» Articles » PMID: 33594530

Recalled Parental Gender Preference in Chinese Culture: A Taiwan Birth Cohort Study

Overview
Journal Arch Sex Behav
Date 2021 Feb 17
PMID 33594530
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Chinese culture has long favored sons over daughters. With the development of reproductive technology, the methods can be used not only in facilitation of conception, but also in sex-selective termination of pregnancies. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate: (1) the rate of pregnant expectancy/planning of children; (2) whether the Chinese cultural influence of son preference still exists, and factors effecting sex preference; and (3) whether artificial reproductive technology plays a role in parents giving birth to a child of their preferred sex. We used the Taiwan Birth Cohort Study dataset at six-months, which included 21,248 babies born in 2005. More mothers than fathers reported this pregnancy as unexpected (29.0% vs. 20.5%). Over half of the parents showed no preference for the sex of their child (mothers: 52.6%, fathers: 55.8%). However, among those who showed a preference, significantly more preferred sons than daughters (son preference, mothers: 24.8%, fathers: 24.3%; daughter preference, mothers: 22.5%, fathers: 19.9%). Additionally, structural equation modeling found that parents who had planned their pregnancy were more likely to prefer sons and less likely to prefer daughters. Parents who used artificial reproductive technology for conception were more likely to prefer and conceive sons. A preference for male children still exists in Taiwan, contributing to the high sex ratio at birth of 110 in our 2005 birth cohort. However, over half of the parents reported being neutral in the preference of the gender of their offspring. This suggests that Taiwan is moving toward a more gender-equitable society.

Citing Articles

Parenting involvement of Thai expectant fathers during the last trimester pregnancy of their spouses exhibiting depressive symptoms: a qualitative study.

Lundberg P, Phoosuwan N BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25(1):168.

PMID: 39962431 PMC: 11834621. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-025-07288-7.


Does the role of family meetings important at the end-of-life? A retrospective national study in Taiwan.

Yu T, Wei C, Wu W, Lu F BMC Palliat Care. 2024; 23(1):286.

PMID: 39707257 PMC: 11662482. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-024-01613-1.


Exploring associations of adverse childhood experiences with patterns of 11 health risk behaviors in Chinese adolescents: focus on gender differences.

Xu H, Zhang X, Wang J, Xie Y, Zhang Y, Xu S Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2023; 17(1):26.

PMID: 36803389 PMC: 9940075. DOI: 10.1186/s13034-023-00575-1.


The relationship among pregnancy-related anxiety, perceived social support, family function and resilience in Chinese pregnant women: a structural equation modeling analysis.

Huang J, Xu L, Xu Z, Luo Y, Liao B, Li Y BMC Womens Health. 2022; 22(1):546.

PMID: 36572883 PMC: 9791157. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-02145-7.

References
1.
Al-Akour N, Khassawneh M, Zayed F, Khader Y . Characteristics of women visiting an infertility clinic and their interest in preimplantation sex selection in the north of Jordan. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 165(2):271-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.002. View

2.
Andersson G, Hank K, Ronsen M, Vikat A . Gendering family composition: sex preferences for children and childbearing behavior in the Nordic countries. Demography. 2006; 43(2):255-67. DOI: 10.1353/dem.2006.0010. View

3.
Chahnazarian A . Determinants of the sex ratio at birth: review of recent literature. Soc Biol. 1988; 35(3-4):214-35. DOI: 10.1080/19485565.1988.9988703. View

4.
Chao F, Gerland P, Cook A, Alkema L . Systematic assessment of the sex ratio at birth for all countries and estimation of national imbalances and regional reference levels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(19):9303-9311. PMC: 6511063. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1812593116. View

5.
Dehlendorf C, Rodriguez M, Levy K, Borrero S, Steinauer J . Disparities in family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202(3):214-20. PMC: 2835625. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.08.022. View