Fertility Intentions: An Approach Based On The Theory Of .
DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCHVOLUME 29, ARTICLE 8, PAGES 203-232PUBLISHED 31 July l29/8/DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8Review ArticleFertility intentions: An approach based on thetheory of planned behaviorIcek AjzenJane KlobasThis publication is part of the Special Collection on “Theoretical Foundationsof the Analysis of Fertility”, organized by Guest Editors Johannes Huinink,Jens Ehrhardt, and Martin Kohli. 2013 Icek Ajzen & Jane Klobas.This open-access work is published under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution NonCommercial License 2.0 Germany, which permits use,reproduction & distribution in any medium for non-commercial purposes,provided the original author(s) and source are given credit.See http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/de/
Table of Contents11.1IntroductionIntended versus actual family size20420422.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.8The theory of planned behaviorBehaviors versus goalsThe principle of compatibilityAttitudes toward having a childSubjective norm with respect to having a childPerceived control over having a childThe role of background factorsThe logic of the reasoned action approachEmpirical support for the theory of planned 62172173.43.53.6Fertility research and the theory of planned behaviorPredicting fertility behavior from intentionsPerceived control as a proxy for actual controlEffects of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control onfertility intentionsEffects of compatibilityEffects of background factorsThe role of macro-level socioeconomic and institutional contexts4Discussion and conclusions223References225Appendix232220220222
Demographic Research: Volume 29, Article 8Review ArticleFertility intentions:An approach based on the theory of planned behaviorIcek Ajzen1Jane Klobas2AbstractOBJECTIVETo discuss issues and concerns in the application of the theory of planned behavior(TPB) to the decision to have a child.METHODWe review the basic structure of the TPB, its principles, and its assumptions as theyapply to fertility decisions. Among other issues we consider attitudes, subjective norms,and perceptions of control as antecedents to the decision to have a child; theexpectancy-value model for understanding the formation of these antecedents; and therole of background factors, such as institutional policies, societal values, and personalcharacteristics. We illustrate key elements of the TPB using results from a multinationalresearch project and end by considering a number of open questions for TPB-guidedfertility research.CONCLUSIONSWe conclude that the TPB can usefully be employed to further our understanding offertility decisions. By examining behavioral, normative, and control beliefs abouthaving a child we can identify important considerations that influence this decision. Theinformation obtained can also guide adoption of policies or interventions designed toencourage (or discourage) couples to have more children.12University of Massachusetts, Department of Psychology, Amherst, USA. E-mail: aizen@psych.umass.edu.Università Bocconi, Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics, Milano, Italy.E-mail: esearch.org203
Ajzen & Klobas: Fertility Intentions: An Approach Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior1. IntroductionFertility intentions are central to discussions of family planning and fertility rates indeveloped countries. Whether implicit or explicit, behind the emphasis on fertilityintentions is the assumption that, at least in developed countries with readily availablecontraception, having a child is the result of a reasoned decision. That this issue is morecomplicated than may appear at first glance is indicated by the fact that, even indeveloped countries, a large number of pregnancies are unintended and result inabortions or unwanted deliveries (e.g., Ventura, Curtin, Abma, and Henshaw 2012; seealso Morgan and Bachrach 2011).1.1 Intended versus actual family sizeDemographers study fertility intentions for at least two reasons (see Philipov 2011).First, they use intentions to help predict fertility rates in a given population. Earlyresearch suggested that these predictions tend to be quite accurate at the macro level:Realized fertility rates were found to correspond quite closely to mean family sizeintentions (e.g., Bumpass and Westoff 1969; Hagewen and Morgan 2005; Schoen,Astone, Kim, and Nathanson 1999; Westoff, Mishler, and Kelly 1957). For example, inthe 1930s, the mean intended family size in a sample of about 300 U.S. couples was2.7; twenty years later, the actual family size was 2.6 (Westoff et al. 1957). In a laterstudy (Bumpass and Westoff 1969), mean desired family size among couples with 2children was 3.3, and actual completed family size was also 3.3.However, at the individual level, this research documented considerable over- andunder-estimates of completed family size. For instance, Bumpass and Westoff (1969)reported a correlation of 0.56 between women‟s intended and actual family size.Similarly, in the first wave of a survey of white women with one child (Schoen et al.1999), the correlation between intentions to have another child and giving birth to achild in the following five years was 0.98 at the aggregate level but only 0.46 at theindividual level. The contrasting findings regarding aggregate- versus individual-levelcorrelations are explained by the fact that the number of unwanted children tends to bebalanced by the number of unrealized intentions. Thus, in the Bumpass and Westoffsurvey, 30% of the women had more children than intended, while an equal percentagehad fewer children than intended.More recent research in developed countries has revealed a consistent “fertilitygap.” Although the desired family size varies greatly across European countries, theideal number of children in the completed family usually exceeds the actual number(Coleman 1996; Goldstein, Lutz, and Testa 2003). In 2006, for example, the mean204http://www.demographic-research.org
Demographic Research: Volume 29, Article 8desired number of children in Ireland was about 3, while the actual fertility rate in thatcountry was slightly less than 2 children per woman. Similarly, in Austria the idealnumber of children was only about 2, yet the actual fertility rate was even lower atabout 1.3 (OECD 2010a).These kinds of findings have led many demographers to pursue a second aim intheir research on fertility intentions; namely to further our understanding of the factorsthat are responsible for the realization or frustration of these intentions. The focus ofthis stream of research has been on demographic, economic, and societal variables, bothmicro- and macro- level, believed to influence fertility rates. The research results aremixed and appear to be contingent on the contextual factors included in the model. Toillustrate, the OECD‟s explanation of changes in fertility rates emphasizes the effects ofboth demographic and societal changes – increases in education and labor forceparticipation, changes in patterns of union formation and child rearing, changingsocietal norms and individual values about the role of women – and the interactionsamong these variables, and concludes that female labor force participation has apositive impact on fertility (d'Addio and d'Ercole 2005). On the other hand, studies thatobserve similar variables but control for country-level effects find that total fertility ratedecreases with increases in female employment. When Del Boca, Pasqua, and Pronzato(2009) controlled for income and level of education of the individuals in their multilevel study, they found differences in the effects of national policies on childcarearrangements, parental leave, family allowances and labor market participation. Thus,this line of research, and its strong link to discussions of policy Thévenon (2011),affirms an underlying assumption that factors such as income, education, availability ofchild-support services, values, societal norms, and policies can help account for theextent to which fertility intentions are realized.2. The theory of planned behaviorIn the present article we focus on a different, though related, issue that has receivedmuch less attention in demographic research, namely the question of what determinesfertility intentions in the first place. Our approach is based on the theory of plannedbehavior (TPB; Ajzen 1991, 2005, 2012) and we try to show how this theory cancontribute to our understanding and modeling of the social-psychological processesinvolved in forming the intention to have (or not to have) a child. Briefly, according tothe TPB, the intention to have or not to have a child is determined by three kinds ofconsiderations (see Ajzen 2013). The first is termed behavioral beliefs; it refers to theperceived positive or negative consequences of having a child and the subjective valuesor evaluations of these consequences. In their aggregate, behavioral beliefs lead to thehttp://www.demographic-research.org205
Ajzen & Klobas: Fertility Intentions: An Approach Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviorformation of a positive or negative attitude toward having a child. A second kind ofconsideration has to do with the perceived expectations and behaviors of importantreferent individuals or groups, combined with the person‟s motivation to comply withthe referents in question. These considerations are termed normative beliefs and theycombine to produce a perceived social pressure or subjective norm with respect tohaving a child. Thirdly, control beliefs are concerned with the perceived presence offactors that can influence a person‟s ability to have a child. Together with the perceivedpower of these factors to facilitate or interfere with having a child, control beliefsproduce a certain level of perceived control (or self-efficacy, Bandura 1997) in relationto having a child. More detailed descriptions of the nature of the three predictors ofintentions are provided below. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude andsubjective norm with respect to having a child, and the greater the perceived control, themore likely it is that a person will form an intention to have a child. Finally, fertilityintentions are expected to result in having or not having a child to the extent that peopleare in fact capable of attaining their goals, i.e., to the extent that they have actual controlover having a child. Actual behavioral control is thus expected to moderate the effect ofintention on behavior. However, in many applications of the TPB, it would be difficultor impossible to identify all the factors that influence actual control over performanceof a given behavior. For this reason, investigators typically use perceived control as aproxy for actual control under the assumption that perceptions of control reflect actualcontrol reasonably well. A schematic representation of the TPB as applied to fertility isshown in Figure 1.Figure 1: The theory of planned behavior applied to fertility decisions206http://www.demographic-research.org
Demographic Research: Volume 29, Article 82.1 Behaviors versus goalsOne difficulty in applying the TPB in the fertility domain is defining an appropriatebehavioral criterion. Although having a child, for instance, is commonly described asfertility behavior, it is not so much a behavior as the outcome of one or more antecedentbehaviors (e.g., having sex with a fertile partner of the opposite sex, not using acontraceptive) that result in pregnancy. Any one of those behaviors might be studiedusing the TPB, and indeed, the TPB has long been used to model various sexualbehaviors, most notably condom use (Albarracín, Johnson, Fishbein, and Muellerleile2001). Outside of the field of sexual health, however, the term fertility behavior usuallyrefers to an outcome or behavioral goal (such as having a child or a family of a certainsize) rather than a behavior that might result in attainment of the goal.It is worth noting in this context that people generally have greater control overperformance of a behavior than they have over attaining a goal the behavior is intendedto produce. This follows from the fact that in order to attain a goal, individuals must notonly have control over performance of a required set of behaviors, but these behaviorsmust also be effective in bringing about the desired goal. Degree of actual control isaffected by personal as well as contextual factors. For example, health and partnershipstatus can define actual control which, if favorable, will enable people to act on theirintentions to have a child or, if unfavorable, will make it difficult for them to have achild despite their intentions to do so. To illustrate, a man who intends to have a childmay have a willing female partner, engage in unprotected sex with her, and thus exhibitcontrol over the required behaviors, yet he may fail to attain his goal if he or his partneris infertile or if the pregnancy ends in a miscarriage.The question of actual control has little bearing on application of the TPB to theprediction of intentions to attain a behavioral goal. Intentions to attain a behavioralgoal, such as having a child, should be predictable from attitudes, subjective norms, andperceived control with respect to the goal in question. For example, the TPB has beenused to predict intentions (and actual attainment of) weight loss (Schifter and Ajzen1985) and a high course grade (Ajzen and Madden 1986). Similarly, recent studies inthe fertility domain demonstrate that intentions to have a child (in formal terms,intention to attain the behavioral goal of having a child) can be predicted from attitudes,subjective norms, and perceived control with respect to having a child (Billari, Philipov,and Testa 2009; Dommermuth, Klobas, and Lappegård 2011; Klobas, 2010; Klobas andAjzen, in press).http://www.demographic-research.org207
Ajzen & Klobas: Fertility Intentions: An Approach Based on the Theory of Planned BehaviorWhile attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control can be used to predictfertility intentions, it is important to define the precise behavioral goal with respect towhich the intention is assessed. Possible fertility-related goals include the following.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.Having a child or another child during the next 3 years.Having a child with my current partner in the next 3 years.Having my first child before I turn 32.Having another child before I turn 40.Waiting until my youngest child is old enough to go to school before havinganother.Having a completed family of 2 children.Remaining childless.Taking the full amount of family leave available to me after the birth of mychild.Once the behavioral goal has been clearly defined, intentions, attitudes, subjectivenorms, and perceived control can be measured commensurately. In the discussionsbelow, we focus on the goal of having a child.2.2 The principle of compatibilityAccording to the TPB‟s principle of compatibility (see Ajzen 2005), any well-definedbehavior or behavioral goal can serve as a criterion for study as long as attitudes,subjective norms, perceptions of control, and intentions are assessed with respect toexactly the same criterion. The goal of having a child involves a specific action andtarget and often also a specific context (e.g., with my current partner) and time frame(e.g., in the next 3 years). In contrast, background factors such as general attitudes (e.g.,toward gender roles or over-population) and values (e.g., of children or the family)identify only a target; they do not specify any particular action, context, or timeelement. Similarly, such demographic characteristics as age, gender, income, and levelof education lack specificity in any of the four elements. This lack of compatibilitycould explain the low, inconsistent, and often non-significant relations between generaldispositions and demographic variables on one hand and child-bearing intentions on theother.Empirical support for the compatibility principle is strong and consistent (for ageneral review, see Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). The mostcompelling support for the importance of compatibility in attitude-behavior researchcomes from studies that have directly compared the predictive validity of attitudes that208http://www.demographic-research.org
Demographic Research: Volume 29, Article 8were compatible (i.e., attitudes toward behaviors or goals) or incompatible(i.e., attitudes toward general targets) with a specific criterion. In a meta-analysis ofeight studies that manipulated level of compatibility (Kraus 1995), the mean correlationbetween general attitudes and particular behaviors was only 0.13 whereas the predictionof behavior from attitude toward the behavior in question resulted in a mean correlationof 0.54. In section 3 we present similar results from recent fertility research.2.3 Attitudes toward having a childAs noted earlier, behavioral beliefs form the basis for the formation of attitudes. Theway in which beliefs are assumed to influence attitudes toward having a child can bedescribed as follows. Recall that each behavioral belief links having a child to aparticular outcome, and each outcome has a certain subjective value. The strength of thebeliefs and the outcome evaluations combine to produce an overall positive or negativeattitude toward the behavior. More formally, the subjective value or evaluation of eachoutcome contributes to the attitude in direct proportion to the person‟s subjectiveprobability that having a child will produce the outcome in question. This expectancyvalue model of attitude (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010) is shownin Equation 1, where A stands for attitude toward having a child, bi is the subjectiveprobability or belief that having a child will produce outcome i, ei is the evaluation ofoutcome i, and the sum is over the total number of beliefs.A biei(1)Insight into the factors that underlie attitudes toward having a child depends onobtaining accurate information about the behavioral beliefs that are important for thisdecision. These beliefs are usually identified in formative research in which readilyaccessible outcomes are elicited in a free-response format from a representative sampleof the population.3 The beliefs most frequently mentioned are then included in thesurvey of the main study.Although the beliefs about having a child identified by Langdridge, Sheeran, andConnolly (2005) were based on information obtained in prior research, they can be usedto illustrate the nature of behavioral beliefs in this domain. In their study of 874 whitemarried couples without children in the U.K., the investigators identified 35 reasons forand against having a child. Of these, six reasons for having a child and five reasonsagainst having a child were found to discriminate significantly between participants3It is usually not advisable to rely on beliefs identified in prior research because beliefs often differ frompopulation to population and can change over time.http://www.demographic-research.org209
Ajzen & Klobas: Fertility Intentions: An Approach Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviorwho intended to have a child and those who did not, as shown below.Reasons for having a child– would be fulfilling– would please my partner– would make us a family– would be part of both of us– would give a child a good home– it‟s a biological driveReasons against having a child– there are more important things in life– would restrict my freedom to do the things I enjoy– my partner does not want a child– would interfere with my career– concern with over-populationEach of these reasons may represent a behavioral belief, e.g., (I believe that)having a child would be fulfilling or (I believe that) there are more important things inlife than having a child. The findings also suggest that beliefs with respec
abortions or unwanted deliveries (e.g., Ventura, Curtin, Abma, and Henshaw 2012; see also Morgan and Bachrach 2011). 1.1 Intended versus actual family size Demographers study fertility intentions for at least two reasons (see Philipov 2011). First, they use intentions to help predict fertility rates in a given population. Early
fertility curve appears to have a standard pattern (see Fig: 23.1). The modal value of the curve depends to a certain extent on the age at marriage of women of the population. Fertility curve based on ASFR calculated in the above table is given in Figure 23.1. Figure 23.1- Fertility curve based on ASFR calculated in the table 23.1
high fertility rates (like Nigeria at 5.2 or Pakistan at 5.3); Italy and Germany have fertility rates of 1.2 and 1.3 respectively. Table 1. FERTILITY RATE ON SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1990-1995 AND 1995-2000 Country 1990-1995 1995-2000 Country 1990-1995 1995-2000 Argentina 2.8 2.6 Japan 1.5 1.4 Australia 1.9 1.8 Mexico 3.1 2.8
Contents Contributors viii Preface xiii Acknowledgements xv SECTION ONE Perspectives 01 The Effects of Cancer and its Treatment on Female Fertility, Richard A. Anderson 1 02 Fertility Preservation in Women, Julia Kopeika 7 03 Fertility Preservation in Men, Maj Shabbir 12 04 Management of Cancer in Pregnancy, Kate Harding 19 05 Drug
2 The Complete Guide to Safe Nutrition and Supplements for Natural Fertility Overview of the Preconception Program Month One Fertility Cleanse for Women Men. You will receive a separate email from us with guidance on safe cleansing. Open this email and get all the facts, and I will guide you on what a Fertility Cleanse is all about.
The Fertility Medication Issue Medications are integral to fertility treatments. These medications are very expensive, costing approximately 8,000 per treatment cycle. Most fertility medications are self-administered injectables that require a specialty phar-macy to fulfill the prescription.
attempts. The monthly fertility rate is highest in the first 3 months. Fertility is reduced by about half of the women below the age of 40 compared with persons aged 20 years and older. Fertility varies among different groups of people and decreases with age in both men and women, but the effect of aging is much more pronounced among females. In
the first 3 months (3). Relative fertility is decreased by about half at age 40 compared with women in their late 20s and early 30s, the time of peak fertility (4, 5). Fertility varies among populations and declines with age in both women and men, but the effects of age are much more pronounced in women (6, 7)(Fig. 1). There is an age-related
Asset management is a critical component in helping us comply with our licence and the road investment strategy. The Department for Transport (DfT) sets out what we must do, and provides funding through 5-year ‘Road Periods’. The Office of Rail and Road monitors how we deliver our strategic business plan, including key performance indicators, and Transport Focus represents our customers .
