{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018779342723004695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00670690811535882, 'mean_word_length': 5.4034334763948495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hindu and Christian fertility in India: a test of three hypotheses.

Three hypotheses interpret differences in human fertility among religious groups. The Particularistic Theology Hypothesis stresses the pronatalist influence of doctrines forbidding artificial contraception and emphasizing the importance of sons, while the Characteristics Hypothesis focuses on the antinatalist effect of urban residence, higher education, and late age at marriage. But the Minority Status Hypothesis argues that such antinatalist effects may be stronger for a minority than a majority, since better-educated, late-marrying urbanites have greater chances for upward mobility. Minority groups with these advantages may have much lower fertility than similar people in the majority group if antinatalism is seen as a way to counter prejudice and move up. I tested these three hypotheses with data from the 1981 Census of India, from which I calculated mean numbers of children ever born per wife aged 35-44. I standardized the mean for differences between Hindu and Christian women by urban residence, education, age, and length of marriage. The standardized fertility rates of Hindus and Christians were similar in 25 states/union territories. Only in Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland did the Hindu religious minority have a lower standardized birth rate than the Christian majority; but the Muslim minority had one like the Christians'. This pattern was most consistent with the Characteristics Hypothesis.