Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:36:35.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measures of family size preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

J. C. Barrett
J. C. Barrett
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Estimates of preferred family sizes are derived from those achieved at various durations of marriage, using a Monte Carlo simulation model of reproductive histories, slightly modified in its representation of breast-feeding. The method of estimation consists in inverting the relationship between these two distributions (wanted and achieved births) which form respectively an input to and an output of the model. The increasing preference for families of two children is shown in cohorts married in England and Wales in 1951, 1956, 1961, 1966 and 1971 for women's ages at marriage 20–24 and 25–29. Sensitivity to assumptions regarding contraceptive effectiveness is tested, and ranges established for estimates. The evolution and stability of family size preferences are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 357 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, J.C. (1971) Use of a fertility simulation model to refine measurement techniques. Demography, 8, 481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, J.C. (1977) Indirect measurements of family size preference and of abortion. J. biosoc. Sci. 9, 301.Google ScholarPubMed
Barrett, J.C. (1982) Issues in the measurement of potential fertility of contraceptive acceptors. In: The Role of Surveys in the Analysis of Family Planning Programs. Edited by Hermalin, A. I. and Entwistle, B.Ordina, Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. (1979) Duration, period and cohort measures in marital fertility. Popul. et Famille, 47, 69.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. (1983) The alignment and crystallization of family size preferences. Genus, 39, 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Barrett, J.C. & Brass, W. (1974) Systematic and chance components in fertility measurement. Popul. Stud. 28, 473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, J. (1983) Family Size Preferences in Europe and USA: Ultimate Expected Number of Children. World Fertility Survey Comparative Study no. 26. International Statistical Institute, Voorburg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Busfield, J. & Paddon, M. (1977) Thinking about Children. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Collins, R. (1981) Microfoundations of macrosociology. Am. J. Sociol. 86, 984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, N.R. (1978) On social norms and fertility decline. J. Dev. Stud. 14, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, K. (1979) Family Formation, 1976. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1895) Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique, 11th edn.Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
French, F.E. & Bierman, J.M. (1962) Probabilities of fetal mortality. Publ. Hlth Rep. 77, 835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, A.K. & Sun, T. (1972) Interrelationships between sociodemographic factors, lactation and postpartum amenorrhea. Demography India, 1, 1.Google Scholar
Lee, R.D. (1980) Aiming at a moving target: period fertility and changing reproductive goals. Popul. Stud. 34, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesthaeghe, R. (1980) On the social control of human reproduction. Popul. Dev. Rev. 6, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, C.P. & Dyer, E.D. (1976) Social Systems: The Study of Sociology. Schenkman, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1981) Birth Statistics, 1979. Series FMI No. 6. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1982) General Household Survey 1980. Series GHS No. 101. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1983) Fertility Report from the 1971 Census. Series D5 No. 5. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. (1976) Ideal types and empirical theories. Br. J. Phil. Sci. 27, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1978) For Science in the Social Sciences. Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlman., E. (1969) The Psychology of Birth Planning. Schenkman, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rodgers, B. (1978) Feeding in infancy and later ability and attainment, a longitudinal study. Develop. Med. Child. Neurol. 20, 421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sagi, P.C., Potter, R.G. & Westoff, C.F. (1961) Contraceptive effectiveness as a function of desired family size. Popul. Stud. 15, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoff, C.F. & Ryder, N.B. (1977) The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 14, 431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, M. & Willmott, P. (1973) The Symmetrical Family. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar