Explaining uncertainty in women's fertility preferences
- PMID: 38509898
- PMCID: PMC10950612
- DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27610
Explaining uncertainty in women's fertility preferences
Abstract
People's fertility preferences are often considered an important determinant of fertility. What is often neglected in studies of preferred fertility, is the uncertainty that people may have about their preferences. In this study, using data on Dutch women through the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (collected early 2018), we examined women's fertility preferences and asked detailed questions about the certainty of these preferences. We also examined whether women agreed with their partner on preferred family size, and to what extent partner (dis)agreement shaped uncertainty. We show that Dutch women expressed much uncertainty about their fertility preferences, with only one-third feeling strongly about their preferences. Uncertainty strongly increased when women preferred higher numbers of children, whereas already having children reduced it. Women who wanted no children were most certain about their preference. Higher preferred family sizes also led to more disagreement with the partner about these preferences, and greater partner disagreement, in turn, led to more uncertainty. These findings imply that people are more likely to downgrade their fertility preferences than to increase them, as women are more certain about their preferences for lower numbers of children and are more open to family sizes below than above their preferred choice. Partner disagreement is often resolved by not having (more) children, lowering realised fertility. Hence, these findings provide another explanation for why many people have fewer children than desired.
Keywords: Family size; Fertility preferences; Partner agreement; The Netherlands; Uncertainty.
© 2024 The Authors.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Figures




Similar articles
-
Family size and sex preferences and eventual fertility in Botswana.J Biosoc Sci. 1997 Apr;29(2):191-204. doi: 10.1017/s0021932097001910. J Biosoc Sci. 1997. PMID: 9881130
-
Factors influencing women's preferences for subsequent management in the event of incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage.Hum Reprod. 2017 Aug 1;32(8):1674-1683. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex216. Hum Reprod. 2017. PMID: 28575402
-
A study of rural women's decision-making power on reproduction and fertility.Chin J Popul Sci. 1995;7(3):241-57. Chin J Popul Sci. 1995. PMID: 12290860
-
Fertility intentions and subsequent behavior: a longitudinal study in rural India.Stud Fam Plann. 1990 Jul-Aug;21(4):216-25. Stud Fam Plann. 1990. PMID: 2219226
-
Women's preferences for children in Shifang County, Sichuan, China.Asian Pac Popul Forum. 1990 Fall;4(3):1-12, 27-8. Asian Pac Popul Forum. 1990. PMID: 12343020
Cited by
-
Multiple dimensions of uncertainty in fertility goals: recent trends and patterns in the United States.Genus. 2025;81(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s41118-025-00251-6. Epub 2025 Jun 2. Genus. 2025. PMID: 40469967 Free PMC article.
-
Exploring machine learning algorithms for predicting fertility preferences among reproductive age women in Nigeria.Front Digit Health. 2025 Jan 16;6:1495382. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1495382. eCollection 2024. Front Digit Health. 2025. PMID: 39886062 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Beaujouan E., Berghammer C. The gap between lifetime fertility intentions and completed fertility in Europe and the United States: a cohort approach. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 2019;38:507–535. doi: 10.1007/s11113-019-09516-3. - DOI
-
- Bongaarts J. Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2001;27:260–281.
-
- Verweij R.M., Stulp G., Snieder H., Mills M.C. Explaining the associations of education and occupation with childlessness: the role of desires and expectations to remain childless. Popul. Rev. 2021;60:166–194. doi: 10.1353/prv.2021.0016. - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources