生育依附抑或生育自主?丈夫的传统性别角色观念对妻子生育意愿的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1661

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 女性的生育意愿不仅受自身性别角色观念的影响, 还可能受到丈夫性别角色观念的制约。对中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)2014年数据(N = 7089)的分析表明, 中国已婚女性存在生育依附现象, 即相比妻子自身的传统性别角色观念, 丈夫的传统性别角色观念对妻子的生育意愿影响更为显著。基于CFPS 2022年数据(N = 555)的补充分析将结果变量替换为生育计划, 结果仍支持生育依附的存在。此外, 生育依附的时空分布并不均衡, 在较早世代、教育水平较低、持农业户口或生活在中西部地区的女性中更为突出。进一步分析发现, 家庭决策权在一定程度上解释了这一现象：传统的“男主外、女主内”家庭分工模式限制了女性的家庭决策权, 从而强化了生育依附, 而决策权的提升则与女性生育自主的增强相伴。上述发现不仅凸显了配偶双方观念和态度在女性生育决策中的作用, 也为基于性别角色观念理解性别平等提供了心理学视角。

关键词: 生育意愿, 生育依附, 生育自主, 性别角色观念

Abstract:

Existing literature has extensively examined the relationship between gender role conceptions and fertility intentions, reaching a relatively stable conclusion that more traditional gender role conceptions are associated with stronger fertility intentions. A notable limitation in this body of research, however, is its predominant focus on individuals’ own gender role conceptions, while largely neglecting the influence of their spouses’ beliefs and attitudes. Overlooking this relational aspect may lead to incomplete conclusions. Diverging from previous studies, this paper investigates the relationship between spouses’ gender role conceptions and individuals’ fertility intentions, with particular emphasis on the influence of husbands’ gender role conceptions on wives’ fertility intentions, given that women are primarily engaged in fertility behaviors. The central question of this study is whether fertility dependency exists among married women in China. Specifically, it examines whether husbands’ gender role conceptions exert a stronger influence on their wives’ fertility intentions than the wives’ own conceptions. If this is the case, the study further explores the factors contributing to this dependency and seeks to provide a theoretical explanation for these dynamics.

This study utilized data from the 2014 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). After data cleaning, a total of 7, 089 valid participants remained. Core variables were constructed as follows: the outcome variable, representing the wife’s fertility intention, was measured by the desired family size (an integer between 0 and 10). The primary predictor variable, representing the couple’s gender role conceptions, was assessed through four items, such as “Men are career-oriented, and women are family-oriented.” The mean score of these four items served as an indicator of gender role conceptions, with higher scores reflecting more traditional perspectives. Results indicate that fertility dependency is significant, and this finding remains consistent regardless of the different measurement approaches and regression models we employed. Specifically, husbands’ gender role conceptions exert a stronger influence on their wives’ fertility intentions than the wives’ own conceptions; notably, this effect does not occur in the opposite direction. Using data from the CFPS 2022 (N = 555), we further investigated the relationship between husbands’ and wives’ gender role conceptions in 2014 and wives’ near-term fertility plan in 2022. The findings indicate that fertility dependency persists; specifically, husbands’ gender role conceptions in 2014 exhibit a stronger correlation with their wives’ fertility plan in 2022 than the wives’ own gender role conceptions.

Furthermore, we examined fertility dependency across different distributions of household decision-making power. The results indicate that fertility dependency is more pronounced among married women whose husbands hold greater authority in five key domains: household expenditures, savings and investments, real estate purchases, child discipline, and major acquisitions. In contrast, when wives have greater decision-making power, fertility dependency diminishes or shifts toward fertility autonomy, highlighting the critical role of household decision-making power in shaping fertility outcomes. Moreover, fertility dependency is not uniformly distributed across time and space. It is particularly evident among women from earlier generations, those with lower educational attainment, rural hukou holders, and residents of central and western China. By contrast, women from later generations, with higher education, non-rural hukou, and living in eastern China exhibit weaker fertility dependency or even fertility autonomy.

The findings of this study carry significant theoretical and practical implications. First, the results indicate that a substantial number of married women in China are influenced by their husbands’ gender role conceptions in fertility decision-making. Neglecting the role of husbands’ beliefs may lead to an incomplete understanding of wives’ fertility decisions. Second, this study offers a psychological perspective on gender equality based on gender role conceptions. It suggests that gender inequality is not only reflected in the unequal distribution of economic resources but also in the asymmetric psychological dependence between spouses. Enhancing women’s decision-making power in household affairs can mitigate fertility dependency and promote fertility autonomy. This, in turn, may contribute to broader social progress and support the development of a more harmonious and sustainable society.

Key words: fertility intentions, fertility dependency, fertility autonomy, gender role conceptions

中图分类号:

B849: C91

陈思静, 王震, 杨莎莎, 郑鹏, 何铨. (2025). 生育依附抑或生育自主?丈夫的传统性别角色观念对妻子生育意愿的影响. 心理学报, 57(9), 1661-1676.

CHEN Sijing, WANG Zhen, YANG Shasha, ZHENG Peng, HE Quan. (2025). Fertility dependence or fertility autonomy? The impact of husbands’ traditional gender role conceptions on wives’ fertility intentions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(9), 1661-1676.

图/表 21

参考文献 72

[1]	Balsmeier B., Buchwald A., & Stiebale J. (2014). Outside directors on the board and innovative firm performance. Research Policy, 43(10), 1800-1815.
[2]	Bianchi S. M., & Milkie M. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 705-725.
[3]	Chen S. J., Shen J. H., Jiang Q. J., & Yang S. S. (2024). Underestimating others’ fertility attitudes and behaviors hinders the fertility intentions of childless individuals in Gen Z. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(6), 759-776. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00759
	[陈思静, 沈家辉, 姜侨桀, 杨莎莎. (2024). 对他人生育态度和行为的低估抑制了Z世代未生育个体的生育意愿. 心理学报, 56(6), 759-776.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00759
[4]	Chen W. M., & Wang Y. R. (2024). Mediating role of fertility motivation in the impact of internet use on fertility intentions. Population Research, 48(2), 44-59.
	[陈卫民, 王佑茹. (2024). 生育动机在互联网使用对生育意愿影响中的中介作用分析. 人口研究, 48(2), 44-59.]
[5]	Cheng C., Wang Y. X., & Bian Y. J. (2015). Gender-earning differentials in China’s urban labor market: A social capital perspective. Population Research, 39(2), 3-16.
	[程诚, 王奕轩, 边燕杰. (2015). 中国劳动力市场中的性别收入差异: 一个社会资本的解释. 人口研究, 39(2), 3-16.]
[6]	Cheng J. M. (2021). Chinese clan culture and married female labor force participation. China Economic Studies, (4), 133-145.
	[程佳朦. (2021). 传统宗族文化如何影响已婚女性劳动参与? 中国经济问题, (4), 133-145.]
[7]	Cotter D., Hermsen J. M., & Vanneman R. (2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259-289. doi: 10.1086/658853 pmid: 22003521
[8]	Dohmen T., Falk A., Huffman D., & Sunde U. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of risk and trust attitudes. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 645-677.
[9]	Egri C. P., & Ralston D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science, 15(2), 210-220.
[10]	Esping-Andersen G. (2009). Incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
[11]	Evans H. (2021). “Patchy Patriarchy” and the shifting fortunes of the CCP’s promise of gender equality since 1921. The China Quarterly, 248(S1), 95-115.
[12]	Feng X. T. (2017). The fertility desire of Chinese people: How much do we know exactly? Journal of Social Sciences, 444(8), 59-71.
	[风笑天. (2017). 当代中国人的生育意愿: 我们实际上知道多少? 社会科学, 444(8), 59-71.]
[13]	Funder D. C., & Ozer D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168.
[14]	Goldin C. (1994). Understanding the gender gap:An economic history of American women. In P. Burstein (Ed.), Equal employment opportunity: Labor market discrimination and public policy (pp. 17-26). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
[15]	Goldscheider F., Bernhardt E., & Lappegård T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x
[16]	Guo Z. G., & Wu X. W. (2006). Application of Poisson regression in fertility study. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 4(7), 2-15.
	[郭志刚, 巫锡炜. (2006). 泊松回归在生育率研究中的应用. 中国人口科学, 4(7), 2-15.]
[17]	Hobcraft J., Menken J., & Preston S. (1982). Age, period, and cohort effects in demography: A review. Population Index, 48(1), 4-43. pmid: 12338741
[18]	Hou J. W., Huang S. L., Xin Z. Q., Sun L., Zhang H. C., & Dou D. H. (2014). A Change in the desired fertility of the Chinese population: 1980-2011. Social Sciences in China, (4), 78-97.
	[侯佳伟, 黄四林, 辛自强, 孙铃, 张红川, 窦东徽. (2014). 中国人口生育意愿变迁: 1980—2011. 中国社会科学, (4), 78-97.]
[19]	Hu R., & Lin B. B. (2020). Concept of gender equality and female fertility desire. Seeker, (4), 142-148.
	[胡荣, 林彬彬. (2020). 性别平等观念与女性生育意愿. 求索, (4), 142-148.]
[20]	Hu Y., & Scott J. (2016). Family and gender values in China: Generational, geographic, and gender differences. Journal of Family Issues, 37(9), 1267-1293.
[21]	Huang Z. H., Jing Y. M., Yu F., Gu R. L., Zhou X. Y., & Cai H. J. (2018). Increasing individualism and decreasing collectivism? Cultural and psychological change around the globe. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(11), 2068-2080. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02068
	[黄梓航, 敬一鸣, 喻丰, 古若雷, 周欣悦, 张建新, 蔡华俭. (2018). 个人主义上升, 集体主义式微? ——全球文化变迁与民众心理变化. 心理科学进展, 26(11), 2068-2080.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02068
[22]	Hwang I. (2020). The effect of collaborative innovation on ICT-based technological convergence: A patent-based analysis. PloS ONE, 15(2), e0228616.
[23]	Jacka T. (2014). Rural women in urban China: Gender, migration, and social change. London, UK: Routledge.
[24]	Ji H., Yan J., & Guo W. X. (2022). How and when does occupational stigma promote intent to leave? The mediation effect of family implicated stigma and the moderating effect of family involvement. Acta Psychologica Sinia, 54(2), 182-191.
	[季浩, 严进, 国维潇. (2022). 职业污名与离职倾向:牵连家人污名与家庭卷入的作用. 心理学报, 54(2), 182-191.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00182
[25]	Ji Y., Wu X., Sun S., & He G. (2017). Unequal care, unequal work: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of gender inequality in post-reform urban China. Sex Roles, 77(11-12), 765-778.
[26]	Jiang C. Y. (2022). Gender role concept and fertility intention of people of childbearing age——Analysis based on the perspective of gender difference and social change. Lanzhou Academic Journal, (5), 92-104.
	[姜春云. (2022). 性别角色观念与育龄人群的生育意愿——基于性别差异和社会变迁视角的分析. 兰州学刊, (5), 92-104.]
[27]	Kaufman G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 128-144.
[28]	Kenny D. A., Kashy D. A., & Cook W. L. (2020). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
[29]	Kjøllesdal M. K., Smith G. D., Ariansen I., Kinge J. M., Degerud E., & Næss Ø. (2018). The association between BMI and mortality using early adulthood BMI as an instrumental variable for midlife BMI. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 11499.
[30]	Kleibergen F., & Paap R. (2006). Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Econometrics, 133(1), 97-126.
[31]	Kormos C., & Gifford R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359-371.
[32]	Lappegård T., Neyer G., & Vignoli D. (2021). Three dimensions of the relationship between gender role attitudes and fertility intentions. Genus, 77(1), 1-26.
[33]	Li B. L., & Shao S. (2022). If you don’t live in peace, you don’t want to have children: A study on the housing situation and the fertility desire of young people. China Youth Study, (3), 53-62+104.
	[李宝礼, 邵帅. (2022). 不安居, 则不乐育: 住房状况与青年人口生育意愿研究. 中国青年研究, 3, 53-62+104 ]
[34]	Li W. X., Yang X. J., & Yang X. Y. (2021). Child care and the desire to have the second child: An empirical analysis based on the 2017 national fertility survey. Population Research, 45(5), 64-78.
	[李婉鑫, 杨小军, 杨雪燕. (2021). 儿童照料支持与二孩生育意愿——基于2017年全国生育状况抽样调查数据的实证分析. 人口研究, 45(5), 64-78.]
[35]	Li X. H., & Guo J. Q. (2024). Intergenerational living distance and adult children’s subjective well-being. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 38(5), 98-112.
	[李新恒, 郭继强. (2024). 代际居住安排与子女主观幸福感. 中国人口科学, 38(5), 98-112.]
[36]	Li Y., & Li C. A. (2024). The impact of gender role attitudes on fertility intentions following the implementation of the universal two-child policy. Northwest Population Journal, 45(6), 48-62. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/62.1019.C.20240612.2229.002
	[李艳, 李长安. (2024). 全面两孩政策后性别角色态度对生育意愿的影响研究. 西北人口, 45(6), 48-62. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/62.1019.C.20240612.2229.002]
[37]	Li Z. D., Jiang J. M., & Yin H. Y. (2024). A study on the influence of gender role attitudes on fertility intention— Empirical analysis based on CGSS data. Academic Journal of Jinyang, (3), 34-48.
	[李正东, 姜金明, 尹海燕. (2024). 性别角色观念对生育意愿的影响研究——基于CGSS数据的实证分析. 晋阳学刊, (3), 34-48.]
[38]	Lindsey L. L. (2020). Gender: Sociological perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.
[39]	Liu D. Z., Huang H. X., Jia F. Q., Gong Q., Huang X., & Li X. (2011). A new Sex-Role Inventory (CSRI-50) indicates Changes of sex role among Chinese college students. Acta Psychologica Sinia, 43(6), 639-649.
	[刘电芝, 黄会欣, 贾凤芹, 龚茜, 黄颀, 李霞. (2011). 新编大学生性别角色量表揭示性别角色变迁. 心理学报, 43(6), 639-649.]
[40]	Lu J. H., & Sun Y. (2024). The impact of education-job matching on fertility intention of young adults. Chinese Journal of Population Science, (3), 66-80.
	[陆杰华, 孙杨. (2024). 教育—工作匹配状况对年轻人生育意愿的影响研究. 中国人口科学, (3), 66-80.]
[41]	Ma A., Paek J. J., Liu F., & Kim J. Y. (2024). Threats to personal control fuel similarity attraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(43), e2321189121.
[42]	McDonald P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427-439.
[43]	Miller W. B., & Pasta D. J. (1995). Behavioral intentions: Which ones predict fertility behavior in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(6), 530-555.
[44]	Neyer G., Lappegård T., & Vignoli D. (2013). Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters? European Journal of Population, 29, 245-272.
[45]	Okun B. S., & Raz-Yurovich L. (2019). Housework, gender role attitudes, and couples’ fertility intentions: Reconsidering men’s roles in gender theories of family change. Population and Development Review, 45(1), 169-196.
[46]	Qing S. S. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of attitudes toward gender role in China. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 38(6), 80-91.
	[卿石松. (2018). 中国性别角色观念代际传递分析. 中国人口科学, 38(6), 80-91.]
[47]	Ridgeway C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 637-655.
[48]	Shen X. B., Chen Y., & Lin B. Q. (2021). The impacts of technological progress and industrial structure distortion on China’s energy intensity. Economic Research Journal, (2), 157-173.
	[沈小波, 陈语, 林伯强. (2021). 技术进步和产业结构扭曲对中国能源强度的影响. 经济研究, (2), 157-173.]
[49]	Shi C. L. (2020). The impact of land transfer on rural household income gap: Exacerbation or alleviation? Research on Economics and Management, 41(12), 79-92.
	[史常亮. (2020). 土地流转与农户内部收入差距:加剧还是缓解? 经济与管理研究, 41(12), 79-92.]
[50]	Steyn E., & White K. J. (2011). Navigating the ‘invisible nets’: Challenges and opportunities for women in traditionally male-dominated South Asian newsrooms. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(4), 409-426.
[51]	Tao T. (2012). Analysis of influencing factors in rural women’s right in significant family decisions. Collection of Women’s Studies, (5), 17-22.
	[陶涛. (2012). 中国农村妇女家庭重大决策参与权的影响因素研究. 妇女研究论丛, (5), 17-22.]
[52]	Tazi-Preve I. M., Bichlbauer D., & Goujon A. (2004). Gender trouble and its impact on fertility intentions. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 5-24.
[53]	Wan F., & Chen S. J. (2024). Subjective social class positively predicts residents’ fertility intentions. Population and Development, (2), 26-38.
	[万丰华, 陈思静. (2024). 主观社会阶层正向预测居民生育意愿. 人口与发展, (2), 26-38.]
[54]	Wang J. X., Zhou Y. N., & Liu X. L. (2020). Information, trust and confidence: Mechanism for constructing the risk community. Sociological Study, 35(4), 25-45+241-242.
	[王俊秀, 周迎楠, 刘晓柳. (2020). 信息、信任与信心:风险共同体的建构机制. 社会学研究, 35(4), 25-45+241- 242.]
[55]	Wang P., & Wu Y. X. (2019). Socioeconomic status, gender inequality and gender-role attitudes. Sociological Review of China, 7(2), 55-70.
	[王鹏, 吴愈晓. (2019). 社会经济地位、性别不平等与性别角色观念. 社会学评论, 7(2), 55-70.]
[56]	Wang R. Q. (2016). Does social endowment mitigate people’s responsibility requirements for their adult children? An empirical study based on rural residents in China. Population and Economics, (5), 105-113.
	[汪润泉. (2016). “社会养老”是否淡化了“子女责任”观念? ——来自中国农村居民的经验证据. 人口与经济, (5), 105-113.]
[57]	Wang T. Y., & Peng X. B. (2015). The impact of social security on fertility desire: Evidence from the new rural cooperative medical scheme. Economic Research Journal, (2), 103-117.
	[王天宇, 彭晓博. (2015). 社会保障对生育意愿的影响: 来自新型农村合作医疗的证据. 经济研究, (2), 103-117.]
[58]	Wu S. T., Wang Y. L., & Peng K. P. (2024). More utilitarian and less rational? Social change and two types of individualism over the last 40 years in China. Acta Psychologica Sinia, 56(7), 911-925.
	[吴胜涛, 王予灵, 彭凯平. (2024). 理性式微, 功利扩张? 近40年中国社会两种个人主义的变迁. 心理学报, 56(7), 911-925.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00911
[59]	Xu J., & Huang Y. N. (2018). Gender Identity, marriage and labor behavior within households. Economic Research Journal, (4), 136-150.
	[续继, 黄娅娜. (2018). 性别认同与家庭中的婚姻及劳动表现. 经济研究, (4), 136-150.]
[60]	Xu K., Hu D. W., & Liu Y. (2022). The family planning policy, cost socialization and fertility ratio. Journal of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, 40(2), 69-78.
	[许坤, 胡东婉, 刘扬. (2022). 生育政策, 成本社会化与人口出生率. 贵州财经大学学报, 40(2), 69-78.]
[61]	Yang G. C., & Yang J. D. (2013). Daughter-supporting mechanism for the aged in the gender perspective. Journal of Yunnan Nationalities University (Social Sciences), 30(1), 55-62.
	[杨国才, 杨金东. (2013). 社会性别视角下女儿养老研究. 云南民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 30(1), 55-62.]
[62]	Yang H. (2018). As the reformer: Dependent identity and outsider features of young rural female. Journal of Chinese Youth Social Science, 37(5), 60-69.
	[杨华. (2018). 作为变革者: 农村青年女性的依附性身份与外人气质. 中国青年社会科学, 37(5), 60-69.]
[63]	Yang X. L., & Zhong R. Y. (2023). The effects of household income level and gender perception on the intention to have another child. Finance & Economics, (4), 137-148.
	[杨晓蕾, 钟如雨. (2023). 家庭收入水平、性别观念与再生育意愿. 财经科学, (4), 137-148.]
[64]	Ye H., & Wu X. G. (2011). Fertility decline and the trend in educational gender inequality in China. Sociological Study, 155(5), 153-177.
	[叶华, 吴晓刚. (2011). 生育率下降与中国男女教育的平等化趋势. 社会学研究, 155(5), 153-177.]
[65]	Yi X., Ribbens B., & Morgan C. N. (2010). Generational differences in China: Career implications. Career Development International, 15(6), 601-620.
[66]	Zhang Y. Q., Lu Y., & Li L. Y. (2021). Effects of big data on firm value in China: Evidence from textual analysis of Chinese listed firms’ annual reports. Economic Research Journal, (12), 42-59.
	[张叶青, 陆瑶, 李乐芸. (2021). 大数据应用对中国企业市场价值的影响——来自中国上市公司年报文本分析的证据. 经济研究, (12), 42-59.]
[67]	Zhao F. Q., Hu S. Y., Chen Y., & Zhu H. Q. (2024). Research on mechanism of entrepreneurial narrative on entrepreneurial performance: The role of organizational ambidexterity, resource acquisition and rhetorical strategies. Nankai Business Review, 27(5), 4-17.
	[赵富强, 胡思源, 陈耘, 祝含秋. (2024). 创业叙事对创业绩效的影响研究——组织双元性、资源获取与修辞策略的作用. 南开管理评论, 27(5), 4-17.]
[68]	Zhao J., & Zuo B. (2005). Situation and interaction: Interpersonal interdependence and its model. Advances in Psychological Science, 13(6), 828-835.
	[赵菊, 佐斌. (2005). 情境与互动:人际互倚及其模式. 心理科学进展, 13(6), 828-835.]
[69]	Zheng G. H., & Zi Y. L. (2024). Self-empowerment through skilled labour: A wig factory in Henan’s Xuchang city. Collection of Women’s Studies, (5), 29-40.
	[郑广怀, 訾尧渌. (2024). 基于劳动技能的自我赋权——以河南省许昌市T假发厂女工为例. 妇女研究论丛, (5), 29-40.]
[70]	Zheng Z. Z. (2014). Measurement and application of fertility intention. Chinese Journal of Population Science, (6), 15-25.
	[郑真真. (2014). 生育意愿的测量与应用. 中国人口科学, (6), 15-25.]
[71]	Zhu L., Huang B. L., Liu C. J., & Peng G. (2024). The impact of subjective well-being on fertility intention: An empirical study based on CGSS data. Population Research, 48(1), 118-132.
	[朱莉, 黄柏林, 刘呈军, 彭刚. (2024). 主观福利对生育意愿的影响——基于CGSS数据的实证研究. 人口研究, 48(1), 118-132.]
[72]	Zhuang T. Y., Li G. J., & Luo J. C. (2014). Is there a neighborhood effect in rural households’ decision-making on digital finance use? Chinese Rural Economy, (8), 125-144.
	[庄腾跃, 李顾杰, 罗剑朝. (2024). 农户数字金融使用决策存在邻里效应吗? 中国农村经济, (8), 125-144.]

变量	M	SD	1	2
1 理想子女数(妻子)	2.08	0.76
2 传统性别角色观念(丈夫)	3.87	0.89	0.14^*** [0.13, 0.18]
3 传统性别角色观念(妻子)	3.97	0.87	0.15^*** [0.14, 0.18]	0.35^*** [0.34, 0.38]

变量	M	SD	1	2
1 理想子女数(妻子)	2.08	0.76
2 传统性别角色观念(丈夫)	3.87	0.89	0.14^*** [0.13, 0.18]
3 传统性别角色观念(妻子)	3.97	0.87	0.15^*** [0.14, 0.18]	0.35^*** [0.34, 0.38]

变量	M	SD	Min	Max
个人年收入	3.02	3.95	0	12.08
受教育年限	5.63	4.60	0	19
健康状况	3.20	1.26	1	5
子女数量	2.04	1.10	0	10
年龄	49.3	12.85	16	93
民族	0.92	0.27	0	1
户口	0.78	0.41	0	1
医疗保险	0.93	0.25	0	1
家庭总房产	11.2	3.08	0	16.52
家庭金融资产	5.67	5.23	0	15.04
家庭成员数量	4.42	1.90	2	17

变量	M	SD	Min	Max
个人年收入	3.02	3.95	0	12.08
受教育年限	5.63	4.60	0	19
健康状况	3.20	1.26	1	5
子女数量	2.04	1.10	0	10
年龄	49.3	12.85	16	93
民族	0.92	0.27	0	1
户口	0.78	0.41	0	1
医疗保险	0.93	0.25	0	1
家庭总房产	11.2	3.08	0	16.52
家庭金融资产	5.67	5.23	0	15.04
家庭成员数量	4.42	1.90	2	17

变量	B	z	LLCI	ULCI
预测变量
传统性别角色观念(丈夫)	0.014^**	3.121	0.005	0.023
传统性别角色观念(妻子)	0.008	1.270	−0.004	0.021
控制变量
个人年收入	0.001	0.636	−0.002	0.003
受教育年限	−0.005^*	−2.024	−0.009	−0.0001
健康状况	−0.004	−1.270	−0.011	0.002
子女数量	0.089^***	7.305	0.065	0.113
年龄	0.001	1.078	−0.001	0.003
民族	−0.155	−1.630	−0.341	0.031
户口	0.010	0.439	−0.034	0.054
医疗保险	0.016	1.004	−0.015	0.048
家庭总房产	−0.001	−0.671	−0.004	0.002
家庭金融资产	0.0002	0.429	−0.001	0.001
家庭成员数量	0.009	1.825	−0.001	0.019
省份固定效应	控制
N	7089
Pseudo R²	0.021