| Title |
Emotional Variation and Fertility Behavior
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-017-0555-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William G. Axinn, Dirgha J. Ghimire, Emily Smith-Greenaway |
| Abstract |
Emotional influences on fertility behaviors are an understudied topic that may offer a clear explanation of why many couples choose to have children even when childbearing is not economically rational. With setting-specific measures of the husband-wife emotional bond appropriate for large-scale population research matched with data from a long-term panel study, we have the empirical tools to provide a test of the influence of emotional factors on contraceptive use to limit fertility. This article presents those tests. We use long-term, multilevel community and family panel data to demonstrate that the variance in levels of husband-wife emotional bond is significantly associated with their subsequent use of contraception to avert births. We discuss the wide-ranging implications of this intriguing new result. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 12 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,448,846
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,744
of 1,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,298
of 420,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#27
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.