Keim, Klarner, and Bernardi 2009;Mace and Colleran 2009;Borgerhoff Mulder 2009).…”

“…We have found only two quantitative studies of low-fertility populations that investigated whether fertility behaviours are affected by social networks, and those studies looked at quite different types of network (co-workers in Sweden (Hensvik and Nilsson 2010) and siblings in the US (Kuziemko 2006)). Qualitative studies of low-fertility populations have indicated that kin interactions may influence fertility preferences (see Bernardi (2003) for Italy and Keim, Klarner, and Bernardi (2009) for Germany).…”

Strong families and declining fertility : a comparative study of family relations and reproductive careers in Soviet Ukraine

“…Bernardi was among the first to examine di↵erent social influences on reproductive decision-making of men and women in northern Italy. Later, this approach was advanced by follow-up studies on other European countries (Bernardi and White, 2010;Diaz et al, 2011;Keim et al, 2009Keim et al, , 2012Rossier and Bernardi, 2009). …”