The Social Mobility/Fertility Hypothesis Reconsidered: An Empirical Study

Heterogeneous Effects of Intergenerational Social Mobility: An Improved Method and New Evidence

“…The mobility-fertility hypothesis is a prominent example: Researchers have hypothesized that because socially mobile individuals may experience loss of social network and difficulty in acculturation, they may lack social, emotional, and economic resources to support as many children as the socially nonmobile (Billingsley, Drefahl, and Ghilagaber 2018;Blau and Duncan 1967;Boyd 1994;Easterlin 1969Easterlin , 1976Goldscheider and Uhlenberg 1969;Lundberg 1991). However, empirical evidence about mobility effects 1 on fertility has been inconsistent with this hypothesis: Most studies have found that neither upward nor downward social mobility was related to number of children after considering origin and destination status (Blau and Duncan 1967;Sobel 1985;Stevens 1981;Tien 1961;Westoff et al 1961;Zimmer 1981). Such null findings discouraged further investigations about mobility effects not only on fertility but also on other outcomes.…”

“…For example, in a series of studies, Westoff andcolleagues (1953, 1961) compared fertility measures between the socially mobile and the nonmobile and found little evidence supporting the hypothesis that fertility is related to intergenerational occupational mobility. Later research in the 1970s and 1980s also showed a general lack of mobility effects on the number of live births beyond an additive influence of origin and destination status (Duncan 1966;Jackson and Curtis 1972;Sobel 1985;Tien 1961Tien , 1967Zimmer 1981). This incongruence between theory and empirical evidence has served to diminish enthusiasm for pursuing further empirical investigations and the mobilityfertility inquiry in sociology has subsequently become relatively dormant.…”

Heterogeneous Effects of Intergenerational Social Mobility: An Improved Method and New Evidence

“…The mobility-fertility hypothesis is a prominent example: researchers have hypothesized that intergenerational mobility is related to fertility through various mechanisms including stress, isolation, relative income and consumption, and selection (Blau and Duncan 1967;Boyd 1994;Easterlin 1969;Lundberg 1991). However, empirical evidence about mobility effects 1 on fertility has been inconsistent with this hypothesis: most studies found that neither upward nor downward social mobility was related to the number of children after considering origin and destination status (Blau and Duncan 1967;Sobel 1985;Stevens 1981;Tien 1961;Westoff et al 1961;Zimmer 1981). Such null findings discouraged further investigations about mobility effects not only on fertility but also other outcomes.…”

“…At the individual level, mobility appears to affect attitudes, behaviors, and health outcomes. There is extensive literature that examines the association between intergenerational mobility and a range of behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes including mental health conditions (Fox 1990;Houle and Martin 2011;Kessin 1971), health and well-being (Ahlburg 1998;Power, Matthews, and Manor 1996;Schuck and Steiber 2017), political attitudes and voting behaviors (Clifford and Heath 1993;Tolsma, de Graaf, and Quillian 2009;Weakliem 1992;Zang and Dirk de Graaf 2016), and vital rates (Blane, Harding, and Rosato 1999;Claussen et al 2005;Kasarda, Billy, and West 1986;Tien 1961Tien , 1967.…”

“…For example, in a series of studies, Westoff andcolleagues (1953, 1961) found little evidence supporting the hypothesis that fertility is related to intergenerational occupational mobility. Later research in the 1970s and 80s also showed a general lack of mobility effects on the number of live births beyond an additive influence of origin and destination status (Duncan 1966;Jackson and Curtis 1972;Sobel 1985;Tien 1961Tien , 1967Zimmer 1981). This incongruence between theory and empirical evidence has since diminished the enthusiasm to pursue further empirical investigations and the mobility-fertility inquiry in sociology has subsequently become relatively dormant.…”