Dogs,Motherhood,and Reproductive Choices: A Qualitative Study of Women’s Decision-Making in a Pronatalist Country

Abstract

This article examines how dog-owning women in Hungary make sense of childbearing in a strongly pronatalist context. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with highly educated urban women aged 25–45 (childless or with one child) and using the Theory of Planned Behavior, we analyze how everyday dog care, emotional bonds, and constraints shape fertility intentions. Many participants described dogs as family members or “child zero,” and some as temporary substitutes within their reproductive trajectories. At the same time, women highlighted major barriers to having (more) children—financial insecurity, emotional overload, work–life conflict, and uncertainty about a reliable co-parent. Broader anxieties (e.g., climate change or war) intensified insecurity but rarely eliminated desires for motherhood. Overall, dog ownership did not replace motherhood; it offered a flexible, emotionally rewarding form of caregiving that can coexist with, and sometimes postpone, childbearing under uncertainty.

Keywords

reproductive choices fertility intentions theory of planned behavior human–animal relationships dog-parenting pronatalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

Klobas

(2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic Research, 29(8), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Terry

(2019). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103

Charles

(2016). Post-human families? Dog-human relations in the domestic sphere. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3

Cook

L. J.

Iarskaia-Smirnova

E. R.

Kozlov

V. A.

(2023). Trying to reverse demographic decline: Pro-natalist and family policies in Russia, Poland and Hungary. Social Policy and Society, 22(2), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000628

Dommermuth

Klobas

Lappegård

(2011). Now or later? The theory of planned behavior and timing of fertility intentions. Advances in Life Course Research, 16(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2011.01.002

Erát

Spéder

(2025). Contrasting destinations? Emerging intention trajectories of latent family size. Advances in Life Course Research, 65, Article 100693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2025.100693

FEDIAF . (2024). Annual report 2024. https://europeanpetfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/FEDIAF-Annual-Review-2024_Online.pdf (Accessed on 02 October 2024).

Fodor

(2022). The gender regime of anti-liberal Hungary. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85312-9

Franklin

(2006). “Be [a] ware of the dog”: A post-humanist approach to housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 23(3), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090600813760

10.

Gillet

Kubinyi

(2025). Redefining parenting and family—The child-like role of dogs in Western societies. European Psychologist, 30(2), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000552

11.

Haney

(2002). Inventing the Needy: Gender and the Politics of Welfare in Hungary. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

12.

Herzog

H. A.

(2007). Gender differences in human–animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös, 20(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687

13.

HCSO (Hungarian Central Statistical Office) . (2023). Population by age and gender. January 1. https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/nep/hu/nep0003.html (accessed on 20/06/2024).

14.

Ines

Ricci-Bonot

Mills

D. S.

(2021). My cat and me—a study of cat owner perceptions of their bond and relationship. Animals, 11(6), Article 1601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061601

15.

Kramer

K. L.

(2010). Cooperative breeding and its significance to the demographic success of humans. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105054

16.

Kubinyi

(2025). The Link Between Companion Dogs, Human Fertility Rates, and Social Networks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 34(4), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214251318284

17.

Kubinyi

Varga

(2023). Társállattartás Magyarországon 2022-es reprezentatív felmérés alapján. (Companion animal keeping in Hungary based on a representative survey in 2022). In Lovas Kiss

(Ed.), Tanulmányok az ember és állat kapcsolat értelmezéséhez I. Antrozoológia könyvek. (pp. 88–100). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.

18.

Laurent-Simpson

(2017). “They make me not wanna have a child”: Effects of companion animals on fertility intentions of the childfree. Sociological Inquiry, 87(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12163

19.

Lesthaeghe

van de Kaa

(1986). Twee demografische transities? (Two demographic transitions?). In Lesthaeghe

van de Kaa

(Eds.), Bevolking—Groei en krimp, mens en maatschappij (pp. 9–24). Van Loghum Slaterus.

20.

Marionelli

Adamelli

Normando

Bono

(2007). Quality of life of the pet dog: influence of owner and dog’s characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 108(1–2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018

21.

Owens

Grauerholz

(2018). Interspecies parenting: How pet parents construct their roles. Humanity & Society, 43(2), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597617748166

22.

Rojas Betancur

H. M.

Hernández Quirama

Rivero Rubio

(2022). Voluntary childlessness in a society reluctant to change. Sociology Compass, 16(9), Article e13040. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13040

23.

Sharif-Nia

Ahmadzadeh Tori

Behmanesh

Ghaffari

Pourreza

(2024). Development and psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire on the contributing factors of tendency towards voluntary single-childedness and childlessness: A mixed method study. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 1395. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51178-5

24.

Shir-Vertesh

(2012). “Flexible personhood”: Loving animals as family members in Israel. American Anthropologist, 114(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01443.x

25.

Soares

C. J.

(1985). The companion animal in the context of the family system. Marriage & Family Review, 8(3–4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v08n03_05

26.

Sobotka

(2009). Sub-replacement fertility intentions in Austria/Intentions de fécondité inférieures au seuil de remplacement en Autriche. European Journal of Population/Revue Europénne de Démographie, 25(4), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9183-0

27.

Spéder

Kapitány

(2014). Failure to realize fertility intentions: A key aspect of the post-communist fertility transition. Population Research and Policy Review, 33(3), 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9313-6

28.

Szalma

Hašková

Oláh

Takács

(2022). Fragile Pronatalism? Barriers to Parenthood, One-Child Families, and Childlessness in European Post-Socialist Countries. Social Inclusion, 10(3), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i3.6128

29.

Szalma

Pélyi

Udvari

(2023). Szakirodalmi áttekintés a háziállatok családon belüli szerepéről. (A scoping literature review of the roles of pets in families). Socio.hu Társadalomtudományi Szemle, 13(3), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.18030/socio.hu.2023.3.51

30.

Szalma

Pélyi

Udvari

(2024). A scoping review of the roles of pets in families between 1980-2023 from a gender perspective. In Studies on the Human-Animal Relationship III. Anthrozoology Series (pp. 31–48). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.

31.

Szalma

Szczuka

B. J.

(2025). Reproductive choices and climate change in a pronatalist context. East European Politics and Societies, 39(2), 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254241229728

32.

Szalma

Takács

(2018). Is there voluntary childlessness at all in Hungary? . In Sappleton

(Ed.), Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness: The Joys of Otherhood? (pp. 309–336). Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.

33.

Szikra

(2014). Democracy and welfare in hard times: The social policy of the Orbán Government in Hungary between 2010 and 2014. Journal of European Social Policy, 24(5), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928714545446

34.

Takács

(2021). A “gond(ozás)talan állampolgárság” felé? Előszó A gondoskodás(hiány) szociológiája tematikus számhoz. (Towards careless/free citizenship? Introduction to the thematic issue on the sociology of (the lack of) care). Socio.Hu Társadalomtudományi Szemle, 11(4), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.18030/socio.hu.2021.4.20

35.

Turner

W. G.

(2006). The role of companion animals throughout the family life cycle. Journal of Family Social Work, 9(4), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J039v09n04_02

36.

Udvarhelyi-Tóth

Szalma

Pélyi

Udvari

Kispéter

Kubinyi

(2025). “My Little Son, My Everything”: Comparative Caregiving and Emotional Bonds in Dog and Child Parenting. Animals, 15(23), 3358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15233358

37.

Varga

Gyuris

Kubinyi

(2023). Társállattartás Magyarországon a 19. századtól napjainkig. (Companion animal keeping in Hungary in the light of statistics from the 19th century up to the present). Területi Statisztika, 63(6), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.15196/TS630601

38.

Volsche

(2018). Negotiated bonds: The practice of childfree pet parenting. Anthrozoös, 31(3), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1455470

39.

Volsche

Mukherjee

Rangaswamy

(2022). The difference is in the details: Attachment and cross-species parenting in the United States and India. Anthrozoös, 35(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1996026

40.

Walsh

(2009). Human-animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process, 48(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01297.x

41.

Williamson

L. E.

Lawson

K. L.

(2015). Young women’s intentions to delay childbearing: A test of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 33(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2015.1008439

42.

Zhao

Basnyat

(2021). Gendered social practices in reproductive health: A qualitative study exploring lived experiences of unwed single mothers in China. Sociology of Health & Illness, 43(6), 1237–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13292