Has the New Natalism Reduced the Religious Fertility Advantage?

dc.contributor.authorLaurie F. DeRose
dc.contributor.authorW. Bradford Wilcox
dc.contributor.authorPamela Leyva‐Townsend
dc.contributor.authorJaviera Reyes Brito
dc.contributor.authorSpencer James
dc.coverage.spatialBolivia
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-22T15:20:43Z
dc.date.available2026-03-22T15:20:43Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.descriptionCitaciones: 2
dc.description.abstractAbstract Religion has historically been a pronatalist force, but because it fosters traditional gender role attitudes, its importance for fertility has the potential to wane if gender equality is emerging as the new natalism. We used World Values Survey (WVS) data from 1989 to 2020 to determine whether the religious fertility advantage has changed over the last three decades, with a particular focus on low‐fertility countries where egalitarian gender role attitudes are most likely to support childbearing. The fertility advantage associated with holding traditional gender role attitudes has indeed decreased over time, but this had at best a minimal effect on the religious fertility advantage.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jssr.12747
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12747
dc.identifier.urihttps://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/51825
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.ispartofJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion
dc.sourceCatholic University of America
dc.subjectFertility
dc.subjectSurvey data collection
dc.subjectSociology
dc.subjectWorld Values Survey
dc.subjectDemographic economics
dc.subjectEconomics
dc.subjectDemography
dc.titleHas the New Natalism Reduced the Religious Fertility Advantage?
dc.typearticle

Files