Journal of Population Research

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 41–66 | Cite as

Women’s fertility, religion and education in a low-fertility population: Evidence from South Australia

  • Lareen A. Newman
  • Graeme J. Hugo


The old issue of religion and fertility is examined in relation to women s level of education. In-depth interviews exploring influences on parity for Adelaide parents in 2003–04 suggest that more frequent attendance at religious services in childhood, and affiliation with particular religious denominations, are related to both higher preferred and higher achieved parity, even for women with university education. For some university-educated women, their religious upbringing appears to play a part in negating the traditional relationship between higher education and lower fertility. Quantitative data on religion, fertility and educational level from the 1996 Census for women aged 40–44 in South Australia show that women with No Religion had lower fertility than those With a religion, while university-educated women in New Protestan-New Christian groups had higher fertility than university-educated women in other denominations. The findings provide an understanding of some social conditions that support higher fertility in a low-fertility population. Future fertility research in developed countries should include consideration of the influence of religious affiliation and religiosity at disaggregated levels of inquiry.


education of women religion religious affiliation religiosity fertility behaviour social norms family environment Australia interviews census data 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adsera, Alicia. 2006. Marital fertility and religion in Spain, 1985 and 1999.Population Studies 60(2): 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axinn, William G., Marin E. Clarkberg and Arland Thornton. 1991. Family influences on family size preferences.Demography 31(1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axinn, William G., Thomas E. Fricke and Arland Thornton. 1991. The microdemographic community-study approach: improving survey data by integrating the ethnographic method.Sociological Methods and Research 20: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 1996.Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups. Catalogue No. 1226.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2002.Adelaide: A Social Atlas, 2001 Census of Population and Housing. Catalogue No. 2030.4. Canberra.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2004.Australian Social Trends 2004. Catalogue No. 4102.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2005.Australian Social Trends 2005. Catalogue No. 4102.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  8. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). n.d. 1986Census of Population & Housing Small Area Summary Data Full Format, Unpublished data, Canberra.Google Scholar
  9. Bachrach, Christine. 2001. Comment: the puzzling persistence of postmodern fertility preferences. Pp. 332–338 in R.A. Bulatao and J.B. Casterline (eds),Global Fertility Transition. Supplement toPopulation and Development Review 27.Google Scholar
  10. Ballis, Harry. 2000. Keeping the faith.Monash Magazine, Spring/Summer Issue No. 6, <http://> Accessed: 1 June 2005.Google Scholar
  11. Bernardi, Laura. 2003. Channels of social influence on reproduction.Population Research and Policy Review 22: 527–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bongaarts, John. 2003. Completing the fertility transition in the developing world: the role of educational differences and fertility preferences.Population Studies 57(3): 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borrie, W.D. 1975.Population and Australia: A Demographic Analysis and Projection. First Report of the National Population Inquiry. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  14. Bouma, Gary. 1997. Increasing diversity in religious identification in Australia: comparing 1947, 1991 and 1996 census reports.People and Place 5(3), <xxx au/pnp/free/pnpv5n3/bouma.htmxxxurl> Accessed: 25 May 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Bouma, Gary. 2002. Globalization and recent changes in the demography of Australian religious groups: 1947 to 2001.People and Place 10(4): 17–23.Google Scholar
  16. Bouma, Gary. 2006.Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the 21 st Century. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Caldwell, John C. 1976. Preface. Pp. iv-vii in J.C. Caldwellet al., Towards an Understanding of Contemporary Demographic Change: A report on Semi-Structured Interviews. Australian Family Formation Project Monograph No. 4. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  18. Caldwell, John C. 1982.Theory of Fertility Decline. Second edition. Melbourne: Cheshire.Google Scholar
  19. Caldwell, John, Dot Campbell, Pat Caldwell, Lado Ruzicka, Wendy Cosford, Rita Packer, Janine Grocott and Margaret Neill. 1976.Towards an Understanding of Contemporary Demographic Change: A Report on Semi-Structured Interviews. Australian Family Formation Project Monograph No. 4. Canberra: Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Caldwell, John C., Alan G. Hill and Valerie J. Hull (eds). 1988.Micro-Approaches to Demographic Research, London: Kegan Paul International.Google Scholar
  21. Callan, Victor J. 1982. How do Australians value children? A review and research update using the perceptions of parents and voluntarily childless adults.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 18(3): 384–398.Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, Dot. 1976. The Sydney Survey. Pp. 29–54 in J. Caldwellet al., Towards an Understanding of Contemporary Demographic Change: A Report on Semi-Structured Interviews, Camberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  23. Cannold, Leslie. 2005.What, No Baby? North Fremantle: Curtin University Books.Google Scholar
  24. Carmichael, Gordon A. and Peter McDonald. 2003, Fertility trends and differentials Pp. 40–76 in Siew-Ean Khoo and Peter McDonald (eds),The Transformation of Australias Population: 1970–2030. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  25. Casterline, John B. 1999. Conclusions. Pp. 357–370 in R. Leete (ed.),Dynamics of Values in Fertility Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Coleman, David. 2000. Review of A. Hinde 1998Demographic Methods. Population Studies 54(3): 357.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, Kingsley. 1937. Reproductive institutions and the pressure for population.Sociological Review, reprinted inPopulation and Development Review 23 (1997): 611–624.Google Scholar
  28. Day, Lincoln H. 1965. Family size and fertility Pp. 156–167 in A.F. Davies and S. Encel (eds),Australian Society: A Sociological Introduction. Melbourne: Cheshire.Google Scholar
  29. De Vaus, David. 1997. Family values in the nineties.Family Matters 48: 5–10.Google Scholar
  30. Dimitrovsky, Lilly, Rachel Levy-Shiff and Galita Perl. 2000. Effect of gender-role orientation of primiparous mothers on their cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and mood postpartum.Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 43(910), November. < http://www.findarticles. com>. Accessed: 13 October 2003.Google Scholar
  31. Gerson, Kathleen. 1985.Hard Choices: How Women Decide About Work, Career and Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Goldstein, Joshua, Wolfgang Lutz and Maria Rita Testa. 2003. The emergence of sub-replacement family size ideals in Europe.Population Research and Policy Review 22(5-6): 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hakim, Catherine. 2003. Competing family models, competing social policies. Paper presented to the 8th annual conference of the Australian Institute for Family Studies, Melbourne, 12 March.Google Scholar
  34. Hewlett, Sylvia. 2002.Baby Hunger: The New Battle for Motherhood. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Howard, David and Peter E. Hopkins. 2005. Race, religion and the census. Editorial.Populations, Space and Place 11(2): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hugo, Graeme J. 1990.Atlas of the Australian People: South Australia, 1986 Census. Second edition Canberra: Bureau of Immigration Research.Google Scholar
  37. Hugo, Craeme J. 2004.Recent Fertility Trends in South. Report to Planning SA., Adelaide: Department of Geography, University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
  38. Inglis, K.S. 1965. Religious behaviour. Pp. 43–75 in A.F. Davies and S. Encel (eds),Australian Society: A Sociological Introduction. Melbourne: Cheshire.Google Scholar
  39. Knodel, John. 1997. A case for non-anthropological qualitative methods for demographers.Population and Development Review 23(4): 847–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kravdal, Oystein. 2001. The high fertility of college educated women in Norway.Demographic Research 5, Article 6. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
  41. Land, Hilary. 1969.Large Families in London: A Study of 86 Families. Occasional papers on Social Administration, No. 32 Department of Social Administration, London School of Economics and Political Science. London: Bell and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  42. Larson, Ann. 1997. New directions for the study of Australias fertility decline.Journal of the Australian Population Association 14(1): 47–68.Google Scholar
  43. Lehrer, Evelyn L. 2004. Religion as a determinant of economic and demographic behaviour in the United States.Population and Development Review 30(4): 707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lesthaeghe, Ron 1977.The Decline of Belgian Fertility 1800–1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lesthaeghe, Ron 1998. On theory development: applications to the study of family formation.Population and Development Review 24(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lesthaeghe, Ron and Johan Surkyn. 1998. Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change.Population and Development Review 14(1): 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lesthaeghe, Ron and Johan Surkyn. 2004. When history moves on: the foundations and diffusion of a second demographic transition. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the Australian Population Association, Canberra, 15–17 September.Google Scholar
  48. Marshall, Helen 1993.Not Having Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Marten, Lisa. 2002. The effect of social interaction on fertility goals and behaviour among women in Bangladesh.Asia-Pacific Population Journal 17(2): 87–110.Google Scholar
  50. McDonald, Peter. 1998. Contemporary fertility patterns in Australia.People and Place 6(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
  51. McDonald, Peter. 2000. Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility.Journal of Population Research 17(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McDonald, Peter. 2002. Low fertility: unifying the theory and the demography. Paper presented at Meeting of the Population Association of America, Atlanta, 9–11 May. <http://> Accessed: 26 September 2002.Google Scholar
  53. McNicoll, Geoffrey. 1980. Institutional determinants of fertility change.Population and Development Review 6(3): 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McQuillan, Kevin. 2004. When does religion influence fertility?Population and Development Review 30(1): 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mencarini, Letizia and Maria Letizia Tanturri. 2005. Exploring differences and similarities among women of different parities in Italy. Paper presented to the 25th IUSSP International Population Conference, Tours: 18–23 July.Google Scholar
  56. Miller, Warren B. 1992. Personality traits and developmental experiences as antecedents of childbearing motivation.Demography 29(2): 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. 1999. Ideals and realities of motherhood: a theological perspective. Pp. 281–303 in J.E. Hanigsberg and S. Ruddick (eds),Mother Troubles—Rethinking Contemporary Maternal Dilemmas. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  58. Minichiello, Victor, Rosalie Aroni, Eric Timewell and Loris Alexander. 1995.In-Depth Interviewing Second edition. Melbourne: Longman.Google Scholar
  59. Murphy, M. and L.B. Knudsen. 2002. The intergenerational transmission of fertility in contemporary Denmark: the effects of number of siblings (full and half), birth order, and whether male or female.Population Studies 56(3): 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Newman, Lareen A. n.d. Reconsidering the influence of religion in demographic fertility research. In B. Spalek and A. Imtoual (eds),Religion, Spirituality & Social Science: A Reader (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  61. Newspoll. 2001.Work and Family Poll, Part 1. 10 September, conducted in conjunction withThe Australian. <>. Accessed: 4 August 2002.Google Scholar
  62. Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf. 1997. Qualitative methods: a key to a better understanding of demographic behaviour?Population and Development Review 23(4): 813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pocock, Barbara, Brigid van Wanrooy, Stefani Strazzari and Ken Bridge. 2001.Fifty Families: What Unreasonable Hours are Doing to Australians, Their Families and Their Communities. Melbourne: ACTU.Google Scholar
  64. Rich, Adrienne. 1976.Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: Norton and Co.Google Scholar
  65. Rindfuss, Ronald R., Karin L. Brewster and Andrew L. Kavee. 1999. Women, work and children: Behavioural and ideational change in the United States. Pp. 148–178 in R. Leete (ed.),Dynamics of Values in Fertility Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rowland, Donald T. 1997. Approaches to population policy in Australia.Working Papers in Demography 70. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  67. Ruzicka, Lado T. and John C. Caldwell. 1977.The End of Demographic Transition in Australia. Australian Family Formation Project Monograph No. 5. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  68. Ruzicka, Lado T. and John C. Caldwell. 1982. Fertility. Pp. 119–229 in United Nations,Population of Australia. Country Monograph series no. 9. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.Google Scholar
  69. Simmons, Ruth. 1996. Womens lives in transition: a qualitative analysis of the fertility decline in Bangladesh.Studies in Family Planning 27(5): 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Southworth, Joanna R. 2005. Religion in the 2001 Census for England and Wales.Population, Space and Place 11(2): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sporton, Deborah. 1999. Mixing methods in fertility research.Professional Geographer 51(1): 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taycey, David. 2003.The Spirituality Revolution: The Emergence of Contemporary Spirituality. Sydney: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  73. Testa, Maria and Leonardo Grilli. 2005. The effects of childbearing regional contexts on ideal family size in Europe: a multilevel analysis. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Population Association of America, Philadelphia, 30 March-2 April.Google Scholar
  74. Toomey, Beverley Guella. 1978. College women and voluntary childlessness: a comparative study of women indicating they want to have children and those indicating they do not want to have children. Ph. D Thesis, Ohio State University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  75. van de Walle, Francine. 1991. Education and the dem ographic transition in Switzerland.Population and Development Review 6(3): 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. von der Lippe, Holger. 2004. Transitions to fatherhood in East Germany in the 1990s: psychological determinants of childbearing and the meaning of entering into parenthood for young adults from Rostock. Ph.D thesis, Mag deburg University.Google Scholar
  77. Westoff, Charles F. and Raymond H Potvin. 1967.College Women and Fertility Values. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Weston, Ruth, Lixia Qu, Robyn Parker and Michael Alexander. 2004. Its not for lack of wanting kids: a report on the fertility decision making project. Report prepared for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  79. Williams, Joan. 2000.Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Winchester, Hilary P.M. 1999. Interviews and questionnaires as mixed methods in population geography: the case of lone fathers in Newcastle, Australia.Professional Geographer 51(1): 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wolfinger, Nicholas H. and W. Bradford Wilcox. 2005. Happily ever after? Religion, marital status, gender, and relationship quality in urban families. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, 30 March–2 April.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public HealthFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.University of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations