The prevalence of uncertainty and post-materialist values appears to contribute to the emergence of low-fertility patterns or even the prevalence of childlessness. This article casts doubt on this linear explanation, which seems to remove children from personal plans and aspirations. Drawing on a survey encompassing both open and closed questions to 837 heterosexual respondents from Norway and Italy, this study investigates both the enabling and hindering factors that affect fertility intentions. Employing a qualitative-driven mixed-methods approach, the results confirm the significant roles of uncertainty and self-realisation in the childbearing decision-making process, with the former being more pronounced in Italy and the latter in Norway. Additionally, fertility intentions can be considered as enhancing narratives of the self, often existing ‘despite’ uncertainty. In line with the concept of family formation as a ‘bricolage process’, we find that children may represent an opportunity for self-realisation, portraying a new type of children imaginary as ‘choice, pleasure, and social anchor’.
AdseraA (2005) Vanishing children: From high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries. American Economic Review95(2): 189–193.
2.
AlbertiniMMaksimovicTMencariniL, et al. (2024) Her class and his class: Does social class matter for fertility?Acta Sociologica67(4): 549–564.
3.
AlderottiGVignoliDBacciniM, et al. (2021) Employment instability and fertility in Europe: A meta-analysis. Demography58(3): 871–900.
4.
ArendellT (2000) Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family62(4): 1192–1207.
5.
BaumanZ (1999) In Search of Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
6.
BazzaniG (2020) When Money Changes Society. The Case of Sardex Money as Community. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
7.
BazzaniG (2021) Digital money for sustainable communities: The Sardex case. In: Andrea M (ed) Handbook of Economic Sociology for the 21st Century: New Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Studies and Developments. London: Springer Nature, 237–251.
8.
BazzaniG (2022) The agency of the futures. Cambio: Rivista Sulle Trasformazioni Sociali24(1): 167–179.
9.
BazzaniG (2023a) Climate solidarity: A framework and research agenda for low-carbon behavior. Sociological Forum38(2): 352–374.
10.
BazzaniG (2023b) Agency as conversion process. Theory and Society52(3): 487–507.
11.
BazzaniG (2023c) Futures in action: Expectations, imaginaries and narratives of the future. Sociology57(2): 382–397.
12.
BazzaniG (2024) From organic to climate solidarity: Challenges for climate change mitigation. Globalizations21(8): 1632–1641.
13.
BazzaniGVignoliD (2022) The agency of fertility plans. Frontiers in Sociology191: 1–20.
14.
BeckertJ (2016) Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
BeckertJSuckertL (2021) The future as a social fact: The analysis of perceptions of the future in sociology. Poetics84: 101499.
16.
BernardiLHuininkJSetterstenRA (2019) The life course cube: A tool for studying lives. Advances in Life Course Research41: 100258.
17.
BernardiLKlärnerAvon der LippeH (2008) Job insecurity and the timing of parenthood: A comparison between eastern and western Germany. European Journal of Population24: 287–313.
18.
BillariFCLiefbroerAC (2010) Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood?Advances in Life Course Research15(1): 59–75.
19.
BrintonMCBuenoXOláhL, et al. (2018) Postindustrial fertility ideals, intentions, and gender inequality: A comparative qualitative analysis. Population and Development Review44: 281–309.
20.
BuenoXBrintonMC (2019) Gender egalitarianism, perceived economic insecurity, and fertility intentions in Spain: A qualitative analysis. Population Studies73: 247–260.
21.
BuhB (2023) Measuring the effect of employment uncertainty on fertility in low-fertility contexts: An overview of existing measures. Genus79(4): 1–23.
22.
BurkePJStetsJE (1999) Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social Psychology Quarterly62: 347–366.
23.
CarterJDuncanS (2017) Wedding paradoxes: Individualized conformity and the ‘perfect day’. The Sociological Review65(1): 3–20.
24.
CisottoEMeliECavriniG (2022) Grandparents in Italy: Trends and changes in the demography of grandparenthood from 1998 to 2016. Genus78(10): 1–22.
25.
CloptonAWFinchBL (2011) Re-conceptualizing social anchors in community development: Utilizing social anchor theory to create social capital’s third dimension. Community Development42(1): 70–83.
26.
CrawfordR (2004) Risk ritual and the management of control and anxiety in medical culture. Health8(4): 505–528.
27.
DuncanS (2011) Personal life, pragmatism and bricolage. Sociological Research Online16(4): 13.
28.
FieldingJFieldingNHughesG (2013) Opening up open-ended survey data using qualitative software. Quality & Quantity47(6): 3261–3276.
29.
FieldingNG (2012) Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research6(2): 124–136.
30.
FriedmanDHechterMKanazawaS (1994) A theory of the value of children. Demography31(3): 375–401.
31.
GangasS (2016) From agency to capabilities: Sen and sociological theory. Current Sociology64: 22–40.
32.
GauthierAHBrysonCFadelL, et al. (2020) Exploring the concept of intensive parenting in a three-country study. Demographic Research44: 333–348.
33.
GauthierAHde JongPW (2021) Costly children: The motivations for parental investment in children in a low fertility context. Genus77(1): 1–19.
34.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
35.
GiddensA (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.
36.
GualdaE (2022) Altruism, solidarity and responsibility from a committed sociology: Contributions to society. The American Sociologist53(1): 29–43.
37.
GuettermanTCreswellJWKuckartzU (2015) Using joint displays and MAXQDA software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In: McCruddenMTSchrawGJBuckendahlCW (eds) Use of Visual Displays in Research and Testing: Coding, Interpreting, and Reporting Data. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 145–175.
38.
GuettoRBazzaniGVignoliD (2022) Narratives of the future and fertility decision-making in uncertain times: An application to the COVID-19 pandemic. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research20: 1–24.
39.
HedströmP (2005) Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Hesse-BiberSNBailey-RodriguezDFrostN (2015) A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research. In: Hesse-BiberSNJohnsonRB (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 137–156.
41.
HvindenBHalvorsenR (2018) Mediating agency and structure in sociology: What role for conversion factors?Critical Sociology44: 865–881.
KohlerHPBillariFCOrtegaJA (2002) The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review28(4): 641–680.
44.
KorpiW (2000) Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society7(2): 127–191.
45.
KreyenfeldM (2010) Uncertainties in female employment careers and the postponement of parenthood in Germany. European Sociological Review26(3): 351–366.
46.
KreyenfeldMAnderssonGPailhéA (2012) Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe: Introduction. Demographic Research27: 835–852.
47.
KuckartzU (2014) Mixed Methods: Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
48.
KuckartzURädikerS (2019) Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
49.
LappegårdTNoackT (2015) The link between parenthood and partnership in contemporary Norway: Findings from focus group research. Demographic Research32: 287–310.
50.
LebanoAJamiesonL (2020) Childbearing in Italy and Spain: Postponement narratives. Population and Development Review46(1): 121–144.
51.
LesthaegheR (2020) The second demographic transition, 1986–2020: Sub-replacement fertility and rising cohabitation—A global update. Genus76(1): 1–38.
52.
MatysiakASobotkaTVignoliD (2021) The great recession and fertility in Europe: A sub-national analysis. European Journal of Population37(1): 29–64.
53.
MatysiakAVignoliD (2008) Fertility and women's employment: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie24(4): 363–384.
54.
MillsMBlossfeldHP (2013) The second demographic transition meets globalization: A comprehensive theory to understand changes in family formation in an era of rising uncertainty. In: EvansARBaxterJ (eds) Negotiating the Life Course: Stability and Change in Life Pathways. London: Springer, 9–33.
55.
MorganDL (2014) Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. London: Sage.
56.
MorganSPKingRB (2001) Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie17(1): 3–20.
57.
MynarskaM (2010) Deadline for parenthood: Fertility postponement and age norms in Poland. European Journal of Population26: 351–373.
58.
PiraniEVignoliD (2016) Changes in the satisfaction of cohabitors relative to spouses over time. Journal of Marriage and Family78(3): 598–609.
59.
PiraniEVignoliD (2022) Childbearing across partnerships in Italy: Prevalence, demographic correlates, and social gradient. Genus77(3): 379–398.
60.
RaybouldASearR (2021) Children of the (gender) revolution: A theoretical and empirical synthesis of how gendered division of labour influences fertility. Population Studies75(2): 169–190.
61.
SandelowskiM (2001) Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health24: 230–240.
62.
SchererSPavoliniEBriniE (2023) Formal childcare services and fertility: The case of Italy. Genus79: 29.
63.
SímonardóttirS (2024) “Unless I could be like the typical dad”: Exploring parenthood through the perspective of the voluntarily childfree. Acta Sociologica67(4): 463–477.
StebbinsRA (2009) Personal Decisions in the Public Square: Beyond Problem Solving into a Positive Sociology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
68.
StebbinsRA (2020) Positive sociology: An overview. In: Positive Sociology of Leisure: Contemporary Perspectives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 13–26.
69.
TrappoliniETerzeraLRimoldiSML (2023) Informal childcare arrangements: A comparison between Italians and migrants. Genus79(17).
70.
TrommsdorffGNauckB (2010) Introduction to special section for Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Value of children: A concept for better understanding cross-cultural variations in fertility behavior and intergenerational relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology41: 637–651.
71.
TuckettD (2018) Conviction narrative theory and understanding decision-making in economics and finance. In: Jens B and Richard B (eds) Uncertain Futures: Imaginaries, Narratives, and Calculation in the Economy. Oxford: Oxford Academic.
72.
TuckettDNikolicM (2017) The role of conviction and narrative in decision-making under radical uncertainty. Theoretical Psychology27: 501–523.
73.
van de KaaDJ (1987) Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin42(1): 1–59.
74.
VignoliDBazzaniGGuettoR, et al. (2020a) Uncertainty and narratives of the future: A theoretical framework for contemporary fertility. In: SchoenR (eds) Analyzing Contemporary Fertility. London: Springer, 25–47.
75.
VignoliDGuettoRBazzaniG, et al. (2020b) A reflection on economic uncertainty and fertility in Europe: The narrative framework. Genus76: 1–27.
76.
VignoliDMinelloABazzaniG, et al. (2022) Narratives of the future affect fertility: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. European Journal of Population38(1): 93–124.
77.
ZelizerV (1985) Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. New York: Basic Books.
78.
ZinnJO (2008) Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An Introduction. London: Blackwell Publishing.
79.
ZüllC (2016) Open-ended questions. GESIS Survey Guidelines. Mannheim: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
