considered neither United States nor world growth a serious problem. The two questions were combined into a single index because, in both samples, over 95 percent of those considering United States population growth serious also considered world population growth serious.6 In both 1965 and 1970, there is an inverse relationship between a woman's concern for population growth and the number of children she desires (Table 4); furthermore, the difference in mean desired family size between those who are concerned and those who are not concerned has increased from half a child in 1965 to a full child in 1970. Table 4.-Mean Desired Family Size by Concern for Population Growth Index, 1965 and 1970 Concerned Intermediate Not concerned In order to limit the influence of rationalization, we have examined the relationship between population growth attitudes and additional number of children intended for women who (at the time of interview) had not had more children than the normative minimum of two, had demonstrated their ability to conceive, and were within the prime ages of childbearing. As can be seen from Table 5, the relationship between population growth attitudes and number of additional children intended has substantially increased in strength between 1965 and 1970. Introducing controls for age, education, and race does not alter this pattern of an increased relationship between concern for population growth and the number of children intended. The relationship between population growth attitudes and (1) desired family size for all women, and (2) additional number of children intended by women in a position where attitudes could influence desires, has been substantially strengthened during a period of increased attention to the consequences of overpopulation by the mass media. This suggests, but does not prove, that the mass media may have had an impact on recent fertility trends. Prior to this recent concern for population growth and the concomitant implication that couples should have only two children, there were norms against childless and one child families.8 But, except for the Catholic population, there were no strong universalistic reasons governing decisions about having a third and fourth child. Thus, by providing a widely accepted reason for having only two children, the media may have strengthened the resolve of those who had already decided for personal reasons to have only two children and influenced those who were indecisive regarding third and higher order children.9 In summary, then, data from three national surveys indicate that concern for world and United States population growth has increased since 1965, despite the fact that women are still uninformed regarding the size and relative growth rate of the United States population. Furthermore, the impact of population growth attitudes on respondents' orientations toward childbearing appears to have undergone a marked increase between 1965 and 1970. REFERENCES 1. See N. B. Ryder and C. F. Westoff, Reproduction in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), for a complete description of the sample and questionnaire. 2. The response pattern by countries for these currently married women is similar to the response pattern displayed by the entire population. See J. F. Kantner, "American Attitudes on Population Policy: Recent Trends," Studies in Family Planning, 1968, Vol. 1, No. 30, pp. 1-7. 3. That attitudes precede, and in some cases determine, information has been a consistent finding of the study of political attitudes. See R. E. Lane and D. O. Sears, Public Opinion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964). 4. The exact wording of the two questions is as follows: 1965-"Here are some countries that have different rates of population growth. After each one, tell me whether you think it is growing faster, slower, or about the same as the United States." 1971-"Different countries have different rates of population growth. Do you think the United States is growing faster, slower, or about the same as...." 5. Two previous studies have reached apparently contradictory findings. Fischer found a direct relationship among a sample, gathered in the fall of 1970, of various types of university students. Barnett found no relationship among a sample, gathered in the spring of 1968, of low-income women, 18 and older, in a city-owned housing project in Flagstaff, Arizona. The differences in sample used and time of study are among the plausible reasons for the contradictory findings. See E. H. Fischer, "Attitudes Toward Limiting Family Size: Convergence of Factorial and Known-Groups Validity Approaches,” Proceedings, 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1971, pp. 263-264; and L. D. Barnett, "U.S. Population Growth as an Abstractly Perceived Problem," Demography, 1970, Vol. 7, pp. 53-60. 6. The following respondents have been excluded from subsequent analysis: those responding "yes" to the United States questions and "no" to the world question (two and one percent, respectively, in 1965 and 1970) and those responding "don't know" or "no answer" to one or both questions (four and eight percent, respectively). 7. For a discussion of the norms against childless and one-child families, see R. Freedman, "Social Values about Family Size in the United States," International Population Conference (Vienna: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 1959), pp. 173-183; and N. B. Ryder, "Notes on American Fertility," Statistical Problems in Population Research, Alan Chalkley ed. (Forthcoming, 1972). 8. There has been no change, from 1965 to 1970, in the proportion of couples desiring 0 or 1 children. 9. This hypothesis is suggested by and consistent with the findings of mass communications research that persuasive communications tend to be effective only when the audience is favorably predisposed or indecisive. See J. T. Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960). Chapter 15 Findings of the by Dianne Miller Wolman Commission on Population Growth and the American Future Washington, D.C. COMMISSION ON POPULATION GROWTH AND THE AMERICAN FUTURE; RESEARCH REPORTS, VOLUME VI, ASPECTS OF POPULATION GROWTH POLICY, EDITED BY ROBERT PARKE, JR. AND CHARLES F. WESTOFF the country to use up its natural resources too fast? Question No. 17b: Do you agree or disagree with those who claim that population growth is the main reason for air and water pollution? Question No. 17c: Do you agree or disagree with those who claim that population growth helps keep our economy prosperous? Question No. 17d: Do you agree or disagree with those who claim that population growth is producing a lot of social unrest and dissatisfaction? Question No. 17e: Do you agree or disagree with those who claim that population growth is important in keeping up our nation's military strength? Question No. 49: In your opinion, which of the following factors are important causes of pollution in the United States and which are not so important? . . . . Question No. 33: Do you think that the government should or should not try to do anything to slow down population growth in the United States? Question No. 35: Do you think that information about birth control should or should not be made available by the government to all men and women who want it? Question No. 36: What about birth control supplies themselves? Do you think that the government should make such supplies available to all men and women who want them? 85 |