Data Manual Accompanying “Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Europe

Home , Eurobarometer, World Values Survey

Data manual accompanying “Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Europe. Towards Legal Coherence and Policy Recommendations”

Patrick Pr¨ag Melinda C. Mills September 2015

Abstract This supplement provides the documentation for a country-level data set comprising 1) policy information and 2) information about norms and values regarding partnership, family, and childbearing, with a special focus on assisted reproduction for forty mostly European countries. The data set draws on 1) policy reports from the International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) Surveillance reports (1998–2013) and information collected from large-scale cross-national surveys—the European Val- ues Study (EVS), the World Values Survey (WVS), the Eurobarometer (EB), and the European Social Survey (ESS)—from 1981 onwards. This document provides basic descriptive statistics as well as methodological details such as question wording for the data set.

Contents

1 Selection of countries 5

2 Policy information used 5

3 Survey data sets used 6 3.1 World Values Survey (1981–2014) and European Values Study (1981–2010) ...... 6 3.2 Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) and Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) . . . 7 3.3 European Social Survey Round 3 (2006–2007) rotating module: ‘The Timing of Life’ ...... 7

4 Policy indicators 7 4.1 Mode of ART regulation ...... 7 4.2 Acceptance of unmarried couples for ART treatment ...... 8 4.3 Acceptance of singles for ART treatment ...... 10 4.4 Acceptance of lesbians for ART treatment ...... 10 4.5 Coverage of costs for ART treatment ...... 10 4.6 Availability of sperm donation in general ...... 10 4.7 Availability of sperm donation for IVF ...... 10

1 4.8 Availability of oocyte donation ...... 16 4.9 Availability of embryo donation ...... 16 4.10 Availability of IVF surrogacy ...... 16 4.11 Availability of non-anonymous gamete donation ...... 16 4.12 Availability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis ...... 16 4.13 Availability of aneuploidy screening ...... 22 4.14 Availability of oocyte cryopreservation ...... 22 4.15 Availability of embryo cryopreservation ...... 22 4.16 Availability of sex selection ...... 22 4.17 Availability of fetal reduction ...... 22 4.18 Availability of posthumous insemination ...... 28

5 Attitudes towards family over time 28 5.1 Child needs a home with father and mother (1981–2013) . . . . . 28 5.2 A woman has to have children to be fulﬁlled, 1981–2010 . . . . . 28 5.3 Marriage is an out-dated institution, 1981–2010 ...... 28 5.4 Acceptance of single motherhood, 1981–2010 ...... 32 5.5 Acceptance of homosexuals, 1989–2010 ...... 33

6 Attitudes towards childbearing—cross-sectional indicators 33 6.1 Acceptance of unmarried couples, 2005–2013 ...... 33 6.2 Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children, 2008–2010 34 6.3 It is a duty towards society to have children, 2008–2010 . . . . . 36 6.4 People should decide themselves to have children or not, 2008–2010 38

7 Attitudes to ART issues 38 7.1 IVF can be justiﬁed, 2008–2010 ...... 38 7.2 Support for PGD, 2002 ...... 39 7.3 Attitudes towards human embryos ...... 40 7.3.1 Therapeutic cloning, 2002 ...... 40 7.3.2 Moral status of human embryos, 2010 ...... 41 7.3.3 Acceptance of research involving human embryos I, 2010 . 41 7.3.4 Acceptance of research involving human embryos II, 2010 42 7.3.5 Acceptance of research involving human embryos III, 2010 43

8 Childbearing age norms 43 8.1 Ideal age to become a mother ...... 43 8.2 Ideal age to become a father ...... 44 8.3 Age at which it is too late to have a(nother child) for women . . 45 8.4 Age at which it is too late to have a(nother child) for men . . . . 47

9 Religion: Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians 47

10 Appendix 1: Cross-sectional descriptive ﬁgures 49 10.1 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother’ ...... 49 10.2 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled . 52 10.3 Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors ...... 55 10.4 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution’ ...... 55 10.5 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers . . . 59

2 10.6 Religious denominations ...... 59

11 Appendix 2: Stata code used to create policy data set 68

12 Appendix 3: Stata code used to create survey data set 70

13 Appendix 4: Stata code used to merge both data sets 103

List of Figures

1 ART regulation across time and countries ...... 8 2 Acceptance of unmarried couples for ART treatment across time and countries ...... 9 3 Acceptance of singles for ART treatment across time and countries 11 4 Acceptance of lesbians for ART treatment across time and countries 12 5 Coverage of costs for ART treatment across time and countries . 13 6 Availability of sperm donation in general across time and countries 14 7 Availability of sperm donation for IVF across time and countries 15 8 Availability of oocyte donation across time and countries . . . . 17 9 Availability of embryo donation across time and countries . . . . 18 10 Availability of IVF surrogacy across time and countries . . . . . 19 11 Availability of non-anonymous gamete donation across time and countries ...... 20 12 Availability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis across time and countries ...... 21 13 Availability of aneuploidy screening across time and countries . . 23 14 Availability of oocyte cryopreservation across time and countries 24 15 Availability of embryo cryopreservation across time and countries 25 16 Availability of sex selection across time and countries ...... 26 17 Availability of fetal reduction across time and countries . . . . . 27 18 Availability of posthumous insemination across time and countries 29 19 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–2013 ...... 30 20 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled, EVS/WVS, 1981–2013 ...... 31 21 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–2013 ...... 32 22 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers EVS/WVS, 1981–2013 ...... 34 23 Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 1989–2013 ...... 35 24 Percentage not wanting unmarried couples as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 36 25 Percentage (strongly) agreeing ‘Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children,’ EVS 2008–2010 ...... 37 26 Percentage (strongly) agreeing ‘It is a duty towards society to have children,’ EVS 2008–2010 ...... 37 27 Percentage (strongly) agreeing ‘People should decide themselves to have children or not,’ EVS 2008–2010 ...... 38

3 28 Justifiability of artificial insemination or IVF, EVS 2008–2010 . . 39 29 Percentage supporting the testing of unborn babies for any serious diseases they might get in later life, Eurobarometer 58.0, 2002 . . 40 30 Percentage supporting the cloning of embryos to help infertile couples have children, Eurobarometer 58.0, 2002 ...... 41 31 Percentage (tend to) disagree “Immediately after fertilisation the human embryo can already be considered to be a human being,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010 ...... 42 32 Percentage (tend to) disagree “Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010 ...... 43 33 Percentage (tending to) agree “We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010 ...... 44 34 Percentage (tend to) disagree “It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might offer promising new medical treatments,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010 ...... 45 35 Upper panel: Ideal ages to become a father or mother. Lower panel: Age when one is too old to have a(nother) child. European Social Survey Round 3, 2006–2007 ...... 46 36 Percentage Christian denominations, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 . . . 48 37 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 ...... 49 38 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 ...... 50 39 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 ...... 50 40 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 51 41 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 ...... 52 42 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 ...... 53 43 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 ...... 53 44 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 54 45 Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 1989–1993 ...... 55 46 Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 1995–2001 ...... 56 47 Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 56 48 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 ...... 57 49 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 ...... 57

4 50 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 ...... 58 51 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 58 52 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 ...... 59 53 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 ...... 60 54 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 ...... 60 55 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 61 56 Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 ...... 61 57 Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 ...... 62 58 Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 ...... 62 59 Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 63 60 Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 ...... 64 61 Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 ...... 64 62 Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 ...... 65 63 Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 ...... 65 64 Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984 . . . . . 66 65 Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991 . . . . . 66 66 Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001 . . . . . 67 67 Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013 . . . . . 67

1 Selection of countries

The countries included in the data set (and their abbreviations) are listed in Table 1. The objective is to achieve a wide coverage of European (EU and Non- EU) countries and to include several non-European countries of wide interest (Canada, China, Japan, and the US). Of course it is not possible to ﬁnd data from all countries for all indicators.

2 Policy information used

The data set comprises policy information obtained from the International Fed- eration of Fertility Societies (IFFS) Surveillance reports (1998–2013). These reports were published as

• Jones and Cohen (1999), • Jones and Cohen (2001), • Jones and Cohen (2004), • Jones et al. (2007),

• Jones et al. (2011), and • Ory et al. (2014).

5 Table 1: Countries covered in the data set Abbreviation Country Abbreviation Country Europe LU Luxembourg AT Austria LV Latvia BE Belgium ME Montenegro BG Bulgaria MK Macedonia CH Switzerland MT Malta CY Cyprus NL The Netherlands CZ Czech Republic NO Norway DE Germany PL Poland DK Denmark PT Portugal EE Estonia RO Romania ES Spain RS Serbia FI Finland SE Sweden FR France SI Slovenia GR Greece SK Slovak Republic HR Croatia TR Turkey HU Hungary UK United Kingdom IE Ireland Rest of the world IL Israel CA Canada IS Iceland CN China IT Italy JP Japan LT Lithuania US United States

Information from these reports was carefully harmonized to be better com- parable over time.

3 Survey data sets used

The data set also includes country-level data points that reﬂect the norms and values regarding partnership, family, and childbearing at particular points in time. This section lists the data sets used to calculate the data points that comprise our data set.

3.1 World Values Survey (1981–2014) and European Val- ues Study (1981–2010) For the World Values Survey (WVS), general information can be found on http: //www.worldvaluessurvey.org. The longitudinal data file—which combines all six waves of the WVS conducted from 1981 to 20141—is used. For the European Values Study (EVS), general information can be found on http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/. The longitudinal file (EVS, 2011)— comprising all four waves from 1981—2014—is used. The different waves have been pooled into four measurement periods (Ta- ble 2)

1‘WVS Longitudinal 1981-2014 stata dta v 2014 11 25.zip’

6 Table 2: Waves included in periods Period EVS WVS 1981–1984 Wave 1 Wave 1 1989–1993 Wave 2 Wave 2 1995–2001 Wave 3 Wave 3 and 4 2005–2013 Wave 4 Wave 5 and 6

The WVS and EVS are important sources for information about norms and values regarding partnership, family, and fertility and also give insights into the religious heritage of countries.

3.2 Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) and Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) The Eurobarometer is a long-running poll to monitor public opinion in the European Union. General information about the Eurobarometer can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm. For the purpose of this report, two relevant waves from 2002 (European Commission, 2012a) and 2010 (European Commission, 2012b) are used. The Eurobarometer polls include speciﬁc information about opinions on human embryos.

3.3 European Social Survey Round 3 (2006–2007) rotating module: ‘The Timing of Life’ Round 3 of the European Social Survey (ESS, 2006–2007; Jowell et al., 2007) included a rotating module “The Timing of Life. The Organization of the Life Course in Europe.” More information on the ESS in general can be found on http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/, and information about the rotating module in question can be found on http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ data/themes.html?t=timing. The module includes two important indicators for childbearing norms: • Ideal age to become a mother

• Age when one is too old to have a(nother) child for women

4 Policy indicators 4.1 Mode of ART regulation Variable name/stub ‘regulation’

Coding ‘No regulation,’ ‘guidelines,’ or ‘legislation.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

7 Descriptives See Figure 1

No regulation

Guidelines 4

Mode of ART regulation Legislation 96

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 26), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Legislation Guidelines No regulation

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Legislation Guidelines No regulation

Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Legislation Guidelines No regulation

Italy Japan Lithuania Latvia Netherlands Norway Legislation Guidelines No regulation

Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Turkey Legislation Guidelines No regulation Mode of ART regulation 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

United Kingdom United States Legislation Guidelines No regulation

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 1: ART regulation across time and countries

4.2 Acceptance of unmarried couples for ART treatment Variable name/stub ‘marriage’

Coding ‘No requirement,’ ‘stable relationship,’ or ‘marriage.’

8 Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 2

No requirement 46

Stable relationship 42

Marriage 13 Unmarried couples accepted

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Marriage

Stable relationship

No requirement

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Marriage

Stable relationship

No requirement

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Marriage

Stable relationship

No requirement

Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Marriage

Stable relationship

No requirement

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 Partnership requirement

Slovenia Turkey United Kingdom United States Marriage

Stable relationship

No requirement

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 2: Acceptance of unmarried couples for ART treatment across time and countries

9 4.3 Acceptance of singles for ART treatment Variable name/stub ‘singles’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 3

4.4 Acceptance of lesbians for ART treatment Variable name/stub ‘lesbians’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 4

4.5 Coverage of costs for ART treatment Variable name/stub ‘coverage’

Coding ‘None,’ ‘some,’ or ‘complete.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 5

4.6 Availability of sperm donation in general Variable name/stub ‘spermdon’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 6

4.7 Availability of sperm donation for IVF Variable name/stub ‘spermdonivf’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

10 No 50 Singles accepted Yes 50

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Yes

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Yes

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Yes

Netherlands Norway Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Yes

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 Access by single women

Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 3: Acceptance of singles for ART treatment across time and countries

11 No 63

Lesbians accepted Yes 38

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Yes

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Yes

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Yes

Netherlands Norway Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Yes

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 Access by lesbian women Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 4: Acceptance of lesbians for ART treatment across time and countries

12 None 12

Some 62

Coverage of ART costs Complete 27

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 26), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Complete

Some

None

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Complete

Some

None

Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Complete

Some

None

Japan Netherlands Norway Portugal Romania Sweden Complete

Some

None Coverage of costs

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012

Slovenia Turkey United Kingdom United States Complete

Some

None

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 5: Coverage of costs for ART treatment across time and countries

13 No 17

Yes 83 Sperm donation in general

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 23), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Yes

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Yes

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Italy Yes

Japan Lithuania Latvia Netherlands Norway Poland Yes

Sperm donation in general Portugal Sweden Slovenia Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 6: Availability of sperm donation in general across time and countries

14 Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 7

No 13

Yes 88 Sperm donation for IVF

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Yes

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Estonia Spain Finland Yes

France Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Israel Yes

Iceland Italy Japan Lithuania Latvia Netherlands Yes

Norway Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Yes

No Sperm donation for IVF 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 7: Availability of sperm donation for IVF across time and countries

15 4.8 Availability of oocyte donation Variable name/stub ‘oocytedon’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 8

4.9 Availability of embryo donation Variable name/stub ‘embryodon’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 9

4.10 Availability of IVF surrogacy Variable name/stub ‘surrogacy’

Coding ‘Prohibited’ or ‘Allowed.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 10

4.11 Availability of non-anonymous gamete donation Variable name/stub ‘nonanonymous’

Coding ‘No,’ ‘not mentioned,’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 11

4.12 Availability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis Variable name/stub ‘pgdallow’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

16 No 21 Oocyte donation Yes 79

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Yes

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Yes

Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Yes

Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Yes Oocyte donation

Romania Sweden Slovenia Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 8: Availability of oocyte donation across time and countries

17 No 48 Embryo donation Yes 52

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 21), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland China Czech Republic Yes

Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Greece Yes

Croatia Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Italy Yes

Japan Netherlands Norway Poland Sweden Slovenia Yes

Embryo donation No

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 9: Availability of embryo donation across time and countries

18 Prohibited 64 IVF surrogacy Allowed 36

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 22), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Allowed

Prohibited

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Allowed

Prohibited

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Allowed

Prohibited

Latvia Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Sweden Allowed IVF surrogacy

Prohibited

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Turkey United Kingdom United States Allowed

Prohibited

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 10: Availability of IVF surrogacy across time and countries

19 No 48

Not mentioned 16

Non-anonymous donation Yes 36

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 25), in 2012

Belgium Bulgaria Canada China Czech Republic Yes

Not mentioned

Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Yes

Not mentioned

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Yes

Not mentioned

Japan Latvia Netherlands Portugal Sweden Yes

Not mentioned

Non-anonymous donation Slovenia Slovak Republic Turkey United Kingdom United States Yes

Not mentioned

No 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012

Figure 11: Availability of non-anonymous gamete donation across time and countries

20 Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 12

No 5 PGD

Yes 95

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 19), in 2012

Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland China Czech Republic Yes

Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Yes

Greece Hungary Israel Italy Japan Yes

Netherlands Portugal Sweden Slovenia United Kingdom Yes

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012

United States Yes Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 12: Availability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis across time and countries

21 4.13 Availability of aneuploidy screening Variable name/stub ‘aneuploidyallow’

Coding ‘No’ or ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 13

4.14 Availability of oocyte cryopreservation Variable name/stub ‘oocytecryo’

Coding ‘Not prohibited’ or ‘Prohibited.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 14

4.15 Availability of embryo cryopreservation Variable name/stub ‘embryocryo’

Coding ‘Not prohibited’ (yes).

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 15

4.16 Availability of sex selection Variable name/stub ‘sexselection’

Coding ‘No,’ ‘unknown,’ and ‘yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 16

4.17 Availability of fetal reduction Variable name/stub ‘fetalreduc’

Coding ‘Allowed’ and ‘Prohibited.’

22 No 33

Yes 67 Aneuploidy screening

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 18), in 2012

Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland Czech Republic Yes

Denmark Finland France Greece Yes

Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal Yes

2006 2009 2012 Aneuploidy screening Sweden Turkey United Kingdom Yes

2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012

Figure 13: Availability of aneuploidy screening across time and countries

23 Not prohibited 100

Prohibited Oocyte cryopreservation

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 23), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Prohibited

Not prohibited

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Prohibited

Not prohibited

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Italy Prohibited

Not prohibited

Japan Latvia Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Prohibited

Not prohibited Oocyte cryopreservation Portugal Romania Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States Prohibited

Not prohibited

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 14: Availability of oocyte cryopreservation across time and countries

24 Not prohibited 100 Embryo cryopreservation

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 23), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Not prohibited

Prohibited

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Not prohibited

Prohibited

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Italy Not prohibited

Prohibited

Japan Latvia Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Not prohibited

Prohibited

Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Turkey United Kingdom Not prohibited

Prohibited

Embryo cryopreservation 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

United States Not prohibited

Prohibited

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 15: Availability of embryo cryopreservation across time and countries

25 No 79

Unknown 4 Sex selection

Yes 17

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland China Yes Unknown No

Czech Republic Denmark Spain Finland France Yes Unknown No

Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Yes Unknown No

Japan Latvia Norway Sweden Turkey Yes Unknown Sex Selection No

2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012

United States Yes Unknown No

2009 2012

Figure 16: Availability of sex selection across time and countries

26 Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 1999, 2001, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 17

Allowed 96 Fetal reduction Prohibited 4

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 24), in 2012

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Switzerland China Prohibited

Allowed

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Finland France Prohibited

Allowed

Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Prohibited

Allowed

Italy Japan Latvia Malta Netherlands Norway Prohibited

Allowed

Poland Portugal Sweden Slovenia Turkey United Kingdom

Fetal reduction Prohibited

Allowed

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

United States Prohibited

Allowed

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 17: Availability of fetal reduction across time and countries

27 4.18 Availability of posthumous insemination Variable name/stub ‘posthum’

Coding ‘No’ and ‘Yes.’

Source IFFS Surveillance Reports (Jones and Cohen, 2004; Jones et al., 2007, 2011; Ory et al., 2014)

Descriptives See Figure 18

5 Attitudes towards family over time 5.1 Child needs a home with father and mother (1981– 2013) Question “If someone says a child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily, would you tend to agree or disagree?” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

Response options “Tend to agree” and “Tend to disagree”

Coding Percentage who tend to disagree.

Data source Available in all surveys and waves except WVS wave 6

Descriptives Figure 19 shows the development over time, Figures 37, 38, 39, and 40 show the data at diﬀerent point in time.

5.2 A woman has to have children to be fulﬁlled, 1981– 2010 Question “Do you think that a woman needs to have children in order to be fulﬁlled or is this not necessary?” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

Response options “Needs children” and “Not necessary”

Coding Percentage who think that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled

Data source Available in all surveys and waves except WVS Waves 5 and 6

Descriptives Figure 20 shows the development over time, Figures 41, 42, 43, and 44 show the data at diﬀerent point in time.

5.3 Marriage is an out-dated institution, 1981–2010 Question “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Marriage is an outdated institution?” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

28 No 68

Yes 32 Posthumous insemination

0 20 40 60 80 100 % countries (N = 19), in 2012

Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland China Czech Republic Yes

Denmark Spain Finland France Greece Yes

Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Yes

Romania Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States

Posthumous insemination Yes

2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 18: Availability of posthumous insemination across time and countries

29 AT BE BG CA CH CN CY 100

CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR 100

GR HR HU IE IL IS IT 100

JP LT LU LV ME MK MT 100

0 % tend to agree NL NO PL PT RO RS SE 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013 Child needs a home with father and mother

SI SK TR UK US 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.

Figure 19: Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–2013

Response options “Agree” and “Disagree”

Coding Percentage who disagree.

Data source Available in all surveys and waves except WVS Wave 6

30 AT BE BG CA CH CN CY 100

CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR 100

GR HR HU IE IL IS IT 100

JP LT LU LV ME MK MT 100

NL NO PL PT RO RS SE 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013

SI SK TR UK US 100

80 % thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled 60

Figure 20: Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled, EVS/WVS, 1981–2013

Descriptives Figure 21 shows the development over time, Figures 48, 49, 50, and 51 show the data at diﬀerent point in time.

31 AT BE BG CA CH CN CY 100

CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR 100

GR HR HU IE IL IS IT 100

JP LT LU LV ME MK MT 100

NL NO PL PT RO RS SE 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013

SI SK TR UK US 100 % agreeing that marriage is an outdated institution 80

Figure 21: Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–2013

5.4 Acceptance of single motherhood, 1981–2010 Question “If a woman wants to have a child as a single parent, but she doesn’t want to have a stable relationship with a man, do you approve or disapprove?” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

32 Response options “Approve” and “Disapprove”. A third option, “Depends,’ was only recorded if respondents gave this answer spontaneously.

Coding Percentage who approve. Those who said “Depends” were counted together with those who responded “Disapprove.”

Data source Available in all surveys and waves except for WVS Wave 6

Descriptives Figure 22 shows the development over time, Figures 52, 53, 54, and 55 show the data at diﬀerent point in time.

5.5 Acceptance of homosexuals, 1989–2010 Question “On this list are various groups of people. Could you please sort out any that you would not like to have as neighbors?” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

Response options Respondents either mention or not mention a list of groups, comprising next to “Homosexuals” also “Heavy drinkers” or “People who have AIDS” or “Muslims.”

Coding Percentage who have mentioned that they would not like to have homosexuals as neighbors.

Data sources WVS Waves 2–6 and EVS Waves 2–4.

Descriptives Figure 23 shows the development over time, Figures 45, 46, and 47 show the data at diﬀerent point in time.

6 Attitudes towards childbearing—cross-sectional indicators 6.1 Acceptance of unmarried couples, 2005–2013 Question “On this list are various groups of people. Could you please mention any that you would not like to have as neighbors?” (WVS 2005–2006 questionnaire)

Response options Respondents either mention or not mention a list of groups, comprising next to “Unmarried couples living together” also “Heavy drinkers” or “People who have AIDS” or “People of a diﬀerent race.”

Coding Percentage who have mentioned that they would not like to have unmarried couples living together as neighbors.

Data sources WVS Wave 5 (2005–2009) and WVS Wave 6 (2010–2014).

Descriptives Figure 24 shows the data points for this indicator.

33 AT BE BG CA CH CN CY 100

CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR 100

GR HR HU IE IL IS IT 100

JP LT LU LV ME MK MT 100

NL NO PL PT RO RS SE 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013

SI SK TR UK US 100

% approving women choosing to be single mothers 80

Figure 22: Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers EVS/WVS, 1981–2013

6.2 Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children, 2008–2010 Question “How do you feel about the following statements? Do you agree or disagree with them?—Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

34 AT BE BG CA CH CN CY 100

CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR 100

GR HR HU IE IL IS IT 100

JP LT LU LV ME MK MT 100

NL NO PL PT RO RS SE 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013 % not wanting homosexuals as neighbors

SI SK TR UK US 100

Figure 23: Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 1989– 2013

Response options “Agree strongly,” “Agree,” “Neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “Disagree strongly.”

Coding Percentage who “Agree strongly” and “Agree.”

35 TR CN CY JP RO EE FR BG FI RS US SI PL DE HU IT CH CA ES UK NO NL SE 0 20 40 60 80 100 % not wanting unmarried couples as neighbors, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 24: Percentage not wanting unmarried couples as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

Data source Only available in EVS Wave 4.

Descriptives Figure 25 presents descriptive statistics.

6.3 It is a duty towards society to have children, 2008– 2010 Question “How do you feel about the following statements? Do you agree or disagree with them?—It is a duty towards society to have children” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

Response options “Agree strongly,” “Agree,” “Neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “Disagree strongly.”

Coding Percentage who “Agree strongly” and “Agree.”

Data source Only available in EVS Wave 4.

Descriptives Figure 26 presents descriptive statistics.

36 IS NL SE ES DK BE NO LU FI FR DE UK CH CZ AT IE TR SI HU PT RO BG EE MK IT LV SK CY HR RS PL ME LT MT GR 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (strongly) agree 'Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children', 2008-2010 Source: EVS Wave 4, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 25: Percentage (strongly) agreeing ‘Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children,’ EVS 2008–2010

BG TR CY MK MT GR PT CZ RO HU LV RS SK EE ES SI PL LT DE ME AT CH HR LU IT FR IE DK BE NO UK FI IS NL SE 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (strongly) agree 'It is a duty towards society to have children', 2008-2010 Source: EVS Wave 4, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 26: Percentage (strongly) agreeing ‘It is a duty towards society to have children,’ EVS 2008–2010

37 6.4 People should decide themselves to have children or not, 2008–2010 Question “How do you feel about the following statements? Do you agree or disagree with them?—People should decide themselves to have children or not” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

Response options “Agree strongly,” “Agree,” “Neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “Disagree strongly.”

Coding Percentage who “Agree strongly” and “Agree.”

Data source Only available in EVS Wave 4.

Descriptives Figure 27 presents descriptive statistics.

IS SI DK SE FR LU NO BE CH RS HU ES LV NL ME UK BG GR DE FI CY EE HR IE MK LT TR AT IT PT RO PL MT CZ SK 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (strongly) agree 'People should decide themselves to have children', 2008-2010 Source: EVS Wave 4, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 27: Percentage (strongly) agreeing ‘People should decide themselves to have children or not,’ EVS 2008–2010

7 Attitudes to ART issues 7.1 IVF can be justified, 2008–2010 Question “Please tell me for each of the following whether you think it can always be justified, never be justified, or something in between, using this card.— Artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

38 Response options The card shows the response options 1 to 10, with 1 labeled ‘Never’ and 10 labeled ‘Always.’ Next to IVF, the list also comprises 19 other issues, ranging from “Claiming state beneﬁts which you are not entitled to” to “Having casual sex” to the death penalty.

Coding Mean value, thus a higher value indicates that acceptance of IVF is more widespread.

Data source Only available in EVS Wave 4.

Descriptives Figure 28 presents descriptive statistics.

IS SE DK BG NO FI GR NL ES ME FR SI BE LU CZ EE MK HR HU RS CH CY LT UK SK DE PT AT LV IE PL IT TR RO MT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Moral acceptance of IVF, 2008-2010 Source: EVS Wave 4, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals.

Figure 28: Justiﬁability of artiﬁcial insemination or IVF, EVS 2008–2010

7.2 Support for PGD, 2002 Question “For each of the following statements, please tell me if you tend to agree or tend to disagree.—I would support the testing of unborn babies for any serious diseases they might get in later life.”

Response options “Tend to agree” and “Tend to disagree.” Next to this statement, the list of statements also comprises 12 other issues, ranging from “If food I was eating in a restaurant contained genetically modiﬁed ingredients, I would not mind” to “I would support the police having access to people’s genetic information to help solve crimes.”

Coding Percentage “Tend to agree”.

39 Data source Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) (European Commission, 2012a).

Descriptives Figure 29 presents descriptive statistics.

NL FI AT NO LU SE DK DE IE BE UK FR ES GR IT PT 0 20 40 60 80 100 % supporting the testing of unborn babies for any serious diseases they might get in later life Source: Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002), doi: 10.4232/1.10952, own calculations. Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 29: Percentage supporting the testing of unborn babies for any serious diseases they might get in later life, Eurobarometer 58.0, 2002

7.3 Attitudes towards human embryos 7.3.1 Therapeutic cloning, 2002 Question “For each of the following statements, please tell me if you tend to agree or tend to disagree.—I would support the cloning of embryos to help infertile couples have children.”

Response options “Tend to agree” and “Tend to disagree.” Next to this item, the list of statements also comprises 12 other issues, ranging from “If food I was eating in a restaurant contained genetically modiﬁed ingredients, I would not mind” to “I would support the police having access to people’s genetic information to help solve crimes.”

Coding Percentage “Tend to agree”.

Data source Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) (European Commission, 2012a).

Descriptives Figure 30 presents descriptive statistics.

40 LU DK SE NL DE FI AT NO FR BE IT GR IE UK PT ES 0 20 40 60 80 100 % supporting the cloning of embryos to help infertile couples have children Source: Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002), doi: 10.4232/1.10952, own calculations. Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 30: Percentage supporting the cloning of embryos to help infertile couples have children, Eurobarometer 58.0, 2002

7.3.2 Moral status of human embryos, 2010 Question “Now I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following issues regarding regenerative medicine.—Immediately after fertilization the human embryo can already be considered to be a human being”

Response options “Totally agree,” “Tend to agree,” “Tend to disagree,” and “Totally disagree.”

Coding Percentage “Totally agree” plus “Tend to agree.”

Data source Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) (European Commission, 2012b).

Descriptives Figure 31 presents descriptive statistics.

7.3.3 Acceptance of research involving human embryos I, 2010 Question “Now I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following issues regarding regenerative medicine.—Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people.”

Response options “Totally agree,” “Tend to agree,” “Tend to disagree,” and “Totally disagree.”

41 CY MT GR IE AT HU RO PT LV SK SI DE HR CH TR BG LT FR LU PL BE EE IT ES NL DK UK FI CZ IS NO SE 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (tend to) disagree Immediately after fertilisation the human embryo can already be considered to be a human being. Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations. Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.

Figure 31: Percentage (tend to) disagree “Immediately after fertilisation the human embryo can already be considered to be a human being,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010

Coding Percentage “Totally agree” plus “Tend to agree.”

Data source Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) (European Commission, 2012b).

Descriptives Figure 32 presents descriptive statistics.

7.3.4 Acceptance of research involving human embryos II, 2010 Question “Now I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following issues regarding regenerative medicine.—We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos.”

Response options “Totally agree,” “Tend to agree,” “Tend to disagree,” and “Totally disagree.”

Coding Percentage “Totally agree” plus “Tend to agree.”

Data source Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) (European Commission, 2012b).

Descriptives Figure 33 presents descriptive statistics.

42 AT LU GR SI SK TR DE LV CY HR PT PL RO MT BG CH HU IT IE EE DK LT FI FR ES NL BE CZ SE UK NO IS 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (tend to) disagree Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people. Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations. Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.

Figure 32: Percentage (tend to) disagree “Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010

7.3.5 Acceptance of research involving human embryos III, 2010 Question “Now I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following issues regarding regenerative medicine.—It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might oﬀer promising new medical treatments.”

Response options “Totally agree,” “Tend to agree,” “Tend to disagree,” and “Totally disagree.”

Coding Percentage “Totally agree” plus “Tend to agree.”

Data source Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) (European Commission, 2012b).

Descriptives Figure 34 presents descriptive statistics.

8 Childbearing age norms 8.1 Ideal age to become a mother Question “In your opinion, what is the ideal age for a girl or woman to become a mother?”2 2Explanation for ‘ideal age:’ ‘most appropriate age.’

43 MT LV AT LU DE CH HR GR SI NL TR SK CY LT IE PL HU BE RO FR SE BG IT DK EE CZ FI PT NO UK IS ES 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (tend to) agree We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos. Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations. Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.

Figure 33: Percentage (tending to) agree “We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010

Response options Ideal age.

Coding Mean of ideal ages reported.

Data source European Social Survey (2006–2007) Round 3 Rotating Module “Timing of Life”.

Descriptives The upper panel of Figure 35 presents descriptive statistics.

8.2 Ideal age to become a father Question “In your opinion, what is the ideal age for a boy or man to become a father?”3

Response options Ideal age.

Coding Mean of ideal ages reported.

Data source European Social Survey (2006–2007) Round 3 Rotating Module “Timing of Life”.

Descriptives The upper panel of Figure 35 presents descriptive statistics.

3Explanation for ‘ideal age:’ ‘most appropriate age.’

44 CY AT GR SI TR SK BG MT LV LU DE PL LT HR RO CH HU IE EE PT FI CZ IT DK FR BE NL SE ES NO UK IS 0 20 40 60 80 100 % (tend to) disagree It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might offer promising new medical treatments. Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations. Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.

Figure 34: Percentage (tend to) disagree “It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might oﬀer promising new medical treatments,” Eurobarometer 73.1, 2010

8.3 Age at which it is too late to have a(nother child) for women Question “After what age would you say a woman is generally too old to consider having any more children?”4

Response options Age or option ‘Never too old.’

Coding Mean of ideal ages reported. Strategy for outlier correction and in- clusion of ‘Never too old’ responses: Outliers (i.e. responses beyond the 99th percentile) and ‘Never too old’ were set to the country-speciﬁc 99th percentile.

Data source European Social Survey (2006–2007) Round 3 Rotating Module “Timing of Life”.

Descriptives The lower panel of Figure 35 presents descriptive statistics.

4‘Having any more children’ in the sense of either the ﬁrst or any additional children a woman may have.’

45 Ideal age to become a ... 40 ... father ... mother 35

Age in years 25

20 CH NL CY BE FR DE HU SI SK PL EE ES IE SE AT DK NO UK PT FI BG

Age when one is too old to have a(nother) child for ... 60 ... men ... women 55

Age in years 45

EE ES SE PT UK BG FR NO PL NL HU AT SI FI IE CY CH DE SK BE DK

Source: European Social Survey Round 3, own calculations Notes: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals

Figure 35: Upper panel: Ideal ages to become a father or mother. Lower panel: Age when one is too old to have a(nother) child. European Social Survey Round 3, 2006–2007

46 8.4 Age at which it is too late to have a(nother child) for men Question “After what age would you say a man is generally too old to consider having any more children?”5

Response options Age or option ‘Never too old.’

Data source European Social Survey (2006–2007) Round 3 Rotating Module “Timing of Life”.

Descriptives The lower panel of Figure 35 presents descriptive statistics.

9 Religion: Catholics, Protestants, and Ortho- dox Christians

Question “Do you belong to a religious denomination?”—If Yes: “Which one?” (EVS Wave 4 questionnaire)

Response options Response options vary across countries and waves. While there has been some standardization over time, there are apparently still issues with the variable. See below.

Coding Percentages of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians

Data source Available in all waves of EVS and WVS.

Descriptives Figure 36 shows the development over time, Figures 56, 57, 58, and 59 (all Catholics), 60, 61, 62, and 63 (all Protestant), and 64, 65, 66, and 67 (all Orthodox) present measurement at points in time.

5‘Having any more children’ in the sense of either the ﬁrst or any additional children a man may have.’

47 AT BE BG CA CH CN CY 100

CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR 100

GR HR HU IE IL IS IT 100

JP LT LU LV ME MK MT 100

80 %

NL NO PL PT RO RS SE 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013

SI SK TR UK US 100

1981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-20131981-19841989-19931995-20012005-2013

% Catholic % Protestant % Orthodox

Source: WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.

Figure 36: Percentage Christian denominations, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

48 10 Appendix 1: Cross-sectional descriptive ﬁg- ures 10.1 Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother’

MT IT DE JP BE ES FR NO IS NL IE SE CA UK US DK FI 0 20 40 60 80 100 % tend to agree 'Child needs a home with father and mother', 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 37: Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

49 LV PL HU EE CN SK IT RO CZ TR DE JP BG MT PT LT SI FR AT ES BE FI NO SE IE NL IS CA US UK DK 0 20 40 60 80 100 % tend to agree 'Child needs a home with father and mother', 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 38: Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

BG PL MK TR SK ME HU EE GR RO LV MT CN IT SI CZ JP RS CH DE AT ES FR HR NO LT LU BE PT IS CA US IE SE DK NL FI UK 0 20 40 60 80 100 % tend to agree 'Child needs a home with father and mother', 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 39: Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

50 GR CN TR BG RO HU PL CY EE MT SK ME IT MK LV JP SI DE RS CZ FR CH LU AT HR BE ES NL LT NO PT IE US CA UK FI IS DK SE 0 20 40 60 80 100 % tend to agree 'Child needs a home with father and mother', 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 40: Percentage tend to agree ‘Child needs a home with father and mother,’ EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

51 10.2 Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled

HU MT FR DK JP IT ES IS BE DE CA IE UK NO US SE NL FI 0 20 40 60 80 100 % thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 41: Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

52 HU LV BG EE LT RO DK SK JP PL FR CZ TR PT IT SI MT DE AT ES CN BE IS CH IE CA NO UK US SE FI NL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 42: Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

HU LV DK ME RO EE GR BG TR LT RS PL MK FR PT JP CN SK CZ IT HR DE ES SI MT CH BE LU IS AT SE NO UK CA US IE FI NL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 43: Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

53 HU RO LV MK GR DK TR BG RS CY EE ME CZ FR LT PT SK PL IT DE HR MT ES LU CH AT SI BE IS IE UK NO FI NL SE 0 20 40 60 80 100 % thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 44: Percentage thinking that a woman needs children to be fulﬁlled, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

54 10.3 Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors

TR LT LV RO HU EE CN PL JP BG SK PT CZ MT AT SI US IT DE UK IE CA ES FI FR BE IS NO SE DK NL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 45: Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 1989– 1993

10.4 Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution’

55 TR ME LT CN RS PL RO MK EE HU LV SI BG HR SK MT IT IE GR US AT PT FI UK CZ LU CH BE ES CA FR NO DE DK IS SE NL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 46: Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 1995– 2001

TR LT ME RS CN MK RO BG HR EE PL CY LV SI SK HU GR PT AT CZ US IT MT IE LU FI DE FR CA UK CH NL BE ES DK NO SE IS 0 20 40 60 80 100 % not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 47: Percentage not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, EVS/WVS, 2005– 2013

56 FR ES IT JP DK BE DE FI HU NL SE UK MT IS CA IE NO US 0 20 40 60 80 100 % agreeing that marriage is an outdated institution, 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 48: Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

FR BE PT NL UK DK SI ES CN DE IT SE CH FI CA AT HU TR EE BG NO IE LT RO LV CZ US SK JP PL IS MT 0 20 40 60 80 100 % agreeing that marriage is an outdated institution, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 49: Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

57 FR LU BE UK SI CH NL DE PT CA IE FI ES LV AT SE LT BG MK RS EE IT HU GR DK NO ME RO HR SK CZ CN JP US PL TR IS MT 0 20 40 60 80 100 % agreeing that marriage is an outdated institution, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 50: Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

LU FR BE ES AT CH BG NL DE PT SI IE CZ UK CA SE HU GR IT LV EE NO MK FI ME HR LT CY RS RO PL DK SK CN US IS MT TR JP 0 20 40 60 80 100 % agreeing that marriage is an outdated institution, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 51: Percentage agree ‘Marriage is an outdated institution,’ EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

58 10.5 Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers

IS DK FR FI SE ES IT NO CA NL US BE UK DE HU IE MT JP 0 20 40 60 80 100 % approving women choosing to be single mothers, 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 52: Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

10.6 Religious denominations

59 IS DK ES SI FI LT BG IT NL AT FR HU RO PT CA US CH UK EE BE DE NO CZ LV SE SK IE MT JP PL TR CN 0 20 40 60 80 100 % approving women choosing to be single mothers, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 53: Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

IS ES LT HR SI LV FI RS DK NL BE FR MK RO CA LU DE BG EE US ME CZ CH HU AT PT UK GR PL SE IE SK IT NO JP MT TR CN 0 20 40 60 80 100 % approving women choosing to be single mothers, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 54: Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

60 IS ES HR DK LT FR LU LV RS NL BE SI RO ME CZ US SE EE HU FI CA MK GR BG CH PL AT IE DE NO UK PT IT SK JP CY MT TR CN 0 20 40 60 80 100 % approving women choosing to be single mothers, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 55: Percentage approving women choosing to be single mothers EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

MT IE IT ES BE HU FR CA DE NL US FI UK DK SE JP NO IS 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Catholic, 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS 1981-1984, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 56: Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

61 MT PL IE ES IT AT PT SI BE SK LT FR CH HU CA CZ DE NL US TR LV UK RO NO IS DK SE JP CN EE FI BG 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Catholic, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS 1989-1993, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 57: Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

MT PL IE PT HR ES IT AT LT SK SI LU CH BE FR HU CA CZ US NL DE LV UK RO RS ME SE FI GR NO JP CN DK BG MK IS EE TR IL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Catholic, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS 1995-2001, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 58: Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

62 MT PL PT IT IE HR LT AT SK ES SI LU BE HU FR CA CH CZ NL US DE LV UK RO RS ME IS NO EE SE CY GR DK CN JP MK BG FI TR 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Catholic, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS 2005-2013, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 59: Percentage Catholics, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

63 IS DK NO SE UK US DE FI CA HU NL JP BE IE FR ES IT MT 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Protestant, 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS 1981-1984, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 60: Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

IS DK NO SE CH UK DE US CA HU TR NL LV SK EE AT CZ IE FR RO IT BE JP BG ES PT LT CN PL MT FI SI 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Protestant, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS 1989-1993, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 61: Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

64 IS DK NO FI SE UK CH DE US CA LV HU EE SK NL AT CZ CN RO IE LT FR BE JP SI PL MT ES BG RS IT PT MK HR LU ME TR GR IL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Protestant, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS 1995-2001, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 62: Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

DK IS FI NO SE UK CH US DE LV CA HU NL EE SK AT RO CN IE LU CZ FR PT MT SI RS BE JP LT ES PL BG HR CY MK ME IT TR GR 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Protestant, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS 2005-2013, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 63: Percentage Protestants, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

65 JP NO IS NL HU FR DK IT CA FI DE UK SE BE MT US IE ES 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Orthodox, 1981-1984 Source: WVS and EVS 1981-1984, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 64: Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 1981–1984

RO BG LV EE LT SK FI CZ ES PL NL CN AT CH PT US IE MT CA UK DK BE JP NO TR DE SI IT SE FR IS HU 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Orthodox, 1989-1993 Source: WVS and EVS 1989-1993, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 65: Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 1989–1991

66 GR RO RS ME BG MK LV EE LT SI FI FR HU NO HR CA AT CH US PL SK JP LU BE SE UK DE IE CZ TR IT ES IS CN DK MT PT IL NL 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Orthodox, 1995-2001 Source: WVS and EVS 1995-2001, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 66: Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 1995-2001

GR RO MK RS BG CY ME LV EE LT SI NL AT FI CH PL CA DE LU ES SE SK BE NO FR CZ US HU IE UK IT MT HR DK IS PT CN TR JP 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Orthodox, 2005-2013 Source: WVS and EVS 2005-2013, own calculations. Note: Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.

Figure 67: Percentage Orthodox Christians, EVS/WVS, 2005–2013

67 11 Appendix 2: Stata code used to create policy data set import excel "\iffs_coded.xlsx", sheet("Data") firstrow case(lower) allstring clear

// Reshape data

#delimit ; local variables = "regulation

marriage lesbians singles

spermdonivf spermdon oocytedon embryodon

coverage surrogacy sexselection posthum nonanonymous pgdallow aneuploidyallow fetalreduc embryocryo oocytecryo" ;

#delimit cr reshape long ‘variables’, i(cntry) j(year)

// Label variables label var regulation "Mode of ART regulation" label var marriage "Partnership requirement" label var singles "Access by single women" label var lesbians "Access by lesbian women" label var spermdonivf "Sperm donation for IVF" label var spermdon "Sperm donation in general" label var oocytedon "Oocyte donation" label var embryodon "Embryo donation" label var coverage "Coverage of costs" label var surrogacy "IVF surrogacy" label var sexselection "Sex Selection"

68 label var posthum "Posthumous insemination" label var nonanonymous "Non-anonymous donation" label var pgdallow "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis" label var aneuploidyallow "Aneuploidy screening" label var fetalreduc "Fetal reduction" label var embryocryo "Embryo cryopreservation" label var oocytecryo "Oocyte cryopreservation"

// Destring variables encode cntry, gen(country)

#delimit ; label define country 1 "Austria" 2 "Belgium" 3 "Bulgaria" 4 "Canada" 5 "Switzerland" 6 "China" 7 "Cyprus" 8 "Czech Republic" 9 "Germany" 10 "Denmark" 11 "Estonia" 12 "Spain" 13 "Finland" 14 "France" 15 "Greece" 16 "Croatia" 17 "Hungary" 18 "Ireland" 19 "Israel" 20 "Iceland" 21 "Italy" 22 "Japan" 23 "Lithuania" 24 "Luxembourg" 25 "Latvia" 26 "Montenegro" 27 "Macedonia" 28 "Malta" 29 "Netherlands" 30 "Norway" 31 "Poland" 32 "Portugal" 33 "Romania" 34 "Serbia" 35 "Sweden" 36 "Slovenia"

69 37 "Slovak Republic" 38 "Turkey" 39 "United Kingdom" 40 "United States" , modify ; label val country country ; #delimit cr foreach x of varlist ‘variables’ { encode ‘x’, gen(‘x’s) drop ‘x’ rename ‘x’s ‘x’ } reshape wide

12 Appendix 3: Stata code used to create survey data set

// User-written commands that are necessary (not complete) * ssc install fastcd * ssc install fre

// Create necessary folder structure: // Main folder called ’artdata’ in -fastcd- // - Subfolder ’wvs’ containing WVS data // - Subfolder ’evs’ containing EVS data // - ... // - Subfolder ’data report (apr 2015)’ // - Subfolder ’temp data sets’ // - Subfolder ’figures’ c artdata

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // World Values Survey and European Values Study //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// use "wvs data\WVS_Longitudinal_1981-2014_stata_v_2014_11_25.dta", clear

// Switch all variable names to lower case renvars, lower gen survey = "WVS"

// Append EVS data

70 append using "evs\ZA4804_v2-0-0.dta" replace survey = "EVS" if survey == ""

*fre survey *label var survey "Survey"

// Create country identifier kountry s003, from(iso3n) to(iso2c) marker ren _ISO2C_ cntry replace cntry = "TW" if s003 == 158 replace cntry = "RS" if s003 == 911 replace cntry = "ME" if s003 == 912 replace cntry = "BA" if s003 == 914 replace cntry = "RS" if s003 == 688 | s003 == 891 // Serbia and Montenegro (891) replace cntry = "XK" if s003 == 915 replace cntry = "RU" if s003 == 197 | s003 == 643 replace cntry = "UK" if cntry == "GB" drop if s003 == 909 // Drop Northern Ireland drop NAMES_STD MARKER

// Select relevant countries keep if inlist(cntry, "AT", "BE", "BG", "CA", "CH", "CN", "CY", "CZ", "DE") /// | inlist(cntry, "DK", "EE", "GR", "ES", "FI", "FR", "HR", "HU", "IE") /// | inlist(cntry, "IL", "IS", "IT", "JP", "LT", "LU", "LV", "ME", "MK") /// | inlist(cntry, "MT", "MT", "NL", "NO", "PL", "PT", "RO", "RS", "SE") /// | inlist(cntry, "SI", "SK", "TR", "UK", "US")

// Create wave identifier fre s002evs gen wave = . replace wave = 1 if s002 == 1 // WVS 1 1981-1984 replace wave = 2 if s002evs == 1 // EVS 1 1981-1984 replace wave = 3 if s002 == 2 // WVS 2 1989-1993 replace wave = 4 if s002evs == 2 // EVS 2 1990-1993 replace wave = 5 if s002 == 3 // WVS 3 1994-1998 replace wave = 6 if s002evs == 3 // EVS 3 1999-2001 replace wave = 7 if s002 == 4 // WVS 4 1999-2004 replace wave = 8 if s002 == 5 // WVS 5 2005-2009 replace wave = 9 if s002evs == 4 // EVS 4 2008-2010 replace wave = 10 if s002 == 6 // WVS 6 2010-2014 label define wave 1 "WVS Wave 1 1981-1984" /// 2 "EVS Wave 1 1981-1984" /// 3 "WVS Wave 2 1989-1993" /// 4 "EVS Wave 2 1990-1993" ///

71 5 "WVS Wave 3 1994-1998" /// 6 "EVS Wave 3 1999-2001" /// 7 "WVS Wave 4 1999-2004" /// 8 "WVS Wave 5 2005-2009" /// 9 "EVS Wave 4 2008-2010" /// 10 "WVS Wave 6 2010-2014" label val wave wave label var wave "EVS/WVS wave" fre wave

// Create period identifier

*fre s020 recode s020 (1981/1984 = 1 "1981-1984") /// (1989/1993 = 2 "1989-1993") /// (1995/2001 = 3 "1995-2001") /// (2005/2013 = 4 "2005-2013") /// , gen(year) label var year "Year of survey"

// Which wave in which period? *tab wave year, mis

*tab cntry year0, mis *tab cntry s020, mis

// Keep variables of interest keep survey wave year cntry s017 /// a124_09 a124_42 /// Homosexuals and unmarried couples as neighbors d018 /// Child needs a home with father and mother d019 /// A woman has to have children to be fulfilled d022 /// Marriage is an out-dated institution d023 /// Woman as a single parent d026_01 /// Homosexual couples - adopt children d026_03 /// Duty towards society to have children d026_04 /// People should decide themselves to have children f144_01 /// Justifiable: in-vitro fertilization f025 /// Religious denomination x003 /// Age

// Fix age variable recode x003 (-4 = .b) (-2 = .d) (-1 = .e), gen(age) fre age save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\evswvs", replace use "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\evswvs", clear

72 // Find and declare weight svyset [pweight = s017] // Declare weight

// Homosexuals as neighbors preserve

*fre a124_09 a124_42 replace a124_09 = .a if a124_09 == -5 replace a124_09 = .b if a124_09 == -4 *tab wave a124_09 , mis statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion a124_09 ren a124_09_b_Mentioned neighbor_gay replace neighbor_gay = neighbor_gay * 100 gen neighbor_gay_lb = neighbor_gay - (1.96 * a124_09_se_Mentioned * 100) gen neighbor_gay_ub = neighbor_gay + (1.96 * a124_09_se_Mentioned * 100) label var neighbor_gay "% not wanting homosexuals as neighbors" drop a124_09_b_prop_1 a124_09_se_prop_1 a124_09_se_Mentioned levelsof year, local(wave) local x "neighbor_gay" foreach w of local wave {

// Sort countries by size *di "here" _skip(5) "‘x’" _skip(5) ‘w’ capture egen order_ = rank(‘x’) if year == ‘w’, unique capture labmask order_, value(cntry) *di "test" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

// Find out no. of countries qui egen group = group(cntry) if year == ‘w’ & ‘x’ != . replace group = 0 if group == . // Replace with 0 if there’s no legit value su group, meanonly // Store no. of countries in r(max) *di r(max) drop group *di "test 2" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

// Store variable and value labels in locals local label : variable label ‘x’ // Store variable label local waveyear : label year ‘w’ // Store value label *di "Label" " ‘waveyear’ " // Plot *capture di "plot" _skip(5) "‘x’" _skip(5) order_ _skip(5) ‘w’

73 capture confirm variable order_ if !_rc { twoway (dot ‘x’ order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// (rcap ‘x’_lb ‘x’_ub order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/‘r(max)’, val) xlabel(0(20)100) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("‘label’, ‘waveyear’") /// caption("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace } // Drop order capture drop order_

}

// Development over time twoway (connected ‘x’ year, by(cntry, note("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.", span)) /// // by(, note("")) suppresses ylabel(0(20)100, val) /// // "Graphs by" xlabel(1 2 3 4, val ang(45)) /// lwidth(thick) cmissing(no) msize(large) msymbol(O) /// xtitle("") ytitle("‘label’")) , ysize(8) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’_year.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year neighbor_gay reshape wide neighbor_gay, i(cntry) j(year) save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\neighbor_gay", replace restore

// Attitudes towards unmarried couples preserve clonevar a124_42x = a124_42 drop a124_42 recode a124_42x ( 0 = 0 "Not Mentioned") /// ( 1 = 1 "Mentioned") /// (-5 = .a "Other missing") /// (-4 . = .b "Question not asked") /// (-3 = .c "Not applicable") /// (-2 = .d "No answer") /// (-1 = .e "Don’t know"), gen(a124_42) drop a124_42x label var a124_42 "Neighbours: Unmarried couples living together"

*fre a124_09 a124_42 tab wave a124_42 , mis

74 statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion a124_42 ren a124_42_b_Mentioned neighbor_unmarried replace neighbor_unmarried = neighbor_unmarried * 100 gen neighbor_unmarried_lb = neighbor_unmarried - (1.96 * a124_42_se_Mentioned * 100) gen neighbor_unmarried_ub = neighbor_unmarried + (1.96 * a124_42_se_Mentioned * 100) drop a124_42_b_prop_1 a124_42_se_prop_1 a124_42_se_Mentioned label var neighbor_unmarried "% not wanting unmarried couples as neighbors"

levelsof year, local(wave) local x "neighbor_unmarried" foreach w of local wave {

// Find out no. of countries qui egen group = group(cntry) if year == ‘w’ & ‘x’ != . replace group = 0 if group == . // Replace with zero if there’s no legit value su group, meanonly // Store no. of countries in r(max) *di r(max) drop group *di "test 2" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

capture confirm variable order_ if !_rc { twoway (dot ‘x’ order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// (rcap ‘x’_lb ‘x’_ub order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/‘r(max)’, val) xlabel(0(20)100) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("‘label’, ‘waveyear’") /// caption("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace }

75 // Drop order capture drop order_

}

// Export keep cntry year neighbor_unmarried reshape wide neighbor_unmarried, i(cntry) j(year) keep cntry neighbor_unmarried4 save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\neighbor_unmarried", replace restore

// Child needs a home with father and mother

*fre d018 clonevar d018x = d018 drop d018 recode d018x ( 0 = 0 "Tend to disagree") /// ( 1 = 1 "Tend to agree") /// (-5 = .a "Other missing") /// (-4 = .b "Question not asked") /// (-3 = .c "Not applicable") /// (-2 = .d "No answer") /// (-1 = .e "Don’t know"), gen(d018) label var d018 "Child needs a home with father and mother" tab wave d018, mis preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d018 ren d018_b_prop_2 bothfathandmoth replace bothfathandmoth = bothfathandmoth * 100 gen bothfathandmoth_lb = bothfathandmoth - (1.96 * d018_se_prop_2 * 100) gen bothfathandmoth_ub = bothfathandmoth + (1.96 * d018_se_prop_2 * 100) drop d018_se_prop_2 d018_se_prop_1 d018_b_prop_1 label var bothfathandmoth /// "% tend to agree ’Child needs a home with father and mother’" levelsof year, local(wave) local x "bothfathandmoth" foreach w of local wave {

76 // Sort countries by size *di "here" _skip(5) "‘x’" _skip(5) ‘w’ capture egen order_ = rank(‘x’) if year == ‘w’, unique capture labmask order_, value(cntry) *di "test" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

// Development over time twoway (connected ‘x’ year, by(cntry, note("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.", span)) /// // by(, note("")) suppresses ylabel(0(20)100, val) /// // "Graphs by" xlabel(1 2 3 4, val ang(45)) /// lwidth(thick) cmissing(no) msize(large) msymbol(O) /// xtitle("") ytitle("% tend to agree" "Child needs a home with father and mother")), ysize(8) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’_year.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year bothfathandmoth reshape wide bothfathandmoth, i(cntry) j(year) save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\bothfathandmoth", replace

77 restore

// A woman has to have children to be fulfilled

*fre d019 clonevar d019x = d019 drop d019 recode d019x ( 0 = 0 "Not necessary") /// ( 1 = 1 "Needs children") /// (-5 = .a "Other missing") /// (-4 = .b "Question not asked") /// (-3 = .c "Not applicable") /// (-2 = .d "No answer") /// (-1 = .e "Don’t know"), gen(d019) label var d019 "A woman has to have children to be fulfilled" drop d019x *tab wave d019 preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d019 ren d019_b_prop_2 womanneedschild replace womanneedschild = womanneedschild * 100 gen womanneedschild_lb = womanneedschild - (1.96 * d019_se_prop_2 * 100) gen womanneedschild_ub = womanneedschild + (1.96 * d019_se_prop_2 * 100) drop d019_se_prop_2 d019_se_prop_1 d019_b_prop_1 label var womanneedschild /// "% thinking that a woman needs children to be fulfilled" levelsof year, local(wave) local x "womanneedschild" foreach w of local wave {

78 drop group *di "test 2" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

// Development over time twoway (connected ‘x’ year, by(cntry, note("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.", span)) /// // by(, note("")) suppresses ylabel(0(20)100, val) /// // "Graphs by" xlabel(1 2 3 4, val ang(45)) /// lwidth(thick) cmissing(no) msize(large) msymbol(O) /// xtitle("") ytitle("‘label’")), ysize(8) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’_year.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year womanneedschild reshape wide womanneedschild, i(cntry) j(year) save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\womanneedschild", replace restore

// Marriage is an out-dated institution *fre d022 clonevar d022x = d022 drop d022 recode d022x ( 0 = 0 "Disagree") /// ( 1 = 1 "Agree") /// (-5 = .a "Other missing") /// (-4 = .b "Question not asked") /// (-3 = .c "Not applicable") ///

79 (-2 = .d "No answer") /// (-1 = .e "Don’t know"), gen(d022) label var d022 "Marriage is an out-dated institution" drop d022x

*tab wave d022 preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d022 ren d022_b_Agree marroutd replace marroutd = marroutd * 100 gen marroutd_lb = marroutd - (1.96 * d022_se_Agree * 100) gen marroutd_ub = marroutd + (1.96 * d022_se_Agree * 100) drop d022_b_Disagree d022_se_Disagree d022_se_Agree label var marroutd "% agreeing that marriage is an outdated institution" levelsof year, local(wave) local x "marroutd" foreach w of local wave {

80 caption("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace } // Drop order capture drop order_ }

// Development over time twoway (connected ‘x’ year, by(cntry, note("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.", span)) /// // by(, note("")) suppresses ylabel(0(20)100, val) /// // "Graphs by" xlabel(1 2 3 4, val ang(45)) /// lwidth(thick) cmissing(no) msize(large) msymbol(O) /// xtitle("") ytitle("‘label’")), ysize(8) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’_year.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year marroutd reshape wide marroutd, i(cntry) j(year) save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\marroutd", replace restore

// Woman as a single parent fre d023 clonevar d023x = d023 drop d023 recode d023x ( 0 2 = 0 "Disapprove/depends") /// ( 1 = 1 "Approve") /// (-5 = .a "Other missing") /// (-4 = .b "Question not asked") /// (-3 = .c "Not applicable") /// (-2 = .d "No answer") /// (-1 = .e "Don’t know"), gen(d023) label var d023 "Woman as a single parent" drop d023x tab wave d023, mis preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d023 ren d023_b_Approve womsingpa replace womsingpa = womsingpa * 100 gen womsingpa_lb = womsingpa - (1.96 * d023_se_Approve * 100) gen womsingpa_ub = womsingpa + (1.96 * d023_se_Approve * 100) drop d023_b_prop_1 d023_se_prop_1 d023_se_Approve

81 label var womsingpa "% approving women choosing to be single mothers" levelsof year, local(wave) local x "womsingpa" foreach w of local wave {

82 graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’_year.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year womsingpa reshape wide womsingpa, i(cntry) j(year) save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\womsingpa", replace restore

// Homosexual couples - adopt children (EVS 2008 only) replace d026_01 = .b if d026_01 == -4 label define D026_01 .a "Other missing" /// .b "Question not asked" /// .d "No answer" /// .e "Don’t know", add *tab wave d026_1, mis clonevar d026_01x = d026_01 drop d026_01 recode d026_01x (1 2 = 1 "(Strongly) agree") /// (3/5 = 0 "Other") /// (.a .b .d .e = .) /// , gen(d026_01) preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d026_01 ren d026_01_b_prop_2 homoadopt replace homoadopt = homoadopt * 100 gen homoadopt_lb = homoadopt - (1.96 * d026_01_se_prop_2 * 100) gen homoadopt_ub = homoadopt + (1.96 * d026_01_se_prop_2 * 100) drop d026_01_b_Other d026_01_se_Other d026_01_se_prop_2 label var homoadopt "% (strongly) agree ’Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children’" levelsof year, local(wave) local x "homoadopt" foreach w of local wave {

// Find out no. of countries

83 qui egen group = group(cntry) if year == ‘w’ & ‘x’ != . replace group = 0 if group == . // Replace with zero if there’s no legit value su group, meanonly // Store no. of countries in r(max) *di r(max) drop group *di "test 2" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

capture confirm variable order_ if !_rc { twoway (dot ‘x’ order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// (rcap ‘x’_lb ‘x’_ub order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/‘r(max)’, val) xlabel(0(20)100) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("‘label’, 2008-2010") /// caption("{it:Source:} EVS Wave 4, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace } // Drop order capture drop order_ }

// Export keep cntry year homoadopt reshape wide homoadopt, i(cntry) j(year) keep cntry homoadopt4 save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\homoadopt", replace restore

// Duty towards society to have children (EVS 2008 only) replace d026_03 = .b if d026_03 == -4 label define D026_03 .a "Other missing" /// .b "Question not asked" /// .d "No answer" /// .e "Don’t know", add

*fre d026_03

84 clonevar d026_03x = d026_03 drop d026_03 recode d026_03x (1 2 = 1 "(Strongly) agree") /// (3/5 = 0 "Other") /// (.a .b .d .e = .) /// , gen(d026_03) drop d026_03x preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d026_03 ren d026_03_b_prop_2 dutychild replace dutychild = dutychild * 100 gen dutychild_lb = dutychild - (1.96 * d026_03_se_prop_2 * 100) gen dutychild_ub = dutychild + (1.96 * d026_03_se_prop_2 * 100) drop d026_03_b_Other d026_03_se_Other d026_03_se_prop_2 label var dutychild "% (strongly) agree ’It is a duty towards society to have children’" levelsof year, local(wave) local x "dutychild" foreach w of local wave {

capture confirm variable order_ if !_rc { twoway (dot ‘x’ order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// (rcap ‘x’_lb ‘x’_ub order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) ///

85 , ylabel(1/‘r(max)’, val) xlabel(0(20)100) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("‘label’, 2008-2010") /// caption("{it:Source:} EVS Wave 4, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace } // Drop order capture drop order_ }

// Export keep cntry year dutychild reshape wide dutychild, i(cntry) j(year) keep cntry dutychild4 save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\dutychild", replace restore

// People should decide themselves to have children (EVS 2008 only) replace d026_04 = .b if d026_04 == -4 label define D026_04 .a "Other missing" /// .b "Question not asked" /// .d "No answer" /// .e "Don’t know", add

*fre d026_04 clonevar d026_04x = d026_04 drop d026_04 recode d026_04x (1 2 = 1 "(Strongly) agree") /// (3/5 = 0 "Other") /// (.a .b .d .e = .) /// , gen(d026_04) drop d026_04x preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion d026_04 ren d026_04_b_prop_2 decichild replace decichild = decichild * 100 gen decichild_lb = decichild - (1.96 * d026_04_se_prop_2 * 100) gen decichild_ub = decichild + (1.96 * d026_04_se_prop_2 * 100) drop d026_04_b_Other d026_04_se_Other d026_04_se_prop_2 label var decichild "% (strongly) agree ’People should decide themselves to have children’"

86 levelsof year, local(wave) local x "decichild" foreach w of local wave {

capture confirm variable order_ if !_rc { twoway (dot ‘x’ order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// (rcap ‘x’_lb ‘x’_ub order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/‘r(max)’, val) xlabel(0(20)100) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("‘label’, 2008-2010") /// caption("{it:Source:} EVS Wave 4, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace } // Drop order capture drop order_ }

// Export keep cntry year decichild reshape wide decichild, i(cntry) j(year) keep cntry decichild4 save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\decichild", replace restore

87 // Justifiable: in-vitro fertilization (EVS 2008 only) replace f144_01 = .b if f144_01 == -4 label define F144_01 .a "Other missing" /// .b "Question not asked" /// .d "No answer" /// .e "Don’t know", add *fre f144_01 *tab f144_01 wave, mis preserve statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: mean f144_01 ren _b_f144_01 justivf gen justivf_lb = justivf - (1.96 * _se_f144_01) gen justivf_ub = justivf + (1.96 * _se_f144_01) egen order_ = rank(justivf) if year == 4, unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (dot justivf order_ if year == 4, horizontal) /// (rcap justivf_lb justivf_ub order_ if year == 4, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/35, val) xlabel(1(1)10) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("Moral acceptance of IVF, 2008-2010") /// caption("{it:Source:} EVS Wave 4, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/justivf.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year justivf reshape wide justivf, i(cntry) j(year) keep cntry justivf4 save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\justivf", replace restore

// Identify denominations

*tab f025 s002, mis *fre f025, all recode f025 (-5 = .a) (-4 = .b) (-2 = .d) (-1 = .e) (.c = 0)

*tab wave f025, mis generate catholic = 0 replace catholic = . if missing(f025) replace catholic = 1 if f025 == 64

88 replace catholic = 1 if f025 == 15 replace catholic = 1 if f025 == 29 replace catholic = 1 if f025 == 30 replace catholic = 1 if f025 == 34 generate protestant = 0 replace protestant = . if missing(f025) replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 62 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 1 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 5 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 7 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 9 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 10 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 18 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 19 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 20 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 25 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 20 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 33 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 44 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 45 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 46 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 60 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 78 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 528001 replace protestant = 1 if f025 == 528002 generate orthodox = 0 replace orthodox = . if missing(f025) replace orthodox = 1 if f025 == 52 preserve

// Calculate proportions qui statsby _b _se, by(cntry year) clear: proportion catholic protestant orthodox ren catholic_b_1 catholic replace catholic = catholic * 100 gen catholic_lb = catholic - (1.96 * catholic_se_1 * 100) gen catholic_ub = catholic + (1.96 * catholic_se_1 * 100) ren protestant_b_1 protestant replace protestant = protestant * 100 gen protestant_lb = protestant - (1.96 * protestant_se_1 * 100) gen protestant_ub = protestant + (1.96 * protestant_se_1 * 100) ren orthodox_b_1 orthodox replace orthodox = orthodox * 100 gen orthodox_lb = orthodox - (1.96 * orthodox_se_1 * 100) gen orthodox_ub = orthodox + (1.96 * orthodox_se_1 * 100)

89 replace catholic = 0 if catholic == . replace protestant = 0 if protestant == . replace orthodox = 0 if orthodox == . drop catholic_b_0 protestant_b_0 orthodox_b_0 catholic_se_0 catholic_se_1 protestant_se_0 protestant_se_1 orthodox_se_0 orthodox_se_1 label var catholic "% Catholic" label var protestant "% Protestant" label var orthodox "% Orthodox"

// CI plots capture drop order_ capture drop group levelsof year, local(waves) foreach w of local waves { foreach x of varlist catholic protestant orthodox {

// Sort countries by size egen order_ = rank(‘x’) if year == ‘w’, unique labmask order_, value(cntry) di "test" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

// Find out no. of countries qui egen group = group(cntry) if year == ‘w’ qui su group, meanonly drop group di "test 2" _skip(5) ‘x’ _skip(5) ‘w’

// Store variable and value labels in locals local label : variable label ‘x’ // Store variable label local waveyear : label year ‘w’ // Store value label di " ‘waveyear’ " // Plot twoway (dot ‘x’ order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// (rcap ‘x’_lb ‘x’_ub order_ if year == ‘w’, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/‘r(max)’, val) xlabel(0(20)100) legend(off) /// ytitle("") xtitle("‘label’, ‘waveyear’") /// caption("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS ‘waveyear’, own calculations." /// "{it:Note:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data." /// , size(small) span) /// name(‘x’‘w’, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/‘x’‘w’.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Drop order drop order_

} }

90 // Development over time twoway (connected catholic protestant orthodox year, by(cntry, note("{it:Source:} WVS and EVS (weighted data), own calculations.", span)) /// ylabel(0(20)100, val) /// // xlabel(1 2 3 4, val ang(45)) /// cmissing(no) msize(large) msymbol(O) /// legend(row(1)) /// ytitle(%) xtitle("")), ysize(9) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/religion_year.pdf", as(pdf) replace

// Export keep cntry year catholic protestant orthodox reshape wide catholic protestant orthodox, i(cntry) j(year) save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\religion", replace restore

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Eurobarometer 2002 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// use v12 v13 v211 v212 using "eurobarometer 58.0\ZA3692_v1-0-1.dta", clear

// Fix country identifier decode v12, gen(geo) *kountryadd "Germany (West+East)" to "Germany" add kountry geo, from(other) stuck ren _ISO3N_ ctry kountry ctry, from(iso3n) to(iso2c) drop ctry ren _ISO2C_ cntry replace cntry = "UK" if cntry == "GB"

// "I would support the testing of unborn babies for any serious diseases they might get in later life" *fre v211

// "I would support the cloning of embryos to help infertile couples have children" *fre v212 recode v211 (1 = 1 "Support") (2 = 0 "No support"), gen(pgd_support) recode v212 (1 = 1 "Support") (2 = 0 "No support"), gen(cloning_support) encode cntry, gen(country) preserve

91 // Create temporary files and postfile tempname foo tempname pgd_support postfile ‘foo’ str2 cntry perc_pgd perc_pgd_ll perc_pgd_ul using ‘pgd_support’ , replace levelsof cntry, local(levels1) foreach cntry of local levels1 { // Calculate proportions di "‘cntry’" proportion pgd_support [pw = v13] if cntry == "‘cntry’" matrix list r(table) matrix coefs = r(table) local perc = coefs[1,2] * 100 local perc_ll = coefs[5,2] * 100 local perc_ul = coefs[6,2] * 100

di "‘cntry’" _skip(2) ‘perc_ll’ _skip(2) ‘perc’ _skip(2) ‘perc_ul’

if "‘perc’" != "" { // Make sure that the loop doesn’t break if post ‘foo’ ("‘cntry’") (‘perc’) (‘perc_ll’) (‘perc_ul’) } } postclose ‘foo’ use ‘pgd_support’, clear list egen order_ = rank(-perc_pgd), unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (dot perc_pgd order_ , horizontal) /// (rcap perc_pgd_ll perc_pgd_ul order_, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/16, val) legend(off) xlabel(0(20)100) /// ytitle("") xtitle("% supporting the testing of unborn babies" "for any serious diseases they might get in later life") /// caption("{it:Source:} Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002), doi: 10.4232/1.10952, own calculations." /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.", size(small) span) /// name(pgd_support, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/pgd_support.pdf", as(pdf) replace rename perc_pgd pgdsupport keep cntry pgdsupport save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\pgdsupport", replace restore

// Create temporary files and postfile tempname foo

92 tempname cloning_support postfile ‘foo’ str2 cntry perc_cloning perc_cloning_ll perc_cloning_ul using ‘cloning_support’ , replace levelsof cntry, local(levels1) foreach cntry of local levels1 { // Calculate proportions *di "‘cntry’" qui proportion cloning_support [pw = v13] if cntry == "‘cntry’" matrix list r(table) matrix coefs = r(table) local perc = coefs[1,2] * 100 local perc_ll = coefs[5,2] * 100 local perc_ul = coefs[6,2] * 100

qui di "‘cntry’" _skip(2) ‘perc_ll’ _skip(2) ‘perc’ _skip(2) ‘perc_ul’

if "‘perc’" != "" { // Make sure that the loop doesn’t break if post ‘foo’ ("‘cntry’") (‘perc’) (‘perc_ll’) (‘perc_ul’) } } postclose ‘foo’ use ‘cloning_support’, clear list egen order_ = rank(-perc_cloning), unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (dot perc_cloning order_ , horizontal) /// (rcap perc_cloning_ll perc_cloning_ul order_, horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/16, val) legend(off) xlabel(0(20)100) /// ytitle("") xtitle("% supporting the cloning of embryos" /// "to help infertile couples have children") /// caption("{it:Source:} Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002), doi: 10.4232/1.10952, own calculations." /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals, weighted data.", size(small) span) /// name(cloning_support, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/cloning_support.pdf", as(pdf) replace rename perc_cloning cloningsupport keep cntry cloningsupport *tempfile cloningsupport save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\cloningsupport", replace

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Eurobarometer 2010 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

93 use v7 v8 v10 v12 v188 v189 v190 v194 using "eurobarometer 73.1\ZA5000_v4-0-0.dta", clear

// Create country variable clonevar cntry = v7 replace cntry = "DE" if v7 == "DE-W" | v7 == "DE-E" replace cntry = "UK" if v7 == "GB-GBN" | v7 == "GB-NIR"

// Create weight clonevar weight = v8 replace weight = v12 if v12 != 0 replace weight = v10 if v10 != 0 recode v188 (3 4 = 1 "(tend to) disagree") (1 2 = 0 "(tend to) agree"), gen(treat_ill) recode v189 (3 4 = 1 "(tend to) disagree") (1 2 = 0 "(tend to) agree"), gen(new_treat) recode v190 (3 4 = 0 "(tend to) disagree") (1 2 = 1 "(tend to) agree"), gen(duty_new_treat) recode v194 (3 4 = 1 "(tend to) disagree") (1 2 = 0 "(tend to) agree"), gen(human_being)

// Create temporary files and postfile tempname foo tempname eb731 postfile ‘foo’ str2 cntry str20 variable perc perc_ll perc_ul using ‘eb731’ , replace levelsof cntry, local(levels1) foreach x of varlist treat_ill new_treat duty_new_treat human_being { foreach cntry of local levels1 { // Calculate proportions * di "‘cntry’" qui proportion ‘x’ [pw = weight] if cntry == "‘cntry’" *matrix list r(table) matrix coefs = r(table) local perc = coefs[1,2] * 100 local perc_ll = coefs[5,2] * 100 local perc_ul = coefs[6,2] * 100

qui di "‘cntry’" _skip(2) ‘perc_ll’ _skip(2) ‘perc’ _skip(2) ‘perc_ul’

if "‘perc’" != "" { // Make sure that the loop doesn’t break if post ‘foo’ ("‘cntry’") ("‘x’") (‘perc’) (‘perc_ll’) (‘perc_ul’) } } } postclose ‘foo’ use ‘eb731’, clear egen order_ = rank(-perc) if variable == "treat_ill", unique labmask order_, value(cntry)

94 twoway (dot perc order_ if variable == "treat_ill", horizontal) /// (rcap perc_ll perc_ul order_ if variable == "treat_ill", horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/32, val) legend(off) xlabel(0(20)100) ytitle("") /// xtitle("{it:% (tend to) disagree}" "Research involving human embryos should be forbidden," /// "even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people.") /// caption("{it:Source:} Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations." /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.", size(small) span) /// name(treat_ill, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/treat_ill.pdf", as(pdf) replace drop order_ egen order_ = rank(-perc) if variable == "human_being", unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (dot perc order_ if variable == "human_being", horizontal) /// (rcap perc_ll perc_ul order_ if variable == "human_being", horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/32, val) legend(off) xlabel(0(20)100) /// ytitle("") xtitle("{it:% (tend to) disagree}" "Immediately after fertilisation the human embryo" "can already be considered to be a human being.") /// caption("{it:Source:} Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations." /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.", size(small) span) /// name(human_being, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/human_being.pdf", as(pdf) replace drop order_ egen order_ = rank(-perc) if variable == "duty_new_treat", unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (dot perc order_ if variable == "duty_new_treat", horizontal) /// (rcap perc_ll perc_ul order_ if variable == "duty_new_treat", horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/32, val) legend(off) xlabel(0(20)100) /// ytitle("") xtitle("{it:% (tend to) agree}" "We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments," "even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos.") /// caption("{it:Source:} Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations." /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.", size(small) span) /// name(duty_new_treat, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/duty_new_treat.pdf", as(pdf) replace drop order_ egen order_ = rank(-perc) if variable == "new_treat", unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (dot perc order_ if variable == "new_treat", horizontal) /// (rcap perc_ll perc_ul order_ if variable == "new_treat", horizontal) /// , ylabel(1/32, val) legend(off) xlabel(0(20)100) ///

95 ytitle("") xtitle("{it:% (tend to) disagree}" "It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research" "even if it might offer promising new medical treatments.") /// caption("{it:Source:} Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010), doi: 10.4232/1.11428, own calculations." /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals. Weighted data.", size(small) span) /// name(new_treat, replace) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/new_treat.pdf", as(pdf) replace drop order_

*graph combine treat_ill_fig human_being_fig duty_new_treat_fig new_treat_fig, xsize(10) ysize(8) xcommon reshape wide perc perc_ll perc_ul, i(cntry) j(variable) string label var percduty_new_treat "% agree w/ human embryos in medical research" label var perchuman_being "% disagree w/ human embryo is human being right after fertilization" label var percnew_treat "% disagree w/ human embryos in medical research" label var perctreat_ill "% disagree w/ research on human embryos should be forbidden" drop perc_ll* perc_ul* ren percduty_new_treat duty_new_treat2010 ren perchuman_being human_being2010 ren percnew_treat new_treat2010 ren perctreat_ill treat_ill2010 save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\eb2010", replace

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // European Social Survey Round 3 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// use "ess round 3\ESS3e03_5.dta", clear

// Generate variables of interest

// Split ballot identifier fre icsbfm

// Country replace cntry = "UK" if cntry == "GB"

// iagpnt "In your opinion, what is the ideal age for a XXX // to become a mother/father?"

96 recode iagpnt ( 0 = .a "No ideal age") /// (777 = .b "Refusal") /// (888 = .c "Don’t know") /// (999 = .d "No answer") /// (998 = .e "Split ballot") /// , gen(idealageparent) clonevar idealagefather = idealageparent replace idealagefather = .e if icsbfm == 1 clonevar idealagemother = idealageparent replace idealagemother = .e if icsbfm == 2

// tochld "After what age would you say a woman/man is generally too old to // "consider having any more children?" recode tochld ( 0 = .a "Never too old") /// (777 = .b "Refusal") /// (888 = .c "Don’t know") /// (999 = .d "No answer") /// (998 = .e "Split ballot") /// (997 = .f "Wrong age group") /// , gen(toooldforchild) clonevar toooldforchildf = toooldforchild replace toooldforchildf = .e if icsbfm == 1 label var toooldforchildf "Man too old for a(nother) child" clonevar toooldforchildm = toooldforchild replace toooldforchildm = .e if icsbfm == 2 label var toooldforchildm "Woman too old for a(nother) child"

// Set outliers and "never too old" to country-specific 99th percentile levelsof(cntry), local(country) foreach x of varlist toooldforchildf toooldforchildm { foreach y of local country { qui sum ‘x’ if cntry == "‘y’", detail *di ‘x’ _skip(2) "‘y’" _skip(2) r(p95) _skip(2) r(p99) replace ‘x’ = r(p99) if ‘x’ == .a /// & cntry == "‘y’" replace ‘x’ = r(p99) if ‘x’ > r(p99) /// & !missing(‘x’) /// & cntry == "‘y’" } }

// Create temporary files and postfile tempname foo tempname idealage postfile ‘foo’ str2 cntry idealagem idealagemlb idealagemub /// idealagef idealageflb idealagefub ///

97 toooldforchildfm toooldforchildflb toooldforchildfub /// toooldforchildmm toooldforchildmlb toooldforchildmub /// using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\idealage", replace levelsof(cntry), local(country) foreach x of local country { qui reg idealagemother if cntry == "‘x’" [pweight = dweight] local idealagem = _b[_cons] local idealagemlb = _b[_cons] - (1.96 * _se[_cons]) local idealagemub = _b[_cons] + (1.96 * _se[_cons])

qui reg idealagefather if cntry == "‘x’" [pweight = dweight] local idealagef = _b[_cons] local idealageflb = _b[_cons] - (1.96 * _se[_cons]) local idealagefub = _b[_cons] + (1.96 * _se[_cons])

qui reg toooldforchildf if cntry == "‘x’" [pweight = dweight] local toooldforchildfm = _b[_cons] local toooldforchildflb = _b[_cons] - (1.96 * _se[_cons]) local toooldforchildfub = _b[_cons] + (1.96 * _se[_cons])

qui reg toooldforchildm if cntry == "‘x’" [pweight = dweight] local toooldforchildmm = _b[_cons] local toooldforchildmlb = _b[_cons] - (1.96 * _se[_cons]) local toooldforchildmub = _b[_cons] + (1.96 * _se[_cons]) post ‘foo’ ("‘x’") (‘idealagem’) (‘idealagemlb’) (‘idealagemub’) /// (‘idealagef’) (‘idealageflb’) (‘idealagefub’) /// (‘toooldforchildfm’) (‘toooldforchildflb’) (‘toooldforchildfub’) /// (‘toooldforchildmm’) (‘toooldforchildmlb’) (‘toooldforchildmub’) } postclose ‘foo’ use "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\idealage", clear egen order_ = rank(-toooldforchildmm), unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (scatter toooldforchildmm order_) /// (rcap toooldforchildmub toooldforchildmlb order_) /// (scatter toooldforchildfm order_) /// (rcap toooldforchildfub toooldforchildflb order_) /// , legend(label(1 "... women") /// label(3 "... men") /// order(3 1) pos(1) ring(0)) /// xlabel(1/21, val alt) /// ylabel(40(5)60) /// xtitle(" ") ytitle("Age in years") /// title("Age when one is too old to have a(nother) child for ...") /// name(tooold, replace)

98 drop order_ egen order_ = rank(-idealagem), unique labmask order_, value(cntry) twoway (scatter idealagem order_) /// (rcap idealagemub idealagemlb order_) /// (scatter idealagef order_) /// (rcap idealagefub idealageflb order_) /// , legend(label(1 "... mother") /// label(3 "... father") /// order(3 1) pos(1) ring(0)) /// xlabel(1/21, val alt) /// ylabel(20(5)40) /// xtitle(" ") ytitle("Age in years") /// title("Ideal age to become a ...") /// name(idealage, replace) graph combine idealage tooold, /// col(1) ysize(8) /// note("{it:Source:} European Social Survey Round 3, own calculations" /// "{it:Notes:} Error bars denote 95 % confidence intervals", span size(small)) graph export "data report (apr 2015)/figures/idealage.pdf", as(pdf) replace

*drop order_ keep cntry idealagem idealagef toooldforchildfm toooldforchildmm save "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\idealage", replace

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Merge country-level data set //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// use "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\bothfathandmoth", clear merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\womanneedschild", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\marroutd", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\womsingpa", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\neighbor_gay", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\neighbor_unmarried", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\homoadopt", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\dutychild", nogenerate

99 merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\decichild", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\justivf", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\pgdsupport", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\cloningsupport", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\eb2010", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\idealage", nogenerate merge 1:1 cntry using "data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\religion", nogenerate

*list, ab(4)

// Erase temporary files local filelist bothfathandmoth womanneedschild marroutd womsingpa /// neighbor_gay neighbor_unmarried homoadopt dutychild /// decichild justivf pgdsupport cloningsupport /// eb2010 idealage religion //evswvs foreach filename of local filelist { erase ‘"data report (apr 2015)\temp data sets\\‘filename’.dta"’ }

// Label variables and add notes label var cntry "Country" label var bothfathandmoth1 "% tend to agree that a child needs a home with father and mother, 1981-1984" label var bothfathandmoth2 "% tend to agree that a child needs a home with father and mother, 1989-1993" label var bothfathandmoth3 "% tend to agree that a child needs a home with father and mother, 1995-2001" label var bothfathandmoth4 "% tend to agree that a child needs a home with father and mother, 2005-2013" label var womanneedschild1 "% think that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 1981-1984" label var womanneedschild2 "% think that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 1989-1993" label var womanneedschild3 "% think that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 1995-2001" label var womanneedschild4 "% think that a woman needs children to be fulfilled, 2005-2013" label var marroutd1 "% agree ’Marriage is an outdated institution,’ 1981-1984" label var marroutd2 "% agree ’Marriage is an outdated institution,’ 1989-1993" label var marroutd3 "% agree ’Marriage is an outdated institution,’ 1995-2001" label var marroutd4 "% agree ’Marriage is an outdated institution,’ 2005-2013" label var womsingpa1 "% approve women choosing to be single mothers, 1981-1984" label var womsingpa2 "% approve women choosing to be single mothers, 1989-1993" label var womsingpa3 "% approve women choosing to be single mothers, 1995-2001" label var womsingpa4 "% approve women choosing to be single mothers, 2005-2013"

100 label var catholic1 "% Catholics, 1981-1984" label var catholic2 "% Catholics, 1989-1993" label var catholic3 "% Catholics, 1995-2001" label var catholic4 "% Catholics, 2005-2013" label var protestant1 "% Protestants, 1981-1984" label var protestant2 "% Protestants, 1989-1993" label var protestant3 "% Protestants, 1995-2001" label var protestant4 "% Protestants, 2005-2013" label var orthodox1 "% Orthodox Christians, 1981-1984" label var orthodox2 "% Orthodox Christians, 1989-1993" label var orthodox3 "% Orthodox Christians, 1995-2001" label var orthodox4 "% Orthodox Christians, 2005-2013" capture drop neighbor_gay1 label var neighbor_gay2 "% not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, 1989-1993" label var neighbor_gay3 "% not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, 1995-2001" label var neighbor_gay4 "% not wanting homosexuals as neighbors, 2005-2013" foreach x of varlist bothfathandmoth1-neighbor_gay4 { notes ‘x’: Source: World Values Survey (WVS) and European Values Study (EVS), 1981-2013 } foreach x of varlist catholic1-orthodox4 { notes ‘x’: Source: World Values Survey (WVS) and European Values Study (EVS), 1981-2013 } capture ren neighbor_unmarried4 neighbor_unmarried label var neighbor_unmarried "% not wanting unmarreid couples as neighbors, 2005-2013" notes neighbor_unmarried: Source: World Values Survey (WVS) Waves 5 and 6 (2005-2013) capture ren homoadopt4 homoadopt label var homoadopt "% agree (strongly) ’Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children,’ 2008-2010" notes neighbor_unmarried: Source: European Values Study (EVS) Wave 4 (2008-2010) capture ren dutychild4 dutychild label var dutychild "% agree (strongly) ’It is a durty towards society to have children,’ 2008-2010" notes dutychild: Source: European Values Study (EVS) Wave 4 (2008-2010) capture ren decichild4 decichild label var decichild "% agree (strongly) ’People should decide themselves to have children,’ 2008-2010" notes decichild: Source: European Values Study (EVS) Wave 4 (2008-2010) capture ren justivf4 justivf label var justivf "Moral acceptance of IVF, 2008-2010" notes justivf: Range: 1 ("Never justified") to 10 ("Always justified"). Source: European Values Study (EVS) Wave 4 (2008-2010) label var pgdsupport "% supporting the testing of unborn babies for any serious diseases, 2002"

101 notes pgdsupport: Source: Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) label var cloningsupport "% supporting the cloning of embryos to help infertile couples, 2002" notes cloningsupport: Source: Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) capture ren human_being2010 human_being label var human_being "% (tend to) disagree ’Immediately after fertilization embryo is a human being,’ 2010" notes human_being: Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) capture ren duty_new_treat2010 duty_new_treat label var duty_new_treat "% (tend to) agree ’We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos,’ 2010" notes duty_new_treat: Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) ren new_treat2010 new_treat label var new_treat "% (tend to) disagree ’It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might offer promising new medical treatments,’ 2010" notes new_treat: Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) ren treat_ill2010 treat_ill label var treat_ill "% (tend to) disagree ’Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people,’ 2010" notes treat_ill: Source: Eurobarometer 73.1 (2010) label var idealagem "Ideal age for a girl or a woman to become a mother, 2006" label var idealagef "Ideal age for a boy or a man to become a father, 2006" label var toooldforchildfm "Age when a man is too old to have a(nother) child, 2006" label var toooldforchildmm "Age when a woman is too old to have a(nother) child, 2006" foreach x of varlist idealagem-toooldforchildmm{ notes ‘x’: Source: European Social Survey (2006-2007) Round3 Rotating Module "Timing of Life" }

// Put variables in order order cntry bothfathandmoth1 bothfathandmoth2 bothfathandmoth3 bothfathandmoth4 /// womanneedschild1 womanneedschild2 womanneedschild3 womanneedschild4 /// marroutd1 marroutd2 marroutd3 marroutd4 /// womsingpa1 womsingpa2 womsingpa3 womsingpa4 /// neighbor_gay2 neighbor_gay3 neighbor_gay4 /// neighbor_unmarried homoadopt dutychild decichild justivf /// pgdsupport cloningsupport duty_new_treat human_being new_treat treat_ill /// idealagem idealagef toooldforchildfm toooldforchildmm /// catholic1 catholic2 catholic3 catholic4 /// protestant1 protestant2 protestant3 protestant4 /// orthodox1 orthodox2 orthodox3 orthodox4 label data "Family and Fertility Norms and Values, with a Focus on Assisted Reproduction" notes: Data set described in XXXX save "normsandvalues", replace

102 13 Appendix 4: Stata code used to merge both data sets use "normsandvalues.dta", clear merge 1:1 cntry using "data\iffs reports\iffs.dta"

References

European Commission, 2012a. Eurobarometer 58.0 (September–October 2002). ZA3692, data ﬁle version 1.0.1. Cologne: Gesis Data Archive. doi:10.4232/ 1.10952. ——, 2012b. Eurobarometer 73.1 (January–February 2010). ZA5000, data ﬁle version 4.0.0. Cologne: Gesis Data Archive. doi:10.4232/1.11428.

EVS, 2011. European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981–2008. ZA4804, data ﬁle version 2.0.0. Cologne: Gesis Data Archive. doi:10.4232/1.11005. Jones, Jr., Howard W. and Jean Cohen, 1999. ‘IFFS Surveillance 1998.’ Fer- tility and Sterility 71(5, Supplement 2): S1–S34. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(99) 80001-6. ——, 2001. ‘IFFS Surveillance 2001.’ Fertility and Sterility 76(5, Supplement 1): S5–S36. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02931-4. ——, 2004. ‘IFFS Surveillance 2004.’ Fertility and Sterility 81(5, Supplement 4): S1–S60. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(04)00678-8.

Jones, Jr., Howard W., Jean Cohen, Ian Cooke, and Roger Kempers, 2007. ‘IFFS Surveillance 2007.’ Fertility and Sterility 87(4, Supplement 1): S1– S67. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.071. Jones, Jr., Howard W., Ian Cooke, Roger Kempers, Peter Brinsden, and Doug Saunders, 2011. ‘IFFS Surveillance 2010. Preface.’ Fertility and Sterility 95(2): 491. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.011. Jowell, Roger, Caroline Roberts, Rory Fitzgerald, and Gillian Eva, 2007. Mea- suring Attitudes Cross-Nationally. Lessons from the European Social Survey. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849209458.

Ory, Steven J., Paul Devroey, Manish Banker, Peter Brinsden, John Buster, Mo¨ıseFiadjoe, Marcos Horton, Karl Nygren, Hirshikesh Pai, Paul Le Roux, and Elizabeth Sullivan, 2014. ‘IFFS Surveillance 2013. Preface and Conclu- sions.’ Fertility and Sterility 101(6): 1582–1583. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014. 03.045.

103