Husband-wife agreement about reproductive goals

Abstract

Data from Malaysia on the reproductive goals of husbands and wives are analyzed to determine level of agreement, using new scale measures on preferences for number and sex of children as well as the conventional measure of desired number of children. The level of agreement between husband and wife varies considerably depending on the focus of analysis and the measure of agreement used. Overall aggregate agreement of men and women is high but lower for subgroups of the population, particularly among various ethnic groups. For marital partners, the agreement is much lower, especially on sex preferences. The level observed depends on whether the measure is identity of responses or an index of homogeneity which allows for couple concordance based on chance or common socialization factors. The views about the reproductive goals of one marital partner cannot with confidence be assumed to represent the views of the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Berelson, B. 1966. KAP Studies on Fertility. Pp. 655–668 in Bernard Berelson, Family Planning and Population Programs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brackbill, Y. 1974. Test-Retest Reliability in Population Research. Studies in Family Planning 5:161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlaw, R. W., R. Reynolds, L. W. Green, and N. I. Khan. 1971. Underlying Sources of Agreement and Communication Between Husbands and Wives in Dacca, East Pakistan. Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:571–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coombs, C. H., L. C. Coombs, and G. H. McClelland. 1975. Preference Scales for Number and Sex of Children. Population Studies 29:273–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Coombs, Lolagene C. 1974. The Measurement of Family Size Preferences and Subsequent Fertility. Demography II:587–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. —. 1976a. Are Cross-Cultural Preference Comparisons Possible? A Measurement-Theoretic Approach. IUSSP Paper No. 5. Liege, Belgium: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Coombs, Lolagene C.. 1976b. Underlying Preferences for Family Composition: United States, 1973. Final Report for Publication from Project on “Family Size Expectations and Preferences for Number and Sex of Children: Findings from the National Survey of Family Growth—Cycle I, 1973.” Available from the author at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Forthcoming from the Division of Vital Statistics, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare in Washington, D.C.

  8. —, and T. H. Sun. 1976. Family Composition Preferences in a Developing Culture-The Case of Taiwan, 1973. Taiwan Population Studies, Working Paper No. 30. Ann Arbor: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Freedman, Ronald, and J. Y. Takeshita. 1969. Family Planning in Taiwan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goodman, L. A., and W. H. Kruskal. 1954. Measures of Association for Cross Classifications. American Statistical Association Journal 49:732–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Granbois, D. H., and R. P. Willett. 1970. Equivalence of Family Role Measures Based on Husband and Wife Data. Journal of Marriage and the Family 32:68–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hill, Reuben, J. M. Stycos, and K. Back. 1959. The Family and Population Control. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kim, J. O. 1975. Multivariate Analysis of Ordinal Variables. American Journal of Sociology 81:261–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Knodel, J., and V. Prachuabmoh. 1976. Preferences for Sex of Children in Thailand: A Comparison of Husbands’ and Wives’ Attitudes. Studies in Family Planning 7:137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Landis, J. Richard, and G. G. Koch. A Review of Statistical Methods in the Analysis of Data Arising from Observer Reliability Studies. Institute of Statistics Mimeo Series, No. 956. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

  16. Meltzer, J. W., and J. R. Hochstim. 1970. Reliability and Validity of Survey Data on Physical Health. Public Health Reports 85:1075–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Michel, A. 1967. Interaction and Family Planningin the French Urban Family. Demography 4:615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitchell, R. E. 1972. Husband-Wife Relations and Family-Planning Practicesin Urban Hong Kong. Journal of Marriage and the Family 34:139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mukherjee, B. N. 1975. Marital Decision-Making and Family Planning. The Journal of Family Welfare 21(3):77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Polgar, S., and F. Rothstein. 1970. Research Report: Family Planning and Conjugal Roles in New York City Poverty Areas. Social Science and Medicine 4:135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Poffenberger, Thomas. 1969. Husband-Wife Communication and Motivational Aspects of Population Control in an Indian Village. Central Family Planning Institute Monograph Series, No. 10. New Delhi: Central Family Planning Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rarnakumar, S. R., and S. Y. S. Gopal. 1972. Husband-Wife Communicationand Fertility in a Suburban Community Exposed to Family Planning. The Journal of Family Welfare 18(3):30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Robinson, W. S. 1957. The Statistical Measurement of Agreement. American Sociological Review 22:17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ryder, Norman, and C. F. Westoff. 1971. Reproduction in the United States. 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stokes, C. S., and C. J. Dudley. 1972. Family Planning and Conjugal Roles: Some Further Evidence. Social Science and Medicine 6:157–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1961. The Mysore Population Study. Population Studies 34:141–157.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Warren, B. L. 1966. A Multiple Variable Approach to the Assortative Mating Phenomenon. Eugenics Quarterly 13:285–290.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yaukey, D., B. J. Roberts, and W. Griffiths. 1965. Husbands’ vs. Wives’ Responses to a Fertility Survey. Population Studies 19:29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. —, W. Griffiths, and B. J. Roberts. 1967. Couple Concurrenceand Empathyon Birth Control Motivation in Dacca, East Pakistan. American Sociological Review 32:716–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coombs, L.C., Fernandez, D. Husband-wife agreement about reproductive goals. Demography 15, 57–73 (1978). https://doi.org/10.2307/2060490

Download citation

Keywords

  • Family Size
  • Identical Response
  • Preference Scale
  • Number Preference
  • Marital Partner