The Influence of Internet Usage Frequency on Women’s Fertility Intentions—The Mediating Effects of Gender Role Attitudes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Data
2.2. The Basic Model
2.3. Selection of Variables
2.3.1. Dependent Variable
2.3.2. Independent Variables
2.3.3. Mediating Variable
2.3.4. Control Variables
2.4. Mediating Effect Model
2.5. Endogenous Problems
2.6. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Total Sample Regression Results
3.3. Endogeneity Test
3.4. Test of Intermediary Effect of Internet Usage Frequency Influencing Fertility Intention
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications
4.2. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Qian, Y.; Jin, Y. Women’s fertility autonomy in urban China: The role of couple dynamics under the universal two-child policy. Chin. Sociol. Rev. 2018, 50, 275–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balbo, N.; Barban, N. Does fertility behavior spread among friends? Am. Sociol. Rev. 2014, 79, 412–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di Maggio, P.; Hargittai, E.; Neuman, W.R.; Robinson, J.P. Social implications of the Internet. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001, 27, 307–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Snyder, S.M.; Li, W.; O’Brien, J.E.; Howard, M.O. The effect of U.S. University students’ problematic internet use on family relationships: A mixed-methods investigation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcox, K.; Stephen, A.T. Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lam, L.T.; Peng, Z.; Mai, J.; Jing, J. The association between internet addiction and self-injurious behaviour among adolescents. Inj. Prev. 2009, 15, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ko, C.H.; Yen, J.Y.; Yen, C.F.; Chen, C.S.; Weng, C.C.; Chen, C.C. The association between internet addiction and problematic alcohol use in adolescents: The problem behavior model. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2008, 11, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alió, X.D. Wajcman, Judy. Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. Doc. d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 2017, 63, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bellou, A. The impact of Internet diffusion on marriage rates: Evidence from the broadband market. J. Popul. Econ. 2015, 28, 265–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guldi, M.; Herbst, C.M. Offline effects of online connecting: The impact of broadband diffusion on teen fertility decisions. J. Popul. Econ. 2017, 30, 69–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Billari, F.C.; Giuntella, O.; Stella, L. Does broadband Internet affect fertility? Popul. Stud. 2019, 73, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dettling, L.J. Broadband in the labor market: The impact of residential high-speed internet on married women’s labor force participation. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2017, 70, 451–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omotoso, K.O.; Adesina, J.; Adewole, O.G. Exploring gender digital divide and its effect on women’s labour market outcomes in south Africa. Afr. J. Gend. Soc. Dev. 2020, 9, 85–108. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, S.H. The recent growth of the internet and changes in household-level demand for entertainment. Inf. Econ. Policy 2007, 19, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oetting, E.R.; Donnermeyer, J.F. Primary socialization theory. The role played by personal traits in the etiology of drug use and deviance. I. Subst. Use Misuse 1998, 33, 995–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenfeld, M.J.; Thomas, R.J. Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social Intermediary. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2012, 77, 523–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goldin, C. The quiet revolution that transformed women’s employment, education, and family. Am. Econ. Rev. 2006, 96, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevenson, B.; Wolfers, J. Marriage and Divorce: Changes and Their Driving Forces. J. Econ. Perspect 2007, 21, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, Y. The effect of air pollution on fertility intentions. Probl. Ekorozw. 2020, 16, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Gong, Y. Income, social security and Chiness families’ “two-child” decisions: Evidence from urban residents’ fertility intentions. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2020, 65, 1773–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; David, A.K. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacobucci, D. Mediation analysis and categorical variables: The final frontier. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 582–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiaojie, W.; Yi, D.; Pengcheng, L.; Guixin, H. Exploring the drivers of digital financial inclusion: An empirical analysis based on interprovincial panel data in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2968–2983. [Google Scholar]
- Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodol. 1982, 13, 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, S.; Edwards, R. Lone mothers, paid work and gendered moral rationalities. Contemp. Sociol. 2001, 30, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farré, L.; Vella, F. The Intergenerational Transmission of Gender Role Attitudes and its Implications for Female Labour Force Participation. Economica 2013, 80, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pippa, N. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, G.S. Altruism in the family and selfishness in the market place. Economica 1981, 48, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, G.S. Accounting for Tastes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, I.; Jun, M.; Lee, J.E. Economic actions or cultural and social decisions? The role of cultural and social values in shaping fertility intention. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 2017, 22, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, J.; Callou, G.; Josua, A.; Tutsch, D.; Maciel, P. An artificial neural network approach to forecast the environmental impact of data centers. Information 2019, 10, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Massaro, A.; Maritati, V.; Giannone, D.; Convertini, D.; Galiano, A. LSTM DSS automatism and dataset optimization for diabetes prediction. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, M.; De Silva, L.W.A.; Yamaguchi, H. Artificial neural network for the short-term prediction of arctic sea ice concentration. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable | Categories | Mean ± SD or n (%) |
---|---|---|
Fertility intention | 0 | 80 (2.57) |
1 | 680 (21.84) | |
2 | 2087 (67.04) | |
3–10 | 266 (8.54) | |
The frequency of internet usage | Infrequently | 934 (30.00) |
Frequently | 2179 (70.00) | |
Age | 36.61 ± 9.10 | |
Marital status | Unmarried | 630 (20.24) |
Married | 2483 (79.76) | |
Health condition | Badly healthy | 54 (1.73) |
Less healthy | 241 (7.74) | |
Normal | 733 (23.55) | |
Fairly healthy | 1285 (41.28) | |
Extremely healthy | 800 (25.70) | |
Education level | Middle school and below | 1587 (50.98) |
High school/Vocational school | 546 (17.54) | |
College and above | 980 (31.48) | |
Household income level | Far below average | 165 (5.30) |
Below average | 1038 (33.34) | |
Average | 1693 (54.38) | |
Above average | 210 (6.75) | |
Much above average | 7 (0.22) | |
Social contact | Never | 264 (8.48) |
Rarely | 1016 (32.64) | |
Sometimes | 1089 (34.98) | |
Often | 636 (20.43) | |
Frequently | 108 (3.47) | |
Gender role attitudes 1 | Absolutely disagree | 546 (17.56) |
Relatively disagree | 1071 (34.44) | |
Neutral | 187 (6.01) | |
Relatively agree | 946 (30.42) | |
Absolutely agree | 360 (11.58) | |
Gender role attitudes 2 | Absolutely disagree | 289 (28.00) |
Relatively disagree | 269 (26.07) | |
Neutral | 94 (9.11) | |
Relatively agree | 328 (31.78) | |
Absolutely agree | 52 (5.04) |
Variables | Coefficient | 95% CI | SE |
---|---|---|---|
The frequency of internet usage (reference: infrequently) | −0.0385 * | −0.0680 to −0.0091 | 0.0150 |
Age | −0.0161 * | −0.0299 to −0.0022 | 0.0070 |
Age*age | 0.0002 * | 0.0001 to 0.0004 | 0.0001 |
Marital status(reference: unmarried) | 0.1183 *** | 0.0714 to 0.1651 | 0.0238 |
Health condition(reference: badly healthy) | |||
Less healthy | 0.0420 | −0.0612 to 0.1453 | 0.0527 |
Normal | 0.0245 | −0.0755 to 0.1246 | 0.0510 |
Fairly healthy | 0.0164 | −0.0834 to 0.1163 | 0.0509 |
Extremely healthy | 0.0346 | −0.0668 to 0.1361 | 0.0517 |
Education level (reference: Middle school and below) | |||
High school/Vocational school | −0.0693 *** | −0.1048 to −0.0338 | 0.0181 |
College and above | −0.0613 *** | −0.0942 to −0.0285 | 0.0167 |
Household income level (reference: far below average) | |||
Below average | 0.0457 | −0.0171 to 0.1086 | 0.0320 |
Average | 0.0735 * | 0.0109 to 0.1361 | 0.0319 |
Above average | 0.0791 * | 0.0006 to 0.1575 | 0.0400 |
Much above average | −0.0258 | −0.2559 to 0.2042 | 0.1173 |
Social contact (reference: never) | |||
Rarely | 0.0085 | −0.0393 to 0.0565 | 0.0244 |
Sometimes | 0.0229 | −0.0247 to 0.0706 | 0.0243 |
Often | 0.0431 | −0.0072 to 0.0936 | 0.0257 |
Frequently | 0.0046 | −0.0681 to 0.0775 | 0.0371 |
Constant | 0.7031 *** | 0.4483 to 0.9580 | 0.1300 |
Sample size | 3113 |
Variables | Coefficient | 95% CI | SE |
---|---|---|---|
The frequency of internet usage (reference: infrequently) | −0.7223 *** | −1.0376 to 0.4069 | 0.1608 |
Age | −0.0092 | −0.0368 to 0.0182 | 0.0140 |
Age*age | 0.00001 | −0.0003 to 0.0004 | 0.0002 |
Marital status (reference: unmarried) | 0.2163 *** | 0.1356 to 0.2971 | 0.0412 |
Health condition (reference: badly healthy) | |||
Less healthy | 0.0042 | −0.2184 to 0.2269 | 0.1136 |
Normal | 0.0300 | −0.1797 to 0.2398 | 0.1070 |
Fairly healthy | 0.0579 | −0.1503 to 0.2662 | 0.1062 |
Extremely healthy | 0.1071 | −0.1042 to 0.3185 | 0.1078 |
Education level (reference: Middle school and below) | |||
High school/Vocational school | 0.0787 | −0.0376 to 0.1950 | 0.0593 |
College and above | 0.1313 * | 0.0019 to 0.2606 | 0.0659 |
Household income level (reference: far below average) | |||
Below average | 0.1320 * | 0.0124 to 0.2517 | 0.0610 |
Average | 0.2145 ** | 0.0900 to 0.3389 | 0.0634 |
Above average | 0.2323 ** | 0.0775 to 0.3870 | 0.0789 |
Much above average | 0.0162 | −0.3486 to 0.3811 | 0.1861 |
Social contact (reference: never) | |||
Rarely | 0.0253 | −0.0647 to 0.1155 | 0.0459 |
Sometimes | 0.0486 | −0.0415 to 0.1388 | 0.0460 |
Often | 0.1381 ** | 0.0396 to 0.2366 | 0.0502 |
Frequently | −0.0247 | −0.1676 to 0.1180 | 0.0728 |
The average internet usage rate of the province | 0.1507 *** | p-value | 0.0000 |
Instrument variable T-value | 10.67 | Wald-test | 110.35 |
F-value of the first stage | 113.77 | R-squared | 0.1059 |
VARIABLES | (1) GRA1 | 95% CI | SE | (2) FI | 95% CI | SE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The frequency of internet usage (reference: infrequently) | −0.3270 *** | −0.4281 to −0.2259 | 0.0515 | −0.0280 | −0.0576 to −0.0016 | 0.0151 |
GRA1 | 0.0288 *** | 0.0190 to 0.0386 | 0.0050 | |||
Constant | 0.6140 *** | 0.3596 to 0.8684 | 0.1297 | |||
Observations | 3110 | 3110 | ||||
VARIABLES | (3) GRA2 | 95% CI | SE | (4) FI | 95% CI | SE |
The frequency of internet usage (reference: infrequently) | −0.2734 ** | −0.4545 to −0.0923 | 0.0923 | 0.0006 | −0.0567 to 0.0579 | 0.0292 |
GRA2 | 0.0253 ** | 0.0110 to 0.0396 | 0.0073 | |||
Constant | 0.5005 * | 0.0231 to 0.9780 | 0.2435 | |||
Observations | 1032 | 1032 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, P.; Cao, J.; Nie, W.; Wang, X.; Tian, Y.; Ma, C. The Influence of Internet Usage Frequency on Women’s Fertility Intentions—The Mediating Effects of Gender Role Attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094784
Liu P, Cao J, Nie W, Wang X, Tian Y, Ma C. The Influence of Internet Usage Frequency on Women’s Fertility Intentions—The Mediating Effects of Gender Role Attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(9):4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094784
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Pengcheng, Jingjing Cao, Wenjie Nie, Xiaojie Wang, Yani Tian, and Cheng Ma. 2021. "The Influence of Internet Usage Frequency on Women’s Fertility Intentions—The Mediating Effects of Gender Role Attitudes" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 9: 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094784
APA StyleLiu, P., Cao, J., Nie, W., Wang, X., Tian, Y., & Ma, C. (2021). The Influence of Internet Usage Frequency on Women’s Fertility Intentions—The Mediating Effects of Gender Role Attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094784