Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study is a comprehensive portrayal of childlessness in later life, describing childless older adults’ specific characteristics related to childlessness, their personal and social characteristics, and well-being in comparison with older adults with children. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 543 adults (60+), 47.0% (255) of whom were childless. Reasons for childlessness include personal choice (35.3%), life events (24.3%), health problems (23.1%), and partner-related factors (21.2%). A total of 14.9% of childless older adults had received professional medical help in attempts to become pregnant; 5.5% of childless older adults had undergone abortions; 37.3% indicated that their childlessness was undesired; and for 32.2%, it was desired. In comparison to older adults with children, childless older adults reported significantly lower life satisfaction (p < .05), were not more socially, emotionally, or existentially lonely, and did not experience lower levels of meaning in life (p > .05).

Keywords

childlessness older adults reasons for childlessness well-being loneliness parents

Introduction

In recent decades, there has been a rising trend in global childlessness, in particular since the 1970s (Fiori et al., 2017; Kreyenfeld & Konietzka, 2017). The postponement of having children and changing societal norms and values, leading to greater social acceptance of childlessness, are the two main reasons for this increase (Fiori et al., 2017). Depending on the definition used, 9.2% to 13.6% of older Americans (55+) are childless (Xu et al., 2022). In Europe, pooled SHARE data from 1992 to 2017 show that the prevalence of childlessness among older adults (50+) varies from 5.6% in Czechia to 16.2% in Ireland (Antczak et al., 2023).

Some existing literature indicates that remaining childless may have negative consequences in later life, such as reduced psychological well-being (Gibney et al., 2017), poorer health, higher mortality rates (Dykstra, 2009), and increased loneliness (Vozikaki et al., 2018; Zoutewelle-Terovan & Liefbroer, 2018). Other studies reveal positive effects, such as maintaining contact with a broader range of family members (Wenger et al., 2007) or engaging in activities, such as working, playing sports, or traveling (Stegen et al., 2021). While childless older adults are often considered a very homogeneous group (Kohli & Albertini, 2009), the opposite is true. Childless older people form a heterogeneous group because they have a variety of reasons for being childless, their marital histories are different, and different life pathways lead to their childlessness (Dykstra, 2006; Wenger et al., 2007).

Research on childlessness often uses secondary datasets (e.g., Vozikaki et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2022; Zoutewelle-Terovan et al., 2018), and few studies have specifically designed questionnaires that focus on the characteristics of childless older adults themselves. The specific group of childless older adults is always seen as part of the total group of older adults. However, those who are childless require research attention due to their heterogeneity (Penning et al., 2022).

Therefore, the aims of this study are to investigate a particular group of childless older adults in relation to older adults with children, with attention to the specific characteristics of their childlessness, their personal and social characteristics, and their well-being.

Literature Review

The Rise of Childlessness

In the US, the percentage of women without children at the end of their reproductive years doubled from approximately 10% to 20% between the mid-1970s and the mid-2000s, with a decline to approximately 15% in 2010 to 2012 (Kreyenfeld & Konietzka, 2017). In 2018, nearly 1 in 6 (16.5%) adults over 55 were childless in the US, and these levels are expected to rise (Valerio et al., 2021). Permanent childlessness has also been on the rise in Europe in recent decades, particularly since the 1970s. Numbers from Western European countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, demonstrate that 10% to 14% of women born in the 1940s remained childless, due to the baby boom around the 1960s (Van Bavel, 2014). However, from the 1960s birth cohorts onward, the number of childless women increased to 16% to 19%. For later birth cohorts, the trend toward increasing childlessness in Western Europe has generally stabilized (Fiori et al., 2017; Kreyenfeld & Konietzka, 2017).

Characteristics of Childless Older Adults

Older adults without children form a heterogeneous population with a range of reasons for not having children, disparities in their marriage histories, and distinct life paths that end in childlessness (Wenger et al., 2007). The proportion of childless older women is higher than childless older men in different countries, such as Australia (16% vs. 11%), the United States (17% vs. 11%), Finland (19% vs. 16%), and the Netherlands (17% vs. 13%; Koropeckyj-Cox & Call, 2007). This can be explained by women’s biological restrictions because they only have a window of opportunity of two to three decades for becoming a parent, in contrast to men who, typically, do not experience permanent loss of fertility (Kim et al., 2019).

There are different reasons why older adults remain childless throughout their lives. Childlessness can be voluntary, namely the result of a conscious decision to remain childless (Conner & Stith, 2014; Dykstra & Hagestad, 2007). Older adults can also remain childless involuntarily because their desire to have children was never fulfilled (Dykstra & Hagestad, 2007). In some studies, a third category is also mentioned, namely postponers. This group consists (mostly) of women who postponed having children because of career, educational, or lifestyle reasons, which limited their chances of having children (Dykstra & Liefbroer, 1998; Peterson, 2015).

Beyond this widely used dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary childlessness lies a wide range of reasons for childlessness. People mention different reasons for remaining childless, such as preferring a career to family life (Rybińska & Morgan, 2019), having a critical view of society (Stegen et al., 2021), having a partner who would rather not have children (Riggs & Bartholomaeus, 2016), remaining childless due to life course circumstances (Stegen et al., 2021), or medical reasons (Dykstra & Hagestad, 2007). Childlessness involves more than just answering “no” to the question, “Do you have children?” The pathway to childlessness is at least as important, because reasons for childlessness can be varied and complex (Hagestad & Call, 2007).

The characteristics of childless older adults described above are quite general. However, little is known about matters such as having tried fertility treatments, having undergone an abortion, or the desirability of and the wide diversity of reasons for childlessness.

Personal Characteristics of Childless Older Adults

Childless older adults in China are more likely to live alone or in institutions compared to older adults who have children because they might lack the immediate family support that parents often receive from their children (Hsieh & Zhang, 2021). Regarding income and wealth, childless married couples in the US tend to have slightly more income and 5% more wealth, compared with older married adults who have children, and a longer period of education (Plotnick, 2009). This is because childless couples might have dual incomes without the financial burden of raising children, allowing them to save more and accumulate wealth over time. Where social networks are concerned, data from the German Aging Survey demonstrate that childless older adults in Germany have more friends and extended family members that they consider to be their chosen families. Their friends can fulfill their social and emotional needs, and they are more likely to consider friends as potential emotional supporters compared to older adults with children (Schnettler & Wöhler, 2016).

Well-Being Among Childless Older Adults

The small amount of quantitative evidence that exists about childlessness and well-being in later life shows mixed results. Some studies report lower life satisfaction among childless older individuals compared to older parents because they missed out on a normative life event (Albertini & Arpino, 2018). Also a lack of generativity can be a possible explanation in this respect: older adults might ask themselves the question how they pass on their goods, values and knowledge to the next generation when they do not have children (Rubinstein, 1996). Despite the fact that generativity is not necessarily inherent to childless older adults (e.g., migration background can also reinforce such feelings), it is a concept that they might be confronted with and which can lead to a reduced sense of well-being (de Medeiros et al., 2015).

Other studies have indicated that parental status does not have an impact on life satisfaction or well-being in general (Bauer et al., 2023; Gibney et al., 2017; Hansen et al., 2009). Explanations for this are that childless older adults went through a process of acceptance of their situation over the years and that other social contacts strengthened their social network (Hadley, 2021; Stahnke et al., 2020).

Some studies suggest that being childless might correlate with higher levels of loneliness. For example, Vozikaki et al. (2018) studied loneliness among older European adults in 11 countries and found that being childless was significantly associated with frequent feelings of loneliness in later life. Zoutewelle-Terovan and Liefbroer (2018) also showed that childlessness is strongly related to later-life loneliness, particularly in traditional, familistic countries where the family is still of great importance and where childlessness is viewed as a deviation from traditional family norms. Some qualitative research also identifies the importance of childlessness as a risk factor for loneliness in later life, resulting in feelings of fear of being helpless or dependent on professional care services (Kafková, 2023). However, other studies indicate that there is not always a direct relationship between childlessness and loneliness, and that it might depend on how childlessness and loneliness are defined (Penning et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2022; Zhang & Hayward, 2001).

Despite the fact that permanent childlessness is an important demographic phenomenon of which existing studies have explored various aspects in later life, the literature review above shows that important research gaps remain in understanding its implications for individual and social characteristics, as well as overall well-being among older adults. This study addresses the need to know more about the specific childlessness-related characteristics of older adults, their personal and social characteristics, and their well-being. The research questions we aim to answer are as follows:

What are the specific characteristics related to the childlessness of childless older adults?

What is the difference between childless older adults and older adults with children in terms of their personal and social characteristics?

How do childless older adults and older adults with children differ in terms of well-being?

Research Design

Respondents and Procedure

Existing (large-scale) datasets provide limited information on childlessness, often focusing on parental status rather than factors such as fertility treatments, abortion history, or reasons for childlessness. To ensure a comprehensive analysis, detailed knowledge on childlessness and address our research questions, we deliberately developed a custom survey.

This study followed a non-probability purposive sampling strategy, based on the characteristics of the population and the objective of the study. The inclusion criteria were that the respondents had to be 60 years or older, following the definitions of the World Health Organization (n.d.) and UNHCR (2024) and were community-dwelling (i.e., not living in a residential care facility). The primary interest group in this research consisted of childless older adults; an overrepresentation of childless older adults was intended. Therefore, to obtain a sufficient number of childless older adults, this group was more targeted in the purposive sampling. The recruitment of the purposive sample was done by our research team and by university students who were trained to recruit respondents and administer the survey face-to-face to older adults. Online leaflets were distributed via older adults’ organizations in Flanders and Brussels (Belgium) and via the social networks of the researchers involved. The leaflets included a link to an online survey on the Qualtrics platform. Data were collected between March 1 and September 30, 2023. In total, 731 older adults completed the survey, but after excluding cases with missing responses to the main measures (described in greater detail in the next section), we had a final working sample of 543 respondents, 255 of whom were childless (47.0%). Table 1 presents the demographics of the respondents whose data are used in the current paper. In total, 255 (47.0%) childless older adults participated, compared to 288 (53.0%) older adults with children. The age of the respondents ranged from 60 to 98 years (M = 70.89, SD = 8.79), and 62.4% were female. Among the respondents, 39.2% indicated having no partner. Respondents were quite highly educated; more than half (53.4%) had completed higher education. Also, over 80% of the respondents were able to make ends meet with their monthly income.

Table 1.

Personal and Social Characteristics of Childless Older People and Older People With Children (N = 543).

Variables	Min.	Max.	Total (N = 543)		Childless older people (N = 255, 47.0%)		Older people with children (N = 288, 53.0%)		X² (t)	p	Effect size
Variables	Min.	Max.	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	X² (t)	p	Effect size
Age	60	98		70.89 (8.79)		69.95 (8.77)		71.72 (8.73)	(2.35*)	.019	0.202
Gender									2.39	.122	0.070
Female			62.4		58.8		65.6
Male			37.6		41.2		34.4
Partner state									9.47**	.002	−0.136
No partner			39.2		46.3		33.0
Partner			60.8		53.7		67.0
Bad physical functioning (MOS)	0	100		21.03 (28.08)		20.98 (28.43)		21.06 (27.83)	(0.035)	.972	0.003
Educational level
No finished degree or lower education			8.5		7.1		9.7		1.34	.513	0.050
Secondary education			38.1		38.0		38.2
Higher education			53.4		54.9		52.1
Perception of making ends meet with the monthly income									0.004	.952	0.007
Difficult			19.5		19.2		19.8
Easy			80.5		80.8		80.2

Notes. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; MOS = Medical Outcomes Study.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Because we had a 74.3% response rate, we performed a missing data analysis: the respondents included in the analysis, compared to those who were not included, were slightly younger (70.89 vs. 72.56), less likely to be female (62.4% vs. 68.9%), more often had a partner (60.8% vs. 47.4%), were more highly educated (53.4% vs. 37.6% had completed higher education), and had slightly better household incomes (80.5% vs. 77.7%).

Prior to data collection, this study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Human Sciences (ECHW) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) (Ethics file number: 398.02). Our questionnaire was accompanied by an informed consent form, an information letter providing a description of the study background and aims, and clear instructions on how to complete the survey. We provided the contact details of the research team. We also provided contact details for Tele-Onthaal and the Centrum voor Algemeen Welzijnswerk (two organizations providing help to people experiencing social or mental problems of all kinds) in case completing the questionnaire would cause negative feelings or the respondents would want to reflect on the interview later on. The respondents were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Measurement

The survey consisted of three parts: specific questions on childlessness or parenthood (i.e., respondents could choose themselves to fill in the childlessness or the parenthood part), sociodemographic characteristics, and questions on well-being.

Childlessness

One of our main variables of interest was childlessness (0 = parent, 1 = childless). We based our variable on a so-called subjective definition of childlessness, meaning that respondents were considered childless once they filled in the part of the questionnaire specifically about childlessness. Similarly, the respondents who completed the part of the questionnaire about parenthood were considered to be older adults with children. In so doing, we followed the perceptions of the respondents and whether they saw themselves as a parent or as childless. We included other questions related to childlessness in the questionnaire, such as whether the respondents had sought professional help regarding fertility and whether they had ever had an abortion. Specifically, in the childlessness part of the questionnaire, we asked whether the respondents perceived their childlessness as voluntary or involuntary. However, because this dichotomy might be limited (Allen & Wiles, 2013), we also asked where the respondents would place themselves in the continuum of McAllister and Clarke (2000). This continuum consists of the following different categorizations: (1) the “early articulators” (those who were certain from an early age that they did not want children), (2) those who had some doubts at a young age but eventually became determined not to have children, (3) those who accept childlessness because of certain circumstances, (4) those for whom having children never really mattered and who ended up not having any of their own, (5) those for whom remaining childless or not really mattered but who ended up feeling their childlessness as if it was a decision made for them, and (6) those who unintentionally never saw their desire for children fulfilled. A question on who might have impacted the fact that someone remained childless was also included. An example would be that a partner could prevent someone from having children (Riggs & Bartholomaeus, 2016). The respondents were also given a list of 21 possible reasons for their childlessness. The reasons were arranged in the following four groups (Stegen et al., 2021): (1) personal choice, which includes all factors related to an individual’s motivations, goals, and desires; (2) life events, which show that an individual experienced specific life events that resulted in their childlessness; (3) health problems for themselves or their partner; and (4) the partner, which includes all partner-related factors related to someone’s partner who did not want or could not have children. Respondents could indicate several reasons for not having children. Once they indicated one or more reasons within one of the categories, their responses were registered as being part of the respective category. The researchers used a formative approach to scale construction (Bucic & Gudergan, 2004; Jarvis et al., 2003). Each of the several items, or “reasons,” are reflected in a “reason category” and are not comparable or interchangeable with other items (Bucic & Gudergan, 2004).

Sociodemographic and Health Variables, and Social Contacts

Based on previous literature on childlessness in later life which consistently highlights these variables as relevant for understanding this phenomenon (Dykstra & Wagner, 2007; Keizer et al., 2008; Penning et al., 2024), and considering the need to limit survey length to mitigate “survey fatigue” (Jeong et al., 2023), a thoughtful selection of sociodemographic variables was made to describe the group of childless older people: gender (0 = female), age (measured in years), having a partner (0 = no partner, 1 = partner), educational level (1 = no education or primary education, 2 = secondary education, 3 = higher education), and the perception of making ends meet with their monthly income (0 = difficult, 1 = easy). Poor physical functioning was measured using a part of the MOS Short Form General Health Survey (SF-20), using six items to obtain a score on the dimension of physical functioning (Cronbach’s α = .817; e.g., the extent of being able to bend, lift, bend over, or walk around the block). The scale ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing worse physical functioning.

We also included questions on the respondents’ social networks because there might be differences in the contacts of childless and non-childless older adults (Schnettler & Wöhler, 2016; Wenger et al., 2007). We first asked about the frequency of contact with a partner, children, children-in-law, grandchildren, siblings, parents, other family members, friends, acquaintances, and people living in the neighborhood (all, if applicable), followed by the level of satisfaction with these contacts.

Well-Being

For well-being, we used the Short Well-being Instrument for Older Adults (SWIO; Duppen et al., 2019), a short instrument consisting of nine items used to evaluate the level of well-being. Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of well-being (total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .818). The SWIO contains three subdomains: life satisfaction (total score range, 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .781), mastery (total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .703), and meaning in life (total score range, 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .804).

We also included several loneliness variables. Loneliness was considered as a multidimensional construct with specific attention to the different types of loneliness. Therefore, we used a set of widely used measurement instruments for loneliness. First, the 11-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, with a 5-point Likert scale, was used to obtain a total loneliness score (total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .899) and separate scores for social and emotional loneliness (De Jong Gierveld & van Tilburg, 2021). Out of the 11 items on the scale, six items, such as “I often feel rejected,” serve as indicators of emotional loneliness (total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .869), while the remaining five items capture aspects of social loneliness (e.g., “I can call on my friends whenever I need them.”; total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .859). For existential loneliness, we used the Existential Loneliness Questionnaire (Mayers et al., 2002), with a 5-point Likert scale. Because this scale was validated among HIV-infected women (van Tilburg, 2020), we only used 16 out of the 22 items from the scale that did not address specific HIV-related matters (total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .869). The answers to one of the items, for example, “I feel lonely,” were simultaneously used as a one-item question to be considered separately. Furthermore, we used the three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (Hughes et al., 2004). In this measurement instrument, respondents were asked how often they (1) felt they lacked companionship, (2) felt left out, or (3) felt isolated from others during the past week. Response options were “hardly ever,” “some of the time,” and “often.” Each item was scored on a scale of 1 to 3, with higher scores indicating higher levels of loneliness (total score range: 0–100; Cronbach’s α = .743). The higher the scores, the higher the level of loneliness.

Some authors (Switsers et al., 2022) found that loneliness can be viewed as positive. Therefore, in line with the BBC Loneliness Experiment (Victor et al., 2022), the topic of positive loneliness was included in the survey by asking respondents to answer the following question: “Is the experience of loneliness positive?” Possible answers were “Yes,” “Sometimes,” or “No.”

We also used a self-anchoring rating scale question that we based on the Anamnestic Comparative Self Assessment method (Theuns & Verlet, 2022), asking respondents to think about the least lonely and the most lonely periods in their life experience to see where they would place themselves right now in terms of loneliness.

Analytic Strategy

For research question 1, we investigated descriptive statistics regarding childless-related characteristics among the childless subgroup (N = 255). For research questions 2 and 3, we investigated the descriptive statistics of the total included sample (N = 543), including the means and standard deviations for all study variables. We also conducted chi-squared tests (using a continuity correction for 2 × 2 contingency tables) and independent samples t-tests to assess significant differences between the childless and non-childless respondents in our study. To calculate effect sizes, we calculated Phi (for 2 × 2 contingency tables) and Cramer’s V for chi-squared tests and Cohen’s d for the independent samples t-tests. For all analyses, we used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM Statistics version 29; IBM, 2022).

Results

Specific Characteristics of Childless Older Adults (N = 255)

We looked at the specific characteristics of childless older adults, starting with the continuum of childlessness as defined by McAllister and Clarke (2000), in which older adults could position themselves (see Table 2). The biggest group of respondents (28.6%) indicated that they had wanted one or more children, but that this did not happen due to circumstances in their lives, and that they accepted this. This group was followed by the group who had always wanted children but never had any (23.5%) and then by the group who reported that having children just never happened for them (20.4%).

Table 2.

Positioning in the Continuum of McAllister and Clarke (2000) (N = 255).

Which statement about your childlessness is most applicable to you?	%
I knew from young age that I did not want children (“early articulator”).	14.1
At a younger age, I doubted for a while, but I was finally determined that I would never have children	8.2
I did once want one or more children, but due to certain circumstances in my life, I never got any children and accepted this.	28.6
I never made a conscious decision about whether or not to have children: it didn’t really matter to me whether I would have children, and it just never happened to me in the end.	20.4
I never made a conscious decision about whether or not to have children: for a very long time it didn’t matter to me, but at some point, I felt that my childlessness was a choice made in my place, and that I had no control over it myself.	5.1
I have always had a desire for children, but unfortunately, I never had any.	23.5

Table 3 shows the data on the reasons for childlessness. The most frequently mentioned reason was “personal choice” (35.3%). The second category, “life events,” represented 24.3% of the respondents, meaning that 24.3% indicated having gone through life events that caused their childlessness. The next category was “health problems,” in which respondents related their childlessness to the health problems of their partner or themselves (23.1%). The smallest category, “partner” (21.2%), consisted of reasons such as the partner did not want children or became too old to have children.

Table 3.

Reasons for Childlessness (N = 255).

Reason category and corresponding reasons	N	Percent
Reason category 1: Personal choice	90	35.3
I have always put my own development first	42	16.7
The adjustments children would require in my life, which I did not want to face	36	14.3
My critical view of society (on ecology, climate, overpopulation, politics, and events such as wars, famines, or pandemics)	34	13.5
Having children does not really fit into my ideal image of society	30	11.9
My aspiration to pursue my career fully instead of starting a family	24	9.6
I did not want my children to become like myself (e.g., genetic diseases, personal traits, . . .)	18	7.1
Reason category 2: Life events	62	24.3
Events throughout my life (later than childhood)	39	15.5
Events in my childhood	32	12.9
I had to provide help or care to someone close to me who needed intensive care due to physical or mental health problems, illness or old age (e.g., a sick family member, informal care, . . .	13	5.2
My own diminished psychological wellbeing	7	2.8
Reason category 3: Health problems	59	23.1
In case of biological children: Health problems in myself	37	14.9
In case of biological children: Health problems in my partner	36	14.7
Reason category 4: Partner	54	21.2
My partner who did not want children him-/herself, so I followed him/her in that decision	26	10.5
My partner who already had children from a previous relationship and did not want other children	23	9.3
My partner’s age: My partner became too old to have children	22	8.9
My partner who was absent (e.g., due to work, war, . . .)	11	4.4

Childlessness is not a single event related to a particular time. Therefore, we wished to point to the possible evolution of the reasons for childlessness throughout the life course (Figure 1). More than half of the respondents (55.3%) did not think their reasons for childlessness evolved over time. For about 1 in 4 (24.5%), the reasons changed over time.

Figure 1.

Evolution reasons for childlessness: My reasons for childlessness evolved throughout time (N=255).

Figure 2 shows the people who influenced the childlessness of others. Most of the childless respondents (64.7%) attributed their childlessness to themselves and/or their (ex)-partner (51.3%). However, parents were said to have influenced childlessness in 1 out of 10 (9.6%) childless older adults, and siblings were given as having had a similar influence by 1 out of 20 (4.4%).

Figure 2.

Extent to which childlessness was impacted by people (N=255).

We asked all respondents whether they used professional medical help to try to become pregnant (Figure 3) and if they had ever had an abortion (Figure 4). Among the childless, 14.9% received professional help to try to become pregnant, and 97.4% of them reported that the help did not succeed. Among older adults with children, 7.3% received professional help. More than 1 out of 20 older adults with children (5.2%) in our sample had children as a result of successful professional help. Among the respondents, 5.9% had undergone abortions; 5.5% of the older adults without children, and 6.3% of the older adults with children.

Figure 3.

Use of professional help for getting pregnant (%).

Figure 4.

Ever performed abortion (%).

Personal and Social Characteristics of Older People With and Without Children

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of our respondents, along with the results of the chi-squared tests and independent sample t-tests describing the difference between older people with and without children. Hardly any bivariate differences were noticed between the two groups. The childless group was slightly younger (M = 69.95, SD = 8.77) than the older adults with children group (M = 71.72, SD = 8.73; t = 2.35, p < .05). There were more respondents without a partner (46.3%) in the childless group compared to the older adults with children group (33.0%; X² = 9.47, p < .01).

Figure 5 shows the percentages of the extent to which an individual’s parental status was desired, which referred to the extent to which the childless older adults did or did not make the voluntary (and thus desired) choice not to have children (Verweij & Keizer, 2023), and vice versa for the parents. Among our childless older adult population (N = 255), 37.3% indicated that their childlessness was (very) undesired (meaning they had an unfulfilled child wish), and 32.2% stated that it was (very) desired (which means their childlessness was a deliberate choice). Among the older adults with children, 95.2% indicated that their parenthood was desired (they indeed wanted children of their own), compared to 2.4%, for whom this was not the case (these older adults did not want children, but had children after all).

Figure 5.

Desirability parental status (%).

Table 4 shows the results for frequency of and satisfaction with social contacts. It shows that childless older adults indicated having at least weekly contact with other family members (i.e., not siblings or parents) than the group of older adults with children (26.1% compared to 12.3%, X² = 15.86, p < .01), and with friends or acquaintances (68.9% compared to 60.3%, X² = 3.99, p < .05). Satisfaction with all types of social contact did not differ between the two groups: childless older adults and older adults with children were equally satisfied with their social contacts.

Table 4.

Frequency of and Satisfaction With Social Contacts (N = 543).

Variables	Total (N = 543) %	Older people without children (N = 255, 47.0%) %	Older people with children (N = 288, 53.0%) %	X ²	p	Effect size
Frequency social contact—at least weekly
Sibling(s)	39.6	42.7	36.8	1.68	.195	0.060
Parent(s)	16.2	18.4	14.3	1.34	.248	0.055
Other family member(s)	18.8	26.1	12.3	15.86**	<.001	0.176
Friends/acquaintances	64.3	68.9	60.3	3.99*	.046	0.090
Neighbors/people from the neighborhood	64.6	65.2	64.1	0.03	.859	0.012
Satisfaction social contact—(rather) satisfied
Sibling(s)	61.3	59.7	62.7	0.40	.526	−0.031
Parent(s)	17.2	18.0	16.5	0.12	.729	0.020
Other family member(s)	56.2	57.9	54.7	0.43	.513	0.032
Friends/acquaintances	86.9	89.0	85.0	1.56	.212	0.059
Neighbors/people from the neighborhood	71.8	68.6	74.6	2.07	.151	−0.066

p < .05. **p < .01.

Comparison of the Well-Being and Loneliness of Childless Older Adults and Parents

Table 5 shows the well-being and loneliness indicators. For all measurement instruments except one, there was no significant difference between older adults with and without children. Life satisfaction was the only indicator that was significantly lower among the group of childless older adults (M = 71.24, SD = 19.26) compared to older adults with children (M = 74.65, SD = 17.16; t = 2.18, p < .05).

Table 5.

Loneliness and Well-Being of Childless People and Parents (N = 543).

Variables	Min.	Max.	Total (N = 543)		Older people without children (N = 255, 47.0%)		Older people with children (N = 288, 53.0%)		X² (t)	p	Effect size
Variables	Min.	Max.	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	X² (t)	p	Effect size
Well-being SWIO scale—total	0	100		71.71 (15.28)		70.71 (16.25)		72.60 (14.34)	(1.44)	.150	0.124
Life satisfaction	0	100		73.05 (18.24)		71.24 (19.26)		74.65 (17.16)	(2.18*)	.030	0.188
Mastery	0	100		68.19 (21.99)		67.68 (22.33)		68.63 (21.71)	(0.51)	.614	0.043
Meaning in life	0	100		73.90 (18.44)		73.20 (19.36)		74.51 (17.60)	(0.82)	.411	0.071
Total loneliness-11-item DJG⁺	0	100		28.56 (29.59)		28.81 (30.40)		28.35 (28.92)	(−0.18)	.857	−0.016
Social loneliness	0	100		26.96 (33.31)		27.61 (34.09)		26.39 (32.64)	(−0.43)	.671	−0.037
Emotional loneliness	0	100		29.90 (33.19)		29.80 (33.05)		29.98 (33.37)	(0.06)	.952	0.005
Existential loneliness-ELQ⁺	0	100		27.50 (22.58)		29.12 (24.07)		26.06 (21.10)	(−1.57)	.118	−0.136
UCLA loneliness scale	0	100		17.10 (21.80)		18.63 (22.10)		15.74 (21.49)	(−1.54)	.124	−0.133
1-item question: “I feel lonely”									0.52	.471	0.035
(Totally) agree, neither agree nor disagree			25.0		26.7		23.6
(Totally) disagree			75.0		73.3		76.4
Positive loneliness									0.37	.542	0.030
Yes/sometimes			60.4		62.0		59.0
No			39.6		38.0		41.0
Loneliness: Self-anchoring rating scale									2.65	.266	0.070
−5 → −1 (closer to the loneliest period of my life)			14.0		12.5		15.3
0 (neutral)			10.9		12.9		9.0
1 → 5 (closer to the least lonely period of my life)			75.1		74.5		75.7

Notes. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; DJG = 11-item De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale; ELQ = Existential Loneliness Questionnaire; UCLA = 3-item University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale; SWIO = Short Well-being Instrument for Older adults.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

In this unique study on childless older adults, we examined the characteristics related to childlessness of childless older adults in Flanders and Brussels (Belgium), and compared their personal and social characteristics and well-being parameters to those of older adults with children. The strength of the study lies in its thorough description of a heterogeneous group of childless older adults.

First, childlessness is not a straightforward and unequivocal concept. It extends beyond the dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary childlessness (Dykstra, 2009). The reasons for childlessness can evolve throughout the life course, and decisions in this respect can evolve. The continuum of McAllister and Clarke’s provided a valuable way to nuance the “voluntariness” of childlessness, connecting life course “wanting,” with decision making, with later life acceptance. A minority of the respondents (14.1%) knew from a young age that they did not want children; half of the respondents might have wanted children at a certain point, but this did not happen and they accepted this, and almost one-third never made a conscious decision.

Furthermore, the term “childlessness” encompasses a range of reasons for which someone remains childless. We identified the following four categories of reasons for childlessness: personal choice (35.3%), life events (24.3%), health problems (23.1%), and partner-related reasons (21.2%). In future research, it will be important to take these reasons for childlessness into account because different reasons might have different effects in terms of mental health, social support, and established networks (McQuillan et al., 2012).

Lastly, childlessness, as such, does not need to be a negative fact. Today, we refer to people without children as childless, with the name implicating a loss or lack. In terms of their social networks, there was only one significant difference between the childless and the non-childless in terms of at least weekly contact with other family members and with friends or acquaintances. The childless older adults met these two groups significantly more frequently (26.1% and 68.9%, respectively), compared to older adults with children (12.3% and 60.3%). The reasons for this might be that maintaining contact with family members and friends is part of a substitution mechanism for childless older adults as compensation for not having children (Chen & Lou, 2023; Schnettler & Wöhler, 2016). This means that childlessness, as such, does not need to be negative. In terms of well-being, we did not identify many big differences, apart from lower life satisfaction among childless older adults. Lower life satisfaction among older adults without children may be explained through the lens of generativity: the absence of direct descendants may limit opportunities for transmitting knowledge, values, and care to the next generation, potentially reducing a sense of purpose and fulfillment in later life (de Medeiros et al., 2015; Rubinstein, 1996; Rubinstein et al., 2015). It is important to note that all measurement instruments used in this study assess momentary well-being, capturing individuals’ well-being at the specific time of measurement (Compernolle et al., 2021). The absence of a direct relationship between childlessness and well-being suggests that multiple factors are associated with well-being, extending beyond parental status alone.

Currently, there are alternative terms, such as “without children” or “childfree,” to indicate that childlessness can be voluntarily (Gietel-Basten & Yeung, 2023). Therefore, the assumption that childlessness in later life must be involuntary is not true (Stegen et al., 2021).

The strengths of this study include its comprehensive examination of childlessness, with attention to heterogeneity and depth. However, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the use of self-reported measures may introduce response bias and social desirability effects, potentially influencing the validity of the findings (Hoeppner et al., 2011). Feelings like loneliness may be estimated as being lower than they actually are because these feelings can be seen as not desirable in certain cultures (Fisher & Katz, 2000). Our sample was a purposive sample in which childless older adults were overrepresented. This means that some older people may have preferred not to participate and, therefore, did not register for participation (Stevenson et al., 2018, p. 2), whereby this sample does not represent the wider older adult population in Flanders and Brussels (Belgium). Selection bias happened in three ways: (1) sampling bias occurred because not all participants had the same chance to be part of the sample (i.e., had to come in contact with one of the calls or had to be part of the researcher’s network): (2) As the studies relied on volunteer participation volunteer bias occurred (i.e., some older people preferred not to participate and, therefore, did not register for participation; Arias et al., 2023); (3) also non-response bias occurred, as some groups were less represented in the sample than they are in the population. As a result of these biases, the diversity of the researched population may not be reflected in the people who actually participated (Arias et al., 2023).

It is also important to note that random sampling statistical tests are not ideal for a purposive sample. They introduce inherent bias, which may affect the generalizability of our findings (Hernán et al., 2004). Many statistical tests, such as t-tests, assume that the sample was randomly selected from the population (Field, 2012), which was not the case in this study. In addition, the survey was completed by a group of people who were likely to be highly educated and wealthy, thereby introducing selection bias (Hernán et al., 2004). Regarding the attrition rate, the reduction in sample size is primarily due to the inclusion criterion requiring participants to have fully answered some key survey questions such as the demographic variables we took into account as well as the well-being variables. This approach was necessary to ensure the completeness and reliability of the data used in the analyses. Nevertheless, our study provides valuable insights into the specific experiences and perspectives of the targeted population, offering a deeper understanding of the nuanced factors impacting childlessness.

Conclusion

This study focused on a frequently overlooked demographical group: older adults without children. Our findings show that being childless does not necessarily mean being at a disadvantage in later life despite existing biases and prejudices. Neither policy nor practice should define older adults according to one characteristic, such as having (or not having) children. Moreover, in terms of policy and practice, increasing the visibility of childless older adults is crucial at first. Reducing stigma requires shifting societal perceptions through inclusive policies, community engagement, and public awareness (Singh et al., 2023). Promoting diverse narratives and positive media portrayals can help challenge stereotypes and normalize childlessness in later life (Archetti, 2019). Greater public understanding of aging without children can further foster inclusivity and empathy (De Pottel, 2024; Singh et al., 2023). Second, policies must better reflect diverse family structures. The nuclear family model no longer captures the realities of modern aging, which includes single, divorced, and same-sex older adults (Sear, 2021). Legal frameworks should ensure equal rights and support for those outside traditional family structures (Gouni et al., 2022), fostering social inclusion, reducing loneliness, and improving resource access.

Future research could delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between childlessness and well-being by exploring other potential mediating and moderating factors, such as gender or partner status. Deeper investigations of the social relations of older adults and their support networks could lead to more specific insights into the mechanisms that play a role in their well-being, given that childlessness goes beyond the question of whether one has children or not. Qualitative studies could also provide rich insights into the lived experiences of childless older adults, shedding light on the subjective meaning of loneliness and the factors that contribute to its decrease or increase. By highlighting their experiences, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of aging and care needs beyond traditional family structures, and provides empirical insights that can inform both personal considerations and broader societal discussions about family, care, and aging.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hannelore Stegen

Sofie Van Regenmortel

Liesbeth De Donder

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Human Sciences (ECHW) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB;Ethics file: 398.02).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Hannelore Stegen,Liesbeth De Donder,Eva Dierckx;Methodology: Hannelore Stegen,Sofie Van Regenmortel,Liesbeth De Donder,Eva Dierckx;Formal analysis and investigation: Hannelore Stegen,Sofie Van Regenmortel,Liesbeth De Donder,Eva Dierckx;Writing—original draft preparation: Hannelore Stegen,Sofie Van Regenmortel,Liesbeth De Donder,Eva Dierckx;Writing—review and editing: Hannelore Stegen,Sofie Van Regenmortel,Liesbeth De Donder,Eva Dierckx.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO;grant number: 11J7821N/11J7823N).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Later,the data will also be made available in a public repository from the affiliated university (Vrije Universiteit Brussel [VUB]).

References

Albertini

Arpino

(2018). Childlessness, parenthood and subjective wellbeing: The relevance of conceptualizing parenthood and childlessness as a continuum [Preprint]. Le SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/xtfq6

Allen

R. S.

Wiles

J. L.

(2013). How older people position their late-life childlessness: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01019.x

Antczak

Quashie

N. T.

Mair

C. A.

Arpino

(2023). Less is (often) more: Number of children and health among older adults in 24 countries. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 78(11), 1892–1902. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbad123

Archetti

(2019). No life without family: Film representations of involuntary childlessness, silence and exclusion. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 15(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.15.2.175_1

Arias

F. D.

Navarro

Elfanagely

(2023). Biases in research studies. In Eltorai

A. E. M.

Bakal

J. A.

Newell

P. C.

Osband

A. J.

(Eds.), Translational surgery (pp. 191–194). Elsevier.

Bauer

Brandt

Kneip

(2023). The role of parenthood for life satisfaction of older women and men in Europe. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(1), 275–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00600-8

Bucic

Gudergan

S. P.

(2004). Formative versus reflective measurement implications for explaining innovation in marketing partnerships. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/3067/1/2004000806.pdf

Chen

Lou

V. W. Q.

(2023). Co-reasoning with the significant other(s): How childless older adults in rural China make residential decisions. Research on Aging, 45(7–8), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275221134783

Compernolle

E. L.

Finch

L. E.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cagney

K. A.

(2021). Momentary loneliness among older adults: Contextual differences and their moderation by gender and race/ethnicity. Social Science & Medicine, 285, Article 114307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114307

10.

Conner

Stith

(2014). Childless couples. In Coleman

Ganong

L. H.

(Eds.), The social history of the American family: An encyclopedia (pp. 204–208). Sage.

11.

De Jong Gierveld

van Tilburg

(2021). Manual of the loneliness scale 1999—Update from 7–5-2021 (Report). Department of Social Research Methodology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

12.

de Medeiros

Rubinstein

Ermoshkina

(2015). The role of relevancy and social suffering in “generativity” among older post-soviet women immigrants. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt126

13.

De Pottel

(2024). Creative solutions to embedded cultural norms: Childlessness shame transformed by relational analysis. Psychoanalysis, Self and Context, 19(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/24720038.2024.2301961

14.

Duppen

Rossi

Dierckx

Hoeyberghs

De Donder

, & D-SCOPE Consortium. (2019). Focusing on positive outcomes in frailty research: Development of a short well-being instrument for older adults (SWIO). International Psychogeriatrics, 31(6), 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610219000401

15.

Dykstra

P. A.

(2006). Off the beaten track: Childlessness and social integration in late life. Research on Aging, 28(6), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027506291745

16.

Dykstra

P. A.

(2009). Childless old age. In Uhlenberg

(Ed.), International handbook of population aging (pp. 671–690). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8356-3_30

17.

Dykstra

P. A.

Hagestad

G. O.

(2007). Roads less taken: Developing a nuanced view of older adults without children. Journal of Family Issues, 28(10), 1275–1310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07303822

18.

Dykstra

P. A.

Liefbroer

A. C.

(1998). Kinderloos en toch gelukkig? Over de gevolgen van kinderloosheid voor de ouderdom. Mens & Maatschappij, 73(2), 108–129.

19.

Dykstra

P. A.

Wagner

(2007). Pathways to childlessness and late-life outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28(11), 1487–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07303879

20.

Field

(2012). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ’n’ roll (3rd ed., reprint). Sage.

21.

Fiori

Rinesi

Graham

(2017). Choosing to remain childless? A comparative study of fertility intentions among women and men in Italy and Britain. European Journal of Population, 33(3), 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9404-2

22.

Fisher

R. J.

Katz

J. E.

(2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology and Marketing, 17(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<105::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-9

23.

Gibney

Delaney

Codd

Fahey

(2017). Lifetime childlessness, depressive mood and quality of life among older Europeans. Social Indicators Research, 130(1), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1177-1

24.

Gietel-Basten

Yeung

A. S. W.

(2023). Self-definition and evaluation of the term “Childfree” among Hong Kong women. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231198994

25.

Gouni

Jarašiūnaitė-Fedosejeva

Kömürcü Akik

Holopainen

Calleja-Agius

(2022). Childlessness: Concept analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), Article 1464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031464

26.

Hadley

R. A.

(2021). ‘No longer invincible’: The impact of involuntary childlessness on older men. Physical Therapy Reviews, 26(5), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.1884172

27.

Hagestad

G. O.

Call

V. R. A.

(2007). Pathways to childlessness: A life course perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 28(10), 1338–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07303836

28.

Hansen

Slagsvold

Moum

(2009). Childlessness and psychological well-being in midlife and old age: An examination of parental status effects across a range of outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 94(2), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9426-1

29.

Hernán

M. A.

Hernández-Díaz

Robins

J. M.

(2004). A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology, 15(5), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43

30.

Hoeppner

B. B.

Kelly

J. F.

Urbanoski

K. A.

Slaymaker

(2011). Comparative utility of a single-item versus multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41(3), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.04.005

31.

Hsieh

Zhang

(2021). Childlessness and social support in old age in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 36(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-021-09427-x

32.

Hughes

M. E.

Waite

L. J.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

33.

IBM. (2022, November 17). IBM SPSS Statistics 29 [Software, CT738, CT763, CT761, CT762]. https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-29

34.

Jarvis

C. B.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/376806

35.

Jeong

Aggarwal

Robinson

Kumar

Spearot

Park

D. S.

(2023). Exhaustive or exhausting? Evidence on respondent fatigue in long surveys. Journal of Development Economics, 161, Article 102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102992

36.

Kafková

M. P.

(2023). Sources of loneliness for older adults in the Czech Republic and strategies for coping with loneliness. Social Inclusion, 11(1), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i1.6185

37.

Keizer

Dykstra

P. A.

Jansen

M. D.

(2008). Pathways into childlessness: Evidence of gendered life course dynamics. Journal of Biosocial Science, 40(6), 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932007002660

38.

Kim

P. S.

McQueen

J. S.

Hawkes

(2019). Why does women’s fertility end in mid-life? Grandmothering and age at last birth. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 461, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.10.035

39.

Kohli

Albertini

(2009). Childlessness and intergenerational transfers: What is at stake? Ageing and Society, 29(8), 1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X09990341

40.

Koropeckyj-Cox

Call

V. R. A.

(2007). Characteristics of older childless persons and parents: Cross-national comparisons. Journal of Family Issues, 28(10), 1362–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07303837

41.

Kreyenfeld

Konietzka

(Eds.). (2017). Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, causes, and consequences. Springer.

42.

Mayers

A. M.

Khoo

S.-T.

Svartberg

(2002). The Existential Loneliness Questionnaire: Background, development, and preliminary findings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(9), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10038

43.

McAllister

Clarke

(2000). Voluntary childlessness: Trends and implications. In Bentley

G. R.

Mascie-Taylor

C. G. N.

(Eds.), Infertility in the modern world (1st ed., pp. 189–237). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613036.006

44.

McQuillan

Greil

A. L.

Shreffler

K. M.

Wonch-Hill

P. A.

Gentzler

K. C.

Hathcoat

J. D.

(2012). Does the reason matter? Variations in childlessness concerns among U. S. Women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 1166–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01015.x

45.

Penning

M. J.

Hou

(2024). Childlessness and social and emotional loneliness in middle and later life. Ageing and Society, 44(7), 1551–1578. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X22000824

46.

Peterson

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

47.

Plotnick

R. D.

(2009). Childlessness and the economic well-being of older Americans. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(6), 767–776. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp023

48.

Riggs

D. W.

Bartholomaeus

(2016). The desire for a child among a sample of heterosexual Australian couples. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34(5), 442–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1222070

49.

Rubinstein

R. L.

(1996). Childlessness, legacy, and generativity. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 20(3), 58–60.

50.

Rubinstein

R. L.

Girling

L. M.

de Medeiros

Brazda

Hannum

(2015). Extending the framework of generativity theory through research: A qualitative study. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu009

51.

Rybińska

Morgan

S. P.

(2019). Childless expectations and childlessness over the life course. Social Forces: A Scientific Medium of Social Study and Interpretation, 97(4), 1571–1602. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy098

52.

Schnettler

Wöhler

(2016). No children in later life, but more and better friends? Substitution mechanisms in the personal and support networks of parents and the childless in Germany. Ageing and Society, 36(7), 1339–1363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X15000197

53.

Sear

(2021). The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1827). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0020

54.

Singh

Rajpal

Majumdar

Mandal

Sahu

(2023). Awareness, knowledge, and psycho-emotional aspect of infertility among women seeking fertility assistance at a tertiary care hospital in Chhattisgarh, a cross-sectional study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_581_22

55.

Stahnke

Blackstone

Howard

(2020). Lived experiences and life satisfaction of ChildFree women in late life. The Family Journal, 28(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720911611

56.

Stegen

Switsers

De Donder

(2021). Life stories of voluntarily childless older people: A retrospective view on their reasons and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 42(7), 1536–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20949906

57.

Stevenson

Keogh

Smith

West

(2018). Reaching the right people: Reflexive practice to support effective recruitment, participation, and engagement in research with communities affected by stigma. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918819376

58.

Switsers

Qualter

Pan

Barreto

De Donder

Victor

Dury

Hammond

Dierckx

(2023). Exploring the demographic and situational characteristics of older British people experiencing loneliness as positive within the BBC loneliness experiment. Aging and Mental Health, 27(7), 1396–1402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2022.2088692

59.

Theuns

Verlet

(2022). Bernheim’s anamnestic comparative self-assessment (ACSA). In Maggino

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1–6). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_84-2

60.

UNHCR. (2024). Older persons. https://emergency.unhcr.org/protection/persons-risk/older-persons

61.

Valerio

Knop

Kreider

R. M.

(2021). Childless older Americans: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce.

62.

Van Bavel

(2014). The mid-twentieth century baby Boom and the changing educational gradient in Belgian cohort fertility. Demographic Research, 30, 925–962. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.33

63.

van Tilburg

T. G.

(2020). Social, emotional, and existential loneliness: A test of the multidimensional concept. The Gerontologist, Article gnaa082. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa082

64.

Verweij

R. M.

Keizer

(2023). Remaining childless: Examining the different patterns of expectations that lead to a childless life for men. SN Social Sciences, 3(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00642-6

65.

Victor

C. R.

Rippon

Barreto

Hammond

Qualter

(2022). Older adults’ experiences of loneliness over the lifecourse: An exploratory study using the BBC loneliness experiment. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 102, Article 104740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2022.104740

66.

Vozikaki

Papadaki

Linardakis

Philalithis

(2018). Loneliness among older European adults: Results from the survey of health, aging and retirement in Europe. Journal of Public Health, 26(6), 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-018-0916-6

67.

Wenger

G. C.

Dykstra

P. A.

Melkas

Knipscheer

K. C. P. M.

(2007). Social embeddedness and late-life parenthood: Community activity, close ties, and support networks. Journal of Family Issues, 28(11), 1419–1456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07303895

68.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Ageing. Retrieved January 31, 2025, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/ageing

69.

Liang

Raymo

J. M.

Kim

Ofstedal

M. B.

(2022). Defining childlessness among middle-aged and older Americans: A research note. Demography, 59(3), 813–826. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9987649

70.

Zhang

Hayward

M. D.

(2001). Childlessness and the psychological well-being of older persons. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(5), S311–S320. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.5.S311

71.

Zoutewelle-Terovan

Liefbroer

A. C.

(2018). Swimming against the stream: Non-normative family transitions and loneliness in later life across 12 nations. The Gerontologist, 58(6), 1096–1108. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx184

Childlessness in Later Life: What’s in a Name? Results From a Cross-Sectional Study Among Childless Older Adults

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

The Rise of Childlessness

Characteristics of Childless Older Adults

Personal Characteristics of Childless Older Adults

Well-Being Among Childless Older Adults

Research Design

Respondents and Procedure

Measurement

Childlessness

Sociodemographic and Health Variables, and Social Contacts

Well-Being

Analytic Strategy

Results

Specific Characteristics of Childless Older Adults (N = 255)

Personal and Social Characteristics of Older People With and Without Children

Comparison of the Well-Being and Loneliness of Childless Older Adults and Parents

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References