T HE EELA; T'CRR 75E NR EMS FE {EU RESE 3"?) FUR "xiSRTNGS A???) E”? ERR 'ATTER? 43??? ..SSE STE DE! .?-J'ii"ES Li... ? Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSTTY Mary Hussey T967 LIP'? 403’ Michlgdn State Kr Umvcrsxty THEgu ABSTRACT Meeting the housing needs of contemporary society is in- finitely complex. With no assurance of a direct relation between housing and mans' needs, too many housing decisions have been made by members of institutions with self-perpetuating decision making modes and goals. That the interior forms and spaces of our structures have more than a physical effect on the development and behavior of pe0ple is now generally accepted. Some studies attempting to measure the effects of housing on physical health have been made, but little effort has been applied to relating social and psychological behavior to housing. It is admitted that architectural environment and human behavior relationships are difficult to isolate. Numerous variables and numerous interactions among these variables exist. There is no known satisfactory theory to explain this relationship, and its absence leaves only an inductive approach. This study is an attempt to in- vestigate a belief that housing features and furnishings are associated with the manner of eating. Major importance was assigned to de- veloping a practical method of identifying housing features and fur- nishings and eating patterns according to frequency of eating together. The objectives of this study were to learn: A. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families almost always ate together. B. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families sometimes ate together. C. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families almost never ate together. An interview schedule was designed in three parts to obtain demographic information about the families in the sample, to deter- mine family eating patterns by previously established definitions, and to identify housing features and furnishings which might be re- lated to patterns of eating. Housing features were given a condition rating for the food preparation and eating areas. Housing furnishings were categorized by respondents in terms of usage and felt need. The sample was comprised of (tr-hint}; mothersmf an. assisted group living in Lansing, Michigan, who had no children above el- ementary school age living at home. The mothers were also selected on the basis of a minimum ability to comprehend the questions in the interview schedule and to verbalize their answers. The families in the sample met the criteria of the Family Helper Program of the Lansing School District. The majority were also recipients of ad- ditional financial assistance. Data were precoded and analyzed by relating the spread variables to the control variable, patterns of eating. Statistical tests of significance were used to determine differences between variables in the demographic data, certain factors related to eating patterns and the condition ratings of the food preparation and eating areas. The in- ventory of housing furnishings was analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis One- Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks test. The data indicated that individual family members seemed to have established times and places to eat as frequency of eating to- gether as a family increased. Data suggested that schedule of daily activities was of importance to family eating habits. Housing features and furnishings enabling families to eat together may have influenced both regularity of eating time and place, and the reasons for families' eating as they did. The function rating of traffic patterns in the food preparation area was significantly different in the three patterns of eating, function increasing as the frequency of eating together increased. Ratings of the seating arrangement and space at the table were significantly dif- ferent in the three patterns of eating, with function increasing as fre~ quency of eating together increased. These findings seemed to reveal that where inconvenience was greater according to rating of these housing features, fewer families ate together. Needs and usages of housing furnishings and the three pat- terns of eating were related in three categories. People who ate together less frequently apparently had less felt need for the items classified in the category of storage, but neither was need highly defined for families who ate together. However, storage items ap- peared to be associated with eating patterns and those families who did not eat together showed less desire to obtain the storage objects than those who did eat together. People who did not eat together did not give any strong indi- cation that they did not have but wanted furnishings in any of the cate- gories. Education of mothers was the only non-housing factor found to be related to association with frequency of eating. This relation needs further study to learn if the variable is associated only with the assisted group. The variables which appeared to be associated with eating patterns only defined the housing features and furnishings most likely to affect the frequency of families' eating together. Research is needed to confirm these findings and to learn more specifically how they relate to the patterns of eating. THE RELATION BETWEEN HOUSING FEATURES AND FURNISHINGS AND EATING PATTERNS IN ASSISTED FAMILIES by Mary Hussey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts 1967 3,} {4.9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her grateful appreciation to Dr. Gertrude Nygren, major professor and graduate committee chairman, for her guidance and inspiration during this study. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Mary L. Gephart, Dr. Joanne B. Eicher and Dr. Jean D. Schlater for their interest in and helpful suggestions concerning the development and completion of the study, and to Dr. Sarah Hervey for her generosity and patience as statistician. Thanks is also extended to Carolyn Kiebler, fellow graduate student and researcher. The completion of the study would not have been possible without the cooperation and enthusiasm of Mrs. Catherine Jaffe, Family Helper Program Supervisor, and the Family Helpers who participated so willingly in its implementation. The author is particularly grateful to her fellow researcher and dear friend, Jenny M. Ruth, for her steadfast and loyal support throughout the study. Finally, the author wishes to thank her mother, Helen J. Hussey, for moral support, continued encouragement and expert assistance as typist. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................... LIST OF TABLES ..................... . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . .............. Origin and Importance of the Study . . . Review of Related Literature . . . . . . Objectives ................ Hypothesis ................ Definition of Terms Used ........ Limitations of the Study ......... PROCEDURE OF THE INVESTIGATION . Design of the Study ............ Development of the Interview Schedule . Pretesting the Interview Schedule . . . . Selection of the Sample . ...... Collection of the Data .......... Statistical Analysis of the Data ..... FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings . ................ Discussion ...... . . ........ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... Origin and Importance of the Study . . . Specific Statement of the Problem. . . . Summary of the Procedures. . . . . . . Conclusions ............... Major Conclusions of the Study ..... Recommendations for Further Study . . BIBLIOGRA PHY. . . ................ APPENDIX. . . . . . ...... . . ........ Table 10. ll. 12-. LIST OF TABLES Page Mother's Education by Three Eating Patterns ......... 29 Characteristics of Family-Shared Meals on an Ordinary Weekday During the School Year .................................... 31 Characteristics of Family-Shared Meals on an Ordinary Sunday During the School Year .................................... 32 Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Morning Eating Time of Indi- vidual Family Members . .......... . ............. 33 Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Middle of the Day Eating Time of. Individual Family Members ........... . ........ 34 Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning Regular Middle of the Day Eating Place of Individual Family Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 34 Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Sunday Morning Eating Place of Individual Family Members ............. . ........ 36 Mothers‘ Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Middle of the Day Eating Place on Sunday of Individual Family Members .......... 36 Reasons Assisted Families Ate as They Did on Weekdays ......... . ............................ 38 Reasons Assisted Families Ate as They Did on Sundays ....................................... 38 Reasons Assisted Families Ate as They Did on Weekdays During the Middle of the Day ............ 39 Condition Ratings of Features in the Food Preparation Area . . .............. . .............. 42 iv Table - Page 13.. Traffic Patterns in the Food Preparation Area by Three Patterns of Eating ................. 43 14. Area Where Food Was Most Often Eaten by Three Patterns of Eating ...................... 43 15. Convenience Ratings of Seating Area According to Three Patterns of Eating ............ 44 16. Ratings of Amount of Space at the Table According to Three Patterns of Eating ..... . ...... 45 17. Condition Ratings of Features in the Area Where Food Was Most Often Eaten ...................... 46 18. Types of Seating Arrangements in the Eating Area by Three Patterns of Eating ................. 48 19. Mean Number of People Seated at the Table by Three Patterns of Eating ...................... 48 20. Totaled Checks in Each Significant Category of Furnishings by Three Patterns of Eating ............................... 49 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Oflin and Importance of the Study For the past 15 years the housing industry in America has enjoyed an unprecedented boom. Today an annual average of 1, 500, 000 housing units are being built, and by 1970 it is expected that at least 2, 000, 000 units will be produced annually. 1 Concentrations of popu- lation in metropolitan areas necessitate many adjustments, one of which is housing for physical, psychological and social well-being. However, even with increased technological knowledge, meeting the housing needs of people in contemporary society has become infinitely complex. To date there is limited objective evidence for relating social norms and values to housing. One theory is that if people are given latitude to determine the quality of living they desire, they will apply knowledge hypothesized to yield results which are humanly enhancing. But when the choices are made by others, such as builders and loan- ing agencies, knowledge of human welfare should be available to those in such decision-making and regulatory systems. If people were to know the kind of housing that fosters humanly fulfilling behavior and 1Glenn H. Beyer, Housingand Society (New York: The Mac-‘ Millan Company, 1965), p. 486. 1 2 development, they could better choose and demand characteristics in housing forms accordingly. Without this assurance of a direct rela- tion between housing and man's needs, too many decisions have been made by members of institutions having self-perpetuating decision- making modes and goals. This group often has helped formulate standards, regulations and operating policies according to what was or was not economically profitable for themselves. While no one individual or institution has had much power alone, the single-minded concern for profit was a mutually agreeable goal responsible for the forms of home environment of the ultimate consumer, the person who needed housing. It is now generally accepted that the interior forms and spa- ces of our structures have an effect on the development and behavior of péOple. Although much of the literature in the field of housing is non-research oriented, some studies have attempted to measure the physical, social and psychological effects of housing on its occupants. Extensive reviews by Wilnerl of housing-related researches revealed a marked positive association between housing and health; poor hous- ing correlated with poor health, and better housing with better health. Wilner, Walkley, Pinkerton and Tayback2 hypothesized, in a care- fully controlled investigation of approximately 1, 000 Negro families over a three-year period, that as a consequence of differences in lDaniel Wilner, Rosabelle P. Walkley, Thomas C. Pinkerton, and Matthew Tayback, The Housing_Environm ent and Family Life (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962), p. 5. 2Ibid. , p. 244, 3 housing quality, test rates of the incidence of illness would be lower than control rates. Among persons under thirty-five years of age, general confirmation of the hypothesis was observed in the last two years of the study for serious episodes, for less severe episodes and for total days of disability. Review of Related Literature This study was undertaken as a subproject of Nygren's1 Michigan Agricultural EXperiment Station master project proposed to study the relation of housing features and furnishings to family activities. 2 McCray's pilot study attempted to learn whether housing features and furnishings were perceived by mothers to be related to the family eating activity. McCray's3 study cited literature indicat- ing a possible relationship between family interaction and family-shared mealtime which may ultimately influence family communication. In Ruth's4 study of professional—managerial families, the review of literature investigated family interaction, family-shared mealtime and physical space and furnishings of the eating area. 1L. Gertrude Nygren, research in progress concerning hous- ing features and furnishings in relation to family activities. (Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, Research Project No. 71-6854) 2Jacquelyn W. McCray, ”Housing Features and Furnishings Perceived by Mothers To Aid Or Impede Fam ily-Shared Mealtime” (Master's thesis in progress, Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts, Michigan State University, 1967) 3 Ibid.. pp. 9-19. 4Jenny M. Ruth, ”The Relation Of Selected Housing Features and Furnishings To Eating Patterns Of Professional-Managerial 4 This study paralleled Ruth's1 except where evidence from research had implications more specifically for families in the low socio-economic class. Therefore, Ruth's review of literature also applied to this study. That a relation exists between behavior and development and housing is supported by Duvall in Family Development. 2 She sees certain family developmental tasks as having evolved by the time children are in school. Among the most important of these tasks is providing for children's activities and parents' privacy. Duvall3 sees today's children as bigger, stronger and more vigorous than they were a generation ago. She further states that providing outlets for the needed exploration and activity of vigorous children within cramped housing, small yards, remote playgrounds, busy streets and cranky neighbors is not easy. Lower-class families in some places settle the problem by allowing children to roam streets and alleys and run the risks of life and limb. Social clubs and settlements have formu- lated programs that help in some of these congested areas, but the needs are still unfulfilled. The family with school-age children is a network of communi- cation ties; Duvall4 sees as many as fifteen possible interpersonal Families" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1967) pp. 3-27. lIbid. 2Evelyn M. Duvall, FamilLDevelQRment (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1962), p. 271. 31bid. , p. 272. 41bid., p. 277. 5 relationships in the four-child family. Families that provide means for releasing tensions before they become critical keep communica- tion lines free. Open communication systems within a family remove the troubles of everyday living and renew the spirit. A study by Bossard, B011 and Sanger1 pointed out that most forces playing on the contemporary family have resulted in individ- ualizing the lives of its members. But although the individual is im- portant, the fact remains that a family is a project in group living, and the healthy status of the family calls for the promotion of tech- niques in the cooperative functioning of its members. According to this research, completed by 1950, the dining and living rooms are the areas where the family spends most of its time as a group. Lower social class families, particularly, use the dining room as the social center, where the family meal is a recur- rent and fundamental aspect of family life. At the table, the family is at its greatest ease, both physically and psychologically. There, it is held together for definite periods of time; there, it becomes en- grossed in common objectives; there, the family has fewer distrac- tions than at most other times. The emphasis is made in Bossard's2 study that since family mealtime appears to represent a vital activity ‘ in the development of resilient family units, thought should be given 1James H. S. Bossard, Eleanor Boll, and Winogene Sanger, "Some Neglected Areas in Family-Life Study, " Readings in MarriageE and the Family, ed. Judson T. Landis and Mary C. Landis (New Yor : Prentice Hall, Inc., 1952), pp. 277-279. 211ml. , p. 279. 6 to its systematic cultivation. Included as important are both the physical setting and the "atmosphere. " In another study showing the relation of housing to social interaction, Perry1 stated that spatial inadequacies in housing seem to be associated with the family's attitude toward spending time to- gether and its patterns of entertaining. She noted some indication that inadequate housing is related to evidence of stress and strain. McQueen2 theorized that "bickering should particularly be the behavior of the family which has too many competing room uses. " Competing room uses included not only the number of uses of a room but also kinds of uses incompatible to each other. This could serve as a reason to relate housing features to social behavior and, specif- ically, to interaction. 3 findings indicated that housing is a complex of en- Chapin's vironmental factors, and the influence of housing operates as a com- bination of space occupied, space for ease of circulation, noise or noise insulation, sanitary arrangements, light and ventilation, and other factors, all forming a pattern of home environment that is ex- tremely diversified. While it is true that such a pattern may be broken down into the more specific components of room-crowding and use-crowding within the dwelling, the land-crowding in the surrounding lMignon Perry, "Relationships of Space in Housing to Atti- tudes Toward Family Life" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1958). 2'Phil K. McQueen, "Relationships Among Selected Housing, Marital and Familial Characteristic s" (unpublished Ph. D. disserta- tion, Florida State University, 1964), p. 30. 3Stuart Chapin, "The Psychology of Housing, " Social For- 933! XXX, No. 1 (1951) pp. 11-15. 7 neighborhood, or the amount of noise measured in decibels, it should be remembered that all these factors operate together as a varied en- vironmental pattern. As an example of this empirical principle, the general state of physical repair, aesthetic attributes, and location of the home may operate in combination as evidence of social status, and in such a manner that a substandard combination of physical re- pair, aesthetic attributes, and location in a given home may be as- sociated with feelings of inferiority or humiliation, while at the same time the average or superior combination of these same factors may serve as a sure basis for self-confidence and feelings of personal se- curity. The purpose of a study by Clarson1 was to identify certain family problems of low-income families in northern Florida and southern Georgia. The subjects, adolescents of the middle and lower socio-economic classes, reported that living too close to neighbors for privacy and not having any place to keep things were problems of some significance. In families with four or more children, the in- ability to get away from other family members in the house was most apparent. Housing-related stimuli we re most often indicated by children in families in the lower socio-economic class. These re- sponses of adolescents point up a possible relation between housing and certain undesirable socio-psychological reactions. Cohen and Kapneck2 studied the relation of family activities to personality development. They asked si’xty high school seniors to 1Elizabeth A. Clarson, "Low-Income Family Problems as Perceived by Adolescents" (unpublished Master's thesis, Florida State University, 1965). 2Barbara Cohen and Joanne Kapneck, "When the Family Meets for Meals," Journal of Home Economics, XL, No. 10 (1948), pp. 577-78. 8 specify each day for seven days the number of meals during the pre- ceding day at which all family members were present, or if any mem- bers were absent, to specify those members. A definite relationship was found between the frequency of family assembly at meals and the personality scores of the children; an upward trend in average per- sonality scores was noticed as the number of meals shared by the entire family increased. It appeared that the entire family's assem- bly at meals was related to the good personality adjustment of the children, as measured by the California Personality Test, and, there- fore, that housing should accommodate the meal time activity. Empirical evidence has indicated that housing and family activities may be related. Bossard, B011 and Sanger1 believed that mealtime represents a vital link in the development of resilient fam- ily units. Chapin'sz findings associate physical repair, aesthetic attributes and location of a home with feelings of inferiority or self- confidence. These and other studies indicate the need for further research. . Authors of texts in the field of housing accept the relation between housing and family activities. Agan and Luchsinger3 look on the family dwelling as an exceedingly complex structure. Because it is the center of family life, whether a house or an apartment, the dwelling can profoundly influence the social functions of the house- hold. Housing may have the power to foster or inhibit relationships between family members by the extents to which members can attain 1Bossard, B011 and Sanger, op. cit. 2Chapin, op. cit. 3,Tessie Agan and Elaine Luchsinger, The House: Principles, Resources, DLnamics (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1965), p. 75. 9 privacy and can congregate or separate. Not only should the dwelling provide space for family group activities such as entertaining and recreation, but it should also afford opportunities for individuals to withdraw for study, rest or thinking, during periods of activity for other members. An adequate proviSion for these needs might foster congeniality among family members, whereas their absence could lead to conflict. 1 has challenged home economists to play a more Montgomery important role in bringing the consumer and the producers of housing and equipment into a more understanding relationship. It is the re- sponsibility of home economists, he stated, to know as much as pos- sible about the housing needs, deSires, values and expectations of families in all walks of life. Montgomery's opinion was that home economists should know basically the goals of families, their values, - needs and economic resources, and then learn more about the effects of a given neighborhood, house and piece of equipment on their well- being. Objectives Former studies have indicated that family interaction is most likely to take place at mealtime. Bell and VogelZ emphaSized the importance of shared family meals to the total amount of family ]'James E. Montgomery, "Current Developments and A Look Ahead in Housing and Household Equipment, " Journal of Home Eco- nomics, LI, No. 7 (1959), pp. 581-86. 2Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel. A Modern Introduction to the Family (Glencoe: The Free Press. 1960), pp. 24-27. 10 interaction. Homans‘I study of the "Hilltowners" may be relevant to the family. He revealed that as the number of activities that members of the community carried on together declined, the frequency of inter- action between members of the group decreased. The extent to which this family mealtime activity is dependent upon features of housing has not been completely established. Obviously, if no adequate space is available, families cannot eat together, but other features not as clearly visible may also be Significant. The objectives of this study were to learn: A. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families2 almost always ate together. B. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families sometimes ate together. C. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families almost never ate together. Hypothe sis To attain the objectives of this study, the following hypoth- esis was tested: There are significant differences between housing features and furnishings associated with eating when families of the assisted group almost always eat together, sometimes eat together, and almost never eat together. 1George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1950), p. 3—60. 2Families of a lower class, more fully eXplained on p.11 11 Definition of Terms Used For purposes of this study, the following definitions were used: Housing Features: Structural or relatively permanent parts of the food preparation area or of the area where the family eats most often. Housing Furnishings: Movable items associated with eating, serving, storage, preparation, cleaning and entertaining. Families who eat together: All family members living at home and eating together. Exception: those members physically or mentally unable to eat with the family were not considered as family members in this study. Family eatingpatterns according to the mother's best ability to recall: I - Families who almost never eat together: those who eat together less than one-third of the time, or seven or fewer meals per week. 11 - Families who sometimes eat together: those who eat together between one-third and two-thirds of the time, or eight through fourteen meals per week. III - Families who almost always eat together: those who eat together over two-thirds of the time, or fifteen or more meals per week. Eating area: Any part of the house or yard where food is normally eaten by the family. Assisted Grog): Terminology used in this study of the lower class to more specifically describe the sample. Families in the sample met the criteria of families serviced by the Family Helper Program. 12 Limitations of the Study Of the people who were assisted and had children of elemen- tary school age, only those were selected who were judged by the Family Helpers to be able to comprehend and answer the questions in English. It is recognized that this does not represent a random sam- ple of the low income families in Lansing who are assisted by the Family Helper Program. Because of this, the responses are not necessarily representative of the Family Helper population. Due to the size and subjective nature of the selection of the sample, only limited generalizations of the findings can be made. Factors other than housing features and furnishings could be related to differences in family eating patterns and not found in this study because of the amount of homogeneity in and size of the sample. Comparisons of different socio-economic levels may re- veal consistencies in patterns relating housing to eating patterns which tests of significance employed in this study did not indicate. CHAPTER II PROCEDURE OF THE INVESTIGATION Design of the Study A sample of families from a lower social class, hereafter referred to as the assisted group, was chosen to help identify the housing variables which might be associated with patterns of eating. This investigation was confined to families with no children above elementary school age. The family life cycle was limited to an early stage because: (1) drastic changes may take place in family eating patterns when children are above the elementary school level; and (2) theoretically, family eating patterns may be related to stage of the family in the life cycle. A more homogeneous sample could probably have been obtained by limiting the age range of the children to below school age, but there was no reason to believe the increased difficulty encounter- ed in gathering that type of sample would be warranted. Such a sam- ple, moreover, might have been unrepresentative of families in an early stage of the cycle. For expediency in obtaining a sample of thirty assisted group families, the elementary school limitation only was placed on the sample. No attempt was made to obtain families with fathers living at home or mothers not working, on the premise that it was best to 13 l4 accept the family composition found since these conditions are to be found among all social levels or stages in the family life cycle. Development of the Interview Schedule The interview schedule was an outgrowth of McCray'sl pilot study which was designed to learn if housing features and furnishings varied according to preferences of mothers for family-shared meal time. The emphasis was changed to the eating activity only, in the belief‘that increased refinement of the interview suggested by McCray's findings necessitated limitations for the two succeeding studies. Mc- Cray's study made no attempt to establish eating patterns. Respond- ents were asked only if they thought it was important for families to eat together and if they did or did not eat together. McCray made no observations and accepted the responses of the mothers concerning items of housing furnishings they perceived as aiding or impeding family-shared meal time. In this study. actualnumbers of meals eaten together by the family per week were recorded. Frequencies determined Patterns I, II, and III. The respondents were asked to assist the interviewer by indicating possession of, use of, or desire to possess seventy- one different items of housing furnishings. The purpose was to re- late the inventory-type responses to the patterns of eating together. McCray's findings were inconclusive because twenty-eight of her thirty cases fell into one category; because responses even within this category were relatively narrow; and because of the lack 1Mc Cray, op. cit. 15 of consistency in responses to the frequency of family-shared meal- time. The present study omitted judgment of mothers in reference to items which contribute or do not contribute to family-shared meal time. Instead an attempt was made to determine adequacy of fur- nishings according to items present and used, present and not used, not present but desired, and not present but not desired to relate to patterns of frequency of eating together. Personal information about the respondents and their fam- ilies was changed for this study from the end of the interview, as in 1 study, to the beginning, since the completion of the inter- McCray's view was contingent upon the response to the question concerning the ages of the children. The contents of the interview schedule were designed in three parts: Part A, demographic information and a daily eating schedule, (See Appendix, pp. .15-(88',),‘,, Part B, mothers' values and preferences, (See Appendix, pp. 90-100,), and Part C, a condition rating of the food preparation and eating areas and an adequacy inventory of furnishings, (See Appendix, pp. 102-112), Part A of the instrument consisted of demographic informa- tion about the family, including the age, education, occupation and marital status of the mother, and age, education and occupation of the father. Childrens' names, ages and sexes were also established. One question asked if any children above elementary school age lived at home, although this fact was confirmed, wherever possible, before lMcCray, op. cit. 16 contacting the family. In most cases, family income and status of home ownership were also established prior to the interview. The family eating patterns were determined by using as a base a total of twenty-one meals usually eaten per week by family members. Although school had already been closed for two weeks before the interviews were begun, respondents were asked to think of an ordinary week day during the school year. The school year was used because the mealtime schedule might be disrupted by sum- mertime activities. If all family members were reported to have eaten together on the ordinary weekday morning recalled, the infor- mation, together with where and at what time the meal was eaten, was recorded. The question was repeated for the middle of the day and the evening meals. For any responses indicating meals were not eaten together, the respondent was asked only if each family member had a regular time and a regular place for eating. No at- tempt was made to discover specific times and places for meals not eaten together, since only regularity of eating patterns was being determined. The same procedure was used to establish the family's eating pattern on an ordinary Sunday during the school year. Saturday was not used because Sunday might represent a more typical week- end day and the range in each category could accomodate considerable variation in one day. Division of the weekly total of twenty-one meals in thirds resulted in the following eating patterns: Pattern I - Families who ate zero - seven meals together per week or who almost never ate together. Pattern II - Families who ate eight - fourteen meals together per week or who sometimes ate together. 17 Pattern III - Families who ate fifteen or more meals together per week or who almost always ate together. In Pattern III, families could miss up to six meals together per week and still be categorized as families who almost always ate together. The break was made at this point arbitrarily because it included two- thirds of most commonly accepted mealtime periods. Each category therefore represented an average of less than one to one or more than one to two or more than two meals per day. Part B of the instrument, consisting of questions on pref- erences of mothers related to housing features and furnishings and family eating patterns, and responses were obtained but a future study will report the analysis of these data. Part C of the instrument contained questions related to hous- ing features and furnishings. The purpose of Part C was to learn if the condition of the areas where food was prepared and most often eaten and adequacy of housing furnishings were related to family eating patterns. Section 1 of Part C provided a means of rating the condition of the area where food was prepared, and Section 2 of Part C provided a means of rating the condition of the area where food was most often eaten and the furnishings in that area. The scale for condition ratings of the features and furnishings of the food prepara- tion area and the area where food was most often eaten was based on a "Housing Quality Measuring Scale"1 and a "Check your Kitchen" lAnnette J. Schaeffer and Carlton M. Edwards, "A Housing Quality Measuring Scale," Michigan State University, 1966, Appendix B: PP- 16-26. 18 bulletin. 1 The three—point scale, although coded as zero, one or two, represented non-functional, partially functional and functional features; but no attempt was made to convert these numbers into scores. Zero indicated a feature or furnishing in poor condition or non-functional. One indicated a feature or furnishing easily repairable or partially functional. Two indicated a feature or furnishing in good condition or functional. In Section 1 of Part C. the scale was employed to rate the condition of appliances, counter space, storage space, and walls, ceilings and floors as well as the garbage and trash removal, ar- rangement of the work center and traffic patterns in the food prepa- ration area. Section 2 of Part C first reconfirmed where the family meals were most often eaten and a three-point scale was again used to rate the general condition of the area and of the furnishings and storage in the area. Since seating arrangements at meals may relate to eat- ing patterns, section 2 included a diagram of several possible seat- ing arrangements from which the reSpondent was asked to choose that most closely resembling her own. An adequacy score considering the convenience of the seating arrangement for conversation and access was employed. Space at the table and seclusion of the eating area from outside influences were rated according to adequacy. To avoid the time consuming practice of asking the respond- ent to recall, without assistance, many items of housing furnishings, 1"Check Your Kitchen, " Michigan Agricultural Extension Service Bulletin, Michigan State University (February, 1966). 19 an inventory of these articles was developed. The device was prepared to secure a means of relating housing furnishings to family eating pat- terns. The inventory was designed with four possible responses for each of the seventy-one items; these responses categorized furnish- ings in terms of need and usage. The respondent could indicate that: She had and used the item. She had and did not use the item. . She did not have the item and wanted it. . She did not have the item and did not want it. GOD‘S” The categories were constructed according to items associa- ted with eating, serving, storage, preparation, cleaning and enter- tainment, and those items which could be described as accessory furnishings. Throughout the development of the instrument, every attempt was made to decrease the amount of subjectivity in the questions with- out allowing the instrument to become too long. To the research work- er's knowledge, no previously prepared instrument was available for reference. The design of the study was influenced by McCray'sl in- vestigation. Certain responses in McCray's2 study may have been gross, indicating the necessity to determine if the answers were truly representative or just the best possible responses under the choices given. Before the final instrument was accepted, three or four dif- ferent interview schedules were developed and rejected because they would be too long and laborious, too difficult to administer and analyze, or would result in data impossible to summarize, especially in the housing furnishing s inventory. 1McCray, op. cit. 2Ibid. 20 Pre testing the Inte rview Schedule Prior to collection of the data, the interview schedule was tested with twelve homemakers with school-age children living at home. Some of the pretest sample were sophisticated in research methodology. Since it was already apparent that subjects in the assisted group willing to cooperate were not abundant, four Family Helpers, the women working with the assisted group, also cooperated by becoming pretest subjects. The pretest was done to determine if the responses to the items gave the desired information regarding the variables and, admittedly, to determine whether the assisted group would be capable of giving valid responses. Following the pretest, many words in the schedule were changed in favor of simpler or more familiar terms to decrease the chance of misunderstandings among the assisted group. Questions were ordered in more logical sequence, and certain questions were altered in an attempt to further reduce subjectivity in responses. To afford the assisted group another alternative, a column "Don't have enough, want more" was added to the inventory of furnishings section of the instrument (Appendix, p. 109). Phrases and questions felt by the pretest sample to be redundant were eliminated. The rather rigidly held scope of the study aided in keeping the total time for each interview to under one hour. Introductory statements for each section of the schedule were prepared to help respondents orient themselves to the questions that followed. The assisted group homemakers were given the Option of allowing the interviewer to see the food preparation and eating areas of their homes or of describing these areas themselves. 21 Selection of the Sample Criteria of the sampLe The assisted group sample for this study was selected from families served by the Family Helper Program. The Family Helper Program under the jurisdiction of Section 4 of the Michigan State Aid Act of 1966, serves culturally disadvantaged children in the Lansing School District. Referrals of children who are having difficulties in school thought to be related to problems at home, are made through the principal's office of the school. Under Section 4 of the Michigan State Aid Act, children in need of specialized educational programs by virtue of certain en- vironmental factors and handicapping conditions may be: a. Members of families with incomes under $3, 000 per year. b. Members of families whose chief supporters are unem- ployed. c. Members of a minority group family. d. Members of families receiving public or private aid or welfare assistance. e. Members of families that are migrant, transient or eXperi- encing great mobility. f. Those having a physical handicap as certified by an appropriate diagnostician. g. Those having a mental handicap as certified by an appropriate diagnostician. 22 The Family Helper Program was chosen because families served by the Program met most, if not all, of Kahl's1 described criteria for the lower class as follows: People who have the lowest paid jobs, work irregularly (especially in bad times), live in slums, they usually have not gone beyond grammar school (and often have not finished it), their family life is unstable, their reputations poor and their values based on apathy or aggression for they have no hope. Experiences of other research workers with families in this group revealed a high rejection rate, numerous incomplete interviews and a high personal safety risk at times. Since Family Helpers are in a position to have strong rapport with the families serviced by the Program, their acceptance, it was believed, would assist in overcoming such difficulties as valueless interviews and many rejections. Mothers were interviewed because it was believed they are highly involved in the decisions regarding family meals. Subjects were those who met the criteria and who were least likely to feel threatened by the more personal questions. L ocatirigthe Sample Population With the prior approval of the administrative staff of the Family Helper Program, the Family Helpers themselves selected the families to be interviewed. Because of the design of the study, no at- tempt was made to gain a random sample. The families did not, in all cases, meet all lower social class criteria, as defined by Kahl. 2 1Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc. , 1957), p. 216. 2ibid. pp. 210-15. 23 Family Helpers were asked to choose mothers who could respond to the questions in the interview schedule. To encounter a mother who could not comprehend the content of the questions or whose responses were in another language would serve no purpose to the study and could damage her relationships with the Family Helper Program. Before the interview, respondents were asked by the Family Helpers if they would cooperate, and appointments for the interviews were made. To secure a sample of thirty, thirty-six mothers were contacted. Two women did not have sufficient command of the English language to understand or respond to the interview schedule, two had children above elementary school age living at home, and one refused to c00perate. One completed interview schedule was discarded be- cause the Family Helper and the research worker concluded that dur- ing the interview either their presence or the instrument influenced the respondent's replies. Collection of the Data The data were collected in June and July 1967 by two re- search workers. Individual interviews of less than one hour were administered in the respondents' homes. Prior to the interview, questions 1 through 4 (Appendix, p. 76) were answered from records kept on each family served by the Family Helper Program. Collection of demographic data from these records avoided subjecting the mothers of. the assisted families to any more than the minimum number of questions needed. The Family Helpers also assisted the research workers in determining the condition of the food preparation and eating areas and furnishings 24 in some cases. If the research workers were not invited or if the re- spondent appeared reluctant to give her permission to judge the con- dition of the housing areas by observation, the respondent or Family Helper was asked to assist. In all cases, questions 15 through 40 (Appendix, pp. 80-88) were answered by the respondents. With the research worker's as- sistance, the respondents also completed the inventory of housing furnishings. Data on mothers' preferences were collected from re- spondents at this time for a future study. Statistical Analysis of the Data Data for analysis consisted of responses to thirty interview schedules which were precoded for easy computation. The statistical analyses were completed by computer processing. Three statistical. tests were used to analyze the data. Chi square, analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way AnalySis of Variance by Ranks were chosen. The chi square test of significance was used on all the vari- ables in Part A of the interview schedule with the exception of the mean ages of the children, the total number of children and the number of peOple seated at the table. Because of the interval data characteristics of these variables, they were calculated by analysis of variance. Three variables dealing with mothers‘ preferences, items fifteen, thirty- eight and forty will be reported in a future study. Chi square was also used in Part C on the condition ratings of the area where food was prepared and eaten and of the furnishings in the eating area. 25 Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks was used to obtain relationships between the three patterns of eat- ing and the housing furnishings inventory. Yates' correction for small frequencies was not programmed on the computer, therefore a more stringent level of significance was applied. The level of significance was set at . 02. Although . 05 level of significance was reported, it is to be interpreted with caution. CHAPTER III FINDINGS AND DISCUSS ION Findings The sample for this study included thirty families served by the Family Helper Program of the Lansing School District. Families selected for this study by the Family Helpers were those who had no children above elementary school age living at home. The families were also selected according to the mother's ability to comprehend and respond to the questions in the interview schedule. The families were referred to the Family Helper Program through personnel of a school system. It was believed that each family had at least one child who could not take full advantage of his educational opportunities be- cause of some condition in his home living environment. One or more of the following conditions was characteristic of the families in this sample: low income, mental or physical de- ficiency of the parents, or lack of incentive or appropriate infor- mation. The majority were of minority group membership, were recipients of public or private aid or welfare assistance, and some were migrant workers. Minority group families included American Indians, Negroes, and Mexican immigrants. 26 27 Families met some, if not all, of Kahl's1 criteria for the lower social class, as previously described. In addition, they were all members of a state assistance program, they had no children above elementary school age living at home, and the respondents themselves had achieved at least a minimum ability to communicate verbally. Families were classified in three patterns of eating by the mothers' responses to questions concerning how many meals were eaten together by all family members on an ordinary weekday and an ordinary Sunday during the school year. Since the control variable was the three patterns of eating, it was necessary to establish with as much accuracy as possible the number of meals eaten together. Re- spondents were asked, therefore, to estimate the total number of meals eaten together by their families during the week and these responses were compared with their responses to the frequency of eating to- gether on an ordinary week day and an ordinary Sunday. If there were any differences between numbers of meals eaten together in response to the more specific questions and the total number estimat- ed, these differences were resolved before continuing the interview. Responses established the following patterns of eating for families in this study: Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Total Families who Families who Families who almost never ate sometimes ate almost always together-- together-- ate together-- Number of Families 5 18 7 30 llbid. pp. 210-15.; 28 Pattern I, or zero through seven meals eaten together per week, con- sisted of five families. Pattern II, or eight through fourteen meals eaten together per week, included eighteen families, and Pattern III, or fifteen or more meals eaten together per week, included seven families. Chi square or analysis of variance statistical tests were ap- plied to the demographic data to determine if the differences were significant. None of the demographic data, with the exception of the mother's education, was found to be significant. The data, with this one exception, are reported by frequency, mean or range in an at- tempt to further describe the sample. Three of the mothers in the sample worked for pay, while twenty-seven did not work. All working mothers were employed in an unskilled capacity. Two did not work shifts and were employed one-half to three-quarters time. One worked stable shifts from three- quarters to full time. Four of the mothers did volunteer or service work. Mothers' ages ranged from the twenties through the forties, with fourteen in their twenties, thirteen in their thirties, and three in their forties. A question on marital status established that seventeen mothers were married, four were separated, one was a widow, and seven were divorced. No husband or father was identi- fiable in one case. The relationship between the mother's education and the three eating patterns was significant at the . 05 level (see Table 1). 29 TABLE 1. Mother's Education by Three Eating Patterns Pattern I Pattern 11 Pattern III Level of Education (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=5 N=l8 N=7 Elementary School 2 7 6 High School 2 ll 1 Some College or College Degree 1 chi square = 9. 7555 level of significance = . 05 Because of the small number comprising the sample, this statistic needs cautious interpretation. However, the data showed an inverse relationship between education and eating pattern, as illustrated in Pattern III, where more mothers had a lower education level than in Pattern II. Of the seventeen mothers who were married, the husband of one was a factory skilled worker, twelve husbands were unskilled laborers, and three were unemployed. One husband was in prison at the time of the interview. Three husbands worked shifts, and nine who were employed did not work shifts. Two of the husbands on shifts had stable hours, and one had a job where the shifts rotated. Husbands' education ranged from elementary school level through some college. The education of twelve husbands ended with an elementary level, four had attended high school, and one had completed some college but did not hold a college degree. Age categories of husbands re- vealed three in their twenties, ten in their thirties, three in their forties, and one in his fifties. All children in the thirty families were elementary school age or younger. The total number of children was 166, ninety boys 30 and seventy-six girls. The mean number of children per family was 5. 53, and their mean age was 6. 01 years. A question to determine if any other pe0ple besides family members lived in the home was asked in the event that their presence might influence family eating patterns. No attempt was made to es- tablish the relationship of such people to the family. In six cases, eight persons in addition to the nuclear unit lived with the family. Eighteen families had incomes of $4, 999 or below, while ten families were categorized in the $5, 000 to $7, 499 income level. Only one family in the sample had an income exceeding $7, 499. This family had been referred to the Family Helper Program due to the deviant behavior of the children when in school. It was believed the mother's mental illness was the cause of the children's behavior. One respondent was/ unable to estimate her family's income. Eight families owned their own homes, and twenty-two rented houses. Three of these rented furnished, and nineteen rented unfurnished house 3 . Description of the eatigg patterns To establish the families' eating patterns, the respondents were requested to recall an ordinary weekday during the school year. They were then asked if the family had eaten together in the morning, in the middle of the day and in the evening, at what time, and where. The reasons given for these eating procedures were also recorded. 31 TABLE 2. Characteristics of Family-Shared Meals on an Ordinary Weekday During the School Year fi— Number, Time and Place Morning Middle of Day Evening N=30 Number of Families Eating Meals Together 7 12 26 Range of Time for All Responses 7: 30-8:30 11:30-4:00 3:45-6:30 Number of Times Rooms Were Mentioned Kitchen 4 8 14 Dining Room 3 2 l l Dining-Living Room -- 1 1 Living Room - - 1 -- Seven respondents indicated that family members ate together between 7:30 A. M. and 8:30 A.M. on an ordinary weekday morning, four in the kitchen and three in the dining room. Twenty-three fam- ilies did not eat together in the morning. Twelve families ate to- gether during the middle of the day on an ordinary weekday, between 11:30 A. M. and 4:00 P. M. ; eight in the kitchen, two in the dining room, one in the dining-living room and one in the living room. Eighteen families did not eat together in the middle of the day. Of the thirty families, twenty-six ate together in the evening on an ordinary week- day, between 3:45 P. M. and 6:30 P. M. , fourteen in the kitchen, eleven in the dining room and one in the dining-living room. Four' families did not eat together in the evening (see Table 2). No attempt was made by the interviewer to establish mutually exclusive categories for hours of eating in the morning, in the middle of the day, or in the evening. Times were recorded exactly as given by the respondents, which re- sulted in acquiring over-lapping hours. 32 The same pattern of questions was followed for an ordinary Sunday during the school year. TABLE 3. Characteristics of Family-Shared Meals on an Ordinary Sunday During the School Year Number, Time and Place Morning Middle of Day Evening l N=30 Number of Families Eating Meals Together 20 23 22 Range of Time for All Responses 8:00-11:00 11:30-4:00 2:30-8:00 Numbers of Times Rooms Were Mentioned Kitchen 9 10 . 9 Dining Room 10 12 ll Dining-Living Room 1 1 1 Yard - - - - 1 More families, (twenty in total), ate together on an ordinary Sunday morning during the school year than on an ordinary weekday morning. Of these twenty families, nine ate in the kitchen, ten in the dining room, and one in the dining-living room, between 8:00 A.M. and 11:00 A. M. Ten families did not eat together on an average Sunday morning. During the middle of the day, twenty-three families ate to- gether between 11:30 A. M. and 4:00 P. M. , ten in the kitchen, twelve in the dining room and one in the dining-living room. Seven families did not eat together in the middle of the day on an ordinary Sunday. Twenty-two families ate together on a typical Sunday evening, nine in the kitchen, eleven in the dining room, one in the dining-living room and one in the yard, between 2:30 P. M. and 8:00 P.M. Eight families reported that it was not common to eat together on Sunday evening (see Table 3). As previously stated, times for eating were recorded 33 exactly as given by the respondents. The one mother who isolated the yard as the eating place on Sunday evening was not, it appeared, think- ing back to a day during the school year. When respondents indicated that their families had not eaten together on an ordinary weekday, they were asked if individual family members had a usual time and place for eating in the morning, middle of the day, and the evening. No attempt was made to establish why they ate as they did. The purpose of these questions was to determine the degree of regularity of eating by individual family members. When the chi square test was applied, significance at the . 01 level was found for two of the three time periods and at the . 05 level for one of the three places. TABLE 4. Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Morning Eating Time of Individual Family Members Pattern I Pattern 11 Pattern III Responses (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=Z3 Each Person has a Usual Time to Eat 2 ll 1 Each Person Does Not Have A Usual Time to Eat -- -- 2 Some of Them Have a Usual Time to Eat 3 4 -- Total 5 15 3 chi square :15. 114 level of significance = . 01 TABLE 5. Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Middle of the Day Eating Time of Individual Family Members Pattern I Pattern II Pattern 111 Responses (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=18 Each Person Has a Usual Time to Eat l3 -- Each Person Does Not Have a Usual Time To Eat 2 -- Some of "Them Have a Usual Time to Eat -- «- Total 15 .. chi square =11. 314 level of significance = . 01 TABLE 6. Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Middle of the Day Eating Place of Individual Family Members Pattern 1 Pattern 11 Pattern 111 Responses (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=18 Each Person Has a Usual Place to Eat l4 -- Each Person Does Not Have a Usual Place to Eat l -- Some of Them Have a Usual Place to Eat -- -- Total 15 -- chi square =7. 680 level of significance = . 05 35 These data indicated that when families did not eat together, individuals in Pattern II more often had a regular time to eat in the morning and in the middle of the day than did individuals in Pattern I (see Tables 4 and 5). Pattern II individuals also had a regular place to eat more often than did individuals in Pattern I (see Table 6). Only in the case of weekday mornings could comparisons be made with Pattern III, because most of the time these families ate together (see Table 4). When asked if individual family members had a usual place to eat in the morning, seventeen respondents indicated that each person did have a usual place to eat; four indicated that individual family mem- bers did not have a usual place to eat, and two indicated that some of the family members had a usual place to eat. Two respondents indicated that individual family members had a usual time to eat on an ordinary weekday evening; one indicated that they did not, and one said that some family members had a usual time to eat. Exactly the same answers were given when respondents were asked if individual family members had a usual place to eat on an ordinary weekday evening. To determine whether there was any regularity of eating when individual family members did not eat together on an ordinary Sunday, respondents answered the same questions about usual time and usual place for eating. When the chi square test was applied, significance at the . 05 level was found for the place to eat on Sunday morning and at the . 02 level for the place to eat during the middle of the day on Sunday. 36 TABLE 7. Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Sunday Morning Eating Place of Individual Family Members Pattern I Pattern 11 Pattern III Responses (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=10 Each Person Has a Usual Place to Eat 1 6 -- Each Person Does Not Have a Usual Place to Eat 2 -- 1 Some of Them Have a Usual Place to Eat -- -- -- Total 3 6 1 chi square = 6. 825 level of significance =. 05 TABLE 8. Mothers' Responses to a Question Concerning a Regular Middle of the Day Eating Place on Sunday of Individual Family Members. Pattern I Pattern 11 Pattern 111 Responses (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=6 Each Person Has a Usual Place to Eat -- 2 -- Each Person Does Not Have a Usual Place to Eat 3 -- «- Some of Them Have a Usual Place to Eat -- -- 1 Total 3 2 1 chi square =12. 000 level of significance = . 02 37 These data indicated a regular place to eat in the morning and during the middle of the day more often for individuals in Pattern II than in Pattern I (see Tables 7 and 8). Due to the small total of individuals involved, comparisons between Patterns I, II, and III could hardly be made. Individual members of five families had a usual time to eat on Sunday morning. Members of four families did not have a usual tim e, while some of the members of one family did. Individual members of two families had a usual time to eat in the middle of the day on Sunday; members of three families did not, and some members of one family did have a usual time. Individual members of one family had a usual time to eat on Sunday evening; members of six families did not, and some of the members of one family had a usual time to eat on Sunday evening. Respondents reported that individual members of two families had a usual place to eat on Sunday evening and that individual members of six families did not. When asked for reasons their families ate as they did on an ordinary weekday, the reply most often mentioned by respondents was "schedule of daily activities"" (see Table 9). 38 TABLE 9. Reasons Assisted Families Ate As They Did on Weekdays Reasons Morning Middle of Day Evening N=31 N=30 N=39 Total Always Done-i-t-- Tradition l l 2 4 Schedule of Daily Activities 20 22 10 52 Convenience 5 4 3 12 Unforeseen Circumstances -- q- -- -- We Felt Like It 2 -- 2 4 Everyone Is Home -- l 9 10 Other 3 2 3 8 An identical question was asked for why families ate as they did on an ordinary Sunday (see Table 10). TABLE 10. Reasons Assisted Families Ate As They Did On Sundays Reasons Morning Middle of Day Evening N=26 N: 26 N=26 Total Always Done it-- Tradition 2 2 2 6 Schedule of Daily Activities 1 2 -- 3 Everyone Is Home 10 15 11 36 Convenience 3 1 3 7 We Felt Like It 5 5 8 18 Unforeseen Circumstances -- -- .. .. Other 5 1 2 8 39 The reason most often mentioned for families eating as they did on Sundays was that "everyone is home" which received thirty- six responses. Reasons families ate as they did during the middle of the day on weekdays was significant at the . 05 level (see Table 11). This finding should be interpreted with caution, due to the small total number of respondents. The reason most often mentioned was "schedule of daily activities. " TABLE 11. Reasons Assisted Families Ate As They Did on Weekdays During The Middle of the Day Pattern I Pattern II Pattern 111 Reasons (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=28 Tradition 1 -- -- Daily Schedule 2 15 6 Convenience -- 3 -- Everyone is Home 1 -- -- Total 4 18 6 chi square =14. 406 level of significance = . 05 When asked if all family members remained at the table until everyone had finished eating, fifteen respondents answered affirma- tively and fourteen replied negatively. One respondent whose family never ate together did not respond. Twenty mothers said that their families' eating patterns re- sembled those of their own families when they were children, and ten could see no similarity between present and past eating patterns. 40 A question asking if families spent other times together in addition to mealtimes revealed that twenty-three families did and seven families did not. There was no significant difference among families in Eating Patterns 1, II, and III in relation to time other than mealtime which family members shared. Since interruptions at mealtime could influence eating patterns, respondents were asked if interruptions made it difficult to keep the family together while they were eating. Thirteen mothers felt interruptions were troublesome; sixteen felt interruptions were not a problem and one replied that they were sometimes troublesome. Of the fourteen mothers who considered interruptions a problem, twelve had tried to stop them and two had not. When the sixteen mothers who stated interruptions were not troublesome were asked why they felt this way, seven said that they did not have such inter- ruptions, and nine replied that they had had such interruptions but had stOpped them. Housing features and furnishings assoc1ated with mealtime Part C of the interview schedule contained questions relating to housing features and furnishings. It was designed to learn if the condition of the areas where food was prepared and most often eaten and the adequacy of housing furnishings were associated with family eating patterns. The condition ratings of the food preparation area and the eating area most often used were tested to see if they varied significantly by the chi square method of analysis. In addition, the inventory of housing furnishings was tested for relationships to the 41 three patterns of eating by the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Three hundred ninety condition ratings were obtained from replies by thirty respondents to thirteen items in the food preparation area. Of this number, 175 were rated as functional, 108 were rated as potentially functional, and 107 were rated as non-functional. These function ratings, in relation to the three patterns of eating, are shown in Table 12 (p. 42). None of the families in the sample owned freezers or dishwashers, accounting for the thirty non-functional ratings for each of these appliances. Counter and storage space received high partially functional ratings. As indicated by Table 12, one feature, traffic patterns, was significant at the . 05 level. Traffic patterns, according to functional criteria, were rated low for families in Pattern I. More cases were rated higher for families in Pattern II and highest for families in Pattern III (see Table 13, p. 43). The area where food was most often eaten was determined by the responses of mothers to a question asking where the family most often ate. The chi square test of significance did not reveal a re- lationship between the three patterns of eating and the ratings of the most often used eating area (see Table 14, p. 43). 42 TABLE 12. Condition Ratings of Features in the Food Preparation Area Features Non-Functional Partially Functional Functional Totals Sink -- 2 28 3O Refrigerator 1 1 28 30 Range Top -- 2 28 30 Oven l 2 27 30 Freezer 30 -- -- 30 Dishwasher 30 -- -- 30 Counter Space 7 17 6 30 Base Storage Space 5 l9 6 30 Wall Storage Space 4 l9 7 30 Garbage- Trash 6 12 12 30 Arrangement of Work Center 7 9 14 30 Traffic Patterns* 10 13 7 30 Walls, Ceilings Floors 6 12 12 30 TOTALS 107 108 175 390 >5'-Significant at the . 05 level 43 TABLE 13. Traffic Patterns in the Food Preparation Area By Three Patterns of Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Rating (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=30 Non-Functional 2 8 -- Partially Functional 3 4 6 Functional -- 6 1 Total 5 18 7 chi square =10. 324 level of significance =. 05 TABLE 14. Area Where Food Was Most Often Eaten by Three Patterns of Eating Pattern I Pattern 11 Pattern III Eating Area (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=30 Dining Room -- 9 2 Kitchen 3 8 4 Dining-Living Room -- 1 . 1 Family Room -- -- -- Porch -- -- -- Patio, Yard -- -- -- Recreation Room -- -- -- Bedroom -- -- -- Living Room 1 -- -- No Specific Place Identified 1 - - .. - Total N=5 N=18 N=7 44 No families in Pattern I ate in the dining room. Half of the families in the sample identified the kitchen as the area where food was most often eaten. Eating was confined largely to the kitchen and the dining room. The condition ratings of the area where food was most often eaten paralleled the condition ratings of the food preparation area. For respondents who could identify the area where food was most often eaten, twenty-three items were rated, producing a possibility of 667 ratings. Of the twenty-three items, two were found to be significant. Convenience of the seating area for conversation and access, when related to the three patterns of eating, was significant at the . 01 level (see Table 15). Condition ratings of the seating area for convenience and access were consistently higher for fam- ilies in eating Patterns 11 and III than for families in Pattern I. TABLE 15. Ratings of Convenience of Seating Area According to Three Patterns of Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Ratings (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=26-“5' Non-Functional -- -- -- Partially Functional 2 -- 1 Functional -- 17 6 Total 2 l7 7 chi square :17. 602 level of significance = . 01 *One family in Pattern I never ate together. One family in Pattern I could not identify a specific place to eat. One family in Pattern I sat on the living room floor and watched television while eating. One family in Pattern II had a table and no chairs but the family ate together by sitting on the floor. 45 The amount of space at the table according to three patterns of eating was significant at the . 01 level, as reported in Table 16. Patterns II and III received higher ratings for space at the table than did Pattern 1. Neither Pattern 11 nor Pattern 111 received any non- functional ratings. TABLE 16. Ratings of Amount of Space At the Table According To Three Patterns of Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Ratings (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=27 ‘ Non-Functional l - - -- Partially Functional l 2 4 Functional 1 15 3 Total 3 l7 7 chi square =14. 118 level of significance = . 01 Of the possible total of 667 condition ratings of the area where food was eaten most often, a total of 652 was recorded. The functional category received 366 ratings, the partially functional, 220., and the non-functional, sixty-six (see Table 17). Types of seating arrangement for the area where food was most often eaten were categorized. These types were identified by sketches in the interview schedule (Appendix, p.107). They included a free-standing table, a table attached to the wall, a built-in nook, and a counter or bar attached horizontally or vertically to the wall. 46 TABLE 17. Condition Ratings of Features in the Area Where Food Was Most Often Eaten Non- Partially Features Functional Functional Functional Totals ’5‘ Condition of walls, ceiling 3 12 14 29 Maintenance of walls, ceilings 4 9 16 29 Condition of Floors 2 17 10 29 Maintenance of Floors 3 12 14 29 Air Circulation -- 29 -1- 29 Heating -- 12 17 29 Artificial Light -- 16 13 29 Condition of Windows 4 2 23 29 Natural Light -- 8 21 29 View from Windows 7 l6 6 29 Condition of Doors 3 4 21 28 Placement of Doors 4 9 13 26 Condition of Table 1 10 17 28 Maintenance of Table l 9 18 28 Condition of Chairs 1 10 17 28 Maintenance of Chairs 2 8 17 27 Condition of Storage 14 2 13 29 Size of Storage 14 10 5 29 Orientation of Eating Area -- 2 27 29 Traffic Patterns Related to Kitchen 1 2 26 29 Convenience of Seating Arrangement -- 3 2.3 26 Space at Table 1 7 19 27 Privacy of Eating Area 1 ll 16 28 *No specific eating area could be identified for one family. Other totals were less than 29 for various reasons, such as lack of a table or lack of chairs. 47 There was no significant difference in types of seating arrangement according to the three patterns of eating (see Table 18). Analysis of variance was used to test the significance of the total mean number of people seated at the table and the three patterns of eating. The mean number of peOple did not vary ac- cording to the eating patterns sufficiently to be statistically signif- icant, but the trend was in the direction of lower mean numbers indicating higher frequencies of eating together (see Table 19). A type of housing inventory was taken to establish the needs and usage of furnishings under the three patterns of eating. For each item in the inventory, respondents had a choice of five possible re- plies: I have the item and use it; I have the item but do not use it; I do not have enough and would like more; I do not have the item and would like it; I do not have the item and do not want it. The furnish- ings items were placed in seven major categories as follows: "Items Associated with Eating," those associated with "Serving, " "Storage, " "Preparation, " "Cleaning, " "Entertainment, " and "Accessory Fur— nishings. " The total number of checks in each category was tested by the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks in relation to the three patterns of eating. A significance level of . 02 was obtained in two cases: "Items Associated with Serving, " (trays, casseroles, napkins, and pitchers) were significant in the response, "I don't have the item and want it;" the response, "I don't have the item and don't want it, " was Significant in the category of "Items Associated With Storage, " (breadboxes, cake covers, and canisters). "Items Associated with Entertainment" were significant at the . 05 level in the response, "I have the item and use it. " 48 TABLE 18. Types of Seating Arrangements in the Eating Area by Three Patterns of Eating Type of Seating Pattern I Pattern 11 Pattern III Arrangement (Almost Never) (Sometimes) (Almost Always) N=28 Table Attached to Wall - - .. - 1 Counter or Bar Attached to Wall Vertically -- -- -- Counter or Bar Attached to Wall Horizontally -- -- -- Free-Standing Table 3 18 6 Built-in Nook -- -- -- Total 3 18 7 TABLE 19. Mean Number of PeOple Seated at the Table by Three Patterns of Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III (Almost Never) (Sometimes) . (Almost Always) N=2* N=17* N=7 Mean Number of People 7 6. 35 5. 28 Analysis of variance =0. 03 Level of significance =NS *One family in Pattern I never ate together. One family in Pattern I could not identify a specific place to eat. One family in Pattern I sat on the living room floor and watched television while eating. One family in Pattern II had a table and no chairs but the family ate together by sitting on the floor. 49 Radios, record players and television sets comprised this category. The . 05 level of significance indicated a trend (see Table 2.0). TABLE 20. Totaled Checks in Each Significant Category of Furnishings by Three Patterns of Eating fifir ‘v fi— . V ww— Category‘ of Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Level of Farsi-bins! .ielmoatNeve r). €180metiress). .(Almest Alvaresisnifisanse E'— W Items Associated With Serving Don't Have But Want 4 27 34 . 02 Items Associated With Storage Don't Have But Don't Want 8 7 1 . 02 Items Associated With Entertainment Have and Use 12 25 18 . 05 Discussion Responses of thirty mothers to questions concerning how many meals their families ate together on an ordinary weekday and on an ordinary Sunday during the school year established the eating patterns for the sample for this study. The eating patterns were defined as follows: Pattern I Families who almost never ate together or who ate zero through seven meals together per week. Pattern 11 Families who sometimes ate together or who ate eight through fourteen meals together per week. Pattern III Families who almost always ate together or who ate fifteen or more meals together per week. 50- There was an increase from five families in Pattern I to eighteen families in Pattern II, and a decrease to seven families in Pattern III. The largest category was Pattern II, which contained thirteen more cases than Pattern I and eleven more than Pattern III. Pattern III had two more case 3‘ than Pattern I. These data indicated families in the assisted group appeared to eat together. They also appeared to eat together more often in the range of eight through fourteen times per week, and furthermore, twenty-five families ate together in the range of eight through twenty- one times per week. An attempt was made to learn if more families ate together sometimes and always than ate together sometimes and never. No statement can be made however because there was a dif- ference of only two cases between Pattern I and Pattern III. These data can only be interpreted as indicating that more of the assisted families appear to eat together eight through fourteen times per week. Descriptive material relating to these families consisted of ages, occupations, incomes, education levels and marital status of the parents, and names, ages and sexes of the children. Three mothers worked for pay, and of those mothers, only one was employed full time. The fact that thirteen families were fatherless might help to account for the small number of mothers working, since many of those mothers received welfare assistance for the support of the family to enable them to stay at home with their children. Almost half th.e;mothe.rp.in thesample, fourteen, were in their twenties. 51. The relationship between the mother's education and the three patterns of eating was significant at the . 05 level, which must be given cautious interpretation due to the small number in the sample. The data showed an inverse relationship between mother's education and number of meals shared; mothers in Pattern II had a higher level of education--high school--than did mothers in Pattern 111, whose education reached elementary school level. It is possible that mother's education may be highly related to other factors, such as ethnicibackground, which made the differences in family eating patterns. The highest level of employment of spouses in this sample was attained by one who was a factory skilled worker. The majority were unskilled laborers. Educational level of the husbands was not as high as that of the mothers, since twelve had only an elementary school education. Husbands were older than their wives; only three were in their twenties and ten were in their thirties. All children in the thirty families we re of elementary school age or younger. The mean number of children per family, 5. 53, and their mean age, 6. 01 years, together with the fact that almost half of the mothers were in their twenties and without husbands, indi- cated that many young mothers were raising large families of young children without the aid of a father. Nineteen of the families lived in rented, unfurnished houses, eight of which were dilapidated. None of the homes in the sample could be said to be in attractive, well maintained city neighborhoods. All families were classified as living within the Lansing City School Dis- trict. 52. On an ordinary weekday morning, only seven families ate together, but over one-third of the sample, or twelve families ate together during the middle of the day. Twenty-six of the thirty fami- lies ate together in the evening. The kitchen was the most often used room for all eating and for all families. Overlapping of eating time for the middle of the day and the evening was noted. Times reported for the middle of the day meals ranged from 11:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. while evening meals were reported to range from 3:45 P. M. to 6:30 P. M. The reason most often mentioned by mothers that their fam- ilies ate as they did on weekdays during the middle of the day was "schedule of daily activities, " and was significant at the . 05 level. The trend indicated that families may have been bound to a fairly rigid midday eating pattern by the children's school hours. This reason was mentioned by fifteen of the eighteen mothers in Pattern II. "Con- venience" was the second most often mentioned reason. Housing features and furnishings were not mentioned as influencing mothers' decisions concerning weekday eating times; however, they may be indirectly related to schedule of daily activities and perhaps could help to eXplain the range of eating periods. A marked change in eating habits was obvious from weekdays to Sundays. Twenty families ate together on Sunday mornings over a wider range of time, 8:00 A. M. to 11:00 A. M. , than they did on weekdays, when the morning time range was 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A. M. More families also ate together during the middle of the day on Sun- day, but the time range for eating, 11:30 A. M. to 4:00 P.M. , was 53 exactly the same as on an ordinary weekday. Twenty-two families ate together on Sunday evenings, from 2:30 P. M. to 8:00 P. M. , indicating a time overlap between the midday and evening meals. However, some respondents reported that their families ate only twice on Sunday, once in the morning and again later in the day. This would help to explain the considerable overlap in eating hours. The dining room was mentioned most often as the room where Sunday meals were eaten. A decided change in reasons for families eating as they did on Sundays was recorded. The most often mentioned reason, "every- one is home, " was followed by "we felt like it. " The most often men- tioned reason for weekdays, "schedule of daily activities, " was the least mentioned reason for Sunday. The longer time range for eat- ing, the frequent use of the dining room, and reasons given for eat- ing as they did, suggested that the families in this sample moved at a more leisurely, relaxed pace on Sundays than on weekdays. When families did not eat together, respondents were asked if the individuals had a usual time and a usual place to eat. Sig- nificant differences were found at the . 01 level for eating times of family members on mornings and in the middle of the day on week- days. More individuals in Pattern II had regular times to eat than did individuals in Pattern I. The eating place of individuals at mid- day during the week was significant at the . 05 level, which indicated a trend. Fourteen of the eighteen respondents in Pattern 11 answered that individual family members had a regular place to eat. The 54; regularity of time and place to eat increased as the number of meals ‘ eaten together per week increased. Comparisons of usual times and places to eat could not be made between Patterns I and II and Pattern 111; this was to be ex- pected, since Pattern 111 families ate together most of the time. Respondents' replies for other meals indicated that most individual family members had regular times and places to eat when they did not eat with the family. Such findings seemed to indicate that these families did have established meals on weekdays. Few individual family members did not eat with their fam- ilies on Sundays. However, the data indicated significant differen- ces, at the . 05 level, between a regular place to eat on Sunday morn- ing and the three patterns of eating. The data also revealed signifi- cant differences, at the . 02 level, between a regular place to eat during the middle of the day on Sunday and the three patterns of eating. Since the regularity of Sunday morning eating place was significant only at the . 05 level, and since so few cases, only ten, were involved, the differences indicated only a trend. Six of these ten cases were in Pattern II. The differences for the midday eating place on Sunday were significant at the . 02 level for the six cases involved. The three cases in Pattern I did not have a usual place to eat; the two cases in Pattern 11 did have a usual place to eat, and some of the individuals in the one case in Pattern 111 had a usual place to eat. Data again indicated that as the regularity of eating time and place increased, number of meals eaten together increased. The meal time and 55 place were less well established for Sunday; therefore, there was some evidence that individual family members may not have eaten with as much regularity on Sundays as on weekdays. Apparently, extra persons besides nuclear family members living in the home did not influence eating patterns, for six families had a total of eight persons living with them and no significant dif- ferences were noted among the three patterns of eating. Mothers felt that present family eating patterns resembled those of their own childhood in twenty of the thirty families, but a significant relationship to eating patterns was not established. In- terruptions did not bear a significant relationship upon eating pat- terns for families in this study. Mothers who felt interruptions were a problem had in most cases tried to stop them, but there was no indication that interruptions prevented families from eating to- gether. Families in this sample were homogeneous in several as- pects. Incomes and education levels were low; mothers were young, families were large, and mean age of the children indicated that they were first grade level. Thirteen homes were fatherless. Hus- bands' lack of education and training classified them as unskilled laborers. Twenty-two homes were rented, many in a run-down con- dition, and in poor neighborhoods. Over two-thirds, or twenty- three, of the families were categorized in eating Patterns I and II, or those families who ate together not more than fourteen times per week but more than seven times per week. 56 When the lowest number in the range in Pattern II was taken in combination with Pattern III, twenty-five families ate to- gether at least thirteen times per week. When the highest number in the range of Pattern II was combined with Pattern I, twenty-three families ate individually or as incomplete family units at least thir- teen times per week. To investigate the possibility that the condition of the food preparation area could influence family eating patterns, ratings of that area were made. A total of 390 ratings was obtained from thirty respondents on thirteen items in the food preparation area. Of this total, 175 received functional ratings, 108 received partially func- tional ratings, and 107 received non-functional ratings. Tests of significance were made to determine if there were differences in housing features according to the three patterns of eating. One housing feature, traffic patterns, was significant at the . 05 level. Traffic patterns, according to the rating criteria, were low for Pattern I and revealed a trend which indicated that as function of traffic patterns increased, frequency of eating together increased. There were no non-functional traffic pattern ratings in eating Pat- tern III. The rating of traffic patterns was the only feature in the food preparation area found to be related to the three patterns of eating. Half of the families in the sample ate most often in the kit- chen. None of the families in Eating Pattern I ate in the dining room, while half of the families in Eating Pattern II ate most often in the dining room. In all three patterns, eating was largely confined to the kitchen and dining areas. 575 Condition of the features in the eating area was also rated as functional, partially functional, and non-functional. The func- tional category received only slightly more than half of the ratings. This fact might have influenced frequencies of families' eating to- gether, though not enough to be significant. Two variables in the condition ratings of the eating area were significant at the . 01 level. Convenience of the seating area for conversation and access was related to the three patterns of eating. All of the families who were rated in Eating Pattern II had functional seating areas. All but one of the families in Pattern III also had functional seating areas. None of the families who were rated in Pattern I had functional seating areas. According to this sample, convenience of the seating area seemed to bear a relation- ship to frequency of eating together. The amount of space at the table was also a variable sig- nificant at the . 01 level. The data indicated a relation between the three patterns of eating and the amount of space families had at the table.‘ Again, it appeared to be the families in Eating Pattern I who influenced this relationship. No families in Eating Patterns 11 and III received non-functional ratings for this variable. How- ever, of the three families who were rated in Pattern I, one re- ceived a non-functional rating, one a partially functional rating, and one a functional rating. Amount of Space at the table appeared to be related to the three patterns of eating. No other variables in the condition of the eating area showed a significant relationship to the three patterns of eating. Of 58‘ interest, however, size and condition of storage received high non-functional ratings. Eating areas of all twenty-nine of the families rated had natural air movement or cross ventilation but did not possess air conditioners, accounting for the high partially functional rating, Twenty-seven of the families in the sample possessed free- standing :tables. One family's table was attached to the wall. Since amount of space at the table and convenience of the seating arrange- ment were significant variables, the data suggested that types of seating arrangements for these families with several children should be investigated further. The fact that the mean number of people seated in Pattern I was seven, and higher than the mean numbers for Patterns II and III, was also of interest. When mothers' replies to the inventory of housing furnish- ings were tested in the three patterns of eating, three of the vari- ables were found to be significantly different. The reply, "I don't have the item but want it, " was significant at the . 02 level for items associated with serving. Included in this category were salt and pep- per shakers, butter dishes, cream pitchers, sugar bowls, and table linens, including paper napkins. The largest number of the above responses was given by the respondents in Pattern III. In the category of items associated with storage, the reply, "I don't have the item but I don't want it, " was also significant at the . 02 level. Only three items, breadboxes, cake covers, and canis- ters, were included. Replies in the "I don't have the item but want it" category for items associated with serving may have been for 59 more essential eating area furnishings. The patterns of eating were associated with this variable and the greater frequency of reply was found in Pattern I. The other significant variable in the housing furnishings inventory indicated a trend, since its significance level was . 05. To items in the area of entertainment, including only record play- ers, radios, and television sets, mothers replied, "I have it and use it. " The greatest frequency of reply to this variable occurred in Pattern III. Of the variables rating the condition of the food preparation and eating areas, the three which were significant appeared to be associated more with Eating Pattern 1 than with the other two pat- terns. Traffic patterns in the food preparation area were non- functional or partially functional for all five families in Pattern I. Less than half the families in Pattern II and no families in Pattern III had non-functional traffic patterns. Significance at the . 05 level indicated a trend toward a relationship between functional traffic patterns and eating patterns. The other two variables, significant at the . 02 level, were concerned with the area where the family most often ate. In Patterns II and 111, no seating arrangements were rated as non-functional, and only one was rated as partially functional. Both seating ar- rangements in Pattern I were rated as partially functional. Space at the table was rated non-functional or partially functional by two of the three respondents in Pattern I, where the mean number of pe0ple seated at the table was seven. No non-functional ratings were given 60 to space at the table in Patterns II and III, but two partially func- tional ratings were recorded in Pattern II and four in Pattern III. These ratings seemed to point to a definite relationship between both convenience of seating arrangement and space at the table, and eating patterns. Eating in all three patterns was confined mainly to the dining room and the kitchen; half of the families in the sample ate most often in the kitchen. Size and condition of storage, although receiving high non-functional ratings, we re not significant variables. Items in the furnishings inventory, significant at the . 05 and . 02 levels, seemed to bear a relationship to the assisted group's social class. Mothers replied, "I don't have but want, " to items associated with serving, "I don't have but don't want, " to items associated with storage, and "I have and use" to items associated with entertainment. CHAPTER IV SUMMAR Y AND CONCLUSIONS Origin and Imflrtance of the Stigy Meeting the housing needs of people in contemporary society has become infinitely complex. With no assurance of a direct rela- tion between housing and man's needs, too many decisions have been made by members of institutions with self-perpetuating decision making modes and goals. It is now generally accepted that the interior forms and spaces of our structures have more than a physical effect on the development and behavior of people. Although much literature in the field of housing is non-research oriented, there have been some studies attempting to measure the effects of housing upon physical health, but little effort has been made to relate social and psychologi- cal behavior to housing. It is admitted that architectural environment and human behavior relationships are difficult to isolate. Numerous variables and numerous interactions among these variables exist. There is no known satisfactory theory to explain this relationship, and its ab- sence leaves only an inductive approach. This study was an attempt to investigate a belief that housing features and furnishings are as- sociated with the manner of eating. Major importance was assigned 61 62 to developing a practical method of identifying housing features and furnishings and eating patterns according to frequency of eating to- gether. Sjecific Statement of the Problem The objectives of this study were to learn: A. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families almost always ate to- gether. B. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families sometimes ate together. C. The housing features and furnishings associated with eating when assisted families almost never ate together. Summary of the Procedures An interview schedule was designed in three parts to ob- tain demographic information about the families, to determine family eating patterns by previously established definitions, and to identify housing features and furnishings which might be related to patterns of eating. Housing features were given condition ratings for the food preparation and eating areas. Housing furnishings were categorized by respondents in terms of usage and felt need. The samplewas comprised of thirty mothers of an assisted group living in Lansing, Michigan, who had no children above ele- mentary school age living at home. They we re also selected on the basis of a minimum ability to comprehend the questions in the inter- view schedule and to verbalize their answers. The families in the 63 sample met the criteria of the Family Helper Program of the Lansing School District. The majority were also recipients of additional fi- nancial assistance. Data were precoded and analyzed by relating the spread variables to the control variable, patterns of eating. The chi square test of significance and the analysis of variance were used to deter- mine significant differences between variables in the demographic data, certain factors related to eating patterns and the condition ratings of the food preparation and eating areas. The inventory of housing furnishings was analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks test. Conclusions The hypothesis of, this investigation stated: There are significant differences between housing features and furnishings associated with eating when families of the assisted group almost always eat together, sometimes eat together, and al- most never eat together. The hypothesis was tested by establishing family eating patterns. Condition ratings of the areas where food was most often prepared and eaten and the felt needs and usages of housing fur- nishings were recorded. Statistical tests were applied to determine if there were differences in housing features and furnishings ac- cording to the three patterns of eating. 64 FamilLe atirig s tyle s Three of the variables which were descriptive of the manner of eating were significant. When the mother said the family did not eat together, she was asked if the person or persons who did not eat with the family had a regular time and a regular place for eating. The data indicated that a regular time and place for eating increased as the frequency of eating together increased. Since regular times to eat were significant at the . 01 level, it would seem that family mem- bers accustomed to eating together had established times to eat in- dividually and that they did eat. Regular places to eat were signifi- cant at the . 05 level, indicating a trend toward individuals' having a regular place to eat. The same trend observed for regularity of weekday times and places for eating was also indicated as present when family mem- bers did not eat together on Sundays. Significance at the . 05 level for eating place in the middle of the day on Sunday indicated differ— ences between place and eating patterns. Data again suggested that as frequency of eating together increased, regularity of eating place increased for individual family members. The reason for routine of middle of the day meals, "schedule of daily activities," showed significance at the . 05 level. Although again indicating only a trend, the frequency of responsecof fthisrrea- son increased with frequency of eating together. Individual family members seemed to have established times and places to eat as the frequency of eating together as a family in- creased. Data suggested that schedule of daily activities was of 65 importance to family eating habits. Housing features and furnishings enabling families to eat together may have influenced both regularity of eating time and place, and the reasons for families eating as they did. Housianeatures Housing features were assessed by a rating scale according to function. The function rating of traffic patterns in the food prep- aration area was different in the three patterns of eating, at the . 05 level of significance. The function of traffic patterns increased as the frequency of eating together increased. Although the . 05 level of significance was low, the finding gave some evidence that traffic patterns might be a variable related to the frequency of eating to- gether since none of the families in Pattern I was given functional ratings for traffic patterns. Two housing features of the eating area and family eating patterns appeared to vary. The rating of the seating arrangement in the three eating patterns was significant at the . 01 level. This difference seem ed to be associated with frequency of eating together. The two families rated in Pattern I obtained seating arrangement ratings of partially functional. Space at the table was significantly different in the three eating patterns at the . 01 level. The function of space at the table increased as frequency of eating together in- creased, Patterns 11 and III revealing no non-functional ratings. Differences in the seating arrangement and the space at the table variables and eating Pattern I may have been closely related since the mean number of people seated at the table in Pattern I was seven. 66 These findings seemed to reveal that where conditions imply- ing inconvenience were greater according to rating of these housing features, fewer families ate together. Housing furnishipgs Three of the variables which measured housing furnishings in terms of felt need and usage were significant, in the three pat- terns of eating. Mothers' replies of "don't have but want" were sig- nificant at the . 02 level for those items associated with serving. In- cluded in the category were salt and pepper shakers, sugar bowls, cream pitchers and table linens, and articles such as paper napkins. The frequency of the response increased with the frequency of eat- ing together. This finding suggested that peOple who don't have serv- ing items don't want them, if they don't eat together. Since replies of "I don't have the item but I don't want it" were significant at the . 02 level for items of storage, it might be concluded that these items were of little interest to mothers in Pat- tern I who replied most frequently. But since the items included were breadboxes, cake covers, and canisters, it was concluded that these items may have seemed non-essential to these mothers. Mothers in Pattern III replied most frequently to "I have it and use it" for items of entertainment. The level of significance was . 05, which was low for this study. Items included in the category were radios, televisions and record players. Respondents in Pattern I followed Pattern III in the frequency of the above reply. It was con- cluded that the people who ate together more often had more items of entertainment. 67 Three housing features variables, tested by application of the chi square test, were found to be significantly different in the three patterns of eating for this study of assisted families. Function of traffic patterns in the food preparation area was significant at the . 05 level. In function ratings of the eating area, convenience of the seat- ing arrangement for conversation and access and amount of Space at the table were significant at the . 01 level. Of the housing furnishings variables, tested by the Kruskal- Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks, three were signifi- cant in the categories of items associated with serving, with storage and with entertainment. Significant differences at the . 02 level were found for: "I don't have but want, " for "Items Associated with Serv- ing;" "1 don't have but don't want, " for "Items Associated with Stor- age;" and at the . 05 level for "I have and use, " for "Items Associa- ted with Entertainment. " Because significant differences were found between six hous- ing features and furnishings variables and family eating patterns, the stated hypothesis for this study, "There are Significant differences between housing features and furnishings associated with eating when families of the assisted group almost always eat together, sometimes eat together and almost never eat together, " was accepted. Major Conclusions of the Study There was some evidence from the data analyzed for this study that housing features and frequencies of families' eating to- gether are associated. The function of traffic patterns in the food preparation area increased as the frequency of families' eating to- gether increased. 68 Although functions of other features in the food preparation area did not seem to be related to family eating patterns in the as- sisted group, the high non-functional and partially functional ratings may be relevant when compared with family eating patterns among other socio-economic levels or other stages in the family life cycle. Two eating area features also seemed to bear a relation- ship to the frequency of fam ilies' eating together. Convenience of the seating arrangement and amount of space at the table appeared to be limiting factors for the families in eating Pattern I, where the mean number of people seated at the table was seven. Data showed a relationship between rating of functional conditions and frequency of eating together. Needs and usages of housing furnishings and the patterns of eating were related in three categories. People who ate together less frequently apparently had less felt need for the items classified in the category of storage. Need was not highly defined for families who ate together, since one would eXpect the response "don't have but want" to be significant in the category of storage. Nevertheless, storage items appeared to be associated with eating. patterns and those fam- ilies who did not eat together showed less desire to obtain the ob- jects than those who did eat together. People in Pattern I did not eat together and did not give any strong indication that they did not have but wanted furnishings in any of the categories. Education of mothers was a non-housing factor which seemed to be related to association with frequency of eating. Further study is 69 needed to learn if the variable is associated only with the assisted group or if it is related to housing features and furnishings. Recommendations for Further Study This study was designed to investigate a means of identify- ing housing features and furnishings which vary with family eating patterns. An attempt was made to relate the influence of demo- graphic factors to family eating patterns and to housing features and furnishings. Education of mothers was the only factor which was found to be discriminating. The relation between mother's education and housing features and furnishings needs further study. A future study to investigate the relation of housing features and furnishings and fathers living in the home is needed since, in this study, almost half of the homes were fatherless. Such a study could relate the influence of the father's presence to family eating patterns and to housing features and furnishings. The variables which appeared to be associated with eating patterns only defined the housing features and furnishings most likely to affect the frequency of families' eating together. Research is needed to confirm or reject these findings and to learn more specif- ically if and how they relate to the patterns of eating. The relation of housing features and furnishings to pref- erences and values of eating together needs to be investigated to gain insight into why some families eat together and others do not, when their housing features and furnishings differ. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Agan, Tessie and Luchsinger, Elaine. The House: Principles, Resources, Dynamics. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co.,, 1965. Bell, Norman W. , and Vogel, Ezra F. A Modern Introduction to the Family. Glencoe: The Free Press, T960. Beyer, Glenn H. Housin and Society. New York: The Mac- Millan Company, 1965. Bossard, James H. S., Boll, Eleanor, and Sanger, Winogene. "Some Neglected Areas in Family-Life Study, " Readings in Marria e and the Family. Edited by Judson . Landis andMary . Lande. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. Chapin, Stuart. "The Psychology of Housing, " Social Forces, XXX, No. 1(1951), 11-15. "Check Your Kitchen. " Michigan Agricultural Extension Service Bulletin. Michigan State University, (February, 1966). Clarson, Elizabeth A. "Low-Income Family Problems As Per- ceived by Adolescents. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Florida State University, 1965. Cohen, Barbara and Kapneck, Joanne. "When the Family Meets for Meals, " Journal of Home Economics, XL, No. 10 (1948), 577-78. Duvall, Evelyn M. Family DevelOpment. New York: J. B. Lip- pincott Co., 1962. Homans, George C. The Human Grmmm New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. , 1950. Kahl, Joseph A. The American Class Structure. New York: Rinehart and C6mpany, Inc., 19 7. McCray, Jacquelyn W. "Housing Features and Furnishings Per- ceived by Mothers to Aid or Impede Family-Shared Meal- time. " Master's thesis in progress, Department of Tex- tiles, Clothing and Related Arts, Michigan State University, 1967. 71 72 McQueen, Phil K. "Relationships Among Selected Housing, Marital, and Familial Characteristics. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1964. Montgomery, James E. "Current Developments and a Look Ahead in Housing and Household Equipment, " Journal of Home Econ- omics, LI, No. 7 (1959), 581-86. Nygren, L. Gertrude. Research in progress concerning housing features and furnishings in relation to family activities. Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Project No. 71- 6854, Michigan State University, 1967. Perry, Mignon. "Relationships of Space in Housing to Attitudes Toward Family Life. " ,Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1958.. Ruth, Jenny M. "The Relation of Selected Housing Features and Furnishings to Eating Patterns of Professional-Managerial Families. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Schaeffer, Annette J. , and Edwards, Carlton M. "A Housing Quality Measuring Scale. " Michigan State University, 1966, Appendix B, 16-26. Wilner, Daniel, Walkley, Rosabelle P., Pinkerton, Thomas C.. and Tayback, Matthew. The Housing_Environment and Family Life. Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsT’ress, I962. APPENDIX PART A OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Code Number: Date: There is reason to believe that housing affects the way people live and develop, but to date there has been only limited research in this area. All previous studies are over ten years old, and we think the needs and behavior of families may have changed since these studies were com— pleted. Because there are so many areas of housing yet to be explored it is difficult to know where to begin a study. I have chosen to investigate the way families eat, why they eat this way, and whether housing relates to this activity. We cannot begin to know, however, what people want in housing unless we ask them. You can be a great help to those of us engaged in the planning, building, and teach— ing of housing by giving us this information. There are three parts to this interview. First, I will need some general information about you and your family; secondly, I would like to know what you would want to do in certain situations; and finally, I will need to know what items are used for eating in your home. 75 76 02 H mm» o AmmmmBZDAO> Q<9Hmmom m0 mmomu Gum m< IUDmV «xmo3 AmMMBZDAO>V HUH>mmm Nz< 0Q DOM OD mHnmUHHaam uoz m mcHumuom H mHnmum o ~02H9oHQEmCD m anHmec: a umHHmeuusnouumm m H HmUHumHo N . HMflummmcmz H mHQMUHHQQm #02 m HMCOHmmmmoum o HMUHccumullamcoammmMoum m om um>o a mmummn vmucm>u< v «on so» on eHn m m.ov ms» cH m mmmHHou m umcuoz nmzosz N m.om may cH m mmmHHou meow m oz H mm» o amumummmm H m.om may cH H Hoozum anm H anuumz o om umoco o sumacmsmHm o ~wo v wmummo omucm>o< v omHHmeIIMHOHUMM m m.oq may cH m mmmHHou m HmUHumHu m m.om mcu CH N mmmHHou msom N HMHummmcmz H m.om ms» CH H Hoocom amHm H HchHmmmmonm 0 ON noon: 0 humucmEmHm o A.mmw NH u QHMOHQEM mmmm3 m0< .b mnHA mnmomm mmmflo Nz< mummfi mm< .NH 2meHHIU ho mmmzbz Amm92H me<2Hzmma .mu» mH LOKOl‘QON d‘ 02 H mm» o mmzom B4 02H>HH m0< AOOEUm Nm0m< 2meHHIU Nz< m>I>>'>:>>’ 88 THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS ARE MORE GENERAL BUT STILL HAVE TO DO WITH THE WAY YOUR FAMILY EATS. LET'S TALK ABOUT INTER- RUPTIONS FIRST. 39. DO INTERRUPTIONS SUCH AS ANSWERING THE DOOR AND TELEPHONE AND CHILDREN COMING TO PLAY MAKE IT HARD TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER WHEN THEY ARE EATING? 0 Yes 2 Sometimes HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO STOP INTERRUPTIONS LIKE THESE? Yes No Undecided Not applicable KONl-‘O 1 No WHY? We don't have such interruptions We have them but they don't bother us We had such interruptions but have stopped them Not applicable \ONl-‘O 40. IF YOU COULD EAT ANYWHERE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE, WHERE WOULD YOU MOST ENJOY EATING? 0 Living room 1 Dining room 2 Kitchen 3 Dining-living room 4 Family room 5 Porch 6 Patio, yard 7 Recreation room 8 Bedroom 9 Not applicable 0.0.0....0000000 0 School 1 Work 2 Eating out 3 Park 9 Not applicable PART B OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 90 I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD DO ABOUT EATING PRACTICES. THIS NEXT GROUP OF QUESTIONS DEALS WITH DIFFERENT MAKE-BELIEVE SITUATIONS WHICH I WILL DESCRIBE; EACH QUESTION WILL HAVE A YES—NO ANSWER. LET ME GIVE YOU A SAMPLE QUESTION: THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHERE EVERYONE WANTS TO EAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME. SHOULD THE MOTHER INSIST THAT THEY EAT TOGETHER? Yes No No Strong Feeling. Comments 41a. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO IS VERY BUSY EVERY DAY AND IS TIRED BY THE EVENING MEAL. SHOULD SHE STILL EAT THE EVENING MEAL WITH HER FAMILY? 2 Yes 0 No 1 No Strong Feeling Comments 42a. THINK ABOUT SOMEONE WHOSE HUSBAND IS OF- FERED A NEW JOB WITH BETTER PAY, BUT HE WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO WORK DURING THE EVEN— ING MEAL. SHOULD HE TAKE THE JOB? 0 Yes 2 No 1 No Strong Feeling Comments 43a. THINK ABOUT AN EATING AREA THAT HAS POOR VENTILATION, LITTLE LIGHT, AND NEEDS A COAT OF PAINT. THE FAMILY DOES NOT ENJOY EATING. IN THIS ROOM BUT THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE. SHOULD THE MOTHER INSIST THAT THE FAMILY EAT IN THIS ROOM? 2 Yes 0 No 1 No Strong Feeling Comments 44a. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO IS OFFERED A JOB THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE. IT MEANS THAT SHE WON'T BE HOME TO EAT THE EVENING MEAL WITH HER FAMILY. SHOULD SHE TAKE THE JOB? 0 Yes 2 No 1 No Strong Feeling Comments l—‘NO HON I—‘ON HON 91 45a. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHERE THE CHILDREN WANT TO WATCH TV WHEN IT'S TIME TO EAT. SHOULD THE MOTHER LET THEM? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 46a. HERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT BREAKFAST: THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO IS UP LATE 3 OR 4 NIGHTS A WEEK. SHE IS TIRED WHEN THE FAMILY GETS UP IN THE MORNINGS TO EAT. SHOULD SHE SLEEP LATE? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 47a. THINK ABOUT A HOME THAT HAS A NICE CONVEN- IENT EATING AREA (BREAKFAST NOOK) BUT IT IS SO SMALL THAT THE FAMILY IS CRAMPED AND UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THEY ALL EAT AT THE SAME TIME. SHOULD THE MOTHER STILL HAVE HER FAMILY EAT TOGETHER? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 48a. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHO GETS THREE OR FOUR TELEPHONE CALLS, WHILE EATING THEIR EVEN- ING MEAL. SHOULD THE FAMILY TRY TO STOP THEM? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 49a. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY IN WHICH EACH FAMILY MEMBER IS IN SEVERAL ACTIVITIES AT DIFFER- ENT TIMES, LIKE SCHOOL, CHURCH, OR SPORTS. IF THE EVENING MEAL IS FIXED AT A REGULAR TIME IT MEANS SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO MISS HIS ACTIVITY. THE CHILDREN WANT TO EAT AND RUN. SHOULD THE MOTHER HAVE THEM EAT AT A REGULAR TIME ANYWAY? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments l—‘NO HON HON HMO 92 50a. THINK ABOUT A TEENAGER WHO WANTS TO PLAY FOOTBALL AFTER SCHOOL. IF HE DOES, HE WON'T BE HOME IN TIME TO EAT THE EVENING MEAL WITH THE FAMILY FOR TWO OR THREE MONTHS. SHOULD HIS MOTHER LET HIM? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments Sla. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHOSE EVENING MEAL IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM. THEY JUST DON'T GET ALONG TOGETHER, AND EVERYONE IS FUSSY BY THE END OF THE MEAL. SHOULD EVERYONE EAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME TO SEE IF THINGS WILL CALM DOWN? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 52a. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WITHOUT A LARGE ENOUGH TABLE OR ENOUGH CHAIRS TO EAT TOGETHER. THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY MORE. SHOULD THEY STILL TRY TO EAT TOGETHER? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 53a. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO WANTS HER FAMILY TO TALK THINGS OVER TOGETHER. SHOULD SHE HAVE HER FAMILY EAT TOGETHER BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES FAMILY DISCUSSIONS? Yes - No No Strong Feeling Comments 54a. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO KNOWS WHERE HER CHILD IS, BUT HE JUST DOESN'T COME HOME WHEN CALLED TO EAT. SHOULD THE REST OF THE FAMILY EAT WITHOUT HIM? Yes No No Strong Feeling HNO HON l—‘ON 93 55a. THINK ABOUT CHILDREN IN A FAMILY WHO GET HUNGRY BEFORE THEIR FATHER COMES HOME FROM WORK. SHOULD THE MOTHER MAKE THE CHILDREN WAIT FOR THEIR FATHER TO COME HOME BEFORE EATING? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 56a. THINK ABOUT A HOUSE WITH AN EATING AREA THROUGH ANOTHER ROOM OR ACROSS THE HALL FROM THE KITCHEN. THE ONLY PLACE TO EAT IN THE KITCHEN IS STANDING AROUND THE COUNTER. SHOULD THE FAMILY EAT ALL THE MEALS STANDING AT THE COUNTER? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 57a. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHO DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH PLATES, SPOONS,OR FORKS. EATING AT THE SAME TIME IS DIFFICULT. SHOULD THEY TRY TO EAT TOGETHER? Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 58a. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHOSE CHILDREN ARE HUNGRY. THEY WANT A SNACK BEFORE THE EVENING MEAL. IF SHE LETS THEM SNACK ON THE FOOD PREPARED IT WILL NOT LEAVE ENOUGH FOOD FOR THE MEAL. SHOULD THE MOTHER MAKE THE CHILDREN WAIT TO EAT THE MEAL? ' Yes No No Strong Feeling Comments 94 THE NEXT GROUP OF SITUATIONS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED, BUT THIS TIME I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO IN A PARTICULAR SITUA- TION. I WILL GIVE YOU THREE CHOICES AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHOOSE ONE OF THEM. THESE SITUATIONS ARE MAKE BELIEVE. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE: THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHERE EVERYONE WANTS TO EAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to insist that the family always eat together; Would you want to let everyone eat when he wants to; or Would you want to eat together part of the time? 41b. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO IS VERY BUSY EVERY DAY AND IS TIRED BY THE EVENING MEAL. SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER SHE SHOULD STILL EAT THE EVENING MEAL WITH HER FAMILY. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? 2 Would you want to eat with the family at home or go out with the family; 1 Would you want to send the rest of the family out to eat and you stay home; or 0 Would you want to let everyone eat when he gets hungry? 42b. THINK ABOUT SOMEONE WHOSE HUSBAND IS OF- FERED A NEW JOB WITH BETTER PAY, BUT HE WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO WORK DURING THE EVEN— ING MEAL. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? 0 Would you want him to take the job; 2 Would you want him to turn the job down; or 1 Would you want him to take the job so long as he can get home for meals on weekends? 43b. 95 THINK ABOUT AN EATING AREA THAT HAS POOR VENTILATION, LITTLE LIGHT, AND NEEDS A COAT OF PAINT. THE FAMILY DOES NOT ENJOY EATING IN THIS ROOM BUT THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITU- ATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want the family to eat in this room anyway; Would you want to let them eat wherever they want to eat; or Would you want to eat together in this room sometimes? 44b. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO IS OFFERED A JOB THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE. IT MEANS THAT SHE WON'T BE HOME TO EAT THE EVENING MEAL WITH HER FAMILY. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to take the job;' Would you want to turn the job down; or Would you want to take the job if you could plan a way for the rest of the family to eat their evening meal together? 45b. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHERE THE CHILDREN WANT TO WATCH TV WHEN IT'S TIME TO EAT. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to let the children watch TV while eating; Would you want to say that either everyone watches TV or no one watches TV; or Would you want to let the children watch TV while eating-- if there is a special program? 96 46b. HERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT BREAKFAST: THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO IS UP LATE 3 OR 4 NIGHTS A WEEK. SHE IS TIRED WHEN THE FAMILY GETS UP IN THE MORNINGS TO EAT. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to get up anyway and eat breakfast with the family; Would you want to let your children get their own break- fast if they can; or Would you want to sleep late sometimes and other times get up and eat breakfast with the family? 47b. THINK ABOUT A HOME THAT HAS A NICE, CON- VENIENT EATING AREA (BREAKFAST NOOK) BUT IT IS SO SMALL THAT THE FAMILY IS CRAMPED AND UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THEY ALL EAT AT THE SAME TIME. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to have your family eat together anyway; Would you want to have your family eat together part of the time and in shifts part of the time; or Would you want to have your family eat in shifts? 48b. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHO GETS THREE OR FOUR TELEPHONE CALLS WHILE EATING THEIR EVENING MEAL. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to answer the phone and talk as usual; Would you want to answer the phone and make it as brief as possible; or Would you want to answer the phone and ask people not to call back at this time in the future? 97 49b. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY IN WHICH EACH FAMILY MEMBER IS IN SEVERAL ACTIVITIES AT DIFFER- ENT TIMES LIKE SCHOOL, CHURCH, OR SPORTS. IF THE EVENING MEAL IS FIXED AT A REGULAR TIME IT MEANS SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO MISS HIS ACTIVITY. THE CHILDREN WANT TO EAT AND RUN. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to insist that no activity can be joined if scheduled during the evening meal; Would you want to change the eating time to meet most of the family's schedule; or Would you want to let each person eat when and where he can? 50b. THINK ABOUT A TEENAGER WHO WANTS TO PLAY FOOTBALL AFTER SCHOOL. IF HE DOES, HE WON'T BE HOME IN TIME TO EAT THE EVENING MEAL WITH THE FAMILY FOR TWO OR THREE MONTHS. IF THIS WERE YOUR TEENAGER AND YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to let your teenager play football; Would you want to say no he can't play football; or Would you want to let your teenager play football if he eats the evening meal with the family part of the week? 51b. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHOSE EVENING MEAL IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM. THEY JUST DON'T GET ALONG TOGETHER, AND EVERYONE IS FUSSY BY THE END OF THE MEAL. THE MOTHER HAS THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING THE FAMILY EAT AT DIFFERENT TIMES TO SEE IF IT WILL HELP CALM THINGS DOWN. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to let everyone eat at a different time; Would you want to stick it out with everyone eating to- gether; or- Would you want to eat together only when you feel rested enough to cope with the situation? 98 52b. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WITHOUT A LARGE ENOUGH TABLE OR ENOUGH CHAIRS TO EAT TOGETHER COMFORTABLY. THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY MORE. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to try something temporary like sitting on boxes, standing at a counter, or sitting on the floor if necessary so that the family could eat together; Would you want to insist that they eat together at least part of the time even if it is uncomfortable; or Would you want to let everyone eat as he wants to? 53b. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO WANTS HER FAMILY TO TALK THINGS OVER TOGETHER. SHE WANTS TO HAVE HER FAMILY EAT TOGETHER BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES FAMILY DISCUSSIONS. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to eat together so you could discuss fam- ily matters; Would you want to let everyone eat when he gets hungry; family matters can be discussed at another time; or Would you want to eat together only when there is some- thing important to talk about? 54b. THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHO KNOWS WHERE HER CHILD IS, BUT HE JUST DOESN'T COME HOME WHEN CALLED TO EAT. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to start eating and if he didn't come home soon send someone after him; Would you want to have the rest of the family wait to eat till he's home; or Would you want to let the rest of the family eat without him? 99 55b. THINK ABOUT CHILDREN IN A FAMILY WHO GET HUNGRY BEFORE THEIR FATHER COMES HOME FROM WORK. THE MOTHER DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER TO HAVE THE CHILDREN WAIT FOR THEIR FATHER TO COME HOME BEFORE EATING. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to let the children eat early; Would you want to give them a snack when they get home from school and have them wait till father is home for the evening meal; or Would you want to let the children eat early on week days if the family can eat together on weekends? 56b. THINK ABOUT A HOUSE WITH AN EATING AREA THROUGH ANOTHER ROOM OR ACROSS THE HALL FROM THE KITCHEN. THE ONLY PLACE TO EAT IN THE KITCHEN IS STANDING AROUND THE COUNTER. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION HOW WOULD YOU WANT YOUR FAMILY TO EAT? Would you want your family to sit and eat together no matter how difficult serving the food may be; Would you want to eat standing around the'counter for some meals, like breakfast; or Would you want to let everyone do as he pleases? 57b. THINK ABOUT A FAMILY WHO DOESN'T HAVE ~ ENOUGH PLATES, SPOONS, OR FORKS. EATING AT THE SAME TIME IS DIFFICULT. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? Would you want to eat picnic style and share all the utensils; Would you want to sometimes eat picnic style and some- times eat in shifts; or Would you want to have your family eat in shifts? 58b. 100 THINK ABOUT A MOTHER WHOSE CHILDREN ARE HUNGRY. THEY WANT A SNACK BEFORE THE EVENING MEAL. IF SHE LETS THEM SNACK ON THE FOOD PREPARED IT WILL NOT LEAVE ENOUGH FOR THE MEAL. IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO? 0 Would you want to let your children snack when they are hungry; 1 Would you want to let them snack sometimes and other times make them wait; or 2 Would you want to have the children wait—-hungry or not? HERE IS A FINAL QUESTION: 59. 2 Prefer 0 Do not prefer WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU PREFER TO EAT TOGETHER, THAT YOU DO NOT PREFER TO EAT TOGETHER, OR THAT YOU HAVE NO STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT EATING OR NOT EATING TOGETHER? 1 No strong feelings PART C OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 102 SECTION I FOOD PREPARATION AREA Features IT WOULD HELP ME GREATLY IF I COULD SEE THE AREA WHERE YOUR FOOD IS PREPARED. (ASK THE QUESTIONS IF THEY PREFER NOT TO LET YOU SEE THE AREA.) SINK 0 No sink or sink installed but not functioning l Sink with cold running water only 2 Sink with hot and cold running water REFRIGERATOR 0 No refrigerator or refrigerator installed but not func— tioning l Refrigerator installed but not functioning correctly 2 Refrigerator installed and functioning correctly RANGE TOP O No range top or range top installed but not functioning 1 Range top installed but not functioning correctly 2 Range top installed and functioning correctly OVEN O No oven or oven installed and not functioning l Oven installed but not functioning correctly 2 Oven installed and functioning correctly FREEZER 0 No freezer or freezer installed but not functioning l Freezer installed and not functioning correctly 2 Freezer installed and functioning correctly DISHWASHER 0 No dishwasher or dishwasher installed but not functioning l Dishwasher installed but not functioning correctly 2 Dishwasher installed and functioning correctly 103 COUNTER SPACE 0 No counter space 1 Under 8'6" of counter space‘ 2 8'6" of counter space or more BASE STORAGE SPACE 0 No base storage space 1 Under 8'6" of base storage space 2 8'6" of base storage space or more WALL STORAGE SPACE 0 No wall storage space 1 Under 8'6" of wall storage space 2 8'6" of wall storage space or more GARBAGE AND TRASH 0 Garbage and trash not removed 1 Garbage and trash carried away from dwelling, buried or burned outside 2 Garbage and trash removed to recognized dump; incinerator or sink disposal ARRANGEMENT OF WORK CENTER-~SINK, RANGE, REFRIGERATOR 0 Poor arrangement; all not located in same room 1 Satisfactory arrangement; all in same room but not effi- ciently placed 2 Good arrangement; all in same room and efficiently placed TRAFFIC PATTERNS 0 Many traffic lanes through work area 1 Some traffic lanes through work area 2 No traffic lanes through work area GENERAL CONDITION OF FOOD PREPARATION AREA--WALLS, CEILING, FLOORS 0 Many repairs needed 1 One or two repairable cracks or defects 2 No defects, no cracks ‘Tessie Agan and Elaine Luchsinger, The House, Principles, Resources, Dynamics (New York: J. B. Lippin— cott, 19653, p. 137. 104 SECTION II EATING AREA: PLACE WHERE FOOD IS MOST OFTEN EATEN Features and Free—Standing Furniture FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SAID PREVIOUSLY WOULD YOU AGREE THAT YOUR FAMILY EATS MOST OFTEN IN: Dining room Kitchen Dining-living room Family room Porch Patio, yard Recreation room Bedroom Living room No specific place can be identified‘ (‘In this case, disregard Section II) bWNl—‘O \OCDQmU'I NOW IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME IF YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THIS ROOM... OR WOULD YOU MIND IF I SAW IT? WALLS, CEILINGS, FLOORS A. Condition of walls and ceilings 0 Many repairs needed 1 One or two repairable cracks and defects 2 No defects, no cracks 9 Not applicable B. Finish on walls and ceilings--ease of maintenance 0 Non-washable 1 Rough but washable 2 Smooth and washable 9 Not applicable C. Condition of floors 0 Badly worn; some holes and cracks and/or slanting 1 Some visible signs of wear and/or few cracks 2 Floor finish appropriate and well maintained 9 Not applicable D. Ease of maintenance of floors 0 Low soil resistance; requires constant maintenance 1 Some soil resistance; requires some maintenance 2 High soil resistance; requires little maintenance 9 Not applicable 105 AIR CIRCULATION AND HEATING AND ARTIFICIAL LIGHT A. Air circulation 0 No ventilation 1 Natural air movement (cross ventilation) or some mechanical air movement 2 Air-cooled 9 Not applicable B. Heating 0 No facilities for heating 1 Facilities present to heat eating area 2 Central heating in eating area 9 Not applicable C. Artificial light 0 No artificial light 1 Present but insufficient 2 Present and sufficient 9 Not applicable WINDOWS A. Condition 0 Missing where intended to be or not functioning as intended ' 1 Need maintenance but function 2 Function as intended 9 Not applicable B. Natural light 0 No natural light; no windows 1 Window area less than 10% of floor area 2 Window area 10% or more of floor area 9 Not applicable C. View 0 Distracting view 1 Dull or unpleasant view 2 Pleasing view 9 Not applicable DOORS A. Condition 0 Missing where intended to be or not functioning as intended 1 Need maintenance but partially function 2 Function as intended 9 Not applicable 106 B. Placement of doors 0 Interfere seriously with arrangement of furniture, service of food, or flow of traffic 1 Minor interference with arrangement of furniture, service of food, or flow of traffic 2 Facilitates arrangement of furniture, service of food, or flow of traffic 9 Not applicable TABLES A. Condition 0 No table or in need of extensive repairs 1 One or two repairable defects 2 NO defects; in good condition 9 Not applicable B. Ease of maintenance 0 No finish or poor finish; requires constant mainten— ance l Satisfactory finish; requires much maintenance 2 Good finish; easily maintained 9 Not applicable CHAIRS A. Condition 0 No chairs or unusable l Defects but still usable 2 No defects; in good condition 9 Not applicable B. Ease of maintenance 0 No finish or poor finish; requires constant care 1 Satisfactory finish; requires much maintenance 2 Good finish; easily maintained 9 Not applicable STORAGE A. Condition 0 No storage or needs extensive repairs 1 One or two repairable defects 2 No defects; in good condition 9 Not applicable B. Size 0 No storage 1 Some storage 2 Generous storage 9 Not applicable 107 ORIENTATION OF EATING AREA A. Placement 0 Impossible to highly difficult to gain access to kitchen 1 Requires special effort to gain access to kitchen 2 Convenient-~requires no effort to gain access to kitchen 9 Not applicable B. Trafficgpatterns in relation to kitchen 0 Long distance and obstructed 1 Middle distance and minor obstructions 2 Little or no distance and unobstructed 9 Not applicable SEATING ARRANGEMENT FOR MOST MEALS A. Type of seating arrangement ... = Possible seating space 0 ............: l OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ”,3, Table : 3 : r3 Attached : fall Counter or Bar 1 3 to wall : BIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO: (wall) 0000.000... 2 3 Counter or Bar j'T'U'U'U'IUUUIUOUO 4 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Built-in Nook 9 Not applicable B° Convenience of seating arrangement Inconvenient for conversation and access Inconvenient for conversation Inconvenient for access Convenient for conversation and access Not applicable KONf-‘l—‘O C. Number of individuals at table: 9 Not applicable 108 D. Space at the table 0 Does not accommodate all family members 1 Accommodates all family members by crowding 2 Accommodates all family members comfortably 9 Not applicable PRIVACY OF EATING AREA 0 No privacy-—normal noises of street, children, neigh- bors heard; others can see in 1 Some privacy--occasional minor noises of street, children, neighbors; others can sometimes see in 2 Privacy--no noises of street, children, neighbors heard; others are not likely to see in 9 Not applicable ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH EATING u s Saucer Plates Kitchen 109 HOUSING FURNISHINGS HAVE & USE HAVE & DON'T USE 1 DON'T HAVE ENOUGH --WANT MORE 2 DON'T HAVE BUT WANT 3 110 HOUSING FURNISHINGS HAVE HAVE & & USE DON'T USE 1 ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SERVING Su ar Pitchers Tea 5 a s Casseroles a Tablecloths ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH STORAGE Breadboxes ake cover an s 5 DON'T HAVE ENOUGH --WANT MORE 2 111 HOUSING FURNISHINGS HAVE HAVE DON'T & & HAVE SE DON'T ENOUGH USE ‘ —-WANT - MORE 1 2 ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PREPARATION Small electric Broiler e a ec C Waffle iron and or sandwich rill Small electric food e ec B Electr c oneelectric cooking 0 5 ans es Cooking spoons, knives s tulas etc. Measurin c & N Tea kettle 112 HOUSING FURNISHINGS HAVE HAVE DON'T & & HAVE USE DON'T ENOUGH USE --WANT MORE 1 2 ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEANING Dish cloths Dish we Wet mo 5 D mo 5 Vacuum c eaner Car t swee ar a e Was ask Dis sal ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ENTERTAINMENT Recor la Tel ACCESSORY FURNISHINGS Fan (of an kind te stoo DON'T HAVE BUT DON'T WANT 4 ST "71111111711 giggly/111,117”), 11:11:71?!”