5
mm."

rrl‘ru

a
”mum." .
. -4

m»:

‘n:.

 

waver-.1“:
. . a

. .r
.r r1411,
..,. ”9—,...

 

. r. ..r- a:
.. . ,fl. . . ,... , ...,
_ g

 

' 4 n] ~ I'
Av . ,’._. mt

 

... .
.‘2! .JHW, ‘;,;‘...,.‘.-',
, .',.,.*...::J‘,.-F ,a! . ,
1...... .- .,.r

e. ,. . ,, m.
mt. ,

 

 

(”3‘1
w : . .
v V—

,.
,.. 1‘,
up?“
HIM/3...
w-n . “V
"'{“—!V"‘ ..,..
«”9, .

"11:” -;r
v ”:3.

.1. x“,

,~..._A:;\.......-.
i. ‘ )

.
: 21:: :5
J5}: 7“ ..,.

adawa.aa¢«a

x": a

.\

W «uwmm‘nnwuw‘r

V
y
n

r.-\— .
.— r. r « vu
~ Ml

«an
«x
l

,.,. _ , . .L“,..
,...,.l., . .-,.‘

run
anvu‘vlr ...:. -n.
Fl [7. . >1 .

.. , n,.

,.,~. . ...'
r

L' .' .-.". "

”HEM”.

413’); if) min-mm uh"

 

 

lllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllll||Hlllllllllllllllllllllll

31293008

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FACTORS AFFECTING FERTILITY :
A PATH ANALYTIC APPROACH FOR PARENTS

AS DECISION MAKERS

presented by
JANINE SINNO JANOUDI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D degree in FAMILY ECOLOGY

WKKW

Major professor

Date E‘fEiBRIIARY 19,... 1-991

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

  
   
   

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
c:\circ\datodueom}n [

FACTORS AFFECTING FERTILITY:
A PATH ANALYTIC APPROACH FOR PARENTS
AS DECISION MAKERS

BY

JANINE SINNO JANOUDI

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1991

ABSTRACT
FACTORS AFFECTING FERTILITY:

A PATH ANALYTIC APPROACH FOR PARENTS
AS DECISION MAKERS

BY

Janine Sinno Janoudi

Delayed parenthood has been frequently observed
among members of the baby boom generation. The literature
agrees that the decision making process to control
fertility is conscious and rational. Several efforts have
been made in order to understand fertility decision making
from. different. perspectives, and. to develop theoretical
models that relate to it. There is a need to create a model
that is theoretically informative and practically
applicable to parents as decision makers. Therefore, this
research studied some factors affecting the fertility
pattern among 166 employees at Michigan State University. A
combination of two research methodologies, induction and
deduction wereused. A survey research design was followed
using self administered questionnaire in 1988. Respondents
were mostly white, married, white collar female
professionals with. a mean age of 34.5 years. Two
theoretical models were developed in relation to the two
dependent variables: Desired family size, and present
parenting readiness. Correlational analyses, regression and
path analyses were used for testing the hypotheses related

to each dependent variable. Results indicate that the

 

perceived benefits and costs of children and the current
number of children are direct predictors of the desired
family size. Resources of cohesiveness, family finances,
health, and community support are direct predictors of
present parenting readiness. This study contributed to the
human ecology perspective in the merging of various
disciplines, the development of resources concepts related
to parenting readiness, and in the bridge built between

theory, research and practice.

 

To my parents, who nurtured me
with love,education, and the freedom of choice
when many children were deprived of these rights
during the lengthy times of war in Beirut.

To my husband, who believes in my
professional potentials and patiently leads me to
success. To my son, Kareem who is a prime reason
initiating this study.

iv

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge the academic and financial support
provided by the department of Family and Child Ecology at
Michigan State Uinversity. I also acknowledge the guidance
provided by my committee members during the course of my
studies. I offer special thanks to Dr. Thomas Luster whose
help greatly enhanced the quality of this dissertation. I
also thank Dr. Peter Gladhart, Randy Fotiu and Spring Wu,
for their assistance as statistical consultants. Finally, I
thank everyone on campus who offered me the emotional
support in times when I needed it so much.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page
List of Tables ......................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................ ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT .............. l
Declining fertility ............................. 1
Theoretical models of fertility decision.... .. 2
Purposes of the study and research questions.... 8
Rationale and assumptions ....................... 9
Major analysis and significance of the study.... 10
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................... 12
Fertility: A multidisciplinary interest ......... 12
Value of Children ............................... 17
Costs of Children. ..... . ..................... 24
Other Influences on Fertility ................... 28
Summary and impact of the literature on this
study. ........ ....... ...... . .................... 31
III. INDUCTIVE METHODOLOGY AND THEORY BUILDING ....... 33
Parenting readiness ............................. 33
Inductive Methods ............................... 34
Development of concepts ......................... 36
Summary ......................................... 39

IV. DEDUCTIVE METHODS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND

HYPOTHESES ..................................... 40
Deductive designs ............................... 4O
Conceptual Definitions .......................... 41
Operational Definitions ......................... 42
Hypotheses and Theoretical Frameworks ........... 47
The Sample ...................................... 52
Data analysis ................................... 52

V. RESULTS ....... ‘ .................................. 53
Description of the sample ........................ 53
Correlational analyses ........................... 56
Multipe regression analysis ...................... 61
Path Analysis .................................... 65

vi

 

 

VI. DISCUSSION ...................................... 76

Impact of findings on the literature ............. 76
Implications for the human ecology perspective... 80
Recommendations for further research ............. 83

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. ........................... 85
APPENDIX: ABOUT THE DECISION TO HAVE CHILDREN ..... 89

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................... 104

vii

 

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

1.

List of Tables

page
Means and standard deviations for continuous
Variables: Age, Number of Children, Years of
Education, paid work hours per week ............. 54

Percentages for categorical variables: Gender,
Marital Status, Parenting Experience, Employment,
Ethnicity, Religious affiliation, residence ..... 54

Intercorrelations between independent and
dependent variables.... ................ . .......... 58

Coefficients of Determination for desired family
size vs several independent variables ........ 63

Coefficient of determination for present parenting
readiness vs several independent variables ...... 64

Decomposition of effects of significant predictors
of desired family size .......................... 69

Decomposition of effects of significant predictors
of present parenting readiness .................. 74

viii

 

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure 10.
Figure 11.

1.

List of Figures

Page
A composite Model of Fertility: Economic
Perspective .................. . .............. 3
A Sociological Model of Fertility ............ 4
A General Framework For Fertility Decision-~
Making: Psychological View .................. 5
An Integratewd Model of Fertility ............ 6

Concepts Arranged by Level of Abstraction.... 36

Theoretical Framework with desired family
Size as Dependent Variable .................. 49

Theoretical Framework With Present Parenting
Readiness as Dependent Variable ............. 51

Pearson Corrrelations With Dependent Variable
Desired Family Size ......................... 59

Pearson Correlations With Dependent Variable
Present Parenting Readiness ................. 61

Path Diagram with Dependent Variable
Family Size ............................... '.. 67

Path Diagram With Dependent Variable Present
Parenting Readiness ......................... 73

 

 

CHAPTER I

Introduction and statement of the Problem

Declining Fertility

An important element in any economic system is the
quantity and quality of its human resources (Nerlove,
1974). The baby boom generation of U.S. citizens
contributed to the expansion of the post war economy.
Presently, however, a decrease in the size of the labor
force is anticipated. This decrease is the result of an
aging labor force and a declining fertility rate.

The baby boom generation is entering the 45 to 54 year
age group, whose participation rates in the labor force are
lower than those of younger people. Additionally, a
potential shortage of young people in the near future is
predicted, as a consequence of the decrease in the annual
birth rate. According to the U.S. census, the annual birth
rate in 1955 was 25/1000 women but has since declined to
15/1000 ‘women :hi 1985 (Statistical Abstract of the 'US,
1990).

The decrease in the birth rate is associated with a
significant decrease in the number of third live hdrths.
Only 20% of today's families include three or more
children, compared with 40% in 1970 (Pollack, 1990). An
increase in the incidence of childlessness and in delayed
parenthood are also associated with the decrease in the
birth rate. In 1986, 25% of women 30 to 34 years were

1

 

childless compared with 12% in 1970 (Vantura, 1989).
According to Vantura (1989), delayed parenthood is most
prominent among women in their 205, particularly college
graduates. I

At the national level, the Social Security system is
expected to be severely affected by the idecrease in the
size of the labor force.- Today, 3.4 workers are available
to support each retiree. Because of the low fertility rates
of the baby boom generation, the ratio of workers to
retirees could decrease to less than two by the year 2030
(Longman, 1986).

Another indirect effect of low birth rates is the
potential negative effect on the educational system. Fewer
elementary schools will be needed for the smaller number of
children and, consequently, fewer teachers will be employed.
This effect will probably reach the university level in the
future. Already, several universities are facing decreasing
enrollment in freshman classes because of the decrease in
the number of high school graduates.

The declining fertility rate explains the need to
understand fertility decisions.‘ The following is a brief
discussion of theoretical models of fertility decisions

from various disciplines.
Theoretical Models 9; Fertility Decision Making

Fertility decision making is a subject of interest

to :many social science disciplines (Burch, 1980).

 

 

omm.nw . owm_ .c0m_ntmz new cOm:_noa
o>_bumamcom unsecoom “>b___ucoa mo .mcoz ou_moaeou < ._ mt:m_a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suanouama
>u«c::oom
muuoixma oabmumeaoo :o mucdmuumcoo
:fimubo ob moonsommo . «A :xaaazm:
magma ho was: wcauwaaoo amuamOAoamxza
CUB—UAHSU CUHVHHSO
you cause: 41 HOW mummy

Hagucmuoa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ca«:c no: umco ..
zuacauooeeo cda;o no; mace:—
vcm uoouficca mumoo bemoan Adages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmm Q ,. gm— .cOmZtm: cam comcha
.>L__bcoa co .ocoz _mo_mo_o_00m < .N oc:m_u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
mcqgcfium> z

cL=_=as;aL:_ «stills s=uwccz
uzcsc msocz w:«::e_a m

saasee
z
Roseanne; r\\\ mmaaeauc> . t z

. w m
n/ u 1.05.33: 3
ouzuoaoum

cndm adage: . ofisczcoa 1:: :

uzonc msuoz Acfioom
H
>
z
magma . m

zufiamuuoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . moroco>mm
was 32 22.36: 36; _8_ .
.m:.xms-:o_m_omo >b__wbtmu to» xLOZmEmtu .mtocoo < m ot:m_a

 

 

 

 

mto_>m;og :o_um:.m>m m .m a: mo: m> mvozoscomzoo m.m_ o uo_>m;og
c>_Lm:cc..m __mto>o a. _ _ a ._ a >L___utoa
:> :0
E».//.
:
/./. 5; cm
I O O
/
l/
\._> _x
\1\o\\\\\\ o o o
~>\.\. _\
\x mm
\\\ .N N
x. >.. o
_> x. .d
I_>+ _o

 

 

 

 

zo~m_uwa zo~h<zumpzm zo_»<34<> thZQQDp

 

 

mmm.m

 

..omm_ .cOmLECm: cam :Om:_noz.
.>b___utoa co .ocoz nobmtmouc_ c< .: ot:m_a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

msoouac
suaaeuume
muswmuumcooé
HmowonOAQ
coamfium: 1!. maoouso no -
>uaa«uumz scam on eofiuezamws
mu0uooa mmocucaaaaz m>fiuowmszm
Hmo«00ao:o>ma
ob=::H .
swucaozo m.moe
. cecv~fizu cc cameo can menace
sodomuocflmcou Lo muwwmcom bomoficza Hmccw>wccw
cwaocoum A was bound:
upoauam. . .—
cza _e>oo..< c:c_uc::m asccz
hmmhw .
OhZTMQL—L .
“cwawaca ‘ a \\\:
mqmcc mmcc mu0u0c&
zqaarm asucquom zuqu::aca;

 

 

 

In making the decision to add a child to the existing
family, prospective parents deal with economic, social, and
psychological factors. Burch uses models of fertility
decision making from various disciplines in an attempt to
develop one integrated, theoretical model. The models are

presented graphically as they appeared in Burch (1980).

The model illustrating the economic perspective,
(Figure 1), deals with children as a consumption or utility
good. 'There is a potential demand for children, but this
demand is subject to the constraints of family income and
physiology.

The sociological approach, (Figure 2), is oriented
toward the effect of the macro-environment on fertility.
This could include societal and economic structures,
mortality rates, inter-generational influences, and general
cultural lnorms. The jpsychological analysis of fertility
decisions, (Figure 3), gives more weight to the concept of
values, beliefs and decision making that involves a

comparison of alternative behaviors.

All of these perspectives assume that fertility
decisions are rational and conscious. These assumptions may
be becoming more valid over time with the improvement and
expanded adoption of birth control measures in the United
States.

The differences between the disciplines lay in their

unit of analysis and in their treatment of time. In

 

psychological research on fertility, the individual is the
unit of analysis, while sociological research focuses on
the group. Economists focus on either the individual or
the family/household as decision makers. With regard to
time, economists and psychologists tend to deal with
decision making problems that occur in the immediate
or short term time frame; sociologists take a longer run
time perspective. Each discipline includes some decision
making variables; none of them incorporate the adequacy of
resources for fertility decision making, as perceived by

individuals.

There is a need for an inter-disciplinary model that
combines concepts from various disciplines, for use in
analyzing fertility problems. The model developed by
Robinson and Harbison and reviewed by Burch (1980),
(Figure 4), responds only partially to this need. One

weakness of this model is that it includes some vague

concepts , such as "economic considerations " , " innate
psychological factors", and "personality factors". These
make the model difficult to operationalize, and

impractical to apply at the family level.

Purpose 9; the Study and Research Questions

This study was designed to develop a more complete
fertility model that integrates concepts from several
disciplines. An additional goal was to develop a model

that was practical and easy to use by individual decision

 

 

makers. Finally, this study attempts to evaluate the model
and the relative importance of the economic, social and
psychological factors as determinants of decisions to have
children.

The following research questions were addressed by
this study: a) Which resources are associated with
parenting readiness? b) How are these resources related
to other factors affecting desired family size and
parenting readiness? c) What are the independent and total
effects of each factor in the model, on desired family

size and on present parenting readiness?

Rationale and Assumptions

Human ecology integrates many disciplines and applies
knowledge from various fields. Inter-disciplinary or non-
disciplinary approaches require a method of analysis that
is not determined by specific disciplines. Therefore,
grounded theory building was one method used to supplement
the deductive process in building a middle range theory
of fertility decision making.

The study was based on three important assumptions:
The first is that fertility decision making is a rational
process that starts within each partner. Each partner in
the decision exchanges information about the issue with
others in the immediate environment affecting that person.
The problem is evaluated by each person, who then takes a

position on that problem. The position can then be

 

 

 

10

discussed with the other partner, leading to a couple's
decision on fertility. In some cases the fertility decision
may be made by one partner, imposed secretly or openly on
the other, and then may not reach the couple or the family
level.

The second assumptibn is that highly educated and
employed persons in the U.S. usually assess their resources
before making a fertility decision. The third assumption is
that the dependent variables chosen, " desired family size"
and "present parenting readiness" can be indicators of
future fertility and present fertility decisions,
respectively. The first variable has been used as a
fertility indicator by several researchers.'The second
variable was developed in this current study. Chapter III
includes a definition of present parenting readiness and
relates it to the concepts of parenting resources developed
during the inductive phase of this study. Desired family
size will be defined in Chapter IV and presented in
relation to the other variables used during the deductive
phase of this study.

Major Analyses and significance 9; the Study

 

Using’ created variables and other previously
defined ones from other fields, regression analyses were
used to develop two path models with desired family size
and parenting readiness as dependent variables. The five
major influences on fertility decisions considered in this

study are: a) background demographic variables, b)

 

 

ll

perceived benefits, c) perceived costs of children, d) the
number of work hours per week, and e) the resources
available to the family unit as perceived by respondents.
Family decision making is a very complex process that
requires the interaction of family members, each with their
unique environments and with each other (Paolucci et al.,
1977). The contribution of this study to the development
of knowledge about family decision making is only partial
because it involves individuals and not families. However,
the importance of this model lies in its practicality for
use at the level of an individual family and at the level
of social programs aimed at aiding families in making a
fertility decision. The multidisciplinary model tested in
this research may prove useful to educators, policy makers
and others who are interested in the fertility decision

making process.

 

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on.fertility behavior will be reviewed in
this chapter. Specifically, the interdisciplinary approach
to the study of fertility behavior and its relation to
decision making is examined. Special emphasis is placed
upon studies dealing with the benefits and costs of having
children and their effect on decision making. First,
studies on fertility will be reviewed as a multi—
disciplinary interest. Then influences on fertility will be
presented as they have been used in theory and research.
These include the concept of benefits or value of children,
the concept of costs of children in addition to some

background influences on fertility.

Fertility: A Multidisciplinary Interest

There have been a large number of disciplines and
theoretical orientations which have been involved in the
study of fertility behavior. For example, as early as 4000
BC in ancient Babylonia, Egypt and China, population
censuses were developed and used secretly for war
purposes. Confucius and other Chinese scholars attributed
to the government the responsibility of moving from over-
population to underpopulation. They suggested that several
factors could act as checks on population growth,

including war and insufficient food supply. Plato was more

12

 

13

specific with regard to population size and he set a fixed
number of citizens at 5040. 'These are examples of early
attempts for studying fertility from different
perspectives. The variety of disciplines which have been
involved in the study of fertility behavior and theoretical

perspectives will be represented in this chapter.

Demography

Fifty years ago, demographers were the primary
scholars studying' population. and fertility. Census and
population registration procedures gathered :fin: non—
scientific purposes were the only data collection tools
available for the analysis of vital processes in population
aggregates (McKenzie, 1934).

Two leading "grand" theories have been followed by
demography scholars. McKenzie refers to the approach set by
Malthus (1776-1834) on one side and the approach set by
Quetlet (1798 - 1874), a Belgian astronomer and
statistician, on the other. The main difference between the
two historic lines is their focus of interest. The
Malthusian View focuses on economic aspects of population
growth such as poverty, unemployment, war and standard of
living. These were considered as positive checks to control
fertility. Malthus also suggested some preventive checks
including delaying marriages. He used a: geographical
orientation when computing the population to food ratio
(McKenzie, 1934). No emphasis was placed on statistical

analysis. The other approach is statistical and

 

 

 

l4

mathematical focusing on biosocial changes in population
groups. This approach eventually became the leading
research tradition and, was ‘used. for years to make
inferences. on. almost. every‘ aspect of social relations.
Thompson (1929) introduced the first demographic transition
model stating that socioeconomic development, including an
increasingly complex division of labor and specialization,
suppresses fertility because children would lose their
economic ‘value (Burch, 1980).

Today' demography' is. greatly changed. The unit of
analysis includes individuals and households in addition to
nations, states, cities and counties. That advance
encouraged the gathering of data for scientific purposes
and led to a number of middle-range and micro theories of
population change and fertility behavior in various
disciplines. Multivariate analyses are now routinely used.
Multiple regression, rather than the two or three variable
cross-tabulation, is now the standard tool (Burch, 1980).
This progress was encouraged by changes in the technology

of data collection and processing.

Psychosocial studies

Some scholars of population and fertility have focused
on the tendency of societies to reproduce themselves in
relation tx> generally prevailing psychological states.
Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406), an Arab social philosopher, was

the first to generate a psychosocial theory of population

 

 

fertility and mortality (Kammeyer, 1971). Kammeyer notes
that Khaldun's theory was based on the idea that societies
pass through stages of development and optimism or
pessimism, which influence the number of births and deaths.
Khaldun offered the hypothesis that towards the end of a
society's historical lifespan there would be famines,
epidemics, rebellion and disorder; these events create
pessimism and discourage procreation. His assumption was
that procreation is stimulated by high hopes and the
resulting heightening of animal energies. That implies
consciousness in the decision making process about
procreation. This theory makes a major contribution to the
study of fertlity in psychology and is reflected even in
the most recent research stressing rationality in fertility
decisions. The bulk of the recent work has been done by
cognitive social psychologists focusing on subconscious
rather than conscious elements of human behavior in

attitudes, values, and preferences (Burch, 1980).

Studying processes of behavior underlying human
fertility has been an important contribution of
psychologists. The most important contribution of this
discipline is the attempt to answer the question of why
individuals would want to have children at any point in
time? Weighing the satisfactions against the alternatives
and costs of having children was applied in cross—cultural

research (Arnold & Fawcett, 1976).

 

16

Economics

Economists have also studied fertility. Leibenstein
(1957) and Becker (1960) applied micro-economics theory to
fertility (Burch, 1980). As Burch indicated, that approach
brought new light to the topic.

As in psychology, special emphasis was placed on the
use of theories of individual human behavior rather than
macro analyses. Microeconomic theories have also used the
assumption of rationality in fertility choice and decision
making. However, economists differ from psychologists in
their assumption of utility maximization as a primary
criterion for choice.

This basic underlying assumption was criticized by some
economists like Easterlin (1975.). Easterlin used the
concept of taste for children introduced earlier by Becker
as an additional factor besides mere demand and costs of
fertility control. But whereas Becker described taste as
constant, Easterlin used it as variable. Easterlin also
added the possibility of environmental factors shaping
fertility behavior, such as, adequacy cxf food supply
versus food shortages. (Easterlin, 1978).

Easterlin was criticized by Namboodiri (1980) for his
emphasis on the influence of early socialization on
"tastes" while neglecting new adult environments and peer
pressures. Namboodiri also criticized both Becker and
Easterlin for their conceptualization of time as a

collapsed single instant. In spite of Easterlin's effort to

 

 

17

use past experiences as a determinant of current behavior
he collapsed the future into one instance. Consequently a
modification of behavior, resulting from intervening
experiences, such as the birth of a first child, is
irrelevent in his model (Namboodiri, 1980).

From the collective contribution of various disciplines
believing in rationality and choice in fertility behavior,
a number of decision-making models were developed to study
fertility behavior. Some of these were presented earlier in

Chapter I.

Value of Children

The Concept
Hoffman & Hoffman (1973) used the key concept of
"value" and defined it as follows: "The value of children
refers to the functions they serve for parents, or the
needs they fulfill" (p.26). Their scheme lists the
following nine basic "values," which they say are all-
inclusive ,i.e. capable of describing values in various
cultures:
1” Adult. status. and. social identity' (woman's 'major
role).
2. Expansion of the self tie to a larger entity
("immortality").
3. Morality; religion; altruism; good of the group;
norms regarding sexuality, impulsivity, virtue.

4. Primary group ties, affection.

 

18

5. Stimulation, novelty, fun.

6. Achievement, competence, creativity.

7. Power, influence.

8. Social comparison, competition.

9. Economic utility.

Their theoretical framework consists of five classes
of variables: a) values, (b) alternative sources of those
values, (c) costs, (d) barriers, and (e) facilitators.
Barriers include jpoverty, a shortage of housing, other
demands on mother's time, mother's ill-health; facilitators
include economic prosperity, adequate housing and help with
competing work to free time.

Leone (1986), using data from an in depth study of 38
U.S. couples, reported that emotional rewards in parent-
child relations are the predominant motive for having
children. Marriage, maturity, and financial stability are
cultural prerequisites, and values of fairness, freedom and
responsibility all interact to create a dilemma for choice.

Oakley (1986) mentioned other important variables for
measuring the value of children. For example, he added the
dimensions of new experiences children can provide, and
role identity through parenthood.

Neal et al. (1989) reported interesting findings that
confirm a generalization previously made by Hoffman & Manis
(1979), "There has emerged within the U.S. a fairly high
concensus regarding major utilities of children" (p 583).

The study by Neal et al. indicates that primary advantages

 

19

or values for having children are the necessity for having
a real family life, as ‘well as for bringing love and
affection. Very few respondents noted the advantages of
establishing oneself as a mature person or spiritual
fulfillment or sexual fulfillment of love. Neal et al.
found great similarity between the answers of husbands and
wives.

Clifford (1989) states that value of children is an
umbrella term conceptualized in different ways based on the
previous contributions of Fawcett (1970, 1973), Hoffman and
Hoffman (1973), and Wyatt (1967). Clifford summarized the
VOC as the motives which contribute to the desire for
children. Clifford also describes that term as used in

relation to consumer durables (Espenshade, 1977; Schultz,

1974; Turchi, 1975). For him, small family size.is
associated with (a) increased companionship and decreased
family tension , (b) increased individually oriented child
rearing , (c) increased wealth shared among members, and

(d) increased husband and wife leisure time. The major
finding in the study by Clifford (1989) is that the level
of agreement on values between spouses is significantly
related to live births, family size expectations, and
fertility planning.

The economic benefits of children were also mentioned
by Leibenstein (1957). Three basic utilities are

considered here:

 

20

1. The utility derived from the child as a
consumption good or personal pleasure to the parents.

2. The utility desired from the child as a productive
agent contributing to family income.

3. Children as a source of financial security in old
age and in emergencies.

The assistance may be in the form of income
transfers or shared living with the grown children. The
economic benefit of income transfers from children to
parents is a widely accepted theory because of its logic
and application in traditional societies (Cain, 1983).

Turke (1989) however, challenged this theory. Through
an in depth study of the relationship between demand for
children and modernization, he demonstrated that even under
the most traditional societies the net flow of wealth is
always from older to younger adults and their dependent
offspring. That is when offspring age ten to thirty produce
and return resources to their parents, their parents
recycle them to produce additional offspring and sooner or
later help their children with their own offsprings. Based
on his research, Turke suggested that specific details of
behavior' gathered :hi interviews may help clear the
misconceptions that children are economic assets or old
age security to their parents. He criticized the survey
methodology used to study fertility':hi less developed
countries. This method does not provide enough information
to understand the problem. Though the value of old age

security is a belief held by many, Turke's finding shows

 

 

21

that unfortunately it is not a reality.

Leibenstein mentioned a second economic value of
children, and that is their household productivity.
Espenshade (1977) agrees with this value as long as the
setting is a developing society. He argues however that as
a society modernizes the economic contribution from
children decreases and so does their value as old age

security.

Research relating VOC pg fertility behavior

It is hypothesized that changes jxtfattitudes toward
the value of having children would result in similar
changes in desired family size. A review of various
sociopsychological studies by Hoffman (1975) confirms this
hypothesis.

Thornton (1989) reviewed changing attitudes towards
family issues using a broad range of data sets from 1950 to
the middle 19805. He observed a psychological weakening in
norms to have children. He noted that changes in values
and attitudes were particularly strikimg in the 19605 and '
19705 but less dramatic in the 19805. Eighty-five percent
of the people interviewed in 1962 said that all American
families who can have‘children ought to have them. That
percent fell to 43% in 1980. No further decline occured in
the following period. Consistent with. this trend 1J1
attitudes, Thornton indicated that a similar trend in
family fertility behavior is evident. This finding is

consistent with the expected positive relationship between

 

 

 

22

attitudes regarding the benefits of children and fertility
behavior.

On the other hand, Chen (1984) found that the relationship
can also be rever5ed in that attitude towards family size
affect attitudes towards the value of children more than
any other sociodemographic and socioeconomic
characteristics examined.

Perceptions about the value of children (VOC) were the
basis of several studies. ArnoLd and Fawcett (1976)
conducted cross-cultural personal interviews with couples
in. six: countries: Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand,
South Korea and Hawaii in the U.S. In each country 400
couples with at least one child were interviewed, using the
VOC instrument developed for the purpose of this study.
Wives' age ranged between 20 and 34 while husbands were
between 20 and 40. Two socioeconomic groups were
identified: urban and rural. Motivations for parenthood and
parents' perceptions about the pros and cons of having
children were to be related to fertility and family
planning behavior. The Hoffman & Hoffman theoretical
scheme discussed previously was used for open ended and
structured questions. They were first developed in English,
then translated to various languages or sometimes dialects,
and administered by local investigators.

Despite certain differences from country to country,
the relationships between. demographic variables and

responses are quite similar for each country. In all

 

 

23

countries, rural respondents cited economic-utility
advantages more than urban respondents. In the U.S.
however, this relationship was only true when race was
controlled . Black Americans found more economic utility
than did whites even though they lived in cities.

Hoffman. and.IManis (1979), replicated the study but
limited it to the United States. They found that primary
group ties and affection are most commonly mentioned values
of children, and this is particularly true for women. Adult
status and social identity were mentioned by employed women
much less frequently than by non-working women.
Achievement, competence and creativity are values mentioned
more frequently by non-parents. Economic utility and old
age security were mentioned by less than 10% of
respondents. The religious significance of children was
cited infrequently. In general Hoffman found that blacks
have :more children: than whites; Protestants have fewer
children than Catholics and Jews have even fewer.

In summmary, Hoffman found that economic utility,
religion and morality were the least endorsed values.
Primary group ties and affection, stimulation and fun were
most highly endorsed as important. All other categories
fell in the middle. Hoffman noted, however, that while
empirical relationships between fertility behavior and
various social, economic and demographic variable are

fairly well understood, the causal mechanisms which produce

those correlations are still obscure.

 

A

 

 

 

24

In a recent study, however, Kristen and Morgan (1989)
found minimal differences between Protestants and Catholics
on ideal family size. Working women have fewer children
than those who do not work. Specifically, the more educated
respOndents considered children more important for
strengthening the marital bond than for companionship and
affection. Blacks are different from non-blacks on several
values. On religion, Jews and those with no religious
denomination were more likely to rate immortality as an
important value. Catholics rated religious value as a more
important reason for having children than others.

In sum, research on perceptions about benefits or
values of children were consistent with the theoretical
importance of this concept in studying fertility. Studies
agreed. that. individual items.‘used. as indicators of .the
benefits of children are not equally important to
respondents of <iifferent. socio-economic backgrounds;
however, trends of changing attitudes towards the value of
children were found to be identical to trends in fertility

behavior.
Costs of Children

The three concepts of costs, disvalues or disadvantages
have been used somewhat interchangeably. They all suggest a
negative dimension in the fertility decision. Direct costs
and opportunity costs or indirect costs are mentioned most

frequently.

 

 

25

Leibenstein (1957) referred ~to direct costs as the
conventional or current expenses to maintain the child,
such as feeding or clothing. He referred to indirect costs
as the opportunities foregone due to the existence of an
additional child. Examples of these include the inability
to work because of time allocated to rearing children, lost
earnings during the' gestation period, or even the
decreasing mobility of parents. These definitions were
later adopted by several scholars in the area.

Easterlin added to this the cost of fertility
regulation, both psychic and objective costs. The concept
negative value replaces the concept of cost in the
psychological literature. This primarily refers to direct
expenses and the presence of alternative sources of
satisfactions to having children (Hoffman and Hoffman
1973, Hoffman 1978). Those alternatives are comparable to

opportunity costs found in the economic literature.

Direct Costs

Espenshade and Calhoun (1986) reported that dollar
costs of expenditures for children vary with income level
of the parent. However, he mentioned that the percentage
breakdown of family finances among families with the same
number of children remains very similar across
socioeconomic status. Among families with one child, 30% of
total family finances go for child expenditures. The

percentage goes up to 40-45% for two children families and

 

 

 

26

50% for three children families. Evident here is; the
concept of economies of scale repeatedly mentioned by
Espenshade. Included in what he calls direct maintenance
costs are items of food, housing, transportation, clothing,
and medical care (Espenshade, 1988). The 1980 figures for
total costs of children from birth to 18 years amounted to
$85,000 per child for the moderate income families in urban
areas with 33.9% going to housing, 24.6% to food, 16.5% to
transportation, 7.8% to clothing, 5.1% to medical care,

1.4% to education and 10.6% to "all other" expenses.

Opportunity Costs

Opportunity cost is defined by Espenshade as the
value of the lost work time that mothers experience if they
reduce their labor force participation to bear and rear a
child. It was beleived that women's employment provides an
alternative satisfaction which decreases perceived
advantages from children (Hoffman, 1978). Considering both
the number of hours lost and the dollar value per hour,
Espenshade was also able to generate some interesting
inferences. The opportunity cost associated with staying
home to raise children depends on the educational level.
Figures in 1980 varied from $93,000 for least well educated
to $189,000 for those with post graduate education. Calhoun
& Espenshade (1988) found that opportunity expenses on
children are related to race, number of births and number
of years following birth. Forgone earnings are

approximately five times greater for white than for black

 

27

women from age 15 to 55. Figures estimated are $24,000 for
white compared with $5,000 for black women. This is
primarily due to the proportion of forgone hours of market
work, which are two to three times more for white women.
Opportunity costs are roughly proportional to number of
births for women with similar background and experience.
Labor supply reductions immediately following birth have
the greatest impact on opportunity costs. On this issue,
Robinson (1987) found that the difference in time spent by
working and non-working wives on child care are modest
except for the first year of life.

McGrath (1988) found that wives' expected opportunity
cost of additional children decreases the probability that
families desire additional children. He also found that
families with younger wives are more affected by increased
opportunity cost. A third finding is that the decision to
remain childless is positively influenced by the wife's
potential earnings.

Other costs or barriers to fertility include employment
plans and concerns with over population. Thomson (1984)
found that employment plans are strongly related to
parental leave costs and that plans for a second child
directly affect plans for full time employment but this
becomes no longer true for the third child. Callan (1983)
found that among factors affecting voluntary childlessness
are coming from smaller families and concerns with over

-population.

 

 

 

other Influences on Fertility

Impact pf existing family size and cultural norms

 

In a longitudinal study of young married couples,
Beckman & Haiser (1979) found that motivation to have
children varied systematically over time. The _change was
influenced by attainment of fertility norms and the impact'
of a birth. Among those who experienced a birth between
time one and time two, couples who already had a child
showed a much greater drop in motivation for a future child
prior to time one than did initially childless couples.
Hofferth (1983) also reported that consequences of each
additional birth vary depending on initial family size.

A similar argument was presented by Bulatao (1981). He
found that different values and disvalues for families at
various stages of the life cycle suggest a multistage model
of family formation, with perceptions of successive
children linked to periods in family development. Those
findings are related fun the framework developed from
social exchange theory that suggest a multicausal process

in the fertility decision (Bagozzi and Van Loo, 1980).

Socio-economic factors and Ethnicity

In a study by Vliet (1979) a larger percentage of
nonwhite wives indicated they would not have children
again, as compared to white wives. Middle income families

seemed to feel less satisfied with children than those with

 

 

 

 

29
low or high income.

Gender Roles

Callan (1985) compared mothers of one child by choice
with mothers wanting a second birth. He found that the
first group had significantly lower levels of religiosity
and feminine sex-typed role. This issue of sex typed role
and egalitarianism falls under the umbrella issue of family
power. Beckman (1984) found that power in fertility
decisions varies dependingon the cultural setting and
status of women. She found that the more egalitarian
roles are, the more social influence a wife has vis a vis
the husband in such decisions. Her findings indicated that
when spouses disagree about fertility, wives will be less
likely than husbands to desire another chiLd in the short
run. Another of Beckman's findings is that wives have
usually more or equal influence than husbands over
fertility outcomes in more egalitarian families. Vliet
(1979) found. that. agreement. between. husbands and wives
regarding their feelings about having children again
significantly correlates with satisfaction in the domain of
children and family life. Houseknecht (1982) also reported
in her study of voluntary childlessness in the 19805, that
while the trend increased relatively little from 1960 to
1978, it has significantly increased in the 19805,
particularly due to egalitarianism within marriage.-

Callan (1985) also mentioned a number of other

variables including:

 

 

30

Availability of child care assistance.

Attitudes toward employment

Boredom

Competence and feelings of personal fulfillment.
Perceived impact of children on marriage.

Ute-wrote

This last point was also mentioned by Kapor (1981) and
later by Beaujot (1986). Beaujot found a positive
relationship between marital satisfaction and the desire
for children especially for persons (male or female) having

one or no child.

Cultural norms: Ideal number pf children

It is agreed that parents' views on the ideal number of
children is a valid indicator of prevalent family size
cultural norms, and that the ideal family size is (nus of
the factors influencing fertility behavior (Trent, 1980).
Kristen and Morgan (1989) found that the overall mean of
ideal size in the U.S. is 2.24 children. The two children
ideal is a preference by the majority and three children
comes second in preference. Never married people most often
preferred extremes in family size, that is more than four

or childless.

Family size and gpality pg; gpilg

The "dilution model" developed by Becker on the
quality of children was supported by Blake (1981). She
found that the more children per family the lower the
quality per child based on measures of intelligence,
educational attainment among adults and college plans among

youngsters. This findinding may indicate a negative

 

 

31

correlation. between. the. quality of children desired by
parents anui their' desired family size. However, no

literature was found on this correlation.

Summary and Impact of the Literature on this Study

The literature reviewed implies that the problem of
fertility behavior is of interest to researchers from many
disciplines. A number of variables have been suggested as
important determinants of fertility behavior.

In general, all of the studies reviewed have the
common base of individuals comparing the value, benefits
and rewards of having children with the costs of having
children. However slight differences in their assumptions
can 1x2 noted” Economists emphasize direct and indirect
costs, psychologists focus on internal needs fulfillment,
and sociologists and social exchange theorists are
concerned. with. the influence of cultural norms, social
stratification and roles on fertility. All of these
factors work as constraints or facilitators in the decision
making process. However, the person's perceived individual
readiness to have children was not found as ai‘variable in
any of the literature reviewed. This variable can be seen
as the most immediate or direct influences cnlza person's
decision to have additional children and is examined in the
present research. Individual readiness, in turn, is likely
to depend on the respondent's family environment and

immediate community resources or near environment. In

 

32

addition a number of demographic and socioeconomic factors
are likely to have a direct effect on desired family size,
and an indirect effect on fertility through the two
variables of values and costs of children. The next chapter
describes the inductive method used to derive concepts of

resources related to parenting readiness.

 

 

CHAPTER-III

INDUCTIVE METHODOLOGY
AND THEORY BUILDING

This chapter will focus on the inductive methodology
and conceptualization that were employed in an attempt to
develop a middle-range grounded theory of fertility. In
grounded theory, the researcher should try to approaCh the
research question without taking a preconceived position on
what the findings will be. Selecting a new sample and
analysing‘ original data are often recommended for this
approach to theory construction. Concepts, propositions and
hypotheses for theory building should emerge in the course
of the research (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The grounded
theory belongs to the inductive phase of the research
cycle, as opposed to the deductive phase in which the
researcher starts the investigation with hypotheses based
on earlier studies. This chapter will first present the
conceptual definition of parenting readiness. The purpose
of the inductive phase of this study is to identify factors
that are likely to influence present parenting readiness
The inductive :methods followed. will be discussed next.

Thirdly, the derived concepts will be defined.
Parenting Readiness

In this study, "parenting readiness" is cums of the
two key dependent variables. Whereas desired family size

33

34

was only used in the deductive phase of this study,
parenting readiness was used in both the inductive and
deductive phases. ”It was assumed that perceived present
parenting readiness is a determinant of whether or not an
individual decides to have more children in the near
future. In this study, parenting readiness is the
subjective evaluation by respondents of how prepared they
are for parenthood. Presumably, their evaluation is based
on the resources available to them in their family and

community.

Inductive Methods
Appropriate questions were developed based on the
principle of actor-guided contextualization. The two
primary questions used for developing the concepts to be

used in the deductive phase of this study were:

Ql."What would be for you the best possible conditions for
being a parent? Imagine your future in the best possible
light."

02."What would be for you the worst possible conditions
for being a parent? Imagine your future in the worst
possible light."

The questions were adapted from Kilpatrick and
Cantril (1960). They used a "self-anchoring" scale to
study the hopes and fears of people in different countries.
In this study, the scale was visualized as a ladder bounded

at the bottom by "worst possible conditions" and at the

 

 

35

top by "best possible conditions" to portray parenting

readiness conditions. (see Appendix A)

The Sample

The inductive process started in Spring 1988. A
convenience sample of 25 respondents who agreed to edit and
give some feedback on the pre-test questionnaire were used
for this part of the study.. Respondents were employees at
Michigan State University who ranged in age from 24 to 37
years. Each subject was asked to respond to the two

questions presented in the previous section.

Data Analysis

Preliminary analysis of the data involved checking for
the incidence of best and worst parenting conditions
reported by each respondent. The respective answers were
then grouped into higher level concepts based on the
logical and conceptual relationships between the conditions
identified by the respondents. For example the response
"having a supportive spouse and wanting children too" was
combined with "being in a close relationship between
members of the immediate family" to form the concept
"family cohesion".

The categories of resources developed, based on the
data, are indicated in Figure 5. The categories are listed
in hierarchical order from the most abstract (resources),
through an intermediate level (family or community

resources) to a third level (family structure, cohesion,

 

36

health, finances, and community support and growth
opportunities). The categories chosen fit the data, and
are understood both by social scientists and persons
knowledgeable in the area. These are important

characteristics for generating grounded theories.
Level 3 Resources

Level 2 Family Resources Community Resources

(FR) (CR)
Level 1

Structure Cohesion Health Finances Support Growth
opport.

Figure 5; Concepts Arranged by Level of Abstraction

Development of Concepts

Resources

The data. from. the two open ended questions
suggested that family resources and community resources are
the two types of resources that respondents believe to
directly affect the dependent variables "parenting
readiness" and desired family size". Webster's nominal
definition of resource is a source of supply or support: an
available mean. Foa and Foa defined 51 resource as
"any commodity, material or symbolic, which is; transmitted
through. interpersonal. behavior"(1973,p.36). In. a simpler
way, resources are "means for meeting demands" (Deacon and
Firebaugh, 1988). All of these stated nominal definitions
share a common notion and that is the availability of

"something" to an individual or a group of individuals.

 

37

The uses and applications of the "resource" concept in
social research are several, because of its high level of
abstraction. For specific studies, lower—level concepts can
be derived from the term "resource". For example, family
and community resources are such lower level concepts. In
this study, the nature of these resources was determined
from the specific family resources identified. They were:
a) family cohesion, b) family structure, c) health and d)
family finances.

Family Resources

Family resources is a derived concept with an
intermediary level of abstraction between the primary core
concept of resources and the concrete level categories. It
was identified by Kantor and Lehr (1975) as representing
time, space and energy available to the family unit. The
definition of "family" has been the subject of discussion
for several years. Like the concept of "resources",
definitions of "family" vary according to the theoretical
orientation of the user. For this study, this term was
always used in combination with a specific resource (e.g.,
family finances).

Family cohesion.

Family cohesion was defined by Bubolz (1988) as the
degree of emotional bonding which members have toward one
another and of individual autonomy that a person has in the
family system. Family cohesion is a specific type of

family resource. It was identified by the respondents as

 

38

a resource that contributed to determining the best time to
become a parent. For example a respondent mentioned the
"child's feeling and understanding of parents' love" when
asked about the best possiible parenting conditions.

Family structure.

In this study, family structure was defined by a:
family's composition in terms of individual members, ‘and
the stability of their relationships. This definition was
based on the specific data collected in this study. A
number of respondents reported "being in a stable marriage"
as an indicator of the best possible parenting conditions.

33.11.31;

Health is the third family resource concept at the
concrete level. This is the condition of being sound in
body, mind and spirit (Websters, 1986). Some other
definitions include the state of social well-being as in
the World Health Organization statement (Deacon and
Firebaugh, 1988), and in the definition proposed by
Steinmann (1984). In their answers respondents gave general
statements to describe good health. Thus, it was not always
clear if the respondents were refering strictly to physical
health or if their definition also included psychological
well-being as well. This is a limitation associated with
using open-ended questions in data collection.

Family finances.

Family finances is another concept related to family

resources. Although family resources contributing to the

 

39

family's economic well-being include human as well as
material resources, the latter was the only aspect
mentioned by' the respondents, probably because it is the
more tangible of the two resources. For example, financial
security was one of the most frequently mentioned positive
resources for being parents.
Community Resources

From an ecological persepective, the family exists. in
the context of a broader environment. Based on responses to
the open-ended questions, this broader environment was
categorized as the "community". When asked about the best
possible parenting conditions, respondents mentioned such
things as the extended family, friends, neighbors and
the local church. Responses were grouped into two
categories: a) the support system, represented by the
presence of extended family, friends, local church, and

neighborhood, and b) growth opportunities, represented by a

safe environment and the adequacy of the educational system.

Summary
This chapter described the methodology used in the
inductive phase of this study and the inductively grounded
concepts obtained from two open ended questions during the
pilot. study. The theoretical framework. and ihypotheses
developed from this inductive phase of the study will be

presented in the following chapter.

 

CHAPTER IV

DEDUCTIVE METHODOLOGY
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
AND HYPOTHESES
Chapter III described steps used in the inductive
methodology. This chapter includes a description of the
research design (followed in the deductive process; then,
concepts related In) previous research found in the
literature will be defined'for the current study.
Operational definitions of the dependent, intervening and
independent variables will follow the conceptual
definitions. A theoretical framework and a set of
hypotheses for each of the dependent variables, desired
family size and present parenting readiness, will be
presented next in this chapter. Finally the sampling
method, and the major statistical analyses adopted will he
described.
Deductive Design
The concepts ofresources that were developed in the
inductive phase will be tested for their relationship with
present parenting readiness in the deductive phase. A
survey research design was employed. A self-administered
questionnaire was developed and mailed to individuals 24
to 40 years of age who were selected in a systematic random
sampling procedure that is described later in this chapter.

Respondents were employees at Michigan State University.

Data for this study were collected between August lst and

40

 

41

September 10, 1988.

Conceptual Definitions

Desired family size
This concept is one of the two dependent variables,
and is defined for this study as the respondent's desired

number of children to have in a family.

Present parenting readiness
The second. dependent ‘Variable. was developed in the
inductive phase of this study and defined in Chapter III as

the time when an individual feels ready to be a parent.

Family and community resources

Family resources include family stability, cohesiveness,
family finances, and family health conditions. Community
resources include the social support and growth
opportunities to families provided by their community.
These concepts were developed in the inductive phase and

were described in Chapter III.

Benefits pf Children

For this study the benefits of having or rearing
children include the social, psychological, and economic
rewards brought to the nuclear families. These have been
grouped to form common reasons for wanting' 23 child. This
concept was adapted from Hoffman and Hoffman (1973) who

defined the value of children (VOC) as the functions they

 

42

serve for parents, or the needs they fulfill.

stpg pf Children

The costs of children include economic, social and
psychic constraints that wouLd limit the addition of
children to a family. This definition is a synthesis of
several other definitions presented.:h1 the review of

literature.

Demographic and socio-economic variables

Demographic variables in this study consist of
respondent's age, gender, marital status, current number of
children and religious affiliation. Socio-economic
variables in this study are indicators of the respondent's
education. level, family' income, and employed hours per

week.

Operational Definitions

Dependent Variables

The two dependent variables used were the desired
number of Children, and the perceived present parenting
readiness“ To tassess idesired family’ size subjects were
asked to respond to the following question:
To you personally, what would be the desired family
size?
Subjects indicated their response on a four-level scale

with responses ranging from zero to three children or more.

 

43
Present perceived parenting readiness is the other
dependent variable and was measured using a self anchoring
scale with scores ranging from 1 as "worst conditions to be
a parent" to 5 as "best conditions to be a parent". This
is a continuous variable that was treated as an interval

level measure.

Independent variables
Parentinq Resources.

Family' resources included. the presence of a stable
relationship with a partner, cohesiveness between family
members, health and economics. Community resources included
support systems and growth opportunities. Each concept was
measured by a single item. The general statement that
subjects were asked to respond to was:

A pilot study has revealed the following issues as
relevant in determining the best and worst possible
conditions for being a parent. Here are a set of scales for
each group of items. On a scale of 1 (worst conditions)

to 5 (best conditions), please rate yourself as to where
you stand now on the following:

Note: Each of the following categories includes a variety
of issues. An approximate summary score is needed for
each.

Family stability was measured with the following item:

Being in a stable relationship (5)
Being single or in unstable relationship (1)

Your score from 1 to 5 is:
Family cohesiveness was measured with the following item:

Shared closeness, love, and responsibilities between
family members, and partner equally wanting children(5)

Unclose, unloving members, no sharing of
responsibilities, partner not really wanting to have

 

 

 

 

m-——._ m-__.. ._.._--~‘- .

44
children (1)
Your score from 1 to 5 is:
Health was measured with the following item:

Good, mentally and physically fit for having/raising
children. (5) .

Poor, mentally or physically disabled for
having/raising children. (1)

Your score from 1 to 5 is:

Family finances was measured with the following item:

Good with financial security, acceptable standards of
living'with enough material possessions or luxury items,
job allowing time for self, family and entertainment.(5)

Poor or no financial security, therefore keeping job by

necessity; not enough time for family and self. (1)

Your score from 1 to 5 is:

Community Resources.
Community resources were measured using the following
items for social support and for growth opportunities:
Support system: Good, extended family, friends, local

church, good neighborhood. (5)
Poor, none of the above available (1)

Your score between 1 and 5 is:

Growth opportunities: good educational opportunities and
safe environment (5)
Poor' educational opportunity and
not very safe environment (1)

Your score between 1 and 5 is:

 

 

 

45

Benefits pf Children.

A Likert type scale was used to measure the relative
importance of a selected number of reasons for having
children. The scale was adapted from Hoffman (1978) and
modified after the pilot study. The scale included a set
of 23 possible reasons for wanting a child. Respondents
were asked to indicate the relative importance of each
reason for them on a three-point scale: 1) not important,

2) somewhat important, and 3) very important.

An answer of "not applicable" was possible in case the
respondent found an item not applicable to him/her. These
items were treated as missing and scored as zero for
purposes of analyses. Given the small number of subjects
who used this option, use of this category had little
effect on scores for this variable. However in retrospect,
it is clear that it would have been preferable not to
include this response category in the questionnaire, or
alternatively to use a mean substitution for missing items
in the analysis. A reliability test on the scale was
conducted and resulted in a coefficient alpha of .88. The
results of the reliability analysis indicated that it
would be appropriate to include all of the items in one
scale rather than create subscales for groups of items.

gpspg pf Children.

The same Likert type scale that was employed on the

variable benefits of children, was used to measure the

 

 

46

total perceived costs of children (Appendix, Question 5).
The answer of "not applicable" was also possible for this
measure. For purposes of analyses, this response was
treated as missing and scored as zero. Given the infrequent
use of this response, the missing items had little effect
on the total score any subject received for this measure.
A reliability coefficient of .82 was obtained with a mean
inter-item correlation of .32 . The results of the
reliability tests again favored the grouping of items into
a total score for the scale rather than creating sub-
scales. For the purpose of this study, this variable was

treated as an interval level measure.

Demographic and Socio-economic variables.

As represented in the theoretical models (Figures 6 and
7), major* demographic and socio-economic background
variables considered as independent variables include
marital status, (Appendix p.1, quest. 1), respondent's
gender , age, number of children,(Appendix, p.2, quest. 3),
religiosity, (Appendix pp. 12-13, quest. 34-36), education
level, (Appendix p. 11, quest. 27), employed work hours per
week, (Appendix p. 11, quest.28) and income, (Appendix p.
11, quest. 30). Marital status, parenting experience and
employment status were transformed after data collection
into dummy variables for purposes of analyses.

The measure of marital status was recorded as a dummy
variable with a score of (1) for people who were in their

first marriage, were remarried, or were cohabiting. A score

 

   

 

47

of (0) was assigned to people whose answers were none of

the. above mentioned ones. Gender was also considered a
dummy variable with (1) for females and (0) for male
respondents. Parenting experience was coded as 0 for those
with no experience of having or rearing children and as 1
for those who had any kind of parenting experience.

Another transformation was made on the education level
variable. The measure was transformed from education levels
(e.g. high school graduates) to years of education (e.g. 12
years). The degree of religiosity was assessed using the
measure indicating' the frequency’ of attending' religious
services. The response categories were a) Not at all, b) a
few times per year, and c) two or three times per month.
For the purpose of analyses, the religiosity variable was

treated as interval level measure.

Hypotheses and Theoretical Frameworks
The theoretical model for desired family size is
presented in Figure 6. The theoretical model for present
parenting readiness is presented in Figure 7. The specific
hypotheses for each dependent variable will be presented

before each of the models respectively.

Hypotheses related pp desired family size

H1 - Being married is positively related to current number
of children, which is, in turn, positively related to

desired family size.

 

 

 

 

48
H2 - Married respondents are likely to score higher than
nonmarried respondents on a measure of the perceived
benefits of children. The measure of perceived benefits is
positively related to desired family size.
H3 - Married respondents are likely to score higher than
nonmarried respondents (n1 a measure of“ total family
income. Family income level is positively related to
desired family size. -
H4 - There is an indirect relationship between gender and
desired family size mediated by the perceived costs of
children. Female respondents are likely to perceive greater
costs associated with children than male respondents. The
perceived cost of children is inversely related to desired
family size.
H5 -Respondent's age is negatively related to the desired
family size. For individuals in their 305 rather than 205,
career goals are more likely to take priority over other
goals. Having children may interfere with their career.
Therefore they tend to desire fewer children.
H6 - There is an indirect effect of educational attainment
on desired family size mediated by the perceived costs of
children. More educated individuals tend ix) perceive
greater opportunity costs associated with children and
therefore desire fewer children.
H7 - There is a direct negative effect of the number of
paid work hours on the desired family size. The more time

that is invested in employed work the less time there is

 

 

 

 

49
available for family production activities including
childbearing.
H8 - Religiosity is negatively related to the perceived
cost of children.
H9- Perceived cost of children is negatively related to

desired family size.'

INDEPENDENT INTERVENING DEPENDENT
VARIABLES VARIABLES VARIABLE
Marital Current Desired
Status No. Children Family
Size

Gender Perceived

Costs
Age Perceived

Benefits
Education

Income
Employed
Hours/wk

Degree of
Religiosity

Figure 6 : Theoretical Framework with Desired Family Size pp
Dependent Variable.

Hypotheses related pp present parenting readiness

H10 - Married respondents are more likely than nonmarried

respondents to indicate more readiness for parenting. The

 

50
effect of marital status on parenting readiness is
indirect, via family cohesiveness, family income and
perceived benefits .
H11 - Female respondents are likely to perceive greater
costs associated with having children which is, in turn,
negatively related to present parenting readiness.
H12 - The effect of age on present parenting readiness is
mediated through the current number of children. Older
respondents are likely to have more children, on average.
Respondents with more children are likely to have lower
scores on a measure of present parenting readiness.
H13 - Family cohesiveness is indirectly related to present
parenting readiness. Family cohesiveness influences
perceived benefits of children which in turn influences

present parenting readiness.

H14 - Perceptions of good health are positively related to
present parenting readiness.

H15 - The effect of education on present parenting
readiness is mediated through income and financial
security. Highly educated respondents are more likely to be
financially secure than less educated respondents.
Financial security is positively related to present
parenting readiness. Although a strong positive correlation
is expected between family income and perceived financial
security, it is the perception of financial security that
is hypothesized to be directly related to the respondent's

present parenting readiness.

51

.H16 - The presence of community support has a positive

direct effect on present parenting readiness.

H17 - The presence of growth opportunities in the community
has a positive indirect effect on present parenting
readiness through its effect on perceived financial
security; iRespondents enjoying a: growth stimulating
environment are more likely to score high on the measure
usedfor financial security. Financial security has a

direct positive influence on present parenting readiness.

INDEPENDENT INTERVENING DEPENDENT
VARIABLES VARIABLES VARIABLE
Marital Current
Status No. Children

Present
Parenting
. Readiness
Gender Perceived
Costs
Age Perceived
Benefits
Education Community Support
Income
Growth Family
Opportunities Finances
Family
Cohesiveness
Health

Figure 7 :Theoretical Framework with Present Parenting
Readiness pg Dependent Variable.

 

 

 

 

 

52

The Sample
Three hundred respondents were selected, using a
systematic random sampling procedure. Names were obtained
from lists of employees compiled rut department from
Michigan State University. Employees between the ages of
24 and 40 were identified for this .study. Fifty-five
.percent of the respondents completed and returned the
questionnaire within the required period of three weeks.
The sample size consisted of 166 cases. The
characteristics of the sample are desoribed in‘ the next
chapter.
’Data Analyses
Correlational analyses were used to test the

hypotheses presented in this chapter. As an initial step,
the zero-order correlations among the variables of interest
were computed. This provided information on whether or not
the relations between the independent and dependent
variables were in the expected direction (i.e., positive or
negative). It also provided an opportunity to detect
possible problems of collinearity among the independent
variables. Multiple regression analyses were used to
determine which of the independent variables contributed
uniquely to each of the dependent variables, and to
determine the percentage of variance accounted for by each
of the models. Path analysis was used to test hypotheses
regarding direct and indirect effects of time independent

variables on the outcome variables.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

The results of statistical analyses are summarized in
this chapter and are discussed in light of the hypotheses
presented in chapter IV. First a description of the sample
will be presented. This will be followed by the results
from the correlational analyses. Findings from the multiple
regression analysis will be presented next. Finally the
results of the path analyses will be presented and the
degree to which the data are consistent with the conceptual
models guiding the research will be discussed. The direct,
indirect and total.effects of the independent variables on
the outcome variables will be presented toward the end of

this chapter.
Description of the sample

The respondents in this study were categorized according
to several demographic and socio-economic characteristics.
Specifically, respondents were asked about their age,
gender; ‘marital status, parenting' experience, number of
children they have, education level, type of employment,
paid work hours per week, family income, ethnic background,
and their area of residence. Frequency distributions were
computed for each of these variables, and the results of

these analyses are summarized below.

53

 

 

 

54

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Continuous
Variables: Age, Number of Children, Years of
education, paid work hours per week.

 

 

Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Age 34.5 13.4
No. children 1.0 .3
Education 12.6 11.6
Work hours/wk 43.1 12.4

 

Table 2. Percentages for categorical Variables: Gender,
Marital Status, Parenting Experience, Employment,
Ethnicity, Religious affiliation.

 

 

 

Variable Percentage
Females 69%
Males 31%
Married 63%
Non-married 36%
Parents 54%
Non-parents 46%
White Collars 63%
Blue Collars 35%
White Descents 89%
Other ethnicity* 11%
Protestants 46%
Catholic 23%
Non-affiliated 17%
Urban residents 75%
Rural/farm residents 25%
Note: N = 166

o\°

* 6% African Americans, 3 Asians, 2% Spanish descents

 

 

 

55

Table 1 and 2 summarize the descriptive statistics on
the sample. Several of the variables used to describe the
sample were categorical variables. Some of these (e.g.,
marital status, parenting experience and employment) were
recorded to include only two categories as was explained in
the previous chapter. Continuous variables included the age
of respondents, the current number of children they have,
years of education, and paid work hours per week. Total
family income and frequency of attending religious services
(religiosity), were assessed. using interval and ordinal
level variables.

As shown in Table 1, the mean age of the respondents
was 34.5 with a range from 24 years to 40 years. The
typical respondent had one child, but the number of
children in the family ranged from 0 to 3. The 'average
level of education was 18.8 years, but there was
considerable diversity in the educational levels of the
respondents.

Most of the respondents were white, female and married.
The majority of the subjects were employed in white collar
positions and worked full-time. The median income category
for the sample was in the range of $26,000 to $45,000.
Thirty one percent of the sample had less than $26,000 and
34% had more than $45,000 in total family income.

In terms of religiosity, 58% of the sample did not attend
religious services at all. Twenty-five jpercent attended

them a few times per year, and 18% participated in

 

 

 

 

 

56
religious services two to three times a month.

Fifty-one percent of the sample lived in an urban area
with over 50,000 residents. Another 24% lived in a city
.with 10,000 In) 50,000 residents; sixteen percent lived III
areas with less than 10,000 residents and 8% lived.cn1 a

farm.
Correlational analyses

In Chapter IV the hypotheses guiding this research
were presented for each of the dependent variables, desired
family size and present parenting readiness. As a
preliminary test of these hypotheses, the correlations
between the independent variables and the dependent
variables were computed. The results of these analyses are
presented in Table 3. Consistent with the hypotheses
outlined in the previous chapter, perceived benefits of
childreut is negatively related. to desired family size.
Contrary to expectations, level of income is not
significantly related to desired family size. Similarly,
the correlation between age and desired family size is in
the expected direction but did not reach statistical
significance.

As expected, high scores on family cohesiveness, family
finances and family health are predictiwe of present
parenting readiness. In addition, perceptions of community
support and growth opportunities in the community are

positively related to present parenting readiness. Married

 

 

 

57
respondents and respondents with higher levels of incomes
also indicated greater readiness for parenting than single

respondents and less affluent respondents.

Desired Family Size: A Preliminary Test of the Model

 

 

In the previous chapter, a conceptual model describing
the relations among the variables of interest was also
presented for each of the outcomes.~As indicated in the
model and the hypotheses, some of the independent variables
are presumed to have a direct effect on the outcome
while others presumably have an indirect effect. To examine
the extent to which the data are consistent with those
expectations, the model for desired family size is
presented in Figure 8 with the zero-order correlations
presented on the paths. Of particular interest is the
extent to which the exogenous variables are correlated with
the mediating variables.

Consistent with the model, married respondents tended to
perceive greater benefits from having children than single
respondents. As expected, married respondents also had more
children than single respondents. The relation between
religiosity and perceived costs of children conformed to
expectations as well, with high levels of religiosity being
negatively' related. to ‘the jperceived costs of children.
Females perceived greater cost associated with children

than males, but the relation was modest in magnitude.

 

 

58

Table 3. Intercorrelations between independent and dependent

 

 

 

 

respectively.

variables.
Independent Dependent Variables
Variables
Desired family Present parenting
size readiness

No. of children .26** .20**
Marital status .10 .48**

Gender -.03 -.08

Age -.12 .04
Education -.14* —.17*

**
Work hrs/wk -.18 -.09
Income .12 .34**
. . . **

Relig1051ty .20 .08
Percieved benefits .35** .37**
Perceived costs .39** -.06

Resource variables

. . * *9:

Family cohe51veness .14 .45

Family finances -.08 .43**

Family health .16* .34**
Community support .10 .24**

Growth opportunity .05 .26**

and ** indicate significance at P<.05 and P<.01,

59

As indicated in hypothesis 6, it was expected that
respondents with higher levels of education would perceive
greater costs associated with having children. Contrary to
expectations, education was negatively correlated with

perceived costs of children, but the correlation was not

statistically significant.

Females- .10**

oz‘IIIIII“-.33;:\\\\\~Benefits\

Religiosity
-.03 -.67 \\-.33** .35**

\ ‘ >C°sts_
/Education,\-.2 . -39**\D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

esired
1 -.21# /No. Children__.26** Family
‘// ,22**/
Age.</——’
.0?
Being married~—.37** .10
-0 07
Work hr./wk. -.18**

 

 

Figure 8: Pearson Correlations with Dependent Variable
Desired Family Size. Note: * p <.05 ** p < .01

Present Parentinqi Readiness: Preliminary Test 9; the Model
Figure 9 is a summary of the correlational analyses for
present parenting readiness, with zero—order correlations
presented on the paths. As indicated in the theoretical
model and hypotheses, a number of exogenous variables are

presumed to have an indirect effect on present parenting

 

 

60
variables. Figure 9 is a visual representation of these
indirect relationships in iaddition to the direct
relationships that were the focus of discussion in an
earlier section.

As expected, married respondents scored higher CH1 the
item measuring family cohesiveness tfluui non-married
respondents. The positive correlation between being married
and family cohesiveness is explained by the fact that the
item measuring cohesiveness requires the interaction of at
least two family members. Therefore married individuals are
likely to score higher than non-married individuals on
cohesiveness.

Consistent with past research married respondents tended
to report higher family income than the non-married
respondents. This is also consistent with the model.

Education is hypothesized to have an indirect effect on
present parenting readiness. As indicated in hypothesis 15,
the effect of education is presumably mediated through
family income. However, the correlation between education
and income is small and insignificant (r= .07).

As indicated in hypothesis 11, respondent gender was
found to be significantly correlated with perceived costs.
This positive correlation was associated with being a
female. Then hypothesis 11 is accepted.

Consistent with hypothesis 12, older individuals tend
to have more children (r=.23**). Similarly, the significant

correlation between community support and parenting

 

,
h
_

 

 

61
readiness is consistent with hypothesis 16. In hypothesis
17, a positive correlation between growth opportunities
and family financial security was predicted. The data are

consistent with the hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being married .48**
“-.so**
\s\\\\\community
Support
,43** \\\\\\
\\\\\\ ,24**____
Cohesiveness
.25** Present
.45** Parenting
R adiness
Age \.23** No.Children .2o**___J
Gende .22** \\x Costs -.06
.48** Benefits______..37*t____J.
\\\\\\‘\Income .34**_______
Education yrs .07
.47** .43**
Growth opportunities
.40** Family
/Finances
.3o*#

 

 

.34**

\Health /

Figure 9: Pearson Correlations with Dependent Variable Present
Parenting Readiness. Note: ** p<.05

 

Multiple Regression

The zero-order correlations presented in Table 3 and
Figures 8 and 9 indicate that most of the independent
variables are related to the two dependent variables,
desired family size and present parenting readiness, in

ways that are consistent with the hypotheses presented in

62

Chapter IVs~ Given that many of the independent variables
are correlated with each other, as well as with the outcome
measures, multiple regression analysis was used to
determine which of the independent variables contributed
uniquely to each of the outcomes. Multiple regression
analysis was also used to determine the percentage of
variance accounted for by each of the models. The methods
of entry for each variable was stepwi5e selection. All
independent variables that were hypothesized to have direct
or indirect effect on the outcome variables were eligible
for entry into the final equation.

The results pertaining to desired family size are
presented in Table 4. The percentage of variance accounted
by each of the variables when entered alone (i.e., the
coefficient. of determination) is presented in the first
column of Table 4. The percentage of variance accounted for
by the model when each additional variable is added to the
equation is presented in the second column. The
standardized betas for all of the variables that entered
the final equation are presented in column 3. The
strongest. predictor' of idesired family size was the
perceived cost of children, followed by the perceived
benefits of children. These two variables are followed by
the background variables of the current number of children,
age of respondent, and the hours employed each week
respectively. Together, these five variables accounted for

35 percent of the variance in desired family size.

 

 

Table 4.

63

Coefficients of determination for desired family

size vs several independent variables.

 

Desired family size

Independent variables Stepwise addition* of
entered individually variables

 

I

ndependent
variables

R2

Adjusted R2

 

Pe

Be

No.

A9

W0

rceived costs
nefits
Children

e

rk hrs/wk

.12

.06

.01

.03

.16

.28

.32

.34

.35

 

*0

Variables added at P<.05.

Variables that did not meet the entry criteria:

Marital status
Gender

Education

Paid work hrs/wk
Religiosity
Income

 

64

Table 5. Coefficients of determination for present parenting
readiness.

 

 

 

Independent variables Stepwise addition*
entered individually of variables
Independent R2 Adjusted R2
variables
Marital status .25 j C .26
Financial security .18 .34
Benefits .13 .39
Health .02 .41
Support .06 .43

 

*. Variables entered at P<.05.

Independent variables that did not meet the entry criteria:

Age

Gender

Education years

Paid work hours/week
Number of children
Perceived costs
Family cohesiveness
Growth opportunity

 

 

65

As shown in Table 5, five variables also contributed
uniquely to predicting present parenting‘readiness. The
strongest predictor of present parenting readiness was
marital status. Married respondents indicated greater
readiness than nonmarried respondents. The variable with
the second largest standardized beta was perceived benefits
of children (the third variable to enter). The other
significant predictors of present parenting readiness were
perceived financial security, community support and health.
Together these five variables accounted for 43% of the

variance in present parenting readiness.

Path Analysis

Multiple regression was used to determine which of the
independent variables were directly related to each of the
outcomes, when other factors were controlled. As indicated
in the hypotheses, it was also believed that several of the
independent variables would have an indirect effect on the
outcomes of interest, via one or more mediating variables.
Path analysis was used to test the hypotheses regarding
direct and indirect effects on the two Outcome variables.
The results of these analyses are presented in Figure 10
for desired family size and Figure 11 for present parenting
readiness. As a way of organizing the presentation of these
results, the extent to which the data support or do not
support each of the hypotheses will be considered.
Hypotheses regarding desired family sigp

At the end of Chapter IV, nine hypotheses relating to

 

 

 

66

desired family size were presented. The first hypothesis
asserts that married respondents are likely to have more
children, and that current number of children is positively
related to desired family size. The results of path
analyses 'are consistent with hypothesis 1 and thus
hypothesis 1 is accepted.

The second hypothesis states that married respondents
are likely to score higher than non-married respondents on
a measure of perceived benefits of children; perceived
benefits is, in turn, positively related to desired family
size. Consistent with the second hypothesis, the perceived
benefits measure has a direct effect on desired family
size. However, contrary to expectations, marital status was
not related to the perceived benefits measure.

The third hypothesis proposes that respondents who are
married are likely to have higher incomes, and that income
will be positively related to desired family size. Although
married respondents tended to have higher levels of family
income, level of income was unrelated to desired family
size when other factors were controlled (see Table 4).
Therefore, hypothesis 3 was not accepted and income is not
represented in Figure 10.

As noted in the fourth hypothesis, female respondents
were expected to perceive grater costs associated with
having children, and the perceived costs of children is
negatively related to desired family size. The findings in

Figure 10 are consistent with these expectations and

I

 

67

hypothesis 4 is accepted.

Hypothesis £5 posits that respondent's age is
negatively related to desired family size. Consistent with
the hypothesis, older respondents desired fewer children.
Hypothesis H5 is accepted. I

In the final hypothesis regarding desired family size,
education is presumed to have an indirect effect on desired
family size, via perceived cost of children. More highly
educated individuals perceived greater costs associated
with having children, and perceived costs of children were
negatively related to desired family size. Hypothesis 6 is
accepted. Thus, of the six hypotheses regarding indirect
paths to desired family size, four were accepted. These
were hypotheses 1, 4, 5, and 6. Figure 10 presents the
various paths related to desired family size with beta

values significant at .05 level.

Females
TTFTI“r-.17 Benefits

Religiosity

\ 31
-.33
8

:::::::j§Costs.\“\\\§-.3

.25

Education yrs//” \I
“~-.21 Desired

\No. Children _. 259Family

.1 Size
Agef/ /
«—$-.15

Being married

 

 

Work hrs/wk -.12

 

 

 

Figure 10: iPath <diagram 'with Dependent ‘Variable
Desired Family Size. Note: R square = .35

 

 

68

Findings from the regression analyses were combined to
calculate the direCt, indirect and total effects of each
independent variablein the model in relation to the
dependent variable desired family size (Table 6). The total
indirect effects were estimated by summing up the partial
effects (products of the standardized beta coefficients
along various paths linking an'independent variable with
the dependent variable). For example educational attainment
works indirectly on the desired family size through
perceived costs with a standardized beta' coefficient
(-.09=.25 x -.38). Educational attainment also .influences
the dependent variable through the cmrrent number of
children with a standardized coefficient (-.04= -.21 x
.25). The combined total effect of educational attainment
on desired family size is (-.13) (see Figure 9 and Table
6); this coefficient means that a standard deviation change
in educational attainment is indirectly associated with a
standard deviation change (.13) in the desired family size.
A similar reasoning can be followed to compute and
understand the total effect of other variables in the
model.

Path analyses also help us determine the extent of
joint association or spuriousness that exists between two
independent variables (Table 6) . This could be determined
by subtracting the total effect of an independent variable
(column D) from the correlation R value (column A). The

result of this subtraction is presented in the last column

 

 

 

69

result of this subtraction is presented in the last column
of Table 6 and represents the magnitude of the joint or
spurious association between that specific independent
variable and other variables along the path. According to
results from Table 6, none of these associations is more
than 7%. This was expected because no significant
correlation was detected among the independent variables
in the model related to desired family size (Figure 8).

Table 6. Decomposition of Effects of Significant Predictors
on Desired Family Size.

 

 

Total Direct Indirect Total Joint
Variables Assoc. Effect Effect Effect Effect
. A B c D A-D__
Married .10 ------ .07 .07 .03
(Thru No.Chidren)
Age -.12 — .15. .04 -.11 -.01
(Thru No. Children)
Educ yrs -.14 ------- - .09
(Thru Costs)
-.04
(Thru No. Children) -.13 -.05
Work hrs/wk -.18 - .12 ------ -.12 -.06
Religiosity .20 ------- .13 .13 .07
No.Children .26 .25 ------ .25 .01
Costs -.39 - .38 ------ -.38 -.01
Benefits .35 .31 ------ .31 .04
Being female —.03 ------- -.06 06 .03

(Thru Costs)

 

 

 

 

 

70

Hypotheses regarding present parenting readiness
The next set of hypotheses, 10 tx> 16, in Chapter IV

was :related Ix) present. parenting readiness. Results
relevant to these hypotheses are presented in Figure 11.
In hypothesis 10, parenting readiness was expected to be
indirectly affected by marital status through family
cohesiveness, financial security and perceived benefits. It
was hypothesized that married respondents will be more
likely to indicate readiness for parenting to the extent
that marital status influences.cohesiveness, financial
security and perceived benefits of children. This
hypothesis was accepted. However the path of marital status
to family finances is mediated through family income. The
path of marital status to perceived benefits is mediated
through. cohesiveness. Family' cohesiveness 'was among' the
variables that were excluded from the regression model with
present parenting readiness as dependent variable;
therfore, family cohesiveness affects parenting readiness
indirectly (Table 5).

Hypothesis H11 asserts that there is EH1 indirect
relationship between gender and present parenting readiness
through perceived costs. This hypothesis was rejected since
the perceived costs variable was not predictive of present
parenting readiness in the regression analysis. (see Tables
3 and 5).

Hypothesis 12 stated that there is amt indirect

 

 

 

71

effect of age on present. parenting readiness through the
current number of children variable. This hypothesis,
linking age to the outcome through number of children is
rejected because the mediating factor (current number of
children) did not contribute uniquely to present parenting
readiness in the regression analyses.

As discussed .earlier, hypotheses 13 is accepted
regarding the indirect effect of family cohesiveness on
present parenting readiness via perceived benefits.

Hypothesis 14 jpresented. a jpositive direct effect of
health on present parenting readiness. As “presented
earlier, the data from regression analyses is consistent
with this hypothesis.

The indirect effect of educational attainment on present
parenting‘ readiness 'through income and family financial
security was consistent with hypothesis 15. More educated
individuals are more likely to earn higher income and
hence, feel more financially secure than the less educated.
This perception of financial security encourages parenting
readiness. This hypothesis is accepted. The link from
income to present parenting readiness is only indirect
through family finances because income was not predictive
of present parenting readiness in the regression analyses.

Hypothesis 16 indicated that community support has a
direct positive effect on present parenting readiness. In
the previous section on regression analysis, it was noted

that findings were consistent with this hypothesis.

 

 

72

The positive indirect effect of growth opportunities in
the community on present parenting readiness through family
financial security was consistent with hypothesis 17.

Then, of the five hypotheses stating indirect effects of
independent variables on present parenting readiness, three
were accepted. These were hypotheses 10, 13, 15 and 17.
Hypotheses 13 and 16 stated direct effects of health and
community support on present parenting readiness, and were
both accepted.

Figure 11 represents the paths related to present
parenting readiness with beta values at .05 significance
level. Only beta coefficients that were significant at .05
level are included. Table 7 gives details about the
direct and indirect and total effects of each of the
variables included in tin; model related. to present
parenting readiness. Table 7 also includes a column on the
total association of each variable with the dependent
variable (column A) and a column on the joint effect found
between independent variables (column A-D).

Table 7 summarizes the results of path analyses
associated with present parenting readiness. Marital status
has the strongest effect on present parenting readiness
with direct and indirect influences. In general figures
under the joint effect column are larger than the ones in
Table 6 under the same column. This may infer that some of

the resources variables are associated with one another.

 

 

 

73

 

Being married

i»
01

Community .
Support,

 

.45
.16 .
Cohesiveness
.45 I
.40 JPresent

Parenting
Readiness

Benefits_______.23////;z

H
at

 

\V
Income

/

.25 .
/// Growth opportunities .18

 

Education yrs .39 .i8

Finanpe . .15

.17

Health.

 

Figure 11: Path Diagram with Dependent variable Present
Parenting Readiness. Note: R square = .43

 

 

 

74

Table 7. Decomposition of Effects of Significant Predictors
on the Dependent Variable Present Parenting Readiness.

 

 

 

r Direct Indirect Total Joint
Variables Effect Effect Effect Effect
A B C D A-D
Married .35 .04
(Thru Cohesiveness)
.05
.48 (Thru Family Income) .44 .04
Educ yrs .12 .02
-.17 (Thru Family Income) .14 .03
Benefits .35 .23 ------ .23 .12
Income .34 ------ .08 .08 .26

(Thru Family Finances)

Cohesiv .45 ------ .09 .09 .36
(Thru Benefits)

Finances .43 .18 ------ .18 .25

Health .34 .15 ------ .15 .19

Community .24 .16 .02 .18 .06

support (Thru Cohesiveness)

 

The results from path analysis supported results from
the correlation and regression analyses and added the
indirect and direct coefficients for the paths. The
current number of children and perceived costs are major
endogenous variables in the model related to desired family

size but were excluded from the model related to present

 

 

 

 

75
parenting readiness. These findings will 1x2 discussed
further in the next chapter. In addition, the contribution
of the findings from this study will be related to some of
the literature discussed in Chapter II. The contribution of
this study to the human ecology perspective will also be

discussed in Chapter VI.

we:

 

 

 

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the findings from this study in
a more general format. It will discuss the findings in an
integrated way in relation to the literature cited in
Chapter II and in relation to the general purposes of the
study. The general implications of this study for the
ecological perspective will follow. Finally recommendations
for further research will be discussed.

Impact g; findings o_n_ 1:113 literature

Arnold and Fawcett (1976) and Hoffman et al.(1978) have
argued that perceptions about the values or benefits of
having children is a crucial variable in studying fertility
patterns across cultures. Espenshade and Calhoun (1986)
have argued that the direct and indirect costs of children
are also important elements of the fertility decision. The
data presented in this study are consistent with these
arguments.

The path model for the desired family size was an
attempt to predict future fertility patterns using some
causal ordering assumptions based on previous research in
the field. Exogenous variables were assumed to be those
background variables that were found from previous studies

to predict the more endogenous variables of benefits and

76

 

 

 

77
to predict the more endogenous variables of benefits and
costs or the current number of children. For example
gender; marital status, religiosity and educational
attainment were assumed to be exogenous in their effect on
the. current. number‘ of children, perceived benefits and
perceived costs.

'Findings from the current study indicate that the
perceived benefits of children is still an important
predictor of desired family size. Unlike other studies,
however, various demographic variables showed little
relation to the measure of perceived benefits. This may be
explained by the data reduction technique adopted in this
study. In a number of studies by other researchers
discussed earlier, the scale used to measure the value of
children was divided into subscales. Then each of these
subscales was found to be influenced by various background
variables. The use of a total score on the scale of
benefits of children was found more appropriate in this
study. It may be the case that the total scale is not
affected by the background variables in the same way the
subscales are. Differences among samples may also aCCOunt
for differences among studies.

The findings also support Espenshade's contention that
the costs of children are related to being a woman
participating in the labor force. According to the findings
from the path model (Figure 10), , females perceive greater

costs of raising children than males do(beta=.17, p<.05).

 

 

 

78

This was expected due to the nature of the sample; all
respondents were employed. Reduced labor force
participation due to the demands of childrearing,
contributes to the greater perception of costs associated
with childbearing among women than among men. Typically the
labor force participation by men is less affected by the
number of children at home. Years of education was also
found to be a strong predictor of perceived costs of
children. This finding is also consistent with Espenshade's
research (Espenshade, 1988).

Religiosity also had an effect on the perceived costs
of children. This finding is unique to this study. Previous
research has noted the positive correlation between the
degree of religiosity and indicators of fertility (Callan,
1985). The results of this study are consistent with those
of Callan (1985) and of Hartman (1984) on the pro-
natalistic influence of religiosity. However, this is the
first study to show that the effect on religiosity on
desired family size is mediated by the perceived costs of
children. More religious persons tend to perceive fewer
costs associated with children, increasing the probability
that the respondent will desire a larger family.

This study also contributed to the literature by
examining the influence of time invested in paid work on
the desired family size. The more time invested in employed
work, the smaller the desired family size. This finding

also supports the human ecology perspective which views

 

 

79

individuals and families as open and adaptive systems
(Kantor and Lehr, 1975). In fact, the work environment is
very much related to family roles and especially to
childbearing. Prospective parents receive indirect messages
about the opportunity costs of having children from their
employers' policies on absenteeism or policies of maternity
leave. They respond to these messages by evaluating them in
relation to their family plans and individual professional
goals. Postponing family roles like marriage or
childbearing is likely to be an adaptive strategy followed
by ambivalent individuals.

The model related to present parenting readiness
incorporated the concepts developed from the inductive
research methodology (i.e., family and community
resources). This study tested the relationship between
these concepts and other variables in the model. Findings
indicate that the kinds of resources .suggested by
respondents in the pilot study were indeed useful
predictors of the outcome "present parenting readiness".
Significant correlations were found between some background
variables and the family and community resources variables.
For example, married respondents scored higher on a measure
of family cohesiveness than the non-married respondents.

Comparing the two path models, one major difference
exists. The perceived costs of children and the current
number of children are strongly related to the desired

family size; yet they are unrelated to present parenting

 

 

 

 

 

80

readiness. The reason behind this major difference may be
that. the. desired family size reflects future fertility
expectations while present parenting readiness represents a
more immediate fertility expectation. The number of
children we have and the perception about how much they
cost us may affect our general attitude regarding how large
a family we should have when completed. These two elements
do not seem as important when evaluating our readiness for
'being parents at the moment. This finding links two main
referents of time (present and future) to the major family
role of childbearing.
Implications for pp; ppmpp ecology perspective

The human ecology perspective guided this study. The
findings have some implications for this perspective. These
implications will be the subject of discussion in this
section.

Ecological studies in decision-making must seek an
interdisciplinary perspective by crossing the traditional
academic boundaries. Therefore, this study started by
acknowledging that the decision to have children is a
complex problem, and that various disciplines may
contribute for our understanding of fertility. This
acknowledgment was followed by an intensive review of the
literature on this problem from several disciplines. Having
a background in hard sciences, I considered myself as an
outsider to these readings in sociology, psychology,

economics and anthropology. Therefore, this background

 

 

 

81
facilitated the process of reviewing the literature from an
unbiased perspective and integrate ideas from each
discipline. The main purpose of this study was to improve
the conceptual models developed by separate disciplines in
order to develop an inter-disciplinary model that reflects
better the complex problem of childbearing decisions.

The development of this research follows 131 the
tradition advanced by the late Beatrice Paolucci, a
pioneer in the field of human ecology. According to
Paolucci, an ecologicalstudy is characterized by merging
disciplines, recognizing that family resources are needed
to solve family problems and that "things need not just
happen in families: They can be decided" (Paolucci, in
Hogan 1985).

The outcome of the current study links the concept of
desired family size, commonly used by sociologists, to the
concept of benefits or values of children used by
psychologists, and to the concept of costs of children used
by economists. Therefore, an inter-disciplinary perspective
was used. In addition, this study interrelated a number
of resources found important for parenting readiness.
Therefore, it recognized the contribution of resources to
the childbearing problem. In addition, a leading assumption
in this study was that childbearing results from a
conscious decision.

Time is a major element of the human ecosystem, and was

recognized as such in this study. Two dimensions of time,

 

 

 

 

82

the present and the future, were included in this study;
desired family size, deals with future fertility
expectations, and present parenting readiness, is concerned
with present fertility expectations. Consequently the.
factors that are predictive of these respective outcomes
may differ. These two outcome variables were represented in
two separate path models in order to emphasize this
difference.

This study can also be seen as an application of
another human ecological concept, i.e. the construct of
ratio thinking or the recycling ratio (Axinn & Axinn,
1987). Children can be seen as a transformed product of
material and energy resources. The material resources were
represented in the models for this study by income and
financial security resources. The energy resources were
represented by the time invested in employed work, with
the assumption that the more time spent at work the more
energy used. Therefore, family roles are affected by the
opportunity cost of energy spent at work. The lower the
recycling ratio (Axinn & Axinn, 1987), the lower the
probability for prospective parents to transform their
material and energy resources into having children.
Children are not seen as important sources of resources for
the family system.

Another contribution of this study to human ecology is
the attempt to integrate theory, research and practice. The

three spheres of theory, research and practical usage of

 

 

 

83

knowledge are seen by human ecologists as elements of one
whole system; any contribution to one element must be
reflected in the other two. we discussed earlier the
linkages between theory and research. The path models were
developed with application in mind. For example, The
individual decision maker as well as family counselors can
use the path coefficients in the model and the tables in a
subjective. way. Distinguishing the interrelationships in
the complex decision web, and realizing the influential
factors in the decision process are two alternative usages
at the practical level.

The integration of the two methodologies was also a
reflection of the human ecological perspective in this
study. The inductive method helped to uncover new
dimensions related to the problem of fertility by analyzing
answers to broad, open-ended questions. The deductive
method tested the validity of these dimensions and their
contribution to understanding a problem. Therefore the two
methodologies are equally important and must be used in
association with one another as was attempted by this
research effort.

Recommendations for further research

Future research needs include the testing of the model
for desired family size. Part of the questionnaire was
restricted to individuals currently involved in the
childbearing decision (Appendix pp 6-7 ques 8-14). It

includes items about the type of decision made, if any, the

 

 

 

84

implicitness or explicitness of the decision between
partners, the agreement between them, and the ranking of
various factors in their importance to the decision. The
model that evolved from this study will then be tested for
its power to predict the type of decision made by this
isolated sample. The study should be replicated test the
generalizability of the model with other samples.

Further research is also intended to follow up on the
inductive middle-range theory built around the concepts of
parenting resources developed so far. Hypotheses related to
present parenting readiness will be tested again and
modified, using other measurement items for each indicator
of parenting resources. Additional questions will evolve in
the process of moving back again to induction._ More

questions will always arise as more answers are found.

 

 

CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The present study was needed to develop a decision
making model on fertility that could be used by prospective
parents. In their decision to have children parents have to
consider social, economic, psychological and health
factors. Therefore, the decision process is very complex.

Various disciplines have studied this subject and a
number of theoretical models have been developed to
summarize the interrelationship between concepts used in
each discipline. An attempt to create an integrated
theoretical model was made by Robinson and Harbison (1980).
They used concepts from various disciplines and combined
them into one model. A weakness of that model was that some
of its concepts were very broad and difficult to
operationalize or to be, used in practice. The purpose of
this study was to create a multi-disciplinary model of
fertility, that can be tested by research and used by
prospective parents.

For this purpose, there was a need for integrating
two research methodologies. The inductive method was used
to develop concepts that summarize the basic resources
needed to achieve parenting readiness, from the perspective
of individuals studied. This method was a complement to the
deductive methodology; the deductive research method was

85

 

 

86

used to test the relative importance of concepts developed
in other disciplines, to the fertility decision.

The inductive phase of the study was conducted in
Spring 1988. Respondents were asked open ended questions
about best and worst conditions for being a parent. Answers
were analyzed line by line and core concepts were created
about resources needed for parenting readiness.

Resources of family cohesiveness, financial security,
health status, and community support were then used in the
follow up study which represents the deductive method. I\
deductive approach was used in the second phase of the
study. Concepts developed in the inductive phase were
operationalized and combined to other items in a survey
questionnaire mailed to 300 employees at Michgan State
University selected in a systematic random sampling method.
Respondents were a hundred and sixty-six persons between
the ages of 24 to 40 years.

Two sets of hypotheses were developed in relation to
two dependent variables: desired family size and present
parenting' readiness. The :first ‘variable 'was assumed. to
represent future fertility patterns, while the second was
assumed to represent the present. Two theoretical models
were developed based on the hypotheses.

Hypotheses were tested using correlational analyses,
regression, and path analyses. Correlational analyses were
used to test the direction of relationships and the

strength of associations between variables, where problems

 

 

 

87

‘of multicollinearity between independent variables could be
detected” IMultiple :regression. analyses 'were ‘used 'to
determine which of the independent variables_are directly
affecting' the. dependent. variables and to determine the
percentage of variance accounted for by each of the models.
Path analysis was used to determine the magnitude of the
direct, indirect and total effects of each variable and of
the spurious or joint associations between variables.

Findings were in agreement with previous research on
the importance of perceived benefits and costs variables in
fertility behavior represented here by desired family size.
The importance of religiosity as an exogenous factor on
perceived costs was an additional contribution made by this
study to the research literature. Moreover, while perceived
costs and the current number of children were two important
endogenous factor for the model representing future
fertility behavior, they were not included in the model
with present parenting readiness.

In conclusion, this study made several positive
contributions to the domain of human ecology. First, the
basic assumption of children as a product of a decision, is
in agreement with the ecological thoughts of Paolucci, a
pioneer in the field of human ecology. Second, this study
started with a review of fertility research from various
disciplines. Third, the study attempted.tx>:merge concepts
from various disciplines in order to have a broader

understanding of the problem. The fourth contribution of

 

 

 

88

this study to human ecology, is in recognizing the
influence of "time", a natural resource, on human desires
and feelings about having children. Time as a natural
environment is perceived by human ecologists as highly
related to the human environment. In this study the present
and the future ‘were used as basis to compare two

theoretical models. The number of paid hours per week was a

variable in the model that also represents the resource of

time. Finally the greatest impact of this study on human
ecology resides in merging two methodologies and in putting

efforts from theory and research into practice.

 

 

APPENDIX

iiill

 

 

ABOUT THE DECISION
TO HAVE CHILDREN

 

 

MARITAL STATUS AND FAMILY BACKGROUND

We would like to begin by having you provide some
information about yourself and your family or household

structures.

1. First, please complete the following about your present
marital status by circling the letter in front of the

appropriate situation.
You are currently:

a. In your first marriage. Number of years.
(Please go to question 2) '
. Single, never married, not engaged or cohabiting.
. Separated/Divorced.
Widowed.
Remarried
. Engaged.
Cohabiting.

CTHIID 9100‘

1.1 If you have been married before, please indicate for
each marriage, the following things: The year you were
married, the year the marriage ended, and the reason it

ended.

MARRIAGE RANK YEAR MARRIED YEAR ENDED REASONS FOR ENDING
DEATH SEPARATION DIVORCE

Example: lst 1975 1980 X

89

 

 

90

2. Have you ever experienced one or more of the
following? If yes, please circle the letter preceeding
your choice or choices. If no, please circle "f" and go to
question 3.

' How many?
Gave birth to,a child.
Been a father to a child.
Adopted a child.

Been a foster parent.
Been a step/parent.

None of the above.

HiIDQaOU‘DJ

3. Now, think about your current household. Please provide
the following information about the persons who are
currently living with you.

Sex (circle 1) Age on last birthday
Yourself M F
Spouse _ M F

Children (oldest first):

First M F
Second M F
Third M F

Other, please specify
relationship to you:

If more space is needed for this question 3, please use the
reverse side of this page.

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR WANTING A CHILD

This section includes items that are general enough to be
answered by parents or non/parents. In case you find a
non/applicable item, please answer: No Opinion

4. Here are some reasons for wanting a child. For each
one, please indicate whether, for your, the reason is very
important, somewhat important, not important at all, or you
have no specific opinion about its importance to you.
(Circle your choice).

REASONS NO NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
OPINION IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

1. Because children 0 1 2 3
bring love

2. Because you want to
have a/another boy 0 1 2 3

3. To provide a
companion 0 l 2 3

 

4. To motivate you
to succeed in life 0 1 2 3

5. To be sure in old
age you will have i
support 0 l 2 3

6. Becuase of the
pleasureto watch
children grow 0 1 2 3

7. To strengthen the
bond between the
two partners 0 1 2 3

8. Because you want

to have a boy/girl O l 2 3
9. To help carry on

the family name 0 1 2 3
10. Because it is fun

to have children

around 0 l 2 3
11. Because it feels

odd not to 0 1 2 3

91

 

92

12. To feelneeded and
useful 0 l 2 3

13. Because you think
you could be a good
nurturing parent 0 1 2 3

14. Because a baby
would mean a change .
/ novelty O l 2 3

15. Because it is a
major stage in
human growth 0 1 2 3

16. Because it is
part of being a
woman/man 0 1 2 3

 

17. Because of a
religious
commitment 0 l 2 3

13:"

18. To transmit some
of your own values
to a new generation 0 1 2 3

_19. To add purpose to
your life 0 1 2 3

20. To be remembered
after you are gone 0 1 2 3

21. Because children
are needed to
complete a family 0 1 2 3

22. So that you won't
feel lonely 0 1 2 3

23. To please your
parents/relatives 0 1 2 3

QEQSI items 9; special meaning and importance pp vou:

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

 

 

COST OF CHILDREN

Think now about costs of having and rearing children.
These could be financial, emotional, physical or social
strains.

5. Here is a list of reasons for not wanting a/another
child. Please answer whether for you the reason is very
important, somewhat importnat, not important, or you have
no opinion abou it. You can answer no opinion if an item is
not applicable. (Circle only one choice)

Reason No Not Somewhat Very
Opinion Important Important Important

1. Because it could
be a financial
burden to you 0 1 2 3

2. Because it limits
time with partner 0 1 2 3

3. Because it would
.be hard to keep
your job 0 l 2 3

4. Because of the
worries when they
are sick 0 1 2 3

5. Because it would
limit your free
time 0 1 2 3

6. Because the world
is already over-
populated 0 1 2 3

7. Because it would
limit your
career achievement 0 1 2 3

8. Because it would
mean more work
and bother 0 1 2 3

9. Because children

are expensive to
raise 0 1 2 3

93

 

94

10.Because it would
limit you socially O l 2 3

Other items 9; special meaning and.importance 39 you:

 

11.

12.

13.

 

 

FERTILITY BEHAVIOR

Now think about your current and future projections for
having children. (Circle only one answer).

6. Are you or your partner currently pregnant?

1. No
2. Yes
3. Not Applicable

7. Do you have any plans or have you been discussing
lately the issue of having a/another child in the
future?

1. No
2. Yes

Questions 8 to 14 are only for individuals who have
made the decision with the partner involved to be
childless or to have/ raise their first child in
the near future. (For others, go to question 15).

8. What was the decision?

1. Be Childless
2. Start a family

9. Do you think that having or not having a child must be
a debatable issue between partners involved? .

1. No
2. Yes
10. Do you think the decision must be implicit with little

need of discussion?

1. No
2. Yes

ha

11. Has the decision been definite or it is still open to
negotiation?

1. Definite
2. Still open to negotiation
12. Do you think that your partner would answer this
question the same way you have?
1. NO

2. Yes
3. Not sure

95

 

96

13. Do you feel that you or your partner felt most strongly
about the decision made?

1. Myself
2. My partner

14. Although the following dimensions overlap, try to rate
these five issues was least to most important in your
decision:

(Insert the appropriate number in the blank below)

1. Childcare issues: who would take care of the baby's
basic needs of nurturing ~

2. Economic issues: The S costs involved

3. Career issues: The importance of the work arena

4. Long/term commitment issues: the amount and/or length
of time involved in raising children

5. Personal enjoyment issues: you and/or your partner
don't particularly enjoy spending time with children

Least important Most important

15. What would you think is the ideal family size perceived
by your community in general?

1. No children
2. One child

3. Two children
4. Three or more

16. To you, personally what would be the desired family

size?

1. No children
2. One child

3. Two children
4. Three or more

17. How would you describe you/your partner health for
having a/another child ?

1. Very Good
2. Fair

3. Not Sure
4. Poor

5. Threatened

l8. Presently how many children can you afford?

1. None
2. One
3. two

4. three or more

 

 

97

19. Five years from now, do you expect your financial
position to be better off, worse off, or you don't know ?

0. Don't know
1. Worse
2. Better

20. Would you add a child to your life then?

0. Don't know
1. No
2. Yes

21. If you could have JUL-just one child*, what would you
prefer a boy or a girl? Briefly explain your choice in
the space

20.1 WHY?
1. Boy
2. Girl
3. No Preference

 

 

 

 

ABOUT YOU IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT AND
YOUR READINESS FOR CHILDREN

A pilot study has revealed the following issues as
relevant in determining the best and worst possible
conditions JJfor being a parent». Here are a set of scales
for each group of items. On a scale of 1 (worst conditions)
to 10 (best conditions), please rate yourself as to where
you stand now on the following:

22. Family unit resources:

1.

Being in a stable relationship .............. 10

Being single or in unstable relation ......... 1
Your score from 1 to 10 is:

Cohesiveness: including shared closeness, love and

responsibilities between family members and partner
equally wanting children ..................... 10

uncohesiveness: Unclose, unloving members, no
sharing of responsibilities and partner not really
wanting to have children around.. ........... 1

Your score from 1 to 10 15:

Health: Good, mentally and physically fit for having/
raising children ..................... 10

Poor, mentally or physically disabled for
having/raising children ............. 1

Your score from 1 to 10 15:

Economics: Good with financial security, acceptable
standards of living with enough material
possessions or luxury items, job allowing
time for self family and

entertainment .................. 10

Poor or no financial security, therefore
keeping job by necessity, not enough time
for a family or self .............. 1

Your score from 1 to 10 is:

98

 

99

23. Community Resources:

1. Support system: Good, extended family, friends, local
church, good neighborhood ......... 10

Poor, none of the above available...1

Your score from 1 to 10 is:

2. Growth opportunities: good educational opportunities
and safe environment ........... 10

Poor educational opportunity and not
very safe environment .......... 1

Your score from 1 to 10 is:

As you may have seen, one category inludes a variety of
issues: A summary average approximate score was needed
on each. '

Now, here is a picture of a ladder. Suppose that the top
of the ladder represents the best possible conditions for
being a parent, and the bottom represents the worst
possible conditions for being a parent.

24. Where do you feel you personally stand at the present
time? (Mark Present on the line at the chosen level).

25. Where do you think you stood five years ago?
(Mark Past to the left of the chosen level).

26. Where do you think you will stand fiive years from now?
(Mark Future on the right side of the chosen level).

Your Choice

Past Present Future

10 Best possible conditions
for being a parent

9

8

7

 

100

1 Worst Possible conditions
for being a Parent

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Thank you for answereing the previous sections. I would
like to close with some general important questions
background questions.

This last section will focus on your educational level,
occupation, income, ethnicity, and religiosity.

27. What is the highest grade you completed in formal
education and got a degree for? (Circle one)

1. Associate degree

2. Bachelor degree

3. Master degree

4. Doctorate/ Professional (PhD, MD, JD, etc..)
5. Other (Please specify)

28. Are you presently employed full time or part time
at Michigan State University?

1. Part time
2. Full Time
29. Currently, you are mostly working .....
1. in teaching and/or research
2. in an administrative position
3. in clerical activities
4. as a medical practitioner
30. Think about the amount of your total family 1987

income before taxes from all sources. Please circle the
total amount that applies to your situation.

1. $25,000 or less 5. $55,000 to $64,000
2. $26,000 to $34,000 6. $65,000 to $74,000
3. $35,000 to $44,000 7. $75,000 to $84,000
4. $45,000 to $54,000 10. $85,000 or more

31. Now think about the parental leave policy provided to
you MSU. This can be either maternity leave or paid days

101

 

102

off allowed in case of child illness. What kind of policy
applies to you?

1

2.

32.

Faculty

Staff

How satisfied are you presently with the policy?

1.

3.

33.

U1J>LAJNH

Unsatisfied
Indifferent

Satisfied

.1 Would you suggest...

1. More paid days off
2. Extend paid maternity leave

3. Allow the use of sick days for
staying with kids when needed

4. some or all of the above.
please specify numbers

Please indicater your racial or ethnic background.

6.

34.

35.

‘UIbtonJH

(Circle one)

Black

White

Native American

Asian or Pacific Islander

Spanish descent (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Chicano,
other Spanish)

Other (Please Specify)

Now think about your religious affiliation. With which
of these religions are you most likely to identify?
(Circle only one)

o

Protestant

Catholic

Jewish

None

Other (Please Specify)

How important would you say religion is to you?

1.
2.
3.

Not important
Faily important
Very important

 

 

103

36. In the past year, how often have you attended religious
services?

1. Not at all

2. A few times a year

3. 2 or 3 times a month
4. once a week

5. More than once a week

37. Finally, how dense would you describe the area where
you live?

1. Farm

2. Town under 10,000 population or rural non/farm
3. Town or city 10,000 to 50,000 population

4. Suburb or city of over 50,000 population

5. City of over 50,000 population

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. If you would
like a copy of the results of this study, please check the
space below: .

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Andrews M, Bubolz M, and Paolucci B (1980). An Ecological
Approach to study of the family. Marriage and Family
Review. Vol 3(1/2) Spring/Summer, 29-47.

Arnold, F. & Fawcett, J.,(l976). The value of children: A
cross-national study. East-West Population Institute.
University of Hawaii press.

Axinn, G. & Axinn, N.,(l987). The recycling ratio: A
useful tool in farming systems analysis. Paper presented
in. Farming’ Systems ZResearch. and. Extension Symposiunn
Fayetteville, Arkensas. 14 pages. '

Bagozzi, R. and Van Loo, S.,(1980). Social Exchange Theory
and Fertility Decision—making. In T. K. Burch (Ed.),
Demographic Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9g
Decision-makinq(pp 149-162). Washington, D.C: Westview
Press, Inc.

Barlett, P. It (1980). The .Anthropological Approach to
Fertility Decision-making. In T. K. Burch (Ed.),
Demographic Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Decision-making (pp 163-184). Washington, D.C:Westview'
Press, Inc.

Beaujot, R. T., (1986). The effects of marital satisfaction
on fertility Population Index,52, Abstract No.96)

Becker, G.S. (1960). An Economic Analysis of Fertility. In
A.J. Coale (Ed.),Demoqraphic and Economic Change .13
Developed Countries. Princeton: Princeton University
Press State University.)

Beckman, L. (1984). Husbands and wives' relative influence
on fertility decisions and outcomes. Population and
Environment, 1(3), 182-197.

Beckman, L. & Halser 8.8., (1979). Perceived satisfactions
and costs of motherhood and employment among married
women. Journal of Population: 2(4), 306-327.

Berelson, B. (1988). The value of children, a taxonomical

essay. In Gibson, W. (Ed.),Current Issues in marriage
and the family.(pp 158-164). 4th Ed, MacMillan Pubs.

104

   

 

105

Berry, E. & Williams L., (1987). Assessing the
relationship between quality of life and marital and
income satisfaction: A path analytic approach.
Journal 9: Marriage and the Family 49: 107-116.

Blake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children.
Demography. 18(4), 421-442.

Bubolz M. (1988). Use of an ecological perspective in home
economics. Draft prepared for conference on integration
in Home economics, Chicago, ILL, April 1988

Bubolz M, Eicher J, anui Sontag 8.5(1971). The human
ecosystem: A model. Journal 91 Home Economics.
71 (1):28-31.

Bubolz M,and Sontag S.,(1986). Integration in home
economics and human ecologyu IX paper prepared for
conference on integration in home economics. Chicago,
April.pp 12-13.

Bulatao, R. A. (1981). Values and disvalues of children in
successive childbearing decisions. Demography. 18(1)
1-25

Burch, T. K. (1980). Decision-making theories in
Demography: An Introduction. In T. K. Burch (Ed.),
Demographic Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 93
Decision-making (pp 1-22). Washington, D.C.

Westview Press.

Cain, M. (1983). Fertility as emu adjustment to risk.
Population and Development Review. 2 688-702.

Calhoun C & Espenshade T. J. (1988). Childbearing and wives
foregone earnings. Population Studies. 11(1) 5-25.

Callan, ‘1. J3 (1983). Factors affecting' early and late
deciders of voluntary childlessness. Journal 9: Social
Psychology. 119 (2) 261-275.

Callan, V. J. (1985). Comparisons of mothers of one child
by choice with mothers wanting a second birth.Journal
9; marriage and Family. 11(1) 155-164

 

Chen, C. L. (1984). Value of children among American
college students. Journal 9: Population Studies.
7:87-105

Clifford, W. B. (1989). Spousal agreement on the value of
children and fertility behavior. Population and
Environment. 2 (3), 148-159.

 

106

Deacon, R. and Firebaugh F. (1988) Family Resource
Management: Principles and Applications.Chapters 1-3,
2nd ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc.

De Groot, W. T.(1986). Grounded theory for Human Ecology:
general research design. Society for Human Ecology
.meeting, Oct 17-19.

Easterlin, R. A. (1975). A framework for fertility
analysis. Studies 1p Family Planning é: 54-63

Easterlin, R.A. (1978). In Nambodiri, N.K. (1980).
Fertility model building from different perspectives.
In: T.K. Burch (Ed.), Demographic Behavior:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives pp pecision-making
(71-89). Washington, D.C. Westview Press, Inc.

Easterlin, RJA. (1986). Economic preconceptions and
demographic research. Population Development
Review. 12(3): 517-528.

Espenshade, T. J. (1977). The value and cost of children.
Population.ZBulletinq .12(1). Wahington D.C. Population
Reference Bureau, Inc.

Espenshade, T.J. & Calhoun C. (1986). The Dollar and Cents
of Parenthood. Journal pf Policy An. 5(4) 813-817.‘

Espenshade, T.J. (1988). Raising a child can now cost
$85 , 000 . In Gibson J. Current issue_s_ E Marriage and
Family, p: 149-156. MacMillan Pub. Co. NY. '

Espenshade, T.J. (1989). Review of Population Growth and
Economic Development: Issues and Evidence.ContemporarY
Sociolqu 11 (6) 788-789

Fawcett, J. T. (1970). Psychology and Population:
Behavioral research issues on fertility and family
planning. In Burch T.K. (1980). Decision-making
theories in Demography: An Introduction. In T.K. Burch
(Ed.), Qemoqraphic Behavior: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives pp Decision-makinq (pp 1-22). Washington,
D.C. Westview Press, Inc.

Fawcett, J. T (Ed.). (1972). The Satisfactions and Costs
9; Children: Theories, Concepts and Methods. Honolulu.
East-West Population Institute.

Fawcett, J. T.(Ed.). (1973).Psychological Perspectives pp
Population. New York: Basic Books.

Foa U.G. and Foa E.B.(1973). Societal Structure of the
Mind. The Development 9: Basic Social Concepts pz36.
Charles Thomas Pub.Springfield. Illinois.

 

 

 

 

 

107

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967).The Discovery pf Grounded
Theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago.

 

Hartman, M. (1984). Pronatalistic tendencies and
religiosity in ISrael. Sociology and Social Research.
68(2): 247-258.

Hofferth, S. L. (1983). Childbearing decision-making and
family well being.American Sociological Review 48(4):
533-545.

Hoffman, L. W. (1975) The value of children to parents and
decrease in family size. Proceedings pf the American
Philosophical Society. 119(6) 430-438.

Hoffman, L. W. & Hoffman M.L. (1973). The value of children
to parents. In Fawcett J.T. (Ed). Psychological
Perspectives pp Population.pp 19976. New York.

Hoffman, L. W., Thornton A., & Manis J. D.,(1978). The
value of children in the United States.Popullation
1(2). 91-131.

Hoffman, L. W. & Manis J. D. (1979). The value of children
in the United States: A new approach to study fertility.
Journal 9: marriage and the Family. 41(3), 583-596.

Hogan, J. M., (1985). The Legacy and vision of Beatrice
Paolucci Symposium. Proceedings g: the second Beatrice
Paolucci Symposium. pp: 6-15. Michigan State University,
Michigan.

Houseknecht, S. K. (1982). Voluntary childlessness in the
19805: A significant increase?Marriage and the Family
Review. 5(2) 51-69.

Kantor, D. & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the Family. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kammeyer, K. (1971). An Introduction to Population. The
Study 9: Population. (1-7). San Francisco; Chandler.

Kapor, S. N. (1981). Psychological variables that limit
the number of births. Translated abstract in
Population Index. 49(3).

Kilpatrick, F.P. & Cantril, H. (1960). Self-anchoring
scaling: A measure of individuals' unique reality worlds.
Journal g: Individual Psychology 16 (158-173).

Kristen, K. W. & Morgan, L. A. (1989).Population and
Environment 2 (3). pp: 160-170.

 

 

108

Leibenstein, H. (1957). Economic Backwordness and Economic
growth. In Decision-making theories in Demography: An
Introduction. In T. K. Burch (Ed.),Demographic Behavior:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives pp Decision-making(l-22).
Washington, D.C. Westview Press.

Leone, C. L. (1986). Fairness, freedom and responsibility:
the delimma of fertility choice in America.Dissertation
Abstract International 1p. (University Microfilm Order
86-22003).

Longman, P. (1986, January). Age wars, the coming battle
between young and old. The Futurist pp. 10-19

McGrath, P. 'T.(1988). It sequential model of family
fertility expectations with a special consideration
towards the opportunity cost of additional children.
Dissertation Abstract International 42(8) 2339-A.
(University Microfilm Order DA 88-22359). Northern Ill.

McKenzie, T. (1934) The field and problems of demography,
human geography, and human ecology. In Bernard L. L.(ed)
Tpe Fields and Methods pf Sociology. N.Y. Long,R. &
Smith R. R. Inc.

McLelland M. (1980). Fertility Decision making:
Psychological View SDI T.K. Burch (Ed.), Demographic
Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives pp Decision-
making p:48. Washington, D.C. Westview Press.

Morgan.PL.‘Y & Scanzoni J. (1987). Religious orientations
and women's expected continuity in the labor force.
Journal pf Marriage and the Family 49: 367-379.

Murray, E. (1990). Families 1311a Global Perspective:
Ecological Implications. Proceedinge pf the second
Beatrice Paolucci Sypposium. P: 37-49. Michigan State
University.

Namboodiri, K. (1980). A look at fertility model-building
from different perspectives. In T.K‘. Burch (Ed.),
Demographic Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives pp
Decision-making(pp 71-89). Washington, D.C: Westview
Press, Inc.

Neal, A.G , Groat, H., Wicks, T, & Jerry, W. (1989).
Attitudes of ambivalence and hostility about having
children: A study of 600 couples in the early years of
marriage.Journal p: Marriage epg ppe Family 51(2)
313-327.

Nerlove, M. (1974). Economic Growth and Population:
Perspectives of the "New Home Economics". Journal pf
Political Economy. 82(2): 200-218. Northwestern
University.

 

 

109

Newman, 8. H. and Thompson V.D. (Eds). (1976).Population
Psychology: Research and Education Issues.. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Government printing office.

Oakley, D.(1986). Low fertility childbearing decision-
making. In: Population Index. 81(53) pp:92.

Park, R. E. (1936). Human Ecology. American Journal _o_f
Sociology XLII, (July). 1-15.

Paolucci 3., Hall, 0. & Axinn N. (1977). Family Decision
Making: Ap Ecosystem Approach. Wiley. NY.

Pollack, S. R. (1990) April 13). Oh Baby! The cost of
raising kids today is no bundle of joy. The Detroit
News. April 13, 1990)

Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A Primer 1p Theory Construction,
Chapters 3 and 4. Bobs Merrill Pubs. ‘

Riihinen, O., Pulkkinen, A, Ritamies, M & Penttinen (1983)
Education, work, and number of children Population
Index 19 (3) PP: 504.

Robinson, W. C.(1987). The time cost of children and other
household production. Population Studies. 41(2):
313-323.

Robinson W.C. & Harbison, S.F. (1980). Toward a Unified_
Theory of fertility. In T. K. Burch (Ed.), Demographic
Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives pp Decision-
making .pp: 201-229. Washington, D.C.

Westview Press,Inc.

Schultz, T. (1974). Economics of the family: Marriage,
children and human capital. In Robinson W.C. & Harbison,
S.F. (1980). Toward a Unified Theory of fertility. In:
T. K. Burch (Ed.), Demographic Behavior:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives pp Decision-making.
Washington, D.C. Westview Press.

Staff. (1988, February 4). How long women wait to have
children. The Wall Street Journal pp 21.

Statistical Abstract of the United States.(1990). Annual
,p1rpp rates (United States Department of
Commerce p:62). Washigton D.C. Government Printing
Office.

Steinmann, G. (1984). A model of the history of
demographic-economic change. Population Index 50(3):
392-393

 

 

 

 

110

Thompson, W. (1929). Population. American Journal pf
Sociology 34(4): 959-975.

Thomson, E. (1984). Subjective utility & plans for
childbearing and employment. Population 1 Environment
7(3): 198-208

Thornton, A. (1989). Changing attitudes toward family
issues in the United States. Marriage and the family.
51(4): 873-893.

Trent R. B., (1980). Evidence bearing on the construct
validity of desired family size. Population and
~Environment. 3 309-329.

Turchi, B.A.(1975). Micro-economic theories of fertility: a
critique. Social Forcee 54: 107-125.

Turke N., (1989). Evolution and the demand for children.
Population Development Review 1§(1) 61-90.

Vantura, S.J. (1989). Trends and variations 1p first births
pp older women, 1970-1986. (Vital and Health Statistics
No. 47, PHS 89-1925). Washington D.C. US Department of

Public Health.

 

 

Vliet, S.L (1979). Feelings regarding having children and
perceived satisfaction with life.
(Master's thesis, dept. Family and Child Sciences,
Michigan State ' University).

Walker, R., Lee, M. Bubolz M., & Keefe D. (April,1990)
Quality of life of middle-age women: the effects of
family resources and demands. Proceedings p1 ppe ACCI
Conference. 16 pages.

Webster's (1986). Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
Merriam- Websters Inc.

Wyatt, F.(1967). Clinical notes on the ‘motives of
reproduction. Journal p: Social Issuee 11(4) 29-56.

 

 

 

  

  

i-r-asuhrnphh
. ....'.';'~

MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV

£12.!3330l8‘l‘3li

(QUE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
      

       
    
  
  

   

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

........‘. 1 X ’. . . ‘ H
. .. ..\ ..
-:.. -. 4 , .’ “‘1'“ '. . . \ .
“H.,,” .
~39...” . . .
u . . ..
, .. : ‘ .