Why Would Anyone Sigm Up for Neighbors to Family

Stud Fam Plann. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 Mar ane.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC3621985

NIHMSID: NIHMS443182

The Influence of Neighbors' Family Size Preference on Women's Progression to Higher Parity Births

Elyse A. Jennings

University of Michigan

Jennifer S. Barber

University of Michigan

Abstract

Big families can accept a negative touch on on the health and well-beingness of women, children, and their communities. Although sixty percent of people in our rural Nepalese sample report that 2 children is their ideal number, near half of the married women continue childbearing afterwards their second kid. We explore the influence of women'due south and their neighbors' family unit size preferences on women's progression to higher parity nascency, comparing this influence across ii cohorts. Nosotros discover that a) neighbors' family size preferences influence women's fertility, b) older cohorts of women are more influenced by their neighbors' preferences than younger cohorts of women, and c) the influence of neighbors' preferences is contained of women's own preferences.

Keywords: Neighbour Influences, Parity Progression, Attitudes, Fertility, S Asia

Introduction

Most countries have experienced rapid fertility decline in contempo decades (Caldwell 2001), in part due to the global dissemination of Western ideals that favor smaller families. This dissemination has occurred both through the non-deliberate improvidence of ideas inside and between populations (Casterline 2001; Hornik and McAnany 2001; Thornton 2005; Watkins 1987) and the more deliberate family planning initiatives that focused on changing people's preferences and making those preferences achievable (Thornton et al. 2012). These values have been successfully circulated in rural Nepal, where sixty percent of people in the Southern region of Chitwan say that two children is the ideal. ^{one, two} Yet fertility behavior in this surface area is slower to change: almost half of all married women accept more than than 2 children.

It is important to understand why women may choose to have more than two children, every bit having a big family tin can accept negative consequences for the health and well-being of both mothers and children. Compared to small families, larger families tend to take more closely spaced births. With more mouths to feed and less time for a mother to recuperate between births, mothers and children of these growing families may be at chance of nutritional deprivation or other negative health outcomes (Cleland and Sathar 1984; Curtis, Diamond, and McDonald1993; Desai 1995; Horton 1986; Winnikoff 1983). Furthermore, parents take finite resources to distribute among their children, and the resources available to each child are reduced equally family size increases (Powell and Steelman 1990; Zajonc and Mullally 1997). For example, parents may invest less in each child'south education when they have more children (Blake 1981; Kessler 1991; Knodel, Havanon, and Sittitrai 1990; Knodel 1991). In addition, larger families may reduce parental emotional investment per child (Kidwell 1981), which tin can impede social and emotional growth. These negative consequences are especially likely if one or more of the births is unintended (Barber and East 2009; Barber and Due east 2011), and higher parity births are more likely to exist unintended (Eggleston 1999; Marston and Cleland 2003). ³

On the other paw, women who prefer large families may choose to take more than two children despite the potential negative consequences. Substantial prove links private fertility preferences to behaviors in Western settings (eastward.1000., Ajzen 1988; Hairdresser 2001; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In this rural South Asian setting, where lives are embedded in families and communities, it is likely that neighbors' preferences besides take a great deal of influence on women's beliefs (Moursund and Kravdal 2003). Neighbors are often enlightened of individuals' actions and these actions may fifty-fifty accept consequences for neighbors' well-being, providing an incentive to encourage people in their community, or neighborhood, to behave in certain means. Furthermore, we would expect individuals in this setting to exist aware of their neighbors' preferences and to feel pressure to behave in ways that maintain proficient standing with them. Recent social changes, nonetheless, may have reduced the influence of neighbors among younger cohorts, who have greater exposure than older cohorts to more individualistic ideas through having spent more time outside of their homes and communities (Axinn and Yabiku 2001; Ghimire et al. 2006; Yabiku 2005).

This study explores the influence of neighbors' family size preferences on women's progression to higher parity – that is, a third or fourth live birth – and compares this influence across cohorts to assess whether younger women are less responsive than older women to their neighbors' preferences. We use unique data on attitudes and preferences from a rural Nepalese setting. Such measures are rare in such South Asian contexts. Because these data include preference measures at the individual-level garnered from interviews with every member of each sampled neighborhood, they allow united states to construct a measure of preferences at the neighborhood-level (average preference across residents) and investigate this neighborhood-level influence on private behavior. Nosotros investigate influences of neighbors' family size preferences on individual fertility behavior in the decade after these preferences were measured. In doing and so, we consider whether these neighbour influences operate via women's own preferences or net of women's own preferences.

Below we outline the theoretical reasons to wait that neighbors' attitudes and preferences may be important in determining women'south behavior.

Conceptual Framework

Many models of behavior share the assumption that behavior results from a reasoned procedure in which individuals consider their options, evaluate the consequences, and brand decisions most how to act. For example, the reasoned action and planned behavior frameworks (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) accept been used to refine demographic theories of fertility decline, such every bit the concept of the KAP-gap (Freedman et al. 1974), in which the gap betwixt the desire to stop childbearing and the lack of contraceptive use was referred to every bit "discrepant behavior." Lesthaeghe's "Gear up, Willing, and Able" (Lesthaeghe and Vanderhoeft 2001) and Coale's "Three Atmospheric condition for Fertility Decline" (Coale 1973) also employed the reasoned action and planned behavior frameworks to posit that people'due south attitudes must be favorable toward smaller families before they choose to adopt family unit planning methods. ⁴

There are many reasons to expect that neighbors' preferences will influence women's behavior in this setting. In fact, the theory of planned beliefs posits that individuals are directly influenced by consideration of others' attitudes (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). For example, ample testify shows that parents influence the behaviors of their offspring (Axinn and Thornton 1993; Axinn and Thornton 1996; Barber 2000; Bengtson 1975). Friends and peers can also influence behavior, through social norms and stigma that directly guide behavior and may shape preferences (Rutenberg and Watkins 1997; Stuber, Galea, and Link 2008). Nosotros expect neighbors to accept a like influence. In this rural Nepalese context, neighbors are probable to be among an individual's well-nigh of import social networks. Neighborhoods in Nepal tend to exist fairly ethnically homogenous and residents tend to be stable. Because of the style land is caused – almost solely through inheritance – people unremarkably reside within the neighborhood in which their parents (in the case of males) or in-laws (in the example of females) reside. Individuals' lives are exposed to their neighbors, with housing being quite open: windows are non covered with glass, front doors oftentimes are left open, and whole families sometimes slumber in the m in hot weather. In fact, when 1 is sitting on the front porch visiting a Nepalese family, it is not uncommon to see the toothbrushes, birth command pills, and the family unit's other personal items stuffed into the thatched roof of the porch for all to view. In addition, neighbors interact with one some other on a daily basis during their routine activities, such as collecting water or firewood (Cameron 1998). As a result, neighbors' preferences and behaviors are quite likely to be known and to be a function of every resident'south daily life (Barber 2004).

Mechanisms of Neighbors' Influence

Because people tend to be enlightened of their neighbors' preferences in this setting, neighbors' preferences have ample opportunity to influence individual women's behaviors. This influence can occur via neighborhood socialization, in which neighbors' preferences influence women's behavior through women's ain preferences (Barber 2000; Katz, Joiner Jr., and Kwon 2002). Neighbors' close and constant interaction allows for new ideas to diffuse between them (Hairdresser 2004; Behrman, Kohler, and Watkins 2002; Bongaarts and Watkins 1996; Cleland 2001; Lesthaeghe 1978). This diffusion process may lead women to internalize their neighbors' preferences and develop or change their own preferences to marshal with their neighbors'.

The influence of neighbors' preferences on women'southward beliefs can also occur through social pressure, in which neighbors' preferences take a direct influence on women's beliefs (Barber 2000; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010; Troyer and Younts 1997). Neighbors may exert social pressure on women by embodying and enforcing social norms, which guide women's behavioral choices. Neighbors as well have the power to punish, via stigmatization, if someone in the neighborhood does not behave as deemed appropriate (Coleman 1990; Stuber et al. 2008). These forces may lead women to set aside their own desires in social club to appease their neighbors. For example, a woman may desire a large family, but she may exist aware that this is socially undesirable in her neighborhood. Therefore, she may limit her fertility to avoid beingness stigmatized or even ostracized. Although social pressure acts similar socialization in influencing women to align their behavior to the preferences of those around them, social pressure is different from socialization in that its influence on behavior may run counter to a woman'due south ain preferences. Although distinct, these ii mechanisms may operate simultaneously.

Cohort Differences in Neighbors' Influence

The influence of neighbors' preferences relative to individuals' own preferences may change over celebrated time, as collective values become less mutual. This setting of rural Nepal has experienced especially rapid social change in contempo decades (Axinn and Yabiku 2001; Yabiku 2005), including the spread of schools, easier admission to the urban center via the bus organisation, an increased number of markets, and increased opportunities for employment. As a event of this improved access to nonfamily institutions and experiences, people spend more time outside of their domicile communities than they did in the past. Given the timing of these social changes, younger cohorts of women take had greater exposure to nonfamily experiences and experiences outside of their firsthand community than older cohorts, who spent much of their lives with limited access to schools, public transportation, nonfamily employment, or city life. Additionally, younger cohorts have had more than exposure to the new ideas and values that back-trail these "exterior" experiences. As a result, younger cohorts of women may exist less influenced than their older counterparts by their neighbors' preferences, choosing to follow ideas acquired from outside of their neighborhoods.

Older cohorts of women, on the other hand, grew up during a time when there were fewer opportunities or reasons to venture exterior of their neighborhood. These older, more customs-axial, cohorts are likely to take placed more importance on behaving in accordance with their neighbors' preferences and thus to accept been more than susceptible to both neighborhood socialization and social pressure level. These women had less exposure to the types of experiences and ideas from exterior of their customs that may compete with the preferences of their own neighbors. For instance, a woman from an older accomplice may have perceived that her neighbors preferred big families and, therefore, bear many children of her own. On the other hand, a younger woman living in the same neighborhood may counterbalance the ideas she has acquired from schoolhouse or media more heavily and opt to finish her childbearing later on she has had only one or ii children.

Fertility and Family Size Preference

Similar to other countries in S Asia, there was a rapid decline in the fertility rate of Nepal after family unit planning initiatives began in the late 1950s. The total fertility rate fell from 6.ane in the early 1950s to iv.41 in the belatedly 1990s, and then down to iii.0 by 2011 (Population Reference Bureau 2011; Thornton et al. 2012; United Nations 2011). Couples mainly prefer contraception as a means to stop childbearing. The almost common method is vasectomy, which tin can be obtained hands and at no price (Labrecque et al. 2005; Tuladhar 1987). In deciding when to terminate childbearing, couples often value sons for their permanency in the natal home – equally compared to daughters, who movement to their husbands' domicile upon marriage – and their role of caring for elderly parents (Bennett 1983; Cameron 1998). All the same, even sons can present a cost to their parents, who must provide them with needed fees and supplies for their didactics (Caldwell 1982). Furthermore, mothers are responsible for providing childcare, even every bit they work in the fields to contribute to their household subsistence (Cameron 1998). These characteristics of childbearing and childrearing may play into fertility preferences at both the individual and community levels.

Identifying how family size preferences -- women'southward and their neighbors' – influence childbearing beliefs has important implications in this context. Family planning initiatives were introduced to decrease both the desire for and accomplishment of big families (Thornton et al. 2012), and information technology is unclear whether remaining high fertility is due to women's ain childbearing desires, or to structural impediments to achieving their preferences for smaller families. Women with neighbors who prefer larger families may be motivated to have more children than women whose neighbors prefer smaller families. This pressure or desire to have a larger family is probable to lead women to have children at a faster rate.

Of class, beyond women's own and their neighbors' preferences, there are other confounding factors that could influence their progression to higher parity nascence. For instance, women's access to contraception may limit their ability to implement their preferences. Women living in neighborhoods that are far from a health eye, where contraception is distributed, may non be able to achieve a minor family, fifty-fifty if that is what they or their neighbors prefer. In add-on to neighbour-level confounders, women'due south family size preferences may exist confounded by their preference for sons. In this setting, couples typically adopt at least ane son, so they may go along to take children until their goal for sons is reached (Dahal, Padmadas, and Hinde 2008; Leone, Matthews, and Zuanna 2003; Stash 1996), regardless of their or their neighbors' overall family size preference.

We investigate the influences of neighbors' preferences on transitions to college parity births across the two cohorts of women, exploring whether older women followed their neighbors' preferences more younger women, and whether the influence of neighbors' preferences decreased over time. Finally, we investigate whether the influence of neighbors operates through neighborhood socialization or through social force per unit area.

Hypotheses

We approach our analyses with 3 principal hypotheses, following from the theoretical framework described higher up.

1. Neighbors' family size preferences will exist related to individual childbearing behavior. Specifically, women whose neighbors prefer more children volition have more than higher parity births than women whose neighbors adopt smaller families.

2. Neighbors' preferences will have a greater influence on the behavior of older than of younger cohorts of women.

3. Neighbors' preferences volition influence women independent of their own preferences.

Data

To test our hypotheses we apply data from the Chitwan Valley Family Study (CVFS), conducted in rural Nepal. The data were nerveless from people in 171 neighborhoods, sampled from 3 strata of varying distance from the city. These neighborhoods typically consist of naturally occurring clusters of 5 to 15 households, surrounded by farmland. (Where a neighborhood consisted of more than fifteen households, i face-to-face department of the neighborhood was chosen.) The CVFS includes a baseline interview (averaging 72 minutes), consisting of a structured questionnaire and a semi-structured Life History Calendar interview, which was conducted in 1996. These interviews collected the information on both the attitudinal and experiential measures used here. A Neighborhood History Calendar was also used in 1996 to document characteristics of the neighborhoods, such as altitude to the nearest health heart. The CVFS interviewed all members, aged xv–59 and their spouses (even if outside this age range or living elsewhere), of every household in the sampled neighborhoods. The overall response rate for the survey was 97 percent. Monthly follow-upwardly interviews were conducted with people in 151 neighborhoods, kickoff in 1997. ⁵ These monthly interviews collected information about household members on a range of demographic events, including childbearing. We use 147 months (12.25 years) of data from these interviews. This prospective design allows us to accurately model the influence of neighbors' childbearing preferences on women's subsequent behavior. The study is specially well-suited for studying community influences on behavior, as information technology includes data from interviews with each resident in each of the sampled neighborhoods.

Our analytic sample consists of all women ages 15 to 34 in 1996 who were at hazard of having another nascence after their second or third live birth (Northward=594). Of these women, 446 fall into the younger cohort (ages 15–24 in 1996) and 148 fall into the older cohort (ages 25–34 in 1996). Our independent variable – a measure of family size preference – comes from the baseline study conducted in 1996, while the dependent variable for higher parity births comes from the monthly interviews that began in 1997.

Measures

Dependent variable

The dependent variable is a monthly fourth dimension-varying dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent had a higher parity nascence. This variable is coded every bit 0 for every calendar month up to the ninth month prior to the birth, and one in the ninth month prior to the nascency. Respondents do not contribute to person-months of exposure to run a risk of birth for the viii months prior to the birth calendar month and for three months later the birth.

Family Size Preference

Nosotros measure out family size preference using the Coombs scale (Coombs 1974, 1979). This measure allows for variance in respondents' reports of family size preference. This is useful considering, equally mentioned above, the majority of respondents in our sample stated a preference for two children. The Coombs scale allows usa to differentiate between those respondents who want two children at near and those who desire two children at least. Respondents were get-go asked "If you could have exactly the number of children yous want, how many children would you want to have?" Next, respondents were asked how many children they would like to have if they could not have their first choice. (Respondents who already had children were asked how many children they would similar to have if they could commencement life over.) Finally, they were asked how many children they would have if they could take neither of their first ii choices. Originally, this detail was coded on a scale of i to 25, as displayed in Figure 1. We have complanate the item into three categories, since few neighbors fall below a Coombs calibration value of 6 and few people fall above a value of 8. See Tabular array ane for descriptive statistics of neighbors' and private women'due south family size preferences for each accomplice.

Coding scheme used for coombs scale measure of family size preference

Table 1

Descriptive statistics

Covariates	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum value	Maximum value
Family size preference
Neighbor, cohorts combined	6.72	0.68	6.00	8.00
Neighbour, younger cohort	six.72	0.lxx	6.00	viii.00
Neighbor, older accomplice	six.71	0.61	vi.00	8.00
Individual, cohorts combined	six.41	0.68	6.00	8.00
Control variables
Demographics
Older cohort	0.25	0.43	0.00	1.00
Age (kickoff calendar month of take chances)	24.76	3.61	17.00	38.00
Brahmin/Chettri	0.49	0.50	0.00	1.00
Dalit	0.09	0.29	0.00	1.00
Newar	0.06	0.24	0.00	ane.00
Colina Indigenous	0.15	0.36	0.00	1.00
Terai Indigenous	0.21	0.41	0.00	one.00
Fertility experiences
Parity (get-go month of adventure)	ii.15	0.36	2.00	three.00
Number of sons born	0.56	0.77	0.00	3.00
Son Preference	2.78	0.86	i.00	4.00
Number of kids that died	0.07	0.28	0.00	2.00
Age at first birth	20.28	2.91	xiii.00	33.00
Nonfamily experiences
Years of education	v.04	3.94	0.00	14.00
Always had a wage labor job	0.45	0.50	0.00	one.00
Always lived away from family unit	0.07	0.25	0.00	ane.00
Ever member of youth club	0.03	0.17	0.00	1.00
Sum of always exposed to radio, Goggle box, movie	two.76	0.55	0.00	3.00
Perceived availability of contraception	0.91	0.20	0.00	1.67
Neighborhood contraceptive use (hateful)	0.44	0.17	0.00	ane.00
Health center inside five-infinitesimal walk	0.26	0.44	0.00	1.00
Length of exposure
Elapsing of residence in neighborhood, years	vii.98	six.92	0.00	30.00
Fourth dimension (first calendar month of gamble)	40.73	41.62	0.00	142.00
Sample and dependent variable description
Total women in sample	594
Total births	229
Proportion of women having third parity nativity	0.26
Proportion of women having fourth parity birth	0.12
Proportion of women having third and fourth parity birth	0.05

For neighbors' preferences, we employ the aforementioned measure and coding scheme. We constructed a neighborhood-level average from each neighbour sampled in each of the151 neighborhoods. Thus, the average childbearing preference for each neighborhood is constructed past summing the values of the mensurate for each resident and dividing by the number of residents. The respondent'south own preferences, household members' preferences, and neighboring relatives' preferences are not included in these averages; thus the neighborhood average differs for each respondent in each neighborhood. These measures are described in the following paragraphs.

Controls

To properly specify our models, we control for characteristics of the respondents that may influence both the family size preference and the likelihood of higher parity birth. Start, to control for fecundity, we use a monthly time-varying covariate of respondents' age (in years). Adjacent, we command for ethnicity. Ethnicity in Nepal is circuitous, multifaceted, and related to religion. A full description of the ethnic groups residing in this setting is beyond the scope of this newspaper (for detailed descriptions of these groups run across Acharya and Bennett 1981; Bennett 1983; Cameron 1997; Fricke 1986; Gellner and Quigley 1995; Guneratne 1994; Gurung 1980; MacFarlane 1976). We command for five classifications of ethnicity, coded as dummy variables, because of their unlike propensities to take large families: Brahmin/Chettri (high-caste Hindu), Dalit (low-caste Hindu), Newar, Terai Ethnic, and Hill Ethnic. Brahmin/Chettri ethnicity is the omitted category; influences of the other four groups are relative to this group.

Next, we command for respondents' experiences with childbearing. Nosotros include a fourth dimension-varying covariate for the respondent'southward monthly parity status (i.e., whether they take had ii or three alive births). We too include a measure out of the number of boys the respondent had given birth to as of 1996, every bit number of sons may influence respondents' childbearing preferences too as their subsequent childbearing behavior (Dahal et al. 2008). Many women volition have an additional child in an try to reach their preferred number of sons – usually 1 or two – in spite of having met their family size preference. Therefore, we also command for respondents' son preference. This preference mensurate comes from a survey item, specifically designed for this Nepalese population, in which respondents were asked to agree or disagree with a common Nepali phrase: "Yota aka, ke aka? Yota chora, ke chora?". This roughly translates to "Having merely one son is the same every bit having only one eye," pregnant it is practiced to have an actress son, just in instance. Responses are coded from a calibration of 1 to four: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly concord.

Adjacent, we include a measure to indicate the number of children the respondent gave birth to that afterwards died equally of 1996. Experiencing the death of a child may motivate women to exceed their family unit size preference to help ensure that baby mortality does not crusade them to fall short of their completed family size goal. We too command for respondents' age at the fourth dimension of their first nascency, as women who began childbearing later in life may exist inclined to speed the succession of their births.

Additionally, we control for respondents' nonfamily experiences. Exposure to activities and ideas outside of the family unit habitation tin influence the value women identify on having a (big) family and their fertility experiences (Barber and Axinn 2004; Ghimire et al. 2006). We include a measure out of the respondents' accumulated years of educational activity in 1996. We also include a dummy variable for whether respondents take ever had a wage labor task as of 1996, coded 0 to indicate that they never had a wage labor job and one to indicate that they always had a wage labor job. Similarly, we include a variable for whether respondents ever lived abroad from their family unit as of 1996 (coded 1 for aye, 0 for no). Nosotros as well include a dummy variable for whether respondents were ever a fellow member of a youth order (coded ane for yes, 0 for no). As a concluding indicator of exposure to nonfamily ideas we include a measure that is the sum of three dummy variables: e'er listened to the radio, ever watched TV, and always watched a movie.

In order to account for the potential confounding influence of access to contraception, we include three indicators of the respondents' private-level and neighborhood-level access. First, nosotros control for respondents' perceived admission to contraception. We use the mean value of responses to eight survey items, request whether information technology is easy (coded equally 1) or difficult (coded as 0) to get eight different methods of contraception: nascency control pills, IUD, Norplant, Depo Provera, foam, condom, male sterilization, female sterilization, and one 'other' method the respondent was given the opportunity to mention. 2d, we control for an indicator of neighbors' contraceptive use. This is coded as the mean value of whether neighbors (excluding household members and related neighbors) have ever used any of the eight methods of contraception. 3rd, we control for the distance of the neighborhood to the nearest wellness eye. We utilise a measure that indicates whether the nearest health center is within a five-minute walk from respondent's neighborhood, coded 1 if this is the case and 0 if it takes more than five minutes to walk from the neighborhood to the nearest health center.

To account for the length of exposure to members of women's current neighborhood we control for the elapsing of respondent's residence, in years, as of 1996. Finally, to business relationship for the duration of the exposure to birth risk, we command for the time-varying elapsing of time, in months, since the showtime monthly interview.

Analytic Method

Nosotros use event history methods to model the risk of having a tertiary or fourth birth with 147 months of data. Considering the data are precise to the month, we apply discrete-time methods to estimate these models, with person-months of exposure every bit the unit of assay. Nosotros consider women to be at risk of a college parity nascence after they are married and accept two or 3 children. Women are removed from the risk set during the months that they are non exposed to the take chances of becoming pregnant with their third or 4th child. Women who have a third child are removed for the eight months post-obit the outset calendar month of their pregnancy and for a three-month period of amenorrhea following the nativity. Women significant with their fourth child are removed completely as of the eighth calendar month prior to the nascency. Sterilization is treated as a competing risk: women who are sterilized or whose husbands are sterilized afterward the offset of the hazard cease to contribute to the person-months of exposure to risk of birth every bit of the first month of sterilization. ^half-dozen

We use logistic regression to guess the discrete-time take a chance models. The discrete time approach yields results similar to a continuous approach considering the incidence of nativity in any one calendar month is quite low, only the discrete time approach allows us to avert making any parametric assumptions regarding the distribution of the underlying baseline run a risk (Yamaguchi 1991). Our time-varying measures of respondent characteristics are lagged past one month.

Women who are at risk of a third- or 4th-parity birth are included in our sample, allowing for repeatable events in the run a risk. In the sample, 201 women had at least i nativity (either third or fourth birth), and, of these, 28 women had two births (a third and fourth birth), for a total of 229 births. These data allow for parity variation both within and between individuals (Teachman 2011). The repeated nascence events can innovate potential bias in the estimates. To account for this potential bias, we estimate iii-level models: births nested inside individuals, nested within neighborhoods. We use one-tailed tests of significance to investigate our unidirectional theory for the influence of family size preferences and two-tailed tests to investigate the influence of the control measures. Nosotros discuss the results every bit condiment influences on the log odds of having a birth.

Results

Tabular array ii displays the relationship between neighbors' preferences and the log-odds of a higher parity birth. In this tabular array we exam three hypotheses: that neighbors' preferences influence women'south behavior, that the influence of neighbors is greater amidst the older cohort of women, and that the influence of neighbors' is independent of women's own preferences. Model 1 displays the model of neighbors' preferences. This model does not support our get-go hypothesis: neighbors' preferences are non significantly related to women's parity progression, overall.

Table 2

Log odds from logistic regression estimates of neighbors' attitudes predicting the gamble of women's higher parity birth (third or 4th nascency) in rural Nepal

	Model i	Model 2	Model three
Family size preference
Neighbour †	−0.33 (0.36)	−0.73 (0.xl)	−0.74 (0.39)
Neighbor * Older cohort †		two.01** (0.80)	2.25** (0.lxxx)
Individual †			1.12*** (0.32)
Controls
Demographics
Older Cohort		−11.95* (five.l)	−xiii.74* (5.49)
Age	0.21*** (0.05)	0.xiii+ (0.07)	0.14* (0.07)
Ethnic Grouping (ref: Brahnim/Chettri)
Dalit	−0.13 (0.83)	0.40 (0.85)	0.42 (0.84)
Newar	−0.42 (1.10)	−ane.47 (1.13)	−0.47 (1.10)
Loma Ethnic	−1.71* (0.73)	−1.65* (0.74)	−1.54* (0.73)
Terai Indigenous	1.03+ (0.71)	1.01 (0.72)	0.89 (0.71)
Fertility Characteristics
Parity	−4.88*** (0.19)	−four.93*** (0.19)	−iv.94*** (0.19)
Number of sons born	−0.42 (0.35)	−0.57 (0.36)	−0.61+ (0.36)
Son Preference	0.03 (0.26)	0.02 (0.26)	−0.01 (0.26)
Number of children who died	iii.33*** (0.71)	three.16*** (0.72)	iii.11*** (0.72)
Age at Showtime Nascence	−0.31*** (0.09)	−0.36*** (0.09)	−0.38*** (0.09)
Nonfamily Experiences
Years of pedagogy	−0.35*** (0.08)	−0.34*** (0.08)	−0.30*** (0.08)
Ever had a wage labor job	−0.74 (0.47)	−0.67 (0.48)	−0.79+ (0.48)
Ever lived abroad from family	ane.21 (0.86)	one.01 (0.88)	0.98 (0.87)
Ever member of youth club	0.39*** (0.06)	0.39*** (0.06)	0.39*** (0.06)
Sum of ever exposed to radio, TV, movie	−0.47* (0.40)	−0.49 (0.41)	−0.46 (0.40)
Contraceptive Access
Perceived availability of contraception	0.97 (one.12)	0.93 (one.14)	i.06 (1.13)
Neighborhood contraceptive use (mean)	−0.xiii (ane.33)	−0.39 (1.36)	−0.26 (1.33)
Health eye within five-minute walk	−ane.31* (0.57)	−1.26* (0.58)	−one.eleven+ (0.57)
Length of Exposure
Elapsing of residence in neighborhood	−0.10** (0.03)	−0.11** (0.04)	−0.10** (0.03)
Time	0.02*** (0.00)	0.03*** (0.01)	0.03*** (0.01)
N (person-months)	37655	37655	37655
N (persons)	594	594	594

In model two we collaborate neighbors' preferences with each cohort. Nosotros find that neighbors' family size preferences are related to older women'southward parity progression, but have no meaning relationship with younger women's parity progression. Older women with neighbors who adopt larger families have more higher parity births. Specifically, women in the older cohort have 1.28 greater log odds of experiencing a higher parity birth for each ane-unit of measurement increase in their neighbors' family unit size preference. Model 2 offers back up for the hypothesis that neighbors' preferences are more strongly related to older women's college parity births than to younger women'south higher parity births. ⁷

In Model 3, we add together women's individual preferences. ⁸ Adding individual preferences to the model does not reduce the pregnant link between neighbors' preferences and individual behavior, compared to Model two. In Model 3, women of the older cohort take one.51 greater log odds of experiencing a higher parity nascency for each one-unit increase in their neighbors' family size preference. Individuals' own preferences are related to their parity progression behavior, fifty-fifty net of neighbors' preferences, every bit well: women have 1.12 greater log odds of experiencing a college parity birth for each one-unit increment in their family size preference. Even so, individual preferences for family size do not explain the relationship between neighbors' preferences and individual beliefs.

Many of the control measures are significantly related to women'due south parity progression, as well. First, the baseline hazard, represented by age, is related to the risk of a higher parity birth. During the years in our analytic sample – ages xv through 34 – women experience a linearly increasing gamble of a higher parity birth. This is consistent with previous research on women in this age group.

2d, diverse grouping memberships are related to women'southward risk of higher parity birth. Women of Colina Ethnic ethnicity accept fewer college parity births, relative to Brahmins/Chettris. Fertility experiences by and large operate as would be expected – women with three children have fewer boosted births than women with only two children. Additionally, women who take more sons and who were older at the time of their first nascence have fewer higher parity births. Also consistent with expectations, women who experienced the death of a child had more than higher parity births than women without this experience.

Nonfamily experiences do not consistently influence parity progression every bit expected. More educated women, women who always worked for wages, and women with more than media exposure have fewer high parity births than their counterparts, every bit would be expected. However, women who were ever members of a youth social club take more high parity births – an unexpected result.

Give-and-take and Determination

We extend evidence of the well-established link betwixt attitudes and behaviors to this non-Western context in rural Nepal. We move across the individual attitude-behavior link to the influence of neighbors' preferences on behavior, and whether those neighbors' preferences are net of women's own preferences. Our results offering evidence that women respond to neighbors' preferences. Specifically, neighbors' family unit size preferences appear to independently, positively, and significantly influence women's progression to larger families.

Neighbors' influence on higher parity births emerge when examining these relationships separately past cohort. In fact, nosotros merely find a significant relationship between neighbors' preferences among the older cohort of women. We suggest that this difference may be at least partly explained by the rapidly changing social context of Chitwan, Nepal, which has provided increasing access to opportunities, experiences, and ideas emanating from exterior of the immediate community (Axinn and Yabiku 2001; Barber 2004). During their youth, and cumulatively throughout their life class, the younger cohort of women has had more exposure to these new experiences, while the older cohort was raised in a context in which there was less contact with people, organizations, or ideas outside of their immediate community. The daily social interactions of the older cohort were more than bars to their own neighborhood, probable causing them to pay more attention to their neighbors' attitudes and preferences. Over time and across cohorts, as the social context changed, family size preference may take get more individualized.

Furthermore, women's preferences do not explain the relationship betwixt neighbors' preferences and women'due south beliefs. This supports the social force per unit area hypothesis: women may respond to neighbors' preferences, regardless of what they, themselves, desire. The relationship neighbors' family size preferences on behavior is both independent of and stronger than women'due south own preferences. By extension, this does non support neighborhood socialization theory – that is, we find no show that neighbors' preferences influence behavior via their influence on women'south preferences. When nosotros include measures of women's own preferences in our model, the relationship between neighbors' preferences and individual behavior is not attenuated.

While this written report suggests important neighbor influences on individual fertility behaviors, at that place are important limitations. Studies of the influence of neighbors on individuals inevitably face up issues of selection and directionality of influence. In this Nepalese setting, selection may be a lesser issue, as in that location is very little mobility in housing (due to inheritance practices) and people are commonly selected into their neighborhoods based on family lineage. Nonetheless, information technology is the instance that the management of influence can become both ways: individuals accept the same potential to influence their neighbors every bit their neighbors have to influence them. Additionally, in that location are a number of community-level factors that could explain the human relationship that nosotros attribute, in this paper, to neighbors' preferences. Nosotros have attempted to account for many of these factors past including direct measures – for instance, neighborhood-level altitude to wellness clinics and neighbors' contraceptive utilise – to account for individuals' admission to contraception. However, we cannot business relationship for every potential confounder in the model, and therefore the results should exist interpreted with circumspection. Additionally, the report that produced the data used here began more than 15 years agone. Thus, the assessments of individuals' and neighbors' preferences are from 1996. However, in order to appraise the relationship between preferences and subsequent behavior throughout the childbearing years, it is necessary to have a relatively long period of observation. Fortunately, the data on preferences are combined with a household registry system that includes observations of more a decade of subsequent fertility beliefs, with observations into the year 2009. Nonetheless, although fertility preferences tend to be stable (Freedman, Coombs, and Bumpass 1965), preferences are subject to change (Krosnick and Alwin 1989), and we do non have measures of these changes. It is quite possible that, if we had fourth dimension-varying data about neighbors' preferences, the relationships in our models would exist even stronger. Finally, this sample is limited to a single district in Nepal and is non generalizable to neighbor influences in other settings. Despite these bug, we hope that our analyses motivate further research on neighbor influences, and the potential decline of this influence over time.

These findings may exist relevant to policymakers who aim to further decrease fertility in this region. Promoting favorable attitudes toward smaller families at the community-level may influence fertility at the individual level. But this customs-level influence may diminish over time, as immature women are increasingly exposed to other messages from outside of their communities. Investing in mental attitude transmission via schools and the media, for example, may have greater payoff for women who are just entering, or recently entered, their reproductive years.

Overall, these results may indicate a reject in collectivism in S Asia, mayhap especially in rural areas where historically isolated people have been rather all of a sudden exposed to outside influences via increased access to cities, education, employment, and the media. Older women – whose exposure to experiences and ideas, prior to their reproductive years, was largely constrained to their own neighborhoods – tend to be very much influenced by their neighbors' preference for family size. But for younger women, the influence of neighbors' ideas, preferences, and attitudes may have been partially replaced by ideas that accompany the exposure to social life outside of the immediate community (Barber 2004). With these changes, neighborhood collectivism, socialization, and social pressure may take a decreasing influence on private childbearing preferences and behavior. Instead, over time, women may reply more to infiltration of Western ideas and values, as their immediate surround and social interactions go only a fraction of the stimuli to which they are exposed.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant numbers HD032912, HD041028, and HD007339) and the National Science Foundation (grant number OISE 0729709). We would like to thank the Institute for Social and Environmental Research in Chitwan, Nepal for collecting the data used hither; William Axinn and Arland Thornton for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper; and Cathy Sun and Daniel Thompson for assisting with data management. All errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

Footnotes

¹This pct is based on data from the 1996 baseline Chitwan Valley Family Study (CVFS). The information consist of 5271 men and women between ages 15–59, and their spouses, who were living in 171 sampled neighborhoods.

²Reported family size preference might exist influenced past social desirability bias, particularly in this context, where the government has been promoting a ii-kid family unit for decades. However, achieved fertility in Nepal has yet to match the reported desired fertility (Dahal et al. 2008).

³Due to the prevalence of son preference in Nepal, this may not be true for couples who have simply daughters and continue to have births and then that they can have a son (Dahal et al. 2008; Leone et al. 2003; Stash 1996). In these cases, couples may have intended to have just two children, simply go on to give nativity in the hopes of having a son.

⁴This is not necessarily true in the case of couples who prefer contraception to defer a showtime birth or to space births, while yet intending to have many children.

⁵20 of the 171 neighborhoods sampled in the 1996 baseline CVFS were selected every bit an oversample for ethnic representation. Simply the original 151 neighborhoods were followed for the monthly interviews. Therefore, we limit our investigation to these 151 neighborhoods.

^viWe also ran the models including women who were sterilized or whose husbands were sterilized after the 1996 interview through the end of the hazard. Additionally, we ran carve up models with a time-varying control for whether respondents were sterilized later on 1996. The results were very similar to the results we obtain when we care for sterilization equally a competing run a risk, though slightly diluted because women who had made the choice to remove themselves from the risk of birth were treated as continuing to be at risk. We believe it is advisable to remove these women from the risk: a couple's option to become sterilized later 1996 is influenced by their attitudes in 1996, just equally their choice to take a birth is influenced by their attitudes.

⁷We also investigated interactions of attitudes with respondent demographics, fertility experiences, nonfamily experiences, and duration of residence in neighborhood. These did non reveal consequent pregnant influences.

⁸Notation that neighbors' and individual women's family size preference are correlated at only 0.07.

Contributor Information

Elyse A. Jennings, University of Michigan.

Jennifer S. Barber, Academy of Michigan.

References

• Ajzen Icek. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
• Acharya Meena, Bennett Lynn. The Status of Women in Nepal: The Rural Women of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Tribhuvan University; 1981. [Google Scholar]
• Axinn William G, Thornton Arland. Mothers, children, and cohabitation: the intergenerational effects of attitudes and behavior. American Sociological Review. 1993;58(two):233–246. [Google Scholar]
• Axinn William G, Thornton Arland. The influence of parents' marital dissolutions on children'due south attitudes toward family unit formation. Census. 1996;33(1):66–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Axinn William M, Yabiku Scott T. Social modify, the social organization of families, and fertility limitation. The American Journal of Sociology. 2001;106(5):1219–1261. [Google Scholar]
• Barber Jennifer S. Intergenerational influences on the entry into parenthood: mothers' preferences for family and nonfamily beliefs. Social Forces. 2000;79(1):319–48. [Google Scholar]
• Barber Jennifer Southward. Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2001;64(2):101–127. [Google Scholar]
• Hairdresser Jennifer Southward. Customs social context and individualistic attitudes toward marriage. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2004;67(3):236–256. [Google Scholar]
• Barber Jennifer South, Axinn William K. New ideas and fertility limitation: the function of mass media. Periodical of Marriage and Family. 2004;66(five):1180–1200. [Google Scholar]
• Hairdresser Jennifer S, Due east Patricia Fifty. Home and parenting resource available to siblings depending on their birth intention status. Child Development. 2009;83(3):921–939. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Barber Jennifer S, East Patricia 50. Children'south experiences afterwards the unintended nativity of a sibling. Census. 2011;48(1):101–125. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Behrman Jere R, Kohler Hans-Peter, Watkins Susan Cotts. Social networks and changes in contraceptive utilize over time: bear witness from a longitudinal study in rural Kenya. Demography. 2002;39(4):713–738. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bengtson Vern L. Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Sociological Review. 1975;40:358–71. [Google Scholar]
• Bennett Lynn. Dangerous Wives and Sacred Sisters: Social and Symbolic Roles of High-Caste Women in Nepal. New York, NY: Columbia Academy Printing; 1983. [Google Scholar]
• Blake Judith. Family size and the quality of children. Demography. 1981;18(4):421–442. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bongaarts John, Watkins Susan C. Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review. 1996;22(4):639–682. [Google Scholar]
• Cameron Mary 1000. On the Edge of Auspicious: Gender and Caste in Nepal. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
• Caldwell John C. Theory of Fertility Pass up. London: Bookish Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
• Caldwell John C. The globalization of fertility behavior. Population and Development Review. 2001;27:93–115. Supplement: Global Fertility Transition. [Google Scholar]
• Casterline John B. Diffusion processes and fertility transition: introduction. In: Casterline JB, editor. Diffusion Processes and Fertility Transition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
• Cleland John 1000. Potatoes and pills: an overview of innovation-diffusion contributions to explanations of fertility decline. In: Casterline JB, editor. Diffusion Processes and Fertility Transition. Washington, DC: National University Press; 2001. pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
• Cleland John G, Sathar Zeba A. The result of nascency spacing on childhood bloodshed in Islamic republic of pakistan. Population Studies. 1984;38(iii):401–418. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Coale Ansley J. The demographic transition reconsidered. International Population Conference; Liege. 1973; Liege: IUSSP; 1973. [Google Scholar]
• Coleman James. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard Academy Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
• Coombs Lolagene C. The measurement of family size preferences and subsequent fertility. Demography. 1974;eleven(4):587–611. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Coombs Lolagene C. Reproductive goals and accomplished fertility: a fifteen-yr perspective. Demography. 1979;16:523–534. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Curtis Sian Fifty, Diamond Ian, McDonald John West. Birth interval and family effects on postneonatal mortality in Brazil. Demography. 1993;30(1):33–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dahal Govinda P, Padmadas Sabu S, Andrew Hinde PR. Fertility-limiting behavior and contraceptive choice among men in Nepal. International Family Planning Perspectives. 2008;34(1):6–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Desai Sonalde. When are children in large families disadvantaged? Testify from cross-national analysis. Population Studies. 1995;49:195–210. [Google Scholar]
• Eggleston Elizabeth. Determinants of unintended pregnancy among women in Ecuador. International Family Planning Perspectives. 1999;25(one):27–33. [Google Scholar]
• Fishbein Martin, Ajzen Icek. Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975. [Google Scholar]
• Fishbein Martin, Ajzen Icek. Predicting and Irresolute Beliefs: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
• Freedman Ronald, Coombs Lolagene C, Bumpass Larry. Stability and Alter in Expectations near Family Size: A Longitudinal Study. Census. 1965;2:250–275. [Google Scholar]
• Freedman Ronald, Coombs Lolagene, Chang Ming-Cheng, Sunday Te-Hsiung. Trends in fertility, family size preferences, and practise of family planning: Taiwan, 1965–1973. Studies in Family Planning. 1974;5(ix):270–288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fricke Thomas Due east. Himalayan Households: Tamang Demography and Domestic Processes. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
• Gellner David North, Quigley Declan., editors. Contested Hierarchies: A Collaborative Ethnography of Caste amid the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
• Ghimire Dirgha J, Axinn William Thou, Yabiku Scott A, Thornton Arland. Social alter, premarital non-family experience and spouse choice in an arranged wedlock club. American Journal of Sociology. 2006;111(4):1181–1219. [Google Scholar]
• Guneratne Upali Arjun. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Chicago; 1994. The Tharus of Chitwan: Ethnicity, Class and the Country in Nepal. [Google Scholar]
• Gurung Harka B. Vignettes of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Sajha Prakashan; 1980. [Google Scholar]
• Hornik Robert, McAnany Emile. Mass media and fertility modify. In: Casterline J, editor. Diffusion Processes and Fertility Transition. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001. pp. 208–239. [Google Scholar]
• Horton Susan. Child nutrition and family size in the Philippines. Periodical of Development Economics. 1986;23(1):161–176. [Google Scholar]
• Katz Jennifer, Joiner Thomas E, Jr, Kwon Paul. Membership in a devalued social group and emotional well-being: developing a model of personal self-esteem, collective cocky-esteem, and group socialization. Sex Roles. 2002;47(9/10):419–431. [Google Scholar]
• Kessler Daniel. Birth club, family unit size, and achievement: family structure and wage determination. Journal of Labor Economics. 1991;9(4):413–426. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kidwell Jeannie S. Number of siblings, sibling spacing, and birth order: their effects on perceived parent-adolescent relationships. Journal of Wedlock and the Family unit. 1981;43(2):315–332. [Google Scholar]
• Knodel John. Family size and children's didactics in Thailand: show from a national sample. Census. 1991;28(1):119–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Knodel John, Havanon Napaporn, Sittitrai Werasit. Family unit size and the education of children in the context of rapid fertility pass up. Population and Development Review. 1990;16(1):31–62. [Google Scholar]
• Krosnick Jon A, Alwim Duane F. Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57(3):416–425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Labrecque Michel, Pile John, Sokal David, Kaza Ramachandra CM, Rahman Mizanur, Bodh SS, Bhattarai Jeewan, Bhatt Ganesh D, Vaidya Tika Man. Vasectomy techniques in South and South E Asia. BMC Urology. 2005;5(10) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Leone Tiziana, Matthew Zoë, Zuanna Gianpiero Dalla. Touch and determinants of sex preference in Nepal. International Family unit Planning Perspectives. 2003;29(two):69–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lesthaeghe Ron L. The pass up of Belgian fertility, 1800–1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1978. [Google Scholar]
• Lesthaeghe Ron J, Vanderhoeft Camille. Gear up, willing, and able: a conceptualization of transitions to new behavioral forms. In: Casterline JB, editor. Diffusion Processes and Fertility Transition. Washington: National Academy Press; Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2001. pp. 240–264. [Google Scholar]
• MacFarlane Alan. Resources and population: a study of the Gurungs of Nepal. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1976. [Google Scholar]
• Marston Cicely, Cleland John. Practice unintended pregnancies carried to term lead to adverse outcomes for female parent and child? An assessment in five developing countries. Population Studies. 2003;57(1):77–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Moursund Anne, Kravdal Øystein. Individual and community effects of women'south education and autonomy on contraceptive utilise in India. Population Studies. 2003;57(3):285–301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Population Reference Bureau. World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Powell Brian, Steelman Lala Carr. Across sibship size: sibling density, sex limerick, and educational outcomes. Social Forces. 1990;69(1):181–206. [Google Scholar]
• Rutenberg Naomi, Watkins Susan Cotts. The buzz outside the clinics: conversations and contraception in Nyanza Province, Republic of kenya. Studies in Family Planning. 1997;28(iv):290–307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stash Sharon. Ideal-family-size and sex activity-composition preferences amid wives and husbands in Nepal. Studies in Family Planning. 1996;27(2):107–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stuber Jennifer, Galea Sandro, Link Bruce G. Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;67(3):420–430. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Teachman Jay. Modeling Repeatable Events Using Discrete-Time Data: Predicting Marital Dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011;73:525–540. [Google Scholar]
• Thornton Arland. Readings History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact of the Developmental Paradigm on Family Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Thornton Arland, Binstock Georgina, Yount Kathryn, Abbasi-Shavazi Mohammad Jalal, Ghimire Dirgha, Xie Yu. International fertility alter: new information and insights from the developmental idealism framework. Census 2012 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Troyer Lisa, Wesley Younts C. Whose expectations affair? The relative power of offset- and 2nd-guild expectations in determining social influence. American Periodical of Sociology. 1997;103:692–732. [Google Scholar]
• Tuladhar Jayanti Man. Effect of family planning availability and aceessibility on contraceptive use in Nepal. Studies in Family unit Planning. 1987;18(1):49–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• United Nations, Department of Economical and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York: Un; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Watkins Susan Cotts. The fertility transition: Europe and the third world compared. Sociological Forum. 1987;ii(4):645–673. [Google Scholar]
• Winnikoff Beverly. The furnishings of nascency-spacing on child and maternal health. Studies in Family Planning. 1983;14:231–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Yabiku Scott. The upshot of non-family experiences on age of wedlock in a setting of rapid social change. Population Studies. 2005;59(three):339–354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Yamaguchi Kazuo. Event History Assay. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Zajonc Robert B, Mullally Patricia R. Birth social club: reconciling conflicting furnishings. American Psychologist. 1997;52(seven):685–699. [Google Scholar]

currandeds1978.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621985/