Author
Listed:
- Brian H. Bornstein
- David K. DiLillo
- Hannah Dietrich
(Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, United States
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Department of Psychology, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, United States)
Abstract
Background : Family size preferences and birth rate vary across culture, gender, religion, race/ethnicity, and time; yet little is known about how or when people decide how many children to have. Sociobiology suggests that women should invest more time and effort into the decision than men. Objective : The study’s purpose is to examine family size preferences in a sample of male and female college students. Methods : A sample of childless, college-aged participants (n =394; 58.7% women) completed a survey about their desires concerning procreation (e.g., “How many children do you want to have?” “How committed to that number are you?” “How old were you when you picked this number?”). Results : Women reported deciding how many children they ideally wanted at a younger age than men, being more committed to that number, and having given it more careful thought. Women also wanted to have their first child at a younger age than men, although men wanted marginally more offspring overall. Participants who used birth control wanted fewer children than those who did not. There were few differences as a function of religion or race/ethnicity. Conclusion : Family size preferences were consistent with sociobiological predictions, with women knowing how many children they wanted at a younger age than men, being more committed to a specific number, having given the matter more careful thought, and wanting to start childbearing at a younger age. Thus, despite recent cultural and societal changes, biological imperatives still appear to influence decision making about this most fundamental of behaviors.
Suggested Citation
Brian H. Bornstein & David K. DiLillo & Hannah Dietrich, 2017.
"Family Size Preferences in a College Student Sample,"
The Open Family Studies Journal, Bentham Open, vol. 9(1), pages 31-36, July.
Handle:
RePEc:ben:tofams:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:31-36
DOI: 10.2174/1874922401709010031
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ben:tofams:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:31-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Rehana Raza (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.