The problem is, no-one really knows why this happens.
It could be something about religious beliefs. Maybe they make you more attractive to potential mates, or maybe they drive you to have more kids once you have found your mate.
Or maybe they encourage traditional, rather than modern, approaches to relationships. The traditional role for women is to stay at home and raise children, while hubbie has a career (and the independence and money that goes with it). It works (in theory at least) because divorce is not allowed, meaning that women cannot be left financially adrift.
Women who chose a more modern, more independent lifestyle have to juggle several competing needs. They need to invest time in their own career, and they need to guard against the financial consequences of divorce. In the absence of social structures to give them this security, they will have less time to devote to child rearing.
Could this be what lies behind reduced fertility among the less religious? To find out, Caroline Berghammer, at the Vienna Institute of Demography, took a look at data from the Austrian Generations and Gender Survey. This included 1250 men and women aged 40-45 - i.e. pretty much at the end of their reproductive career.
For each them, the dates of key life events were recorded - the times when they were cohabiting with a partner, when they were married, when they had each child, and when they divorced.
From these data, Berghammer was able to define each individual's 'life trajectory'. You can see some examples in the figure.
Take the top row. It describes the life path of someone who was single until age 23, then cohabited for a year before getting married. After a year of marriage, they had their first child and, a couple of years later, their second and final child. This sequence was the most common life trajectory, followed by 12% of those surveyed.
The second row describes an individual who remained single and childless. The third an individual who went straight into marriage, without first cohabiting.
Of course, every individual's life trajectory is different. But certain patterns emerged, and so Berghammer was able to assign each individual to one of several 'typical' trajectories.
The most important of these were the 'modern' life (a period of cohabitation before marriage ,but children after marriage) and the 'traditional' (marriage without previously cohabitation).
Berghammer found that people following the 'traditional' lifestyle were more likely to have 3+ children than those following the 'modern' lifestyle. What's more, traditionalist individuals were more likely to be religious (all Catholic in this analysis).
But - and this is the crucial bit - among those who followed a traditional life path, there was no relationship between their depth of religious belief, or their Church attendance, and the number of children they had.
Exactly the same was seen for those following a modern life path. Although this was more popular among non-religious women, those religious women who did follow this trajectory had no more children than the non-religious.
There was also no difference between the religious and non religious in the chances of remaining single and childless.
Berghammer concludes from this that the critical factor in determining fertility is the choice of life trajectory. Once this has been decided, then religiosity has no further effect on fertility.
So this explains why religious Austrians have more children. It's because they are more likely to play traditional roles, in which women value childbearing over independence.
Religiosity in Austria European Sociological Review DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcq052
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.

Austria being a largely Catholic nation might have some biassing effect on this study. Do we find similar effects among Jews, Protestants, Hindus and Shamans?
ReplyDeleteHm, there are lots of other parameters in Austria. Have they been taken into account?
ReplyDeleteEg. in rural areas a traditional lifestyle is enforced by society, while cities are freeer - regarding cohabitation, marriage, having children and attending church. Not being conformist enough is frowned upon in the villages.
Also, in the countryside there are less child care facilities and less work opportunities, both meaning that mothers are more likely to stay at home. And if they don't have a chance to get a job, they'll have another kid just out of being bored.
Also, having 2 or 3 kids means that even the religious people do use contraception, against the teachings of the cath. church.
John: unfortunately the sample was so overwhelmingly Catholic that the sample of other religions was too small to analyse! Traditional religions the world over tend to be associated with traditional cultures (of course), so you might imagine a similar effect elsewhere. No data though, unfortunately!
ReplyDeleteAnon: They did control for a bunch of factors, including how rural the area was. Here's the full list of control variables:
ReplyDelete"gender, number of siblings, highest level of education, parental divorce and agrarian rate at current place of living, i.e. share of population employed in agriculture."
They also took a look at childhood religiosity, but found it wasn't very important.
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeletealthough I appreciate the study, it is clearly overlooking religious minorities such as Jews or smaller Protestant groups who managed to combine "modern and educated" lifestyles with higher numbers of children. For example, Australian Lutherans have been found to have many children especially among the well-educated!
Here are Swiss Census data sets including smaller religious groups (p. 120):
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/ReproductiveReligiosityBlume2009.pdf
And here are Australian Census data sets (p. 162):
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/BlumeHayekAmishFertility.pdf
Best wishes!
I think the objection of commentors hints at an objection I make naggingly often on this site.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, "So this explains why religious Austrians" , you overgeneralize with the word "religious". I think you are often way to ambitious in talking about the "religious" as a whole.
IMHO. Am I wrong?
But I think this is a fantastic study concerning buying into traditional lifestyles.
Hi Michael, being well educated does not necessarily mean following a 'modern' lifestyle within the frame of reference of this study. What Berghammer means by a 'traditional life trajectory' is one in which the risk of divorce is low and gender roles are more differentiated. I'd be willing to be that the fertile, educated Jews and Lutherans you're talking about also are more likely to follow a traditional life trajectory.
ReplyDeleteHi Sabio, I dunno, I'm tempted to say that all writing in as abstraction and a balance between details and readability. I guess one reason people read this blog is to get the essence of the studies, without being buried under all the gory details and having to read the actual paper!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, religion in this study is defined in a fairly conventional, top-level way - Church attendance and self-reported religiosity.
But it's important to remember the Austrian context (which is why I put that in the title). We're talking here about adherents to a traditional religion.
I could well imagine that people attracted to modern religions - New Age, Wiccan, etc - would not show this alignment to traditional lifestyles, and so would not have higher fertility. Probably also dopes not apply to Western converts to Buddhism.
So, I'd say that yes, this does apply to religion in general - in the same way that the idea that religious people have more children is applied to religion in general. It's a summary. There are, of course, lots of exceptions that prove the rule!
@ Tom,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, probably most of us read this because first, we want to know the results and won't read the article. I am one. The other is, I can't get a hold of most articles with any ease.
But second, you do an extremely good job shows us possible shortcomings of studies, giving excellent operational definitions and furthering insight into a complex phenonoma. Thanx.
I don't mind catchy titles, mind you. But in your concluding paragraph I just always want a little less generalizing. But I understand your points and they are well made.
Hi Tom, no, I don't agree. For example, we found the highest percentage of part-time working mothers in Switzerland among some Protestant minorities, but not among the Mainstream denominations. And some very "traditional" groups (as Yehova's Witnesses and the New Apostolic Church) showed very low birth rates below the national average (for example lacking their own institutions of child care). Statistical evaluations of mainstream religions don't get the whole story.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I think there is a problem with the implicit assumption of an eternal "traditional" lifestyle. In fact, the life trajectory that we are now calling "traditional" (with, for example, the husbands working and the mothers looking after their children) has been started by Protestant minorities against the dominating culture of all-family-work in the late 17th century. As it turned out to be successful (with lower numbers of births but higher numbers of surviving children, higher education attainments etc.), it was slowly and hesitantly adopted by other traditions, including the Catholic one. Family structures are shaped by our (evolving) cultures, with successful variants growing into new "traditions".
HI Michael, yes some fascinating stats that certainly don't fit the picture that Berghammer found.
ReplyDeleteI take your point as well about the varying nature of what's considered 'traditional'. Of course 'traditionally' everyone except the elite had to work bloody hard (then die young, mostly). So women 'worked'. But even so roles were clearly differentiated - and raising children was women's work.
In those times, of course, with no family planning available they could not really choose anyway.
I think that's different to the modern options. With family planning, women now have the option of taking on roles similar to those previously played by males. Role differentiation is getting smaller, and that would lead to reduced fertility.
"In those times, of course, with no family planning available they could not really choose anyway."
ReplyDeleteApparently that was not true in England:
http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/allen/approaches/malthus-1.ppt
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteyes, I think that's right. And it is implying that following pro-family paths is increasingly costly (in money and biographic options), so the influence of religious affiliation on demography is actually increasing among the educated and well-off. And here we are...
Best wishes!