Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:43:41.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Size from the Child's Point of View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

C. M. Langford
C. M. Langford
Affiliation:
Department of Demography, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The mean size of sibship in which children are reared is greaterthan the mean number of children born to those children's parents' generation. In this paper, family size is considered from the child's point of view, and estimates made of how many siblings (and some other relatives) children have, using data from a survey carried out in Great Britain in the late 1960s. The size of the ‘family’ experienced by children is largerthan may at first sight appear. For example, women who married in the period 1941–55 onaverage had 2·2 children, but these women's children grew up, on average, in sibships of3·5 children; 38% of them grew up in a family with four children or more. Moreover, on average, these women's children had six uncles and aunts and possibly twice that number of first cousins. More than half of the children had at least one parent who was brought up in a family with six children or more and almost one in five had at least one parent who came from a family with ten children or more.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1982 , pp. 319 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © 1982, 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

Berent, J. (1953) Relationship between family sizes of two successive generations.Milbank meml Fund Q. Bull. 31, 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bytheway, B. (1974) A statistical trap associated with family size. J. biosoc. Sci. 6, 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, O.D., Freedman, R., Coble, J.M. & Slesinger, D.P. (1965) Marital fertility and size of family of orientation. Demography, 2, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Register Office (1936) The Registrar General's Decennial Supplement for England and Wales 1931. Part I, Life Tables. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
General Register Office (1957) The Registrar General's Decennial Supplement for England and Wales 1951. Life Tables. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
General Register Office (1968) Registrar General's Decennial Supplement for England and Wales 1961. Life Tables. 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, Vol. 6, part I. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Langford, C.M. (1976) Birth Control Practice and Marital Fertility in Great Britain. Population Investigation Committee, London.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1975) TheRegistrar General's Statistical Review of England and Wales for the Year 1973. Part II, Tables, Population. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1981) Birth Statistics, England and Wales 1979. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Pearson, K., Lee, A. & Bramley-Moore, L. (1899) Inheritance of fertility in man, and of fecundity in thoroughbred racehorses. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Series A, 192, 257.Google Scholar
Preston, S.H. (1976) Family sizes of children and family sizes of women. Demography, 13, 105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed