Advertisement

Couples’ First Child Intentions and Disagreement: An Analysis of the Italian Case

  • Alessandro Rosina
  • Maria Rita Testa
Article

Abstract

The aim of this article is to examine the determinants of couples’ childbearing intentions, by explicitly taking into account the agreement or disagreement of the two members of the couple. The relevance of the partner’s reproductive intentions has been well recognised in the literature, but few studies have provided in-depth analyses of the fertility plans of both partners. In our study, we used the household-level data from a survey on “Family and Social Subjects”, carried out by the Italian National Statistical Office in 2003, which provides characteristics on both partners. We adopted a couple’s perspective which allows us to give a unitary picture of the concordant or discordant nature of partners’ first child intentions. We found that a lack of agreement in the reproductive decision-making process is likely to occur in the Italian couples where the role of the woman is less traditional. In particular, cohabitant, highly educated and working women are more likely to be in disagreement with their partners in the decisions concerning having a first child. Being religious may be also a source of discordance in the couples’ reproductive plans. Our findings support the utility of taking a couple-based approach in studies on fertility intentions.

Keywords

Fertility intentions Couple’s reproductive decisions Partners’ disagreement in first childbearing Fertility decision-making process 

La concordance des intentions d’avoir un premier enfant dans le couple: Une analyse du cas italien

Résumé

Le but de cet article est d’examiner les déterminants des intentions de fécondité, en prenant en compte de façon explicite la concordance ou la discordance au sein des couples. La pertinence des intentions de fécondité du partenaire est bien établie dans la littérature, mais à ce jour peu d’analyses approfondies des intentions des deux partenaires ont été réalisées. Nous avons exploité les données des ménages dans l’enquête Family and Social Subjects (famille et sujets sociaux) menée par l’Institut national de la statistique en Italie en 2003, qui renseigne les caractéristiques des deux partenaires. La perspective adoptée est celle du couple, ce qui a permis de fournir une vision unifiée des intentions concordantes ou discordantes au sein du couple. Il apparaît qu’un désaccord au sein des couples en Italie est à même de se produire lorsque le rôle de la femme est moins traditionnel. En particulier, les femmes cohabitantes, très instruites et actives sont celles qui ont la probabilité la plus forte d’être en désaccord avec leur partenaire concernant les décisions d’avoir un premier enfant. La religiosité peut également être associée à des désaccords en matière d’intentions de fécondité. Nos résultats mettent en lumière tout l’intérêt de la prise en compte des deux membres du couple dans les études des intentions de fécondité.

Mots-clés

Intentions de fécondité Décisions des couples en matière de procréation Désaccords entre partenaires sur l’intention d’avoir un premier enfant Prise de décision en matière de fécondité 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Paper prepared within the project ‘Fertility Intentions and outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap’, was funded by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Contract No. VS/2006/0685).

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckman, L. J. (1983). Communication, power, and the influence of social networks in couple decisions on fertility. In R. A. Bulatao & R. D. Lee (Eds.), Determinants of fertility in developing countries (Vol. 2, pp. 415–443). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beckman, L. J. (1984). Husbands’ and wives’ relative influence on fertility decisions and outcomes. Population and Environment: Behavioral and Social Issues, 7, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berrington, A. (2004). Perpetual postponers? Women’s men’s and couple’s fertilità intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends, 117, 9–19.Google Scholar
  6. Billari, F., & Rosina, A. (2004). Italian ‘latest-late’ transition to adulthood and the consequences on fertility. Genus, LX(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
  7. Bimbi, F. (1996). Differenze di genere nelle decisioni di procreazione. Inchiesta, 111, 15–22. Google Scholar
  8. Bongaarts, J. (2001). Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies, global fertility transition. Supplement to Population and Development Review, 27, 260–281.Google Scholar
  9. Brewster, K. L., & Rindfuss, L. (2000). Fertility and women employment in industrialized countries. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corijin, M., Liefbroer, A. C., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (1996). It takes two to tango, doesn’t it? The influence of couple characteristics on the timing of the birth of the first child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalla Zuanna, G., & Tanturri, M. L. (2007). Veneti che cambiano 1971–2021 La popolazione sotto la lente di quattro censimenti. Verona (Italy): Edizioni CIERRE.Google Scholar
  12. Del Boca, D., Pasqua, S., & Pronzato, C. (2004). Why are fertility and women’s employment rates so low in Italy? Lessons from France and the UK, IZA Discussion Papers 1274, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
  13. Di Giulio, P., & Rosina, A. (2007). Intergenerational family ties and the diffusion of cohabitation in Italy. Demographic Research, 16, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraboni, R. (2005). Sposarsi. In A. Rosina & L. L. Sabbadini (Eds.), Diventare padri in Italia Fecondità e figli secondo un approccio di genere. Istat, Roma: Serie Argomenti.Google Scholar
  15. Frejka, T. (2008). Parity distribution and completed family size in Europe: Incipient decline of the two-child family model? Demographic Research, 19(4), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fried, E. S., Hofferth, S. L., & Udry, J. R. (1980). Parity-specific and two-sex utility models of reproductive intentions. Demography, 17(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fried, E. S., & Udry, J. R. (1979). Wives’ and husbands’ expected costs and benefits of childbearing predictors of pregnancy. Social Biology, 26, 256–274.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, R., Stycos, J. M., & Back, K. W. (1959). The family and population control. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  19. ISTAT. (2006). La vita di coppia. Informazioni, 23, 1–134.Google Scholar
  20. Jansen, M., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2006). Couple’s attitudes, childbirth, and the division of labor. Journal of Family Issues, 27(11), 1487–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiernan, K. (2002). Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, issues and implications. In: A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children and social policy (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A. M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (2007). The American family and family economics. In National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 12908.Google Scholar
  24. MacDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mencarini, L., & Tanturri, M. L. (2004). Time use, family role-set and childbearing among Italian working women. Genus, special issue on Low fertility in Italy, XL(1), 111–137.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1994). The psychology of child timing: A measurement instrument and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 218–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, T. B., & Short, S. E. (2004). Second births and the second shift: A research note on gender equity and fertility. Population and development Review, 30(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mills, M., Mencarini, L., Tanturri, M. L., & Bengall, K. (2008). Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 18, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, S. P. (1985). Individual and couple intentions for more children: A research note. Demography, 22(1), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Namboodiri, K. (1983). Sequential fertility decision making and the life course. In R. A. Bulatao & R. D. Lee (Eds.), Determinants of fertility in developing countries (Vol. 2). Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  32. Olah, L. S. (2003). Gendering fertility: Second births in Sweden and Hungary. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinnelli, A. (1995). Women’s condition, low fertility, and emerging union patterns in Europe. In K. O. Mason & A. M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, P. S., & Swicegood, G. (1988). First births in America: Changes in the timing of parenthood. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rosina, A. (2004). Family formation in Italy: A cohort approach. In G. Dalla Zuanna & G. A. Micheli (Eds.), Strong family and low fertility: A paradox?. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Saraceno, C. (1994). The ambivalent familism of Italian welfare state. Social Politics, 1, 60–82.Google Scholar
  37. Schoen, R., Young, J. K., Nathanson, C. A., Fields, J., & Astone, N. M. (1997). Why do Americans want children? Population and Development Review, 23(2), 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sevilla-Sanz, A. (2005). Social effects, household time allocation, and the decline in union formation. In Congressional Budget Office Working Paper No. 7.Google Scholar
  39. Sobotka, T., & Testa, M. R. (2008). Attitudes and intentions toward childlessness in Europe. In C. Höhn, D. Avramov, & I. Kotowska (Eds.), People, population change and policies: Lessons from the population policy acceptance study (Vol. 1, pp. 177–211). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Testa, M. R. (2006). Childbearing preferences and family issues in Europe. In Special Eurobarometer 253/Wave 65.1—TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission.Google Scholar
  41. Testa, M. R., Lo Conte, M., & Prati, S. (2006). Second birth intentions and employment conditions in Italy. Paper presented at the European Population Conference, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  42. Testa, M. R., & Toulemon, L. (2006). Family formation in France: Individual preferences and subsequent outcomes. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2006, 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions and births. Demography, 34(3), 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomson, E., & Hoem, J. (1998). Couple childbearing plans and births in Sweden. Demography, 35(3), 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomson, E., McDonald, E., & Bumpass, L. L. (1990). Fertility desires and fertility: Hers, his, theirs. Demography, 27, 579–588.Google Scholar
  46. Townes, B. D., Beach, L. R., Campbell, F. L., & Wood, R. L. (1980). Family building: A social psychological study of fertility decisions. Population and Environment, 3(3–4), 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catholic UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social DynamicsMilanItaly
  3. 3.Vienna Institute of DemographyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations