Abstract
This paper examines some of the connecting links between modernization in a developing society, particularly urbanization and increased education for women, and preferences for number of children. Using 1973 Taiwan data, preferences for smaller families are found to be consistently related to modern attitudes and behavior in the three domains examined: intrafamilial husband-wife role relationships, extrafamilial activities of the wife, and familial and religious values relating the family to the larger institutional setting. Modernization of these attitudes, behaviors, and values has an impact on reproductive goals independent of their association with structural variables. The wife’s outside activities and exposure to modern influences through the mass media are especially important linkages, having a particularly strong mediating effect in the education effect on preferences. Intrafamilial relations appear to be of less importance. Modernization of familial and religious values mediates between urbanization and family size preferences. The measure of preference used is a scale value which has been found in other research to be more predictive of reproductive behavior than the conventional single-valued statement of number of children wanted. As the level of contraceptive use rises in developing societies, family size preferences increasingly become a factor in birth rates, and understanding the sources of change in these preferences takes on added importance. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, Frank J., J. Morgan, J. Sonquist, and L. Klem. 1973. Multiple Classification Analysis. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Arnold, Fred, R. Bulatao, C. Buripakdi, B. Chung, S. Fawcett, T. Iritani, S. Lee, and T. Wu. 1975. The Value of Children: A Cross-National Study, Vol. 1. Honolulu: East-West Population Institute, East-West Center.
Arnold, Fred, R. Bulatao, C. Buripakdi, B. Chung, S. Fawcett, T. Iritani, S. Lee, and T. Wu, and C. Pejaranonda. 1977. Economic Factors in Family Size Decisions in Thailand. Bangkok: Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Population Survey Division, National Statistical Office, and East-West Population Institute, East-West Center.
Bogue, D. J. 1972. Fertility and Family Planning in Metropolitan Latin America. CELADE Report. Chicago: Community and Family Study Center.
Chung, B., J. Palmore, and S. Lee. 1972. Psychological Perspectives: Family Planning in Korea. Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences.
Coale, A. J. 1973. The Demographic Transition Reconsidered. International Population Conference, Liege 1973, Vol. 1:53–72. Liege, Belgium: IUSSP.
Coale, A. J., Barbara Anderson, and Erna E. Härm. 1979. Human Fertility in Russia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Coombs, C. H., L. C. Coombs, and J. C. Lingoes. 1976. Stochastic Cumulative Scales. Chapter II in Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences, Samuel Shye, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coombs, C. H., L. C. Coombs, and J. C. Lingoes, L. C. Coombs, and G. H. McClelland. 1975. Preference Scales for Number and Sex of Children. Population Studies 29:273–298.
Coombs, C. H., L. C. Coombs, and J. C. Lingoes, R. Dawes, and A. Tversky. 1970. Introduction to Mathematical Psychology. Chapter 3. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Coombs, L. C. 1974. The Measurement of Family Size Preferences and Subsequent Fertility. Demography 11:587–611.
Coombs, L. C. 1976. Are Cross-Cultural Preference Comparisons Possible? A Measurement-Theoretic Approach. IUSSP Paper No. 5. Liege, Belgium: IUSSP.
Coombs, L. C., and T. H. Sun. 1978. Family Composition Preferences in a Developing Culture: The Case of Taiwan, 1973. Population Studies 31:43–64.
Freedman, Ronald, and L. C. Coombs. 1974. Cross Cultural Comparisons: Data on Two Factors in Fertility Behavior. New York: The Population Council.
Freedman, Ronald, and L. C. Coombs et al. 1974. Trends in Fertility, Family Size Preferences, and Practice of Family Planning: Taiwan, 1965–1973. Studies in Family Planning 5:270–288.
Freedman, Ronald, and L. C. Coombs, A. I. Hermalin, and M. C. Chang. 1975. Do Statements about Desired Family Size Predict Fertility? The Case of Taiwan 1967–1970. Demography 12:407–416.
Goldberg, D. 1975. Socioeconomic Theory and Differential Fertility: The Case of the LDCs. Social Forces 54:84–106.
Kim, J. O. 1975. Multivariate Analysis of Ordinal Variables. American Journal of Sociology 81:261–298.
Kish, Leslie, R. M. Groves, and K. P. Krotki. 1976. Sampling Errors in Surveys. Occasional Paper of the World Fertility Survey, No. 17. The Hague: N. V. Drukerij Trio.
Kish, Leslie, R. M. Groves, and K. P. Krotki, and M. Frankel. 1974. Inference from Complex Samples. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 36:1–37.
Knodel, J., and E. van de Walle. 1977. Lessons from the Past: Policy Implications of Historical Fertility Studies. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America.
Lesthaeghe, Ron. 1978. The Decline of Belgian Fertility, 1800–1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mueller, Eva, R. Cohn, and S. Reineck. 1974. Female Labor Force Participation and Fertility in Taiwan. Unpublished paper. University of Michigan: Population Studies Center.
Shorter, Edward. 1975. The Making of the Modern Family. New York: Basic Books.
Sun, T. H., H. S. Lin, and R. Freedman. 1978. Trends in Fertility, Family Size Preferences, and Family Planning Practice: Taiwan, 1961–1976. Studies in Family Planning 9:54–70.
Teitelbaum, M. 1975. Relevance of Demographic Transition Theory for Developing Countries. Science 188:420–425.
Westoff, C. F., and N. B. Ryder. 1977. The Predictive Validity of Reproductive Intentions. Demography 14:431–453.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coombs, L.C., Freedman, R. Some roots of preference: Roles, activities and familial values. Demography 16, 359–376 (1979). https://doi.org/10.2307/2061218
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2061218