Kids or no kids? Life goals in one’s 20s predict midlife trajectories of well-being.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many people, parenthood constitutes a crucial part of a successful life. Yet, the number of adults who never have children is increasing and has prompted concerns about their well-being. Past research mostly focused on parents and rarely investigated factors that are theoretically meaningful for the well-being of adults without children. Our preregistered study uses a propensity-score matched design to investigate how life goals contribute to differences between adults with and without children in the development of eight well-being facets. Leveraging data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we constructed a matched sample comprising N = 562 individuals (average participation = 24.9 waves) who provided data from when they were young adults (ages 18-30) to an age when parenthood becomes less likely (age 40 for women, age 50 for men). We find almost no significant differences in the average midlife well-being trajectories of adults with and without children. Only in young adulthood, people without children reported better mental health, lower negative affect as well as lower positive affect, and more loneliness. Select evidence for a gender moderation suggests that fathers were less lonely than mothers as well as men and women without children. Prioritizing the goal to have children during early adulthood was related to lower midlife mental health, cognitive, and affective well-being in adults without children, but not in parents. Disengaging from the goal to have children was associated with positive changes in life satisfaction in adults without children. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".