Family Size Preferences Research Paper

Family size preferences or desires are conceptually and empirically distinct from family size ideals, norms, intentions, and expectations. Fertility ideals and norms represent what is desirable for a group of people or a typical group member, rather than what is desirable for every person in the group. Family size intentions or expectations reflect not only family size preferences but also constraints on one’s ability to achieve desired or preferred goals.

1. Conceptualization And Measurement

1.1 Desired, Intended, Expected, And Ideal Family Size

McClelland assessed the construct desired family size as a measure of the demand for children, that is, ‘the number of children parents would have if there were no subjective or economic problems involved in regulating fertility’ (1983, p. 288). He concluded that family size desires do, indeed, represent the theoretical construct, demand for children.

Family size intentions and expectations reflect not only family size preferences but also perceptions of the likelihood that preferences can be translated into outcomes. The gap between intended or expected family size and desired family size may reflect influence of partner’s desires, perceived fecundity and fertility control, or other known constraints on fertility behavior or outcomes.

Questions about a general ideal family size produce responses that fit the character of a social norm rather than that of a personal preference. For some individuals—those who have internalized societal ideals or who believe their own situation is typical—ideals may be identical to desires (Mason 1983).

1.2 Measures Of Family Size Preferences

Two types of questions are most commonly used to measure family size preferences. The first asks respondents how many children they would want to have in their lifetime, if they could choose the exact number. For childless respondents, this question measures desires prospectively; for parents, the question includes a retrospective assessment of previous births with a prospective assessment of potential future births. Retrospective assessments of birth wantedness are subject to social desirability bias or rationalization and therefore produce upwardly biased estimates of desired family size. Another version of this question attempts to give respondents permission to report previous births as unwanted by asking something like: ‘If you could start life over again, how many children would you want to have?’ Such questions may also place conditions on the question, specifying that the respondent’s life would be in other respects about the same as it had been so far. It is not clear that these two forms of the lifetime question produce different responses.

The second type of question asks respondents how many more children they would like to have; for childless respondents, the answer would presumably be the same as for the first type of question, but for parents, retrospective assessments of previous births are excluded. To obtain an estimate of desired family size, some analysts simply add the respondent’s current number of children to the additional number desired. This strategy assumes that all previous births were wanted, producing an even stronger upward bias than does the first type of measure. Several methods have been proposed for estimating the number of unwanted previous births from parity-specific values of additional desired children, and thereby to produce a more accurate measure of desired family size (Bongaarts 1998). Unfortunately, these methods do not provide estimated family size preferences for individuals.

An alternative measure of family size preferences asks respondents to make choices between pairs of family sizes, producing a scale reflecting desires for large versus small families. Scales have also been developed to incorporate preferences for sex of children in family size preferences and vice-versa (Coombs 1979). The interdependent IN and IS scales reflect the fact that family size desires may incorporate desires for particular numbers of boys or for particular numbers of girls or some balance between the two.

1.3 Non-Numerical Responses

In high-fertility societies, small but significant proportions of respondents do not provide a numerical response to questions about desired family size, reporting instead that the number of children they have is ‘up to God’ or that they will accept whatever number of children they have. These responses raise the question of whether individuals form preferences about things they believe they cannot or should not try to influence. Such respondents do respond to questions about family size ideals, preferences for one family size over another, and unwanted or mistimed previous births (McClelland 1983, Riley et al. 1993).

2. Her, His, And Their Family Size Desires And Intentions

Most data on family size desires or intentions come from interviews with women. The assumptions underlying women-only fertility surveys are that (a) women and men share the same conditions of life and will therefore want and intend the same number of children, (b) because women bear children and are primary childrearers, their desires and intentions are those that determine fertility, and (c) women’s desires and intentions will incorporate those of their partners, reflecting resolution of any initial disagreements. These assumptions appear to be tenable in the aggregate; when data are collected from women and men, their respective family size desires and intentions are more similar than different (Mason and Taj 1987). On the other hand, data collected from couples consistently show that substantial proportions of couples disagree about desires or intentions for further childbearing or completed family size (Becker 1996).

3. Family Size Preferences, Intentions, And Births

The relationship between family size desires and births depends on relationships between preferences and intentions, between intentions and behavior, and between behavior and outcomes. Couple disagreement is a primary source of gaps between desires and intentions, that is, the gap between individual desires and intentions to have a child is explained in large part by a spouse’s different preference (Thomson 1997). Another key source of gaps between desires and intentions is the perception of control over fertility. Those who believe themselves to be in fecund may desire more children than they intend; those who do not perceive themselves to be able to control fertility may intend more children than they desire.

Family size preferences or intentions may also change over the life course and are particularly likely to be influenced by experiences with previous births (Namboodiri 1983). In spite of these expected gaps, measures of family size desires, particularly the desire for additional children, have moderately strong effects on fertility behavior and outcomes (McClelland 1983). Lee (1980) has demonstrated that a ‘moving target’ model of desired and achieved fertility produces even stronger correspondence between family size desires and period fertility.

Davidson and Jaccard (1979) identified many of the key conditions under which a strong effect of fertility desires or intentions on births should be expected. First, the strength of the effect depends on the extent to which the ultimate goal (birth or no birth) is achieved through a sequence of behaviors and events, including sexual intercourse, contraception, conception, and abortion. Fertility desires and intentions should have stronger effects on the behaviors at the beginning of the sequence than on the ultimate outcome. Second, the effect will be stronger over shorter versus longer periods of time because the opportunity for new experiences that change desires or intentions is reduced. Third, effects of desires or intentions on behavior and outcomes should be stronger for individuals who place a high value on cognitive consistency, who believe they have control over their actions, and who generally engage in planful behavior than for those who do not. Finally, desires and intentions and behaviors and outcomes should be measured at the same level of specificity in order to expect a strong relationship; desired or ideal family size should not, for example, be expected to have strong effects on contraceptive use or even the timing of a particular birth.

The relationship between childbearing desires or intentions and births depends to a considerable extent on couple agreement. Couple disagreement leads to birth rates between those for couples who both desire or intend a child and those who do not. This means that both partners’ desires have at least some influence on births (e.g., Thomson 1997, Thomson and Hoem 1998, Dodoo 1998).

Estimated relationships between fertility desires and intentions or between intentions and behavior also depend on measurement quality. The IN-scale discussed above provides more accurate measures of preferences and therefore has larger estimated effects on fertility behavior than does a single most preferred number of children (Coombs 1979). Measures of the desire for children that incorporate dimensions of attitude strength have stronger effects on childbearing intentions and behavior than do yes-no-don’t know responses to direct questions about desire for children (e.g., Davidson and Jaccard 1979). Similarly, intentions measured with some degree of certainty or uncertainty are better predictors of outcomes than a simple dichotomy (Thomson 1997).

Bibliography:

1. Becker S 1996 Couples and reproductive health: A review of couple studies. Studies in Family Planning 27: 291–306
2. Bongaarts J 1998 Fertility and reproductive preferences in posttransitional societies. Policy Research Division Working Paper No. 114, Population Council, New York
3. Coombs L C 1979 Reproductive goals and achieved fertility: A fifteen-year perspective. Demography 16: 523–34
4. Davidson A R, Jaccard J J 1979 Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1364–76
5. Dodoo F N 1998 Men matter: Additive and interactive gendered preferences and reproductive behavior in Kenya. Demography 35: 229–42
6. Lee R D 1980 Aiming at a moving target: Period fertility and changing reproductive goals. Population Studies 34: 205–26
7. Mason K O 1983 Fertility norms. In: Bulatao R A, Lee R D (eds.) Determinants of Fertility in De eloping Countries, Vol. 1, Supply and Demand for Children. Academic Press, New York
8. Mason K O, Taj A M 1987 Differences between women’s and men’s reproductive goals in developing countries. Population and Development Review 13: 611–38
9. McClelland G H 1983 Family-size desires as measures of demand. In: Bulatao R A, Lee R D (eds.) Determinants of Fertility in De eloping Countries, Volume 1, Supply and Demand for Children. Academic Press, New York
10. Namboodiri N K 1983 Sequential fertility decision making and the life course. In: Bulatao R A, Lee R D (eds.) Determinants of Fertility in De eloping Countries, Volume 1, Supply and Demand for Children. Academic Press, New York
11. Riley A P, Hermalin A I, Rosero-Bixby L 1993 A new look at the determinants of nonnumeric response to desired family size: The case of Costa Rica. Demography 30: 159–74
12. Thomson E 1997 Couple childbearing intentions and births. Demography 34: 343–54
13. Thomson E, Hoem J M 1998 Couple childbearing plans and births in Sweden. Demography 35: 315–22