Demography

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 125–135 | Cite as

Husbands’ and wives’ characteristics and fertility decisions: A diagonal mobility model

  • Ann Marie Sorenson
Article

Abstract

In this article a diagonal mobility model is used to describe the relative effects of husbands’ and wives’ characteristics on fertility. Compared with the characteristics of their wives, the characteristics of non-Hispanic husbands are nearly insignificant in their effect on fertility. The relative importance of husbands’ attributes is much greater among Mexican-American couples. Although this suggests ethnic stereotypes about male dominance in Mexican-American families, differences in female educational attainment may offer a better explanation. The most immediate conclusion from this analysis pertains to the use of wives’ characteristics as a proxy for couple data. This strategy is reasonable if female educational levels generally extend into high school. Relying on wives’ characteristics to study marital fertility, however, may be problematic if the analysis involves respondents with a wide range of educational levels.

Keywords

Educational Level Educational Attainment Family Size Weight Parameter Marital Fertility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvirez, D. 1969. The effects of formal church affiliation and religiosity on the fertility patterns of Mexican-American Catholics. Demography 10:19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bean, F. D., and G. Swicegood. 1982. Generation, female education and fertility among Mexican-Americans. Social Science Quarterly 63:131–144.Google Scholar
  3. Beckman, L. J. 1983. Communication, power, and the influence of social networks in couple decisions on fertility. Pp. 413–443 in R. A. Bulatao and R. D. Lee (eds.), Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, B. S., and F. D. Bean. 1972. Some aspects of the fertility of Mexican-Americans. Pp. 139–164 in C. S. Westoff and R. Parke, Jr. (eds.), Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Bumpass, L. L., and C. F. Westoff. 1970. The Later Years of Childbearing. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cromwell, R., and R. Ruiz. 1979. The myth of macho dominance in decision making within Mexican-American and Chicano families. Hispanic journal of Behavioral Sciences 1:355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Derbyshire, R. L. 1968. Adolescent identity crisis in urban Mexican Americans in East Los Angeles. Pp. 73–110 in E. B. Brody (ed.), Minority Group Adolescents in the United States. Baltimore, Md.: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  8. Fried, E. S., S. L. Hofferth, and J. R. Udry. 1980. Parity-specific and two-sex utility models of reproductive intentions. Demography 17:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grebler, L., J. Moore, and R. Guzman. 1970. The Mexican-American People. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, F. 1971. Family planning in Santiago, Chile: The male viewpoint. Studies in Family Planning 2:143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollerbach, P. E. 1983. Fertility decision-making processes: A critical essay. Pp. 340–380 in R. A. Bulatao and R. D. Lee (eds.), Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kar, S. B., and J. M. Talbot. 1980. Attitudinal and non-attitudinal determinants of contraception: A cross-cultural study. Studies in Family Planning 11:51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morgan, S. P. 1985. Individual and couple intentions for more children: A research note. Demography 22:125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michael, R. T. 1975. Education and the derived demand for children. Pp. 91–116 in T. W. Schultz (ed.), Economics of the Family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Murillo, N. 1971. The Mexican-American family. Pp. 15–25 in C. A. Hernandez, M. Haug, and N. Wagner (eds.), Chicanos. St. Louis, Mo.: C. V. Mosby.Google Scholar
  16. Ryder, N., and C. S. Westoff. 1971. Reproduction in the United States: 1965. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sobel, M. E. 1981. Diagonal mobility models: A substantively motivated class of designs for the analysis of mobility effects. American Sociological Review 46:893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. — 1985. Social mobility and fertility revisited: Some new models for the analysis of the mobility effects hypothesis. American Sociological Review 50:699–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sobel, M. E. In press. Some problems in modelling hypotheses about the effects of status inconsistency. In H. Strasser and R. W. Hodge (eds.), Change and Strain in Social Hierarchies: Theory and Method in Status Inconsistency.Google Scholar
  20. Sorenson, A. M. 1985a. Ethnicity, Fertility Expectations and Family Size: A Cohort Analysis of Mexican-American and Anglo Adolescents and Adults, Husbands and Wives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Dept. of Sociology.Google Scholar
  21. — 1985b. Fertility expectations and ethnic identity among Mexican-American adolescents. Sociological Perspectives 28:339–360.Google Scholar
  22. Thomson, E. 1983. Individual and couple utility of children. Demography 20:507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 Census of Population, Characteristics ofthe Population (Vol. 1): General Population Characteristics, Arizona (Pt. 4), New Mexico (Pt. 33), and Texas (Pt. 45). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  24. — 1983a. Census of Population and Housing, 1980: Public Use Microdata Sample (A Sample, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) [Machine-readable data file]. Bureau of the Census (Producer). Ann Arbor: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (Distributor).Google Scholar
  25. — 1983b. Census of Population andHousing, 1980: Public UseMicrodata Samples Technical Documentation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  26. Zinn M. 1980. Chicano family research: Conceptual distortions and alternative directions, journal of Ethnic Studies 7:59–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Marie Sorenson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations