from: to:

call
Journal Header

Bild

REFEREED ARTICLES - Differences between fertility desires and intentions: implications for theory, research and policy

    Warren B. Miller

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011, pp. 75-98, 2012/02/02

doi: 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s75


PDF
X
BibTEX-Export:

X
EndNote/Zotero-Export:

X
RIS-Export:

X 
Researchgate-Export (COinS)

Permanent QR-Code

doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011s75


Abstract

In previous research I have theorised that there is a three-step motivational sequence that drives fertility behaviour, beginning with motivational traits, continuing with fertility desires and concluding with fertility intentions. In this article I focus on four properties of fertility desires and intentions, examining some recent research findings that bear on the similarities and differences between these two constructs. The four properties include the degree to which either construct has direct genetic antecedents, the degree to which either construct directly predicts behaviour, what type of dimension is used to measure each construct, and the effects that each construct has on the individual’s satisfaction with being pregnant. The findings regarding these four properties suggest that fertility desires are intermediate between two evolutionally distinct motive systems that drive reproductive behaviour. The findings also suggest additional research questions that require further pursuit. Finally, the findings inform certain fertility-related policy issues, in particular the gap between desired or intended fertility and actual fertility.

Published Online: 2012/02/02 15:14:21

Object Identifier: 0xc1aa5572 0x002a70f5

Document viewed: Calculating...

Rights: All rights reserved. For questions regarding copyright and copies please contact us by email.

REFERENCES Adsera, A. 2006. An economic analysis of the gap between desired and actual fertility: the case of Spain. Review of the Economics of the Household 4(1).Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211.Ajzen, I. 2005. Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. Second edition, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press.Barber, J.S., W.B. Miller and H.H. Gatny 2010. The desire to become pregnant and the desire to avoid pregnancy: ambivalence, indifference, pronatalism and antinatalism. Paper presented at the REPRO conference “From intentions to behaviour: reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective”, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 December 2010. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/in2b, accessed on 1 January 2011.Cacioppo, J.T. and G.G. Berntson 1994. Relationships between attitudes and evaluative space: a critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin 115(3): 401-423.Chesnais, J.-C. 2000. Determinants of below replacement fertility. In Below replacement fertility. Population Bulletin of the United Nations, Special Issue 1999, 40/41: 126-136.Davidson, R.J., W. Irwin 1999. The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(1): 11-21.Goldstein, J., W. Lutz and M. R. Testa 2003. The emergence of subreplacement family size ideals in Europe. Population Research and Policy Review 22: 479-496.Hagewen, K. J. and S. P. Morgan 2005. Intended and ideal family size in the United States, 1970-1998. Population and Development Review 31(3): 507-527.Heckhausen, J. and R. Schultz 1995. A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review 102: 284-304.Heiland, F., A. Prskawetz and W. Sanderson 2008. Are individuals’ desired family sizes stable? Evidence from West German panel data. European Journal of Population 24(2): 129-156.Iacovou, M and L.P. Tavares 2010. Yearning, learning and conceding: (some of) the reasons people change their childbearing intentions. Institute for Social and Economic Research Working Paper 2010(22). University of Essex. Available at www.iser.essex.ac.ukJorescog, K.G. and D. Sorbom 1996. LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Lee, R. 1980. Aiming at a moving target: period fertility and changing reproductive goals. Population Studies 34(2): 205-226.Liefbroer, A.C. 2009. Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: a lifecourse perspective. European Journal of Population 25(4): 363-386.McQuillan, J., A.L. Greil and K.M. Shreffler 2011. Pregnancy intentions among women who do not try: focusing on women who are okay either way. Maternal and Child Health Journal 15: 178-187.Miller, W.B. 1986. Proception: an important fertility behavior. Demography 23(4): 579-594.Miller, W.B. 1994. Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: a theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychological Monographs 120(2):223-258.Miller, W.B. 1995. Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science 27: 473-485.Miller, W.B. 2007. The interaction of positive and negative childbearing desires: a graphic model. Available at www.tfri.orgMiller, W.B. 2011. Why we have children: building a unified theory of the reproductive mind. Available at www.tfri.orgMiller, W.B. and D.J. Pasta 1993. Motivational and nonmotivational determinants of child-number desires. Population and Environment 15(2): 113-138.Miller, W.B. and D.J. Pasta 1994. The psychology of child timing: a measurement instrument and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24(3): 221-250.Miller, W.B. and D.J. Pasta 1995. How does childbearing affect fertility motivations and desires? Social Biology 42(3-4): 185-198.Miller, W.B. and D.J. Pasta 1996. The relative influence of husbands and wives on the choice and use of oral contraception, a diaphragm, and condoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26: 1749-1774.Miller, W.B. and J. Jones 2009. Modeling the motivational antecedents to pregnancy intendedness and wantedness in the 2002 NSFG. Journal of Population Research 26(4): 327-357.Miller, W.B. and J.L. Rodgers 2001. The ontogeny of human bonding systems. Boston: Kluwer.Miller, W.B., D.E. Bard, D.J. Pasta and J.L. Rodgers 2010b. Biodemographic modeling of the links between fertility motivation and fertility outcomes in the NLSY79. Demography 47(2): 393-414.Miller, W.B., D.J. Pasta and J.L. Rodgers 2010a. The fertility motivations of youth predict later fertility outcomes: a prospective analysis of NLSY data. Biodemography and Social Biology 56(1): 1-23.Miller, W.B., D.J. Pasta, J. MacMurray, D. Muhleman and D.E. Comings 2000. Genetic influences on childbearing motivation: further testing a theoretical model. In Genetic. influences on human fertility and sexuality, ed. J.L. Rodgers, D.C. Rowe and W.B. Miller, 35-66. Boston: Kluwer.Miller, W.B., L.J. Severy, and D.J. Pasta 2004. A framework for modeling fertility motivation in the dyad. Population Studies 58(2): 193-205.Neale, M.C., S.M. Boker, G. Xie and H.H. Maes 2003. Mx: Statistical modeling. Sixth edition, Richmond, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityNí Bhrolcháin, M.N., E. Beaujouan and A. Berrington 2010. Stability and change in fertility intentions in Britain, 1991-2007. Population Trends 141: 1-23.Philipov, D., O. Thévenon, J. Klobas, L. Bernardi and A.C. Liefbroer 2009. Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective (REPRO): a state of the art review. A working paper of the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities theme. Available at http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/edrp_1_09.pdfRolls, E.T. 1999. The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sheeder, J., S.B. Teal, L.A. Crane and C. Stevens-Simon 2010. Adolescent childbearing ambivalence: Is it the sum of its parts? Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 23: 86-92.Zabin, L.S. 1999. Ambivalent feelings about parenthood may lead to inconsistent contraceptive use and pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives 31: 250-251.