Introduction

China’s economic prosperity has provided abundant employment opportunities for workers in the recent decades since the reform and opening up. However, workers need to balance their family roles and job responsibilities while getting employment opportunities. As family members, individuals aspire to take responsibility for raising their offspring and caring for their family (Killewald and Gough, 2010). As employees, individuals aspire to realize their self-worth at work. Decent work (DW) is a state that men and women aspire to achieve, promoting workers to obtain decent, productive, and sustainable job opportunities under conditions of freedom, fairness, safety, and human dignity (Hassan et al., 2024). DW is not only essential for achieving work–family balance (WFB) (Kabir et al., 2023) but also plays a crucial role in promoting the sustainable development of society and the economy (Matcu-Zaharia et al., 2024; Xiao et al., 2024a). The latest study explores how employees can be more productive while working from home during a pandemic to enhance their work–life balance and promote sustainable development (Albastaki et al., 2024). Therefore, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has pushed DW to accelerate decent and productive employment under conditions of security, equity, freedom, and dignity since 1999. In recent years, the studies of DW have gradually shifted from macro to individual levels (Yan et al., 2023b), focusing on the attitudes and behaviors of DW in employees’ workplaces. However, few studies have addressed the spillover effects of DW on personal lives. With the introduction of the “two-child policy” in China, many individuals of childbearing age are now faced with the decision of when to start a family and how many children to have. At the same time, numerous workers are finding it increasingly challenging to balance their professional responsibilities with starting a family (Wu et al. 2023). The research questions in this study are: (1) Can WFB improve individuals’ fertility intentions (FI)? (2) How does DW affect individuals’ FI?

We conducted the following research to answer these questions. Firstly, we undertook a comprehensive literature review to explore relevant research variables (including WFB, DW, and FI) and subsequently provided the limitations and progress of the literature. Secondly, we developed a theoretical framework for WFB, DW, and FI based on job demands-resources theory (JD-R) and life history theory. We proposed six hypotheses in the third section. The fourth part described our research design, including the process and sample, variables measurement, and reliability and validity tests. In the fifth part, we conducted data analysis, including correlation analysis and hypothesis analysis, in which the direct impact of WFB on DW and FI was empirically examined through the questionnaire, the mediating effect of DW between WFB and FI was tested, and the moderating effects of organizational support (OS) and family support (FS) on WFB and DW were examined. In the final section, we concluded, elaborated on theoretical contributions, and discussed the practical implications, future directions, and limitations.

The theoretical implications of this study are as follows. (1) We combine JD-R and Life History Theory to construct a theoretical framework model of WFB, DW, and FI, expanding the interdisciplinary use of these theories. (2) We introduce DW as a mediating variable in the theoretical framework of FI, enriching the study of the spillover effects of DW on individual’s family lives. (3) We emphasize the need for increased social attention and concern regarding employees’ WFB dilemma, which ultimately leads to reduced happiness and well-being. The practical implication is to provide an applicable and scientific foundation for governments to formulate policies supporting fertility and to organize the development of WFB management practices.

Literature review

WFB-related research

Previous studies have indicated that WFB is defined from the perspectives of conflict and facilitation, role engagement, and role expectation. Based on boundary theory, the conflict and facilitation perspective suggests that work roles and family roles can both support and challenge each other (Wang et al., 2019). From this perspective, the conflict between work and family roles can finally lead to role balance (Vieira et al., 2018). In contrast, the role engagement perspective holds that individuals can fulfill their responsibilities and achieve satisfaction in both work and family roles (Clark, 2000; Greenhaus et al., 2003). This perspective considers family and work roles to be relatively separate. Thus, WFB results from an individual’s input in different roles (Marks and MacDermid, 1996). Adisa et al., (2021) discovered that unmarried female entrepreneurs should establish boundaries between work and family time, clearly delineate their professional and familial responsibilities, prioritize providing quality family companionship, and enhance work efficiency through collaboration with colleagues (Adisa et al., 2021). WFB is the fulfillment of work and family role expectations from the perspective of role expectations (Grzywacz and Carlson, 2007). Individuals collaborate and establish shared expectations with their partners regarding their roles within the work environment and family occasions. Thus, WFB is achieved when individuals can effectively fulfill their responsibilities at work and family.

In summary, the three perspectives are not conflicting but progressive. Researchers concur that individuals can attain a more efficient equilibrium in their work and family domains of responsibility. We use the conflict and facilitation perspective to define WFB. Specifically, WFB is a dual-oriented structure. It encompasses role involvement, which includes balancing family and work responsibilities and navigating the relationship between these two roles to achieve harmony.

Research on WFB has found that both OS and FS significantly impact WFB, influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Research on the relationship between WFB and OS shows a positive correlation between OS and WFB (Ferguson et al., 2012). OS helps individuals fulfill their work responsibilities and positively impacts their family roles by assisting them in meeting their familial obligations more effectively (Lo Presti et al., 2020). Research related to WFB in the workplace suggests that WFB promotes employee engagement and work efficiency (Erdogan et al., 2022; Znidarsic and Bernik, 2021). It also indicates that WFB can positively influence the employees’ organizational citizenship and proactive behavior (Giancaspro et al., 2022; Wang, 2022). Research findings on WFB and FS show that stress can negatively impact an individual’s family planning (Ji and Jung, 2021). The lack of FS makes it difficult for women to balance work and family roles, leading to lower female participation in the workplace (Arpino and Luppi, 2020). Moreover, the family-supportive supervisor’s behavior negatively impacts employees’ deviant behavior in the workplace (Zhang et al., 2022b). Scholars have conducted extensive studies on the definition, antecedent, and outcomes of WFB. However, there are conflicting views regarding whether OS and FS directly or indirectly affect WFB (Wu et al., 2018; Znidarsic and Bernik, 2021). The spillover effect of WFB on individual fertility intention is still explorative and controversial, and the mechanism and influence path between WFB and FI need to be clarified.

Although few studies have been conducted on the relationship between WFB and DW, scholars still try to construct and verify the relationship between organizational justice and WFB in that DW contains relevant elements of fairness and justice. The study results show that a sense of organizational fairness directly impacts WFB, and the higher the sense of organizational fairness, the better the WFB (Pinhão, 2023). Meanwhile, income security and job stability are closely related to WFB. Research results indicate that income satisfaction can promote WFB (Nebenzahl-Elitzur et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2023). Meanwhile, job security also affects WFB (Buffel et al., 2023). However, research scholars have not verified the relationship between other dimensions of DW and WFB. Thus, the research on DW and WFB needs to be further explored.

DW-related research

The definition of DW is classified from the perspective of safety, fairness, and self-value. DW was first proposed by Juan Somavia, Director-General of the ILO, aiming to promote people to obtain decent, productive, and sustainable job opportunities under conditions of freedom, fairness, safety, and human dignity. Based on the safety perspective, the core of DW is to promote social protection, employment, equal rights, and social dialog in workplaces (Bletsas and Charlesworth, 2013). However, ILO redefined DW in 2005 from a fair perspective in alignment with the changes in labor needs. From this perspective, DW prioritizes the workers’ dignity and equal rights at the organizational level. It holds that DW is to ensure fairness and justice (Cooke et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2024). With the advancement of research and workers’ pursuit of work meaningfulness, the definition of DW needs to be constructed from the perspective of work meaning and value (Di Fabio and Blustein, 2016). Since then, the DW’s definition has turned to the perspective of self-value. This perspective emphasizes the individual’s perception and psychological feelings about the value and dignity of work. We define DW as the individual’s overall perception of job resources and demands under internal and external factors from the perspective of self-value.

Previous research indicates that social factors (including cultural and economic factors) (Chen et al., 2020), organizational factors (including corporate culture and characteristics) (Lysova et al., 2019), and individual factors are the antecedents of DW. The outcomes of DW are employee engagement and creativity (Graça et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2022; Lokosof et al., 2017). Current research focuses on the impact of DW on individual attitudes and behavior in the workplace. Few studies have examined the spill-over effects of DW on individual family lives. In fact, working conditions will significantly affect employees’ family lives (García-Salirrosas et al., 2023; Mordi et al., 2023). Therefore, the spill-over effect of DW on individual life can be further explored.

Fertility intention-related research

As a crucial component of fertility decision-making, FI is the primary predictor of individual fertility behavior. Intention influences an individual’s attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control (Billari et al., 2009). Previous studies on FI have primarily focused on measurement and antecedents of FI. Gallup, an American scholar, first used the “ideal number of children” to measure an individual’s FI in the 1960s. Preis et al.‘s study operationalized FI as the desire or intention to have a specific number of children and the timing between births (Preis et al., 2020). Some scholars define FI as the desire for children, the number of children desired in a lifetime, and fertility plans (Arnocky et al., 2012; Chu et al., 2022). Researchers in this field have extensively researched the factors that influence FI, finding that multiple factors influence FI. The antecedents of FI include individual factors, such as age (Ning et al., 2022), marital status (Speizer et al., 2020), and reproductive experience (Speizer et al., 2013); job factors, such as occupation and income (Luppi et al., 2022); and social factors, including social environment (Zhang and Gong, 2023), social support, and social security (Li et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022a). This study proposes that FI is closely related to actual fertility, reflected in the number of children and the fertility concept (Ibrahim and Arulogun, 2020).

Summary

Scholars have made significant progress in the WFB, DW, and FI research. Nevertheless, there are still limitations. First, the spillover effect of WFB on individual fertility intention needs to be studied more thoroughly. Second, research on DW has primarily focused on attitudes and behavior in the workplace rather than those in the family context. Thirdly, it is worth noting that the theoretical framework of DW on work and family relationships would benefit from a more integrated perspective from different disciplines. Previous research has primarily developed theoretical frameworks from a managerial standpoint, with less emphasis on the psychological perspective. Therefore, based on the JD-R model and Life History theory from the perspective of recourse and evolutionary psychology, we build a theoretical framework of DW, WFB, and FI through a questionnaire of childbearing age groups and explore how WFB affects the individual fertility intention in the family place through the spillover effect of DW.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis

Theoretical framework

The JD-R theory, proposed by Demerouti et al. in the early 2000s, classifies all job characteristics into two main categories: job demands and job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). “Job demand” refers to a job’s psychological, physiological, social, or organizational requirements that involve continuous physical or mental efforts and come with specific costs. The job resource refers to the role of work in achieving objectives, reducing costs related to work demands, and promoting personal growth and development. That includes work’s psychological, physical, social, and organizational aspects (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017; Zhang et al., 2020). According to this definition, job resources include organizational and personal resources. By utilizing the resources, individuals can control their work and the working environment (Menguc et al., 2017). Employees are encouraged to utilize job resources to meet their role’s demands. While meeting these demanding job requirements may pose a challenge, it can also benefit employees as it enhances their performance and requires more effort (Jakobsson et al., 2023). This research uses the JD-R model to build a theoretical framework among WFB, OS, FS, and DW. When faced with job demands, individuals must carefully weigh their work and family resources, which is critical for work and family life (Pouyaud, 2016). Individuals who effectively balance work and family resources can better coordinate work and family responsibilities (Arredondo-Trapero et al., 2022), thus facilitating the achievement of DW. OS and FS, as social resources, can assist individuals in achieving a balance between work roles and family responsibilities. The balance of the two roles will make the individual produce positive emotions and promote the realization of DW.

Life history theory is one of the representative theories in evolutionary psychology. Life history theory suggests that the reproduction process is determined by resource allocation, which requires parents to invest their time, energy, and financial resources. This investment involves a trade-off between the number of offspring and the duration of reproductive efforts (Park et al., 2010). Given limited resources, individuals must carefully consider the allocation of their resources. The individual’s environment and experience will affect the individual to form different trade-offs, namely, “present and future fertility trade-offs,” “courtship and rearing trade-offs,” and “offspring quantity and quality trade-offs” (Kaplan and Gangestad, 2005). A further study found that the individual’s unique life experience (life history) will affect the individual’s behavior pattern and life history strategies. Specifically, the “slow” life history strategy often indicates future survival investment, such as high-quality birth and delayed gratification (Figueredo et al., 2006). However, the “fast” life history strategy suggests focusing on immediate reproductive behavior, including early childbirth and prioritizing instant gratification (Ellis et al., 2009). This study uses life history theory to construct a theoretical framework for DW and FI. The level of DW represents an individual’s uncertainty in the labor market. When the uncertainty of the external environment is higher, individuals tend to adopt the “fast” strategy to reduce the uncertainty of the external environment through active fertility behavior (Baumard and Chevallier, 2015). When the external environment is stable, individuals living in a more comfortable environment tend to adopt the “slow” strategy and postpone the birth plan to obtain a higher quality of life enjoyment and provide a better environment for their offspring (Chen and Qu, 2017).

Based on the JD-R model and life history theory, we construct a theoretical framework among WFB, OS, FS, DW, and FI (Fig. 1). In this framework, WFB and FI are the independent and dependent variables; the moderating variables are OS and FS, and the mediating variable is DW.

Fig. 1: Hypothetical framework.
figure 1

This study proposes that work-family balance may have an impact on fertility intentions, with decent work serving as a mediating factor. Additionally, organizational and family support can play a moderating role in the relationship between work-family balance and decent work.

Full size image

The relationship between WFB and DW

We propose that WFB has a significant positive effect on DW. WFB refers to the individual’s balance between family and work roles. DW refers to employees’ perception of income, dignity, respect and support, personal value, and professional skills at work (Yan et al., 2023a). Previous studies have shown that WFB can increase individuals’ income and improve professional skills. Yoo and Oh (2017) investigated the relationship between WFB and job choices in Korea. It is found that WFB policies can effectively increase women’s employment rate and help them get a decent income (Yoo and Oh, 2017). Chen (2021) found that working at home will blur the boundary between work and family (Chen, 2021). As a result, remote work may lead to decreased employee motivation for career development. To effectively reduce the negative effect of remote work on employees’ career development and personal lives, it is recommended that employees adapt to this new paradigm by balancing their work and family responsibilities. The adaption process can improve the individuals’ job skills. The JD-R model holds that individuals must use work and personal resources to satisfy their work demands and achieve personal goals. Positive emotions at work can also spill over to the family, increasing the closeness of family members and gaining more FS. An effective balance between work and family can improve an individual’s self-efficacy and psychological well-being (Haider and Dasti, 2022; Shange, 2022). Furthermore, positive emotions can heighten an individual’s engagement at work. Thus, achieving a better equilibrium between job roles and familial responsibilities can eventually enhance employees’ DW (Ouweneel et al., 2012).

Therefore, we propose:

H1: WFB has a significant and positive impact on DW.

The relationship between DW and FI

DW will significantly positively affect FI. From the narrow sense, FI refers to the number of kids people would like to have in their lifetime. It refers to people’s fertility concept. Previous studies have shown that the external environment’s uncertainty significantly impacts individuals’ FI (Vignoli et al., 2020). Meanwhile, stable income, respect, and OS can improve the individual’s fertility intention. Cortis et al. (2023) found that income can provide solid financial security for family members (Cortis et al., 2023). A decent job, including a satisfactory income, can provide an economic basis for fertility behavior, thus improving the individual’s fertility intention. Jiang et al. (2022) argue that the support and help provided by organizations to professional women can be considered a form of respect and assistance. Professional women of childbearing age with a higher level of DW may experience lower levels of psychological pressure and anxiety, thus enhancing fertility intention (Jiang et al., 2022). A high level of DW indicates stable income, significant respect and support within the organization, better career prospects and self-worth through work tasks, and more vital professional skills. Decent and favorable working conditions increase an individual’s fertility intention (Aassve et al., 2021).

Therefore, we propose:

H3: DW has a significant and positive impact on FI.

WFB and FI

This study holds that WFB significantly and positively impacts an individual’s FI. Previous studies have demonstrated that work and family relationships significantly impact reproduction intentions. For example, difficulty balancing work and family roles contributes to low fertility rates in some developed countries (Liu and Hynes, 2012). China’s one-child policy has not been strictly enforced; therefore, women may face more conflicts between parenting and work (Wu et al., 2023). Conflict is the opposite of balance. When women experience a more balanced work–family relationship, they enter the “gain spiral” (Chung and Lee, 2022; Ji and Jung, 2021). That is, getting more positive feedback from family and work enhances an individual’s sense of self-efficacy and sense of control over work–family relationships. According to JD-R, this inner feeling is the expectation of future uncertainty control. When individuals can effectively manage the balance between work and family roles, they can control uncertainty and have positive expectations for the future, enhancing fertility intention (Canning et al., 2013).

Therefore, we propose:

H2: WFB has a significant and positive impact on FI.

The mediating role of DW between WFB and FI

According to the JD-R model, this study proposes that WFB affects an individual’s FI by mediating the effect of DW. Studies on the work and family relationship demonstrate that working individuals are engaged in job resources and demands. WFB can be achieved through the effective distribution of job demands and job resources. Individuals with more resources will have higher work autonomy. They can receive increased organizational feedback and social support, cultivate more harmonious relationships with colleagues and supervisors, enjoy sufficient working hours and development opportunities, and secure a more stable income and welfare. Individuals with decent jobs could deal with role pressure more actively when faced with a conflict between work roles and family responsibilities. Further studies have also found that WFB can significantly improve employees’ happiness (Shange, 2022). At the same time, DW significantly correlates with happiness (Aybas et al., 2022). Thus, a harmonious work–family relationship improves employees’ happiness, allows them to work under freedom, equality, safety, and self-worth conditions, and realizes DW (Xiao et al., 2024b). When individuals have access to DW, which includes a stable income, a secure employment environment, the ability to realize personal values, and the respect and support of the organization, they are more likely to believe in safety within their work and living environment. As a result, they become more willing to consider starting a family.

Therefore, we propose:

H4: WFB has a significant and positive effect on FI through the mediating effect of DW.

The moderating effects of OS and FS

This study argues that OS and FS can positively moderate the relationship between WFB and DW. Workers working overtime will spend less time with family members and reduce WFB (Mao et al., 2023). Managers can help employees achieve WFB by giving them more support and help. Besides, family-friendly regulations or practices can positively impact personal WFB, improve employees’ work engagement, and promote the realization of DW (Znidarsic and Bernik, 2021). Moreover, previous studies have shown that FS can promote WFB. Pattusamy and Jacob (2017) discovered that when college teachers receive support from their family members, it reduces family interference with work, enabling them to achieve a better work and family balance, ultimately resulting in a positive impact on DW (Pattusamy and Jacob, 2017). Given this, when individuals receive OS and FS, they can have enough energy, time, and resources to assign between work and family roles, which makes it easier to achieve WFB, and the DW level is also improved.

Therefore, we propose:

H5: The positive impact of WFB on DW will be enhanced with the moderating effect of OS.

H6: The positive impact of WFB on DW will be enhanced with the moderating effect of FS.

Research design

Procedures and samples

The Academic Ethics Committee of the Business School approved the research survey on January 5th, 2024. The research team issued the questionnaire based on the online platform “Wenjuanxing.” To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, we included a preface that explains the content and purpose of the survey. Participants are assured that this questionnaire is anonymous and that all data collected will be used exclusively for research purposes. Subjects are required to sign a written consent form before starting the questionnaire. The data collected will be stored in a computer with encryption and kept confidential by a specially assigned person without disclosure to the public. We adopt the snowball sampling method in our survey. Targeted participants with the required characteristics are taken as the initial survey objects. Subsequently, they are encouraged to send the questionnaire to the candidates who meet the survey requirements.

The data were collected from January 6th to January 26th, 2024. Six hundred questionnaires were received. After the data collection was completed, we eliminated the invalid questionnaires. According to the test, the response time should be at least 2 min. Therefore, questionnaires with a response time of less than or equal to 2 min are considered invalid. At last, 558 valid questionnaires were obtained; the valid rate was 93%. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistical results of the samples.

Table 1 Sample statistical information.
Full size table

For gender distribution, males accounted for 37.3%, while females accounted for 62.7%. The sample shows that 1.3% were 18 or below, 48.6% were 18–25, 13.8% were 26–30, 17.4% were 31–40, 13.4% were 41–50, and 5.6% were 51 or above. The age was mainly between 18 and 40, which met the requirements of marriage and childbearing age. Regarding marital status, 1.6% were divorced, 60.4% of subjects were unmarried, and married accounted for 38.0%. Regarding the number of kids born, 62.7% have no kids, 22.4% have one kid, 12.7% have two kids, 1.8% have three kids, and 0.4% have four or above. From the education level, 21.1% of the subjects have a junior college or below, and 50.0%, 24.2%, and 4.7% have undergraduate, master postgraduate, and PhD, respectively. As for the organization type, foreign-owned enterprise accounts for 4.1%, state-owned enterprise accounts for 14.7%, government or public institutions account for 16.3%, private enterprises account for 19.5%, freelancers account for 9.9%, and others account for 35.5%. In the household annual income, 32.3% are below RMB 100,000, 47.5% are between RMB 100,001 and 300,000, 12.2% are between RMB 300,001 and 500,000, and 8.1% are RMB 500,001 or above. As for the participants’ location, 29.2% are from the metropolis, 18.3% are from the emerging metropolis, 26.2% are second-tier cities, 13.9% are so-called third-tier cities, and 12.4% are fourth-tier cities or smaller ones.

Measures

The researchers selected a scale widely recognized by scholars both domestically and internationally as the measuring tool for this study. A back-to-back translation method was employed for our survey, with one graduate student translating the scales into Chinese and another translating Chinese back into English. Subsequently, a professor in the human resource management field conducted a comparative analysis of the questionnaire. We aim to ensure that the subjects thoroughly understand the meaning of the items we have examined. Before the formal investigation, we adjusted and revised some problematic questions to ensure the original intention. The formal questionnaire is divided into three parts. Part one is the introduction, which describes the research purpose and procedure. Part two contains demographic variables, such as gender, age, marital status, number of kids born, educational background, organizational type, annual household income, and city level. Part three includes variable measurement, such as DW, WFB, FI, OS, and FS. All items are measured by using the five-point Likert scale. Scoring options range from “completely disagree” to “completely agree” with a score of 1 to 5. “1” means disagree, “2” means less disagree, “3” indicates average, “4” shows much more agree, and “5” indicates strongly agree.

WFB

We use the three-item WFB scale developed by Haar (2013). The scale measures individual enjoyment, satisfaction, and management of all life roles. For example, “Now, I enjoy every part of my life equally,” “I am happy with my WFB and enjoy my family role and work role,” and “I manage to balance the relationship between family roles and job requirements well.” (Haar, 2013).

DW

We chose the DWPS scale developed by Yan et al. (2023a) to measure DW. The scale comprises 13 questions divided into four dimensions: job security, professional skills, respect and support, and self-worth. Job security includes three items, for instance, “My income is secured,” and professional skills include three items, such as “My job gives me respect and recognition.” The dimension of respect and support includes four items, such as “I can work with autonomy and freedom,” and so on. The self-worth dimension consists of three items: “My job requires high ability,” and so on (Yan et al., 2023a).

OS

We used the scale of Yang et al. (2018) and Hao et al. (2016) to measure OS, comprising a single dimension and six items respectively (Hao et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2018), such as “The business places great importance on my work goals and values” and “The enterprise is very concerned about my happiness.” and so on.

FS

We adopt the FS scale that King et al. (1995) developed (King et al., 1995). The original scale has 44 items with two dimensions: emotional support and tool assistance. We consider FS to be a moderator in the theoretical framework. As a result, we have carefully chosen items that exhibit a strong correlation in these two dimensions. We selected the first four items with a correlation over 0.8 to measure emotional support and four with a correlation over 0.7 as the measurement tools for tool assistance. The final scale includes items such as “My family is very interested in my work” and “My family will share the housework with me and finish it carefully.”

FI

We use the fertility intention scale developed by Ibrahim and Arulogun (2020). The scale contains 11 questions with five dimensions. It includes fertility intention, parents’ expectation of fertility, social expectation, individual expectation, and behavioral expectation. The fertility intention dimension contains one item: “Number of children I want in my lifetime.” Parents’ expectations of the fertility dimension include two items such as “How many kids do you think your father (mother) wants you to have?”. The social expectation dimension consists of three items, such as “I think it is very vital for society to improve the fertility rate.” and so on. Individual expectation contains two items: “The more kids I have, the happier I will be” and, “I think fertility is one of the important features of human social development.” Behavioral expectation includes three items, such as “I can realize my family planning through hard work,” and so on.

Control variables

Previous research results indicate that the subjects’ characteristics may also significantly impact WFB, DW, and FI. Therefore, this study controls demographic variables such as gender, age, education, marital status, and number of children. In this study, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (1 = 18 or below, 2 = 18–25, 3 = 26–30, 4 = 31–40, 5 = 4 1–50, and 6 = 51 or above), marital status (1 = divorce, 2 = unmarried, 3 = married), number of kids born (1 = 0 kid, 2 = “1” kid, 3 = “2” kids, 4 = “3” kids, 5 = 4 or above), education background (1 = junior college or below, 2 = undergraduate, 3 = master postgraduate, 4 = PhD), organizational type (1 = foreign-owned enterprise, 2 = Sstate-owned enterprise, 3 = government or public institution, 4 = private enterprise, 5 = freelancer, 6 = other), household income (annually) (1 = below RMB 100,000, 2 = RMB 100,001–300,000, 3 = RMB 300,001–500,000, 4 = RMB 500,001 or above) and the city level (1 = metropolis, 2 = emerging metropolis, 3 = second-tier cities, 4 = third-tier cities, 5 = fourth-tier cities or smaller ones) were used as control variables.

Reliability test and validity test

Before the hypothesis test, we first tested the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. As the three items in the fertility intention scale are not on the Likert scale, they are deleted from the reliability test of the scale. We use Cronbach’s α coefficient to measure the scale’s reliability by using SPSS 27.0. It indicates acceptable reliability if Cronbach’s α is over 0.7. According to the results of the reliability test in Table 2, it can be concluded that Cronbach’s α of the DW, WFB, OS, FS, and FI scales are all higher than 0.7. The results show that the internal consistency of each item in the scale is acceptable, and the overall scale data is reliable.

Table 2 Results of reliability test.
Full size table

The validity reflects how well the results align with the content under investigation. We use the KMO and Bartlett tests to verify the structural validity of the scale. Table 3 indicates that the KMO value is 0.930, and χ2 is 13769.707. The p-value is 0.000, less than 0.01. It passed the significance test with a significance level of 1%, which shows that the scale has good structural validity.

Table 3 Results of validity test.
Full size table

The self-report questionnaire survey may have a common methodological bias (CMB). We adopt the single-factor CFA model’s fit to predict the CMB (Iverson and Maguire, 2000). Generally, there is no CMB if the model does not fit well, indicating χ2/df > 3, RMSEA > 8, and the rest of the index values are less than 0.9 (Li et al., 2022). According to the model fit results, χ2/df is 10.412 larger than 3, RMSEA is 0.130 over 0.08, GFI, CFI, and NFI are all less than 0.8, which indicates that the fitting index of the single-factor CFA model does not fit well. Therefore, there is no significant CMB among the variables in this scale (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Data analysis

Correlation analysis

Before hypothesis tests, we conduct correlation analysis to explore the connection among the variables. We carry out a correlation test of the five variables, with the results demonstrated in Table 4. It indicates that WFB is positively correlated with the four dimensions of DW, and the correlation coefficients are 0.49, 0.57, 0.62, and 0.46, respectively. The four dimensions of DW are positively correlated with the two dimensions of FI, and the correlation coefficients are 0.16, 0.16, 0.20, 0.15, and 0.20, 0.19, 0.22, and 0.20, individually. WFB is also positively correlated with FI, with correlation coefficients of 0.20 and 0.15. OS has a significant positive correlation with DW, with correlation coefficients of 0.529, 0.690, 0.670, and 0.493, respectively. The correlation results show that variables have strong correlations, which lays the foundation for hypothesis testing.

Table 4 Correlation analysis results.
Full size table

Hypothesis test

Main effects

We test the main effects through structural equation modeling (SEM). The SEM results (see Fig. 2) show that the χ2/df is 6.338. The RMSEA and RMR values were 0.098 and 0.077, respectively, less than 0.1. GFI, CFI, NFI, and NNFI are all greater than 0.9. The data indicates that the well-fitting models are within the standard range.

Fig. 2: SEM data analysis results.
figure 2

According to SEM data analysis, Work-family balance significantly impacts decent work, which in turn affects fertility intentions. Additionally, work-family balance has a direct effect on fertility intentions.

Full size image

Table 5 shows that the standardized path coefficient for the impact of WFB on DW is 0.672 (p < 0.01), proving that WFB has a significant positive effect on DW. Therefore, H1 is supported. DW’s standardized path coefficient value on FI is 0.136 (p < 0.01), demonstrating that DW significantly positively affects FI. Thus, H2 is supported. The standardized path coefficient of WFB on FI is 0.110 (p < 0.01), meaning that WFB has a significant positive effect on FI. As a result, H3 is supported.

Table 5 The regression coefficient of the model.
Full size table

Mediating effects

We use the SPSSAU online data analyzing software to conduct bootstrapping tests to validate the mediating effect of the theoretical framework. The results are in Table 6. The indirect effect’s confidence interval (CI) was between 0.107 and 0.242, and the interval did not contain 0. Thus, DW completely mediates the relationship between WFB and FI, which supports H4.

Table 6 Bootstrapping results.
Full size table

Moderating effects

We conduct a three-step regression analysis test to test the moderating effects of OS and FS. We first construct Model 1 (M1) to examine the impact of WFB on DW while controlling for demographic factors. We find that the F value is 8.677. Secondly, Model 2 (M2) is built to test the impact of WFB and OS on DW. We find that the F value is 85.484. In addition, we incorporate the interaction effect of WFB and OS into M2 and name the new model M3. Table 7 illustrates the regression results of the three models. The regression coefficient for the interaction effect between WFB and OS in M3 is 0.022, suggesting a non-significant moderating influence. Therefore, H5 cannot be supported.

Table 7 Result of moderating effects of OS.
Full size table

We used the same method to test FS’s moderating effect, and the data analysis results are shown in Table 8. The regression coefficient of the interaction term between WFB and FS in M3 is insignificant (p > 0.05). FS has no significant moderating effect between WFB and DW. Therefore, H6 is not supported.

Table 8 Result of the moderating effect of FS.
Full size table

Discussions

Conclusions

We constructed a theoretical framework for WFB, DW, and FI based on the JD-R model and life history theory. Data were collected through a questionnaire. We conducted SEM to test the main effect, a bootstrapping test to examine the mediating effect, and a three-step regression analysis to test the moderating effect. The results showed that WFB positively impacted DW and FI. DW mediated the relationship between WFB and FI. However, OS and FS had no significant moderating effect between WFB and DW.

Theoretical contributions

We exploratively combine the JD-R model and life history theory to construct a theoretical framework among WFB, DW, and FI, which expands the scope of the theories and initially explores the spillover effect of DW from the workplace to the family context. Previous studies examined the significant effect of DW on WFB among entrepreneurs and bank employees (Hussain and Endut, 2018; Kabir et al., 2023). However, previous studies used macro measurement tools to examine individual perceptions of DW, which might not fully capture an individual’s perception and understanding of work (Blustein et al., 2023). Therefore, according to the JD-R model, we construct a WFB and DW relationship from the individual perception level. The model further expands the application field of the JD-R model from individual research of DW and broadens the scope of the JD-R model. Furthermore, we construct a model between DW and FI based on the life history theory, which explores the spillover effect of DW from the workplace to the family context. The research on the spillover effect of DW is still in its early stages, with a limited number of studies focusing on DW’s impact on family and work–life quality (Adhikari et al., 2012; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2016). By applying life history theory to examine the spillover effect of work–life balance on reproductive behavior, this study explores how individual resources obtained in the workplace influence both the quantity and plan of offspring reproduction, thus expanding the research scope of work–life balance spillover effects.

We embedded DW as a mediator in the relationship of WFB and FI, enriching the research scope of FI. Research results indicate that DW fully mediates the relationship between WFB and FI, enriching the studies of FI from an individual perception perspective. Previous research on FI is mainly from the perspective of work–family relationships, social and environmental factors (Doan et al., 2023), floating population (Xing et al., 2023; Xiong et al., 2022), and fertility policy (Chen, 2024; Jiang et al., 2016). We have noted in previous studies that work and family conflict and parenting pressure are identified as mediating variables in the relationship between work–family dynamics and fertility (Hwang and Kim, 2021). Our research contributes to work–family relations by introducing DW as a mediator. This study integrates the conflict and facilitation within work and family occasions to achieve a state of equilibrium. Drawing on the JD-R model and life history theory, we propose and validate the positive impact of WFB on FI through the mediating effect of DW, thereby contributing to studies of FI.

The research results do not support the moderating effects of OS and FS, indicating new research directions on the relationship between WFB and DW. In the theoretical framework, we added two moderators (OS and FS) to the relationship between WFB and DW. The results show that OS and FS have no significant moderating effect on WFB and DW. One possible reason is that achieving a WFB allows individuals to manage their time and energy effectively, reduce conflicts between WF roles, and ultimately improve overall well-being. Existing studies have confirmed the significant impact of WFB on subjective well-being (Leung et al., 2020). Thus, organizational and FS may not be necessary when there is no role conflict, suggesting the non-significant moderating effect of OS and FS on the relation between WFB and DW. Although our study has not tested the moderating effect of FS and OS, it indicates potential future research directions. Scholars can further explore the boundaries of WFB and DW, such as employment uncertainty, childbearing policy, and community support.

Practical implications

This study’s results provide theoretical support for formulating a governmental fertility policy. The government should fully consider the coordination between work and family contexts when making a fertility policy. Although China has implemented the three-child policy to deal with the potential problems and challenges caused by an aging population, the fertility rate of childbearing age is still low. This study suggests that DW significantly positively impacts individual FI. Therefore, we can look at four aspects of DW to increase FI. First, regarding self-worth and professional skills, governments can implement policies such as flexible work arrangements, paid leave, and re-employment training for women who have taken career breaks due to childbirth (Zeng et al., 2023). In this way, they can enhance their sense of self-worth. Second, in terms of job security and respect and support, the government can also provide women with the necessary maternity support and protection by formulating and improving maternity protection policies, such as maternity insurance. At the same time, promoting and recognizing maternity and family-friendly workplaces will also help build a pro-maternity society. In conclusion, the emphasis on DW is conducive to developing the government’s fertility policy. It will help to promote the smooth implementation of the fertility policy and the overall development of the economy and society.

The results also have practical implications for human resources management policy. We have found that DW mediates the relationship between WFB and FI. DW can enhance the individual sense of self-worth. Balancing work–family relationships will be more challenging when individuals do not feel respected or supported in the workplace. Some studies have found that lacking flexible working arrangements decreases employees’ job satisfaction and WFB (Uysal et al., 2023). Managers should pay more attention to humanized management practices. For instance, the flexible working system should be enhanced to allow employees to determine their work schedule independently and flexibly, establish clear boundaries between work and family roles, and strive to align these standards with their preferences (Okubo et al., 2021).

Limitations and future directions

Although we have tried our best to design our research well, it inevitably has limitations. (1) Sample limitations. We use a random sampling method to obtain accurate and objective data, but the samples’ randomness still needs improvement. Additionally, it is essential to note that our sample collection focused solely on the childbearing age groups in China and did not include data from other countries or regions worldwide. The sampling scope needs to be expanded, and the quality of sample collection needs to be improved. (2) Research method limitation. Due to limited time and financial support, we have opted for a questionnaire as our primary research method. Supplementing the studies with interviews would enhance the depth and comprehensiveness. (3) Cross-sectional data limitations. In this study, we utilize cross-sectional data to test the theoretical model. Cross-sectional data refers to information collected from participants or subjects simultaneously, providing a snapshot of their characteristics or behaviors within that period. However, WFB and FI are continuous, reflecting a constant psychological state. Therefore, using a longitudinal method may be more helpful in enhancing the study results’ reliability.

Based on the above limitations, our future studies can be developed in the following ways. (1) Future research could broaden its scope by incorporating a more comprehensive range of industries and countries and increasing the sample size to encompass more nations and even global regions. Moreover, scholars can enhance the quality of the questionnaire by ensuring the accurate identification of research subjects and eliminating inaccurate data resulting from variations among survey participants. (2) By combining interviews and questionnaires, future research can explore the boundaries between WFB and DW. It is also possible to further investigate the mechanism of other WF relationships on FI through qualitative and quantitative research, such as work–family conflict and work–family enrichment. (3) Researchers can examine the sample group we are studying at different times and compare it with previous research to assess changes in their psychological state.