Sex Roles

, Volume 9, Issue 8, pp 901–914 | Cite as

An analysis of factors affecting traditional family expectations and perceptions of ideal fertility

  • Wilbur J. Scott
  • Carolyn Stout Morgan
Article

Abstract

This study examines (1) the conditions giving rise to variation in sex-role orientation and the perceived cost of having children, and (2) the role these variables play as mechanisms linking antecedent variables to perceptions of ideal fertility. Data are drawn from a metropolitan area sampling of 401 adults. Antecedent variables of sex, employment status, age, education, exposure to metropolitan living, and religious traditionalism — though correlated with ideal fertility — have no direct effects on that variable. Rather, the effects of these variables on fertility are mediated through sex-role orientation and the perceived cost of having children.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, G. An economic analysis of fertility. In Demographic and economic changes in developed countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Pp. 209–240.Google Scholar
  2. Beckman, L. The relative rewards and costs of parenthood and employment for employed women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1978, 2, 215–234.Google Scholar
  3. Blake, J. Reproductive ideals and educational attainment among white Americans. Population Studies, 1967, 21, 159–174.Google Scholar
  4. Blake, J. Are babies consumer durables? Critique of the economic theory of reproductive motivation. Population Studies, 1968, 22, 5–25.Google Scholar
  5. Blake, J. Coercive pronatalism and American population policy. Berkeley: International Population and Urban Research, 1972.Google Scholar
  6. Bumpass, L. Is low fertility here to stay? Family Planning Perspectives, 1973, 5, 67–79.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, A., & Converse, P. The American way of mating: Marriage si, children only maybe. Psychology Today, 1975, 8, 37–43.Google Scholar
  8. Freedman, R., Whelpton, P., & Campbell, A. Family planning, sterility, and population growth. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Glick, P. A demographer looks at American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 37, 15–26.Google Scholar
  10. Hoffman, L., & Hyatt, F. Social change and motivations for having larger families. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 6, 235–244.Google Scholar
  11. Homans, G. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. Holter, H. Sex roles and social structure. Oslo: Universitet-forlaget, 1970.Google Scholar
  13. Kagan, J., & Moss, M. Birth to maturity. New York: Wiley, 1962.Google Scholar
  14. Kirk, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1968.Google Scholar
  15. Leibenstein, H. Economic backwardness and economic growth. New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
  16. Lowenthal, N., & David, A. Social and economic correlates of family fertility. Raleigh, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Mason, K., Cazjka, J., & Arber, S. Change in U.S. women's sex role attitudes, 1964–1976. American Sociological Review, 1976, 41, 537–596.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, W., & Levitan, T. Leadership and change. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. Morgan, C. Predicting support for sex role change. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. Piepmeier, K., & Adkins, T. The status of women and fertility. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1973, 5, 507–520.Google Scholar
  21. Roper Poll. The Virginia Slims American women's attitude poll: A survey of attitudes of women on marriage, divorce, the family and America's changing sexual morality. New York: Roper Organization, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. Ryder, N. The future of American fertility. Social Problems, 1979, 26, 359–270.Google Scholar
  23. Ryder, N., & Westoff, C. Reproduction in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Scanzoni, J. Sex roles, life styles and childbearing. New York: Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Scanzoni, J. Gender roles and the process of fertility control. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 38, 677–691.Google Scholar
  26. Smith-Lovin, L., & Tickamyer, A. Nonrecursive models of labor force participation, fertility behavior, and sex role attitudes. American Sociological Review, 1978, 43, 541–557.Google Scholar
  27. Stark, R., & Glock, C. American piety: The nature of religious commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of the population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.Google Scholar
  29. Waite, L., & Stolzenberg, R. Intended childbearing and labor force participation of young women: Insights from nonrecursive models. American Sociological Review, 1977, 41, 235–251.Google Scholar
  30. Whelpton, P., Campbell, A., & Patterson, J. Fertility and family planning in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilbur J. Scott
    • 1
  • Carolyn Stout Morgan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyThe University of OklahomaUSA

Personalised recommendations