P. K. Whelpton

Résumé of the Indianapolis study of social and psychological factors affecting fertility

Summary In the first part of this paper, the aims, scope and methods of the Indianapolis Study are briefly reviewed. In the second part the chief findings are discussed and a tabular summary of the results of the twenty-three hypotheses of the study is presented. In the third part the authors describe the chief weaknesses of the study and give their views regarding implications for future research in this field. The substance of this resume was presented at a round-table discussion on exploration of possibilities for a new study of factors affecting size of family, held at the 1952 Annual Conference of the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, 19-20 November 1952.

Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility: VIII. The Comparative Influence on Fertility of Contraception and Impairments of Fecundity

rT _HE extent to which childlessness and small families result from defects in the reproductive system and from deliberate efforts to space pregnancies, limit their number, and terminate them by illegal abortion is a question which has been discussed at length. The case histories accumulated by physicians and (more recently) planned parenthood clinics, as well as the field studies of demographers, show conclusively that an important proportion of childless couples want a child but either are not able to conceive or, if conception occurs, the wife cannot carry the fetus to term. Similarly, some of the couples with one or more children want an additional child but are physiologically unable to have it. At the same time such records and the information regarding the manufacture of contraceptive materials and appliances make clear the fact that efforts to prevent conception except when desired are widespread and effective. Finally, these sources and surveys by other agencies indicate that an important proportion of unwanted pregnancies are terminated by illegal abortion.2 Heretofore, however, there

Progress Report on the Study of Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility

T HE Study of Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility is a natural sequel to the studies of contraception carried out during the thirties by Pearl, Stix and Notestein, Beebe, and others. These earlier studies afforded rather clinching evidence that group differences in fertility are due almost entirely to group differences in the prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive practice. They demonstrated for the first time that class differences in fertility are virtually nonexistent among groups practicing contraception similarly or not at all. Thus they not only served to invalidate the biological interpretations of class differences in fertility, but also threw a heavy burden of evidence against existing theories that the general decline of the birth rate has been due to biological deterioration. Nevertheless, they pointed to the need for further studies, for it was realized that contraception constitutes only the means of family limitation and that back of the means lies a network of cultural and personal factors inducing some people, more than others, to resort to family limitation. For several years prior to 1939 a small group of demographers met informally when occasion permitted and discussed the possibilities of organizing a cooperative study of social and psychological factors affecting fertility. From the outset there was agreement that such a study was not only a logical but also a timely next step. It was thought that the increasing popular concern over the low fertility of urban areas might eventuate soon in demands for some type of pronatal legislation in this country, and that unless such attempts were to be based on wishful thinking alone, there would be need for factual data concerning the human components of fertility. At the same time there was a natural reluctance to embark on a complex and expensive study in a new and uncertain field. However, the group believed that the subject was of sufficient importance to command the future interests of students, that a beginning had to be made sometime, and that a carefully planned first study should at least help to develop the methodology of such studies. In December, 1938 the group organized itself into a Committee on the Study of Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility, which has consisted since January, 1939 of Lowell J. Reed (Chairman); Daniel Katz; E. Lowell Kelly; Frank Lorimer; Frank WV. Notestein; Frederick Osborn; S. A. Switzer; Warren S. Thompson; and the two authors of this report. Its work has been sponsored by the Milbank Memorial Fund with grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Previous articles2 have described in some detail the methodology of the Study. Here we shall simply mention briefly certain procedures that were used and the major results that are available to date. Owing to the complexity of its problem * Paper read before the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Society, Chicago, Illinois, December 27-30, 1946. Raymond Pearl: The Natural History of Population. New York, The Oxford University Press,

Trends, Determinants, and Control in Human Fertility:

T HE variations in levels and trends of human fertility have important international and domestic implications. The imbalances in fertility among various countries of the world constitute the genesis and core of world population problems and must be taken into account in plans for world peace. Variations in fertility among different elements of population within our own country deserve careful consideration in any postwar efforts at conservation of human resources. This paper, though giving some consideration to international imbalances, is concerned mainly with trends and differentials in fertility in our own domestic setting.

Levels of Living and Population Pressure

population pressure cannot be an important factor in international relations, since the peoples who are contributing most to these tensions are by no means those whose poverty is greatest. Certainly there can be no doubt that Germany, Italy, and Japan, which are causing most trouble in the world today, have much better levels of living than many of their neighbors which at present manifest no urge to expand their borders. Indeed, in Italy and Japan there has been a considerable improvement in the level of living of the masses since the World War, and, although it may be doubtful whether Germany has fully shared this improvement, there are many indications (better roads, rural electrification, lower death rates, and increased expectation of life) that it too has not been backward in this respect. In any event, no one would question the statement that the level of living in all of these countries is considerably higher than in China and India and many other industrially backward countries, which have not been aggressors in disturbing world peace in recent decades. In view of these facts it is not particularly surprising that many people take little stock in the statement that population pressure is one of the important factors in increasing international tension today. It seems to them that other factors, such as personal and national ambitions, long-standing historical enmities, and differences in cultural background, are much more likely to incite dangerous national rivalry than the pressure of population.

Population Policies of European Countries

CONTRARY to a rather widespread notion, laissez faire has by no means been the customary attitude of the community in past ages towards the number and the quality of its population. Man has always been more or less interested in his own growth and at various times and places has undertaken to control this growth to the advantage of the community. One need only mention such widespread practices as abortion and infanticide to show that deliberate restriction of population growth has been