IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8610-d614710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Pets Replace Children? The Interaction Effect of Pet Attachment and Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Fertility Intention

Author

Listed:
  • Zhen Guo

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xiaoxing Ren

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Jinzhe Zhao

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Liying Jiao

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Yan Xu

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

A growing number of young people tend to regard their pets as their surrogate children, yet research examining the relationship between pet attachment and fertility intention remains scarce. Moreover, individuals’ fertility intention is affected by economic resources. Therefore, we conducted two studies to examine the interaction effect of pet attachment and subjective socioeconomic status (SES) on childbearing-aged individuals’ fertility intention. In Study 1, we utilized questionnaires to measure Chinese pet owners’ pet attachment, subjective SES, and fertility intention. In Study 2, participants’ pet attachment was experimentally manipulated by reading articles about the benefits of petkeeping. The results of the two studies consistently demonstrated that the effect of pet attachment on fertility intention was moderated by subjective SES. Specifically, pet attachment was negatively associated with fertility intention when individuals had a high level of subjective SES, whereas this effect disappeared when individuals had low subjective SES. These findings suggest an explanation for why individuals with high subjective SES delay or even opt out of childbearing. The limitations and implications of the current study are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhen Guo & Xiaoxing Ren & Jinzhe Zhao & Liying Jiao & Yan Xu, 2021. "Can Pets Replace Children? The Interaction Effect of Pet Attachment and Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Fertility Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8610-:d:614710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8610/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8610/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cutt, H. & Giles-Corti, B. & Knuiman, M. & Timperio, A. & Bull, F., 2008. "Understanding dog owners' increased levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(1), pages 66-69.
    2. Wood, Lisa & Giles-Corti, Billie & Bulsara, Max, 2005. "The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1159-1173, September.
    3. Christine A. Bachrach & S. Philip Morgan, 2013. "A Cognitive–Social Model of Fertility Intentions," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 459-485, September.
    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. Jose A. Algarra & María M. Ramos-Lorente & Paloma Cariñanos, 2024. "Is the Spanish Population Pro-Conservation or Pro-Utilitarian towards Threatened Flora? Social Analysis on the Willingness to Protect Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-34, June.

    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. Gregg K. Takashima & Michael J. Day, 2014. "Setting the One Health Agenda and the Human–Companion Animal Bond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Clément Meier & Jürgen Maurer, 2022. "Buddy or burden? Patterns, perceptions, and experiences of pet ownership among older adults in Switzerland," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1201-1212, December.
    4. Kent, Jennifer L. & Mulley, Corinne & Stevens, Nick, 2020. "Challenging policies that prohibit public transport use: Travelling with pets as a case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 86-94.
    5. Emily Shoesmith & Lion Shahab & Dimitra Kale & Daniel S. Mills & Catherine Reeve & Paul Toner & Luciana Santos de Assis & Elena Ratschen, 2021. "The Influence of Human–Animal Interactions on Mental and Physical Health during the First COVID-19 Lockdown Phase in the U.K.: A Qualitative Exploration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Monika Mynarska & Zuzanna Brzozowska, 2022. "Things to Gain, Things to Lose: Perceived Costs and Benefits of Children and Intention to Remain Childless in Poland," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 160-171.
    7. Esther M. C. Bouma & Marsha L. Reijgwart & Arie Dijkstra, 2021. "Family Member, Best Friend, Child or ‘Just’ a Pet, Owners’ Relationship Perceptions and Consequences for Their Cats," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Caroline Krafft & Elizabeth Kula & Maia Sieverding, 2021. "An investigation of Jordan’s fertility stall and resumed decline: The role of proximate determinants," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(19), pages 605-652.
    9. Headey, Bruce & Grabka, Markus M., 2007. "Pets and Human Health in Germany and Australia: National Longitudinal Results," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 80, pages 297-311.
    10. Arland Thornton & Prem Bhandari & Jeffrey Swindle & Nathalie Williams & Linda Young-DeMarco & Cathy Sun & Christina Hughes, 2020. "Fatalistic Beliefs and Migration Behaviors: A Study of Ideational Demography in Nepal," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(4), pages 643-670, August.
    11. Nikolai Botev, 2015. "Could Pronatalist Policies Discourage Childbearing?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 301-314, June.
    12. Rachel M. Shattuck, 2019. "Preferences Against Nonmarital Fertility Predict Steps to Prevent Nonmarital Pregnancy," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(4), pages 565-591, August.
    13. Jia Cao & Minghao Li, 2022. "Hyperbolic discounting in an intergenerational model with altruistic parents," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 989-1005, July.
    14. Karynna Okabe-Miyamoto & Dunigan Folk & Sonja Lyubomirsky & Elizabeth W Dunn, 2021. "Changes in social connection during COVID-19 social distancing: It’s not (household) size that matters, it’s who you’re with," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Stephanie L. Orstad & Kristin Szuhany & Kosuke Tamura & Lorna E. Thorpe & Melanie Jay, 2020. "Park Proximity and Use for Physical Activity among Urban Residents: Associations with Mental Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Jennifer Yarger & Sarah R. Brauner-Otto, 2024. "Women’s Work Characteristics and Fertility Expectations," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(2), pages 1-21, April.
    17. Eloise C.J. Carr & Jean E. Wallace & Rianne Pater & Douglas P. Gross, 2019. "Evaluating the Relationship between Well-Being and Living with a Dog for People with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Vincenzo Galasso, 2024. "The Role of Salience and Memory in Fertility Decisions: Experimental Evidence," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(4), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Emily Shoesmith & Panagiotis Spanakis & Emily Peckham & Paul Heron & Gordon Johnston & Lauren Walker & Suzanne Crosland & Elena Ratschen, 2021. "The Role of Animal Ownership for People with Severe Mental Illness during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Study Investigating Links with Health and Loneliness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-17, November.
    20. Polina Zvavitch & Michael S. Rendall & Constanza Hurtado-Acuna & Rachel M. Shattuck, 2021. "Contraceptive Consistency and Poverty After Birth," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(6), pages 1277-1311, December.

    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:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8610-:d:614710. 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.