Abstract
In this article, we study fertility decision-making through timing parity-progression intentions. The theoretical framework builds on Ajzen’s social-psychological “Theory of Planned Behavior”: intentions are seen as directly dependent on three components: attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control. We study the case of Bulgaria, a “lowest-low” fertility country. In 2002, a sample survey containing a specially designed module was conducted. This module included an implementation of our framework, with a special attention to the links between normative pressure and the social network of respondents. Results show that the three components are broadly predictive of fertility intentions. More specifically, attitudes are more relevant than norms for higher parities. Socio-economic, ideational, psychological and social capital-based factors are relevant background determinants.
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous étudions les décisions en matière de fécondité à l’aide des intentions d’agrandissement avec référence temporelle. Le cadre conceptuel est celui de la théorie psychosociologique du comportement prévu d’Ajzen, selon laquelle les intentions dépendent de façon directe de trois éléments : les attitudes, les normes et le contrôle perçu du comportement. L’étude concerne la Bulgarie, un pays dont la fécondité est des plus basses. En 2002, une enquête par sondage comportant un module de questions construit à cette fin a été menée. Ce module comprenait les éléments pour mettre en œuvre notre cadre conceptuel, en accordant une attention particulière aux liens entre la pression normative et le réseau social des enquêtés. Les résultats montrent que les trois éléments de la théorie sont des facteurs de prédiction des intentions de fécondité. Plus spécifiquement, les attitudes sont plus pertinentes que les normes pour le passage au deuxième enfant. Les facteurs socio-économiques, idéationnels, psychologiques et ceux basés sur le capital social sont pertinents comme déterminants de contexte.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We also used Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations (SURE) to allow for the correlation of the error term across the various equations. Results were similar to the ones obtained by OLS, therefore we limit ourselves to OLS.
References
Abrams, D., Hinkle, S., & Tomlins, M. (1999). Leaving Hong Kong? The roles of attitude, subjective norm, perceived control, social identity and relative deprivation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 319–338.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 142–161.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Reviews, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Barber, J. S. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
Becker, G. S., & Barro, R. J. (1988). A reformulation of the economic theory of fertility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 1–25.
Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 527–555.
Billari, F. C., & Kohler, H.-P. (2004). Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58(2), 161–176.
Billari, F. C., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? The impact of age norms on leaving home. Demography, 44(1), 181–198.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Huinink, J. (1991). Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family formation. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 143–168.
Bongaarts, J. (1990). The measurement of wanted fertility. Population and Development Review, 16(3), 487–506.
Bongaarts, J., & Watkins, S. C. (1996). Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review, 22(4), 639–682.
Bühler, C. (2008). On the structural value of children and its implication on intended fertility in Bulgaria. Demographic Research, 18(20), 569–610.
Bühler, C., & Philipov, D. (2005). Social capital related to fertility: Theoretical foundation and empirical evidence for Bulgaria. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2005, 53–82.
Carlson, E., & Omori, M. (1998). Fertility regulation in a declining state socialist economy: Bulgaria, 1976–1995. International Family Planning Perspectives, 24(4), 184.
Dalla Zuanna, G. (2001). The banquet of Aeolus: A familistic interpretation of Italy’s lowest low fertility. Demographic Research, 4(5), 133–162.
Fawcett, J. T. (1978). The value of children and the transition to parenthood. Marriage and Family Review, 12, 11–34.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Friedman, D., Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1994). A theory of the value of children. Demography, 31(3), 375–401.
Hobcraft, J., & Kiernan, K. (1995). Becoming a parent in Europe. In EAPS-IUSSP (Ed.), European population conference (Vol. 1, pp. 27–65). Milan: Franco Angeli.
Hoffman, L. W., & Hoffman, M. L. (1973). The value of children to parents. In J. T. Fawcett (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on population (pp. 19–76). New York: Basic Books.
Kohler, H.-P. (2001). Fertility and social interaction. An economic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kohler, H.-P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641–680.
Kotzeva, T. (1999). Re-imaging Bulgarian women: The Marxist legacy and women’s self-identity. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 15(1), 83–98.
Koytcheva, E., & Philipov, D. (2008). Bulgaria: Ethnic differentials in rapidly declining fertility. Demographic Research, 19(13), 361–402.
Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in western countries: An interpretation. In K. Oppenheim Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon.
Lesthaeghe, R. (1998). On theory development: Applications to the study of family formation. Population and Development Review, 24, 1–14.
Lesthaeghe, R., & van de Kaa, D. (1986). Twee demografische transities? In R. Lesthaeghe & D. van de Kaa (Eds.), Bevolking: Groei en Krimp (pp. 9–24). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Liefbroer, A. C. (2005). The impact of perceived costs and rewards of childbearing on entry into parenthood: Evidence from a panel study. European Journal of Population, 21(4), 367–391.
Liefbroer, A. C. (2008). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie,. doi:10.1007/s10680-008-9173-7
Liefbroer, A. C., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population, Space and Place. doi:10.1002/psp.552 .
Liefbroer, A. C., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (1993). The impact of rational considerations and perceived opinions on young adults’ union formation intentions. Journal of Family Issues, 14(2), 213–235.
Micheli, G. A. (2000). Kinship, family and social network: The anthropological embedment of fertility change in southern Europe. Demographic Research, 3(13).
Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 20, 223–257.
Miller, W. B. (1995). Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 473–487.
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1993). Motivational and non-motivational determinants of child-number desires. Population and Environment, 15, 113–138.
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1994). The psychology of child timing: A measurement instrument and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 218–250.
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.
Monnier, A. (1987). Projections de fécondité et fécondité effective. Une enquête longitudinale: 1974, 1976, 1979. Population, 6(6), 819–842.
Montgomery, M. R., & Casterline, J. B. (1996). Social influence, social learning and new models of fertility. Population and Development Review, 22(Supplement), 151–175.
Nauck, B. (2001). Der Wert von Kindern für ihre Eltern. „Value of Children” als spezielle Handlungstheorie des generativen Verhaltens und von Generationenbeziehungen in interkurturellen Vergleich. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 53, 407–435.
Nauck, B. (2007). Value of children and the framing of fertility: Results from a cross-cultural comparative survey in 10 societies. European Sociological Review, 23(5), 615–629.
Nauck, B., & Klaus, D. (2007). The varying value of children. Empirical results from eleven societies in Asia, Africa and Europe. Current Sociology, 55(4), 487–503.
O’Connor, D. B., Ferguson, E., & O’Connor, R. C. (Writer) (2005). Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: The role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. British Journal of Psychology, 96(3), 351–369.
Philipov, D., & Jasilioniene, A. (2008). Union formation and fertility in Bulgaria and Russia: A life table description of recent trends. Demographic Research, 19(62), 2057–2114.
Philipov, D., Spéder, Z., & Billari, F. C. (2006). Soon, later, or ever? The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 289–308.
Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 497–525.
Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.
Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, S. P., & Swicegood, C. G. (1988). First births in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 760–799.
Sobotka, T. (2004). Postponement of childbearing and low fertility in Europe. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.
Symeonidou, H. (2000). Expected and actual family size in Greece: 1983–1997. European Journal of Population, 16, 335–352.
Testa, M. R., & Toulemon, L. (2006). Family formation in France: Individual preferences and subsequent outcomes. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2006, 41–75.
Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions and births. Demography, 34, 343–354.
Thomson, E., & Brandreth, Y. (1997). Measuring fertility demand. Demography, 34, 343–354.
van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1–59.
Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Desesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–439.
Yamaguchi, K., & Ferguson, L. R. (1985). The stopping and spacing of childbirths and their birth-history predictors: Rational-choice theory and event-history analysis. American Sociological Review, 60, 272–298.
Acknowledgments
The preparation of this manuscript benefited from a grant by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities to the project ‘Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap’ (contract no. VS/2006/0685). Data collection was originally financed by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany. The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees of the European Journal of Population for important suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Relevant Questions Included in the Survey
1.1 Attitudes
ATT1. ( Interviewer, neither of the possible answers should be assessed as positive ornegative.)
If you would have a child during the next 2 years, irrespective of whether you really wish to have a child or not, to what extent do you agree that this would: | Completely disagree | Rather disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Rather agree | Completely agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Increase your economic difficulties | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B | Decrease your chances in your working career and/or higher education | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C | Increase your security that at old age there is someone to care about you | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D | Increase uncertainty in your life | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
E | Increase the physical burden for you because of the pregnancy, the care for the baby, or breastfeeding (note: this item is for females only) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
F | Increase joy and satisfaction in your life | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
G | Increase worries and preoccupations in the course of your daily life | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
H | Decrease time for your personal interests, for contacts with friends | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
I | Increase certainty in your life | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
J | Increase the closeness between you and your partner | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
K | Increase the closeness between you and your parents and relatives | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
L | Mean that a part of you is continued into the future | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1.2 Norms
The questions for the study of norms were included in a section entitled “Embeddedness in supportive relationships”. The respondent was asked a number of questions regarding support given to or received by other persons. He/she was also asked to fill a list of their names.
Interviewer reads:
By asking you the following questions, I would like to talk about the persons who matter in your daily life (relatives, friends, persons you know). Please enter their names in this list, ordering them with numbers like 1, 2, 3, etc. When asked, you will tell me only the number. I am not interested in their names. Do not enter one and the same person more than once.
……….
NOR1. “Now, please tell me the numbers of up to five persons on your list whose opinion you value most highly when you make decisions about your private life.”
Number 
NOR2. “How many children does this person have?”
NOR3. “Imagine that during the next 2 years you will have a child, irrespective of whether you really have such an intention or not. How much would this person approve or disapprove having this child?”
The person will approve very much…. | 1 |
The person will approve…………………. | 2 |
The person will approve somewhat….. | 3 |
The person will disapprove somewhat | 4 |
The person will disapprove…………….. | 5 |
The person will disapprove very much | 6 |
(Note: this question is asked separately for each person whose number is filled in question 331.)
NOR4. “What is your relationship with this person?”
Note: The answers are selected from a list of 23 possible relationships, including spouse, daughter, son, mother, father, mother of spouse, father of spouse, neighbor, friend, etc.
1.3 Perceived Behavioural Control
PBC1. How much would your decision on whether to have or not to have a child during the next 2 years depend on the following conditions?
Not at all | Rather not | Indifferent | Somewhat | Strongly | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Your economic status | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B | Your working or educational situation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C | Your housing conditions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D | Your health | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
……
PBC2. How much control do you feel you will have over the following circumstances in your life in the next 2 years?
None at all | Little | Some | Much | A great deal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Your income | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B | Your working or educational status | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C | Your housing conditions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D | Your health status | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Appendix 2: Descriptive Tables
See Table 5
See Table 6
See Table 7
See Table 8
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Billari, F.C., Philipov, D. & Testa, M.R. Attitudes, Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control: Explaining Fertility Intentions in Bulgaria. Eur J Population 25, 439–465 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9187-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9187-9