Skip to main content
Log in

Socioeconomic status, value orientations, and fertility behavior in India

  • Articles
  • Published:
Demography

Abstract

This paper examines the role assumed by value orientations in the explanation of fertility behavior. Specifically the concern is with the extent to which value orientations intervene between, or mediate, the relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility behavior. The relationships between socioeconomic status, four types of value orientations and three aspects of fertility behavior are examined among males in India. In most instances value orientations provide -neither the sole nor the partial interpretations of the relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility. The results of this investigation suggest once again the inadequacy of value orientations as predictors of fertility behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, K. 1964. Opinion and Attitude towards.Family Planning in Chandigarh. Journal of Family Welfare (Bombay) 10:60–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, William B., II. 1971. Modern and Traditional Value Orientations and Fertility Behavior: A Social Demographic Study. Demography 8:37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, Gordon F. 1965. Religious Fundamentalism, Socio-Economic Status, and Fertility Attitudes in the Southern Appalachians. Demography 2:540–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, James T. 1970. Psychology and Population: Behavioral Research Issues in Fertility and Family Planning. New York: The Population Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyman, Moye W. 1963. Population Control in India. Marriage and Family Living 25:53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, Philip M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1959. Demography as a Body of Knowledge. Pp. 76–105 in Philip M. Hauser and Otis Dudley Duncan (eds.), The Study of Population: An Inventory and Appraisal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkeles, Alex. 1969. Making Men Modern: On the Causes and Consequences of Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. American Journal of Sociology 75:208–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, L. M., and K. D. Virkar. 1968. Ideal Size of Family. Journal of Family Welfare (Bombay) 15:22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl, Joseph A. 1968. The Measurement of Modernism: A Study of Values in Brazil and Mexico. Austin: University, of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasarda, John D. 1973. The Ecological Approach in Sociology. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Southwestern Social Science Association, Dallas.

  • Kluckholm, Clyde. 1951. Values and Value-Orientations and the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification. Pp. 388–433 in Talcott Parsons and Edward Shills (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, Paul F. 1955. Interpretation of Statistical Relations as a Research Operation. Pp. 115–125 in Paul F. Lazarsfeld and M. Rosenberg (eds.), The Language of Social Research. Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandagere, S. P. Rukmini. 1963. Opinion and Attitude towards Family Planning in Rural Madras. Journal of Family Welfare (Bombay) 10:32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, David G. 1970. Society in India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathen, K. K., and Muktha Sen. 1964. The Singur Population Study as an Action Research Model for Family Planning. Journal of Family Welfare (Bombay) 10:4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, Steven. 1974. Expected Family Size and Perceived Status Deprivation among High School Senior Women. Demography 11:57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namboodiri, N. Krishnan. 1972. Some Observations on the Economic Framework for Fertility Analysis. Population Studies 26: 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opler, Morris E. 1964. Cultural Context and Population Control Programs in Village India. Pp. 202–221 in Earl W. Count and Gordon T. Bowles (eds.), Fact and Theory in Social Science. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poffenberger, Thomas. 1967. Age of Wives and Number of Living Children of a Sample of Men Who Had the Vasectomy in Meerut District, U. P. Journal of Family Welfare (Bombay) 13:48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singelmann, Joachim. 1971. Socioeconomic Status and Fertility in India. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spengler, Joseph J. 1966. Values and Fertility Analysis. Demography 3:109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolnitz, George J. 1956. Population Composition and Fertility Trends. American Sociological Review 21:738–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Indian Institute of Public Opinion. 1969. Monthly Public Opinion Surveys May: 1.

  • Williamson, John B. 1970. Subjective Efficacy and Ideal Family Size as Predictors of Favorability toward Birth Control. Demography 7:329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poston, D.L., Singelmann, J. Socioeconomic status, value orientations, and fertility behavior in India. Demography 12, 417–430 (1975). https://doi.org/10.2307/2060825

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2060825

Keywords

Navigation