Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:25:14.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Dissonance and Fertility Rates: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes toward the Gender Division of Labour in East Asian and Western Industrial Societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

Cheng-Huei Hong  and
Neil Gilbert
Cheng-Huei Hong
Affiliation:
Human Development and Family Studies, National Taiwan Normal University, E-mail: [email protected]
Neil Gilbert
Affiliation:
School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), this study examines the extent to which cognitive dissonance regarding egalitarian attitudes toward the gender division of labour are associated with fertility rates in sixteen societies, representing Anglo American, Northern European, Western European and East Asian regimes. The findings show that although levels of support for gender equality in the realms of the family and the market are positively associated with fertility rates, an even stronger relationship to fertility emerges when weighing the differences between the levels of support for gender equality in each realm. The findings lend some corroboration to McDonald’s hypothesis, which suggests that declining fertility rates are influenced by contradictory expectations between gender equality for women in the home and market.

Keywords

Cognitive dissonancefertility rateswelfare state regimesgender equalitylabour market
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 44 - 61
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Beaujot, R. and Ravanera, Z. (2008) ‘Family change and implications for family solidarity and social cohesion’, Canadian Studies in Population, 35, 1, 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. (1981) A Treatise on the Family, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomberg News (2019) ‘China sees fewest births in 2018 since Mao’s great famine’, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-21/china-sees-fewest-births-in-2018-since-mao-s-great-famine [accessed 21.01.2019].Google Scholar
Bowling, A. (2005) ‘Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality’, Journal of Public Health, 27, 3, 281–91, doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brines, J. (1994) ‘Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home’, American Journal of Sociology, 100, 3, 652–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coontz, S. (2005) Marriage, A History, New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Deeming, C. (2017) ‘The lost and the new ‘liberal world’ of welfare capitalism: a critical assessment of Gosta Esping-Andersen’s the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism a quarter of a century later’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 3, 405–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Social Survey Round 2 Data (2004) ‘Data file edition 3.6. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. doi: 10.21338/NSD-ESS2-2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferragina, E. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011) ‘Thematic review: welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?’, Policy and Politics, 39, 4, 583–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Gietel-Basten, S. (2019) The ‘Population Problem’ in Pacific Asia, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2008) A Mother’s Work: How Feminism, the Market and Policy Shape Family Life, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goldscheider, F. and Waite, L. (1991) New Families, No Families? The Transformation of the American Home, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gornick, J. and Meyers, M. (2003) Families that Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Greenstein, T. N. (2000) ‘Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: a replication and extension’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 2, 322–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J. and Gilbert, N. (2007) ‘Welfare state regimes and family policy: a longitudinal analysis’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 4, 307–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J. and Gilbert, N. (2014) ‘Public attitudes toward government responsibility for child care: the impact of individual characteristics and welfare regimes’, Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 82–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C. (2000) Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoschild, A. and Machung, A. (1998) The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home, New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (1999) ‘Filial piety and loyalty: two types of social identification in Confucianism’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 163–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISSP Research Group (2016) International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles IV - ISSP 2012. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.12661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroska, A. (2004) ‘Division of domestic work: revising and expanding the theoretical explanations’, Journal of Family Issues, 25, 7, 900–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, J. (2014) What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster, Encounter Books.Google Scholar
Lee, R. and Goldstein, J. R. (2003) ‘Rescaling the life cycle: longevity and proportionality’, Population and Development Review, 29, 183–207.Google Scholar
Liu, X. and Dyer, S. (2014) ‘Revisiting radical feminism: partnered dual-earner mothers’ place still in the home?’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, H., Peter, F., Rostguaard, T. and Spiess, K. (2009) Towards a Framework for Assessing Family Policies in the EU, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 88.Google Scholar
Longman, P. (2006) ‘The return of patriarchy’, Foreign Policy, 56–65.Google Scholar
Lutz, W., Skirbekk, V. and Testa, M. R. (2006) ‘The low fertility trap hypothesis: forces that may lead to further postponement and fewer births in Europe’, Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 4, 167–92.Google Scholar
Ma, H. C. and Chang, S. S. (2006) ‘Women in the changing society: a life course research perspective’, Studies in International Culture, 2, 2, 59–97.Google Scholar
May, M. (2008) ‘“I didn’t write the questions!” Negotiating telephone-survey questions on birth timing’, Demographic Research, 18, 18, 499–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P. (2000) ‘Gender equity in theories of fertility transition’, Population and Development Review, 26, 3, 427–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P. (2002) ‘Sustaining fertility through public policy: the range of options’, Population, 57, 3, 417–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P. (2006) ‘Low fertility and the state: the efficacy of policy’, Population and Development Review, 32, 3, 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno-Mínguez, A., Ortega-Gaspar, M. and Gamero-Burón, C. (2018) ‘A socio-structural perspective on family model preferences, gender roles and work–family attitudes in Spain’, Social Sciences, 8, 4, doi: 10.3390/socsci8010004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OASDI Trustees Report (2018) The 2018 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Ochiai, E. (1996) The Japanese Family System in Transition, Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing.Google Scholar
Ochiai, E. and Molony, B. (2008) Asia’s New Mothers, Kent: Global Oriental Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center (2010) ‘Gender Equality Universally Embraced, But Inequalities Acknowledged’, http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/01/gender-equality/ [accessed 01.16.2020].Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004) Development of Culture, Welfare States and Women’s Employment in Europe, Aldershot, Hants, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2012) ‘Women’s employment in the institutional and cultural context’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32, 530–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantenga, J. and Remery, C. (2005) Reconciliation of Work and Private Life: A Comparative Review of Thirty European Countries, Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
Ravanera, Z., Beaujot, R. and Liu, J. (2009) ‘Models of earning and caring: determinants of the division of work’, Canadian Review of Sociology, 46, 4, 319–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjäk, K. (2010) ‘The International Social Survey Programme: annual cross-national social surveys since 1985’, in Harkness, J. A, Braun, M, Edwards, B, Johnson, T. P, Lyberg, L, Mohler, P. Ph, Pennell, B.-E, Smith, T. W (eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts, Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleebos, J. (2003) Low Fertility Rates in OECD Countries: Facts and Policy Responses. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Paper No. 15 (OECD: Paris).Google Scholar
Spain, D. and Bianchi, S. (1996) Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage and Employment among American Women, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2012) Population Division, World Marriage Data 2012, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WMD2012/MainFrame.html.Google Scholar
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017) World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision.Google Scholar