IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v10y2021i5p182-d558232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mother’s Partnership Status and Allomothering Networks in the United Kingdom and United States

Author

Listed:
  • Laure Spake

    (Religion Programme, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
    Centre for Research of Evolution, Belief and Behaviour, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand)

  • Susan B. Schaffnit

    (Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, USA)

  • Rebecca Sear

    (Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK)

  • Mary K. Shenk

    (Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, USA)

  • Richard Sosis

    (Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA)

  • John H. Shaver

    (Religion Programme, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
    Centre for Research of Evolution, Belief and Behaviour, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand)

Abstract

In high-income, low-fertility (HILF) settings, the mother’s partner is a key provider of childcare. However, it is not clear how mothers without partners draw on other sources of support to raise children. This paper reports the findings from a survey of 1532 women in the United Kingdom and the United States, in which women described who provided childcare for a focal child and how frequently they did so. We use multivariate Bayesian regression models to explore the drivers of support from partners, maternal kin, and other allomothers, as well as the potential impact of allomothering on women’s fertility. Relative to mothers who are in a stable first marriage or cohabitation, mothers who are unpartnered rely more heavily on fewer maternal kin, use more paid help, and have networks which include more non-kin helpers. Repartnered mothers received less help from their partners in the UK and less help from maternal kin in both countries, which US mothers compensated for by relying on other helpers. While repartnered mothers had higher age-adjusted fertility than women in a first partnership, allomaternal support was not clearly related to the mother’s fertility. These findings demonstrate the importance of partners but also of allomothering more broadly in HILF settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Laure Spake & Susan B. Schaffnit & Rebecca Sear & Mary K. Shenk & Richard Sosis & John H. Shaver, 2021. "Mother’s Partnership Status and Allomothering Networks in the United Kingdom and United States," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-25, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:182-:d:558232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/5/182/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/5/182/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Snopkowski, Kristin & Sear, Rebecca, 2015. "Grandparental help in Indonesia is directed preferentially towards needier descendants: A potential confounder when exploring grandparental influences on child health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 105-114.
    2. Abigail E. Page & Matthew G. Thomas & Daniel Smith & Mark Dyble & Sylvain Viguier & Nikhil Chaudhary & Gul Deniz Salali & James Thompson & Ruth Mace & Andrea B. Migliano, 2019. "Testing adaptive hypotheses of alloparenting in Agta foragers," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(11), pages 1154-1163, November.
    3. Eva Beaujouan & Caroline Berghammer, 2019. "The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(4), pages 507-535, August.
    4. Michael Murphy, 2008. "Variations in Kinship Networks Across Geographic and Social Space," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 19-49, March.
    5. Lynda Clarke & Elizabeth Cooksey & Georgia Verropoulou, 1998. "Fathers and absent fathers: Sociodemographic similarities in britain and the united states," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 35(2), pages 217-228, May.
    6. Kathleen Harris & Frank Furstenberg & Jeremy Marmer, 1998. "Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families: The influence of fathers over the life course," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 35(2), pages 201-216, May.
    7. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    8. Gertrude E Elleamoh & Fidelia A A Dake, 2019. "“Cementing” marriages through childbearing in subsequent unions: Insights into fertility differentials among first-time married and remarried women in Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    9. Rebecca Sear & David Coall, 2011. "How Much Does Family Matter? Cooperative Breeding and the Demographic Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 37(Supplemen), pages 81-112, January.
    10. Susan Schaffnit & Rebecca Sear, 2017. "Supportive families versus support from families: The decision to have a child in the Netherlands," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(14), pages 414-454.
    11. Ariane Pailhé & Anne Solaz & Maria Stanfors, 2021. "The Great Convergence: Gender and Unpaid Work in Europe and the United States," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 47(1), pages 181-217, March.
    12. Susan B. Schaffnit & Rebecca Sear, 2014. "Wealth modifies relationships between kin and women’s fertility in high-income countries," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(4), pages 834-842.
    13. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    14. S. Philip Morgan & Heather Rackin, 2010. "The Correspondence Between Fertility Intentions and Behavior in the United States," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 91-118, March.
    15. Kristin Snopkowski & Rebecca Sear, 2016. "Does grandparental help mediate the relationship between kin presence and fertility?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(17), pages 467-498.
    16. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paula Sheppard & Kristin Snopkowski, 2021. "Behavioral Ecology of the Family: Harnessing Theory to Better Understand Variation in Human Families," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susan Schaffnit & Rebecca Sear, 2017. "Supportive families versus support from families: The decision to have a child in the Netherlands," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(14), pages 414-454.
    2. Mikaela Brough & Paula Sheppard, 2022. "Fertility Decision-Making in the UK: Insights from a Qualitative Study among British Men and Women," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Daniel Nettle & Mhairi A. Gibson & David W. Lawson & Rebecca Sear, 2013. "Human behavioral ecology: current research and future prospects," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(5), pages 1031-1040.
    4. Karen Benjamin Guzzo, 2022. "The Formation and Realization of Fertility Goals Among a US Cohort in the Post‐Recession Years," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(4), pages 991-1026, December.
    5. Jac Thomas & Francisco Rowe & Paul Williamson & Eric S. Lin, 2022. "The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Susanne Fahlén & Livia Sz. Oláh, 2018. "Economic uncertainty and first-birth intentions in Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(28), pages 795-834.
    7. Paul Mathews & Rebecca Sear, 2013. "Does the kin orientation of a British woman’s social network influence her entry into motherhood?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(11), pages 313-340.
    8. AKEJU, Kemi Funlayo, 2021. "Fertility Preference in Older Women: Effect of Place of Residence and Use of Contraceptives in Nigeria," International Journal of Social Sciences Perspectives, Online Academic Press, vol. 8(1), pages 25-30.
    9. Caroline Sten Hartnett & Alison Gemmill, 2020. "Recent Trends in U.S. Childbearing Intentions," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(6), pages 2035-2045, December.
    10. Zuzanna Brzozowska & Isabella Buber-Ennser & Bernhard Riederer & Michaela Potancokova, 2018. "Didn’t plan one but got one: unintended and sooner-than-intended births among men and women in six European countries," VID Working Papers 1805, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    11. Kristin Snopkowski & Rebecca Sear, 2016. "Does grandparental help mediate the relationship between kin presence and fertility?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(17), pages 467-498.
    12. Paul Mathews & Rebecca Sear, 2013. "Family and Fertility: Kin Influence on the Progression to a Second Birth in the British Household Panel Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-10, March.
    13. Yuliya Hilevych, 2020. "Entrance into parenthood at the onset of low fertility in Ukraine: The role of family relationships and perceived security," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 42(29), pages 799-826.
    14. Petra Buhr & Johannes Huinink, 2017. "Why Childless Men and Women Give Up on Having Children," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 33(4), pages 585-606, October.
    15. Pieroni, Luca & d’Agostino, Giorgio & Lanari, Donatella & Scarlato, Margherita, 2023. "Temporary employment and fertility in Italy: The effect of two labor market reforms in the early 2000s," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    16. Karen Benjamin Guzzo & Sarah R. Hayford, 2023. "Evolving Fertility Goals and Behaviors in Current U.S. Childbearing Cohorts," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 49(1), pages 7-42, March.
    17. Allan Puur & Leen Rahnu & Liili Abuladze & Luule Sakkeus & Sergei Zakharov, 2017. "Childbearing among first- and second-generation Russians in Estonia against the background of the sending and host countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(41), pages 1209-1254.
    18. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    20. Ni, Dan & Jiwen Song, Lynda & Zheng, Xiaoming & Zhu, Jinlong & Zhang, Mengyi & Xu, Lingxiao, 2022. "Extending a helping hand: How receiving gratitude makes a difference in employee performance during a crisis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 967-982.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:182-:d:558232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.