Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:53:41.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Age at marriage and family size: social causation and social selection hypotheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Joan Busfield
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex

Extract

The familiar and well-established negative association between a woman's age at marriage and family size has received somewhat less attention in recent years. No doubt this is because, with the reduction in fertility of the past century, the observed differentials appear less striking and seem less significant. Age at marriage is a less obvious determinant of family size than in the past. Glass & Grebenik (1954), commenting on the data produced by the 1946 Family Census, emphasized the decreasing importance of the association both absolutely and relatively. Contrasting the completed fertility of the 1900–09 and the 1925 marriage cohorts in Great Britain (Table 1), they argued that, though for all, married women the relative influence of age at marriage was unchanged, the figures for fertile marriages only (those where the wife had at least one child) appeared to indicate ‘that age at marriage and fertility were not quite so tightly linked for the more recent group’. And they added ‘this is the kind of development which would be expected with the increasing spread of family planning’.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1972, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bumpass, L. (1969) Age at marriage as a variable in socio-economic differentials in fertility. Demography. 6, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Register Office (1966) Fertility Tables, Census 1961. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
General Register Office (1970) Statistical Review of England and Wales, 1968, Part II. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Glass, D.V. & Grebenik, E. (1954) The Trend and Pattern of Fertility in Great Britain. Papers of the Royal Commission on Population, VI. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Glasser, J.H. & Lachenbruch, P.A. (1968) Observations on the relationship between frequency and timing of intercourse and the probability of conception. Popul. Stud. 22, 399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grebenik, E. & Rowntree, G. (1963) Factors associated with the age at marriage in Britain. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 159, 178.Google ScholarPubMed
Hawthorn, G. (1968) Explaining human fertility. Sociology. 2, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorn, G. & Busfield, J. (1968) Social Determinants of Family Size: report of a pilot study. University of Essex (in mimeo).Google Scholar
Hill, R., Stycos, J.M. & Back, K.W. (1959) The Family and Population Control. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Jain, A.K. (1969) Fecundability and its relation to age in a sample of Taiwanese women. Popul. Stud. 23, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, M. (1972) Explaining educational choice. Sociology (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newson, J. & Newson, E. (1965) Patterns of Infant Care. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Peel, J. (1970) The Hull family survey. I. The survey couples. J. biosoc. Sci. 2, 45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peel, J. & Potts, M. (1969) Textbook of Contraceptive Practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rainwater, L. (1965) Family Design: Marital Sexuality, Family Size and Contraception. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Westoff, C.F., Potter, R.G. & Sagi, P.C. (1963) The Third Child. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoff, C.F., Potter, R.G., Sagi, P.C. & Mishler, C.F. (1961) Family Growth in Metropolitan America. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar