Is Stepfamily Status Associated With Cohabiting and Married Women’s Fertility Behaviors?

Abstract

Children from prior relationships potentially complicate fertility decision-making in new cohabitations and marriages. On the one hand, the "value of children" perspective suggests that unions with and without stepchildren have similar-and deliberate-reasons for shared childbearing. On the other hand, multipartnered fertility (MPF) research suggests that childbearing across partnerships is often unintended. Using the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth and event-history models, I examine the role of stepfamily status on cohabiting and married women's fertility and birth intendedness, with attention to union type and stepfamily configuration. Adjusting for covariates, women in stepfamily unions are more likely to have a first shared birth in a union than women in unions in which neither partner has children from past relationships, but stepfamily births are less likely to be intended than unintended. Further, this association varies by union type: married women have similar birth risks across stepfamily status, but births are less likely to be intended in marital stepfamilies. For cohabitors, women in a stepfamily are more likely to have a birth than women in nonstepfamily unions, with no differences in intendedness. Configuration (whose children and how many) also matters; for instance, women with one child from a past relationship are more likely to have a birth and to have an intended than unintended birth than women with other stepfamily configurations. It appears that children from either partner's prior relationships influences subsequent fertility decision-making, undermining the utility of the "value of children" perspective for explaining childbearing behaviors in complex families.

Cohort Trends in Union Dissolution During Young Adulthood

“…Prior evidence indicates that recent cohorts may face increased financial and psychological instability in the aftermath of these multiple dissolutions (Avellar & Smock, 2005;Kamp Dush, 2013). They may become more likely to form stepfamilies as a result of ending and forming new cohabiting unions and bringing their children into new relationships, which can have implications for children's well-being as well as adults (Guzzo, 2017).…”

“…Women who bear children prior to marriage are more likely to divorce (Amato, 2010). Women who have children prior to cohabiting are also at-risk of dissolving their union (Guzzo, 2017).…”

Simulating family life courses: An application for Italy, Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden

“…The end of a union, either by separation or death of the partner, supposedly reduces birth risks, at least temporarily, but at the same time produces a pool of persons who may enter new partnerships. New unions represent new opportunities for childbearing both for childless couples -an increasing share of first children is born in second or subsequent unions (e.g., Beaujouan 2011) -and for couples in which one or both partners already have children (Guzzo 2017). Having children seems to symbolise a couple's commitment to each other and their status as a family unit (Griffith, Koo, and Suchindran 1985), and can also be an opportunity to give siblings of close age to children of a previous union (Guzzo 2017).…”

Pathways to Parenthood in Social and Family Contexts: Decade in Review, 2020

“…Decisions about having a child with a new partner are influenced by whether both partners have children, the number and age of those children, and where those children live (Hohmann‐Marriott, ; Holland & Thomson, ; Vanassche, Corijn, Matthijs, & Swicegood, ). MPF, of course, is not always deliberate, as unintended fertility with new partners is also common (Guzzo, ). Estimates of MPF range widely due to difficulties and variation in measurement approaches (Guzzo, ; Guzzo & Dorius, ), but new efforts to better identify MPF in survey data, such as using a direct question (as in the latest Survey of Income and Program Participation), and the calls for a new nationally representative family survey that explicitly examines complex family behaviors (Manning, ) could provide key insights.…”

“…Gender does not seem to influence the “weight” of preferences, but couples consider the male partner's economic characteristics and the female partner's ability to combine work and family when making fertility decisions (Kaufman & Bernhardt, ; Shreffler, Pirretti, & Drago, ; Stein, Willen, & Pavetic, ). Because couple‐level data are uncommon, many studies approximate couple‐level data by using female respondents' reports of their partners' characteristics and intentions (e.g., Bertotti, ; Guzzo, ; Kotila & Kamp Dush, ), although these reports are not always accurate (Stykes, ). As researchers increasingly seek to conduct couple‐level data collection and analyze couple‐level data, new theoretical and analytical approaches will be needed that explicitly incorporate the dyadic nature of fertility decision‐making and behaviors (e.g., Bauer & Kneip, ; Brehm & Schneider, ; Miller, Severy, & Pasta, ; Preciado, Krull, Hicks, & Gipson, ).…”