Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

FERTILITY DETERMINANTS

understand the onset of the fertility transition. Almost anything that distinguishes traditional from modern societies has been considered relevant to the explanation of the fertility decline (Cleland 1985; see also reviews of fertility determinants by Hirschman 1994; Kirk 1996; Mason 1997).

The most influential theories that have guided demographic research into the determinants of fertility over the last four decades have been those that assume the fundamental importance of economic factor. Predominant in the 1960s and 1970s was the theory of the demographic transition (classic statements are Davis 1963; Freedman 1961– 1962; Notestein 1953; Thompson 1929). Demographic transition theory is based on the assumption that the means of fertility control used in the early stages of the Western fertility transition were always known. Hence, fertility declines can be attributed to changes in the motivations of individuals or couples, changes thought to be related to ‘‘modernization,’’ especially increasing literacy, urbanization, the shift to paid, nonagricultural labor, and declines in infant and child mortality. Neoclassical economic theory, and in particular the New Home Economics associated with Gary Becker (1991), provides a translation from macrolevel structural changes to the micro-level calculus of parents (for a more thorough review, see Pollak and Watkins 1993).

Empirical examinations driven by these theories gave them some support. It is now generally acknowledged that economic factors—often described in terms of the ‘‘costs’’ and ‘‘benefits’’ of children—are important determinants of fertility decline. It is, however, also acknowledged that economic factors do not provide a complete explanation. Currently, interesting research focuses on several additions to classical demographic transition theory and to neoclassical economic approaches.

Much attention has been devoted to evaluating the role of family-planning programs in the fertility decline in the Third World, where it seems that the methods used initially in the West were either not known or considered too costly in personal terms (Knodel et al. 1984). In the 1950s, it became evident that population growth rates in

Third World countries were high because of declining mortality but stable fertility. This was believed to have substantial consequences, ranging from changes in the composition of the world’s population (an increasing proportion of which was projected to come from Third World countries) to effects on Third World countries themselves, including famine, political instability, and the constraints that population growth was expected to place on the ability of these countries to develop economically and to modernize more generally. This led to concerted efforts by international agencies, Western governments, and Third World countries themselves to reduce fertility by making modern contraception desirable and accessible in the Third World (Hodgson and Watkins 1997). There has been considerable debate about the effectiveness of these efforts, with some according them little importance (e.g., Pritchett 1994) and others giving them more weight (e.g., Bongaarts 1997). There was a significant impact on fertility levels in the late 1980s, but whether this program effect operates primarily by affecting the timing of the onset of the transition or by the pace of fertility decline cannot be determined with available data (Bongaarts and Watkins 1996).

There has also been considerable interest in institutional determinants of fertility change. These are typically social institutions (e.g., systems of landholding) but occasionally are emergent properties of the collective behavior of individuals (Smith 1989). Therefore, in understanding the frequent association between education and fertility decline, for example, it may be more relevant to ask what proportion of the community has attended school than to ask whether a particular individual has. Similarly, both class relations and gender relations are aspects of the community rather than the individual, and both are likely to be associated with fertility change.

Another perspective emphasizes ideational change. Ideational changes are sometimes broadly, sometimes more narrowly, defined. Among the former is a shift in ideational systems toward individualism, which offered justification for challenging traditional authorities and practices, including those that concerned reproduction

1009

FERTILITY DETERMINANTS

(Lesthaeghe 1983). In a similar vein, John Caldwell argues that much of the fertility decline in developing countries can be explained in terms of the introduction of images of the egalitarian Western family into the more patriarchal family systems of the developing world. It was not so much that the relative balance of costs and benefits of children changed, but that the moral economy shifted: It came to be seen as inappropriate to derive economic benefit from one’s children (Caldwell 1982). Among the narrower ideational changes are reevaluations of the acceptability of controlling births within marriage (Watkins in press) and changes in the acceptability of modern family planning (Cleland and Wilson 1987). Explanations for fertility declines in terms of ideational change are often linked to a focus on diffusion as an important mechanism of change, where diffusion can be postulated as stemming from a central source such as the media (e.g., Westoff and Rodríguez 1995) and/or from person to person in global, national, and/or local networks of social interaction (Bongaarts and Watkins 1996). It is likely that personal networks influence fertility through social learning and the exercise of social influence (Montgomery and Casterline 1996). Intensive efforts to examine local networks of social interaction and their relation to fertility are currently underway in several countries (Agyeman et al 1995; Behrman et al. 1999; Entwistle et al. 1997).

What will happen to fertility in the future? In Western countries, fertility is close to replacement level, although in some (e.g., Italy, Spain) it is well below. There is less variation in fertility than there was either in pretransition societies or during the transition (Watkins 1991). Most couples desire only a few children (rarely more than two), and most use effective means to achieve their desires. Accordingly, analysts have concentrated on the determinants of fertility in specific subgroups of the population, such as teenagers or ethnic or racial minorities. In doing so, they have drawn on much the same combination of socioeconomic characteristics, institutional factors, and ideational change. For example, the higher fertility of teenagers is usually explained in terms both of their differing socioeconomic characteristics and

of their lesser access to effective contraception, as well as to an unwillingness to use it.

Few expect fertility to rise, and there seems to be a consensus that fertility will either remain around replacement level or decline further (see, e.g., Lesthaeghe and Willems 1999). The predictions of even lower fertility in the West are based on a combination of proximate and true determinants. Since the 1960s, marriage age has risen sharply in most developed countries, as have divorce rates; if these trends continue—and as long as most children continue to be born within mar- riage—lower fertility will follow. There has also been some increase in the proportion who are unable to bear children, in part because some couples postpone marriage and childbearing so long that they are unable to have the children they want, and in part because it is likely that involuntary sterility associated with sexually transmitted diseases may have increased at least slightly (Menken 1985). But the major predictions of lower fertility in the future emphasize the characteristics of modern societies that make childbearing less rewarding compared to the other opportunities available to women and the continued inroads into the family that individualism is making (Keyfitz 1986; Preston 1986; Schoen et al. 1997).

Similarly, fertility is likely to begin to decline in Third World countries that have not yet begun a fertility transition and to continue to decline in those where this process has begun. The course of fertility decline in countries where fertility is now low suggests that once the process of the fertility transition has started, fertility levels decline monotonically until very low levels are reached. Moreover, there is no turning back: The new reproductive behavior is not abandoned. Thus, it is likely that past differences in fertility both within and across countries will diminish.

(SEE ALSO: Demographic Transition; Family and Population Policy in Less Developed Nations; Family Planning; Family Policy in Western Societies; Family Size)

REFERENCES

Agyeman, D., P. Aglobitse, C. Fayorse, J. Casterline, and M. Montgomery 1995 ‘‘Social Networks and Fertility

1010

FERTILITY DETERMINANTS

Control in Ghana.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, San Francisco, April 6–8.

Becker, Gary S. 1991 Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Behrman, Jere R., Peter Kohler, and Susan C. Watkins 1999 ‘‘Family Planning Programs and Social Interaction: Exploration of Two Dimensions of Specification.’’ Manuscript Submitted for Publication.

Bongaarts, John 1978 ‘‘A Framework for Analyzing the Proximate Determinants of Fertility.’’ Population and Development Review 4(1):105–132.

——— 1997 ‘‘The Role of Family Planning Programmes in Contemporary Fertility Transitions.’’ In G. W. Jones, R. M. Douglas, J. C. Caldwell, and R. M. D’Souza, eds., The Continuing Demographic Transition

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———, and Jane Menken 1983 ‘‘The Supply of Children: A Critical Essay.’’ In R. Bulatao and R. Lee, eds.,

Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.

———, and Susan C. Watkins 1996 ‘‘Social Interactions and Contemporary Fertility Transitions.’’ Population and Development Review 22(4):639–682.

Caldwell, John C. 1982 Theory of Fertility Decline. New York: Academic Press.

Casterline, John B. in press ‘‘The Onset and Pace of Fertility Transition.’’ Population and Development Review.

Cleland, John 1985 ‘‘Marital Fertility Decline in Developing Countries: Theories and the Evidence.’’ In J. Cleland and J. Hobcraft, eds., Reproductive Change in Developing Countries: Insights from the World Fertility Survey. London: Oxford University Press.

———, and Chris Wilson 1987 ‘‘Demand Theories of the Fertility Decline: An Iconoclastic View.’’ Population Studies 41:5–30.

Coale, Ansley J., and Susan C. Watkins, eds. 1986 The Decline of Fertility in Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

David, Paul A., and Warren C. Sanderson 1987 ‘‘The Emergence of a Two-Child Norm Among American Birth-Controllers.’’ Population and Development Review 13(1):1–41.

Davis, Kingsley 1963 ‘‘The Theory of Change and Response in Modern Demographic History.’’ Population Index 29(4):345–366.

———, and Judith Blake 1956 ‘‘Social Structure and Fertility: An Analytic Framework.’’ Economic Development and Cultural Change 4(3):211–235.

Entwisle, Barbara, Ronald R. Rindfuss, Stephen J. Walsh, Tom P. Evans, and Sara R. Curran 1997 ‘‘Geographic Information Systems, Spatial Network Analysis, and Contraceptive Choice.’’ Demography 34(2):171–187.

Freedman, Ronald 1961–1962 ‘‘The Sociology of Human Fertility.’’ Current Sociology 10/11(2):35–119.

Henry, Louis 1961 ‘‘Some Data on Natural Fertility.’’

Eugenics Quarterly 8(2):81–91.

Hirschman, Charles 1994 ‘‘Why Fertility Changes.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 20:203–233.

Hodgson, Dennis, and Susan Cotts Watkins 1997 ‘‘Feminists and Neo-Malthusians: Past and Present Alliances.’’ Population and Development Review 23(3):469–523.

Keyfitz, Nathan 1986 ‘‘The Family That Does Not Reproduce Itself.’’ Population and Development Review

12(suppl.):139–154.

Kirk, Dudley 1996 ‘‘Demographic Transition Theory.’’

Population Studies 50(3):361–387.

Knodel, John, Havanon Napaporn, and Anthony Pramualratana 1984 ‘‘Fertility Transition in Thailand: A Qualitative Analysis.’’ Population and Development Review 10(2):297–328.

Kreager, Philip 1982 ‘‘Demography in Situ.’’ Population and Development Review 8(2):237–266.

Laslett, Peter 1972 ‘‘Introduction: The History of the Family.’’ In P. Laslett and R. Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Lesthaeghe, Ron 1983 ‘‘A Century of Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe.’’ Population and Development Review 9(3):411–435.

———, and Paul Willems 1999 ‘‘Is Low Fertility a Temporary Phenomenon in the European Union?’’

Population and Development Review 25(2):211–228.

Mason, Karen O. 1997 ‘‘Explaining Fertility Transitions.’’ Demography 34:443–454.

Menken, Jane A. 1985 ‘‘Age and Fertility: How Late Can You Wait?’’ Demography 22(4):469–483.

Montgomery, Mark R., and John B. Casterline 1996 ‘‘Social Learning, Social Influence and New Models of Fertility.’’ Population and Development Review

22(suppl.):151–175.

Notestein, Frank 1953 ‘‘Economic Problems of Population Change.’’ In Proceedings of the Eighth International

1011

FIELD THEORY
Conference of Agricultural Economists. London: Oxford	FIELD THEORY
University Press.

Pollak, Robert A., and Susan C. Watkins 1993 ‘‘Cultural and Economic Approaches to Fertility: A Proper Marriage or a Mésalliance?’’ Population and Development Review 19(3):467–496.

Preston, Samuel H. 1986 ‘‘Changing Values and Falling Birth Rates.’’ Population and Development Review

12(suppl.):176–195.

Pritchett, Lant H. 1994 ‘‘Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies.’’ Population and Development Review 20(1):1–56.

Roosevelt, Theodore 1907 ‘‘A letter from President Roosevelt on race suicide.’’ American Monthly Review of Reviews 35(5):550–551.

Schoen, Robert, Young J. Kim, Constance A. Nathanson, Jason Fields, and Nan M. Astone 1997 ‘‘Why Do Americans Want Children?’’ Population and Development Review 23(2):333–358.

Smith, Herbert L. 1989 ‘‘Integrating Theory and Research on the Determinants of Fertility.’’ Demography 26(2):171–184.

Thompson, Warren S. 1929 ‘‘Population.’’ American Journal of Sociology 34:959–975.

United Nations 1995 World Population Prospects: The 1994 Revision. New York: United Nations.

Watkins, Susan C. 1991 From Provinces into Nations: Demographic Integration in Western Europe, 1870–1960. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

———1994 After Ellis Island: Newcomers and Natives in the 1910 Census. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

———in press ‘‘Local and Foreign Models of Reproduction in Nyanza Province, Kenya.’’ Population and Development Review.

Westoff, Charles F., and Germán Rodríguez 1995 ‘‘The Mass Media and Family Planning in Kenya.’’ International Family Planning Perspectives 21(1):26–31, 36.

SUSAN COTTS WATKINS

FIELD RESEARCH METHODS

See Case Studies; Ethnography;

Ethnomethodology; Sociocultural Anthropology;

Qualitative Methods.

It was perhaps only the youthful optimism of a new science that allowed Kurt Lewin and his colleagues to believe that they had within their grasp the key elements of a ‘‘field theory of the social sciences.’’ Social psychology made great strides in 1930s and 1940s. Lewin and Lippitt (1938) seemed to have demonstrated in the laboratory the inherent superiority of democracy over autocracy. Lewin (1948) provided a theoretical framework for resolving social conflicts, and after his death his colleagues quickly shaped his legacy into a social scientific theory (Lewin, 1951). How could they resist? The physicists had just announced developments that shook the foundations of Newtonian physics. It was expected that Einstein, safely ensconced in the Institute for Advanced Studies, would any day announce the ‘‘unified field theory’’ that would once again make the physical world an orderly place. Could they ask less of the social sciences?

By 1968 one of Lewin’s former students, Morton Deutsch, would declare field theory—and all other grand theories of social psychology—mori- bund. A few years later, Nicholas Mullins (1973) would eulogize the entire field of small group research as ‘‘the light that failed,’’ a victim of the untimely death of its only real intellectual leader, Kurt Lewin. Mullins’s borrowing of the Kipling title is compelling not only because it suggests that small group research promised much and failed to deliver but also because it suggests that field theory extended its reach beyond its grasp. In recent years there has been a revival of interest in field theory, though, for better or worse, much of the youthful optimism has faded.

LEWIN AND THE ORIGINS OF

FIELD THEORY

Lewin’s (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality called for a shift in psychology from the Aristotelian to the Galilean mode of thought. Epitomized by the now-classic formulation ‘‘behavior is a function of personality and environment,’’ or B=f(PE), the new perspective placed social psychology squarely at the intersection of psychology and sociology.

1012

FIELD THEORY

It required abandoning the hope that social behavior could be explained by reference to personality variables and seeking explanations in the dynamic relationships among actors and situations. In this book, Lewin defined the building blocks of the field theory that was to come: force (a vector directed at a point of application), valence (the push or pull of the force), and conflict (the opposition of roughly equivalent forces). At this point, he clearly had in mind a metric space of social life, the concepts of vector and direction having limited meaning in topological (or nonmetric) space.

The young field of topological mathematics soon freed Lewin from the necessity of defining a metric space of social life. In Principles of Topological Psychology, he defined the new nonmetric space: ‘‘By this term is meant that we are dealing with mathematical relationships which can be characterized without measurement. No distances are defined in topological space’’ (Lewin 1936, p. 53). The concept was a failure; his presentation to the mathematicians at MIT made it clear that he had overreached. He had ventured into the murky realm of topology when, in fact, he always intended to return to metric space. Two additional difficulties also appear in this volume. First, Lewin insisted that the new topological psychology deal with the entire life-space of the individual. Much as Simmel (1917) conceived of the individual as lying at the intersection of various ‘‘social circles,’’ Lewin saw the individual life-space as made up of the totality of available social rations. For practical purposes, this made the specification of a single life-space almost impossibly complex. If one then tried to understand even a small group of actors by merging life-spaces, the problem became overwhelming. Second, Lewin often seemed to think of life-space in terms of physical space. Thus, locomotion almost literally meant moving from one physical location to another. This confusion of metaphor with reality prevented Lewin from proposing a consistent conceptual space of the sort suggested by Borgatta (1963), Bales (1985), and others.

A collection of Lewin’s (1948) more applied American papers, Resolving Social Conflicts, appeared the year he died. Lewin translated concrete conflicts into abstract life-space ‘‘capsules.’’ They were

designed to illustrate the concept of ‘‘range of free movement’’ as ‘‘a topological region encircled by other regions that are inaccessible’’ (Lewin 1948, p. 5). The researchers who followed him have since used his graphic depiction of life-space as capsules only rarely. In the same volume, Lewin defined two useful characteristics of the boundaries between sectors of the life-space: sharpness (the clarity of boundaries) and rigidity (the ease with which boundaries may shift). Field Theory in the Social Sciences, a collection of Lewin’s more theoretical writings, appeared in 1951. In these papers, Lewin introduced the most crucial concepts. Conflict is defined as ‘‘the overlapping of two force fields,’’ force as ‘‘the tendency toward locomotion,’’ and position as ‘‘a spatial relation of regions’’ (1951, pp. 39–40). The example of a conflict between husband and wife illustrates Lewin’s concept of ‘‘subjective’’ and ‘‘objective’’ social fields. The subjectively defined life-spaces of two people differ, and so a single interpersonal act may have very different meanings for the two actors. Repeated reality testing is necessary to bring the individuals to a consensually defined ‘‘objective’’ social life-space.

Lewin never really succeeded in developing a predictive theory of group dynamics: ‘‘The clarification of the problems of past and future has been much delayed by the fact that the psychological field which exists at a given time contains the views of that individual about his future and past’’ (Lewin 1951, p. 53). The field is still struggling with this problem, lacking an adequate theory of even state- to-state transition.

In the years following Lewin’s death, the focus shifted from the theoretical to the applied. Much of the work done at the University of Michigan’s Research Center for Group Dynamics and at the National Training Laboratory’s facilities in Bethel, Maine, was been only very loosely tied to the concepts of field theory. While Lewin is often credited with founding the field of organizational development (Weisbord 1987), his careful work on the nature of the social field is often ignored in favor of deceptively simple quotes such as ‘‘There’s nothing so practical as a good theory.’’ While Lewin believed that he could not be sure that he had fully understood a social situation unless he

1013

FIELD THEORY

could change it, he never assumed that the ability to bring about change implied understanding. Only in the past several years has attention returned to the difficult legacy of an incomplete field theory.

THE CURRENT STATE OF FIELD THEORY

The Society for the Advancement of Field Theory was founded at a Temple University conference in 1984. Stivers and Wheelan (1986) have since published the proceedings of the conference as The Lewin Legacy. Later, papers from the two subsequent biennial conferences have been published as Advances in Field Theory (Wheelan et al. 1990).

The Lewin Legacy includes historical essays and applications of field theory to therapy, education, organizational development, and community psychology. A brief set of papers at the end calls for a revitalization of Lewinian thought, particularly within the tradition of action research. It is clear, however, that the authors are responding more to Lewin’s research philosophy than to the theoretical constructs of his field theory.

Advances in Field Theory continues to focus on application, but with more explicit reference to theory. Gold’s (1990) paper titled ‘‘Two Field Theories’’ addresses the issue of whether field theory is a ‘‘real theory’’ or simply an ‘‘approach.’’ It distinguishes between the theory as described above and the approach—or ‘‘metatheory’’—that has served as the guide for the generations of scholars that followed Lewin. Pointing out that much of social psychology has drifted away from the consideration of social life-space toward the understanding of internal cognitive processes, the author calls for a revitalization of the Galilean mode of thought. The remainder of the volume is once again directed toward the solution of practical problems. The authors deal with families, psychiatry, human development, education, conflict, organizations, and cross-cultural concerns. Virtually all of this work seems to draw on Lewin’s ‘‘approach,’’ or ‘‘metatheory,’’ rather than his ‘‘specific field theory.’’

All of this is not to deny the tremendous impact that Lewin and his students have had on

both academia and the resolution of social problems. What impressed his students most was Lewin’s commitment to democracy and fairness. This commitment started in the research community, where he unselfishly gave of his time and intellect to help his students and colleagues expand their understanding of society. It extended to society at large. He and his students worked on behalf of the war effort during World War II and actively combated prejudice at home. As Weisbord (1987) has pointed out, the field of organizational development (OD) probably owes its existence and current shape to Lewin and his students. Organizational development is as much an ideology as a theory of change; its democratic value orientation owes much to the ideas of Kurt Lewin. Citing Marrow’s (1969) excellent biography of Lewin, Weisbord draws parallels between the lives of Frederick Taylor and Kurt Lewin. Lewin’s ‘‘humanization of the Taylor system’’ can be thought of as a blueprint for achieving the central goal of organizational development: increasing organizational effectiveness through the application of social science knowledge. In the seminal work in the field, The Human Side of Enterprise, Douglas McGregor (1960) blends the social science of Kurt Lewin with the humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow (1954). The origins of participatory management, teambuilding, feedback, process consultation, and third-party intervention lie in both the theoretical and empirical work of Lewin and his colleagues: Ronald and Gordon Lippett, Ralph White, Kurt Back, Kenneth Beene, Dorwin Carwright, Alvin Zander, and others.

REKINDLING THE LIGHT: ATTEMPTS AT

SYNTHESIS

The group process school, with its origins in Parsonian functionalism, has recently moved toward integration with the group dynamics school. Bales (1985), tracing the origins of field theory to Dewey’s (1896) ‘‘reflex arc,’’ suggested that his three-dimensional conceptual space of social interaction made possible a new field theory. He argued for the universality of the dimensions but stopped short of offering the integration: ‘‘The new field theory of social psychology is the needed

1014

FIELD THEORY

framework, I believe, for the long-desired integration of social psychology. But to explore that thesis is a major undertaking, and here we must be content with a tentative case for the major dimensions of the framework’’ (Bales 1985, p. 17). Bales’s colleagues (Hare et al. 1996) have since announced the existence of this ‘‘new field theory,’’ but it has yet to be published in full and the academic community seems not to be eager to accept it as a major theoretical advance. Whether or not opinion changes as a result of the forthcoming publication of Bales’s Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement (1999) remains to be seen, but Bales’s past efforts have been seen as much stronger in measurement than in theory. To the extent that Bales’s new field theory has succeeded, it has been an operationalization of Lewin’s concept of subjective life-space. His current theories of polarization are organized around positive and negative images in the minds of individual participants, not around consensual social reality.

Polley (1989) validated an updated set of dimensions and offered a series of explicit operational definitions for the basic concepts of Lewinian field theory. Figure 1 presents a ‘‘field diagram’’ that illustrates some of the basic principles. Two dimensions of interpersonal behavior (friendly– unfriendly and conventional–unconventional) define the plane of the diagram, and the third (domi- nant–submissive) is represented by circle size. Larger circles represent more dominant members, while smaller circles represent less dominant members. Members close together in the plane of the field diagram are drawn closer by vectors of positive valence, while distinct subgroups repel one another by vectors of negative valence. Members positioned at right angles to the central conflict between two subgroups tend to serve as mediators if they lie toward the ‘‘friendly’’ side of the space and as scapegoats if they lie toward the ‘‘unfriendly’’ side of the space. Both have the potential to draw opposing subgroups together, reducing the severity of the conflict. These analyses are based on ‘‘group average’’ perceptions and so are an attempt to operationalize Lewin’s ‘‘objective’’ or consensual life-space. In 1994, Polley and Eid attempted an integration of the three major fields of

small group theory: Lewin’s group dynamics, Bales’s group process, and Moreno’s sociometry. But again, while the methodology and theory are in use at a number of research centers, there has been no consensus among the academic community that either the synthesis or the operationalization of field theory have succeeded.

Two additional lines of research have drawn heavily on field theory concepts. Both developed observation systems based for the measurement of temporal patterns in groups. McGrath’s (1991) research group developed a theory known as time, interaction, and performance (TIP) and an observation system known as TEMPO. Wheelan’s (1999) research group is seeking to develop a model of group development based on a synthesis of Lewinian group dynamics and Bion’s psychodynamic theory of groups. (For more information on these two lines of research, see Observation Systems.)

THE FUTURE OF FIELD THEORY

It now appears that Deutsch’s announcement of the death of field theory was essentially correct, though there are a few signs of life, as indicated above. However, neither Psychological Abstracts nor Sociological Abstracts have listed ‘‘field theory’’ as a research topic in recent years. A search of the years 1985–1999 using PsyINFO revealed 177 books and articles under the key phrase ‘‘field theory.’’ Of those, 65 dealt not with social field theory but with unrelated concepts that simply happened to share the same name. Of the remaining 112 citations, 31 were historical in nature and 63 used field theory as what Gold (1990) refers to as a ‘‘general approach’’ rather than as a specific theory capable of generating testable hypotheses. The remaining 18 articles use field theory as a specific theory. The applications of specific field theory are varied; the articles summarized below are not inclusive but should serve to give the flavor of the impact of Lewinian field theory.

Houston and associates (1988) and Dube and associates (1991) have applied field theoretic concepts to the study of customer evaluation of quality of service. Their model integrates concepts from marketing with those from Lewinian field theory

1015

	FIELD THEORY
	Conventional
Authoritarian	Mediator
Subgroup	(Collaboration)

Unfriendly

Friendly

Scapegoat	Creative
(Rebellion)	Subgroup

Unconventional

Vector of Negative Valence

Vector of Positive Valence

Figure 1. A Three-Dimensional Field Diagram, Showing Two Subgroups, a Mediator, and a Scapegoat.

to develop a deeper understanding of customer satisfaction. Granberg and Holberg (1986) compared behavioristic theory with field theory in attempting to explain voting behavior in Sweden and the United States. They conclude that field theory provides greater explanatory power than behavioristic psychology. In a related series of studies, Dillbeck (1990) and Assimakis and Dillbeck (1995) have employed field theory concepts to explain the effect of a Transcendental Meditation program on social change and perceptions of

quality of life. Viser (1994) pitted field theory against Lazarsfeld’s sociological model of voting behavior and contends that field theory provides a better explanation of voter choice. Greenberg (1988) employed field theory concepts of competing force fields to develop a model of employee theft behavior. Diederich (1997) used field theory as the basis for her multiattribute dynamic decision model (MADD), which she uses to predict decision making under time constraints. In the field of communications, Hample (1997) and

1016

FIELD THEORY

Greene (1997) have based theories of ‘‘message production’’ on the Lewinian concepts of lifespace and planes of reality and unreality. In the realm of therapy, Barber (1996) has employed field theory to the understanding of the educational community as an agent of change. Dube and Schmitt (1996) tested field theory–based predictions of perceived time judgments. They demonstrated that ‘‘unfilled intervals’’ were perceived to be longer if they occurred during a social process rather than before or after the process. Smith and Smith (1996) identified the concept of the social field as necessary and sufficient for the explanation of social behavior. Finally, Diamond (1992) contrasted field theory and rational choice as explanations for social policy choices and concluded that field theory explains many effects that are dismissed as ‘‘irrational’’ by the rational choice model. This brief tour of empirical research is not intended as comprehensive, but it does suggest that field theory as a specific theory continues to be taken seriously in a variety of disciplines.

There may never be a widely accepted ‘‘grand theory’’ of social psychology. Certainly, the attempts that we have seen so far have not received widespread support from sociologists and psychologists. Still, Kurt Lewin’s legacy is alive and well—as a philosophical orientation in a number of applied fields, such as organizational development, social work, conflict management, and therapy; as a general orientation for researchers in sociology and psychology; and even as a specific theory that continues to generate testable hypotheses. His all-too-brief career has served, and will likely continue to serve, as a guiding light to generations of researchers, practitioners, and social activists.

REFERENCES

Assimakis, Panayotis D., and Michael Dillbeck 1995 ‘‘Time Series Analysis of Improved Quality of Life in Canada: Social Change, Collective Consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi Program.’’ Psychological Reports 76:1171–1193.

Bales, Robert F. 1985 ‘‘The New Field Theory in Social Psychology.’’ International Journal of Small Group Research 1:1–18.

——— 1999 Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement. Somerset, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Barber, Paul 1996 ‘‘The Therapeutic ‘Educational’ Community as an Agent of Change: Towards a Lewinian Model of Peer Learning.’’ Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal for Therapeutic & Supportive Organizations 12:241–252.

Borgatta, Edgar 1963 ‘‘A New Systematic Interaction Observation System.’’ Journal of Psychological Studies

14:24–44.

Deutsch, Morton 1968 ‘‘Field Theory in Social Psychology.’’ In G. Lindsey and E. Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Dewey, John 1896 ‘‘The Reflex Arc Concept in Social Psychology.’’ Psychological Review 3:357–370.

Diamond, Gregory A. 1992 ‘‘Field Theory and Rational Choice: A Lewinian Approach to Modeling Motivation.’’ Journal of Social Issues 48:79–94.

Diederich, Adele 1997 ‘‘Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making Under Time Constraints.’’ Journal of Mathematical Psychology 41:260–274.

Dillbeck, Michael 1990 ‘‘Test of a Field Theory of Consciousness and Social Change.’’ Social Indicators Research 22:399–418.

Dube, Laurette, and Bernd H. Schmitt 1996 ‘‘The Temporal Dimension of Social Episodes: Position Effect in Time Judgments of Unfilled Intervals.’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26:1816–1826.

Dube, Laurette, Bernd H. Schmitt, and France Leclerc 1991 ‘‘Consumers’ Affective Response to Delays at Different Phases of a Service Delivery.’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21:810–820.

Gold, Martin 1990 ‘‘Two Field Theories.’’ In S. Wheelan, E. A. Pepitone, and V. Apt, eds., Advances in Field Theory. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Granberg, Donald, and Soeren Holberg 1986 ‘‘Prior Behavior, Recalled Behavior, and the Prediction of Subsequent Voting Behavior in Sweden and the U.S.’’ Human Relations 39:135–148.

Greenberg, Jerald 1998 ‘‘The Cognitive Geometry of Employee Theft: Negotiating ‘The Line’ Between Taking and Stealing.’’ In Ricky Griffing and Anne O’Leary-Kelly, eds., Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations, vol. 23. Stamford, Conn.: JAI Press.

Greene, John O., ed. 1997 Message Production: Advances in Communication Theory. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hample, Dale 1997 ‘‘Framing Message Production Research with Field Theory.’’ In John O. Greene, ed.,

Message Production: Advances in Communication Theory. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

1017

FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hare, A. Paul, Sharon E. Hare, and Robert J. Koenigs 1996 ‘‘Implicit Personality Theory, Social Desirability, and Reflected Appraisal of Self in the Context of the New Field Theory (SYMLOG).’’ Small Group Research 27:504–531.

Houston, Mark B. Lance A. Bettencourt, and Sutha Wenger 1998 ‘‘The Relationship Between Waiting in a Service Queue and Evaluations of Service Quality: A Field Theory Perspective.’’ Psychology and Marketing 15:735–753.

Lewin, Kurt 1935 A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

———1936 Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

———1948 Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper.

———1951 Field Theory in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper.

———, and Ronald Lippitt 1938 ‘‘An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and Democracy: A Preliminary Note.’’ Sociometry 1:292–300.

Marrow, Alfred 1969 The Practical Theorist. New York:

Basic Books.

Maslow, Abraham 1954 Motivation and Personality. New

York: Harper and Row.

Weisbord, Marvin R. 1987 Productive Workplaces. San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheelan, Susan A., ed. 1999 ‘‘Group Development.’’ Small Group Research (special issue) 30:3–129.

———, Emmy A. Pepitone, and Vicki Apt, eds. 1990 Advances in Field Theory. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

RICHARD B. KETTNER-POLLEY

FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The term filial responsibility denotes the ‘‘responsibility for parents exercised by children. The term emphasizes duty rather than satisfaction and is usually connected with protection, care, or financial support’’ (Schorr, 1980, p. 1). Although it is popularly believed that the obligation of children to care for their parents has ancient origins based on widely held moral beliefs, both historical and sociological evidence suggests that neither element of this belief is true (Finch 1989; Schorr 1980).

LEGAL MANDATES FOR FINANCIAL

McGrath, Joseph E. 1991 ‘‘Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups.’’ Small Group Research 22:147–174.

McGregor, Douglas 1960 The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mullins, Nicholas C. 1973 Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New York: Harper and Row.

Polley, Richard B. 1989. ‘‘Operationalizing Lewinian Field Theory.’’ In E. J. Lawler and B. Markovsky, eds.,

Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Method. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

———, and J. Eid 1994 ‘‘First Among Equals: Leaders, Peers, and Choice.’’ Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry 47:59–76.

Simmel, Georg 1955 Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation (K. H. Wolf and R. Bendix, trans.). New York: Free Press.

Smith, Noel W., and Lance L. Smith 1996 ‘‘Field Theory in Science: Its Role as a Necessary and Sufficient Condition in Psychology.’’ Psychological Record 46:3–19.

Stivers, Eugene, and Susan Wheelan 1986 The Lewin Legacy. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Viser, Max 1994 ‘‘The Psychology of Voting Action.’’

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30:43–52.

SUPPORT

One source of the persistent belief in both the historical existence of filial responsibility and its moral derivation stems from an equally persistent belief that there was a time in the past when ‘‘the family’’ had a stronger sense of responsibility for looking after its aging members (Finch 1989). However, a literature on the history of families and demographic trends has emerged that consistently refutes this belief (Laslett 1972). Central to this literature is an understanding of the effects of the demographic transitions, medical advancements, and changes in social and health practices that have resulted in a significant increase in the numbers of persons living into old age. Together these factors have resulted in dramatic changes in the population structure of modern societies wherein the aging segments account for a significantly higher proportion of the population than ever before (Himes 1994). Put simply, until recently only an extremely small segment of the population survived into an extended and dependent old age (Anderson 1980).

Furthermore, due to the nature of the preindustrial economy, those persons who did

1018