ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The Invisible threshold of childbearing: an investigation of social trust and fertility intentions.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Against the backdrop of persistently low fertility in China, understanding the psychosocial factors associated with fertility intentions has become increasingly important for both demographic research and policy development. Methods: Drawing on nationally representative data from the 2023 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), this study examines the associations between multidimensional social trust and fertility intentions and further explores the mediating role of subjective well-being. Building on trust theory, social trust is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising institutional trust, interpersonal trust, and expert-system trust, with interpersonal trust further distinguished into particularized trust and generalized trust. Ordered logistic regression and structural equation modeling are employed to examine these relationships. Results: The results indicate that institutional trust and expert-system trust are positively associated with fertility intentions, and these associations are partially mediated by subjective well-being. Particularized trust shows no significant direct association with fertility intentions but is indirectly associated with fertility intentions through subjective well-being. By contrast, generalized trust is not significantly associated with fertility intentions. These findings suggest that different forms of social trust are associated with fertility intentions through distinct psychological and social pathways. Discussion: By distinguishing expert-system trust from institutional trust and identifying subjective well-being as an important psychological mechanism, this study extends the multidimensional analytical framework of social trust and contributes to a better understanding of fertility intentions in contemporary China. The findings also provide evidence that may inform the design of policies aimed at creating a more supportive institutional and social environment for family formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.