“They Make Me Not Wanna Have a Child”: Effects of

Companion Animals on Fertility Intentions of the Childfree*

Andrea Laurent-Simpson, Texas Woman’s University

This article argues that for some who are childfree, the increasing perception of the
companion animal as a sentient being with agency provides a deep, meaningful relation-
ship with the power to inform fertility intentions. Qualitative, in-depth interviews with
childfree companion animal owners reveal that this relationship serves to reinforce previ-
ous fertility choices such as delaying or completely opting out of childbirth, thus affect-
ing present household structure. This is reflected in the active choice by some
participants to have companion animals instead of human children, the presence of a
cost-benefit analysis concerning animal companions and human children, and narratives
that express a desire to mother or nurture as fulfilled in the relationship with the com-
panion animal. Implications of these findings for both demography and marriage and
family research in the United States are discussed.

Introduction
Fertility rates in the United States began a drastic plunge after the post-
World War II baby boom (Butz and Ward 1979; Mather 2012). Research indi-
cates that increased availability of contraceptives as well as increases in the sta-
tus of women regarding everything from family planning to educational
opportunity help explain the radical drop in fertility (Weeks 2011). However,
as the total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped in the United States, companion
animal keeping has risen dramatically. Between 1987 and 2015, the number of
dog-owning households in the United States has climbed from 34.2 million to
54.4 million while the number of cat-owning households has risen from
27.3 million to 42.9 million within the same time period (APPA 2016; AVMA
2002). While it is true that the number of households in the United States
increased by 39 percent between 1987 and 2015 (Statista 2016), the percentage
of dog-owning households increased by 59 percent and the percentage of cat-
owning households increased by 57 percent, suggesting that the rise in dog-
and cat-owning households cannot be solely attributed to growing numbers of
U.S. households.
Furthermore, companion animals, especially dogs and cats, are increas-
ingly and overwhelmingly considered members of the family, with 95 percent
of respondents in a recent Harris poll reporting as much (Harris Poll 2016).

Sociological Inquiry, Vol. xx, No. x, 2017, 1–22

© 2017 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society
DOI: 10.1111/soin.12163
2 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

Research specific to the United States finds this new family member status for
companion animals most evident in childfree families (those who actively
chose not to have children) who are more strongly attached to their non-human
animals than those families in which human children are present (Marinelli
et al. 2007). Also, there is evidence that childfree and empty nest families have
identified their companion animals as similar to a human child with both
groups thinking of themselves as mothers and fathers to “fur babies” (Greene-
baum 2004) and treating them as if they are surrogate children (Hirschman
1994). Singles and couples can be particularly predisposed to this line of think-
ing instead of or before actual parenthood, allowing a refinement of nurturing
capabilities like affection, commitment, and concern for another living being
(Feldman 1979; Walsh 2009).
These findings are important to consider in light of an increasing trend for
women to remain childfree in the United States (Dye 2008; Livingston and
Cohn 2010) or delay childbirth. Historically, demographers have linked the pro-
cesses of the demographic transition, especially fertility and mortality, to the
conditions needed for the empowerment of women, and thus, gender equity, to
occur. Indeed, as fertility and mortality rates take massive dives in the presence
of technological advances and economic prosperity that comes with develop-
ment, women increasingly take control of their own fertility decisions while
also joining the workforce and obtaining professional degrees. In developed,
Western nations like the United States, the decision to delay or opt out of hav-
ing children becomes a far more private choice compared to developing soci-
eties in which the choice to bear children, and how many children to bear, is
determined by the husband’s family.
However, childfree singles and couples may still want something to nurture
but without the time and expense commitment that is inherently attached to a
human child. Raising pets before or in lieu of parenthood or treating their ani-
mals as surrogate children (Hirschman 1994; Walsh 2009) would be one way to
accomplish this. The fact that these types of relationships are increasingly com-
mon in the United States, especially as the country struggles with dropping fer-
tility rates, suggests the need for further investigation into both how human–
animal bonding may affect fertility intentions within these populations and how
these relationships may extend the time of delay or solidify the choice to opt
out. Indeed, these are important issues for researchers studying not only animals
and society, but also marriage and family, and demography, primarily because
these very relationships may be related to the emergence of new types of fami-
lies as well as the gradual but dramatic transformation of U.S. household struc-
ture in the past 70 years (Jacobsen, Mather, and Dupuis 2012).
Several research questions regarding this kind of human–animal relation-
ship in the United States are considered here. Taken from data in a larger study
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 3

that I conducted concerning the formation of a parental identity in the childfree

and childless, this article considers the effects that companion animal owner-
ship may have on the decision of an increasing number of women in the Uni-
ted States to remain childfree (Dye 2008; Livingston and Cohn 2010) or at
least delay childbearing. I ask the following questions: (1) Do childfree people
actively choose to have animal companions instead of human children? (2) Do
childfree people actively consider the cost-benefit of having a companion ani-
mal over a human child? Also, does the outcome of this analysis act as a rein-
forcer of previous choices to delay or opt out of childbirth, allowing the
childfree to experience some of the benefits of “parenthood” without having to
bear human children? And, finally, (3) Do childfree people use their animal
companions to fulfill a sense of nurturing?
Background
Companion Animals as Family
A large majority of Americans identify their dogs (85% of respondents)
and cats (78% of respondents) as family members (Taylor, Funk, and Craighill
2006). But what does it mean for American households to label their pet(s) as
a family member? Simply saying that the family dog is like family does not
mean that the official status of family member has been conferred upon the ani-
mal. However, prior research concerning the role of the companion animal in
the American family has found that the canine family member is far more than
just a superficial label. Spending on animal companions in the United States
has rapidly increased from $17 billion in 1994 to $60.28 billion in 2015
(APPA 2016) for not only basic sustenance such as food and veterinary care,
but also extensive veterinary intervention for both chronic and acute health
issues, pet health insurance, expensive feeding regimens, high-end boarding
facilities, and extravagances such as clothing, toys, strollers, bike trailers, and
even wearable digitals that allow owners to communicate with their animals
while they are away from home. Consumers are clearly socially constructing
the companion animal as a family member if only based on their purchasing
habits.
On a more intimate level, companion animals are often described as the
“glue” that holds the family together (Cain 1983; Maharaj and Haney 2015;
Walsh 2009), suggesting an integral role for companion animals in family
cohesion, interaction, and communication. People in the United States include
their animals in holiday festivities and other rituals in which immediate human
family members are included (Alger and Alger 1997; Blouin 2013; Sanders
1993). Furthermore, people often cook humanlike meals for their animals on a
regular basis, suggesting that the companion animal is also involved in the
4 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

intimacy of family mealtime. And while the legal status of the companion ani-
mal remains “property,” shifts in the U.S. legal system, such as custody hear-
ings during divorce and the ability to sue for mental suffering when a dog or
cat is killed maliciously, make it clear that cultural definitions of “family mem-
ber” are beginning to include pets (Grimm 2014; Walsh 2009).
Companion Animals in the Childfree Context
The relationship that develops between pets and humans can resemble that
of the bonds between people and significant others, such as partners, spouses,
or children, especially for those people that are childless or childfree (Feldman
1979; Veevers 1985). Canines and felines in particular have been identified in
both Canadian and American research as evoking parental behavior in childfree
and childless human owners that can bring human partners together in parental
type roles (Maharaj and Haney 2015) such as nighttime care, protection, and
life modification for the sake of the child. This suggests that, in the absence of
human children, the companion animal can facilitate the development of a par-
ent identity that would not have been present otherwise.
This kind of behavioral output exemplifies a deeper connection to the
companion animal well beyond that of “pet” as property or even as “family”
for people that do not have human children. It also signals a qualitatively dif-
ferent relationship compared to families with human children, as these families
often identify their companion animals as family members, but with utilitarian
purposes such as teaching their human children compassion and responsibility
for living creatures (Walsh 2009). In contrast, childfree and childless owners
have reported actively altering work schedules and even entire careers in order
put their animals’ needs first (Maharaj and Haney 2015). Even sleep patterns
can resemble that of a parent and human child as animal owners without
children engage in the highest rates of co-sleeping with their pets (Beck and
Katcher 2003).
Furthermore, there may be a connection between some childfree couples’
perceptions of companion animals as children and that of becoming parents of
human children. In her study of Israeli families and their companion animals,
Shir-Vertesh (2012) found a “flexible personhood” for companion animals in
which dogs and cats were considered family members or even children before
the introduction of human children into the family structure. Those couples that
remained childfree in her 6-year study kept that perception of their animals.
However, couples that eventually brought human children into the family fold
removed the “personhood status” from their animals and quickly distanced
themselves from the animal whom they had previously thought of as a child of
sorts. While this research studied Israeli families, some American animal
owners appear to engage in similar transformations with the introduction of a
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 5

human baby (Blouin 2013). This suggests not only a contextual flexibility in
the social construction of personhood for animals in the United States, but also
flexibility in how the act of nurturing is carried out in the fluid context of U.S.
family structure.
Research that highlights these kinds of human–animal bonds is often criti-
cized as ignoring that companion animal owners are simply anthropomorphiz-
ing their animals, making it easy to disregard the influence that human–animal
bonds may have over important sociological issues, such as family structure.
However, researchers working in the interactionist tradition have repeatedly
disputed this criticism, offering an alternative perspective on why people in the
United States have developed such strong familial relationships with their
animal companions. Irvine’s (2004) work on the intersubjective capabilities of
the non-human animal maintains that animals have a core self comprised of
agency, coherence, affectivity, and self-history. These components are the foun-
dation of a human sense of subjective experience for self as well as for others.
It is the relatively recent human recognition of these mechanisms in non-human
animals that has changed the family animal from being perceived as a piece of
property in the United States to that of a social, agential being. The notion that
the companion animal possesses a sense of self, complete with agency and
affect, has led human owners to routinely view their canines, for example, as
“minded” in their interactions, using mutual gaze and sustained eye contact to
create shared definitions of the situation (Sanders 1993, 2003). Likewise, Alger
and Alger (1997) have presented similar data highlighting evidence of interac-
tion rituals between cats and their owners. This kind of sustained, intersubjec-
tive interaction creates deeply interdependent relationships between human and
animal that can earn the spot of family member or even surrogate child for
some people. Indeed, the effect of these bonds on human self has become bla-
tantly evident in certain familial contexts like domestic violence (Flynn 2000)
and homelessness (Irvine 2013).
Scholarly reframing of these bonds as family relationships built on
“commitment to the animal as a subjective being and active participant in the
person’s own life” (Irvine 2004:66) necessitates an examination of how the
broader household and family structure may be affected because of their pres-
ence. Furthermore, the fact that empirical research has provided substantive evi-
dence of companion animals as surrogate children in human families makes it
necessary to study how these relationships affect both future fertility choices
and maintenance of previous fertility choices. This is important to understand
primarily because researchers continue to study the trend of childlessness in the
United States—but have not considered the implications of a parent–child rela-
tionship between a human and companion animal for fertility intentions. While
other work has been done examining companion animals as surrogate children
6 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

for childfree couples (Hirschman 1994; Shir-Vertesh 2012; Walsh 2009) or as

family members (Albert and Bulcroft 1988; Alger and Alger 1997; Blouin
2013; Irvine 2013; Sanders 1993), this article contributes to the existing litera-
ture by considering how these complex relationships affect the fertility inten-
tions of childfree women which in turn affects their household structure. It
goes beyond examining the relationships themselves by investigating the effects
of the human–animal bond on (1) the active decision to have animal compan-
ions over human children; (2) cost-benefit analyses regarding the decision to
have human children; and (3) the role of the human–animal bond in fulfilling a
desire to nurture that may otherwise be filled by a human child.
Methods
This article is based on a larger qualitative study that investigated the
development of a parent identity in companion animal owners. That project
incorporated a qualitative research design for data collection that used semi-
structured, in-depth interviews. This type of data works well for informing
researchers of participants’ “views, feelings, and actions as well as the contexts
and structures of their lives” (Charmaz 2006:15). As such, I chose in-depth
interviews to gain detailed narratives concerning the sociorelational bonds
between owner and animal.
Participants were recruited via a two-pronged approach. First, fliers were
placed in veterinarian offices in North Texas areas and on the main announce-
ment boards located around the campus of a southwestern regional university.
Fliers noted that the study was researching “the role that pets play for both
people with and without human children” and specifically asked for participants
“between the ages of 18 and 44, with or without human children, and with
either a dog(s) and/or cat(s). . . who [were] willing to be interviewed about their
relationship with their pets.” Those who contacted me were screened for certain
sample parameters discussed below. Participants who did not qualify for the
study were given an explanation as to why and then thanked for their time.
The vast majority of participants were recruited in this fashion. Second, at the
end of each interview, I used snowball sampling to ask participants whether
they knew of anyone else that might be interested in participating. Only one
participant resulted from this type of recruitment.
Participants in this study were required to meet certain parameters. As
mentioned above, both people with human children and without were included
in the original study. Furthermore, while many different types of non-human
animals may be considered companion animals, for the purposes of this study,
I chose to define the “companion animal” as either a dog or cat. These species
were chosen because they are supported in the literature as those that have the
greatest level of bonding with humans (Albert and Bulcroft 1988; Taylor et al.
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 7

2006). As a result, all participants were required to have a minimum of either

one cat or one dog present in the home. Furthermore, participants were required
to be between the ages of 18 and 44 because it was assumed that people under
the age of 18 are not actively, intentionally making fertility choices. The age
range was capped at 44 in order to avoid “empty nesters,” or those with adult,
biological children, as this population could significantly alter data in the child-
free sample by blurring the symbolic boundaries between human child and ani-
mal child.
While both female and male participants were allowed, all childfree volun-
teers were females with dogs with the exception of one woman with a cat. A
total of 23 interviews were used in the original analysis, 14 with those who did
not have children and nine with those who did. Because I use Blackstone’s
(2014) definition of childfree here (an active choice not to have children—ei-
ther temporarily or permanently), two participants who were infertile (or what
has been referred to as childless here) were removed from the sample. This
gave me 12 childfree narratives from which to draw my analysis.
Data collection involved a semi-structured interview guide that facilitated
conversational interviews about participant–companion animal relationships.
Questions included items such as how the animal was first brought into the
family, if participants ever thought of their pet as an alternative to human chil-
dren, and whether or not the animal was ever considered in relationship to seri-
ous life decisions. Participants were each interviewed one time with interviews
ranging from 50 minutes to 2 and one-half hours, generating large volumes of
rich, thick description.
Data analysis was ongoing throughout the data collection phase of the pro-
ject to engage in what Rubin and Rubin (2012:37) call “responsive interview-
ing.” This technique is beneficial for allowing the researcher to respond to
what is learned from participants and, in turn, create new questions for the pur-
pose of gaining greater depth of detail from the participant. Furthermore, I used
the coding and analysis process as a means of developing themes that would
allow me to address the research questions while still allowing for the emer-
gence of unexpected findings. Data went through a two-step process that
involved both initial and focused coding. Because Charmaz (2006:48) suggests
that initial coding remain “provisional. . . and grounded in the data” in order to
stay open to possibilities outside of a specific theoretical approach, my initial
codes were a hybrid of themes generated from the participants’ responses as
well as ideas taken from identity theory. I used line-by-line analysis in order to
find substantive codes that would give me the ability to “explicate implicit
actions and meanings” (Charmaz 2006:50)—a process that became quite benefi-
cial for discovering the role that animal companions played in the development
of fertility intentions.
8 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

Once an interview had gone through the initial coding process, I used
focused coding as a means of using major codes to categorize my data inci-
sively. This also enabled me to make connections between earlier initial codes
that, at first, appeared unsubstantial, but that, combined, illuminated powerful
meaning structures (Charmaz 2006). As mentioned above, this process was
ongoing, allowing me to theoretically sample subsequent interviews as a means
of refining major categories until reaching saturation.
Results
“I Would Rather Take in a Fur Baby Than Create a New Life”: Are Animal
Children Actively Chosen Over Human Children?
Results from the larger study (author citation) from which these data are
taken indicated that over 80 percent of childfree and childless participants acted
in ways that were similar to that of a parent taking care of a human child. This
behavior included in-depth healthcare (such as night care, physical and emo-
tional protection, and willingness to engage in exhaustive medical care), social
development, life modification for the animal companion, and the development
of a parental relationship with the pet. These findings prompted the first
research question that considered active choices between having human chil-
dren and having animal companions. This is an important point of distinction
in this study because actively choosing to have animals over human children
could have significant consequences for childlessness rates in relation to the
increase in companion animal ownership over the past several decades.
However, participant narratives did not always bear this hypothesis out.
Instead, two-thirds of participants indicated that they had chosen either not to
have human children or to delay childbirth for motives such as education,
career, and time allocation, reasons already well-documented for remaining
childfree as well as the delay of childbirth by demographers and family
researchers (Becker 1981; Blossfeld and Huinink 1991; Mather 2012). When
asked whether she had chosen animals over children, Shay, a 22-year-old mar-
ried woman with a Husky dog mix named Morgan, said:
Right now I have no desire to have them. Just because we don’t have
money for it:
I feel like I’m too young, I don’t even know what I wanna do with my life yet. I just barely
graduated with my degree a year ago in microbiology and I don’t wanna be one of those type
girls who gets a certain degree, gets married and has kids. What use is it? I wanna go to
graduate school. . . but in my view, later. I don’t like children. They scream. They’re not
smart. I mean my dog is smarter than that!

Emma, a 24-year-old speech pathology graduate student with two mix-

breed dogs, commented that her burgeoning career had shown her all of “the
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 9

possible problems a [human] child can have and that freaks [her] out a little
bit.” She also cited her social life and spending time alone with her husband as
reasons that she was not interested in having human children right now, “I do
feel like we still like to spend time with each other. And I would like to con-
tinue that as long as possible because once we do have a baby that wouldn’t
be as easy to do. . .”
While it was clear for these participants that the root cause of not having
human children was because they did not want them for various reasons (as
opposed to wanting animal children over human children), these women also
emphasized that they saw their animal children as good alternatives to human
children. When asked if she felt that Morgan was a better alternative, Shay
explained, “We are looking for companionship and my motherly instinct for
sure. For sure, if you don’t want kids, get a dog.” Emma supported this
perspective, emphasizing:
We are still young. I think we are really realistic, like a kid can take a lot of time and money
and stress, none of that sounds good right now. And we’ve got dogs, so let’s keep it aside
for a while.

Alternatively, Maeve, a 32-year-old graduate student with a male partner

and two mastiff dogs named Luke and Curan, had actively chosen a puppy
over pressure to begin having human children as a means of delaying. She had
been feeling pressure from her partner to have human children. But she found
refuge in parenting a puppy as a means of delaying childbirth, explaining,
“Having a puppy is a huge commitment and I feel having a puppy will take
time away for any potential plans of having a child. Therefore, having a puppy
is a good way to stall childbearing.” Indeed, Maeve had actively chosen to
parent a canine as opposed to a human, at least for the time being.
Lynn, a 35-year-old female with a Pomeranian dog named Roger, said her
dog was absolutely a better choice than human children. Emphasizing this as a
permanent choice:
Roger is a better option over kids for a couple of reasons. One you do not have to distort
your body to have a ‘baby’ who loves you. Second, there are enough children in the world
and way too many animals. I would rather take in a fur baby than create a new life [my
emphasis]. These lives that are already living, need my love and many others. Third, kids are
a hassle and dogs usually have unconditional love for their owners, which is a bonus. There
are so many levels of childhood that a parent has to go through like terrible two’s/three’s,
preteen, several years of teenage angst and none of these appeal to me. The biggest drawback
of owning a pet is usually the lifespan compared to a child, unless you own a parrot or
tortoise.

Contradictory to those childfree participants who saw themselves as delay-

ing childbirth, Lynn shared that she simply never wanted human children. She
10 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

noted “. . . [human] children give me anxiety, I see children as a burden. I see

that the life I have with Roger or any other pet is superior over what people
have with their [human] children.” Lynn had clearly chosen to have an animal
child over a human child. She reported, “Roger is definitely my kid. I mean, he
replaced that for me,” suggesting that for some childfree people, animal chil-
dren may indeed be a conscious choice over human children.
Julie, a 24-year-old graduate student with a male partner and a schnauzer
mix named Chance, also appeared to actively choose having an animal child over
a human one, saying, “I like my relationship with Chance. And I don’t think any-
thing could come close to that. Even if it is a human baby. Sorry.” While Julie
seemed to be on the fence about having human children in the first place, she
expressed she might never want a human child because of the time, expense, and
deleterious consequences on her status as a professional woman. For her, the rela-
tionship that she had with Chance was one that, from her perspective, would
trump any relationship that she may develop with a human baby.
These narratives suggest that there is some variance in answers to the first
research question regarding whether or not participants have actively chosen ani-
mal companions over human children. Nine participants linked their decision to
delay or opt out of childbirth to their own educational goals and professional
careers. However, six of these participants appeared to conflate these reasons
with the benefits of having a companion animal over human children. The other
three of these women had actively chosen animal companions as viable alterna-
tives over human children for reasons that included dislike of human children,
more satisfactory relationships, and suitable reasons to delay childbirth. While
in the minority of the sample, these active choices are important to highlight
because they reflect a shift in the ever-evolving understanding of family in the
United States by depicting not only the decision to be childfree but also the
choice to have a companion animal as a surrogate within their household struc-
ture. Furthermore, while some participants who have chosen to delay may even-
tually bring human children into the family structure, effectively removing the
child status from the animal companion (Shir-Vertesh 2012), the present choice
to remain childfree points to the notion that household structure is currently
affected by the presence of the animal. As I will discuss below, these choices,
whether based in educational and professional goals or in a preference for the
animal, were bolstered by both a cost-benefit analysis and a commitment to the
animal as a sentient, agential being whom participants wanted to nurture.
“If I Had a Kid, I Would Be Tired All of the Time”: Comparing the Cost-
Benefit of Human Children to Animal Children
Seven out of 12 of the childfree participants were quickly able to answer
why they felt their animals were better alternatives to human children (whether
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 11

they had chosen to delay childbirth or completely opt out of it). The ease with
which these participants discussed the pros and cons of animal companions and
human children made it apparent that, at some point, each had engaged in some
sort of cost-benefit comparison of human children versus animal children. Par-
ticipants cited variables such as time and emotional investment, expense, and
egalitarianism between heterosexual partners as reasons why they preferred
their animal companions to humans. These comparisons are important to note
primarily because demographers have noted similar considerations by people in
advanced societies when deciding whether or not to bear children (Weeks
2011). According to the supply–demand framework originally developed by
Becker (1960) and later, Easterlin (1975), people in developed societies com-
modify children by considering the financial and time cost involved in having
them. They then compare this outcome to other goods or activities in which
the couple may wish to indulge or pursue, such as higher education or luxury
items. The analysis used in making fertility choices presented itself in the nar-
ratives of participants, highlighting how guardianship of animals is one of the
commodities against which couples may pit childbearing.
Indeed, childfree participants in this study had clear perceptions of the
benefit of companion animals over human children. Hannah, a 36-year-old sin-
gle female with a dachshund dog, who had decided she did not want human
children at all noted:
A child would be way more expensive. And, I think that, you are so much more emotionally
invested in a child. And in a way it’s nice about having a dog that it never stops needing
you. You know? Whereas with kids, my friend just recently said about her daughter, parent-
ing is the slow process of saying goodbye. (laughter) ‘Cause her kid was just about to go off
to college and it feels like, yeah. . . In some ways I sometimes feel that I’m too emotional to
be able to handle the responsibility of another human being.’

Her consideration of both monetary expense and emotional investment as rea-

sons why companion animals are superior alternatives highlights how maintain-
ing her previous fertility choice to opt out of parenthood is supported by her
rational calculations of the benefit of having Sam, her dog, instead.
Emma discussed the benefit of having dogs over human children, citing
both emotional and time investment:
They don’t really stress you out too much other then trying to eat stuff they are not supposed
to. But that is a quick fix - just pick it up. . . They don’t require as much attention. Like if
you give them. . . attention they are good for the rest of the day, they don’t have problems,
they play with each other, they sleep all day, run all day or whatever. And they don’t require
us to do that [run and play] so I think that’s the biggest thing. We can still do what we want
to do but we have these cute furry little people that are excited to see us when we get home.
I just don’t have the desire to have a screaming baby right now. I would rather have a
barking dog.
12 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

Reminiscent of both Emma and Lynn’s narrative on the benefit of the ani-
mal over a child, Shay reported:
She [Morgan, her dog] doesn’t talk back to me. I can put her in a cage and I [won’t] get in
trouble for it. She is much more obedient, but how my mom always put it was, like, we are
our dogs. . . She is so dependent on me. If I take her on a walk, if I take her on a car ride. I
try to incorporate her into my life as much as I can. So, if I run to the gas station, I take her
with me. . . She is a good dog. She is so sweet, and she is smart. . . but I can’t work full-time
and take care of a [human] kid. . .

Shay’s understanding of her dog as easier to raise than a human is reinforced

by notions of being able to have a full-time career and still have a “parental
relationship” present between her, her partner, and their companion animal.
Furthermore, analysis often revealed that the dog or cat was not simply
advantageous in terms of financial, emotional, or time constraints. Rather, these
relationships also appeared to provide at least a third of participants with a way
to deal with societal and group level pressures to be both a mother and a pro-
fessional woman. Julie noted the effect that having her animal child Chance
had on her relationship with her partner as reason enough not to choose having
human children:
Chance is my baby. I don’t want to have a real baby right now. Or if ever. You know, they
are expensive, they need a lot of attention, and I think that women from the outset immedi-
ately take on more responsibility with kids. Having a human baby just cause they have to
carry it for nine months and deal with all of the bodily changes, physically and physiologi-
cally.

Where with puppies, I really feel like it could be more 50-50. We really could have. . . And I
know this sounds idealistic. . . We can really have more of egalitarian and responsibility. It
could be. . . The potential for being equal in terms of taking care of Chance I think is closer
to reality I think then having a human baby.

The longing desire to remain equal to her partner while still having a
“baby” highlights the struggle that highly educated women have to “have it
all,” as Maeve commented. However, Julie’s narrative also confirms that child-
free women may be engaging in a cost-benefit analysis that finds human chil-
dren destructive to their egalitarian relationships while the animal companion
allows “parenting” and egalitarianism between partners to thrive. Julie’s reason-
ing also echoes one of the many explanations that Lynn gave for choosing an
animal child over a human—“you do not have to distort your body to have a
‘baby’ who loves you.”
In contrast, two participants, both self-described as fully committed to
high-powered professional careers, were adamant that they did not need a child
or companion animal to respond to societal pressure over having children.
Instead, Ann, a 44-year-old woman with two Labrador Retrievers, expressed
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 13

resentment that other people might assume that she had decided to “parent a
dog, because of course I must need to parent something.” Both participants
were clear that they did not think of their dogs as surrogate children but as
family members.
The second research question in this study considered whether or not
childfree participants engage in a cost-benefit analysis regarding companion
animals versus human children. Furthermore, it considered the nature of this
comparison in relation to its effect on previous fertility choices. Ultimately,
comparisons allow people to either make choices or reinforce previous choices.
Here, childfree participants, citing the benefits of having companion animals,
simultaneously reinforced their own decisions not to have human children
while arguing why companion animals were better alternatives. However, one
negative that did not appear to trump the human child in some way and was
mentioned by four participants involved the decreased life expectancy of the
animal compared to the child, though this negative did not outweigh the posi-
tives of the human–animal bond in a way that would favor human children.
This cost-benefit analysis, at minimum, suggests that these participants had
already thoughtfully considered the advantages of having animal children in
relationship to human children in response to either their own or others’ con-
cern over their childbearing status. Furthermore, it provides deeper insight into
how the meaningful relationship between owner and animal might be rational-
ized by some as adequate in the face of cultural pressure for women to bear
children. Indeed, these cost-benefit analyses likely constitute what Stokes and
Hewitt (1976) refer to as quasi-theories for some participants primarily because
the cultural labeling of “childlessness” as problematic can be negotiated away
by deeming the animal companion as a better alternative. Bearing this out, nar-
ratives from a third of participants suggested a complex combination of the
advantages of the companion animal and deflection of both their own (e.g.,
bodily distortion, limited time with partner) and societal (e.g., the social role of
committed mother, professional mothers) concerns about giving birth to and
raising children.
“The Word Nurturing Always Comes to Mind”: Using Animal Children to
Fulfill a Desire to Nurture
Research has noted that having human children fulfills either a deep-
seated, biologically wired desire (Carmichael and Whittaker 2007; Hrdy 1999)
or a sociocultural desire (Schoen et al. 1997) in people to nurture. That “some-
thing” does not have to be human but, rather, can be non-human (Foster 2000).
While people are overwhelmingly preferential of those that are closest to
human genetic makeup, the absence of that DNA does not alleviate the natural
need to nurture something, whether that be a person, animal, or plant. Half of
14 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

the participants in this study repeatedly described themselves as “nurturing”

their animal companions or their animals as “providing an outlet for mothering”
that otherwise would have been missed, with another four participants describ-
ing nurturing behavior toward the animal (e.g., emotional protection of the ani-
mal and extensive night care of the sick or young animal). Hannah, a
participant that had decided she would not have human children at all,
described herself as having a “strong caregiver personality. . . [that’s] going to
fix everyone’s problems.” She went on to explain that her relationship with her
animal child, Sam, made her:
. . .feel better about my ability to give. And it helps me to put my energy into something that
is more constructive. . . without having a child to raise; it gives me that. . . care for something
that I otherwise would not have. And I think I didn’t realize how helpful that would be for
me until I had Sam.

Indeed, Hannah reported that she had not originally adopted Sam as a
means of having a surrogate child. Instead, she had gone to the animal shelter
to find Sam as a way of finding out whether or not she could make a “perma-
nent commitment.” The relationship that finally emerged between her and Sam
was one that appeared parental in nature throughout her narrative and ulti-
mately was recognized by Hannah as fulfilling a “nurturing need.”
Lynn discussed how her dog gave her an outlet for her motherly instincts.
She reported, “I think most women have maternal instincts. I am able to use
those on him and I don’t have to be annoyed by a [human] child.” Beth, a 42-
year-old married female with a cat named Owen and no desire to have human
children, spoke of the nurturing and fulfillment found in her relationship with
her animal child:
The word ‘nurturing’ always comes to mind. . . I just think of a fulfilling life for him. And in
turn it is a fulfilling life for me. Because he is not just laying over in his bed and that is all
he does. . .

Beth’s commitment to nurturing Owen was a deep one, and she consis-
tently described their relationship in similar ways to that of a parent and a
human child:
I tried to teach him some words. And when I am brushing him and he is on his side all fat
and heavy, I’ll say ‘roll over, roll over.’ And sometimes he will. On his front. And I’ll say
‘roll over’ and he will finally tip over to his other side. . . In the morning I say good morning
good morning. . . And at night I say good night good night. And so hopefully he figures out
that all of the lights are going out and I’m going to bathroom and I’m closing the door. And
this is it so if you have something to tell me or whatever this is your last chance. I don’t
know if he understands. It makes me feel better. . . it’s my routine.
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 15

These women expressed a desire to engage in nurturing, but either did not
want to do that now or decided not to do that at all with a human child. It is in
their companion animals that they found that need satisfied. And in many ways,
this appears to reinforce their decision about their own fertility status. Shay
confirmed this when she said adamantly:
I am very protective of her and she looks to me like I’m her mommy, like I take care of her.
I am the one who provides for her, gives her food and water and stuff. . . That’s my motherly
instinct. . . for sure, if you don’t want kids, get a dog.

Maeve, eager to delay or possibly opt out of childbearing, reported that

her new puppy, Curan, was a good way to show her partner the nurturing
required for a human child, explaining:
I thought having a puppy will be a good start to perhaps show him of having to wake up, the
feeding, to letting them out, discipline, everything. It’s not the same as having a child, but
this will be an experience to see if he actually wants more.

Maeve’s declaration that she enjoyed “nurturing [her] babies” and her plan to
use her animals to demonstrate the nurturing required by children indicate the
role that this activity plays in the reinforcement of her earlier fertility choices,
both internally and externally for her partner.
The idea that humans are predisposed to nurturing, whether that predisposi-
tion is biological (Carmichael and Whittaker 2007; Foster 2000), sociocultural
(Schoen et al. 1997), or a biosocial combination of both (Foster 2000; Wood and
Eagly 2002), suggests that asking whether or not childfree people actively per-
ceive their animal companions as fulfilling a need to nurture, as I have here, is an
important question for both family researchers and demographers studying fertil-
ity intentions. If humans are predisposed to the act of nurturing but some people
choose to delay or forego childbirth, then a lingering desire to nurture some sort
of living creature may present itself. For participants in this study, the use of the
companion animal to satiate a desire to “nurture” or “mother” appeared to allow
participants to circumvent biological, sociocultural, or biosocial forces that may
have otherwise emotionally worn on them to have a human baby. In this case, the
relationship appears to quell the desire to nurture that would otherwise go
unchecked, possibly increasing the pressure to have human children.
Discussion
Analyzing participant narratives regarding fertility choice revealed a com-
plex relationship between owner and companion animal. In keeping with the
interactionist literature on intersubjectivity, participants were deeply bonded to
their pets in a way that demonstrated an intersubjective meaning structure far dee-
per than simple labels like “child,” “baby,” or “family.” For example, Hannah
16 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

discussed the “negotiation” that she and her dog, Sam, engaged in over the
removal of a thorn from her paw while Emma commented that her dog “has a per-
sonality. . . his own manners. . . the personality of a dog will replace a child if you
let it.” Shay, a participant who clearly thought of her dog as a surrogate child
noted that she (Shay) is “very protective of her [the dog] and she looks to me like
I am her mommy.” As Irvine (2004:65) has noted, these complex relationships
indicate a deep commitment to and knowledge of the “other being” in which the
person commits to actively understanding their emotions, thoughts, and commu-
nication. Beth demonstrated this commitment nicely when she explained her
desire to understand her cat Owen’s desires—“. . . I would love to know what he
is thinking. But if there are things happening in his world. . . maybe he will try to
communicate with me.”
This depth of attachment was the foundation for participant narratives that
framed their animals as not just family members, but as surrogate children. Prior
research has found similar relationships between the childfree and their compan-
ion animals (Feldman 1979; Hirschman 1994; Shir-Vertesh 2012; Walsh 2009)
and affords researchers a look at the ever-shifting definition of “family” and
“child” in the American cultural landscape. It is clear that this landscape now
includes the companion animal for the vast majority of pet-owning families, with
special emphasis on the dog and cat (Harris Poll 2016; Taylor et al. 2006). As
Jacobsen, Mather, and Dupuis (2012) have noted, the emergence of new types of
households and families in the United States is a response, in part, to changing
social norms and economic conditions that can be challenging to capture. While
demographers do not yet consider the companion animal as part of the household
structure, this article contributes to existing literature by highlighting how the
relationship between the childfree and their companion animals may impact fertil-
ity choice and thus, household structure for these families. As a result, these find-
ings should be of interest to both demographers and marriage and family
researchers working to better understand how cultural and institutional forces
interact to shape the structure of family in U.S. households.
In the preceding sections, I have examined how these cultural shifts in
meaning that allow inclusion of the dog and cat as family members and surro-
gate children affect fertility intentions in the childfree, and thus both present
and future household structure. I accomplished this by considering the presence
of an active choice to have companion animals over children, the presence of a
cost-benefit analysis regarding companion animals and human children, and the
role that the desire to nurture plays in these choices. In keeping with the litera-
ture on fertility in advanced countries (Becker 1981; Blossfeld and Huinink
1991; Mather 2012), two-thirds of participants made it clear that they had cho-
sen to delay or opt out of childbirth completely because of their own educa-
tional or professional aspirations. However, the other third expressed that they
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 17

had chosen companion animals over children for reasons related to overpopula-
tion (both human and animal), excuses for delaying childbirth to a partner who
was ready for children, and the perception that a relationship with a human
child could never be better than one with the canine. While this was only a
quarter of the sample, these narratives are germane to the influence that com-
panion animals can have over household structure.
The latter two of these reasons are of particular concern to fertility issues
primarily because they reflect a fundamental shift in the cultural definition of
family in Western countries from one focused on marriage and family building
to one that emphasizes choice and companionship (Gillespie 1999). In the case
of Maeve, the choice of a companion animal over a human child was one that
allowed her to delay childbearing, or “avoid it if at all possible,” by allowing
her to focus on the “raising” of her “babies” while showing her partner how
much effort would be required for human children. Companionship was Julie’s
focus as she chose a commitment to her dog as a sentient being who could be
her baby while also pursuing educational and career options. Indeed, research
has noted that individuals like Maeve and Julie may have ultimately had human
children were circumstances different (Gillespie 1999). But the relationship
with their companion animals qualitatively changed their circumstances in ways
that facilitated (for both themselves and their partners) a delay to childbirth by
addressing issues of concern to them like the desire to parent and remain egali-
tarian or demonstrating the work involved in raising children. These choices
have at least partially affected the present structural makeup of their households
in ways that may increase their ages at first childbirth. This suggests that such
relationships might also contribute to an overall trend in the United States
toward delay of and increasing age at first childbirth.
I have also demonstrated here that seven of the participants engaged in a
cost-benefit analysis concerning having companion animals and having human
children. This suggests that the supply–demand framework widely used in
demography to explain fertility intentions as related to rational choice (Becker
1960; Easterlin 1975) is present in the perceived role of the animal companion
in the household structure, especially as a surrogate child. Participants specifi-
cally conveyed varying reasons about the perception of the companion animal
as a better option that included factors such as the relative ease of caretaking,
smaller monetary and time investments, “parenting” while maintaining an egali-
tarian relationship, and the ability to nurture something without adding to a
burgeoning human population.
While these rationalizations clearly depict the commodification of both the
companion animal and the human child, it is important to note that they do not
frame the animal as passive like other commodities, such as a car or couch. In
fact, literally all childfree narratives in this study described their animal
18 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

companion(s) as emotional, agential beings with phrases that included “smarter

than a kid,” “always there to comfort me,” “always excited to see you,” and
“looks to me like I’m her mommy.” Furthermore, half of these participants
described their animals as having distinct personalities such as “demanding,”
“worship me now,” “talkative,” and even “autistic.” Two participants went so
far as to explain the importance of providing their companion animals with full
lives with Beth nearly crying as she explained “it makes me feel good to know
that he is happy and not just being fed. I think they deserve a better life.”
These perceptions of the companion animal underscore the fact that the
animal is not simply a passive commodity or convenience in the eyes of child-
free participants, but rather a social actor that, in many ways, is perceived as
approximating the young human child. Furthermore, this bond and the per-
ceived advantages of the animal companion partially enable participants to stick
with prior fertility choices in a way that contributes to relieving concerns over
both group and societal level pressures about childbearing. The protective fac-
tor that this appears to have for some childfree participants may contribute to
the ability to remain childfree, and thus to overall delay and childlessness rates
in the United States, by relieving such pressure. However, as Shir-Vertesh
(2012) has noted, this granting of personhood in the form of surrogate child
may also be fleeting and flexible with the introduction of human children.
Future longitudinal studies in the fashion of both this and Shir-Vertesh’s work
should consider how the companion animal affects household structure and
how household structure affects animal status.
Finally, the human–companion animal relationship present in some child-
free families may reinforce a delay of or opt out from childbearing by fulfilling
a need to nurture. Half of participants firmly held that their animal companions
allowed them to satisfy a need to nurture without having to have human chil-
dren. For example, Shay professed to have a motherly instinct with no present
desire to have human children (though she reported she had not opted out).
She then pointedly noted, “For sure, if you don’t want kids, get a dog.” As fer-
tility intentions can shift over time (Heaton, Jacobson, and Holland 1999), sati-
ating the desire to mother by getting a dog is one that may well extend the
time to first childbirth further or even provide the opportunity to decide to opt
out.
In sum, I have demonstrated here how childfree commitment to the com-
panion animal as a sentient, agentic being capable of fulfilling an owner need
to nurture can affect present household structure by reinforcing previous fertil-
ity choices via both the active choice of the animal companion over a human
child as well as by cost-benefit analyses. I have also suggested that these pro-
cesses as well as the fulfillment of an owner need to nurture may well serve to
increase the age at first childbirth or even provide time for an eventual
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 19

transition to opting out entirely. Indeed, Heaton, Jacobson and Holland (1999)
have reported a positive relationship between being childfree and age. The
implication here is that if some of these relationships serve to either lengthen
time to first childbirth or provide opportunity to change fertility intention to
opting out, then they may well be subtly contributing to increasing age at first
birth or even increasing rates of childlessness in the United States. Future
research should move beyond consideration of present household structure to
the net effect of these relationships on fertility intentions, specifically actual
time to first birth as well as extra time to transition to opting out.
Finally, these findings may well have significance for some other highly devel-
oped, Westernized societies experiencing increasing rates of childlessness and
decreasing total fertility rates (TFRs) such as Australia, where 88 percent of pet
owners described their pets as part of the family (Franklin 2007). In Japan, a country
whose population has seen a steady decline post-World War II and now has one of
the lowest TFRs in the world (Statistics Japan 2016), dog owners are also increas-
ingly thinking of their dogs as both companions and family members (Skabelund
2011). Researchers focusing on these societies and others like them around the
world should consider these relationships alongside increasing rates of choosing to
be childfree to determine whether similar effects on household structure exist in this
subpopulation.
Ultimately, the fact that some childfree individuals in the United States
experience what they report as an intersubjective relationship with a sentient,
agential non-human actor is one that bears consideration beyond analyzing the
relationships themselves. As demonstrated here, those relationships that build
the animal as a child surrogate certainly reinforce previous fertility intentions
and may well affect future intentions temporally. As U.S. society continues to
reshape what constitutes family while dealing with a falling TFR, these rela-
tionships may be incrementally contributing to society-wide fertility changes.

ENDNOTES

*Please direct correspondence to Andrea Laurent-Simpson, Department of Sociology

and Social Work, Texas Woman’s University, CFO 305, PO Box 425887, Denton, TX 76204,
USA; e-mail: alaurentsimpson@twu.edu
Andrea Laurent-Simpson recently received her doctorate in sociology from Texas Woman’s
University. Her dissertation examines the role of human–animal interaction in identity formation
and fertility intentions. She is currently researching how the social construction of emerging infec-
tious diseases like Zika affects both identity formation and fertility behavior.
The author would like to thank Editor Peter B. Wood and four anonymous reviewers for their
keen insights in the strengthening of this article. She would also like to thank Drs. David Blouin,
Ami Moore, James L. Williams, and Celia Lo for reading previous versions of this manuscript.
20 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

REFERENCES

Albert, Alexa and Kris Bulcroft. 1988. “Pets, Families, and the Life Course.” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 50(2):543–52.
Alger, Janet and Steven Alger. 1997. “Beyond Mead: Symbolic Interaction Between Humans and
Friends.” Society and Animals 5(1):65–81.
American Pet Products Association (APPA). 2016. “Industry Statistics and Trends: Pet Ownership.”
Retrieved December 1, 2016 <http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp>.
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2002. U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics
Sourcebook. Schaumburg, IL: AVMA.
Beck, Andrew and Aaron Katcher. 2003. “Future Directions in Human-Animal Bond Research.”
American Behavioral Scientist 47(1):79–93.
Becker, Gary. 1960. “An Economic Analysis of Fertility.” Pp. 209–40 in Demographic and
Economic Change in Developed Countries, edited by George B. Roberts. New York:
Columbia University Press.
———. 1981. “Altruism in the Family and Selfishness in the Market Place.” Economica 48
(189):1–15.
Blackstone, Amy. 2014. “Childless. . . or Childfree?” Contexts 13:68–70.
Blossfeld, Hans-Peter and Johannes Huinink. 1991. “Human Capital Investments or Norms of Role
Transition? How Women’s Schooling and Career Affect the Process of Family Formation.”
American Journal of Sociology 97(1):143–68.
Blouin, David. 2013. “Are Dogs Children, Companions, or Just Animals? Understanding Variations
in People’s Orientations Toward Animals.” Anthrozoos 26(2):279–94.
Butz, William and Michael Ward. 1979. “The Emergence of Countercyclical U.S. Fertility.” The
American Economic Review 69(3):318–28.
Cain, Ann. 1983. “A Study of Pets in the Family System.” Pp. 72–81 in New Perspectives on Our
Lives with Companion Animals, edited by Aaron Katcher and Alan Beck. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Carmichael, Gordon and Andrea Whittaker. 2007. “Choice and Circumstance: Qualitative Insights
into Contemporary Childlessness in Australia.” European Journal of Population/Revue
Europeenne de Demographie 23(2):111–43.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative
Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dye, Jane Lawler. 2008. “Fertility of American Women: 2006.” Current Population Reports: P20-558.
Easterlin, Richard. 1975. “An Economic Framework for Fertility Analysis.” Studies in Family
Planning 6(3):54–63.
Feldman, Bruce. 1979. “Why People Own Pets.” Pp. 15–24 in The Handbook of Animal Welfare,
edited by Robert Allen, William Westbrook. New York: Garland STPM.
Flynn, Clifton P. 2000. “Woman’s Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion Animals in
the Lives of Battered Women.” Violence Against Women 6(2):150–75.
Foster, Caroline. 2000. “The Limits to Low Fertility: A Biosocial Approach.” Population and
Development Review 26(2):209–34.
Franklin, Adrian. 2007. “Human-Nonhuman Animal Relationships in Australia: An Overview of
Results from the First National Survey and Follow-Up Case Studies 2000–2004.” Society &
Animals 15(1):7–27.
Gillespie, Rosemary. 1999. “Voluntary Childlessness in the United Kingdom.” Reproductive Health
Matters 7(13):43–53.
 THEY MAKE ME NOT WANNA HAVE A CHILD 21

Greenebaum, Jessica. 2004. “It’s a Dog’s Life: Elevating Status From Pet to Fur Baby at Yappy
Hour.” Society and Animals 12(2):117–35.
Grimm, David. 2014. Citizen Canine: Our Evolving Relationship with Cats and Dogs. New York:
PublicAffairs.
Heaton, Tim, Cardell Jacobson, and Kimberlee Holland. 1999. “Persistence and Change in
Decisions to Remain Childless.” Journal of Marriage and Family 61(2):531–9.
Hirschman, Elizabeth. 1994. “Consumers and Their Animal Companions.” Journal of Consumer
Research 20:616–31.
Hrdy, Sarah. 1999. Mother Nature: Natural Selection and the Female of the Species. London, UK:
Chatto & Windus.
Irvine, Leslie. 2004. If You Tame Me: Understanding Our Connection with Animals. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
———. 2013. My Dog Always Eats First: Homeless People and Their Animals. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Jacobsen, Linda, Mark Mather, and Genevieve Dupuis. 2012. “Household Change in the United
States.” Population Bulletin 67(1):1–13.
Livingston, Gretchen and D’ Vera Cohn. 2010. “Childlessness Up Among All Women; Down
Among Women with Advanced Degrees“. Social and Demographic Trends Report.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Maharaj, Nandini and Colleen Haney. 2015. “A Qualitative Investigation of the Significance of
Companion Dogs.” Western Journal of Nursing Research 37(9):1175–93.
Marinelli, Lieta, Serena Adamelli, Simona Normando, and Gabriele Bono. 2007. “Quality of Life
of the Pet Dog: Influence of Owner and Dog’s Characteristics.” Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 108(1–2):143–156.
Mather, Mark. 2012. “Fact Sheet: The Decline in US Fertility.” Population Reference Bureau,
World Population Data Sheet.
Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanders, Clinton. 1993. “Understanding Dogs: Caretakers’ Attributions of Mindedness in Canine-
Human Relationships.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22(2):205–26.
———. 2003. “Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Close Relationships Between Humans and
Nonhuman Animals.” Symbolic Interaction 26:405–26.
Schoen, Robert, Young Kim, Constance Nathanson, Jason Fields, and Nan Marie Astone. 1997.
“Why do Americans Want to Have Children?” Population Development Review 23(2):333–58.
Shir-Vertesh, Dafna. 2012. “‘Flexible Personhood’: Loving Animals as Family Members in Israel.”
American Anthropologist 114(3):420–32.
Skabelund, Aaron. 2011. Empire of Dogs: Canines, Japan, and the Making of the Modern Imperial
World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Statista. 2016. “Number of Households in the U.S. from 1960 to 2015.” Retrieved December 1,
2016 <http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/>.
Statistics Japan. 2016. “Japan Statistical Yearbook 2016.” Retrieved December 1, 2016 <http://
www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c0117.htm>.
Stokes, Randall, and John P. Hewitt. 1976. “Aligning Actions.” American Sociological Review
41(5):838–49.
Taylor, Paul, Cary Funk, and Peyton Craighill. 2006. “Gauging Family Intimacy: Dogs Edge Cats
(Dads Trail Both).” Pew Research Center: A Social Trends Report: 1–8.
The Harris Poll. 2016. “More Than Ever Pets Are Members of the Family.” Retrieved December 1,
2016 <http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Pets-are-Members-of-the-Family.html>.
22 ANDREA LAURENT-SIMPSON

Veevers, Jean. 1985. “The Social Meaning of Pets: Alternative Roles for Companion Animals.”
Marriage & Family Review 8(3–4):11–30.
Walsh, Froma. 2009. “Human-Animal Bonds: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family
Therapy.” Family Process 48(4):481–99.
Weeks, John. 2011. Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues, 11th ed. Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Wood, Wendy and Alice H. Eagly. 2002. “A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Behavior of Women
and Men: Implications for the Origins of Sex Differences.” Psychological Bulletin 128
(5):699–727.