I Do Not Need a Second Child,But My Child Needs a Sibling: A Grounded Theory Study on the Fertility Desire for the Second Child in Chinese Post One-Child Policy Era

Abstract

The desire for a second child is crucial to the effectiveness of China’s birth policies. However, it is unclear about the content or determinants of it among adults of childbearing age who were raised under the One-Child Policy period and have experienced profound birth policy and socio-cultural transformations since 1980s. Accordingly, this study employed a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach and conducted in-depth interviews with 46 participants (15 post-80s, 15 post-90s, and 16 post-00s). The findings revealed a three-dimensional structure of multiple fertility desires, encompassing motivations to have a second child for oneself, for one’s children, and as a symbolic expression of family cohesion. Among these, child-related considerations emerged as most central. Furthermore, the study categorized self-, family-, and socio-cultural factors shaping fertility desires, with “educational involution” highlighted as particularly distinctive within Chinese families. Cohort-based similarities and differences in both the content and factors of fertility desires were also delineated.

Keywords

fertility desire adults in child-bearing age grounded theory life-course theory birth policies

It has been a decade since the Chinese central government reversed the one-child policy (Xinhua, 2015, 2018), aiming to encourage adults to have more than one child. Nevertheless, the birth rate is still low (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2024), and adults’ desired number of children remains below two (Basten & Jiang, 2015), leading to a puzzle that why the end of “one-child policy” does not guarantee a willingness of having a second child (Wang & Ye, 2023). While numerous studies have tried to solve this puzzle by conducting large-scale surveys on adults’ ideal number of children (i.e., an index of fertility intentions), by carefully investigating the costs and benefits of having a second child (e.g., Cai, 2010; Chen et al., 2019), and by examining potential predictors such as demographic (e.g., gender, age, education, hukou/birthplace; for meta-analyses, see Ren et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023), economic (e.g., income, occupation; Cai, 2010; Chen et al., 2019) and social factors (e.g., local service provision and social-normative climates; Yu & Liang, 2022; Ullah, 2025), there is still a vacuum in understanding some fundamental questions regarding individuals’ basic beliefs and attitudes about the worth, usefulness, or importance of having (or not having) a second child. For instance, regardless of their status (e.g., whether being an only child/married/having children), do adults think having a second child is good or bad? How do they feel about having a second child? Why do they desire, or not desire a second child?

In the current study, we tried to address the fundamental questions about the desire for a second child and focused on adults who are of childbearing age (18–49 years of age). These adults’ perspectives on having two or more children are crucial to the effectiveness of the new birth policies, as well as the formation of a new birth culture accordingly. More importantly, they are in the front line of the collision of old and new social values on the fertility desire of the second child. Specifically, they are born and grow during the one-child policy period, including 40% of them who are the only children themselves.¹ Unsurprisingly, values of “being an only child is proud/good” and “it is ideal to have one and only one child” is so widely dominated in Chinese cultures between 1982 and 2012 (Cameron et al., 2013; Settles et al., 2013), leading to a lag, if not resistance, of the adapting to the new birth policies and culture accordingly. Thus, exploring their desire for two or more children not only addressed the practical question of how to lift the birth rate and maximize the effectiveness of new birth policies but also addressed the theoretical question of how individuals’ desires form and reform during the process of huge socio-cultural and policy changes. Specifically, how the generations of the only-child period view themselves in retrospect, plan their families and lives now, and in the future.

The Fertility Desire, From 0 to 1 and From 1 to Multiple

Fertility desire refers to an individual’s emotional and motivational inclination toward childbearing—what a person ideally wants, independent of practical constraints or external circumstances (Miller, 1995). It is relatively stable but keeps developing across the life course (Barber, 2001), as it is shaped by both internal psychological factors (e.g., own beliefs towards giving birth, living experiences) and sociocultural norms (Yeatman et al., 2020). Based on the Traits–Desires–Intentions–Behavior (TDIB) framework (Miller, 1995), the fertility desire is a precursor of fertility intention, which is more goal-directed and shaped by contextual feasibility (Miller, 2011). Also, the fertility desire is more fundamental to the fertility behaviors compared with fertility intention (Miller, 2011; Wang & Wang, 2016). Accordingly, even if these adults are capable of having children and live in supportive circumstances, those without fertility desires are unlikely to intend to give birth, let alone actually do so (Yeatman et al., 2020). This is exactly (part of) the case in the Chinese society now, namely, while the policy makers try hard to establish a fertility-friendly society, individuals just don’t respond to these establishments, implying a necessity of understanding the fertility desire. Despite a growing number of studies focused on this concept (e.g., Morgan & Rackin, 2010; Yeatman et al., 2020), there are two gaps in the literature that this study addressed. First, and methodologically, while researchers often use the number of ideal children as a measurement of fertility desire (Basten & Jiang, 2015; Bongaarts, 2001; Iacovou & Tavares, 2011), they fail to capture the motivational and affective nature of it, let alone its development throughout both individuals’ life course and socio-cultural shifts. Thus, qualitative studies that investigate the psychological nuances of fertility desire are warranted to complement demographic studies and provide insight into the motivational and affective underpinnings of fertility behavior, especially in the context of rapidly shifting cultural and policy environments (e.g., Chinese culture).

Second, and conceptually, we proposed that the multiple fertility desire (e.g., desire of having a second child, from 1 to 2) is distinct from the desire of the first child (e.g., 0–1) for two reasons. First, giving birth to the second child introduces a new relationship, siblingship, into the family system (Cox, 2010; Feinberg et al., 2012). Family members and subsystems are inextricably interconnected and interdependent, and changes at any level can trigger future changes in the relationships between individuals and different family subsystems, as well as changes in the family system as a whole (Cox & Paley, 2003). Thus, the desire for having another child is more complex than that for a first child, as adults must consider additional individuals (e.g., the existing child) and relationships (e.g., sibling bonds). Second, given that most married couples in China are accustomed to having one child, the birth of a first child may not involve much personal weighing, while the birth of a second child comes from a more personal choice (Zheng, 2021a). Accordingly, adults feel more personal and autonomous in deciding whether to have a second child than the first one. Overall, the desire behind giving birth to the first child and the second child is fundamentally different. However, previous studies have not yet focused on the multiple fertility desires.

Multiple Fertility Desire in the Post One-Child Policy Era

Despite the lack of knowledge of the content of the multiple fertility desire, scholars tend to agree that this desire is undergoing dramatic shifts in contemporary China (Lan, 2025; Yu & Liang, 2022). On the social level, the reversal of the one-child policy indicated the encouragement of having a second child (i.e., having a second child is good) from top to bottom, showing a complete reversal of the original values. Nevertheless, and from bottom to up, the negative value towards multi-child family have not yet been reversed (Lan, 2025; Yu & Liang, 2022; Tong & Zheng, 2024; Wang, 2024), as the influence of one-child policy on social values lingers (Cai & Feng, 2021; Settles et al., 2013; Zhang, 2017). After all, the value of having one child and one child only is promoted almost exclusively during the three decades of the one-child policy period. Even more, two- or multi-children families are a non-mainstream family structure and have long been absent from the mainstream family culture (Cai, 2010; Raymo et al., 2015). Thus, the cultural value of “have one and one only child is good enough” and “be proud to have only child in the family”, have been deeply rooted in Chinese society (e.g., Feng, 2021), lagging behind of reversal of birth policy (Cai, 2010; Greenhalgh, 2003; Raymo et al., 2015).

Adults in the child-bearing age descend, adjust, and incorporate social values based on their personal experiences, and eventually reform their desires towards having a second child (Basten & Gu, 2013; Guo et al., 2020; Groat et al., 1997). The collision of old and new social values exacerbates the complexity and intensity of this (re)formation. Furthermore, an individual’s personal experience is intertwined with the old (i.e., one-child culture) and new (i.e., multi-child culture) social values, leading to huge heterogeneity that should be considered in understanding the similarities and differences in fertility desires. The current study tried to focus on three groups of individuals (i.e., those born in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, namely post-80s, 90s, and 00s). In the following, we introduce how focusing on them could deepen our understanding of the multiple fertility desires.

Post-80s, Post-90s, and Post-00s

Guided by life course theory (Elder, 1975, 1998; Elder et al., 2003), cohorts are defined by three dimensions: (1) individual lifespan (age-related physiological/psychological development), (2) social time (age-graded societal expectations), and (3) historical time (sociohistorical context). This study examines three Chinese birth cohorts (i.e., post-80s (1980–1989), post-90s (1990–1999), and post-00s (2000–present)), who grew up in distinct socio-economic contexts and now occupy different life stages. The post-80s are the last generation of the high-fertility period and the first generation born after the One-Child Policy and Reform and Opening-up. They navigated tensions between traditional and modern cultures (Greenhalgh, 2003), developing fertility values that balance child-rearing with self-actualization (Li & Luo, 2009; Song & Hu, 2022). The post-90s are the first generation of the fertility-decline era (Guo et al., 2020). They grew up amid normalized single-child families and display more self-oriented reproductive attitudes (Ning & Bai, 2023). The post-00s came of age during sustained low fertility. They witness successive policy adjustments and weakening single-child norms, and face sharper conflicts between traditional and individualistic cultures.

Previous studies mainly focused on post-80s and 90s and examined their ideal number of children, gender preferences, and desired timing of childbearing (e.g., Yang & Wu, 2021; Zheng, 2021b). Only a few in-depth qualitative studies addressed fertility desires and intergenerational differences among urban cohorts (Yang & Wu, 2021). Findings suggest that the post-80s moved away from traditional pronatalism (e.g., son preference), pursuing self-actualization through parenting (Li & Luo, 2009; Luo, 2008; Yang & Wu, 2021). The post-90s showed even weaker child-centered orientations, emphasizing parental happiness and self-worth, and framing reproduction as an individual choice grounded in economic independence and personality development rather than social obligation (Chen & Hu, 2020; Song & Hu, 2022).

However, previous studies focused almost exclusively on well-educated women (Li & Luo, 2009; Li & Wang, 2021; Luo, 2008; Yang & Wu, 2021), constraining the generalizability and raising questions regarding how multiple fertility desires are in diverse social groups, life stages, and relational contexts. To grasp a more comprehensive picture of how fertility desires are shaped, the current qualitative study seeks to take a step further by employing a more heterogeneous sample that includes women and men from diverse sibling backgrounds (only-child and non-only-child), cohorts (post-80s, post-90s, and post-00s).

The Current Study

Grounded in the life course theory (e.g., Elder, 1975, 1998; Elder et al., 2003), this study seeks to (1) explore the fundamental question of how Chinese adults of childbearing age (18-49 years) construct their multiple fertility desire of having two or more children. In addition, we seek to (2) capture both the differences and the similarities in three birth cohorts (post-80s, post-90s, and post-00s). Chinese adults of childbearing age are a special group of adults because they were born and grew up during the one-child policy period. Their desires for a second child are affected by both the one-child policy and the reversal of it. Nevertheless, the 30-year period of the one-child policy also witnessed the dramatic development of Chinese social changes, which may lead to distinct and unique characteristics of the multiple fertility values per birth cohort. Exploring these questions addresses a practical, social issue (i.e., how to improve the birth rate in China), and the findings could provide implications for policymakers to lift the multiple fertility desires and further construct a culture accordingly. In addition, theoretically, exploring these questions speaks to how individuals’ fertility desires develop throughout the course of birth-policy shifts, socio-cultural changes, and personal development. This is especially important nowadays because the rapidly evolving socio-demographic landscape has produced new forms of ambivalence, resistance, and negotiation around multi-fertility that have not been systematically captured or theorized. Methodologically, we took a grounded theory approach (Mohajan & Mohajan, 2022a; Nathaniel, 2023). As an addition to the quantitative measures on the multiple fertility (e.g., ideal number of children), the qualitative method helps to dig deeper into the motivations and desires of why people hope to have multiple children or not, and build an explanatory framework that accounts for how multiple fertility desires are co-constructed through life experiences and social change.

Method

Methodological Orientation

This study took a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach (Charmaz, 2006, 2017), which strengthened participants’ perspectives and treated theory as co-constructed through dialectical interaction between researchers and data. This orientation supports an inductive exploration of fertility desires across generational cohorts, focusing on how individuals conceptualize and negotiate fertility desires within developing sociocultural and policy contexts. The analytic process targeted two interrelated aspects: the conceptual meanings of fertility desire and the psychological and relational factors influencing these meanings. In addition to these two aspects, we attempted to organize and depict the broader sociocultural dynamics that frame fertility desires.

Participants, Sampling, and Ethical Approval

Participants aged 18 to 45 years (born between 1980 and 2006, Table 1) were recruited using purposive and intensity sampling strategies (Malterud et al., 2016) to ensure the inclusion of individuals capable of providing rich, in-depth accounts of fertility desires. Inclusion criteria required participants to demonstrate reflective engagement with fertility considerations and possess verbal fluency in articulating these deliberations. Recruitment was conducted via social media platforms and online community networks. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the school of psychology, Nanjing Normal University, under the number of NNU202310008. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively and concurrently, continuing until theoretical sufficiency was achieved at the 46th participant (Dey, 2004; Nelson, 2017). The final sample (N = 46, Mean _age = 30.06, SD _age = 7.07, 28 women) consists of 15 post-80s (mean _age = 38.26, sd _age = 2.69, 9 women), 15 post-90s (mean _age = 30.46, sd _age = 2.06, 9 women), and 16 post-00s (mean _age = 22.00, sd _age = 1.63, 10 women). These participants came from 17 provincial regions within China, representing socioeconomic diversity (e.g., educational level, marriage and fertility status, whether being a single child or not).

Table 1.

Participants Information (N = 46)

ID.	Cohort	Gender	Age	Educational level	Being a single child or not	Marriage and fertility statues
1	Post-80s	Male	38	Bachelor	Yes	Married, one child
2	Post-80s	Male	40	High school	Yes	Married, one child
3	Post-80s	Male	44	Bachelor	No	Married, one child
4	Post-80s	Male	35	Master	No	Married, two children
5	Post-80s	Male	36	High school	Yes	Married, two children
6	Post-80s	Male	37	High school	No	Married, two children
7	Post-80s	Female	39	Bachelor	Yes	Married, one child
8	Post-80s	Female	38	Bachelor	No	Married, one child
9	Post-80s	Female	35	High school	No	Married, one child
10	Post-80s	Female	36	Bachelor	Yes	Married, two children
11	Post-80s	Female	43	Bachelor	No	Married, one child
12	Post-80s	Female	38	High school	No	Married, two children
13	Post-80s	Female	39	Unknown	No	Married, two children
14	Post-80s	Female	40	Bachelor	Yes	Married, one child
15	Post-80s	Female	36	Master	Yes	Married, three children
16	Post-90s	Male	33	Bachelor	No	Married, two children
17	Post-90s	Male	29	High school	No	Married, two children
18	Post-90s	Male	30	Bachelor	No	Married, one child
19	Post-90s	Male	32	High school	No	Married, two children
20	Post-90s	Male	33	Bachelor	Yes	Married, two children
21	Post-90s	Male	34	Master	No	Married, one child
22	Post-90s	Female	29	Master	Yes	Married, no child
23	Post-90s	Female	27	Bachelor	Yes	Married, no child
24	Post-90s	Female	30	Bachelor	Yes	Married, one child
25	Post-90s	Female	28	Bachelor	No	Married, two children
26	Post-90s	Female	29	Bachelor	No	Married, one child
27	Post-90s	Female	30	Bachelor	No	Married, one child
28	Post-90s	Female	30	Bachelor	Yes	Married, one child
29	Post-90s	Female	33	Bachelor	Yes	Married, one child
30	Post-90s	Female	30	Master	Yes	Married, one child
31	Post-00s	Male	23	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (single), no child
32	Post-00s	Male	23	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
33	Post-00s	Male	20	High school	No	Unmarried (single), no child
34	Post-00s	Male	24	Bachelor	Unknown	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
35	Post-00s	Male	24	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (single), no child
36	Post-00s	Male	23	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (single), no child
37	Post-00s	Female	23	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
38	Post-00s	Female	20	High school	No	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
39	Post-00s	Female	23	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
40	Post-00s	Female	21	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
41	Post-00s	Female	24	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
42	Post-00s	Female	23	Master	Yes	Unmarried (in a relationship), no child
43	Post-00s	Female	20	Bachelor	Yes	Unmarried (single), no child
44	Post-00s	Female	20	High school	Yes	Unmarried (single), no child
45	Post-00s	Female	20	Bachelor	Yes	Unmarried (single), no child
46	Post-00s	Female	21	Bachelor	No	Unmarried (single), no child

Reflexivity and Positionings

In order to incorporate the researcher’s subjectivity as a constitutive element of the research process (Charmaz, 2006), this study adopted a reflexive stance, explicitly incorporating the researcher’s subjectivity as a constitutive element of the research process (Charmaz, 2006). Methodological transparency was prioritized through the explicit acknowledgment of how the researchers’ social positions, lived experiences, and interpretive frameworks actively shaped research design, fieldwork, and data interpretation, moving beyond aspirations of neutrality. Researcher A, born in the 1980s and raised as an only child, possessed a normalized perception of single-child families during childhood, later disrupted upon encountering peers with siblings. Recent observations of peers navigating parenthood cultivated a reflective distance, sensitizing Researcher A to social scripts, ambivalences, and perceived contradictions within contemporary fertility narratives. Researcher B, born in the 1990s and raised in a two-child family, brought an appreciation for sibling relationships coupled with a firsthand understanding of the resource constraints faced by multi-child families. This background informed her capacity to recognize both the aspirational value and burdens associated with having multiple children, contributing interpretive sensitivity to narratives involving relational dynamics and reproductive compromise. The researchers’ contrasting positionalities created a productive analytical angle that enhanced theoretical reflexivity throughout the study. Both researchers identify as women of childbearing age, which facilitated rapport with participants, particularly female participants reflecting on reproductive experiences. However, this shared demographic identity necessitated heightened vigilance against over-identification or uncritical empathy.

To preserve analytic rigor, the researchers (1) used reflexive memo-writing to surface positional biases during data collection and interpretation (Mohajan & Mohajan, 2022b), (2) included peer debriefing sessions with external qualitative researchers to challenge interpretive assumptions; and (3) maintained audit trails documenting analytical decisions, code revisions, and theoretical development. These procedural safeguards ensured that insider knowledge functioned as an interpretive lens rather than an epistemic filter.

Data Collection

Participants took part in semi-structured interviews face-to-face (n = 24) or via videoconferencing (n = 22) with trained interviewers who are women in their 20s with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in psychology, and have conducted grounded theory studies beforehand. The interviewers used an interview guide developed by the first (a researcher familiar with the literature) and the second author (a researcher familiar with conducting grounded theory). Following principles of simplicity, thematic relevance, and openness (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012), the guide included introductory questions focused on collecting sociodemographic information and on understanding their life history. These were followed by main questions informed by the research aim and relevant literature that explore (1) participants’ conceptualization of multiple fertility desire, and (2) perceived personal, siblingship-related, and social factors relevant to this desire, such as “How do you view the prospect of having more than one child (e.g., a second child)? What does having multiple children mean to you, your family, your children, or others? How have your current views on multi-child fertility been shaped?” The interview process was dynamically adapted to the real-time context and individual characteristics of each participant (e.g., marital status, gender), with probing questions utilized as necessary to elicit richer responses. Last, participants were asked for further reflection, depth, or context, and/or to clarify statements. Interviews ended with an opportunity for participants to make final comments and add additional information.

Data Transcription and Coding Analysis

Interview Transcription. All interviews were transcribed verbatim in Mandarin within 72 h of data collection, generating approximately 630,000 characters drawn from 48 h of recorded conversations. Transcription followed a standardized protocol to ensure fidelity to participants’ meaning-making processes and to facilitate close, line-by-line analysis. A tripartite indexing system was employed, tagging each semantic unit with an anonymized participant ID, page number, and line number (e.g., ND-05-19), thus supporting traceability and transparency throughout the analytic process (Charmaz, 2017). While transcription was primarily descriptive, the team remained reflexively attuned to nuances in tone, hesitations, and culturally embedded expressions, noting when interpretive dilemmas emerged (Birks & Mills, 2022). Transcripts were stored and managed using NVivo 11 Plus, maintaining strict data security protocols.

Grounded Theory Coding Procedure

Analysis progressed inductively through three recursive stages, including open coding, focused coding, and theoretical coding (Johnson, 2014). Throughout the coding, the researchers kept reflexive dialogue and iterative memo-writing to document analytic decisions, emotional responses, and emerging conceptual tensions.

Stage 1: Open Coding. Initial coding was conducted line-by-line using NVivo 11 Plus, with particular emphasis on in vivo codes to preserve participants’ experiential language (e.g., “sibling dividend,” “generational sacrifice pressure”). This microanalytic process yielded over 3,500 preliminary meaning units, capturing diverse affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of fertility-related dilemmas. Through constant comparison and weekly analytic meetings, overlapping or redundant codes were reviewed and consolidated into 2,679 unique conceptual labels. During this phase, the team employed bracketing strategies to suspend preconceptions and foreground participants’ voices (Charmaz, 2017; Tufford & Newman, 2012). Reflexive memos documented instances where researchers’ cultural assumptions intersected with participant narratives, serving as checkpoints for analytical transparency.

Stage 2: Focused Coding. Building on the open codes, the team identified patterns and conceptual linkages across participants through focused coding. Codes were grouped into higher-order categories that reflected recurring tensions, such as economic precarity, intergenerational obligation, and shifting gender roles. Through categorization matrices, negative case analysis, and memo clusters, the team identified 54 focused codes. These were organized relationally to explore contextual conditions, mediating mechanisms, and participant strategies. The term “paradigm model” was intentionally avoided to remain consistent with CGT’s interpretivist stance (Charmaz, 2017). Instead, we explored how meanings were co-constructed in dynamic socio-cultural ecologies.

Stage 3: Theoretical Coding. In the final analytic phase, theoretical coding synthesized focused codes into higher-order conceptual categories. Through constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling, and peer debriefing, we identified 17 integrative codes with strong explanatory relevance. These were subsequently refined into nine core categories nested within two overarching theoretical domains: (1) the conceptual structure of multiple fertility desire (e.g., kinship expansion, moral recalibrations of intergenerational duty) and (2) factors shaping multiple fertility desires (e.g., gendered care economy, policy trust dynamics).

Reliability and Validity

To ensure methodological rigor, the study employed multiple verification strategies aligned with CGT’s constructivist orientation (Charmaz, 2017). (1) Intercoder reliability was assessed in early coding phases through independent coding by three trained analysts. A Category Agreement index of 0.709 was achieved, surpassing the threshold of 0.60 considered acceptable for reliability (Campion et al., 1997). Rather than treating convergence as validation, discrepancies were used as opportunities for critical dialogue, refining category boundaries and enhancing interpretive coherence (Barbour, 2001). (2) Theoretical sufficiency (Dey, 2004; Nelson, 2017) was evaluated through comparisons of later-stage interviews across generational cohorts. The analytic team determined that new interviews reproduced established conceptual patterns without introducing novel categories, suggesting sufficient scope and depth had been achieved. (3) The dialogic validity was supported through member involvement and external peer review (Maxwell, 2013). Three participants, one from each cohort, reviewed and synthesized findings and confirmed their resonance with lived realities (Birt et al., 2016). Two external experts with graduate-level training in psychology independently evaluated the findings using Maxwell’s (2013) framework, using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Ratings across descriptive, interpretive, and evaluative validity all exceeded 4.0 on a 5-point scale, affirming credibility. Expert feedback was also used to refine the clarity and precision of categories.

Results

The Conceptual Structure of Multiple Fertility Desire

Category 1, Giving Birth Again for Self: A Pathway to Self-Actualization and Reconstruction

Enrich Life Experience

Participants framed having more than one child as a way to enrich life and multiply happiness. Larger families were seen as sources of vitality, joy, and hope for the future (e.g., “There is something perfect about having two—it gives people a sense of completeness and joy.”). However, the nature of this happiness diverged across cohorts. The post-80s emphasized the emotional gratification of being needed by young children, while the post-90s stress more on mutual dependence between parent and child, reflecting a shift from traditional caregiving roles toward relational reciprocity. In addition, the post-00s, all unmarried and childless, acknowledged the joys of parenting but also highlighted constraints on personal freedom. Overall, while for older cohorts, multi-child families reinforce parental identity and emotional purpose, for younger ones, the calculus includes lifestyle trade-offs. Additionally, giving birth again is a profound reconstruction of self, particularly for those who are single-children (e.g., “It feels like I am raising the child version of myself. Maybe that will help me heal from the traumas of my own childhood.”). These reflections suggest that multi-child fertility plays a reparative role in one’s personal development, and larger families offer opportunities for fulfilling the single-child parents’ willingness to have siblings.

Continuity of Life and Bloodline

Having multiple children was closely linked to biological and familial continuity. While the post-80s cohort framed multiple fertility as a way to extend one’s life and perpetuate family heritage (e.g., “I am the continuation of my father’s life, and my son is the continuation of mine. It is also a way of extending our family’s legacy.”), the post-90s rejected the idea of reproduction as a duty to preserve lineage and were more inclined to evaluate multi-child fertility in terms of its personal benefits (e.g., “There is no royal throne to inherit in our family.”). The post-00s adopted neither endorsing nor resisting them. Taken together, these differences illustrate an ongoing negotiation between traditional Chinese cultures and contemporary individualistic orientations.

Expectations of Children’s Support in Old Age

Although all participants distanced themselves from the traditional notion of raising children for old age (养儿防老), their expectations diverged. The post-80s still valued emotional reassurance from having two children, even without material dependence (e.g., “When I am old, I will not count on them for support, but having two kids still brings a sense of comfort.”). The post-90s expressed even greater detachment, emphasizing health and financial self-sufficiency (e.g., “You really cannot depend on your children for eldercare. The main solution is to stay healthy.”). In contrast, the post-00s adopted a pragmatic stance, acknowledging that without children, they would need alternative security (e.g., “If I do not have kids, I will have to rely solely on my savings.”). These perspectives reveal a generational shift from children as obligatory providers toward a diversified eldercare model that includes self-reliance, savings, and institutional support. Overall, these findings suggest that “giving birth again for self” reflects an evolving interplay between personal identity, emotional healing, and intergenerational role expectations (Table 2).

Table 2.

The Concept of Multiple Fertility Desire, Self Dimension, Coding Table

Core category	Thematic category/Tree node (category)	Cohort	Focused coding	Number of references
Self (342)	Enrich life experience (151)	80, 90	Fertility creates meaning and happiness of life	95
		80	Happiness from being needed by children	15
		90	Establishing happiness through mutual dependence with children	23
		00	Coexistence of happiness and stress challenges	18
	Self-reconstruction (97)	80, 90	Increased maturity and sense of responsibility	22
		80, 90	Creating self-achievement	18
		80, 90, 00	Creating self-growth opportunities and compensating for regrets	57
	Life continuation and bloodline (43)	80	Continuing life through fertility	15
		90	Considering the multi-child value from self needs	17
		00	Not necessarily endorsing “Bloodline inheritance,” but not opposing it	11
	Expectation of child support in old age (51)	80	Reducing material expectations, seeking emotional support	27
		90	Weakening the “child support for old age” concept, affirming self-reliant aging	16
		00	Affirming fertility as old-age security from a pragmatic perspective	8

Category 2, Giving Birth Again for Children: A Support for Children

Emotional Companionship and Support

Participants across cohorts viewed sibling companionship as a long-term emotional resource, with siblings offering mutual support beyond childhood. However, the post-80s and 90s questioned the necessity of sibling companionship, as they are accustomed to single-child culture and have formed close peer networks outside the family (e.g., “Children can experience companionship through schoolmates or neighborhood friends—it is just the same.”). These results highlight a tension between viewing sibling bonds as an unquestioned good and adopting a more critical, child-centered evaluation

Collaborators in Decision-Making

The idea of mutual support extended beyond emotional life to practical cooperation, particularly in managing high-stakes family decisions such as eldercare or when parents are dead (e.g., “The real difficulty for only children comes when their parents face health problems—there is no one to discuss things with or share the burden. Nevertheless, when you have siblings, you can talk things through and figure out what to do together.”). The transition from companionship to collaboration underscores a pragmatic rationale for expanded family size. However, the post-80s who are at mid-30s when the single-child policy was revered, raised concerns about inequitable caregiving arrangements they have witnessed, particularly when the eldest child becomes a “parental surrogate” for much younger siblings (e.g., “I know someone almost 50 who had a second child. Who ended up raising that child? The eldest. Isn’t that unfair?”). This critical perspective may reflect their dual exposure to traditional filial obligations and the realities of intensive caregiving under China’s rapidly aging demographic.

Parental Attention Distribution

Participants saw larger families as a way to diversify children’s socialization experiences and temper the potential overindulgence of only children (e.g., “My daughter is very picky with food because everyone caters to her. But at my friend’s place, their two children had much better eating habits.”). However, the post-90s raised concerns about the risk of unequal attention and emotional investment from parents (e.g., “I think if I had another child, I would still love the first one more.”). Also, the post-00s highlighted a potential downside, namely due to the significant demands of parenting multiple children, parents may struggle to provide differentiated care, leading to a lack of individualized development (e.g., “In large families, the pressure is so high that it becomes impossible to attend to each child’s unique personality”). Taken together, these findings show that while the notion of “giving birth again for the child” retains cultural resonance in China, there is a gradual shift from unquestioned adherence to traditional family scripts toward more individualized, pragmatic, and child-centered reasoning (Table 3).

Table 3.

The Concept of Multiple Fertility Desire, Children Dimension, Coding Table

Core category	Thematic category/Tree node (category)	Cohort	Focused coding	Number of references
Children (262)	Emotional companionship support (109)	80, 90, 00	Fostering mutual companionship and deep emotional bonds between siblings	92
		80	Sibling companionship can be substituted by peers	13
		90	Questioning the necessity of multiparity companionship value	4
	Decision-making support and share the pressure of taking care of old parents (72)	80, 90, 00	Consulting each other if needed (big life decisions)	49
		80, 90, 00	Reducing caregiving burden	14
		80	Potential care burden on the firstborn	9
	Dispersed parental attention (81)	80, 90, 00	Fostering prosocial development in children	40
		90	Parental emotional attention shows favoritism	13
		00	Lack of individualized cultivation leads to loss of personality	28

Category 3, Giving Birth Again for Sociality: A Fulfillment to Family Cohesion as a Social Symbol

Participants from all three cohorts perceived multi-child families as contributing to stronger family cohesion and a vivid household atmosphere, particularly during important cultural events such as the Mid-Autumn Festival and the Chinese New Year. This illustrates how multi-child families are seen not merely as personal choice but as contributors to shared Chinese cultural rituals and traditions. Building on this shared view of warmth, the post-80s further emphasized the social prestige of having two children (e.g., “When others see that a family has two children who are sensible and harmonious, they admire it.”). Some also framed their reproductive choices as aligning with national pronatalist policy (“I think maybe it is about responding to the call of the state.”), reflecting a combination of personal values and public policy. In contrast, the post-90s resisted to the traditional family expectations of having multiple children, and questioned the instrumentalization of childbirth for the sake of parental approval or emotional gratification. The post-00s’ attitudes toward multi-child families were polarized. While some viewed children as emotional connectors that could help stabilize marital relationships and strengthen family unity, others raised concerns about the broader societal implications of high fertility and questioned whether having more children might place undue strain on public resources. This divergence highlights a tension between valuing family intimacy and recognizing the structural limitations of resource allocation in families. Taken together, the differences among the three cohorts indicate a shifting toward individualistic cultures, and changing perceptions of family members (e.g., from family duty to personal fulfillment) in contemporary China (Table 4; Figure 1).

Table 4.

The Concept of Multiple Fertility Desire, Social Dimension, Coding Table

Core category	Thematic category/Tree node (category)	Cohort	Focused coding	Number of references
Social dimension (77)	Cohesion consolidation (65)	80, 90, 00	Enhancing family happiness	46
		80	Being envied for family prosperity	8
		90	Meeting parental emotional needs	5
		00	Strengthening marital bonds	6
	Response to birth policies (12)	80, 00	Undertaking social responsibility and contributing to society	12

Figure 1.

A grounded theory model of multiple fertility desires and its predicting factors in post-80s, 90s, and 00s

Factors Shaping Multiple Fertility Desires: Intergenerational Differences and Similarities

Category 1: Self-Related Factors

Education Pressure

Despite this shared emphasis on education, cohort differences emerged in which parenting goals and educational values are prioritized. The post-80s’ educational aspirations were strongly centered on children’s academic achievement. Such high parental expectations amplified perceived burdens, leading many to reject the idea of “starting over” with a second child due to fears of being unable to sustain the same level of education commitment (e.g., “Going through this whole process again—starting over—I cannot accept it”). By contrast, the post-90s emphasized the importance of cultivating children’s individuality and mental health, and were less likely to equate children’s grades with personal success or failure as a parent, reflecting a more positive attitude toward giving birth again. The post-00s showed anxieties about the potential conflict of childrearing. However, they prioritized self-discovery and identity formation than thinking about child’s development (e.g., “At the age of 20, I am more focused on becoming the kind of person I want to be, rather than raising a child and helping them become who they are.”).

Time and Economic Cost of Raising a Child Again

Time and economic pressures manifested in several interconnected ways. First, participants described the cumulative and escalating financial costs associated with child-rearing, including routine expenses such as infant formula, diapers, and clothing during the early years. Second, the sacrifice of personal time, as an addition to financial strain, contributed to an overall sense of low life quality and fueled resistance to the idea of additional children (e.g., “Wouldn’t you be exhausted if you had another one? Why sacrifice your quality of life?”). Consequently, even among those who expressed affection for children or valued family cohesion, these cumulative strains undermined the formation of positive attitudes toward multi-child families. Taken together, the self-related factors illustrate an anxiety of not only raising but also educating children again, yet the cohort difference lies in the expectations of good education, reflecting a weighing between family size and the individual’s (especially children’s) own achievement (Table 5).

Table 5.

Self-Related Factors Influencing Multiple Fertility Desire, Coding Table

Core category	Thematic category/Tree node (category)	Cohort	Focused coding	Number of references
Self (1688)	Education pressure (998)	80, 90, 00	Personalized parenting based on individual characteristics	48
		80	Holistic development centered on academic achievement, with the child’s achievement deeply tied to parental responsibility	591
		90	Focus on mental health development, not evaluating oneself through a child’s achievement	331
		00	Trend toward self-centeredness	24
		00	Concerns about future education leading to family conflicts	4
	Economic and time cost (690)	80, 90, 00	Multiple economic pressures (e.g., living costs, educational expenses)	488
	Economic and time cost (690)	80, 90, 00	Decline in the individual quality of life	202

Category 2: Family-Related Factors

Co-Parenting Dynamics

Imbalances in gendered parenting responsibilities consistently emerged as a core theme. For the post-80s, couples’ aspirations for egalitarian arrangements were frequently challenged by enduring structural and normative constraints, especially for men who faced intense work-related pressure. As a result, women are frequently getting through the emotional and practical burdens of child-rearing alone, heightening psychological stress and encouraging concentration on a single child rather than giving birth again. This illustrates the tension between ideal co-parenting and practical structural inequalities in contemporary Chinese families.

The post-90s displayed an even more pronounced imbalance in co-parenting, with mothers often assuming responsibility for both caregiving and education, while fathers playing a limited and distanced role, probably because these men are going through the working phase where the competition is most fierce. This asymmetry was normalized by children (e.g., “They always call for mom. Only when they cannot find her will they call [dad].”). Sometimes, paternal involvement had to be activated by the mother (e.g., “Sometimes I have to order him to interact with our child, like take him out for exercise.”). This pattern of imbalance reflects the burden both in and out of the family context for adults who are in their mid-30s.

The post-00s, though not yet parents, are highly aware of and critical to the inequitable distributions of co-parenting. They perceived women’s disproportionate family investment as a structural problem of modern Chinese families (e.g., “The wife is often more exhausted and worried than the husband.”). For this cohort, the anticipated inequities in co-parenting directly contributed to a reluctance toward multi-child family planning.

Intergenerational Parenting

Another dimension influencing fertility attitudes was grandparenting. For the post-80s and 90s, grandparental support was both pragmatic and emotionally complex. While grandparenting help parents to manage time-intensive and economically demanding parenting responsibilities and thus facilities the desire of another child (e.g., “They said, ‘Do not worry, leave the child to us, go to work’.”), the feasibility of additional births was constrained by the physical and emotional limits of grandparents, as they are increasingly unable to assist due to health concerns (e.g., “If my parents were younger, like in their 60s instead of 70s, we might consider a second child”). In addition, intergenerational conflicts over education and daily routines further undermine the perceived utility of grandparental support (e.g., “It is everything, really. The generation gap is huge—they still think children should be raised in the traditional way.”). Thus, rather than facilitating multi-child fertility desires, intergenerational co-parenting could discourage them. In addition, the post-00s expressed skepticism toward traditional ideas of intergenerational support, signaling a shift away from the taken-for-granted expectation of elder assistance. Taken together, family-related factors illustrate that while family support systems exist, their uneven distribution and the sociocultural pressures surrounding gendered labor and grandparent involvement act as both facilitators and constraints on multi-fertility desires (Table 6).

Table 6.

Family-Related Factors Influencing Multiple Fertility Desire, Coding Table

Core category	Thematic category/Tree node (category)	Cohort	Focused coding	Number of references
Family (625)	Gender role imbalance (238)	80	New division of labor, but limited	49
		90	Pursuit of independence and freedom leading to extreme imbalance	94
		00	A couple sharing family responsibilities facilitates fertility	95
	Intergenerational parenting (387)	80, 90	Contradictory dependency	27
		80, 90	Dynamic and stage-specific division of labor	82
		80	Greater reliance on financial support	35
		90	Greater reliance on educational support	46
		80, 90	Considering parental age and health	39
		80, 90	Hope parents can be free from child-caring in their later life	24
		80, 90	Differences in educational philosophy and lifestyle habits	134

Category 3: Socio-Cultural Factors

Multi-Child Birth Policy

Participants’ responses to the changing fertility policies varied notably across cohorts. The post-80s generally welcomed the relaxation of the one-child policy, interpreting government initiatives as supportive encouragement and showing openness to another child (e.g., “The national policy is really good now, encouraging people to have a third child.”). In contrast, the post-90s perceived the policy as an external pressure that did not resonate with their priorities (e.g., “From my standpoint, I probably will not respond to the national policy”). Meanwhile, the post-00s are largely untouched by policy pressures (e.g., “The national policy focus on fertility has not yet reached us.”), and argued that effective incentives would need to alleviate the broader social and economic pressures (e.g., “If the state wants to encourage childbirth, then it has to gradually reduce the pressures we young people face.”). These differences might imply the role of life stages, as the post-80s are facing the closing chance of giving birth again and trying to grasp it, while the post-00s are beginning to enter the stage of considering being a parent and have not prioritized it yet.

External Environment

While elder family members (e.g., grandparents) commonly expressed preferences towards having multiple grandchildren, participants did not view them as decisive. Surprisingly, peers appeared to exert a more dominant influence on adults’ desires about having multiple children, highlighting the importance of peer comparisons to adults who grew up in the single-child policy period (e.g., “Seeing friends around me with two kids makes me want to have more too.”; “People around me all have two kids. Watching siblings play together seemed wonderful. So I really wanted to have a second child.”).

Educational Involution

The perceived need to provide high-quality educational resources further shaped multi-child fertility desires. The post-80s are highly engaged in academically intensive parenting, generating stress and tempered interest in giving birth again. The post-90s participants demonstrated a more balanced approach, reflecting a gradual “de-intensification” of educational expectations, while post-00s anticipated these pressures and expressed preemptive concern about potential conflicts between career, life satisfaction, and child-rearing.

Traditional Culture

Traditional cultural values, particularly those emphasizing lineage continuity and familial obligations, were interpreted differently across cohorts. The post-80s emphasize and actively embrace traditional values such as bloodline continuation, and the post-90s passively accept these values due to social pressure. However, the post-00s selectively integrate and align cultural norms with contemporary lifestyles and individual aspirations. These cohort differences indicate that traditional Confucian values persist but are increasingly negotiated against modern individualistic and pragmatic concerns since the 1980s. Taken together, social and cultural factors illustrate how individuals’ fertility desires are shaped through the interactions between policy, social networks, and cultural norms. While the post-80s were more receptive to policies and traditional expectations, the post-90s and 00s increasingly foreground individual choice and adaptive negotiation of cultural values (Table 7).

Table 7.

Socio-Cultural Factors Influencing Multiple Fertility Desire, Coding Table

Core category	Thematic category/Tree node (category)	Cohort	Focused coding	Number of references
Socio-cultural (590)	Multi-child birth policy (23)	80	Positive and active response	13
		90	Indifference (external pressure does not influence subjective intention)	2
		00	It is not the time to think about it.	8
	Social environment (64)	80, 90, 00	Parental expectations do not affect individual decisions	34
	Educational involution (400)		Stronger influence from immediate social circles (peers)	30
	Traditional culture (43)	80	High educational expectations, deep involvement	275
		90	De-emphasis on “Tiger parent”	125
		80	Identity with lineage inheritance	15
		90	Passive acceptance	17
		00	Proactive adaptation	11

Discussion

In order to explore the content of fertility desires of having more than one child, and the cohort similarities and differences on the content and the shaping factors of these desires, this qualitative study took a life course theory approach (e.g., Elder, 1975, 1998; Elder et al., 2003) and interviewed individuals from three cohorts (i.e., the post-80s, 90s and 00s). These adults all grew up under the one-child policy and witnessed the reversal of the birth policy over the past 10 years.

Giving Birth Again for Whom: It is the Children That Matter Most

The fertility desires of Chinese individuals of childbearing age reflect a three-dimensional structure, consisting of self-related motivations (i.e., giving birth again for self), child-related expectations (for children), and socially embedded norms (for society). Specifically, self-related motivations are rooted in intrinsic traits and emotional inclinations, such as identity affirmation and perceived self-efficacy (Barber, 2001; Miller, 1995). Child-related expectations focus on the emotional and experiential value of raising multiple children, particularly for the firstborn. Additionally, socially embedded norms encompass familial and peer expectations that powerfully influence fertility intentions (e.g., Ajzen & Klobas, 2013; Lesthaeghe, 2011), often reflecting tensions between traditional and emerging reproductive cultures. These tensions manifest differently across generational cohorts and will be discussed under the next heading.

While the first and the third dimensions are commonly proposed in the literature (e.g., Cai & Feng, 2021; Groat et al., 1997; Guo et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2024; Tong & Zheng, 2024; Yang et al., 2023), the second dimension (i.e., giving birth again for the children) is unique and most frequently mentioned by the participants. This uniqueness is a continuation of the “all for the children” family value (一切为了孩子), which is predominant in parents in the one-child policy period (Falbo, 2012; Fong, 2004). In addition, both adults who grew up as single children and with siblings endorsed the importance of sibling relationships, especially when parents are old or dead. This endorsement is not merely based on the observed advantages of sibling relationships but also on the afraid/fear of disadvantages of being a single child, as many single-child participants are experiencing the burden of caring for elderly parents alone. Nevertheless, the long-standing absence of sibling relationships in contemporary Chinese culture may lead to an idealization of siblingship and an emotional revaluation of its meaning, raising the hesitation of whether it is a good reason to give birth again. Specifically, adults may over-glorify the advantages of sibling relationships while neglecting their disadvantages. As some participants worry, dealing with sibling conflict may be worse than being a single child, and other social relationships (e.g., friendship) may be an alternative solution. Despite these worries, in the post one-child policy era, the child remains central to family expectations (Fong, 2004). It is the child, rather than the parents themselves, who has become the key promoter for parental fertility desires to give birth again.

Cohort Differences in the Dimensions of Fertility Desires

The three-dimensional structure of multiple fertility desires also highlights that it is not merely an individual preference but emerges from dynamic interactions among an individual’s traits, anticipated relational experiences, and broader sociocultural contexts (Miller, 1995). While all three cohorts came of age under the one-child policy and during China’s period of reform and opening-up, they experienced distinct historical and cultural climates, implying a generational shift from instrumental to value- and emotion-based motivations for childbearing. Indeed, in this study, all three cohorts emphasized individual and child’s well-being, but showed different emphases on the content of multi-fertility desires.

For the post-80s, the desire to have more children is rooted in a sense of being needed. Childbearing is seen as affirming both self-worth and social value. These individuals derive meaning from their children’s dependency, which reinforces their identity as capable and needed parents. Additionally, the parenting role offers an avenue to empathize with and better understand their parents (Yang & Wu, 2021), reinforcing childbearing as a moral and familial duty. As a result, desires about having another child are closely tied to familial or societal expectations.

The post-90s are more likely to view childbearing as a self-initiated choice rather than a socially prescribed obligation, as they developed a strong sense of personal autonomy (Luo, 2008; Zheng, 2021b). While they value emotional reciprocity in the parent-child relationship, their motivations for having multiple children tend to be more introspective. Some wish to compensate for their solitary childhood by giving their children siblings, whereas others question whether their children would appreciate such a decision. Appeals to family legacy or national contribution rarely resonate with this cohort.

The post-00s exhibit a pragmatic and self-oriented perspective, even if they have not entered marriage or parenthood yet. They tend to reject reproduction as a duty to the family, yet do not perceive external expectations as coercive. Instead, they weigh the practical benefits of having more children (e.g., companionship, eldercare, and strengthened marital tie) against the material and emotional costs, especially in a competitive and resource-scarce social environment.

Factors Shaping Fertility Desires: Similarities and Differences Across Cohorts

Consistent with previous studies, participants from all three cohorts strengthened education pressure, financial costs, and time costs decreased their desire to have another child. However, there are between-cohort differences in the focus of these factors. The post-80s often evaluate themselves based on their children’s academic achievements. When such expectations are unmet, feelings of inadequacy may arise, undermining motivation for another child. However, the post-90s places greater emphasis on their children’s psychological well-being rather than academic success. Also, they experience greater tension between reproductive responsibilities and career development (Yang & Wu, 2021), which diminishes their inclination toward larger families. The post-00s have yet to begin child-rearing and thus rely on observation and introspection. They are acutely aware of the fierce educational competition that characterizes the current child-rearing climate (Zhang et al., 2024). These perceived demands often generate anticipatory anxiety and avoidance of parenthood. Moreover, aspirations for self-actualization frequently clash with traditional expectations around reproductive duty.

At the family level, support from spouses and grandparents is crucial (e.g., Liao et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019). However, the unequal division between men and women in co-parenting decreases the desire and cannot be reconciled by couples alone. In addition, grandparenting emerged as a double-edged sword for post-80s and post-90s. Although grandparenting temporarily eases the burdens of parenting and is crucial to the family, it does not reliably facilitate greater fertility desires, especially when the grandparents are old and/or have tensions between grandparents and parents over parenting. These findings shed light on the intergenerational ambivalence in parenting from the life-course perspective (Cai & Xie, 2024; Ward et al., 2014; Zhang & Emery, 2023), highlighting how grandparental support can both facilitate and constrain fertility decisions by easing childcare demands while generating potential conflicts over parenting approaches (Chang et al., 2025).

As for the external factors, peer influence and the education involution are two shared factors across three cohorts. The education involution refers to a cycle where parents compete over limited educational advantages by increasing time, money, and effort in schooling, tutoring, and extracurricular activities (Wang, 2024). This competition often goes beyond what is rational or sustainable, tapping into deep anxieties about ensuring children’s future success in an intensely competitive system (Yu et al., 2022). This is especially the case for the post-80s cohort, as they are already highly involved throughout children’s education (i.e., their children have gone through the whole education process from primary school to high school/university). The post-90s who begin to enroll in children’s education are more reflexive and try to resist it. The post-00s cohort intended to distance themselves from the education involution and despise it, yet paradoxically, they also showed heightened emotional burnout even at the anticipation of future parental roles. Overall, having a second child is not simply a matter of economic feasibility, but of whether parents believe they can replicate a high-stakes involvement for another child without compromising their firstborn’s prospects.

In addition to similarities, there are cohort differences in policy interpretation and the endorsement of traditional culture. While the post-80s participants viewed the multi-child policy as a supportive signal, the post-90s framed it as a form of state-imposed pressure. The post-00s, by contrast, perceived the policy as distant and implementation-deficient, emphasizing the need for structural support such as reduced educational and economic pressures before they would consider parenthood. In addition, while post-80s often embraced traditional beliefs such as bloodline continuation, the post-90s and post-00s increasingly discard these traditional ideas.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations. First, our sample was recruited primarily from the middle-class. This may limit the generalizability of findings to other social classes. Future studies could use comparative sampling across different social class or integrate multi-sited ethnographic methods to enhance contextual breadth. Second, recruiting participants from different cohorts and marital/parental statuses raises the concern of the coherence of the sample. However, the saturation test supports that the current data is sufficient (Nelson, 2017). Nevertheless, a more in-depth exploration in a larger sample is needed to investigate the difference per cohort further. In addition, because the marital/parental status and the cohort are intertwined with each other (e.g., not all post-00s are married and have no children), it is also plausible that marital/parental statuses are stronger factors than the cohort. Thus, future studies are needed to examine the interaction between personal status and cohort to systematically investigate the interactions between factors from individual, family, and historical levels. For instance, longitudinal qualitative designs could better track how fertility attitudes evolve across key life stages and sociocultural shifts.

By focusing on individuals born in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, this study offers an in-depth understanding of the fertility desires of the second child in contemporary China, revealing how sociocultural, policy, and familial forces intersect with personal aspirations. In addition to pinpointing the three-dimensional structure of the multi-fertility desire, we also pinpointed the similarities and cohort-specific meanings of this structure, as well as the potential influencing factors on the individual (self), family, and social levels. In doing so, we are one step closer to understanding how individuals integrate their personal experiences and those of others into the context of social, historical, and cultural developments and policy changes, thereby forming and continually adjusting their desires for having another child.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Yue Song

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 22CSH049).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Note

References

Ajzen

Klobas

(2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic Research, 29(8), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8

Barber

J. S.

(2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090128

Barbour

R. S.

(2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322(7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Basten

(2013). Childbearing preferences, reform of family planning restrictions and the low fertility trap in China. Oxford Center for Population Research Working Paper, Article 61.

Basten

Jiang

(2015). Fertility in China: An uncertain future. Population Studies, 69(sup1), S97–S105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2014.982898

Birks

Mills

(2022). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage.

Birt

Scott

Cavers

Campbell

Walter

(2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Bongaarts

(2001). Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 260–281.

Cai

Xie

(2024). Raising hope: The impact of intergenerational mobility on fertility desire in China. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 11(3), 297–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X251347431

10.

Cai

(2010). China’s below-replacement fertility: Government policy or socioeconomic development? Population and Development Review, 36(3), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00341.x

11.

Cai

Feng

(2021). The social and sociological consequences of China’s one-child policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090220-032839

12.

Cameron

Erkal

Gangadharan

Meng

(2013). Little emperors: Behavioral impacts of China’s one-child policy. Science, 339(6122), 953–957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230221

13.

Campion

M. A.

Palmer

D. K.

Campion

J. E.

(1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00709.x

14.

Chang

Cai

Shao

(2025). Examining the evolution of research on grandparent caregiving. Children and Youth Services Review, 174, 108333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108333

15.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

16.

Charmaz

(2017). Constructivist grounded theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262612

17.

Charmaz

Belgrave

(2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In Gubrium

J. F.

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). Sage.

18.

Chen

S. M.

Zhang

Wang

Y. B.

(2019). Individual differences in relative fertility costs and fertility benefits and their effects on fertility desire for a second child in China: A latent profile analysis. Reproductive Health, 16(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0770-1

19.

Chen

(2020). 个体主义还是家庭主义?——不同生育动机对生育行为的影响效应分析 [Individualism or familism? An analysis of the effects of different fertility motivations on fertility behavior]. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 6(2), 28–38.

20.

Cox

M. J.

(2010). Family systems and sibling relationships. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 95–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00124.x

21.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259

22.

Dey

(2004). Grounded theory. In Seale

(Ed.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 80–93). Sage.

23.

Elder

G. H.

(1975). Age differentiation and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001121

24.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x

25.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

(2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer

J. T.

Shanahan

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_1

26.

Falbo

(2012). Only children: An updated review. Journal of Individual Psychology, 68(1), 1–24.

27.

Feinberg

M. E.

Solmeyer

A. R.

McHale

S. M.

(2012). The third rail of family systems: Sibling relationships, mental and behavioral health, and preventive intervention in childhood and adolescence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0104-5

28.

Feng

X. T.

, (2021). [Having Two Children: Another Fertility Revolution in Chinese Society]. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities, and Social Sciences) , 58(02), 46–57+158.

29.

Fong

V. L.

(2004). Only hope: Coming of age under China’s one-child policy. Stanford University Press.

30.

Greenhalgh

(2003). Science, modernity, and the making of China’s one-child policy. Population and Development Review, 29(2), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00163.x

31.

Groat

H. T.

Giordano

P. C.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Pugh

M. D.

Swinford

S. P.

(1997). Attitudes toward childbearing among young parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(3), 568–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/353946

32.

Guo

X. D.

Gao

Jia

Y. N.

Wang

A. H.

(2020). Birth experiences of urban women of advanced age having their second child after introduction of the universal two-child policy in China: A qualitative study. Midwifery, 91, Article 102853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2020.102853

33.

Iacovou

Tavares

L. P.

(2011). Yearning, learning, and conceding: Reasons people change their childbearing intentions. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 89–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00391.x

34.

Johnson

(2014). Adapting and combining constructivist grounded theory and discourse analysis: A practical guide for research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 8(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2014.8.1.100

35.

Lan

(2025). Tracking of factors affecting Chinese women’s fertility intentions from childhood to adulthood: Under birth-control policy shift. Biodemography and Social Biology, 70(2), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2025.2487982

36.

Lesthaeghe

(2011). The “Second demographic transition”: A conceptual map for the understanding of late modern demographic developments in fertility and family formation. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(2), 179–218. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.36.2011.2.179-218

37.

Luo

(2009). 生育意愿的代际差异分析——以江苏省为例 [Analysis of intergenerational differences in fertility intentions: A case study of Jiangsu Province]. Journal of China Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 26(3), 21–30.

38.

Wang

(2021). 再生育意愿的形成机制及影响因素——基于计划行为理论的考察及流动人口动态监测调查数据的验证 [The formation mechanism and influencing factors of fertility intentions: An investigation based on the theory of planned behavior and verification using dynamic monitoring survey data of migrant populations]. Henan Social Sciences, 29(10), 75–86.

39.

Liao

Xiong

Yan

Wang

(2021). Intergenerational ties in context: Association between caring for grandchildren and cognitive function in middle-aged and older Chinese. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010021

40.

Luo

(2008). 改革开放30年与青年生育观念的变迁 [The 30-year reform and opening-up and the changes in youth fertility concepts]. China Youth Studies, 12(1), 12–16.

41.

Malterud

Siersma

V. D.

Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

42.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.

43.

Miller

W. B.

(1995). Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932000023087

44.

Miller

W. B.

(2011). Differences between fertility desires and intentions: Implications for theory, research and policy. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2011s75

45.

Mohajan

(2022b). Memo writing procedures in grounded theory research methodology. Journal of Social Science Methodology, 5(1), 12–25.

46.

Mohajan

H. K.

(2022a). Constructivist grounded theory: A new research approach in social science. Research and Advances in Education, 1(4), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.56397/rae.2022.10.02

47.

Morgan

S. P.

Rackin

(2010). The correspondence between fertility intentions and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 36(1), 91–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00319.x

48.

Nathaniel

(2023). The logic and language of classic grounded theory: Induction, abduction, and deduction. Grounded Theory Review, 22(1), 17–22.

49.

National Bureau of Statistics of China . (2024). Statistical communiqué of the People’s Republic of China on the 2023 national economic and social development. NBS. Retrieved from. https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/pcsj/rkpc/7rp/indexch.htm

50.

Nelson

(2017). Using conceptual depth criteria: Addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116679873

51.

Ning

Bai

(2023). Multidimensional co-construction: Factors and comprehensive effects on the fertility willingness of the “Post-90s” generation – A mixed research based on interviews with 37 “Post-90s” individuals. Journal of Xihua University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), 42(5), 79–90.

52.

Raymo

J. M.

Park

Xie

Yeung

W. J. J.

(2015). Marriage and family in East Asia: Continuity and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112428

53.

Ren

Cheng

Niu

Yang

Zheng

(2024). Fertility intention of young people of childbearing age in China after the implementation of the two-child policy—A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 3518. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20956-1

54.

Settles

B. H.

Sheng

Zang

Zhao

(2013). The one-child policy and its impact on Chinese families. In Chan

K.-b.

(Ed.), International handbook of Chinese families (pp. 627–646). Springer.

55.

Song

(2022). 中国育龄人群的生育动机与生育意愿 [Fertility motivations and intentions among China’s reproductive-age population]. Population and Economy, 6(6), 1–16.

56.

Tong

Zheng

(2024). Policy-induced fertility suppression and marital satisfaction: Evidence from a natural experiment in China. Demography, 61(6), 2027–2051. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-11686478

57.

Tufford

Newman

(2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316

58.

Ullah

(2025). Reproductive resistance: Understanding young women’s hesitant fertility intentions in China’s post-one child policy era. The Macksey Journal, 5(1), Article 21.

59.

Wang

C. D.

Hayslip Jr

Sun

Zhu

(2019). Grandparents as the primary care providers for their grandchildren: A cross-cultural comparison of Chinese and US samples. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 89(4), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415018824722

60.

Wang

(2023). 中国生育观念的变迁与启示 [Changes in China’s fertility concepts and their implications]. Journal of Fujian Jiangxia University, 13(3), 68–74.

61.

Wang

(2016). 中国低生育水平下的生育意愿与生育行为差异研究 [A study on the differences between fertility intentions and behaviors under China’s low fertility level]. Population Journal, 38(2), 5–17.

62.

Wang

(2024). The lonely generation: Unraveling China’s population crisis after the one-child policy. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

63.

Ward

Deane

Spitze

(2014). Life-course changes and parent–adult child contact. Research on Aging, 36(5), 568–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027513510325

64.

Xinhua . (2015, October 29). China to allow two children for all couples. China Daily. Retrieved from. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-10/29/content_22312495_2.htm

65.

Xinhua . (2018). China marks 40th anniversary of reform and opening-up with greater resolve. Retrieved from. https://www.xinhuanet.com

66.

Yang

(2021). 从“生育成本约束”到“幸福价值导向”——城市“70后”“80后”和“90后”的生育观变迁 [From “fertility cost constraints” to “happiness value orientation”: Changes in fertility concepts among urban populations born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s]. Northwest Population Journal, 42(6), 36–46.

67.

Yang

Zhang

(2023). Second-child fertility intentions among urban women in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043744

68.

Yeatman

Trinitapoli

Garver

(2020). The enduring case for fertility desires. Demography, 57(6), 2047–2063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00921-4

69.

Zheng

Zhang

(2022). The transformation of parents’ perception of education involution under the background of “double reduction” policy: The mediating role of education anxiety and perception of education equity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 800039. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.800039

70.

Liang

(2022). Social norms and fertility intentions: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 947134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947134

71.

Zhang

(2017). The evolution of China’s one-child policy and its effects on family outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.141

72.

Zhang

Emery

(2023). Grandparental childcare and second births in China. PLoS One, 18(6), Article e0286496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286496

73.

Zhang

Xiong

Yue

(2024). Involution life in the ivory tower: A Chinese university’s teacher perceptions on academic profession and well-being under the double first-class Initiative. Asia Pacific Education Review, 27(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-10002-5

74.

Zheng

(2021a). From the past to the future: What we learn from China’s 2020 census. China Population and Development Studies, 5(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42379-021-00084-8

75.

Zheng

(2021b). 新形势下的生育意愿研究框架: 家庭和性别的视角 [Research framework on fertility intentions under the new situation: Perspectives of family and gender]. Population and Society, 37(5), 1–12.