Volume 49 - Article 19 | Pages 493–512
Describing the Dutch Social Networks and Fertility Study and how to process it
By Gert Stulp
References
Balbo, N. and Barban, N. (2014). Does fertility behavior spread among friends? American Sociological Review 79(3): 412–431.
Balbo, N., Billari, F.C., and Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population 29(1): 1–38.
Balbo, N. and Mills, M. (2011). The influence of the family network on the realisation of fertility intentions. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 9: 179–206.
Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review 22: 527–555.
Bernardi, L., Keim, S., and Lippe, H. (2007). Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed methods study in eastern and western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 23–47.
Bernardi, L. and Klaerner, A. (2014). Social networks and fertility. Demographic Research 30(22): 641–670.
Bhrolcháin, M.N. and Beaujouan, É. (2019). Do people have reproductive goals? Constructive preferences and the discovery of desired family size. In: Schoen, R. (ed.). Analytical family demography. Cham: Springer International Publishing: 27–56.
Bidart, C. and Lavenu, D. (2005). Evolutions of personal networks and life events. Social Networks 27(4): 359–376.
Bongaarts, J. and Watkins, S.C. (1996). Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review 22(4): 639–682.
Buijs, V.L. and Stulp, G. (2022). Friends, family, and family friends: Predicting friendships of Dutch women. Social Networks 70: 25–35.
Buyukkececi, Z., Leopold, T., Gaalen, R., and Engelhardt, H. (2020). Family, firms, and fertility: A study of social interaction effects. Demography 57(1): 243–266.
Colleran, H. (2020). Market integration reduces kin density in women’s ego-networks in rural Poland. Nature Communications 11(1): 266.
Csardi, G. and Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems 1695(5): 1–9.
Duvander, A.Z., Fahlén, S., Brandén, M., and Ohlsson-Wijk, S. (2020). Who makes the decision to have children? Couples’ childbearing intentions and actual childbearing. Advances in Life Course Research 43: 100286.
Dykstra, P.A., Bühler, C., Fokkema, T., Petrič, G., Platinovšek, R., Kogovšek, T., and Hlebec, V. (2016). Social network indices in the Generations and Gender Survey: An appraisal. Demographic Research 34(35): 995–1036.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.
Hin, S., Gauthier, A., Goldstein, J., and Bühler, C. (2011). Fertility preferences: What measuring second choices teaches us. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 9: 131–156.
Kavas, S. and Jong, J. (2020). Exploring the mechanisms through which social ties affect fertility decisions in Turkey. Journal of Marriage and Family 82(4): 1250–1269.
Keim, S., Klarner, A., and Bernardi, L. (2009). Qualifying social influence on fertility intentions: Composition, structure and meaning of fertility-relevant social networks in western Germany. Current Sociology 57(6): 888–907.
Knoef, M. and Vos, K. (2009). The representativeness of LISS, an online probability panel. Tilburg: CentERdata.
Kohler, H., Behrman, J., and Watkins, S.C. (2001). The density of social networks and fertility decisions: Evidence from south Nyanza district, Kenya. Demography 38(1): 43–58.
Liu, W.T. and Duff, R.W. (1972). The strength in weak ties. The Public Opinion Quarterly 36(3): 361–366.
Malter, F. and Börsch-Supan, A. (eds.) (2013). SHARE Wave 4: Innovations and methodology. Munich: MEA, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
McCarty, C. (2002). Structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure 3(1).
McCarty, C. and Govindaramanujam, S. (2005). A modified elicitation of personal networks using dynamic visualization. Connections 26(2): 9–17.
McCarty, C., Killworth, P.D., and Rennell, J. (2007). Impact of methods for reducing respondent burden on personal network structural measures. Social Networks 29(2): 300–315.
McCarty, C., Lubbers, M.J., Vacca, R., and Molina, J.L. (2019). Conducting personal network research: A practical guide. New York City: The Guilford Press.
McCarty, C., Molina, J.L., Aguilar, C., and Rota, L. (2007). A comparison of social network mapping and personal network visualization. Field Methods 19(2): 145–162.
Montgomery, M. and Casterline, J. (1996). Social learning, social influence, and new models of fertility. Population and Development Review 22(1996): 151–175.
Newson, L., Postmes, T., Lea, S.E.G., and Webley, P. (2005). Why are modern families small? Toward an evolutionary and cultural explanation for the demographic transition. Personality and social psychology review 9(4): 360–375.
Pedersen, T.L. (2021). Ggraph: An implementation of grammar of graphics for graphs and networks.
Pedersen, T.L. (2022). Tidygraph: A tidy API for graph manipulation.
Pink, S., Leopold, T., and Engelhardt, H. (2014). Fertility and social interaction at the workplace: Does childbearing spread among colleagues? Advances in Life Course Research 21: 113–122.
R. Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Scherpenzeel, A. (2009). Start of the LISS panel: Sample and recruitment of a probability-based Internet panel. Tilburg: CentERdata.
Scherpenzeel, A.C. and Bethlehem, J.G. (2011). How representative are online panels? Problems of coverage and selection and possible solutions. In: Das, P., Ester, P., and Kaczmirek, L. (eds.). Social and behavioral research and the internet. Advances in applied methods and research strategies. New York: Routledge.
Schoumaker, B. (2019). Male fertility around the world and over time: How different is it from female fertility? Population and Development Review 45(3): 459–487.
Stadel, M. and Stulp, G. (2022). Balancing bias and burden in personal network studies. Social Networks 70: 16–24.
Stark, T.H. and Krosnick, J.A. (2017). GENSI: A new graphical tool to collect ego-centered network data. Social Networks 48: 36–45.
Stulp, G. (2021). Collecting large personal networks in a representative sample of Dutch women. Social Networks 64: 63–71.
Stulp, G. (2023). FertNet: Process data from the Social networks and fertility survey.
Stulp, G. (2023). Materials for describing the Dutch social networks and fertility study and how to process it. DataverseNL .
Stulp, G. (2020). Methods and materials of the Social networks and fertility survey (Sociale relaties en kinderkeuzes. DataverseNL .
Stulp, G. and Barrett, L. (2021). Do data from large personal networks support cultural evolutionary ideas about kin and fertility? Social Sciences 10(5): 177.
Testa, M.R. (2012). Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behaviour. Demographic Research 26(3): 63–98.
Toepoel, V., Das, M., and Van Soest, A. (2008). Effects of design in web surveys: Comparing trained and fresh respondents. The Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5): 985–1007.
Toepoel, V., Das, M., and Van Soest, A. (2009). Relating question type to panel conditioning: Comparing trained and fresh respondents. Survey Research Methods 3(2): 73–80.
Watts, D.J. and Strogatz, S.H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684): 440–442.