Abstract
The concept of reference groups is introduced as a theoretically useful mechanism involved in diffusing collective norms and values about family size and in formation of family size ideals of individual family members. Data were gathered via self-administered questionnaires from a random sample of 140 urban and 55 rural families in the Lansing, Michigan metropolitan area. Findings show major variations by sex. Conformity to a two-child family norm in the family size ideals of wives depends on the extent to which they are exposed to this norm through reference group interaction and on the size of their families of origin. Husbands' family size ideals are influenced by size of family of origin but not by reference group interaction. In further exploring this pattern of findings, important differences emerge by controlling for educational attainment and residential location.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beckman, L.J. Couples' decision-making processes regarding fertility. In K. Taeuber, L. Bumpass and J. Sweet (eds.),Social Demography. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Blake, J. Can we believe recent data on birth expectations in the United States?Demography 1974,11 (1), 25–43.
Bumpass, L. Comment on J. Blake's "Can we believe recent data on birth expectations in the United States?"Demography 1975,12 (1), 155–156.
Davis, K. & Blake, J. Social structure and fertility: An analytic framework.Economic Development and Cultural Change 1956,4 (3), 211–235.
Duncan, O.D., Freedman, R.C., Coble, J.M. & Slesinger, D.P. Marital fertility and size of family of orientation.Demography 1965,2 (2), 508–515.
Freedman, R.The Sociology of Human Fertility (an annotated bibliography). New York: Irving Publishers, Inc., 1975.
Gecas, V. The socialization and child care roles. In I.F. Nye (ed.)Role Structure and Analysis of the Family. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 1976.
Glenn, N.D. & Hill, L. Jr. Rural-urban differences in attitudes and behavior in the United States.Annals, AAPSS 1973,429 (Jan.), 36–50.
Gustavus, S.O. The family size preferences of young people: A replication and longitudinal follow-up study.Studies in Family Planning 1973,4 (12), 335–342.
Gustavus, S.O. & Nam, C.B. The function and stability of ideal family size among young people.Demography 1970,7 (1), 43–51.
Hendershot, G.E. Familial satisfaction, birth order, and fertility values.Journal of Marriage and the Family 1969,31 (1), 27–33.
Johnson, N.E. & Stokes, C.S. Family size in successive generations: The effects of birth order, intergenerational change in lifestyle, and familial satisfaction.Demography 1976,13 (2), 175–187.
Kantner, J.F. & Potter, R.G. Jr. Social and psychological factors affecting fertility, XXIV. The relationship of family size in two successive generations.The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1954,23 (3), 294–311.
Kelley, H.H. Two functions of reference groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, and E.L. Hartly (eds.),Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952.
Matras, J.Populations and Societies. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.
McAllister, P., Stokes, C.S. & Knapp, M. Size of family of orientation, birth order, and fertility values: A reexamination.Journal of Marriage and the Family 1974,36 (2), 337–342.
Middleton, R. Fertility values in American magazine fiction, 1916–1956.Public Opinion Quarterly 1960,24 139–143.
Namboodiri, N.K. Some observations on the economic framework for fertility analysis.Population Studies 1972,26 (2), 185–206.
Namboodiri, N.K. The integrative potential of a fertility model.Population Studies 1972,26 (3), 465–485.
Parsons, T.The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951.
Philliber, S.G. The fertility socialization of young people: Unraveling the mother's role. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, Atlanta. 1978
Rainwater, L.Family Design: Marital Sexuality, Family Size, and Contraception. Social Research Studies in Contemporary Life. Chicago: Aldine, 1965.
Ryder, N.B. A critique of the National Fertility Survey.Demography 1973,10 (4), 495–506.
Ryder, N.B. & Westoff, C.F.Reproduction in the United States 1965. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. Family sociology or wives' family sociology? A cross-cultural examination of decision-making.Journal of Marriage and the Family 1969,31 (2), 290–301.
Shibutani, T. Reference groups as perspectives.American Journal of Sociology 1955,60 (6), 562–569.
Spicer, J.C. & Gustavus, S.O. Mormon fertility through half a century: Another test of the Americanization hypothesis.Social Biology 1974,21 (1), 70–76.
Sumner, W.G.Folkways. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1906.
Turner, R. Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference group behavior.American Journal of Sociology 1956,61 (4), 316–328.
Westoff, C.F., Potter, R.G. Jr., Sagi, P.C. & Mishler, E.G.Family Growth in Metropolitan America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Westoff, C.F. & Potvin, R.H. Higher education, religion, and women's family-size orientations.American Sociological Review 1966,31 (4), 489–496.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clay, D.C., Zuiches, J.J. Reference groups and family size norms. Popul Environ 3, 262–279 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01255342
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01255342