Social networks and fertility

Abstract

AbstractBACKGROUNDThe fields of demography, sociology, and socio-psychology have been increasingly drawing on social network theories, which posit that individual fertility decision-making depends in part on the fertility behavior of other members of the population, and on the structure of the interactions between individuals. After reviewing this literature, we highlight the benefits of taking a social network perspective on fertility and family research.OBJECTIVEWe review the literature that addresses the extent to which social mechanisms, such as social learning, social pressure, social contagion, and social support, influence childbearing decisions.CONCLUSIONSWe find that all of the social mechanisms reviewed influence the beliefs and norms individuals hold regarding childbearing, their perceptions of having children, and the context of opportunities and constraints in which childbearing choices are made. The actual impact of these mechanisms on fertility tempo and quantum strongly depends on the structure of social interaction.1. IntroductionDemographers are interested in population fertility and its dynamics. Changes in the tempo and quantum of fertility are macro phenomena; i.e., they are the aggregate result of the childbearing behavior of individual actors. Efforts to better explain fertility dynamics inevitably lead demographers to seek to gain a better understanding of the fertility behavior of individuals (how many children they intend to have, how many children they actually have, and how births are distributed over time). Explanations of fertility must refer to behavioral models, which apply to men and women who interact with others, are embedded in social networks with specific structures, and act in relation to their social environment. The intention to have a child, the value attributed to children, the norms regulating appropriate parenthood, the support available to parents, and all of the other elements involved in childbearing decision-making are created, diffused, and transformed by social interaction (Rossier and Bernardi 2009). The social embeddedness of human actions is the basic axiomatic assumption of the social networks approach (Granovetter 1985).Demographers have turned to theories of social interaction to expand their range of explanations of observed fertility behavior, as well as of individual childbearing. They generally assume that childbearing is a social act, and that individual beliefs and behaviors are interdependent and are moderated by social interactions and social structures. Mechanisms such as social learning, social pressure, social contagion, and social support have been included in fertility models. Similarly, demographic models are designed to allow for increasing room for specifications of the social structure and social networks within which social mechanisms take place. Social network effects are (1) theoretically important because they are middle-range explanations that interpret individual fertility behavior as a form of social action; and they are (2) empirically important because they contribute to models and explanations of fertility outcomes at the individual level (e.g., the age at birth or childlessness) and fertility dynamics at the macro level (more or less rapid changes in fertility postponement or decline).Since the 1980s, the importance of taking into account social interactions and ideational factors when investigating childbearing decisions and fertility decline in historical Europe has been increasingly acknowledged in demographic literature (see, e.g., the contributions in Jayakody, Thornton, and Axinn 2008). Coale and Watkins (1986) convincingly argued that the fertility decline in western societies starting in the 19th century was not caused only by structural factors related to the economic development of societies, but also by ideational factors which traveled across borders through language and cultural diffusion. …