Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of first generation fertility and economic status on second generation fertility

  • Published:
Population and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of parental economic status and family size on the actual and expected fertility of adult children using longitudinal data from two generations of families participating in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. There was a modest positive relationship between first generation family size and second generation fertility. More importantly, the ideal family size of the parental family was more closely related to fertility behavior and plans in the second generation than was actual parental family size. In addition, the data revealed the hypothesized negative correlation between parental financial status and second generation fertility behavior and plans. Several mechanisms which could produce the correlation between parental characteristics and the fertility of their children are explored.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker, G.S. An economic analysis of fertility. In National Bureau of Economic Research,Demographic and Economic Changes in Developing Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berent, J. Relationship between family size of two successive generations.Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1953,31 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P.M. and Duncan, O.D.The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahr, S.B. Chadwick, A. and Strauss, J.H. The effect of relative economic status on fertility.Journal of Marriage and the Family 1975,37 335–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L.L. Data relevant to socialization in the U.S. National Fertility surveys.Papers of the East-West Population Institute, 1975,36.

  • Bumpass, L.L. and Westoff, C.F.The Later Years of Childbearing. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhury, R.H. Relative income and fertility.Demography 1977,14 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., and Blake, J. Social structure and fertility: an analytic framework. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1956, 211–235.

  • De Fronzo, J. Cross sectional areal analyses of factors affecting marital fertility: actual versus relative income.Journal of Marriage and the Family 1976,38 669–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, G.J., and Morgan, J.N.Five Thousand American Families—Patterns of Economic Progress, Vol. IV. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O.D. Freedman, R., Coble. J.M. and Slesinger, D.P. Marital fertility and the size of family or orientation.Demography 1965,2 508–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R.A. The American baby boom in historical perspective.National Bureau of Economic Research Occasional Paper 79, 1962.

  • Easterlin, R.A. On the relation of economic factors to recent and projected fertility changes.Demography 1966,3 131–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R.A. Towards a socioeconomic theory of fertility: a survey of recent research on economic factors in American fertility. In S.J. Behman, L. Corsa, Jr., and R. Freedman (eds.).,Fertility and Family Planning. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R.A. Relative economic status and the American fertility swing. In E.B. Sheldon (ed.),Family and Economic Behavior. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1973a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R.A. The economics and sociology of fertility: A synthesis. Revised version of a paper prepared for the Seminar on Early Industrialization, Shifts in Fertility, and Changes in Family Structure Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, June 18–July 9, 1972. Revised 1973b.

  • Easterlin, R.A. The conflict between aspirations and resources.Population and Development Review 1976,2 417–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. Fertility, aspirations and resources: a symposium on the Easterlin hypothesis.Population and Development Review 1976,2 411–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, P.M., Ebanks, G.E., Nobbe, C.E. and Anwar, M. Fertility differences between the family of orientation and the family of procreation in Barbados.International Journal of Sociology of the Family 1976,6 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. Socioeconomic theory and differential fertility.Social Forces 1958,54 84–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavus, S.O. The family size preferences of young people: a replication and follow-up study.Studies in Family Planning 1973,4 335–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavus, S.O. Fertility socialization research in the United Status: A progress report.Papers of the East-West Population Institute, 1975, 35.

  • Gustavus, S.O., and Nam, C.B. The formation and stability of ideal family size among young people.Demography 1970,7 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, G.The Sociology of Fertility. London: Collier-MacMillian, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendershot, GE. Family satisfaction, birth order, and fertility values.Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1969,31 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L.W. and Hoffman, M.L. The value of children to parents. In J.T. Fawcett (ed.),Psychological Perspectives on Population. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, S. Maritial instability and the economic status of women.Demography 1977,14 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N.E. and Stokes, C.S. Family size in successive generations: the effects of birth order, intergenerational change in lifestyle, and familial satisfaction,Demography 1976,13 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Political Economy Supplement, March/April 1973,81 (2).

  • Journal of Political Economy Supplement, March/April 1974,82 (2).

  • Kantner, J.F. and Potter, R.G., Jr. Social and psychological factors affecting fertility. XXIV. The relationship of family size in two successive generations.Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1954,32 294–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiser, C.V., Grabill, W.H., and Campbell, A.A.Trends and Variations in Fertility in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R.D. Demographic forecasting and the Easterlin hypothesis.Population and Development Review 1976,2 459–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibenstein, H.Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth. New York: Wiley; London: Chapman and Hall, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, K.D., and Cosby, A.R. Antecedent of early marital and fertility behavior.Youth and Society 1977,9 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M.M. and Rindfuss, R.R. Relative economic status and fertility: evidence from a cross-section. In J.L. Simon (ed.),Research in Population Economics. Greenwich: Johnson Associates, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, S. Expected family size and perceived status deprivation among high school senior women.Demography 1974,11 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, N. Adolescent family size preferences.International Journal of Sociology of the Family 1972,2 231–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H.L., and Sawhill, I.V.Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by Women. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, N.B. Comment on: a new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior, by R.J. Willis.Journal of Political Economy 1973,81 565–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, N.B. and Westoff, C.F.Reproduction in the United States: 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanzoni, J.H.Sex Roles, Life Styles and Childbearing Changing Patterns in Marriage and the Family. New York: The Free Press; London: Collier-Macmillian, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, T.W. The value of children: an economic perspective.Journal of Political Economy 1973,81 502–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmins, A.B., and Turner, J.B. The socialization of sex roles and fertility ideals: a study of two generations in Toronto.Journal of Comparative Family Studies 1976,1 255–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, C.S., and Johnson, N.E. Birth order, size of family of orientation, and desired family size.Journal of Individual Psychology 1977,33 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. The relationship between fertility and income, relative income, and subjective well-being. In J.L. Simon (ed.),Research in Population Economics Greenwich: Johnson Associates, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turchi, B.A.The Demand for Children: The Economics of Fertility in the United States. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoff, C.F. and Potvin, R.H.College Women and Fertility Values. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Michigan, USA

    Arland Thornton

Authors
  1. Arland Thornton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The analysis reported in this paper was supported by Contract NO1-HD-42856 from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, Center for Population Research. Dr. Thornton is affiliated with the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Requests for reprints should be directed to him.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thornton, A. The influence of first generation fertility and economic status on second generation fertility. Popul Environ 3, 51–72 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01253070

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01253070

Keywords

Search

Navigation