IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v35y2016i39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Infertility and fertility intentions, desires, and outcomes among US women

Author

Listed:
  • Karina Shreffler

    (University of Oklahoma)

  • Stacy Tiemeyer

    (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences)

  • Cassandra Dorius

    (Iowa State University)

  • Tiffany Spierling

    (Oklahoma State University)

  • Arthur Greil

    (Alfred University)

  • Julia McQuillan

    (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

Abstract

Objective: Little is known about how the experience of infertility or identification as someone with infertility shapes women’s fertility intentions, desires, or birth outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to help fill this gap in knowledge for fertility-intentions research. Methods: Using data from the National Survey of Fertility Barriers (NSFB), we use linear and logistic regression methods to assess how infertility and parity statuses are associated with fertility intentions and desires, as well as how statuses at one point in time predict birth three years later. Results: We find that infertility is associated with lower fertility intentions. Women who have experienced infertility and/or identify as a person with infertility, however, express greater desires to have a baby and a higher ideal number of children. Women who meet the medical criteria for infertility are less likely than fecund women to give birth, despite greater desires. Conclusions: These findings have important theoretical implications for our understanding of the meaning of fertility intentions for those who think their ability to achieve their intentions is uncertain, as well as for empirical research on fertility.

Suggested Citation

  • Karina Shreffler & Stacy Tiemeyer & Cassandra Dorius & Tiffany Spierling & Arthur Greil & Julia McQuillan, 2016. "Infertility and fertility intentions, desires, and outcomes among US women," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(39), pages 1149-1168.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:35:y:2016:i:39
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.39
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol35/39/35-39.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.39?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Icek Ajzen & Jane Klobas, 2013. "Fertility intentions," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(8), pages 203-232.
    2. Greil, Arthur L. & McQuillan, Julia & Lowry, Michele & Shreffler, Karina M., 2011. "Infertility treatment and fertility-specific distress: A longitudinal analysis of a population-based sample of U.S. women," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 87-94, July.
    3. Elizabeth Thomson, 1997. "Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 34(3), pages 343-354, August.
    4. White, Lynn & McQuillan, Julia & Greil, Arthur L. & Johnson, David R., 2006. "Infertility: Testing a helpseeking model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1031-1041, February.
    5. Maximova, Katerina & Quesnel-Vallée, Amélie, 2009. "Mental health consequences of unintended childlessness and unplanned births: Gender differences and life course dynamics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 850-857, March.
    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. Eleonora Mussino & Giuseppe Gabrielli & Livia Elisa Ortensi & Salvatore Strozza, 2023. "Fertility Intentions Within a 3-Year Time Frame: a Comparison Between Migrant and Native Italian Women," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 233-260, March.
    2. Ni Ning & Jingfei Tang & Yizhou Huang & Xiangmin Tan & Qian Lin & Mei Sun, 2022. "Fertility Intention to Have a Third Child in China following the Three-Child Policy: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Ester Lazzari & Edith Gray & Bernard Baffour, 2022. "A dyadic approach to the study of perceived subfecundity and contraceptive use," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(1), pages 1-36.
    4. Katherine M. Johnson & Arthur L. Greil & Karina M. Shreffler & Julia McQuillan, 2018. "Fertility and Infertility: Toward an Integrative Research Agenda," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(5), pages 641-666, October.
    5. Alison Gemmill, 2019. "From Some to None? Fertility Expectation Dynamics of Permanently Childless Women," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(1), pages 129-149, February.

    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. Katherine M. Johnson & Arthur L. Greil & Karina M. Shreffler & Julia McQuillan, 2018. "Fertility and Infertility: Toward an Integrative Research Agenda," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(5), pages 641-666, October.
    2. Natalie Nitsche & Sarah Hayford, 2018. "Preferences, Partners, and Parenthood: Linking Early Fertility Desires, Union Formation Timing, and Achieved Fertility," VID Working Papers 1810, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    3. Rozemarijn Dereuddre & Bart Van de Putte & Piet Bracke, 2016. "Ready, Willing, and Able: Contraceptive Use Patterns Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(4), pages 543-573, October.
    4. Caroline Hartnett, 2014. "White-Hispanic differences in meeting lifetime fertility intentions in the U.S," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(43), pages 1245-1276.
    5. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2019. "Religiosity, Secularity and Fertility in Canada," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(2), pages 403-428, May.
    6. Maria Rita Testa & Valeria Bordone & Beata Osiewalska & Vegard Skirbekk, 2016. "Are daughters’ childbearing intentions related to their mothers’ socio-economic status?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(21), pages 581-616.
    7. Passet-Wittig, Jasmin & Greil, Arthur L., 2021. "Factors associated with medical help-seeking for infertility in developed countries: A narrative review of recent literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    8. Maria Rita Testa & Danilo Bolano, 2021. "When partners’ disagreement prevents childbearing: A couple-level analysis in Australia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(33), pages 811-838.
    9. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    10. Adsera, Alicia, 2005. "Differences in Desired and Actual Fertility: An Economic Analysis of the Spanish Case," IZA Discussion Papers 1584, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Marcel Raab & Emanuela Struffolino, 2020. "The Heterogeneity of Partnership Trajectories to Childlessness in Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(1), pages 53-70, March.
    12. Alessandro Rosina & Laura Cavalli & Maria Rita Testa, 2011. "Couples’ childbearing behaviour in Italy: which of the partners is leading it?," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 157-178.
    13. Rebecca Kippen & Bruce Chapman & Peng Yu, 2010. "What's love got to do with it? Homogamy and dyadic approaches to understanding marital instability," CEPR Discussion Papers 631, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    14. Alicia Adsera, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of the Gap Between Desired and Actual Fertility: The Case of Spain," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 75-95, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Alessandra Trimarchi & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Pathways to marital and non-marital first birth: the role of his and her education," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 15(1), pages 143-179.
    17. Sarah Brauner-Otto, 2013. "Attitudes About Children and Fertility Limitation Behavior," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 32(1), pages 1-24, February.
    18. Isabella Buber-Ennser, 2003. "The influence of the distribution of household and childrearing tasks between men and woman on childbearing intentions in Austria," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 1(1), pages 165-180.
    19. Henriette Engelhardt, 2004. "Fertility Intentions and Preferences: Effects of Structural and Financial Incentives and Constraints in Austria," VID Working Papers 0402, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    20. Almeling, Rene & Willey, Iris L., 2017. "Same medicine, different reasons: Comparing women's bodily experiences of producing eggs for pregnancy or for profit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 21-29.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    infertility; fertility; fertility intentions; births; National Survey of Fertility Barriers (NSFB);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:dem:demres:v:35:y:2016:i:39. 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: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    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.