SOME RELATIONSHIPS OF MEALS EATEN AWAY FROM HOME TO FAMILY CHARACTERI$TIC$ Thesis Ior the Degree OI M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Hsin Fu Wang 1957 THtSIS SOME RELATIONSHIPS OF HEALS EATEN AWAY FROM HOME TO FAMILY CIARACTERISTICS by Hsin Fu Hang AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1957 ‘ \\*“ Approved [JagbLALéay/ey? 2:24441494Q;¢Q£Z¢?/4{: Hsin Fu Wang ABSTRACT The purpose of tris study is to determine: (1) whether expenditures for meals eaten away from Rome are significant- ly related to such family characteristics as the level of income, size of family, employment, age and education of homemakers; (2) seasonal effects on changes in number of, and expenditures for, meals eaten away from home; and (3) the income elasticities of meals eaten away from home. The primary source of data was the weekly family food purchase diary of the Michigan State University consumer panel. For greater accuracy, the homemakers were personally interviewed in order to make a comparison of stated yearly incomes with the annual total of tie weekly incomes as reported in the diaries. The five-year period, 1951 to 1955, was chosen for most of this study. Bowever, since the data for 1951 was incomplete it was excluded in tLe cross-sectional elastic— ity, simple correlation and multiple regression analyses. The three methods used in computing the income elas- ticities were are, cross-sectional, and time series. Simple correlation analysis was used in determining the relation- ship between family characteristics and expenditures for meals eaten away from home. It was also used for inter- correlation analysis between each two family characteristics. 2 Hsin Fu wang Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the net effects of family characteristics on expenditures for meals eaten away from home. The basic multiple regression equa- tions expressed the expenditures for meals eaten away from home as a function of income, size of family, age of home— makers, and employment of homemakers. The income elastici- ties, simple correlation and multiple regression analyses were set up on a per family basis and a per capita basis in order to make a inter-comparisons. The income elasticities for all meals and meals at home were also computed in order to compare these witb meals eaten away from home. In this case only the arc elasticity method was used. It was found that the income elasticities for meals eaten away from home were greater than those for all meals and for meals eaten at home. This relationship was true when computed on a per family basis as well as on a per capita basis. Over the five-year period, the expenditures for meals eaten away from home and the number of meals eaten away from home were directly related to income. The seasonal patterns of meals eaten away from heme, both number and expenditures, in each income group appeared to be the same. When the five years were averaged for a single seasonal trend it showed a seasonal high between tle middle of July and August, falling to a seasonal low from early in December and lasting through the end of March. 3 Rain Fu be 8' :5 on When the various family characteristics were related to expenditures for meals eaten away from home it was found that income was consistently the most important factor on both per family and per capita bases. The results obtained from simple correlation and multiple regression analyses show that incomes were always positively correlated to xpenditures for meals eaten away from home. When the various family characteristics were related to each other it was found that the age of homemakers was negatively correlated to per family income and positively correlated to per capita income. The size of family was negatively related to age of homemakers and positively re- lated to education of homemakers on both a per family basis and a per capita basis. Among these family characteristics the employment of homemakers seemed to bear no close rela- tionship with other family characteristics. Perhaps this may be explained by tle fact tlat on an average only l3.# percent of the homemakers were employed and therefore did not yield a significant result in the correlation analysis. The results of the multiple regression analysis show that the size of family, education of homemakers and employ- ment of homemakers had more effect or per capita expendi- tures for meals eaten away from lone than on per family e;- pendittres for meals eaten away from lome. However, the per capita income and the age of homemaker had less effect on per capita than on per family expenditures for meals h Hsin Fu Wang eaten away from home. Over tie five year period income was W significantly correlated to both per family ano per capita a. expenditures for meals eaten away from home. S‘ME RELATIONSHIPS OF KEALS EATEH AWAY FROM 30MB TO FANILE CHARAC ERISTICS by TV If “sin Fu Wang A TEESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Department of Agricultural Economics 1957 ACKIFO‘JILEDGEI'EI‘I TS The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. Gerald G. Quackenbush, under whose special guidance and patient inspiration, the general plan of the study and the writing of the manuscript were accomplished. The author is deeply grateful to Dr. L. L. BOger, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics who made this study possible by granting the author a graduate assistant- ship. Special thanks are also extended to Drs. B. C. French, W. D. Baten, and Mr. S. Kawakatsu who provided valuable assistance in statistics. Appreciation is also expressed to the many faculty members and graduate students of the Agricultural Economics Department who have contributed many valuable suggestions which helped in finalization of the c0py. The author assumes responsibility for any errors or omissions which may be present in the manuscript. Hsin Fu Wang ii II. III. IV. V. II-‘ElLLODIICTl—CJTEOOOO0.0.0.0000....0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Nature and Importance of This Study......... Objectives and Hypotheses of This Strdy..... PreVio-l‘ss Sti1§d19800to.ooooooooooooooooooooooo TIE SOTCSRCES 13' If! PITT; 3‘ C3]. ‘ D LTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of tee M. S. U. Consumer Par el.. The Characteristics of Sample Families...... sn-w -7' . g at: .‘ rt i'u‘QTU-DS OF J'i.-AAAI'YJIQ.OOOOOOOOOOOOOICOOOOOOOO... T1319 P8133105. Stlldied................o...co... Preparing and Processing of the Data........ I':et}10d OJ. A1181y81500000.0000000000000000oooo S(-LE FTKQVPP-‘”T3 F DEEAHD C ATACTEYT”TIC FOR I':EALS E LIL1EI: JAsiff‘iY FRCI': IICIIEQ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Level and Pattern of lncome................. Level and Pattern of Food Consumption....... Income Elasticity of All Food Consumption... Income Elasticity of Meals Eaten Away From Home...................................... Var iation of Imea Eaten Away From Home Due to Income................................. Variation of Meals Eaten Away From Home Du to Seasonality............................ If] REIfiTIU SHIPS BLTWCT’ F1“HII.Y C'MLACTJYISTI~ o, ADD BETWEEY “’PE‘DI”I“33 F01 huAJo LT TE" AWAY FRUK Elmfsfhfl) ‘"iITY CinhnC BTICS... Introduction.......................l.....{... Size of Fani.3y Related to Cthe r Fa -y Char- acteristics, and Expendit Ares for Meals Eaten Away Fr ora Here For FamL _y and Per ‘J( pitcxooocoao-coo-00000.0.000.000.000.000. iii —.8 \nsfie 1O 11 11+ 1).}- 16 Age of Rom-make 3 Related to Other Family Characteristics, and Expenditures for Heals Eaten Away From Home Per Fa Alily and Per Capita............................ 72 Education of Homemakers Relatecl to Ct“er Fam- ily Characteristics, and Er VpenditJres for Heals Eaten Away Frcm "one Per Family and Per Capita................................ 7% 'tiployment 0: Hon makers Relatefi to Other %mily Characteristics, and Experditures for Heals '“te !.way From “one Per Family and Per Capita............................ 76 Per Family Income and Per Capita Income Re- lated to Family Characteristics, and Ex- penditures for Meals Eaten Awa from Home Per Family anfi Per Capita................. 77 VI. CUAHILS II experLI'. URES FOR EAIs “ Tar AUAY FRO“ "LI? Ir‘.2I1G 1952 TO 1955 REIATL? TO FA}! ILL, C-::.T‘)L.fi.CT~fi-HIDJTICSO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O 79 Introduction................................ 79 Results from Fultiple Regression Analysis... 81 XIII. SITZIAALRY A::D C(J} CL'T"ICTQooooooooooooooooo-ooooo 95 BIBT.‘IOG£1‘£LPE1'YOOOOO00......It...OOOOOOOOCOOIOOOOOOOOOO105 fi‘LI‘)1.)IS:ZDICESO0.......0...0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOO...0.0 1C‘7 ‘Jo < - d. Table 10. 11. 12. population com- Characteristics of the Lansin T te Stf'teSoooooooooo pared with Lichigan ano uni Lationcl disposable personal income 1951-19W,.. Cozaparisons of annual disposable incomes . U. Coziscmer Panel selected PM1 ies ,1951t 19)/OOOOOOOO...0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. ‘1’ Comparison of food expe ditures 103 .. S. U. Consumer Panel families and allies 111 the brnited States, 1955....IOOOOOOYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Co 18 mi ons of annual expenditures for all meals Z'io no If. CC'n nSL. L‘JJGI’ P231181, 1951-19250000000000000 Comparisons of annual exuenditures for meals at home, H. S. U. Consumer Panel, 1951-1955....... Page ’ 98 {0 Comparison of annual expenditures for meals away from home, U. S. U. Consumer Panel, 1951-1955.. Preportion of exp nditures for all meals and in- come, M. S. U. Consumer Panel, 1951-1955....... PrOportion of exp nditures for meals at home and income, 1. S. U. Consumer Panel, 1951-1955 PrOportion of expenditures for nweal away from home and izcone, n. S. U. Consumer Panel, 1951- 19)5.O..'OOOOOOCUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOOO Proportion of expenditures for all meals and eXpenditures for meals away from home, K. S. U. Cons uner Panel, 1951-1955...................... Preportion of e: {penditures for meals at home and expenditures for meals away from home, U. S. U. Consumer Panel, 1951-1955................ The income elasticities of food, each year to the next, M. S. U. Consumer Pa .nel, 1951-1955... V 30 32 33 31+ 37 38 Ta ale 1%. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. :1) O O r31 1. o 22. Average weekly number of meals away from ?01e and exuenditures for m -als away from borne wit.r 5-year (1951-1955) averase for tota7. sanple by h-week periods................................. Simple correlation coefficients between family characteristics, and between per family expend- itures for meals away from home and family char- acteris ics, families in 1952 and also in 1953.. Simple correlation coefficient: 11et Ieen family characteristics ..d between per fa nily ex- pe ditures for meals away from home and family c“: racteris tics, fan lies in 1953 and also in 19/’~OOCOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Simple corre‘ztio on coefficienim between family charac erzs ics, and aetween pe f5ni y expend- itures :‘or meals F'wfy from hone and fan: y cnar- acteristics, fat 11] ies in 1953 and also in 195%.. Sim1fl e correlation coefficients between famil cha Meteristics, and between per family ex penditures for meal' away from none and family cb_a acterist we i'r1ilies in 195% and also in 1953........................................... Simple correlation coefficients between family characteristics, and between per family eycpend- itures for meals away from home, families in 195% and a’so in 1955.......................... Si.1plc correlation coefficients between family in racteristics, and between per fami7y expend- itures for meals awac'r from home, families in 1955 and also in 1 O. 9)+....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Sinp7e corr .atioz1 coefficients between farily characteristics, and between per capita ex1end- itures for meals away from home and fami y cha r- acteristics, fani ies in 1952 and also in 1953.. Simple correlation coefficients between family ciarecteris tics, and between per capita expendi- tures for meals away from honIe, families in 1953 and a7so in 1952............................... vi Pa 1: \JI \51 58 59 61 [‘0 6 63 65 F3 (‘3 C‘ 1.4 (D (k) U.) Q [U V '1- O {\3 VI 26. Simple correlation co ff iciente between family characterist es, and oetween ner ca pita eypend- itures for meals away from home or.d fe.m:ily Charo cteri stics, fa :ai.3ies in 1993 anc also in 19iih.................v......................... Simple correlation coe ficients oetwee : f characteristics, and bet :een per canite ic itures for meals excy i'rom home 3nd f2: everzct ristics, families in 195% and a_so in 19 '73.coco-00.000.000.090...ooooooooo00.0.0.0... 8'31! Y .per d- )14J Simple correlation coefficien,s between feriiy characteristics, and between per capita expend- itures for meals away fro" home are for mi?:f characteristics, fzmw :Iies in 195+ and also in Simple correlation coefficients between family cherecteristics, evd betwec" per cenita eXpend- itures for meals away from home e.nd femi _y cherecterlrt cs, f.i'lie" in 19% and also in 4 Ho Ho 66 67 O\ C O\ ‘O f" a L‘ . \3‘. rfi L...‘ 731‘ CF FIG “I LLIS Page Average of weekEy per capita income reported by‘ m. S. U. Cozsumer Panel famiiies, 13th week of 1951 to 52nd weelc of 1955.............. Mk Averore of weekly per capita erpenditures for meals ewzy fror hone renorted by K. S. U. Con- sumer Panel famiRies, 13th weeL of 1951 to 52nd weelt: of 1955.............................. 45 Thirteenth week mo ovin" everefe of weekiy income and experditures for meals away from home re- ported bv 11.8. U. Consumer Pane] fami ies, 13th week 01 1951 to 52no week of 1955.............. Avere 5e weekjyI n2m:7er of meals away from home per capita by -weeL: periods for total sa=.np?e and by income groups, 13th week of 1951 to 5?nd week of 1955....... ........................... 51 Averere week'y eypef ditures for Ime 1.5 awr" from 1102. e per 775133 by L—week oeriocs 8.110.133 inco.2e groups, 13tu weeL of 1951 to 52nd week of 1955.. 52 Avero we weekly expenditures for meals away from home and number of mecls away from ooze witr a 5-year '2ver'25e by I+-wee c periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 viii CHAPTER I ILTRCDUCTION Nature and Importance of This Study Han inherits certain potentialities. How they develop depends on his environment, and the most fundamental influ- ence in the environment is food. It builds and shapes his body, and through the glands, hormones, and nerves, it mod- *4 fies sharply his mental and emotional make-up. If a person were entirely deprived of food, life would soon become ex- tinct. The importance of food in the consumption pattern is obvious. Purchases of food to be served at home are the largest item in total personal consumption expenditures. Several studies have been made of relationstip between in- come and food expenditures in the United States. Generally, it has been found that, for the United States pOpulation as a whole, about 25 percent of total income is spent on food.1 In 1950, for example, total personal expenditures of people in the United States were about 19% billion dollars, and total expenditures on food were about #8 billion dollars.2 1HarOJd T. Halcrowo Agricultural Policy of the United States, Prentice Hall, Inc., Few York, p. 82. 20ffice of Business Economics, united States Department of gommerce, Survey of Current gusiness, Vol. 31, July 1951, p. 7. L (\3 Moreover, this condition exists in the United States which has very large per capita productive resources. In some underdeveloped countries, such as China, India, Japan, Thailand, it is estimated that as rigs as 80 per cent of total productive resources is used to provide food. In every economy, the provisions of food have always occupied a major place. Consumers' purchase is a major ac- tivity of marketing. If consumers do not buy the end pro— duct it is fruitless for farmers to produce the raw material from which it is made. People in the United 3 ates also “epend on the market for the largest share of tHeir food and clothing. Farm families produce some of their own food, and homemakers still perform at home some services that they could buy on the market. But purchased food and services have become more important. In tbe average budget of urban wage-earner families, food takes about as muct of every dollar as do housing expenses, like rent or tPe costs of home ownership, furniture, heat, liskt, and household sup- plies. The distribution of expenditures among commodities differs among the various income classes. Poor people spend a relatively large proportion of their food dollar on cer- eals and the cheaper vegetables, whereas people in higher income brackets spend a large preportion of their food dol- lar on meats, certain dairy products, and the higher-priced frtits and vegetables. As income increases, people tend to ,- spend more money on food. This relationship between income and food expenditures has very important implications for agricultural policy. A general conclusion is that if the national level of living or real income continues to im- prove, agriculture will tend to find it profitable to shift more and more to a livestock economy. If the supply of farm products is inelastic, a change in consumer income may have a considerable impact on farm prices and farm income even though income elasticity for total products is low. There are many previous studies about consumption of food. Reports of total expenditures of foods consumed in- dicate that such consumption varies greatly with income. Reports are seldom made on a separate basis to indicate the change in meals eaten away from home varying wi h the size of income. Among the urban families, expenditures for meals eaten away from home have become increasingly impor- tent. The growth of population in the United States is large- ly an urban growth. The farm population has rapidly declined due to movement from farm to nonfarm since 1910. The total population of farm in 1950 was less than half what was in 1910. The farm pepulation was only 16 per cent of the total in 1950 compared wit? 35 per cent in 1910.3 In addition to income, other factors affecting meals eaten away from home which were considered include education, 3Halcrow, op. cit., p. 2%. size of family, age and activity of homemaker. These factors affect tTe quantity and quality of meals eaten away from home as well as meals eaten at home. The relationship of expenditures for meals eaten away from home to level of income, size of family, age, education and employment of homemaker are also very important. But, because of the difficulty of their evaluation, they have been given little consideration in previous studies. This report will try to evaluate the relationsfips between these factors. Objectives and Hypotheses of This Study The objectives of this study are: (1) To determine the effect of a c anve in income from one year to the next on tie expenditures for meals eaten away from home. (2) To determine the inter-relationship song the family characteristics. (3) To determine whether expenditures for meals eaten away from home are significantly related to family charac- teristics such as the level of income, size of family, em- ployment, age, and education of homemakers. (H) To determine the effect of season on changes in expenditures for meals eaten away from home. (5) To compare oranges in xpenditures for meals eaten at home and changes in expenditures for meals eaten away from home. {:3 d- (D :25 (6) To measure the income elasticity of meals e away from home for each year based on cross—sectional data. He (4' (7) To measure tle income elastic y of meals eaten away from home based on time series data. Hypotheses made for this study follow: (1) Changes in income affect significantly the ex- penditures for meals eaten away from home. (2) T‘e income elasticity of meals eaten away from Home is greater than that of meals eaten at home. (3) Expenditures for meals eaten away from home vary seasonally each year. (h) Expenditures for meals eaten away from home differ with the size of family. (5) Expenditures for meals eaten away from home differ with the age of the homemaaer. (6) Expenditures for meals eaten away from home differ with the education of the homemaker. (7) Expenditures for meals eaten away from home differ L with the employment of the homemaker. Previous Studies Most of the studies designed to determine the rela- tionship between income and food expenditures in the United States have been based on annual data. However, these studies are generally concerned with meals eaten at home 3‘ .L —.l or all food consumption, the expenditures or mea_s eaten '.‘y p .n- 1 V - — 1 . . va Q‘I. "Nf‘ .'. 0' ‘~ . away l*om none generallr DGng CACIUUQG. Tnere have ween a orly a few stnCies wficf attempt to measure tle effect of changes in inc me on tte expenditures for meals eaten away from home. Cross-sectional analyses Rave been used to pro- vide useful information in these studies. JJ '. 1’. 1 "D C V I 0 a o Sonultz' nas stu‘ioa t;e income olast201ty relations C‘ I V" .— ~ ~1 ~ 1‘ ‘ —- c . ‘ V ' '. A 0‘ r V '0‘ “ 1‘1 1" h.: f\ I" uLU eiiects includl fooo eaten away frOa LCuCo no has n4 18 found tPat nonfarm services are an important part, fully as large as is tie part produced in agriculture. As income rises the demand for services, as a part of food eaten away from home, increases faster tian the demand for food itself. In the nations in w icI people spent a small fraction of their income for food, tie income elasticity of demand for A I fl ‘ . u. 1 o 4’ 5 o T138 (1 9217:5th H- U) services in food eaten away from tore affect of a 10 war cent increase in income increases ex- penditures for services in food eaten away from home to 12%. v I r 3 o o q ., Fox) nas measured tie income elastiCity of demand my ban families for the spring of 19h8. The income elastic- ty of food eaten away from home per family was 1.12, and [-3. er capita was 1.1%. Ll"l‘heodore w. Shultz, he Economic Oraanization of Asriculture, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York 19 3, p0 . 3 . 5Karl A._FOX, "Factors Affecting Farm Income, Farm lrices, and Food Consumption", Agricultural Economic fiesearch, Vol. iii (July, 1951), Bureau of Agricultural economics, U.S.D.A. A recent study by tte Agricultural Pesearch Service and Agricultural Marketing Service of tn Denartne t of Agriculture6 provides more detailed information of food expenditures. The report is based on a nationwide survey of household food consumption made in April-June 1955 which was conducted in t1e Agricult1:.ral Research Service hy the Household Economic Research Branc? and in the Agricultural Marketing Service by tLe Marketing Devel ooze1t ironch a.nd the Sta.tistical and flistorical Research Branch. The aver- age food expenditure per family in the United States was $2 a week in the spring of 1955. About €,I22 of tnis was for food ea ten at home, an: $ was spent for meals and between-meal snacks away from home. These ficures inc ude expenditures for soft drian and alcoholic beverages, but exclude the nonfood items. The averaee size of f 3-1i " was 3.%3 perSOns. These average exaenditures per person were $7.89 a week for all food, £6. 50 for food at 31013 and $1.39 for meals eaten away from home. eran families s::e ent more o.” _n I“ .-.-: C 3‘ . l‘ 0 ~“ 0 _ '3 I '7 tganr ral f: r11 fanll es. Urban families Oi all Sine s_on H 330, about 75 per cent more than the $17 spent b" rural farm families. For t1e rural nonfarm families with income less t ma: $2,500, about £32H- per week was scent. It es- pecially points out that rural-urban differences were wide 6Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Mar- keting Service, Ur ited States Department of Agriculture, Food E} penditures of Ions e10- ds in the United States, pre iminary report of Survey of Uouseho d Tood Consun otion, Spring 1955, 1;,n1ncton D. C., Aususst, 1956. for e: {penditures for meals eaten away from I:ome. Tre urban famleies spent about 35. 75p vreek 1d ilo rural nonfarm families spent .50 an no farm fa 9 Ho Ail e '3 m spent 32.00. The study referring to the eating places reported by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A. in cocper- ation with the Division of Agricultural Economics of the University of Minnesota7 has pointed out tFat in 19%8 an estimated 16 per cent of the total dollar civilian food supply of the United States was marketed bye atm ng places, 1stitutions, and ot er large cale feeding es sta slments. The value of the food supply for Minneapolis, Minnesota which was marketed by eating places was 18 per cent, and for Fair- mont, a small city of Minnesota, was 16.5 per cent. Food costs of 20 Minneapolis firms averaged as per cent of the total sales value in 19h9. The average for 13 Fairnont firms was 52 per cent. a19h8, commercia' eating places accounted for 80 per cent of total sales of meals in Minneapolis and privat places accounted for 20 per cent. Street restaurants accounted for more than talf the value of meals sold. The above mentioned Stlid ies indicated that the prac- tice of eating away from home has become increasingly 7Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agricult11re, Eatin Places as Marketers of Food Products, Marketing Research Report No. 3, 1952 important in recent years. Burk8 has studied changes in the demand for food from 19H1 to 1950 to point out that increased "eating out" is one of the important factors ncreasei food expenditures. The cost of H' contributing to "eating out" includes the payment of additional processing, service, and atmosphere. If a greater prOportion of total food consumed is purchased in public places, expenditures for food can be higher even without a change in total quantities of food conszmed. These studies have provided useful information con- cernins the relationship between expenditures for meals eaten away from home and income. Eowever, no empirical studies are available to determine the expenditures for meals eaten away from home in relation to family charac- teristics suck as level of income, size of family, age, education and employment of the homemaker. 8Marauerit c. Burk, "Changes in the Demand for Food From 19%1 to 1950", Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XIIIII, No. 3, August 1951, pp. 281-258. CRAPTER II THE SOUR ES AND HATURE OF DATA Description of the Consumer Panel The reporting panel is a more accurate way of measur- ing consumer behavior and deducing preferences from such behavior than the methods that rely on aggregate statistics. This method is more sensitive to change in individual be- havior than are composite measurements. It may be speci- fically designed for particular problems. The N.S.U. con- sumer panel has operated since February 1951; about 250 diaries have been received each week since late 1951. This panel consists of about 250 families which each week provide considerable detail on their food purchases. Each family reports its income, expenditure and the number of meals eaten away from home, expenditures for meals eaten at home and the number of persons in the family during the week. In addition, each family reports the age, employment and education of its homemaker. his information can be analyzed both as a time series and on a cross-sectional basis. The sample area to date has been the city of Lansing, Michigan. A sample of approximately 2,000 families was drawn and interviewed. It was agreed upon to choose a panel 10 11 with a potential size of 300 families.1 This sub—sample was drawn on the basis of income of household, number in the household, age of the homemaker, and education of home- maker . There is great doubt that a continuously reporting panel can ever be a truly representative sample of tfe uni- verse it is supposed to depict. The original sample may be sound, but th ose w*o refuse to pa.rticipate will introduce an initia i bias. After three years of operation of the M.S.U. consumer panel, a second sample census wa made in 195%. This provided a basis for revising the sample and a new pool of potential memse . A third sample census was m1pleted in 1956. The Characteristics of M. S. U. Consumer Panel Families The M. S. U. c nsumer panel is a local purchase panel. The first contact that prospective panel members had with the K. S. U. panel was a personal interview conducted as part of the sample census. For obtaining a repres er tative sample of families, a sample census of the Lansing pepula- tion was conducted to learn ab at its C“a racterist ics A sample of approximately 2,000 families was systematically selected by taking every fourteenth residential address 1Gerald G. Qua ckenbusli, "Demand Analysis From N. S. C. r-r r Consumer Panel", Journ.l of Farm Economics, Vol. hnnVI, No. 3, August 195%. 12 from the addresses of Polk and Company Lansing City Direc- {-7 tory. The sample we about seven per cent of the population. A total of 1885 interviews were conducted under the aus- pices of the Agricultxlral Economics Department of Michigan State University during late hay and early June, 1950. This interviewing was done as a pre1111hary part of a long time lies l-J' study. Some basic character isticr of the sam tile fan could. be obtained from t ere interviews. A detailed dis- cu: 33101 of the c aracteristics of the sample (X) be found in T. N. Moss's doctoral thesis. In comparison with findins s of other studies, one of the best now available is the 1950 census of population. Table l summarized his information and makes compari501s at the state and national level. If one compares the data with 1950b . S. census data, there are indications that the sample families have a higher level of incozz . This higher than average income level is evidenced by a relatively smal-'er percent of fa ies with incomes of less than $2,000 {Her year and the 11igher than averape proportion with income over $6,000.3 The average family income has fluctuated year after year. The panel average of $4, 406 1‘0 r January 1, 1953 was .4- 2Thoma s u. Moss, Some Relationship us of Selected Socio- Economic Factors to Fooa Consumption and Expenditures. Lan- sin 5 rin- 10 0 unpublished Ph.D. T31esis, Iiichigan State College, 19 31bid., Moss, p. 11. 13 about 17.2% per cent above the 1949 level of $3,738. lrow- ever, the other factors such as age and education of home- maker, size of family, probably have changed little over time. TIAIB 1‘93 1 CIARACTERISTICS CF T33 LANSING POPULATION COMPARED WITH MICHIGAN AND UEITED STATES * Characteristics Lansing fiichigan Urban United States Michigan Urban Total F— Percent of families with income less than $2,000. 20.7 28.% 2H.H 32.6 38.6 Medium income families $h097 $3519 $3815 $3Lt31 $3073 Percent of families with incomes over $6,000 21.6 15.7 18.6 15.3 12.3 Percent employed in manufacturing 33.8 no.9 #H.3 29.h 25.9 Percent labor unemployed #.8 5.% 5.8 5.6 h.3 Size of family 3.16 3.h2 3.39 3.2% 3.38 *Source: ‘gpited States Census of POpulation 1950, Vol. 2, Pt. 22, Chap. B, General Characteristics of the Population. Harold M. Riley, Some Measurements of Consune; Demand for Meat, 195‘ to ‘953, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 195%, p. 61. CHAPTER III METHOD OF ANALYSIS Time Period Studied The first diaries from the n.S.U. consumer panel were received in February, 1951. Since the late summer of 1951, between 200 and 275 families have been reporting regularly. The first information from this panel is that for the thir- teenth week of 1951. In order to use a time series analysis, data from the thirteenth week of 1951 to the fifty-second week of 1955 were used. However, because of its lack of representation, the incomplete data of 1951 were excluded in the cross-sectional elasticity, simple correlation and multiple regression analyses. But it was used for measure- ment of time series income elasticity. Due to the data flexibility it can be used in time series and Cross-sectional analyses. Studies in this dissertation were based upon ' annually and weekly data. Preparing and Processing of the Data The data for this study were taken from the Michigan State University Consumer Panel. The sample which was used in this dissertation was taken from these 250 families to be representative of the total sample. When this study 11+ started, the data had been edited, coded, and punched on IBM cards. This system has been operated more than four and a half years. The basic IBH cards were sorted into three income groups, in terms of the annual disposable income. The summary and tabulation of the data were done almost exclusively by the IBM equipment. After the processing work by IBM equipment the following information on a weekly basis was obtained from the table: 1. Average family income by all families. 2. Average size of family by all families. 3. Average number of meals eaten away from home per capita by all families and by income groups. R. Average expenditures for meals eaten away from home per family by all families and by income groups. 5. Average expenditures for meals eaten away from home per capita by all families and by income groups. To get greater accuracy in the data it was necessary that each observation (each family's income) be examined. It is known that some weekly incomes were reported errone- ously. A personal interview was conducted with each home- maker for making a comparison of stated yearly income with the sums of the weekly incomes reported in the diaries. If these two figures were comparable, this family would be ac- cepted as one observation. There were 53 families who met these requirements in 1951, 97 families in 1952, 119 families in 1953, 120 families in 195%, and 103 families in 1955. 16 For a time series study comparing eac” year to the next, it was necessary to establish the same families in every two— year period. There were 53 families in the panel in 1951 who were also in 1952; 92 famil'es in 1952 who also were in 1953; 111 families in 1953 who also were in 195%; 103 fam- ilies in 195% who also were in 1955. Per capita income and per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home were obtained by dividing each family's income and expenditures by the size of family, and correcting for the member of weeks they were in the panel. Method of Analysis The coefficient of annual income elasticity described how the rate of change in expenditures for meals eaten away from home compares with the corresponding rate of change in income. The actual computation can be accomplished in one of several ways. The following are income elasticity form- ula was used for a time series study comparing each year to the next. Ireome e‘asticit‘ - ( E1 - E0 ) / ( E1_f BO ) - J.-. 1:; 4.1....) .4. f — ( I1 - IO.) / ( I1 +—I—O—-7 Expenditures for meals eaten away from home in 31 year two. EO Expenditures for meals eaten away from home in year one. I1 = Annual income in year two. 17 IO = Annual income in year one. Substituting the data on income and expenditures for meals eaten away from Dome into the formula, we get the income elasticity for meals eaten away from hom . To facil- itate a time series study, the following combinations of families of every two years were established: Families in 1951 also in 1952., Families in 195? also in 1951. Families in 1952 also in 1953. Families in 1953 also in 1952. Families in 1953 also in 195%. Families in 195% also in 1953. Families 1“ 195% also in 1955. Families in 1955 also in 195%. The purpos of setting up these combinations was to compare the rate of change in expenditures for meals eaten away from home in relation to the rate of change in income of the families from one year to he nex . The above income elasticity formula was also used for computing the income elasticity of meals eaten at home and meals eaten away from home plus meals eaten at home. The only difference is that the expenditure for meals eaten away from home is changed into expenditures for meals eaten at home or expenditures for meals eaten away from home plus meals eaten at home. Comparisons of income elasticities of meals eaten away from home, meals eaten at home and meals eaten away from home plus meals eaten at home were made in ttis study. Zowever, data emerging from the M.S.U. Consumer panel were for only a five-year period. This small sample on a yearly basis was assumed to be unable to yield significant results in multiple regression analysis for a time series study. Therefore, average weekly data by h-week average of the 13-week moving average were used in the simple regression equation for measuring a time series income elas- ticity of years from 1951 to 1955. It was evident that the current income reported by the panel families showed wide variations from week to week. These data were obtained from the weekly reports of the panel families. however, part of the families were paid on a weekly basis while others were paid bi-weekly, monthly, or at irregular periods. Sometimes a wide fluctuation of weekly income reported by all panel families showed within a period of a month. In order to smooth th income data and expenditure data, a thirteen-week moving average was computed using the current week's income and the income of week the previous twelve weeks. These adjusted data were only used for showing the comparison between the average weekly income and average weekly expenditures for meals eaten away from home. In tne analysis a four-week movin average, taken from the 13-week moving average, was used. 19 The various methods for measuring income elasticities by multiple regression analysis make it possible to deter- mine the extent to which a “V81 variable influences the predicted variable wiile other variables are being teld onstant at some known level. The multiple regression method was used for a cross-sectional income elasticity analyses in tnis study. There are seve al ap oproaches the might be used for measuring t”e e: :tent to w icz consumer expeiditures for food is related to family characteristics. One approach was u: ed (“in tiple 1 egr ass ion ) to was sure tie responsive- ness f eXpenditures for als aten away froth :ome accord- (D O ’3 *3 f‘) 0 Ct‘ ’33 '1 I ing to one or more family c aracteristics. Fiv istics user in the reg*ession equat:on were: (3) family income or per capita income; (2) size f family; (3) age of E'1<';>:‘::ez'.aeke-r; (1+) education of Eozizez;f:.aker; (5') employmeryt of homemaker. Such a1 equation would -:press e}:penditures for meals eaten away from home as a function of the income, size of family, age, educction and employment of homemaker. stics were c L- Ho The effects of the veriou: c?e.racter H. U) sidered in the form of a least squares regression analys U) of linear form all of which were converted to logarithm . log Y = a + b1logX1 + b _log} 12 + b3] -ogxx3 + bulogxu + bslogl (5. Where Y = per family (or per capita) expenditures for meals eaten away from home. ‘ £1 = family inct me (or per capita incorne) A \ ll size of family A3 = age of onexaner Kn = education of Lonemaker X5 = employment of Iomemaker The least squares multiple regression analysis was a Iised to deterr 11119 in: ications of the net relationship between (lifferences in expenditures for meals eaten away from tome aiul each ‘amily craracteristic in a given time period. Due tcn'tne large number of observations in eack series of data L arul the number of variables in each equation, there were lxractical reasons for preferring a function that was linear Ii'mathematic terms. After e: {perimenting with the inter- F- Inelationships to test for linearity in arithmetic form it rues decided that the functions should be expressed complete- ly in JOgariths. To facilitate the comparisons of t e cross-sectional lruxnne elasticity of each year wit? tie tine series income alga: cicity usi1r t’e same data witV respect both to per (‘3 u £0 fznnily and per capita, t e corb ineti * Jere set up jlisted below. Because of lack of representation, the data cxf 1951 were not included in cros sectional miltiple re- gyression analysis. The combinatic;1s of fav"ie. were set Families in 1952 also in 1953 Families in 1953 also in 1952 Families in 1953 also in 1954 ",7 L- Families in 195% also in 1953 Fam'lies in 195% also in 1955 Families in 1955 also in 195% The inter-relations between tle family ctaracteristics were also considered. The same data and same combinations of families in each year which were used in tE‘e multiple regression analysis were also used in the inter-correlation analysis between the family Earacteristics. 3 In summary, tn n, tfie following types of analyses were 15“" ' dxnie: (1) are elasticities from year to year changes in zivoraje incomes and averare xpenditures for meals away iirom bone; (2) simple regression, where averaae eXpenditures ier meals away from home is a function of average 'neome, n0 a moving averaje derived from weekly data; and (3) O quo 'us uniltiple regression on cross-sectional data, wtere expendi- tnxres for meals away from home is a function of several sselected socio—economic variables. CHAPTER IV 3033 MEASUREKENTS OF DEMAND CTARACTERISTICS FOR HEALS EATEN AWAY FROM HOME Level and Pattern of Income The statistics of the 1950 census indicate ttat Lansing is a city wit“. a fairly high level of income. The median family income in 1949 was $131+,O97. This is about 163+ per cent higher train the $53,519 median income for Michigan as a whole, 7.1+ per cent higher than the $33,815 reported for urban I~'ichigan, 19.11L per cent higher than the $33,191 of urban family in the United States, and 33.3 per cent higher than the $3,073 family income of the total United States. Total income continued to increase during the last five years in the United States. The National Disposable Income has increased each year in t“e same five year period. I%ar capita disposable personal income Pas increased 3.2 per cent from 1951 to 1952, 3.7 per cent from 1952 to 1953, :remained.the same from 1953 to 1954, and increased H.5 per <3ent from 195% to 1955. These are all measured in terms of <3urrent prices. The M.3.U. consumer panel income almost {noved parallel to national per capita diaposable income ikor the families selected in this study. The average level (If income for panel members from 1951 to 1952 increased 22 l,q I'V‘" 23 57.6 per cent, H.6 per cent from 1952 to 1953, .5 per cent fiwnn 1953 to 195%, and 3.? per cent from 195% to 1955. {Fable 2 shows the oranges in total National Disposable Ianome, and per capita disposable income from 1951 to 1955 iJ1 terms of current price for the period and on a 1955 price basis. TABLE 2 NATIOHAL DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME 1951 TC 1955 * Total Disposable Personal Per Capitn Disposable popu_ Income (billions of 3) Personal Income (3) lation -..._ -.._.- (mod; Current 1955 Current 1955 Price Price Price Price 1951 226-1 233-3 1,L+65 1,512 1511,3627 1952 237.4 239.6 1,512 1,526 157,028 195 250.2 250.5 1,568 1.570 159,636 19 2511.11 253.6 1,566 1,561 162,417 1955 270.6 270.6 1,637 1,637 165,271 *Source: Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department (1f Commerce, 1955fiBiennial Edition, andIFeb. 1956. The panel family income has fluctuated more than the jpanel per capita income. The average per resily income :increased 8.6 per cent from 1951 to 1952, 7.6 per cent from '1952 to 1953, 1.6 per cent from 1953 to 195%, and 10.2 per <3ent from 195% to 1955. Table 3 shows changes in panel :family income compared to the panel per capita income from ‘1951 to 1955- 1 2'. 1 29 TABLE 3 COKPARISONS OF ANNUAL DISPOSABLE INCOUES, N. S. U. CONSUMER PANEL SELECTED FAKILIES 1951 - 1955 v-”._ Total Income Number Average Income Percent Year of Families of Per Famil Increase (S yearly) Families (8 Yearly from Pre- Represented vious Year 1951 1221,1611 * 53 L1,172.91 1952 21+0,259 53 L1,533.18 8.6 1952 #319,327 * 92 L1,557.90 1953 1151,011 92 11,902.29 7.6 1€9gg *553,623 *111 9,987.59 ‘19 562,287 111 5,065.65 1 6 ‘195%- *523,538 *103 5,082.89 1955 *576,7 1+ *103 5,599.36 1o 2 1951-1955 2,29%,3 6** 1162“ 5966.20 Sum of Per Number Average Income Capita Income of Per Person (3 yearly) Families (3 yearly) Represented '1951 * 80,970 * 53 1,527.73 1952 87,095 53 1,613.30 7.6 1§9§2 *1h6,h#2 * 92 1,591.76 1953 153,109 92 1,669.23 .6 -195' *190,977 *111 1,720.51 -1953 191,759 111 1,727.56 .9 1595h. *180,115 *103 1,798.69 -1955' *185,986 *103 1,805.69 3.: 1§951-1955 784,510** M62** 1,698.07 - *7- — **The totals from 1951 to 1955 were computed by adding each figure marked *. Level and Pattern of Food Consumption A recent study on food expenditures by the Agricul- tural Research Service and Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture reported that food expend- itures of housekeeping families in the U. S. average 7327. a week in the spring 1955. About 1322 of this :tpenditure was for food consu..ed at home. The remainder, £3 .00 was spent for meals and bet1-Ieen—meals food away from home. 1 11“ These figures include expenditures for soft drinks and al- coholic beverages. But the non-food items that are commonly bought in grocery stores are excluded. The average size of familv reported was 3.1+3 persons. Therefore, the average expenditure per capita was $737.89 a week for all food, 536.50 for meals at home and 5:31.39 for meals eaten away from home. Table 11 shows a comparison of the expenditures for food between the 103 Ii. S. U. consumer panel. families studied and United States families as a whole on a yearly basis of 1955. (U. S. average is weekly times 52.) Table 9 provides us with information for a comparison of 3:. S. U. panel expenditures, and United States food ex- penditures including between-meal snacks, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages, etc. The panel families with a higher income than the families representing the whole United States would be expected to spend larger amounts for food. The Opposite result is shown. The expenditures for between- 26 meal snacks, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and other foods not part of a meal away from home probably occupy a major place in the food expenditures. Another element of difference is that Lansing is a small city, and so the percentage of meals eaten away from home is lower than those in larger cities. This would tend to reduce total food costs in ansing. Also, the data we collected in different manners 0 TABLE h COKPARISCN OF FOOD EKPEKDITIRES, 103 u. s. U. cousuusa PANEL FAMILIES AND FAMILIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1955 M. S. U. Consumer Panel U. S. * (S yearly) 3 yearly) A. Per Family All food expenditures 1,0h9.h8 1,h0h At home 917.35 1.1% Away from home 132.13a 260b B. Per Capita All food expenditures 326.72 h10.28 At home 282.73 338.00 Away from home h3.99a 72.28b *Source: The National Food Situation, 1957 Outlook Issue, Agricultural'fiarketing SerVice, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. aExpenditures for meals only. bIncluding between-meal snacks and other foods and beverages not part of regular meals. The expenditures for ueals at home and meals away from hem of the H. S. U. consumer panel moved in the same direction with income in the past five year period. This indicates that 5 families obtained a higher income they £1) spent not only more on meals at hone but also spent more on meals away from home. Tables 5, 6 and 7 set forth this information and compare each year on a per family and per capita basis. TABLE 5 CLIPARISUTS or A.111' Ex SIDITLRSS FOR AL: iEALS, M S. U. cc::sr E'E PA.’ZEL, 951-1955 Number of Average Expenditures Year Families for All Meals Per Represented Family (5 yearly) 1951 * 53 971. 99 1952 53 1 ,013. 01 1952 * 92 1,019.69 1953 92 1,057 75 195 *111 1,026. 75 19 111 1,026. 28 195% *103 1 ,ohé. .37 1955 *103 1 ,oug. 1951-1955 462** 1,028. 50 Number of Average Expenditures Year Families for All Meals Per Represented Person (8 yearly) 1951 * 53 32c. 76 1952 53 339 59 1952 * 92 332. 68 1953 92 33¢. .32 19ga *111 337 89 19 111 3338 195% *103 330.38 1955 *103 326.72 1951-1955 h62** 330.62 **The totals from 1951 to 1955 were computed by adding each figure marked *. 1‘.) \0 TABLE 6 COHPARISCTS OF ANU7AL EXPEHDTTURES FOR MEALS AT HCKE, Number of Average Expenditures Year Families for Meals at Home Per Represented Family (3 yearly) 1951 * 53 86 .00 1952 53 87 .67 1952 * 92 896.71 1953 92 931.0% 195 *111 900.93 19 111 900.20 195% #103 916.34 1955 *103 917.35 1951-1955 M62** . 902. 3 Number of Average Expenditures Year Families for Meals at Home Per Represented Person (8 Yearly) 1951 * 53 280.51 1952 ‘53 287.32 1952 * 92 286.68 ‘953 92 992.97 195 *111 292.7% 19 111 288.0 1959 *103 287.9 1955 *103 982.73 1951-1955 962** 286.89 —__ **Ibid. 3O Til}? IJE 7 COMPARISONS OF ANUFAL EXPEIDlTURES FCR TEARS AWAY FROM HOME, N. S. U. CUfiSUMBR PANEL, 1951-1955 I! ”:— V'v Number of Average Expenditures Year Families for Meals Away from Home Represented Per Family (0 yearly) 1951 * 53 108.98 1952 53 139.3% 1952 * 92 122.97 1953 92 126.96 1953 *111 125.82 19 111 126.08 1954 *103 13o.n5 1955 *103 132.13 1951-1955 h62** 125.67 Number of Average Expenditures Year Families for Meals Away from Bone Represented Per Person (8 yearly) 1951 * 53 90.26 1952 53 52.26 1952 * 92 96.00 1953 92 9 .00 195 *111 .75 19 111 95.80 195% *103 h2.hO 1955 *103 93.99 1951-1955 962** 93.79 **Ibid. 31 Comparisons 2; income and expenditures. It has been found that the food expenditures of M. S. U. consumer panel families did not change propor- tionately as much as their income. Those families with higher incomes spent a smaller proportion on food than families with lower incomes. hese tendencies for food expenditures to increase (or decrease) with increases (or decreases) of income, but less than preportionately, are referred to as "Engel's Laws". These indications emerge in the panel in per capita data as well as per family data. Another indication has been found in the panel fami- lies that the proportions of total income spent on meals at home and meals away from home did not move in the same direction as the amount of expenditures. The proportion of income spent on meals at home decreases as the income in— creases, but the proportion of income spent on meals away from home does not decrease as the income increases, although it does not increase. These are indications that they would increase the expenditures for meals eaten away from home more than expenditures at home as their income increases, 1. e., they spent more time on vacation and ate more in restaurants. These comparisons are indicated in Tables 8, 9 and 10. TABLE 8 PROPORTION OF EXPE? ”DITU ES FOR AII MEAL3 PI .D IN CC E M. S. U. COITSUIIER PA'EI,1951 to 1955 Year Number of Average Average Expend- Percent Average Families Income itures for All Expezd for All Represented (8 yearly) Meals (8 yearlylneais Is of Ave. Income (3 yearly) "v v— V‘- Per Family Per Family Per Family 1951 * 53 8,172.91 971.99 23.29 1952 53 H.533.18 1,013.01 22.35 1952 * 92 8,557.90 1,019. 69 22.37 1953 92 8,902.29 1 ,057. 75 21.58 195 *111 8,987.59 1,026.75 20.59 19 111 5,065.65 1,026.28 20.26 1954 *103 5, 082. 89 1 ,Ohé. .37 20.58 1355 *103 5, 599. 36 1 :089. 9 18.7% 1955 h62** 8,966.20 1,028.50 '20.?8 Per Person Per Person Per Person 1951 * 531,527.73 320.76 21.00 1952 53 1 ,6h3.30 339.59 20.67 1952 * 92 1,591.76 332. 68 20.96 1953 92 1,66% 23 336. .32 20.21 195 *111 1,720.51 337 9 19.62 19 111 1,727.56 333. 8% 19.g2 195% *103 1,7h8.69 330. 38 18. 9 13;? *103 1,805.69 326.72 18.09 1955 h62** 1,698.07 330.62 19.87 **Ibid. 33 TABLE 9 PROPORTION OFE AND INCORE, R. KPEIDITURES FOR PL'EAL AT IIORE s. U. CORSURRR PANEL, 1951 to 1955 -:_ ‘ Year Number of Families Represented ($ yearly) Average Average Expendi- Percent Average tures for Meals Income at Home (3 yearly) 1 €3.13 1:703 U .LtLLP“ (fi yearly) Per Family Per Family Per Family 1951 * 53 %,172 .91 86 .00 20.68 1952 53 9.533187 .67 19.38 1952 * 92 9,557. 90 896.71 19.67 1953 92 %,902. 29 931.0% 18.99 19gfi *111 %,987. 59 900.93 18.06 19 111 5,065. 65 900.20 17.78 195% *103 5,032 916.3% 18.0 12;? *103 5,599 36 917.35 16.32 1955 %62 %,966.20 902.83 18.18 Per Person Per Person Per Person 1951 * 53 1, 527.73 280.51 18. 6 1952 1 53 1 ,6%3. 30 287.32 17. 8 1952 92 1 ,591. 76 286.68 18.01 1953 * 92 1, 66%. 23 292.%7 17.57 1953 111 1,720. 51 292.7% 17.01 19 *111 1,727.56 288.0 16.67 195” 103 1 ,7%8. 69 287.91 16.%7 1355 *103 1,805.69 282.73 15.66 1 1- 1955 %62** 1,698.07 286.8% 16.89 **Ibid. 11‘6'07'1813 ’ Averaqe Income 3% TABLE 10 PROPORTION OF EXPENDITUFES FOR MEAIS AWAY FROM HOME AND ITCOME, M. S. U. COKSUMER PARRY, 1951-1955 Year Number of Average Average EXpendi- Percent Average Families Income tures for Meals Expenditures for Represented ($ yearly) Away from Home Heals Away from (w yearly) Home Is of Average Income (8 yearly) Per Family Per Family Per Family 1951 * 53 9,172.91 108.98 2.61 1952 53 9,533.18 13%.3% 2.96 1952 * 92 %,557.90 122.97 2.69 1953 92 %,902.29 126.%6 2.58 1953 *111 4,987.59 125.82 2.52 19 111 5,065.65 126.08 2.%9 195% *103 5,082.89 130.05 2.55 13;? *103 5,599.36 132-13 2-35 1955 %62 %,966.20 125.67 2.53 Per Person Per Person Per Person 1951 * 53 1,527.73 %0.26 2.6% 1952 53 1,6%3.3O 52.26 3.18 1952 * 92 1,591.76 %6.00 2.89 1953 92 1,664.23 9 .00 2.58 195 *111 1,720.51 .75 2.60 19 111 1,727.56 %5,80 2.65 1959 *103 1,7%8.69 %2.%0 2.%2 1355 *103. 1,805.69 %3.99 2.%% 1 1- 1955 %62** 1,698.07 %3.79 2.58 V vv—Wfi"_——— ‘— —'-— **Ibid. 35 Comps ri.sons of exgenditu e3 for all Rea s, meals ”-7 home and mea is away _from home. I” It was assumed that larger sized families spend less of their income on meals away from home than those of smaller size. The reasoning is that (1) larger families lave lower per capita income and (2)1 larger families with more children spend more time at home taking care of their children, even if they stay at home instead of going away for vacation. Tne panel sr ows tr at families spend less proportionately, expressed in terms of percent of meals at home, for meals away from home on a per family basis than on a per capita basis. This is comparable to the situation in the United States as a whole. Families having food away from home in a week were not only related as to their income but also closely related as to size of family. Families in the Northeast, with average size of family of 3. 3H, spent 32%. 77 for mea s at home and $6. 00 for meals and between- :9 meal food away from home. The percentage of families l1. ng meals away from home in a week was 80.9. In the North Cen- tral, however, families with an average size of 3. 39 spent $23.27 for meals at home and 8%.95 for meals away from home. The percentage of families having meals away from home in a week was 75.9. The Southern families, with a larger size of 3.62, spent $18.25 for meals at home and $3.29 for meals away from home, and t? e percentace of families having meals 36 1 These figures Show that the way from home was 75.2. expenditur s for meals away from home fluctuate more than expenditures for meals at home especially when expressed on a per capita basis. Over a five year period the h. S. U. panel families had the same tendency as for the United States as a whole. Tables 11 and 12 show the prOportional rela- tionships between tFe expenditures for meals away from home, meals at home and all meals. Income Elasticity of All Food Consumption The relationships between income and food expenditures are conveniently summarized under the term ”income elastic- ity“. The measurement of arc income elasticity compares the relative change, or percentage change, in expenditure associated with the corresponding relative change, or per- centage change, in income. A coefficient of income elas- ticity that is negative means that the expenditures decreases as income increases; a coefficient of zero means that the xpenditures spent is not influenced by changes in income; a coefficient greater than zero and less than 1 means that the preportional increase in expenditure spent is less than the correspondire preportional increase in income; a coeffi- ‘J cient greater than 1 means that the preportional increase 1Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Mar- keting Service, United States Department of Agriculture Preliminary Report of Survey of household Food Consumption, Spring, 1955. August, 1956. Op. cit. 37 TABLE 11 PROPORTICE Cl EixE DITW ES FOR ALL IIEAJ 8 AND EXPEIHDITIRES r08. EAIS AWAY FRO‘.E TOME, M. S. U. COE.-S”EER PAI?EL,1951~1955 L.— :— Percent Ave. Erpend. No. of Ave. Expend. Expend. for for Meals Away from Year Families for All Meals Meals Away Home Is of Ave. Ex- Represented ($ yearly) from Home pend.for all Meals (3 yearly) ($ yearly) - 0 .-~. Per Family Per Family Per Family .1951 * 53 971.99 108.98 11.21 1952 53 1 ,013. CH 139.39 13.61 1952 * 92 1,019.69 122.97 12.06 1953 92 1 ,057 75 126.96 11.96 195 *111 1,026.75 125.82 12.25 19 111 1, 026. 28 126.08 12.29 1959 *103 1, :096. 9.37 130.05 12.93 19%5 *103 132.13 12.59 19 1- 1955 962** 1,028.50 125.67 12.22 Per Person Per Person Per Person 1951 * 53 320.76 90.26 12.55 1952 53 339.59 52.26 15.g9 1952 * 92 332. 68 96.00 13. 3 1953 92 336. .32 93.00 12.79 19§E *111 337 9 9 .75 13.26 19 111 333. 89 95.80 13.72 1959 *103 330.38 92.90 12. 83 13;? *103 326.72 93.99 13.96 1955 962** 330.63 93.79 13.29 38 TABLE 12 PROPORTICII 02 2’2" 21.L.22 201: 2213 AT EC :2 AJD EXPE: DIT 123 20: EATS Avr.a3:2202:012, M. s. U. CC'srr22 PATEL, 1951-1955 Ave. Expend.Peroent Ave. Expend. 10. of Ave. Expend. for Meals for Meals Away from Year Families for Meals at Away from Home Is of Ave. Represented Home Home Expend. for Meals (3 yearly) ($ yearly) at Home (8 yearly) Per Family Per Family Per Family 1951 * 53 863.00 108.98 12.62 1952 53 878.67 138.39 15. 28 1952 * 92 896.71 122.97 13. 71 1953 92 931.0% 126.%6 1.58 195 *111 900.93 125.82 .97 19 111 900.20 126.08 18.01 195+ *103 SH6.3H 130. 05 18.19 19;“5 *103 917.35 137.13 11+.1+O 19 1- 1955 462** 902.83 125.67 13.92 Per Person Per Person Per Person 1951 * 53 280.51 80.26 12.35 1952 53 287.32 59.26 18.19 1952 * 92 286.68 #6. 00 16.05 1953 92 299.87kim1h.70 19;& *111 292.7% M 75 15.29 19 111 288.0 h5.8015.90 195% *103 287.9 22.90 19.72 13;? *103 982.73 %3.99 15.56 1955 #62** 286.8% %3.79 15.27 in expenditure is greater than the corresponding pronortional increase in income.2 Using data from th- h. S. U. Consumer Panel, a series of simple arc elasticities was calculated. (See Table 13.) These include all food, meals at home and meals away from hone, based on per family and per capita data. From Table 13 we find that the percentage increases in income affect the percentage increases in expenditures for meals away from home to a greater extent than expenditures for meals at home. This is an indication that families (or persons) with higher income spend more for meals away from home than do those families with lower incomes. It is evidenced both on a per family and per capita basis. Another indication is that when families have a smaller percentage increase in income they do not always increase their food expenditures; sometimes other factors cause food expenditures to be de- creased rather than increased. Income Elasticity of Meals Eaten Away From Home Income elasticities computed (using arc elasticity formula) are shown in Table 13 which illustrates the percent- age change in expenditures associated with a one percent change in income from one year to the next. This measurement 2Willard, Cochrane w. and Bell, Carolyn Shaw, The Economics of Consumption, KcGraweHill Book Company, nc., New York, p. 215. 40 TABLE 13 THE INCOXE ELASTICITIES OF FOOD, EACH YEAR TO THE NEXT, 4. S. U. COVSTMER PANEL, 1951*1955 Per Family Years Percent Change Percent Change Elas- Compared in Income in Expenditure ticity Ill food 1951-1952 + 8.63 + l+.22 0% expendi- 1952-19ga + 7.56 + 3.71 0.50 tures 195 -19 + 1.56 - .05 -0.03 _, 19; —1955 “340.16 +1 .30 0.03 Away from 1951-1952 + 3333 +23.268 2.52 home 1952-1953 + 7.56 + 2.84 0.38 195 -19) + 1.56 + .21 0.13 195311955 ‘3 +10.16 + 1.60 ‘31L16 At home f951-1952 + 8.63 + 1.82 0.22 1952-195 + 7.65 + 3.81 0.52 1953-19 + 1.56 - .08 -0.05 ‘T_, 19; -1955 +10116_ _M + .11_fl‘.1w, 0.01 Per Capita ‘_v 3 All food 1951-1952 + 7.56 + 5,87 0.78 expendi- 1952-1953 + b.55 + 1.09 0.2% tures 195 -199 + .41 - 1.08 -2.67 192_:1 +33,26 - 1.11 - 2%6 Away from 1991-1932 + 7f5§"'“ +29.8h 3. 6 home 1952-19g3 + 3.55 - 4.68 -1.08 195 -19 + .%1 +-2.3h 5.62 19 -19553 +_3;26 +33.25 0.96 At home 1951-1952 + 7.56’ + 2fh3 0.33 1952—195 + #.55 + 2.02 0. 5 195 -19 + .41 - 1.61 -3.97 19) -1955 + 3,26 - 1.82 -0. a. Formula used to calculate elasticities was: E1-EO E1+Eo £1.29... I1+Io b. + Percent increase in income or expenditures - Percent decrease in income or expenditures The income elasticities were computed in terms of yearly income and yearly expenditures for meals eaten away from home. The yearly expenditures were obtained by multiplying the average weekly expenditures by 52. m of elasticity is derived from panel data with observations ex {tendltg over a period of time. Another measnremedt of income ela stic:i.ty has b een derived from cross-sectional data. These two measurements are obtains: from t?e same data. Fowever, the result is sonew at different. When us ilg cros s-sectional data t"e income-expenditure ela.sticity represents the differeices in xpenditure patte n associated with differe:1t levels of family incur e (or per capita inco1ae) measured at a point in time. Due to difficulties in measuring tTe "net" rela- tions ips between income and expenditures for food, at- tempts to reconcile income elasticities based on cross- sectional data with those derived from time series seem to be unsuccessful or more difficult than attempted here. Various methods nave been used for meas1ring income elasticities. We can fit the same data as were used in the simple arc elasticities to a hig’ly complex mathematical equation. The mostw idely used procedure has been multiple regression analysis. Th nnual and weekly data used were these from the period of 1952 to 1955. The variables used in the sinlle equation regression analysis were as follows Y = per family (or per capita) expenditures for meals eaten away from home :ze (or per capita income) >4 ooh I H) 93 E: H }._n ‘1 1..) :3 O * c*ize of family k '7 :‘J l L x3 = age of homemakers 1+2 :01 education of homemakers X - employment of honemekers The regression equation is: log y = a + b1 10g X1 + b2 log "2 + b3 log I3 + by log X4 + b5 log K5. T e elasticities can be read directly from tie 9 pa- 3 tion since the variables ar 1' D $.10 expressed n iossrlt ms. A The regression eqlm tions results of income elastici- ties are as follows: * Income elasticity of Meals away from home (cross-sectional) Year Number of families in Per family Per capita 2.0599 1. 6765 1.7%g3 1. £623” 1.67 2 . 1.7706 1.6201 1.6%87 .8890 1.5h87 1.ho10 c—fi \O AHA—5...; DOA-“\O‘O LUUJ-é—“RJIU *A detailed discussion of these equations wil. be taken up in Cra1ter ‘II "results from multiple regress in. analysis.” The res ths of income elasticities from cros s—sectional data indicate that tie elasticities derived from the per capita basis are sraller than M -os e derived from tte per family basis. These results indicate that the aH101nt of ex pezdi ures for meals away from home vary inversely with the size of fa;ily (see later discussion). A third method of measuring income elasticity is the ('1‘ I! 3‘: (D U) 0 -ries study. Because of the small sample on the an- he simp_'e regression equation for measuring a :55 C) l__l U (1) L3 1.1 U! u L+3 time series income elasticity from 1951 to 1955 was based on average weekly data by 4-week periods.3 However, the current incomes of panel families showed wide variations from week to week (Figure 1). Each family reperts its total income payment actually received each week. Part of the families are paid on a weekly basis, and others are paid biweekly, monthly, or at irregular intervals. It seemed un- likely that such an income series would be satisfactory to compare with the weekly expenditures for meals eaten away from home, even if they were computed as a four-week aver- age. Therefore, a 13-week moving average was computed on both income and expenditures for meals eaten away from home. These computations were done by using the current week's income and expenditures for meals eaten away from home and the previous 12 week's income and expenditures for meals eaten away from home. Figures 1 and 2, using a h-week aver- age, taken from the 13-week moving average data (from Ap— pendix 1) are plotted to compare the income and expenditures for meals eaten away from home, in terms of per capita basis. The relationships between these two variables are of par- ticular importance to an understanding of the expenditures for meals eaten away from home associated with income. Using the h-week average of the 13-week moving average data (taken from Appendix 1) for a time series income elas— ticity study the data were fitted in a simple regression 3Data were used including all the families in panel. hl+ uwwwhmwm macaw xooans :« meawp0Hm awed mead mead mm at“ ML. owuuo>< wzd>oz xoozwma 0:» Ho owmpo>& x0031: _ ..w ommho>< x0031: .oeoocH unconso.lll C 111' . “Hal . l I" .man we x003_ucmn.0p Han H0 x003 nuna .moaadsam Honda uoasmcoo .D.m.z an oovuoaom osoocH «pagan pom hflxooz mo omwhobd .H onsmam v. *. .. . . wnaHHon . . l+5 . l“ ‘II I I 1 41 4J1|1|4J1. 1|! 1 111‘ 4 I I.) - w 1......1. 1... .1.. owdam>u so 8003.. 5 530.3 7JL17. fl..1 .... 0.1.. a. . .l‘fi .... .... 1 4 a . a A A, . .+ . Y. . c . . . . .1 . 4 . . . b1 e . f 1 v. . A. $4 9 Vi. .16 v . u 1.1. 1 . . . . .. ... T. . a 4 . r 6 . .1 . e o T . A o . oY. ¢ . VH1. .x .thw1~.i 1‘ a .i; . . ion .1 o... .... o . 1.1.0 o . .1. 1- 9 a . 10 v . v 1. 1. I; . .rbk - .AY. . 1. I.T.l1. 9%. ...1 .... o t c o . . . . 0A1 .10 o . 0A.i0 .Y+ | v e . c . O is . r... . .11. vvvv. .500 1 . , l , l . .... 5..v v.4. .o... 1... ..o .uo. c...v£4c. I1.?A J k. .tp1' .010‘... .v1 . . 01v.. I... 5.1. 91.1.1n.1. .... 1... o... ..¢. vch.v.. .LVo .u.¢ o..’ 9.9. u .0 405» 9'1. «99.1.7V . .... '14. 56.57 .-.I ...o. .o.. .... 1..1. ...¢ .....y o.v1.>v,. b... A.v.;.9-. . ..1.o1cb .$.& ..6.1..1A .. . .1 . .1 .1 . 1......0 .... v... .c.. a.. .o.. .ylc. ¢I¢1¢A§o .v..l...' .9-. o 4. .w.aio4é01..a. 1... . -v.v1.. .|.b v.01 .... .... v1.0 ...r .... ..vo .1... ...v .n.. .ch. .atvv.... .‘.o .... .1... k.. ..V. 1.. 1 4 .. .0. t... . .n .4.» 1... A... v... .. a .... .a1. 1". .... n... 11'.. ... .... I. .11. .. In. 000- to.‘ .00: .oah cor. 1.. ..Iv o-IJADD,- VOIQ duos to. PO! 4 11:.) 1L-Vvl..a ... .... ... .... .... -. v... .... .... v...,.... 1... ..-. ... ...1 .... ..1.71... ...1. .... .... .-. 1 .. .... A 1. .... 1 . .... . .. u... .... . . . .... .... u... 9... .1.. p o. .e. .o..1 I... ...1i1.vc I... . .. - . . . o... v 1. s .. . .. . .. .... . .. .... .... ....v..-. .... c... .... .... ... .... .... 1.-. 1...1.... u... .. ..- .. .... . 4.11- .. .-. . 6 .... .... .... r... .... .1.............. o... .... .... .... .. . .... 1.... .v.. ..1..xo...1k... .. . ...q ..1. .... . .. ..n§L .l.|A1.!.. . .... ... .... . .. . .. .... .... ... ..-+ o... . ... ... 7.. .... -. .. .1..1 .Tu. ..... -... .. .x .-. .-. ..1. ...L 11--.! . .. .1. . o...i...v .... 1. . .. . .. .. ... ..o. .... c... .... v... .u. .... p. .T. v. .I.. .v. 4... .... .... 4... ...1.1A..1 .. 1. 1.. . .. . .. .... .... .... ... .. .. . .... ....1Y... 10.. .... 1... v 1... .1... o... .1..iy.... .+.. ...o .A.. -.n.i..-.l..v 1&1111A1 4. 11 . . . .... .... n. . ..v. .... . .. .... .... .... .o.. . .o ...1 ... .... ....v... .....A -.1.. p. 1... v... 10. ...v $19.11... . .. . .. .... . .. .... .. .... .... .a.. .1.. .... ..1. .... ......... ..1. .... . .. ... ...1. ...- v.1...b..v vs... .... . .. .... .... .... . . c... ... ...a .r.. u... .... .... . .. 1... ..-. o.r.... -..|....Ya.. O..1 11. ...i.9...x1v...w O...1¢.. .u1190013 . . . .... .... ....n ... ... v... .... ...~ ... .... .«.. .... .... . 1 .1 ..1. .1. .. .... .... . 9..- .... 1.. 12.1 111111....» .... ... .. . .... . .. .... .... .u. ... . . .4A. o... . ..4. . .1. .1. .9 . v .0.. v... .. .1». .1.v 1-01Vx1.... . .... b... .... i . . .. 1». a... ... . .1. ..o. .... ...o d.. . 9 9 . 1 ... ... ... . . . . I. v.60! 1.00.01.11.11 . .... .... .. . . . . . v. .... ... .. .... .i.... .. . 1..» ..w.... .-. ...- .... ...1 .1- 6.1.. 1411.. v0... 1...- . .. . . . . ... .... ...,1.. 1... ..r.... .1..w9..1. ... .... ...v1-... «9.. .... ..J. ...J 119.91 VB 11111... > . . >- ... .e o... 0.1. .0 a .vo. .‘ re. .0 .10 1.. ..I.o p... 0.11 .. . on .10 .1I.. . I. Lao. .O.O|A '1‘. 0i?!‘ . . .. . . . .. . . ... ... .... ... . .. . 1.. .... u... ... .. . .11. . v. . .. .... ..1. 1...1.1... ...1. To. .l.1.. . . . . . . . . . . a . n . . . . . 1 . a 1 Y. t o . s n . . 1 ii 0 a v- 0 A a D Y. . o 9 11H .11 1.10 1 I 1 o . v . 111 v u . n . . . A -i I A 1 . 1 I 0.0. 11 . O a. 1‘ . 7.- 1119 -1. 1 1 1 1 , ... .. . . .. . .... ..¢. . .. n... .171 .v . ..n 1.0.. 1..1 .1.« ..ct .9.1¢ o... .....n... . .th.o. .11... .... 11 1 It... -|.1. .. .. .... .. .... .... .¢.. ?... .c.. .. ... b... 1.I. 1... 4.-....1 .. .1 . ... A v .. . a. .1... air. .0.- . . .. .. . . .... .... .l.. .... .... .... .o. ........k.1-. To..\.u.. 1.. ..1. . 1 11 .... .4 .1.. ..v.. ATJItl. .+1. 1 1 .. .. .1 . .. . ..». .. . .... . . . .. . .. .... . .11.. .... .... .. ...._ . .. . ....f.. . 1 . 1;..1.... ..... . . . . .. . . . .. . .... ..,. .... .... . . .... .... .. . . . ..... . . . v. .. A 1.101. .... .... . . . . ._ . .. .. . .1...,..rl-... . ... . . .j..-..... ... ..1. T.--...- .... ...- .. . . . . .. . , ... .... . . ,. o . 1 .. .... .. . ... ... -... .A . . . ..1. u. . . .. .1 u¢.11 I. .v.a.. . . . _> v. . .. . .. - . . u . .0 n... .41. no... .t.. 1t a ..<. I . a... .1. A. o ...I .vfiI YA... I... ... .... . . .1.. . . .. .. .... ,.. ... u... .... .1..11v‘. n... .... ..cv .... .... ... .... .... ....1T-..$ .o... .l.. .... . 11:1 4 1 . whob4 >0: goostm L . ::?I. 2.3. no own? x0031 III-1.? . .. .. . . A... .... . _. . .. . . .... . .. .... v... ... ...- .. . 1.4. .. . . ... .v.. . .. . .. . . .. 1... .«u. ... i. v . . M . . .u . u . vr v. n «.h. ..¢O v... o. a . ... u.. .15. .. . Y‘.1 .... .1; ..O. . .... .... .... . o 00 on - m M ..d. s 4 c... I... q . . . e on 83 .. ... Hmma no xoez_nema uoaaaeum Hoe. noesueeo a m . :; ._ .; :; so." be. a no .3 3.3 so a no 5.3.03 0 93>< m on: E . . . . .. ., .. .... ... . .W.-.. .11 - -. .. . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . ... . . . vs... .-. . .1a.. . . .. . .. . . .. . .u u .11. .. .~ ..1 .0. o . H 1 , 1 1 1 1 b.. #6 equation as follows: Y = .1620 + .O2MOX Y = Average weekly expenditures for meals away from home, per capita X = Average weekly income per capita « ? Income Elasticity = .‘S . 91 = E . b = 27'6688 . Y dx Y .8257 (Elasticity computed at the mean) Y = $ .8257 average per capita weekly expenditures for meals eaten away from home 3 = 327.6688 average per capita weekly income b = .OZMC In this analysis, the income elasticity of the 5-year time series was .8OM. A comparison of the cross-sectional study and the time series study indicates that the cross- sectional study has yielded higher income elasticities for meals eaten away from home than has the S—year time series study. Cross-sectional studies have yielded higher income elasticities for food than have most studies based on tim series and much effort has been expended to reconcile the two sets. However, it has been unsuccessful.1+ To reconcile income elasticities derived from time series data with those derived from cross-sectional studies is difficult. In addi- tion to the disturbing influence of other factors, there is also a question as to how readily families take on consumption 1+Schultz, op. cit., p. 51. habits of a higher income group as their incomes increase relative to other families. A detailed analysis of this question is beyond the scepe of this dissertation. Variation of Meals Eaten Away From Home Due to Income More important is a comparison of income and exnend- itures for meals eaten away from hone ever time. The income and expenditure trends show the relationship between them. Such a comparison has been made graphically and by correla- tion ,nalysis. Figure 3 shovs a graphical comparison of income and expenditures for meals eaten away from home in terms of a h-week average of the l3-week moving averase. It is apparent from the Figure 3 presented that the averaae weekly expendi- tures for meals eaten away from home and the averase income increased yearly with approximately the relationship as pre- viously stated, the income elasticity was .BOM. It is in- dicated that the simple linear trend in expenditures for meals eaten away from home during the S-year period from the 13th week of 1951 to the 52nd week of 1955 was at an increas‘ng rate of about .8 percent as the income was in- creasing at a rate of 1 percent. A significant correlation was found to exist between income and expenditures for meals eaten away from home in terms of a h-week average of the l3-week moving average over a 5~year period as follows: 48 .nodmdaah Huaam uoaancoo .D.m.z hp and oeoocH «vague you He omauubd waabox xopzuma on» go omahbba xoeBnA50h > t b r ’1‘. ‘ b b Pl Enhance + 080m Eon“ >a3¢ name: you mouspac: >|| b .m L ‘ gm 4 J. 1 r J . assessments. J 7 a . a a a»? wimp -y RS 3% RE $3 an r .. a N N NW N HLLHH. ngm.w JH;;HH fidfiifi CI ., a a Wm m“ ms, Hm. ._Hf_..w...mfl. Tea BTW . .v . . . . . k) . ..u 4 . V .HHHMH . .. H. .h . .. . ”Ho. ,- ... '1‘ Y-O.I.r v. mflvdaao W A . m _ , ..H3 .3“. .H . . a N nOMfi .3 2885 a 1 . . E. . ... if. g ,4; 9.3: . . .. . . .... ..~. . . .. . A whaHHOG . w l. .. “.3 ”2H“ AUHVHH . H ”in mvCOU - -H.Mw.nmn I 2: an“. ._;H z Saul whhww l i-.u.rmwlh..w :.,: xmnxu 6an mo x8: damn 3 32 no :83 53 .w an M9 Letting Y Average expenditures for meals eaten away from home per capita per week X Average income per capita per week .1619? + .023988x r = .6795 tr = 9.5293 Fitting to the equation Y The result of simple regression equation yielded a correlation coefficient .6795; and the test of correlation coefficient was significant at the 1 percent level. Variation of Meals Eaten Away From Home Due to Seasonality - Both expenditures for, and number of, meals eaten away from home are seasonal. Appendix 2 shows the average number of meals, and averag expenditures for meals eaten away from home per capita by h-week periods based on family income groups. The income groups were based on per capita income of the family for the previous year. Medium incomes were: 1951, $1,000 to $1,5n0; 1952, $1,070 to $1,690; 1953, $1,070 to $1,690; 195%, 31,250 to $1,890; 1955, $1,290 to $1,890.5 For example, income of $1,000 to 31,5h0 in 1950 set the income groups in 1951. sQuackenbush, G. G. and Shaffer, J. D., "Cooperation and Sampling in Four Years of M. S. U. Consumer Panel Oper- ation", Quarterly Bulletin of the Michigan Agricultural Ex- periment Station, Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, East Lansing, Vol. 38, No. 1, August, 1955, p. 97. 50 In figures h and 5, the data from Appendix ?, are Ivlotted to show for each income group the expenditures for rneals and number of meals eaten away from home over time. As shown in Figures H and 5, the seasonal variations :in expenditures for, and number of, meals eaten away from liome appeared to follow a similar pattern in spite of level oi‘income. However, tte number of meals eaten away from liome is fluctuated more than the expenditures for meals (eaten away from home. Thes are especially shown in the rnedium group and lower income groups. These variations irriicate the medium and lower income groups spent relatively Jxess per meal than the higher income groups. P. Over the five year period, it 5 shown on tie figures tdiat the number of meals eaten away from home, and the ex- Euenditrres for the same, were greatest for tie higher income Exroup, next greetes: for the medium income group, and lowest fWDr the low income group. The seasonal pattern of meals eeaten away from home, both number and expenditures, in each Iinceme group appear the same. Both reach a peak during the 13eriod of mid-summer of each year, fallirg to a seasonal :Lew in the winter. This seasonal flucitatien of each year 5;s obviously affected by the vacations and weather. Further checking and comparing the seasonal trend of expenditures for meals eaten away from home and number of meals eaten away from home, a single seasonal trend was graphically illustrated in Figure 6. The data were taken 51 33.5 is. .32 s x8 a 3 £98 .2 23m 383 2mm 3 32 he x3: 55 . . H .532 3qu Mo .3952 kg: anW96 neoonH .5 . a u 2:... s .3» E \‘L‘... tr! I ll r h [LII III - s 'I a . r i . ‘41 ...!III v 0L goof—on x0273 nmma ma mnma mnma Han N mm. mm mm mm. . . 1 {1.0 1*? 414 0 4“ VOtau'oiYi A Ll . 4 P , P Pr, 4 44 . YV-. $ 4 4173 ~19|VL 070‘QAI‘I {in 4 vkl olIVQvto YI‘O (02“.Q vaaI. Lv. bl. . vl! r 0 0’94 .$.0I1v.,filol‘ In-" r.l'6|4.‘0910+ IIOTOAAY.‘ 6!? t l 4 o O v1.1.1. 1.. vv-t.oia. 0.4 .«. .. -.|‘io-a.i7»..- ..... v.1. I:Olwl..¢.. .«Ioi > 4$.W;.L‘ovv.a. .v.0 IO|.. lacifi.... .‘Vlooi 71,9!Pl O?’£?v: I: .V < l» 4 I Lottvlifoi ob‘vt 10. L sotli‘a . . vvvooluvlutollfiol'livalo4vi I'v{.otb.ul VOOIt$ 000 l > > va‘n Y9..- Yooiw 4 o ’i A .9-.Q.n AAIt‘A .Yo. Iltw.n n .0.va 0',9.T‘... ..|?0 01-. .T) c .‘34‘ it . . 1:... ,.06‘ Ob.-4 ..O’va ,.L n va ..~‘ ‘00 . «f .‘.> 'O‘VAYIOO‘L.nuOAfi. . J .1..- o...irt..~ q..vi on.~ vA-o o... i. . culvo a... ..o. .o.. .u. .i..s.... ...L.... .c9. 5... .‘0- -.0. W1... .¢.o h..H 09.0 .. uaA. ...vio... ”LGHHOQ an A no x003 Ema 3 Hum." 0 300.3 5 Jason 0208 b a m o o o mm 3.3.6 Lam 080m Boa.“ R»? 3qu my noungcothHmomM omwpoawaim mm ammudh y- I'-l 1| .n..v.u.6 ..O¢T>.-.v a..- .4.. .o‘. lo... fioooi 6... ..7A 9'..Oi o... o... . .oaoo‘? .a... .... . ..i v-..oi o... a... A. - ban.) 4 4 4 ....v»45n ..o Yoo... 64.c ...: .afifivCVtoi muoapon xooas: 53 ma NH HH 0H m m m . m m d N H x . , _ . 1 j|1 « 11 1 .« 1 41 4 J 4 11 .4 4 .114 1 J. l a 31‘441 o .4. .HH1. . $.THVAsJ. 14L» fin $.0l m o. 1 1 1. 4‘9? ..M YHIIMLHoIi. rig. 44cc! 0 A. lo-..".l..¢ol1|0l 10$ 4... v.54.y. v. .. 4 .L . I. l #i 1?1A .111 V .... Y 14 > . .4 V1 . 141k... vet? c .. . 7 , , , 71460 oi... 1444frvt>o VJ. ¢LY «... 0.1.4 0‘». .+r1.Y 1&111104 .415... blHJ$ YVIfiAY 1n+A v.1.i r 114 {174' 79.. r ....a¥..d d .0 .... 140,1 v&.1 11.-1.g .d.1 1.-.. 1. T..‘..l..ro\..?4. 7 41.9... o..? Tvtflv.‘ I I’LrJlL .8 . .47... «c.4i r . V11.1>I -W e414» -rI. YYoo JinvfioiTairo1+1lT11.1..V1‘IAA ...-.i O ......AofllL 11“; 054H. 014V rl-t TV.A$ .?.Jfi«. fol...ir.1r.. , i _ . v 01. 0.! 0§I K4irkl74 7’10A oTav 4.?6 vo‘talxfi I?fii1.+fq v. {‘1‘ Adoiil .7? I’I.’+§Ol 111’. I v A A t vvoti aidoinoJ‘LT.lt.- a! 7! Ol1§vl.lo’ 1gllono' 1n oil-41' 1th. I . FL y. i ,L[. r . y 1 bl. L ,. r . 4 J ..- . 1 4 a 4 1 11 1 1 44 1 . a 1 . 4 . Y. 1 v. A J 9 <1.4 o ..va .¢ +.YV0 9 1. to... a o o O‘ 1 Yo; o a; 4 .411 it . 4L Pill A +191 ...1 Volt 4. 1 4 A 0.1 If. 517‘. ...? .V.Y.¢i 4.. IA $$ ... .a «1‘ 4L 1 d'iT1.o.¢l. .1 Cl 7 -14.. la. 1 ll t t 1.10 .14r’kxa.‘ , .v , 1Y¢o Ar. .1 1... ..o. v .v.,.41.. a...» .114 llocivt .. :1... 0.0- a. ..o optic 17bo. 19.” - o, A .0‘ 1.. vet -.>V¢.¢- 11.1.. A314. 1‘.51.T.0o. .TQofifc $9.... d. . A11o-1.. 1.. ? or..4. ....1... , , , .341. .1. 1..6 1. . 1o... 1... o..»¢.t.. . 13...;9. -....i ....u 1-.1o. a... ...!¢l1+. I ..vToovVo‘1iaa1oido.‘ .....11 1.1. Y§|1. flit..v. soul; to: ..‘.d .1.$ ..L-...i.vv. 11.. L .aa .1.. .o.. o .9. ..A1 1o.’ o. o .9...‘ o oo 1.1:. an. - own.-. ‘15 V. .4c v4¢ injvl. o?¢. You? ou‘vo Viv-.-.. I.o v. 1.10.. .14. 145.1 771.14 1? 111. 1. LY 41oniv..- -IL ' . a , . - . bit} , . 4|4|1 «.1 11 .1 11 . . .l 1 4 1 1 4 4 l1 4 1 1 < A . 1|4 . f. . . 73 . p a w. v . § . f.-. . ... . a . . o o o . . . ..-; . . Ta ... 1 c . t o 4 ~ .4 o u 1 1. L a 1 ’ .o.o.6.v. ...b.oo.¢&lc . o.rt4 c 0 T... p Q. o-Y# o valwon .+9.. .| 1’16... t .....11 1 .I1 0.. .. o ..I To... 0111111,? ... fol... .V1. 1101..-! . . . . i . To 0 ...A. 1 o . o .1 . ..1 1 o 1 . o p . u . n a 1 u a . . o . . u .0 o 1 9 1 o-% .4 u . a I. o a o. . u . v o o . n c o o a fie 4 v o. . . 4 1w1 o .41-“; |9.c 4|: 9.. 1.6! a r o 1 1... u 0.1 .9. n P 6 . . v a... a .1 o o 110 I... 7.. VI. . 0.. .0 . . .- i i 70-... to... .... .9.1. ‘.11. .... ...r V ...o +1.1.» 0... T+>.. ..lo 1... A04. 4.-.1 51.9109.?w.1.V4o ..-an 14.4I IQ;.JFO..tI 1.4ooit..$ 7t-.. ...!1’.|'Y9¢ ..-...41V... , V , i 1 '1 ...vv 1... *T1T -1... 11... .1.1 . v.1.1 411. 4.11- F.-¢J+. ...! +4vv oo«.9 .1.¢ r11. 11oniv.‘.‘OI¢iT'.JIOIfDI++.1£14IOQlI4[11. fif.f. v10! -....316‘7 «IYIT 1; $b1.ii 0 V , , , -T _ . a . H 4,. A , , 4|! 4 l 1 l, 1 1 11 .4. . l . Iory 4.1 ...o co.- 14... u¢.¢ o.9. fl 1.... .-«o. <.1.1|.w¢¢'01,544.4 .ffo 9V.’ 1.44. . 1? . . . . ...! 1L»9.1.o .11...Y¢o1 ttll YAo’Iv , i , TOJA¢. 1.... .... ...... .... YA... .1. J. 4 at... §..1. ....1 v... .... 11... o,?.! ...- 1a. . . .. ...- ...c! .1... 1VO.§ .-l. .tslti ...Y ...1 .... a.1. v.111<1‘-. <4.. a .....9.....1,1. oon1.+fvrn .5o1 ab.¢.0|nfil .111 . .14. ... ...; .... ...$ 96111.1 o. 0.. c.14 ....c «1.1 .wouil b..- .... 11 114- 4.90; 0.46 ¢o+.1.. a»... ...a» .40.. c.4o. Toa. . ...: v. .. YOI‘ 1... ..1I. v.1 .YL£.IOI.. . FL , . 1|? 1 b w i . i > ’ A 3 .. . .....I.-..-.I. .1.-...I..-...i-... . .-..Ill. l-..:-.-.C 71..» .... ... .... woocl11.3 .... .... 0.1. .... .... . ... 11......5 .....r... . 1. 1 .. o .... 1.. ...x1 o . ..-. i (o Ynako ... «.1. n.10i .... A... A... can. ... .... .940 1xa9| .-.. ...1.1 .?A a... . a... T..v. 1.1. 1...... II.O.Y.1O. $1..v , . 11... ¢... .. . .Q.. t... 11.0 a-..v\..1. .... .... not. ... 95 11... .1. ...O ..T. 1.0. 1 . ... 1.... 4.. .riL viola. t.-- 71“. f TI; 4 4 .\ rp.6. .... . .. ..1. re... .1» 11.. ....a u. . 1 .... a... ..1. 1.1. 9».- . o. .... .... ...: T1... .11 - YQ... ....i +11. ....t I. .1 ..$i.¢1.o. .1-.LT’5-V¢.V.L‘J 7| 1 . n . c . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t n . . . a . ... o 1 1 .1 u . V1 . o . u . . . 1 a u . 1 1 n . . . . . . . I o . .. .. u 1 . . . . o s T. . . 1 . 15. To . t . ....tr. . . . v 11- 961.1. 1.\1. +...... .... ... .... .... .... .... ..1. .1..T.... a... ....v 1.1. V... .... ... ...1 ..1. v... .- . .... ..+ .... ..-. 1. lv1.6-..-..-1. -... ‘.V1J.1. o o . .014 ~A. . . 1.. d..¢ 9.... .1.- 10.1 .1. . o... .... 0.0.. 1... Va». .... . .11 ...i $11.4Y...Ob ... .‘ to... ......L . 11 . .. .lv .4.» 1.1‘ linlx .111. .1\0.$ .‘IIO.’1'0.... on .11. . .1. . .. .... .... T... .... ...! ... . . .. . . ....4 .... ... . .... ....¢ 16.. ...» . -.o o..?:xvvlt. ...... .... . . .1. .1.. . I..i.1.--. ..I.#I..I.v..§.v;-.§..L14'... fiT-.. ... . . .... ... A... .. .... .... .«.. .... .... 1. . ..- a... .... .... ...... ........ .. 1 . . 1. . ..-». ...0 .1-.1..... .x. . In... ...] . . ... ...1 Q... .... . . .... . 1 can. ....1-.-¢ 5.1 . u. . 1 v. .... .... a. 1... I.. 1.. o crc... o... 1..-. u.’ 0 «oov'tnL .... ..-. .... ..-. .... . .. ... .... .. . .1o. .... ....-.... .... .-. ....1 .1.. ...-. .... .T..-:......... ..1. ..... 1&1114-.,iljolv.nif1-1l.r:|1.v.oloa O , i . . . 64o . . u . a . A .1 . . 1 1 o 1 V 1 o . 1 . . . . . . a . . . . . 1 . . 1 p . . . a o v . a .1 o a n . . . v . 1 . a . v . . .0 . c n v . 1 1 1 . p O . 1 . q . 1 1 . 1 . . .. . . v c . a... o iffo t... a.-. c -I 1 I .4 77+. .110... 01 u n . 1¥o1 ...o 1... .Ao. 1... . 1 .... .... .... .... .... .... I... 11.. 1o 1 .... «A1. 1.... ... .1... .....11.. ...». .1...i10..ti-b.o. 1‘11...|..¢.. |.A-. +1.:T. ...1 +... .... ..-.vo.oc ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .1. 1. .. ... .... A... ..o ....1 .... ....v... ..-. 10.? V.-.¢1..Y..o-. .-aI1. ....41Y118AA .. . y . . . in. . v... .... ...1. . .o :1... a. 1. . av o 1 . ‘1 o.. . . 1.1. .9.. a 1. . ...11 1.... no.... one. 1.1... . ...... rb_. oi 9.1.11 9. 1|?Y91‘o Ialélo‘l. VVIPOLY TtldLY.1l4 QislAvlo.?.QlJ o H r T , - J1 . . .... .... ... . ...: 1‘1. 11.. .... ... . .... o... 1... ...oavy... ..4. 1.11 0.0.1 14.».1 079,. 11.... 1......91. 5...! . ...1.....1+ .¢?A111..¥1T1..n6i1.00111i-14|'l 40‘]; ... . . 1 . . . . . a . a . n « a . 1 . . . . . . . . . . y o . .- . . . .. . . . n . . . s o u . . u . ..v. ... . u . . 00.3.; 04‘ 9 . . o t o . T v- . . 1 . . . . . . .i . .A . 14-. 0.111.14. 1.1..... ,o 1 11.1.. o 91?: 114.11.. '1 , Ora. .. . .... .... .... .... .... .... .ao. ..1. u .. VYnoAv.on. a... o.l.6 1.9. Too-1L Toot 0.10....1 on.. .... ....1a011.11'11l 9111 It>o|.n:94.4 1.11 it!!! i A O t a 1 n - 1 . . . o a o- u o o o a . . . u 1 1 . . v. 1 u . ¢ . t‘ a . t 1 7. b o . u.‘ . § 1 o a 95 a VI . 1 II 1 o o 6 101 v Y 1 Y. r Y. . 1 v 0 1‘ a u 1 1 . . o o . u 0 1.! 1.1 1 1s 9.¢.0...Y.thb 01110 [it‘lolflo Ti. Y O . Jll 1 . .... 4... 11.. ..1. 1... 1... .... ....6. .... w.o.. .... .1.¢ ..e. .... 141. ..1. .61. ..I& 639.. Y4..I 11... .-. . ..111 ..v... 1.... 21... .. 1.1.O ol‘...AT¢...ilinliYI¢I .... .... .. . 1.. .... .... .... .... .. . .... .... -.1. .... .... ....n.... . .1.T1.... .4.. ....YA... .. . .11. ....-....Y... .1...1.........¢ ..-... .... 1. . .... .... u... ... .... .... .... 1... .. ..-. .... .... ...T.. . ..1i11.. a. u 111...... .1 v .... 1... .... .. ..-.1.vv. Yo...\vlini 1... .... ...., . .-o ....n .... .... .... 1... Y... .... . ... .... 1a.: .... ...1 to. oivv ..Y. V1164. .1.. .. a. ..-. T1o1lo. ...... ‘0... ....4. iolVIOI1..6,ILT‘1-.o|I. . . . 1 A , .... . .. ..-. ...? .... .... .... .... .... ....A .... .1... ..1. ...: a... 1...; u.’ ...1. ...1 ..10 1... .... l..l t... o..a. .31. o..4bo1T1.$.+ IIlOATilJ‘nl . .... .... ......1. .... .... ... . .a . .o .... .... 1... ..11 o... 1.. 1... ..o. v.1. .... .... A .. ... .... .... .1.1 ..v.....1.-9n.I 11X.Yoovvl A... .. u .. .... .¢.- ... ... .... 1... 8.... ..1 .... a... .... ... .... out 11... .111 .4.0 1.. . 1 .... ... Y.a1 ..Ib. 111..- .fi.‘1.1..n.oit.obv. .... .... .... ...: .. ... .. .... 5.. . .... .... 1.... ..V1. 0... ...1 o... .... ....l 1t,...f¢6.up 1... A..- .. .. f..... 1.1. 1.19. 11‘99 1|.16L--11111.41-9oi [14.6) 0 . - . v { .4 . o. . .... .... .. . 1 . . .. . . . . .... .A .... .... 1o1\. ...... .... . .. .... ...1 .1?» T. A... 01¢. 10.1 ..A. ...1 .1... Tc.... 11‘- 1.--.....31..\1i\1.h|..lllilII-v‘i ...1. .... a... .o.¢ .... ... .. . .... ... . .... .vo111..vi o.‘1 1.1. ...a .1... o . . . ... . . ... 1..v .c.. . . .1 ... . .... ... .... 0.10 o... .... ...! 119? 1. 1.196 I... ... n... 11... . 1 .1 . ... . .-11 u... .91... as.» cole ..A.v 0.0 01.4 r I . . a 11.. ...1 .1... 1-.c..9. .... .... ...1... .......1; .1.. ..<. .1.. a... .... 1.1.1Lolho a\ ... .... .1... o... .... 1 .. . . ... v... .. . ... .... ..l ... .... ... .....loo.. .usc o... ...1 v... .... . .. . . .. .... .1 . ...». ...1 '19. .... ... ...¢.ao... Io... ..o. .... ...1 ...l 1... .... . .. .... .. .... .... .... .... ..oo . .. 1o. o.1.....1..-. . on H , . .... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... . .. ... a... o... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .. . . .. .... . .. .. ...1 .. .. ....-t... .... . . .... .... . . .1. . . 1.. ... ... .... .... . . . .. . ..1. o... .. . ...1 11.3 ... ......1. .. . . .. .... 1 .. .. . o... .1.. tutti. . ..... ..1. .... . ., . . .. AOQAV 1". Ion. . . n . u . . .. 1. . '|’.‘ .... .... 1... . uJ‘ . - . .... o... .. . . .. «,f. .. . . . , . .. . 1.1; . .... .. .....Ni 00 H { .... .... .... . . . a? .... .... . .. .. . . .. . . ... .... .. .... .... .... . O“ H .... .... .. . 95. v... .... 1... .... .... ...o. ....l ..I.Q.1IF.1T..1. .... .. . . <... .... .-.. .... .... .11 1... .... . -5...‘- a... ,. . .. .1 .... .1.-,.... ..v.. ..1. .....l101l1 ....-- 1..1.\.1 .H o... ....r.... . - .... . .. ...; ..-. ow........,..$z+ ..... . ... 91. 11.... .v.. . . .. : honesz usan.:..:. ... c. ...- ...» 3...}... ., . . . WW .. . .o 1 . . . .. . . . 1 mg I. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 1... . . .11 . .. ,. . . . o v. 0 . . . 1 .IAIII. . 1 . voapNano .33 . W i. f _ , . fl ; 916 Ho 2.. ..:: ;_.:.iw:T:rE..;r.::::.H Mflrfl:.fi.w.ng;p::.i g .... ... .. .. a . . .... . .. _ .. ..o .... 1. . ... .. . .4 ... .. . ... ... . .. .I . .... .Von....o hon z flxooB .:. : ... ....:..,.....;. :..:.....:_.:..:-;:.. ,.:... .:. :: :: :; ;;..: b.... .... .. . .. . .. ... .... .... ... ... . .......1. ... ... . .. .... .... .61. .... .... ulJ IOI. } a L 9" ’11. ail. ... [ D14 . . ._ r.lxw .vowhom x0331: Mo oHQsam fleece you omauo>< uaowam a new: osom scum ha3< mane: all: no bones: can 056m Bonn haz< name: you mousvdusonxm baxooz.omaao>< .w Guzman ll? b F P [P L b ‘ D b n \ _ - ..llnl I.-'..I||..|III Il-Inll. 51,. from Tabie 1% with a 5—year average computed in terms of a %-week period. It is noted List the seasonal patterns for both the expenditures for meals eaten away from home and number of meals eaten away from home followed the same trend with a seasonal high between the middle of July and August, falling a seasonal low starting early in December and lasting through the end of March. In comparing the expenditures for meals eaten away from home and number of meals eaten away from home Figure 6 shows that the number of meals eaten away from home is high relative to expenditures during the months of June through September. This may be explained in part by the greater proportion of lower income families eating meals away from home during the summer vacation months. It is evidently shown in the Appendix 2 that, through the whole panel, the lower income groups spent less per meal eaten away from home than the higher income groups. AVERA'C‘ E ‘3!“ FROI' ' r1013?» AWAY 1m AVERAGE FOP l—4 DJ 7- N D O?! 1 OF IIE£LS EATEN AWAY FOR MEALS EATEN IT TU S-YEAR (1951-1955) LE BY h-WEEK PERIODS \Jeek Average weekly Number Avera ee Jeekly Expenditures of Meals Away from H for IMeal Away from Home Per Capita Per Capita 1- # 1.3570 .6872 5- 8 1.3625 .78H3 13-16 1.a622 .7h92 21-2h 1.5684 .8101 25-28 1.7988 .8829 29-32 2.0M11 .9391 23-a6 1.9918 .9296 7- o 1.n099 .8177 1.4u 1.5111 838 n5-u8 1.5950 819 %9-52 1.529% 7555 cmp'raa v RELATIOI‘ISHIPS BETWEEN FAI‘TILEL' CPA: ACT}??? AND BETI‘ EN EXPENDITURES FOR ITEMS EjliEN A‘.‘.’.’~.l ER ‘. I 3 Introduction The analyses contained in this ctapter is to determine the simple correlation coefficients between the family char- acteristics such as size of family, age of homemakers, edu- cation of bomemakers, per family income, per capita income, as related to significant variations in per family and per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from hone.1 The multiple correlation coefficients indicate the effect on the dependent variable of a change in the accompanying independent variable when allowance has been made for the other independent variables. Use of multiple correlation does not explain the relationships between the independent variables. They are assumed to be independent. The purpose of setting up the simple correlation in this stucy is to indicate the relationships between the independent variables and the relationships between the dependent variable and each independent variable. The correlations are simple correlations of the logarithms of the original data. 1Over the #-year period, tre average size of family was 3.36, age of homenacers was hh.16, and education of wome— makers was 11.69. (Studied families, 1952-1955) 56 The simple correlation coefficients from tables 15 ‘tl J2I the regression coefficient would be more significant than before. r... sion coefficients of X9, size of family, indicate tLat the per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home were yer capita income, they had less effect also associated with than those based on per family basis. The equations .ased on per capita data also show that size of family, X2, education of homemake 5, Kg, and employ- -v 'v‘ ‘\ n 12"» ; nn r M " , ‘ . . ° (”$11.13 01 f;UI.1er.LL'11‘.e-L S , fag, €3__QV Clallqect t_ e 4133": tive SJ_£ -r.. ‘J 2. to positive (except X3, in equation (2.55) and K5, in eqzation 2.52). All three variables becan- more important in each regression equation and significant at a higher level than before. These differences indicate the size of family, ed- ucation of Lonemakers and employment of homemakers were more significantly corre atea with per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home than with per family expenditures for meals eaten away from hone. Based on per family income and per family expenditures for meals eaten away from home, the regression coefficient of X2, size of family, vas only significant in equation (1.52) at a 50 percent level, and the rest were all non- significant. When the incOme and expenditures for meals eaten away from hone were based on per capita data, the coefficients of X9 became significant at the 5 per cent iele== I the regression coefficient would be ‘30, significant as before. f}g:<< I the regression coefficient would be less significant tlan before. \D :0 level in equati n (2.53a), 50 percent level in equation (2 .r3a ), (2.5ha), (2.5Hb), and (2.55). A s"ight decrease in eth tion (2.52 ) c anged it from 50 percent level to non- sirnificant. These results emphasiz- the different relation- 0 0 ships of size 01 family to yer family eipenditures for meals eaten away from hone and per capita expenditures for m als eaten away from home. Since the per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home were obtained by dividing per family expenditures for men s eaten away from home by the size of family, the percent chance in income from per family to per capita were directly determined by the size of family. Since per capita income was also computed by dividing t e family incon.1e by the size of famil_y, it can be explair cd tn t the decreasing effect of income was caused by the size of family. In other words, the size of family became more significant in the equations based on per capita data which indicated that the size of family was more closely related to the per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from h.ne than when based on oer family expena iture.s. It is not onLy effected by the small expend- itures for meals eaten away from bone which were associated with the size of family as based on per family data, but also affected by tie relationships between size of fanil y, expenditures for meals eaten away from home, and income. In summary, tVe results of the above equations sfiow .. 'hat the size of farnil V, education of homemakers and emplCY’ ”d ment of homemakers which affected per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home were associated with the effect of per capita income and age of homemakers. The increase in regression coefficients of size of family, edu- cation of honemakers and employment of homemakers must be relatively associated with the decrease in regression co— efficients of per capita income and age of he: makers. The relative decrease in coefficients of income and age of home- makers in each equation indicate that the per capita income and age of homemaLers were less effective for per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home than those based on per family income and per family expenditures. Finally, a measure was computed that permitted us to state the preportion of total variation which had been ex- plained by variation in computed values of the dependent variables. The coefficient of multiple determination, 32y.x123u5’ states the proportion of total variation that is present in variations of the Yc values and which '3123H5 has been explained by reference to independent variabTes. The R2 of the muitiple regression equations, which were based on per family income and per family expenditures for mea“s eaten away from home, was .275 on the average. This means that all these independent variables can only explain 27.5 percent of tle total variations. The other 72.5 per- cent of the variations has been failed to be explained. The unexplained variations must be caused by something else. Oh- / u. If we were able to include all pertinent i: dcp are at vari- 9 ,, ables, R“ woulo se 1.0, and we could r fie per- 3r..':123::):0 . 0 on feet es tinates de1cnde.:t variaale Y. TPe coefficient of multiple determination, R2, of t equations, which were based on per capita income and per capita xpenditures for mea ls eaten away from none, was .25 on the average. This means that, wfien income and expendi- tures were based on per capita basis, all these independent variables can ozi7y ex ain 25 percent of the variation. Seventy five percezlt of vrriati on was affected by some other factors. The difference between the coefficients of multiple determination was evidently caused by tne cEanges l1 income. Due to the fact that income was the oniy im- “3 o portsnt consistent factor effecting t*e estimated value, when income and e::1endit1res cnan ged from per family to per capita, the regression coefficient of income became smaller. This indicates that the per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home is affected less by per caaita income family we enditures for meals eaten away from home Cf 6 :3 'u (D H n is affected by the per ianilv income. As H result of de- ,. ,1) creasing effect of income on expenditures for meals eaten away from home, the pronortion of total variation wFicn has been explained by reference to the independent variables was 2.5 percent higher on the average when based on a per 1‘.) ‘rJ. family basis rather than a per c n ta basis. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIOH This study was an attempt to determine some relation- ships between meals eaten away from hone and family charac- teristics. Previous food consumption studies were aenerally concerned wit? meals eaten at bone or all food. The meals eaten away from home were usually not separated. During the time of writing this manuscript a preliminary report on household food consumption made in April—June 1955 by the Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture was released. Al- though this was limited to a 3-month period it provided some information in comparing it with the panel families since it included some data on expenditures for meals eaten away from home. The data for tBis study were obtained from the flicki- gan State University consumer panel. Weekly expenditures for meals eaten away from home were used in order to be consistant with weekly income data. The yearly expenditures for meals eaten away from home used in his study was weekly average times 52. (The yearly expenditures were only used in computation of arc elasticities.) A personal interview was conducted with each homemaker to make a comparison of stated yearly in nceme wit t e sum of the weekly incomes reported in the diaries. When the two figu es were comparable, this family was accepted one observation. Several comparisons were made, suCi as “tlolcl Dis- posable Personal. Income to M. S. U. panel families; food expenditures of tn United States as a whole and food ex- penditures of N. S. U. panel families; changes of expendi- tures for meals (including all meals eaten at home and away from home) between years. Using current prices, per capita disposable income of M. S. U. consumer panel selected families moved almost parallel to National Dispesa ale Person 1 ILcone. However, the panel family income has fluctuated more than the panel per capita income over the studied 5-year period. he comparison of the expenditures for food between the 103 E. S. U. consumer panel families and all United States femilies for the year 1955 shows twat Uni ted States food expenditures, including between-meal snacks, soft drinks and a core olic beverages, were ligzer tnan M. S. U. panel amilies, w_? an it mig} t be expected that H. S. U. pane} families expenditures should be higher due to higfier income. Tlis seems to indi ate tnat th eexpenditures for between-meal snaeks, soft drinks, and aloe olic beverages, and other food not part of regular meals and not inc uded in the panel, probably occupy a major place in the food expenditures. Other elements effecting this d.fference would be: (1) Lansing is a small city and the percentage of meals eaten away from home may be lower tlan these in large cities; (2) the data were collected in different manners. , meals ( Tre expenditures for meals eaten at some anc eaten away from home by the E. S. U. consumer panel members mov d in the same direction with income in each year. As families obtained a higher income tley spent more on both meals eaten a home and meals eaten away from Lone. How- ever, tke proportion of income spent on meals eaten at home decreased as tke income increased, but the proportion of income spent on meals away from home did not decrease as the income increased. This indicates that families would increase their expenditures for meals eaten away from home more than expenditures for meals eaten at home when their income increases. Figner income families not only ate more meals away from bone but they also spent more on eacL meal, than these lower income families. The three methods used for measurement of income elasticities were are, cross-sectional and time series. Due to the fact that only five years data were available in the M. S. U. consumer panel, the use of eaer year as one obser- vation would not yield a significant result in time series study. Therefore, a h-week average of the l3-week moving average of income and expenditures for mea s eaten away from home over a 5-year period was used in the time series study. The are and cross-sectional elasticity studies were fitted to yearly data with the exception of the weekly expenditure data used in cross-sectional studies. The are elasticity method was also used in computing for all meals and meals eaten at h me in order to compare with the income elasticities of meals eaten away from home. Comparing these results of income elasticities, it was shown that the income elasticities for meals eaten away from home were greater than these for all meals and meals eaten at home both on a per family basis as well as on a per capita basis. The results of income elasticities from cross-sectional data were directly derived from the multiple regression equations. Since all the variables were expressed in loga- rithms, the income elasticity for meals eaten away from home was he regression coefficient for income in the prediction equation. These results indicated that the elasticities derived from the per capita basis are smaller than those derived from the per family basis. Thus it appears that the amount of expenditures for meals eaten away from home varies in- versely with the size of family. Due to the fact that the arc elasticity is the rate of change in expenditures with the corresponding rate of change in income from one year to the next, and cross-sectional elasticity is an estimate of ‘J ‘O ‘ the variation in expenditures associated vitf a variation in iregme at a given time, the results derived from these two met eds seems to be difficult to conpsre witt each .. r1.‘ . ' "W N" "u “ 2 . '1- H‘ I“ . . '{‘ " ‘,'y II otier. Lie insane-enfcncituse e asticity iron th cross- J00: W -\ .v— . ‘ ‘ . ' ‘ ‘ '2 q 1‘ ‘ ‘ ‘V r‘ ' " O" ser¢OL3L 9h? ySlS over t:e time perioc everzgco 1./% on c —-« ‘ '1» " 1.: 1 . - . -.—,°.l-, m, ' r12. 11i £111 5 ;.5i 11h 1.L1 on a per Cdylbd nr51r. '16 an— come—cxperditure elasticity from are neticd over tEe S-year ) r“ x: I l C Q ,-J C.) “€315 {‘3 fierioC zannxtad .PC CKzi? PVT f”Vijb' Us‘rr tie h-xeek average of the l3-week moving average data for a time series iscoae elasticity study, t1e result Ho (3 v U) obtcined was .83. filich in dicctcd one. the tire scr study yielded a lever i: come e}-asticit ' for meals eaten away fro:.1 11ome teen t e cross-s ectim~1z7 study. To eive ass ura1'1ce of t e relatin331in oetween income and e;:pcndi+u1es for meals eaten away from Heme, a simple correla i on was com;utec in terms of a h—week average of the l3-week moving avera e over a S-yeer period both for incom and expenditures. A simple regression equation was fitted as follows: Average expenditures for meals eeten away from home per capita per week = f (averare income per capita per week). A significant correlation coeffici st of .68 res obtained, with a t value of 9.53 significant at the 1 per centkievel. To reconcile income elasticities derivedéirom time -—_ 190 series with ttose derived from cross—sectional studies ap- pears to be quite difficult. Per ca1ita exfl1e1ditures for meals eaten easy from tom and the number of meals eaten away from home by income groups were used in studying the seasonal variation. A 5-‘ear av- erage of nun; rs of, and expenditures for, meals eaten away from heme was used in deri Jin1g a single seasonal trend. The seasonal trend of meals eaten away from home, both number and expenditures, in eac1 i:1ca: e group appeared to be t1e same. They reached a peak during tie period of mid- summer of each year, and fell to a seasonal low in the J3nter. When the five years were averaged for a single seasonal trend it showed the same relationship as by income groups, wit? a seas one 1 high between tbe middle of July and August, falling to a seasonal low from early in December and lasting through the end of March. In order to determine t12e inter-relations ips between the fam ily characteristics and between far1iTy characteristics and expenditures for meals eaten away from home, a series Ofo imp] _e correlation coefi'ic:ients were cor .puted for each of these on both a per family and a per capita basis. The L’) correlations were 31 riple correlations of the logar ritEr of H. the or ginal data. The results of these simple correlation analyses in- dicated that ncome was consistently the most important factor related to t e e3: uenditures for meals eaten away from 101 home. It was positively correlated to expenditures for meals eaten avay from home in each year based on a per family basis as well as on a per capita basis. The t values of the correlation coefficients for income were significant at the 1 percent level in each year over the h-year period on both a per family basis and a per capita basis. For family income was also correlated to the age of homemakors, education of iomemakers and size of family. However, it was positively correlated to the education of homemakers and size of family and negatively correlated to the age of homemakers. Age of homemakers was negatively correlated with edu- cation of homemakers an size of family; and education of homemakers was positively related to size of family. These results indicate that the older homemakers had a lower income, lower education and a smaller size of family. The higher educated homemakers had a higber income, larger size of family and were younger. The employment of home- makers does not appear to be correlated with other family characteristics. This may be due to the fact that oniy an average of 13.4 per cent of the homemakers in the panel were employed, which might not yield a significant resul . Education of homemakers seemed to be positively re- lated to per family and per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home, but was not significantly correlated in each year. Size of family seemed to be positively correlated to per far1ily expe dit ures or nea7s eaten away ::J from home and negatively corre ale to per capita erpendi- tures for meals eaten away from Rome. Employment of home- makers did not show a significant relationship with per family expenditures for meals eaten away from home, but had a small positive relationship with per capita -xpenditures for meals eaten awa;. from home. When per capita incc ale is positively correlated to age of houemakers and negatively correlated to size of family, this evidently shows t‘a.t t‘Mowg; the older Fonemakers had a lower income, they were in smaller sized families, and therefore they still had a high -er per capita income. Large families had higher incomes; however, when incone was di id dby tm: size of family, large families had a lower per cap1Mt izcome. Altho ough per family income was correlated with education of homemaker, th re was no relationship with education of homemaa ker when incomes were divided by t.1 e size of family. Hultiple regression analysis was us ed to determine the net effects of family characteristics on expenditures for meals aten away from home. Due to the large number of observations in each series of data and the number of variables in ea c3: equation, we could not assume a linear relationship between the inde- pendent variables and dependent variables. After e1 peri- enting with inter-relationships to test for linearity in 103 arithmetic form, it was decided that the functions were best expressed completely in logarithms. The equations were t en fitted using estimating equa— tion of the type: logY = a + b1 lOgX1 + b2 lo ogX2 + b3 logX3 + bu logxn + b5 long Where Y was expenditures for meals eaten away from home and the X1, X2, X3, Xu, K; were income, size of family, age of homemakers, education of homemakers and emxiloymo nt of home- ma}: DTS, respectively. The result of the multiple regression analyses indi- cated that income was consistently the most important factor affecting xpenditures for meals eaten away from home. The effects of per family income and per capita income were consistently highly correlated in each year. The results were therefore the same as obtained in simple correlation analysis. However, in all cases per capita income had less effect on per capita exoenditures for meals eaten away from home than per fam mily inc01e on per fa. ly nenditures for meals eaten away from home. The result of regression coefficients for size of family showed no effect on per family expenditures for meals eaten away from home. But they had sone positive effect on the per capita e"per ditures for meals eaten away from home. The regression equations indicated that age of home- makers had a slight effect on expenditures for meals eaten away from home on both a per family and a per capita basis. Education of homemakers and employment of homemakers had little effect on expenditures for meals eaten away from home. However, they were related to per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home more than ttey were related to per family expenditures for meals eaten away from home. It was generally found that tke size of family, edu- cation of homemakers and employment of homemakers had more effect on per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home than effect on per family expenditures for meals eaten away from home. However, per capita expenditures for meals eaten away from home were affected by per capita income and nomemakers less than per family xpenditures for .q 601 L 8.; meals eaten away from home were affected by per family in- come and are of homemakers. The result of the multiple regression stufy indicated that income was an important factor effecting xpenditures for meals eaten away from home. To a lesser extent the -xpenditures for meals eaten away from home were also af— fected by size of family, aae of homemakers, education of homemakers and employuent of homemakers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Agricultural Researc? Service and Agricultural harketing Service, United States Deprrtne t of n Food Expem lit urea Lf Icr"enold* in,t‘e a - States. Prelir na ry Revert M Survey of Sous hold Food Consumption, Spring, 1955, Autist, 1956. Burea: of ric lturrl Economics, United States Department of Agric lture. Satire le.ces L: Kerketin_g Lf FOOQ Products, Terkeim; n" nescsrc‘ Report, Ho. 3, 1952. J Burk, Iiarquerit C. "Change ii". the Den. rd From 191” to 195C", To rn'-l Lf Farm Economiic Vol. KIJCIII, No. 3, 111131131319”, 1')?- ,. O()1_2 98 Fox, Karl A. "Factors Affectin" Fara Income, Farm Prices, and Food Consumption", Agricultural Economic Research, Vol. III (July, 1951), Bureau of Agricultural Econom- ics, U.S.D.A. Fryer, H. C. Ele‘. ents Lf Statistics, Jon . Wiley & Sons, Inc., -ew York, p. "21? Goulden, Cyril H. IHetiods Lf Statistical Analysis, Second Edition, JOKE Jiley anc Sons, Inc., Lew York, p. 1h2, .1fi+3. Halcrow, Karold T. Agricul ural Policy of the United States, Prentice Hal , Inc., New York, pp. 17-90 Moss, Thomas N. Sore Relations ins of Selected Socio-Eco- no ics Fa actors to Food Consumptiona nd Eggenditures, anS‘nr, Spring 1950. Un1:ublis ed Pi .D. Tiesis , llCFlg - tate Lxfil varsity, 195?. Quackenbush, G. G. and Shaffer, J. D. ”Cooperation an Sample in Fou.r Years of NSC ConSImer Panel Op eratior", Quaggerly mulletin Lf 3A2 Iiic iaan Agricultural Ex- periment Station, HZ caigan— State Jnivers ity of Agri- culture and Applied Science, V st Lansing, Vol. 38, Ko. 1, August, 1955. Quackenbush, G. G. "Demand Analysis From tWe FSC Consumer Panel" J0~Hrn - of Farm Economics, Voi. 36, No. 3, a August,11955, pp. H15-527. 105 1P6 Riley, Harold IL Some Measurements of Consumer Demand For Meat.1951 to 1933, Unpublished Ph D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 195%, p.61. Snedecor, Georce w. Statistics] Iethods. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, Fourth Edition, 19h6, p. 65. Slzultz, Tkzeodore w. The Economic Organization of Agriculture. MgGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1953, pp. 1 -151 United States Department of Commerce Office of Business Economics Survey of Current Business. V01. 31, July 1951; Vol. 36—, February 1956, Biennial Edition 1955- United States Bireau of Census, "Characteristics of the Population", 1950 Census of Population. Vol 2, Pt. 22, Chap. B. Willard, Cochrane w. and Bel], Carolyn Shaw. The Economics of Consumption. IIcGraw—Vill Book Company, Inc., New York, p. 215. APPEFDICES 107 108 APPENDIX 1 AVERAGE uEEI’TY EKFE' DI'T'T"; F". "1 If-EATS 11W? .. AWAY FROM HOLE PER CAI TTA AID AVET"E WEJIL" TLCTHE PER CAPITA AUD TEEIx 13-JEEK LCVILG In] 233m FCR TCT17 0A? IPLE 13th WEEK OF 1951 TC 5213311 WEEK CF 1955 Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Heals Week Col. 3 Income Week Col. 6 Eaten Away Ioving by h Per Moving by H From Home Ave. Week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* A. Year-1951 11 .82 9 29.29 11E .5928 27.57 115 .7176 20.;8 116 .7121 23.62 117 .9750 17. 119 .7551 16.20 126 .8h52 28.05 121 .8288 19.31 122 .6663 6.66 12 .299 3 3*; 155 .0232 76361 (0.6” {H 32 126 '7916 .79189 29.89 ?H 36 127 .678 .81332 23.18 28. C2 128 .8889 .82 2 .79876 22.66 2h. 22 2h 23 129 .7738 .83092 22.66 28.16 130 :6610 .82682 22. 77 28.55 131 .83H6 .80719 n - gm 23 70 n) O 132 791% .66306 .61201 26. 6% .37 2+.1/ 1§& .1529 .79977 21.46 5327 6 13 .8620 862 2 29.77 135' .8595 .816 1 20.88 23. 62 136 .7h60 .81k98 .80897 25.71 23. 95 23.72 137 7987 .80978 22.96 23 53 8 ' 8 26 2532 23. 87 13 .69 8 .7 7 1 9 .70 0 .78077 2%. 37 23 #5 , 1 O .8218 .776h2 78858 2%. 26 23 23.59 121 .7812 .768no 25. 85 23.7 132 .8201 .77196 19.39 23.53 123 7179 .7763h 28.16 23.97 109 APPEEDIX I-gpntinued Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Meals Week Col. 3 Income Week Col. 6 Eaten Away Moving by 9 Per Moving by 9 From Home Ave. Week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* A. Year-1951 (continued) 199 .7193 .76797 .77109 17.69 23.69 23.73 195 .5831 .75837 31.90 23-99 196 .7321 .75296 20.81 23.99 197 .7519 .79999 29.53 23. 2 198 .6699 .73029 .79653 18.79 23.79 23.91 199 .732 .72931 25.52 23.78 150 .831 .73563 25.65 23.99 151 . “32 .73251 22.73 23.81 152 .9909 .71581 .72832 20.93 23.59 23.78 B. Year-1952 201 .5712 .69653 30.08 23.99 202 .6198 .68373 20.12 23.55 203 .6125 .66776 29.99 23.97 209 .6290 .66092 .67729 21.88 2 .96 23.79 205 .8019 .66729 2 .99 2 . 7 206 .702g .67691 29.57 2 . 5 207 .691 .66996 29.95 2 .17 208 .6883 .66956 .66992 22.19 2 .98 29.09 209 5955 .65885 30.28 2 .87 210 .6238 .65050 29.39 29.78 211.6890 .63958 2 .91 2 .65 212 .6559 .63975 .69717 2 .11 29.75 29.76 21 .5978 .6 798 . 18.95 29.60 21 .5700 .69788 32.67 2 .80 215 .6707 .65218 19. 6 29.79 216 .6999 .65898 .65163 28. 6 25.01 29.79 217 .8216 .67330 20.06 29.87 218 .8899 .67972 33.65 25.19 219 .6991 .67909 19.38 29.79 220 .7633 .68899 .68019 28.76 25.09 29.99 221 .86 9 .70233 19.13 29. 85 222 .7382 .71331 31.33 29.93 22 .7569 .72355 29.01 24.91 APPEEDIK I-Continued Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Meals Week Col. 3 Income Week Col. 6 Eaten Away Moving by 9 Per Moving by 9 From Home Ave. Week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* B. Year-1952 (continued) 229 .7319 .72679 .71698 29.89 2 .98 29.92 225 .6512 .72692 21.89 29.81 22 .6683 73189 29.51 25.23 227 .7116 7 31.67 2 .16 228 .7608 .79966 .73766 20.57 25.25 25.11 229 .8266 75983 25.99 25.02 230 .8232 .75995 22.31 25.19 231 .8359 .75618 27.71 29.7 2 2 .8276 .76695 .76060 21.27 29.8 29.95 23 .9228 .77872 23.31 29.96 23 .8926 .78055 2 .77 29.66 235 .8597 .78951 27.09 99.39 236 .7916 .79218 .78529 30.69 29.85 29.58 237 .7386 .79273 18.91 29.39 238 .8069 .80971 30. 2 25.09 2 9 .7799 .81325 19.78 29.68 2 0 .8035 .82032 .80775 39.9 29.89 29.75 291 .7929 .82279 19.7 29.82 292 .9960 .83198 30.97 25.21 2:3 .7586 .82701 21.71 25.17 2 .8292 .82699 .82707 3 .88 25.69 25.21 295 .738 .81962 2 .99 ? .93 296 .813 .81121 30.22 26.96 297 .8319 .80673 22.72 26.53 298 .7337 .79792 .80875 28.90 26.67 26.90 299 .7607 .79505 29.18 26.56 250 .7919 .79530 27.96 27.22 251 .7956 3 29.03 2 12 252 .5167 .77922 .78975 28. 99 27.82 27.18 C. Year-1953 301 .6239 .760 7 31.98 27.69 302 .7157 759 3 25.02 28.09 303 .7512 .73995 28.11 27.86 111 AFPEXDIX I-Continued Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Meals Week 001. 3 Income Week Col. 6 Eaten Away Roving .by 9 Per Moving by 9 From Home Ave. week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* C. Year-1953 (continued) 309 .7280 .73709 .79789 23.20 27.98 27.88 305 .9992 .75250 29. 99 27.63 306 .8187 .75251 27.86 27.85 307 .7300 .79609 21.02 27.15 308 .7293 7 801 .79728 28.05 27.56 27.55 309 .7650 .7 091 27. 27 27.93 310 .9000 .75113 31. 52 27.61 311 .9028 .76351 29.79 27.90 312 .7851 .76270 .75999 29.01 27.90 27.96 31 .7532 .78089 21.27 2 .81 31 .8167 .79576 39.80 27.02 315 .9666 .81506 21.13 26.72 316 .8279 .82096 .80317 31.89 27.02 26.89 317 .8622 .83128 .08 26.85 318 .8901 .82289 36. 58 27.90 319 .7919 .81698 22. 62 27.00 320 .8091 .8230? .82356 32.95 27.88 27.28 321 .9569 .89059 22.08 27.92 322 .9079 .85199 31.93 27.79 323 .9971 .85896 29.89 2 .61 32 .9092 .85907 .8525? 26. 89 27.78 27.69 325 1.1285 .88598 30. 97 27.89 326 .8650 .89915 25.96 28.25 327 1.1118 .91685 39. 71 28.29 328 1.0376 .92231 .99970 26. 99 8 66 28.26 32 .831” .93958 32 99 28.7% 330 1.1038 .99116 26.92 29.15 331 1.2129 .96989 35.11 29.09 332 1.9690 1.02577 .96983 28.65 2 .50 29.11 33 1.1709 1.05360 28.89 29 23 33 1.0980 1.06065 25.19 29.97 335 .9997 1.06 90 22.69 28.79 336 1.0077 1.06 72 .06071 36.57 29. 1 29.20 337 .9796 1.07059 20. 90 28. 1 338 .8390 1.09825 32. 93 29.00 339 .8950 1.09588 22.0 28.69 390 .7836 1.02063 1.09632 35 .9 28.75 28.81 112 APPENDIX I-Continued —' w Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Heals Week 001. 3 Income Week Co]. 6 Eaten Away Roving by 8 Per Moving by 8 From Home Ave. Week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* C. Year-1953 (continued) 381 .7555 .99893 28.73 2 .62 382 .8785 .00255 31.89 28.50 383 .8011 .97927 23.05 2 .28 38+ .8778 .95389 .98356 2 18 2 .02 28.38 385 .9870 .91103 28.93 28.08 386 .8081 .88512 31.59 2 .25 387 .8828 .87238 25.51 28.27 388 .7208 .85878 .88083 26.39 28.56 28.28 389 .8186 .83992 33.29 2 . 1 350 .8001 .82616 27. 9 28. 8 351 .8816 . 2632 33.38 28.88 352 .6911 .81525 .82691 26.62 2 .23 28.82 D. Year-1958 801 .6028 .80131 32.88 29. 00 802 .7556 .80132 25.10 29.03 80 .8637 .80879 27.60 28.73 _ 80' .8918 .80712 80368 2. 2 28. 72 28.87 805 . 7502 ’79781 29.18 28.89 806 .7977 .7852 27.58 28.39 807 .7837 .78825 20.77 27.55 808 . 852 .77985 78681 27.88 27.78 28.08 809 .8312 .788 5 27.19 27.80 810 .8158 .788 1 31.33 27.65 811 .8306 .79075 28.67 27.88 812 .7918 .78689 78860 28.58 27.07 27.89 81 .7727 .79317 20.95. 26.63 81 .723 . 80287 38.89 26.79 815 .780 .80881 20.69 26.85 816 .9398 .81026 80258 31.59 26.76 26.66 817 .8659 .80830 20.63 26.58 818 .7737 .81011 35.71 27.08 819 .6967 .80233 22.28 26.67 820 .8873 .81031 80776 32.07 27.58 26.97 113 APPENDIX I-Continued —— ww-v- ‘— _— ‘m——— -.. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Heals Week Col. 3 Income Week Col. 6 Eaten Away Moving by 8 Per Koving by 8 From Home Ave. Week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* D. Yeér-1958 (continued) 821 .8529 .81288 71.98 2 .09 822 .7712 .80782 31.28 2 .80 82 .7760 .80879 29. 2 27.27 82 .9781 .81618 .81030 26.56 27.81 27.29 825 .9107 .82531 30.01 27.52 826 .8811 .83059 25.88 27.87 827 .7723 .83835 38.82 27.90 82 .7877 .838 8 .83128 26.82 28.37 27.91 82 .8988 .83172 33.62 28.52 830 .5886 .81039 26.67 28.99 831 .8821 .81565 35.66 28.98 832 1.0608 .88363 .82535 29.20 20. 2 29.00 833 1.0607 .85697 29.35 29.31 83 1.0271 .87036 25.66 29.59 835 1.05 7 .89210 23.0 28.96 836 .88+0 .89733 .87919 37.3 29.56 29.36 837 .7795 .88205 20.53 29.10 838 .7850 .86930 32.83 29.31 839 .8251 .86807 22.03 29.05 810 .7721 .86806 .87187 35.37 29.09 29.18 881 .8566 .87336 28.73 2 .93 882 .8888 .86920 31.01 28.73 88 .9189 .89860 23.19 28.86 8 .8029 .89158 .88219 32.38 28.21 28.58 885 .9398 .88228 28.9 28.19 886 .8933 .86980 31.8 28. 8 887 .866 .85719 25.83 28. 0 888 .6668 .82783 859’8 26.81 28.68 28.81 889 .7580 .82082 38.18 28.88 850 .7855 .82128 28.18 29.02 851 .7750 .82358 38.85 29.15 852 .6656 .81132 .81925 2 .56 29.57 29.08 111+ APPEEDIX I-Contiggeg _.'—~_._ 1 _ - - m- ..".' H v—w N”- - — -‘ \ Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Heals Neck Col. 3 110000 Week C01 6 Eaten Away {cving by 8 Per Moving by 8 From fiome Ave. 8003 Capita Ave. Meek For Capita Groups* Groulc* E. Year-1955 50 .7067 .80628 31.88 29.30 50_ .7005 .79828 28.78 29.61 503 .6098 .77620 27.38 29.33 50+ .6219 .75 37 78253 28. 2 2 .18 29.82 505 .6937 .7 97 80 85 39 O9 50 .7865 .7 321 22.18 2 .57 50 .9862 .7 035 35.72 29.86 08 .8686 .78037 73973 22.76 29.6 29.79 509 .8798 .75672 82.58 30.8 510 .8895 .76376 23.06 29.99 511 .9070 .77 11 39.37 30.85 512 .7989 .77 95 76718 25.60 30 17 30.86 51 .9388 .79562 80.26 31.18 51 .8 69 .80568 25.99 30.69 515 .8 92 .82015 36.88 31.28 516 .9058 .88289 81608 22.68 30.92 31.01 517 .9229 .86605 36.20 31.82 518 .8838 .88067 29.71 30.96 519 .9017 .88953 33.73 31.85 520 .9082 .88353 .87995 26.70 31.15 31.85 521 .8720 .88379 28.85 31.62 522 .7957 .97735 38.17 31.29 523 .9275 .88335 28.06 31.67 52 .9159 .88 08 .88213 2.37 31.13 31.83 525 1.0339 .90212 27.62 31.29 526 1.0359 .90992 37.65 31.09 527 1.0028 .92268 30.83 31.83 528 .8010 .91590 .91266 30.50 30.97 31.20 529 1.1220 .93256 31.52 31.65 530 1.1228 .9 798 33.25 31.83 531 1.1819 .97087 36.56 31.95 532 1.0656 .98388 .95871 25.99 31.36 31.60 533 1.0071 .99108 35.95 32.07 53 .9565 .99758 28.88 31.73 535 .8870 1.00860 39.93 31.87 536 .9038 1.00275 .99900 29.85 31.98 31.91 537 .8923 1.00938 35.15 32.19 APPENDIX I-Continued Wk. Ave. Expend. 13 Ave. of Ave. 13 Ave. of for Meals Week Col. ' Income Week Col. 6 Eaten Away Hoving by 8 Per Moving by 8 From Home Ave. Week Capita Ave. Week Per Capita Groups* Groups* E. Year-1955 (continued) 538 .8738 .98862 28.92 31.98 5 9 .9823 .98850 37.71 31.99 0 .9210 .97821 .99018 30.69 32.01 32.08 581 .93 5 .98880 38.98 32.35 2 .89 8 .97120 28.08 31.78 gig .9058 .95851 35.13 31.92 .9386 .93588 .96280 37.03 31.96 32.00 585 .9086 .92 81 30.50 2.31 586 1.0152 .92103 31.06 31.9 587 .9723 .92525 31.06 32. 588 .9112 .92711 .92895 36.52 32.18 589 .9181 .92793 38.88 32.59 550 .9 78 .93183 38.32 32.53 551 .7 15 .92833 36.89 33.85 552 .8803 .91310 .92828 28.70 32.75 32.83 a): For tie purpose of platting on a graph, four weeks of the 13-week moving everufie were combined tEen averaged as one observation. 116 APBEIDII 11 AVERAGE NUMBER 02 MEALS AND EXPENDITURES FOR MEALS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE AND 9th WEEK OF 1951 Year 8-Week Week Income Ave. Per Ave. Per Income Periods Gro p Ca1it2 T”1.aoit2 Ex- Group of: 0013 Ecten pend. for Away Mr1m one eels Eat- en Away From Tome (dollar) 1951103 9-12 1 1.5102 .8328 2 111813-16 1 1.8501 .9160 2 10 5 7-20 1 1.6191 1.0530 2 106 21-18 1 1.6821 1.1620 2 107 25—26 1 1.9898 1.2336 2 108 29-32 1 1.7556 1.1328 2 109 33- 6 1 1. 7206 1.2385 2 110 37- 0 1 1.8637 1.00 9 2 111 11-88 1 1. 7238 1.2689 2 112 85—88 1 1. 7678 1.2897 2 113 89— 2 1 1.9106 1.3552 2 1952 201 1-8 1 1.7502 1.3170 2 202 5-8 1 1.9235 1.6591 2 20 9-12 1 1.8032 1.8231 2 20 13-16 1 2. 0981 1.8111 2 205 17-20 1 2. 8926 2.0830 2 206 21-28 1 2. 3506 1.7891 2 207 ‘5-28 1 2. 6067 1.8878 2 2C8 29—32 1 2. 8981 1.8313 2 >9 3- 6 1 2 8332 1.79 1 2 210 37- 0 1 2.186 1.6712 2 211 «+1-88 1.0983 1.7815 2 212 85—88 1 1. 952 5 1 8220 2 213 89—52 1 2.1090 1.3395 2 1953 301 1-8 1 1. 7317 1.3386 2 302 5-8 1 1. 9780 1.5103 2 303 9-12 1 2. 0510 1.6991 2 301 13-16 1 2. 0835 1.2152 2 305 17-20 1 1. 8317 1.3828 2 306 21.."8 1 2 .2878 1.8080 2 30 5-:8 1 2.57021 0886 2 117 APPENDIX II EATEN Away FROM 2082 2E2 CAPITA 22 8-wE‘" PERIODS 22 I COKE GROUPS T0 52th WEEK OF 1955 Ave. Per Ave. Per Income Ave. Per Ave rage Capita Ho. Capita Ex- Group Capita No. Per Capita of Meals pend. for of Meals Expend.for Eaten Away Heals Eaten Eaten Away fieals Eaten From Home Away From From Home Away From Home (dollar) Home (dollar) 1.1692 .5336 3 .6663 .2298 .9030 .5232 3 1.1866 .8263 1.3351 .7680 3 1.8188 .7608 1.0720 .5052 3 2.2090 .6268 1. 8169 .7620 3 1.5886 .5918 1. fli .5972 3 2.0127 .8501 908 £357 3 1.6873 .8658 .9332 638 3 1.0730 .8686 1. 0963 5909 3 1.0351. .8552 1. 0313 .8811 3 1.2880 .8288 1.1989 .5891 3 1.2721 .3250 1.1893 92 3 .9616 .2809 1.1892 .658 3 .7365 .2230 1.1811.6812 3 .733; .230; 1.2933 .702 3 . L 2 1.5909 .5831 3 .8127 .2856 1.5581 .8893 3 .9116 .2968 2.1961 .8760 3 1. 3802 .2798 2.1276 .9556 3 1.1989 3250 2. 2671 1.1996 3 1.1881.?318 1.3536 .7909 3 .8538 .3186 1. 6328 .8897 3 .9501 3 93 1.5551 .7726 3 .9708 .3396 1.3818 .7009 3 .9583 .2691 1.3108 .7367 3 1.0760 .3883 1.3097 .7169 3 - 077 3570 1.5213 .8283 3 .8215 .3085 1.7027 .8576 3 .9017 .3581 1.7888 .8898 3 .9858 505 2.0396 .9880 3 1.3118 .8829 116 APTEJDTE 11 AVERAGE NUEEER OF MEALS AND EXPENDITURES FOR MEALS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE AND 9th WEEK OF 1951 Year 4-Week Week Income Ave. Per Ave. Per Income Periods Group Capitt To. Capita Ex- Group of Heals Eaten pend. for Away From Home Keals Bet- on Away From Home (dollar) 1951 10 9-12 1 1.5102 .8324 2 10+ 13-16 1 1.4501 .9160 2 105 17-20 ‘1 1.6191 1.0530 2 106 21-14 1 1.6421 1.1620 2 107 25-28 1 1.9894 1.2336 2 108 29-32 1 1.7556 1.1328 2 109 33-36 1 1.7206 1.2345 2 110 37—+0 1 1.4637 1.0939 2 111 +1-44 1 1.7834 1.8669 2 112 45—48 1 1.7678 1.7897 2 113 49— 2 1 1.9106 1.3552 2 1952 201 1-4 1 1.7502 1.3170 2 202 5—8 1 1.9235 1.6591 2 20 9-12 1 1.8032 1.4231 2 20 13-16 1 2.0981 1.4111 2 205 17-20 1 2.4926 2.0430 2 206 21—24 1 2.3506 1.7891 2 207 25-28 1 2.6067 1.4478 2 208 29—32 1 2.4981 1.8313 2 209 33- 6 1 2.4332 1.7931 2 210 37- 0 1 2.1666 1.6712 2 211 41-44 1 2.0943 1.7815 2 212 45—48 1 1.9525 1.4220 2 213 49—52 1 2.1090 1.3395 2 1953 301 1—4 1 1.7317 1.3348 2 302 5-8 1 1.9740 1.5103 2 303 9-12 1 2.0540 1.6991 2 30+ 13-16 1 2.0435 1.6152 2 305 17-20 1 1.8 17 1.3828 2 306 21--.“- 1 (0.? )78 1 .0380 2 307 25—28 1 2.5702 1.9846 2 117 APPEEDIK II EATEN AWAY 2208 Ean 2E2 CAPITA BY 4—wEEK PERIODS BY 170022 020020 TO 52th WEEK or 1955 w- Ave. Per Ave. Per Income Ave. Per Average Capita Ho. Capita Ex- Group Capita We. Per Capita of Meals pend. for of Meals Expend.for Eaten Away Meals Eaten Eaten Away Heals Eaten From Home Away From From Home Away From Home (dollar) Home (dollar) 1.1692 .5336 3 .6663 .2298 .9030 .5232 3 1.1866 .4263 1.3351 .76 0 3 1.4144 .7604 1.0720 .5052 3 2.2090 .6268 1.4169 .7620 3 1.5486 .5918 1.3261 .5972 3 2.0127 .4501 1.4918 .7 57 3 1.6%73 .4658 .9333 .6134 3 1.0730 .4686 1.0963 .5909 3 1.0351.4552 1.0313 .4411 3 1.2440 4248 1.1949 .5891 3 1.2721 3250 1.1493 .6392 3 .9616 2409 1.1492? .658 3 .7365 .28g0 1.1811 .641 3 .7331 1.2933 .7026 3 .7237 .240g 1.5909 .5431 3 .8127 1.5541 .8493 3 .9116 .2964 2.1961 .8760 3 1.3802 3794 2.1276 .9556 3 1 1949 3350 2.2671 .1996 3 1.1881 2318 1.3536 .7909 3 .8534 3146 1.6328 .8897 3 .9501 8393 1.9409 .9218 3 1 0559 3453 1.5551 .7726 3 9708 3396 1.3814 .7009 3 .9543 2691 1.3108 .7367 3 1.0760 3883 1.3097 .7169 3 %77 3570 1.5213 .8943 3 3915 .3085 1.7027 .8576 3 9317 3581 1.7884 .8894 3 9451+ ~3W 2.0396 .9440 3 1 3118 .4-42 9 118 APPENDIX II-Continued Year 4-Week Week Income Ave. Per Ave. Per Income Periods Grou0 Capita 'o. Capita Ex- Group Wleals Eaten pend. for Away From Z02e Meals 12t- en Away From Home (dollar) 308 29-32 1 2 .6134 1. 8744 2 309 2&3 1 2 .5426 1.6715 2 310 ’37- 0 1 2.01621 .4042 2 311 -44 1 2.1345 1 4185 2 312 45-48 1 1.9717 1. 3858 2 313 49-53 1 3 2599 1.3337 2 1954 401 1-4 1 2.034? 1.2919 2 402 5-8 1 1. 9110 1.379? 2 402 9-12 1 1. 795 1.3805 2 408 13-16 1 1.821 1.1098 2 405 17-20 1 2. 0891 1.5427 2 406 21-24 1 2.2576 1.7214 2 40 25-28 1 2. 7215 1.6502 2 40 29-32 1 2.5097 1.7102 2 409 243 1 3.26 1 2.0306 2 410 37- o 1 2.2 9 1 5639 2 411 -44 1 2.6530 1.9667 2 412 45-48 1 2. 815 1.6953 ' 2 413 49-52 1 2. 016 1.4976 2 1955 501 1-4 1 2 7277 1.4760 2 502 5-8 1 2 4879 1.9770 2 50 9-12 1 2.4589 1.9951 2 50 13-16 1 2.5427 1.9 61 2 505 17-20 1 2.5890 1.8 72 2 506 21-24 1 2.7542 1.7919 2 507 25-28 1 2.994 1.8824 2 £08 29-32 1 2.910 2. 875 2 0 33-3 1 2.7379 2.092 2 510 37-40 1 2.5788 1.7644 2 511 1 44 1 2.9827 1.8271 2 512 45-48 1 2.5912 1.7209 2 513 49-52 1 2.8854 1.7734 2 119 APPENDIX II-Continued Ave. Per Ave. Per Income Ave. Per Average Capita Ho. Capita Ex- Group Capita No. Per Capita of Meals pend. for of Meals Expend. for Eaten Away Meals Eaten Eaten Away Meals Eaten From Home Away From From Home Away From Home (dollar) Home (dollar) 2.2200 1.0588 3 2.0139 .7298 1.9659 1.0093 3 1.8696 .5837 1.7880 .8153 3 .9 3O .89 8 1.8848 .7585 3 .925 .5898 1.5829 .8395 3 1.500 .8825 1.5813 .8251 3 .9785 .3332 1.563% .8969 3 1.1278 .8000 1.5576 .8680 3 1.0504 .8067 1.5550 .9288 3 1.1818 .8480 1.668% 1.0089 3 1.0718 .3889 1.566% .9990 3 1.055 .3911 1.5633 .8607 3 1.238 .3986 1.6369 .8686 3 1.7606 .3955 2.0265 .7112 3 2.0315 .5159 2.6610 1.1582 3 1.6058 .360a 1.4561 .8532 3 .9613 .35M 1.4978 .8896 3 1.1552 .339h 1.6821 .8256 3 1.3689 . 338 1.8836 .8076 3 .9586 .310 1.4259 .5882 2 .9987 .2875 1.5590 .6951 3 .9662 .3359 1.6397 .7101 3 .8259 .332 1.7058 .7764 3 1.0299 .3755 1.6256 .8321 3 1.0985 .3772 1.8362 .8503 3 1.05 8 . 569 2.3560 .9995 3 1.5909 . 106 2.6251 1.0995 3 1.8177 .5126 1.8132 .7658 3 1.7567 .3907 1. 88% .9858 3 .9366 .3705 1.8235 .8554 3 1.1 1% .9029 1.9878 .9233 3 1.2+67 .5189 1.8772 .7615 3 1.5208 .8372 Date Due Demco-293