A COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE BY EMPLOYED AND NONEMPLOYED HOMEMAKERS IN THE LANSING, MICHIGAN, AREA ' I 5' ’ Thesis for the Degree of M. A. ‘ : MICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY ' . MARY ANN EICHENBERGER " 1975 ~ llllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllIllIIIHIIHIHIIIIIIIII ,. "‘5‘" 3 1293 10128 0773I a ‘- is}; I; w 3. ‘. , . :7 g i . If" -.--.:<.= L .--" amn- -ae.«-.—.v.u..~.~ra‘.’5 7" ._-‘-: A r__ h _ “I ' amome 3v * I?‘ I HfiAB & sm- ‘ ' 1- [mm amnmv me. .1 ; LIBRARY amoens : gmmnmcmg 1 u I d. L A ; A COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE BY EMPLOYED AND NONEMPLOYED HOMEMAKERS IN THE LANSING. MICHIGAN, AREA By Mary Ann Eichenberger The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the quantity of time spent by the homemaker for paid employment outside the home on the number of appliances owned by the households and amount of direct residential energy consumption converted to Btu's. It attempted to explore the notion that residential (mechanical) energy and appliances are used as substitutes for human energy and time by the homemaker participating in the labor force. The pilot field study entitled "Functioning of the Family Ecosystem in a World of Changing Energy Availability," funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station was the basis for the sub- sample of T87 families, containing 91 nonemployed homemakers, 24 part-time and 72 full-time employed homemakers. Data on appliance ownership were obtained using a self-administered guestionnaire. Demo- graphic data was elicited through personal interviews. The measure of residential energy consumed by the household was obtained from utility companies and fuel oil suppliers in the Lansing S.M.S.A. area. The various types of fossil fuel energy were converted into Btu's and summed (by household mix: natural gas, electricity and Mary Ann Eichenberger fuel oil) as the composite total score for residential energy con- sumption per household. The hypotheses were tested using analysis of covariance (annual family income, l973, was the covariate): Hypothesis I: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will own a greater quantity of total appliances, as compared to households with part-time and nonemployed homemakers. Subhypothesis l: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity of major appli- ances as compared to households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. Subhypothesis 2: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity of minor appli- ances as compared to households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. Hypothesis II: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will own a different constellation of appliances by functional group as compared to households with part-time and nonemployed homemaker. Hypothesis III: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will consume a greater total quantity of direct residential energy as compared to the households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. The hypotheses tested concerning appliance ownership revealed no significant difference between full-time, part-time and nonemployed homemakers on total quantity of appliances and quantity of major appliances owned by the households. A significant difference (a = .lO) was found between the quantity of minor appliances owned by households with full-time and nonemployed homemakers, but not between households with the full-time and part-time employed homemaker. The group of minor personal care appliances was the only functional category found to differ significantly (a = .l0) between full-time employed and Mary Ann Eichenberger nonemployed homemakers. This was not so between households with part-time and nonemployed homemakers. Testing the hypothesis concerning total direct residential energy revealed no significant difference between the three employ- ment status groups of homemakers. However, examination of the cell means for total residential energy consumption indicated a non- significant but interesting unexpected finding (contrary to other studies). The households with a fully employed homemaker used 8 percent less total residential energy than the households with nonemployed homemakers; and further, households with a part-time employed homemaker consumed 6 percent less residential energy than the households with the nonemployed homemakers. Although caution must be used in interpreting these findings, it does indicate that future research needs to be done to explore the implications uncov- ered here in order to Confirm or deny their importance. As the findings of this study stand, insights into residential energy use and patterns of appliance ownership can be discussed only as they indicate some limitedinsight into directions for further research and educational programs toward energy conservation. A COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE BY EMPLOYED AND NONEMPLOYED HOMEMAKERS IN THE LANSING, MICHIGAN, AREA By Mary Ann Eichenberger A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Family Ecology I975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special recognition must be given to the many individuals who made the completion of this thesis a reality. Ms. Bonnie M. Morrison, as my thesis director, who has so unselfishly extended her professional guidance and devoted great quantities of time throughout the duration of this study. Her constant encouragement and emotional support were so helpful in the completion of this study. Dr. Anne Field, a member of my graduate committee, whose encouragement and patience has helped me pursue my professional interests. Dr. Peter M. Gladhart, a member of my graduate committee, who extended guidance throughout my master's program and encourage- ment throughout this study. Dr. Carol Shaffer, a member of my graduate committee, who extended guidance throughout my master's program. Graduate assistants and other members of the interdisciplin- ary research team, for without their efforts, this study would not be possible. Ms. Judy Pfaff, for her patience and effort that she expended in the statistical analysis of the data. . Mr. Theodore Hirt, a special confidante, who gave much emotional support during my master's program. ii A special thank you to my parents who have been so supportive during my entire graduate program. Much gratitude is extended to my friends, who have given me encouragement and understanding throughout this endeavor. iii TABLE OF.CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION l Introduction . . l Statement of the ProbIem 2 Discursive Definitions 4 Assumptions . 6 Hypotheses 7 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9 Introduction of Appliances into the Household 9 Home Management Styles for Employed Homemakers ll Household Appliance Expenditures for Two-Earner Families . l3 Appliance Ownership by Households with Emponed. Homemakers . . . . l4 Energy Consumption of. Appliances . . l6 Demographic Factors Affecting Residential Energy Consumption . l8 III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The Sampled Community . . . . . . . . . . 22 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . 22 Selection of the Subsample . . . . . . . . . 23 Description of the Subsample . . 24 Description of Subsample with Complete Energy Data . 28 Survey Research Method . . . . . . . . . . 29 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Processing of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 32 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 33 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 36 iv Chapter IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION V. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary of Findings Other Conclusions . Implications Limitations . Implications for Further Research APPENDICES A. Selected Questionnaires--Pilot Study B. Comparative Tables for Lansing S. M. S. A. and Pilot Study. . . . . . . C. Composition of Functional Appliance Groups REFERENCES CITED Page 38 50 SO 52 54 59 63 67 7T 73 Table Nam->00“) IO. II. I2. I3. I4. IS. 16. LIST OF TABLES Consumption of Residential Energy by Appliances . Age of Selected Homemakers . Educational Attainment of Selected Homemakers Occupation of Selected Homemakers Income Characteristics of Selected Homemakers Total Family Income by Employment Status of Homemakers Income Characteristics of Homemakers with Complete Energy Data . . . . Type of Dwelling of ReSpondents Having Complete Energy Data Means Total Quantity of Appliances Owned by Employment Status of Homemaker Mean Income and Quantity of Major Appliances, Ranges and Standard Deviation for Major Appliances by Home- maker Employment Status . . . . . . Univariate Analysis of Covariance: Values for Func- tional Appliance Groups . Cell Means of Functional Groups by Employment Status of Homemaker . . . Mean Income and Energy Consumption (Total Btu' s), Indicating Ranges and S. D. for Energy Consumption by Homemaker Employment Status A Comparison of Income Distributions Between Lansing S.M.S.A. Families and Sample Families . A Comparison of Educational Attainment, Families Lans- ing S.M.S.A. Sample Families . . . A Comparison of Marital Status by Sex and Age, Lansing S. M. S. A. Families and Sample Families vi Page T6 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 39 4O 44 45 48 68 69 7O CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In American society appliances and mechanical energy use are viewed as substitutes for human energy and time. Their use theoreti- cally promises to eliminate drudgery from household tasks and is viewed as a way of making the household a more desirable environment. Mechanical energy and technological devices make it possible for the family to have greater control over their immediate environment, the household. The role of the American homemaker has been changed consid- erably by the introduction of appliances. The amount of human energy expended by the homemaker has also been reduced considerably (Steidl and Bratton, l968). The mechanical energy of appliances has substan— tially replaced the human energy that once was required for the com- pletion of household tasks. Vanek states: Probably no aspect of housework has been lightened so much by technological change as laundry. In the l920's a great many houses lacked hot and cold running water. A large variety of soaps and detergents and automatic appliances have come on the scene (1974, p. ll7). Similarly, an earlier home economist noted: A homemaker using an electric [vacuum] cleaner is able to do her cleaning at an [human] energy cost as low as 56% above the resting energy expenditure. With the broom, the energy is 326? above the resting energy cost (Unauthored, 1930, p. 633 . It has been widely assumed that mechanical energy reduces the expenditure of time and human energy. Schore states: The substitution of mechanical energy for human energy may increase production and release manpower for other pursuits, including new occupations (1958, p. 627). Thus mechanical energy (appliances and direct residential energy) may act as substitutes for the expenditure of‘scarce resources (time and human physical energy) in the household (Fitzsimmons, l974, pp. l8-20). This substitution of resources may allow the homemaker to work outside the home and still complete household tasks (Muntz, I953). Statement of the Problem Women are participating in the labor force to a greater extent than ever before in our nation's history. Since World War II, working outside the home has become a more acceptable pattern of behavior for women (Hayge, 1974, p. 23). Of all women l6 years and older, 42% are in the labor force. Of all married women with husbands present, 44% are employed at present. The rate of labor force participation for mothers with pre-school children has doubled in the past decade (Hayge, l974, p. 23). The homemaker's employment brings a greater flow of financial resources into the household than if the wife were not employed (Johnston, l973, p. 50). The additional income supplied by the employed homemaker creates the potential for a greater flow of mate- rial goods and energy into the household. The dual earner family will have a greater purchasing power in the market place than if only one member of the family was a wage earner. This study examines the influence of the quantity of time spent by the homemaker in paid employment outside the home on the ownership of household appliances and direct residential energy use. It attempts to discover if the quantity of time spent by the employed homemaker outside the home will influence the flow of energy (direct residential energy) and material goods (appliances) into the house— hold. Studies of time allocation of homemakers reveal the amount of time spent on household tasks for the contemporary homemaker not participating in the labor force differs very little from her turn- of-the-century counterpart (Vanek, T974, p. ll6). On the other hand, the modern homemaker who works outside the home spends about 1/3 to l/2 as much time on the completion of household tasks (Vanek, 1974, p. ll8). Although it is widely assumed that appliances, other purchased goods and services are used as substitutes for the resources of time and human energy, empirical research has not been undertaken to document this assumption (Sweet, 1973, p. l9). The more recently experienced rapid increase in the cost of appliances and energy will influence the net economic benefit that the homemaker derives from paid employment outside the home. Earlier studies of employment-related costs of households with an employed homemaker have not noted expenditures for direct residential energy and appliances as expense incurred by the employed homemaker (Schlater and Ferrar, l963). Families who are concerned with expenditures in periods of inflation, increasing energy prices and short energy supplies, as well as professionals dealing with family resource management could find the outcome of this study to be valuable. It could also be use- ful in assessing some of the possible economic costs which are related to employment of the homemakers. The findings of this study should provide insight into key household resource management practices, especially critical during a period of increasingly scarce economic, energy and natural resources. If employed and unemployed homemakers have different patterns of appliance ownership and usage, this could be indicative of linkages between labor force participation of home- makers and usage of residential energy during peak demand periods. Implications exist for targeted educational strategies for energy conservation. Discursive Definitions Appliances —- equipment designed for a particular use in the household which 'hs operated by a fossil fuel. Included are those items commonly thought of as appliances, e.g., ranges, refrigerators, clothes washers, small portable appliances, etc. In addition, devices such as hot water heaters, space heaters, lighting fixtures, and air conditioning units are also included. Major Appliances -- large appliances which are high energy users when operated. Such appliances include the refrigerator, range, dishwasher, freezer, clothes washer and dryer. (See Appendix A.) Minor Appliances -- those small portable appliances which use small amounts of energy in Operation. Such items include: toasters, fans, irons, radio, record player, food blender, etc. (See Appendix A.) Discretionarerecessity Concept -- appliances perform services in the household. In a culture such as the United States, such appli- ances as the range, refrigerator, lighting and hot water heater are considered essential to the operation of a household and are viewed as "necessities." Other appliances, e.g., dishwashers, record player, power tools, electric hair dryer, air conditioning may not be as criti- cal to the functioning of a household and could be called "discretion- ary" appliances. In households where time and human energy resources are very limited, the "discretionary" appliances could be viewed as "necessities." Function of Appliances -- purposes or types of tasks for which household appliances are used. A range, refrigerator, electric coffeemaker and food blender are used in tasks related to the storage and preparation of food, i.e., these appliances have a "function" related to food preparation and storage. Functional Appliance Groups -- appliances will be categorized according to the functional groups and service characteristics (dis- cretionary-necessity). Specific items contained in the functional groups are contained in Appendix C. The groups are defined as: a. Clothing maintenance -- appliances used to restore clothing to a clean and wearable condition, b. Environmental maintenance -- appliances used in the upkeep and repair of the dwelling unit, c. Food Preparation and Storage -- appliances used in the processes of preserving and cooking food items and those associated with the cleaning-up process after food has been prepared, d. Personal Care -- appliances used for the maintenance of one's health or as a cosmetic aid for enhancing personal appearance, e. Environmental Control -- appliances that are used to exert direct control over the climatic conditions in the dwelling, f. Recreational -- appliances used as means of entertainment or leisure-time activities. Temporal Employment Status -- the quantity of time spent by the homemaker for paid employment outside the home. The categories are defined: Employment Status Group Hours Per Week of Paid Emplpyment Full-time employed 35 or more Part-time employed l — 34 Nonemployed 0 These categories are used by the U. S. Department of Labor (1974, p. 4). Direct Residential Energy -- mechanical energy that is used in the Operation of the household. This type of energy is derived from a fossil fuel source. It does ppt_include human energy, which was ppt_measured in the study. Direct residential energy and mechani- cal energy are used as interchangeable terms for energy derived from a fossil fuel source. Information about the quantity of particular fuels used by households was supplied by utility and fuel oil compan- ies. The different types of energy (natural gas, fuel oil, electric- ity) were converted to a common unit of measurement, Btu's (British Thermal Units). Assumptions l. The survey research design, using a combination of the interview schedule questionnaire and the personal interview, is an appropriate method for collecting information on the ownership of appliances. 2. Respondents will be able to record accurately the types and quantity of household appliances that they own. 3. Data supplied by utility companies will reflect the quantity of residential energy directly consumed by the household for the given time period. 4. Various energy forms (natural gas, electricity, fuel oil) can be standardized to a common unit of measurement, Btu's. Specific objectives include: I. To determine if the total quantity of appliances owned is related to the temporal status of the homemaker. 2. To determine if the type of appliances when classified by functional group and services (discretionary-necessity) performed is related to the temporal employment status of the homemaker. 3. To determine if the quantity of direct residential energy consumption is related to the temporal employment status of the home- maker. Hypotheses Hypothesis I: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity of total appliances, compared to households with part-time and nonemployed homemakers. Subhypothesis l: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity of major appli- ances as compared to households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. Subhypothesis 2: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity of minor appli— ances as compared to households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. Hypothesis II: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a different constellation of appliances by functional group when compared to households with part-time and non- employed homemaker. Hypothesis III: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will consume a greater total quantity of direct resi— dential energy as compared to the households with a part- time or nonemployed homemaker. This study will try to determine if participation of the homemaker in the labor force influences the flow of material goods and energy into the household. It will try to answer the question, does employment of the homemaker influence the quantity and types of appliances (material goods) owned by the household as well as the quantity of residential energy consumed by the household? CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this chapter, the discussion will center on the following points: l. Introduction of appliances into the household. 2. Home management styles for employed homemakers. 3. Household appliance expenditures of two earner families. 4. Appliance ownership by households with employed homemakers. 5. Energy consumption by appliances. 6. Demographic factors affecting residential energy consumption. Introduction of Appliances into the Household Appliances that used mechanical energy to perform household ' tasks were a welcome addition to the American home in the late l920's. Up to this time, the completion of household tasks had required great expenditures of human physical energy by the homemaker, other family members, and household servants (Vanek, I974, p. ll7). As a result of the ownership and electrification of the home, goods and services for family members could be produced at a lower cost of human physical energy (Nale, 1933, p. 224). IO Early home economists felt that the conservation of human energy in the performance of household tasks was of primary impor- tance. The quality of family life could be enhanced by the electri- fication of the home and the purchase of household appliances (unauth- ored, l928, p. l77). As a result of the modernization of the home, it was believed that families would have more time for leisure and community activities (Nale, 1938, p. 224). The ownership of appliances has perhaps affected the home in ways that early home economists had not anticipated. One primary effect is that standards of acceptable performance for household tasks have been raised (Vanek, 1974, p. l20). The introduction of appliances has encouraged the refinement of tasks rather than elimin- ating them (Fitzsimmons, l974, p. 334). For example, the availability of mechanically heated water and the adoption and use of the contem- porary washer and dryer have had two distinct effects. One result is that laundry is done more frequently at a lower expenditure of human physical energy than with previous laundry methods (Vanek, l974, p. 120). However, the more mechanical methods require a much higher input of mechanical energy based on finite fossil fuel sources. Appliances also require the owner to devote time to their maintenance. The homemaker now finds it necessary to spend part of her working day taking care of her appliances. For example, waiting for the repairman . and such consumption activities as purchasing of appliances have become a part of the homemaker's tasks (Fitzsimmons, 1974, p. 334). II The ownership of appliances has attained a symbolic meaning in our society. Possession of appliances is one way of expressing the economic and material well being of the family. Rainwater found that the wives of blue collar workers he studied placed great empha- sis on the importance of a house filled with appliances. The wives perceived their appliances as the means of freeing them from "domestic slavery." The use of appliances helped eliminate the monotony associated with household tasks. If the husbands' incomes were to increase, the wives stated that they would increase the proportion of the family budget spent for household appliances (Rainwater, et. al., I959). The emphasis was placed on the potential of the appliances for relieving the boredom of doing housework. This differs from the earlier emphasis of relieving the expenditure of human physical energy. Home Management Styles for Employed Homemakers It is believed that the management of the household changes when the homemaker enters the labor force. Three alternatives are suggested: (l) methods for completing household tasks become more efficient, (2) tasks are eliminated or standards of acceptable per- formance are lowered, or (3) goods and services are purchased in the market place that facilitate the completion of household tasks (Holstrom, 1973, p. 70). A series of studies by Holmes focused on the job-related expenditures for employed and nonemployed wives. Data were collected on the types of expenditures incurred by these two types of women as well as on the household facilities and appliances owned. Although I2 the kinds and quantities Of appliances owned were similar for the two groups, the employed homemaker had a much higher annual dollar expendi- ture for paid household help. The employed homemaker reported greater use of paid help for laundry, general household work (cleaning), meal preparation, and sewing (1962, p. l4). This substitution of one person's human energy and time (that of the homemaker) by another person (paid household help) is much less likely to occur in the l970's than in the 1950's and early 1960's. The number of persons working as household service workers has declined considerably in the last twenty years (U. S., Department of Labor, 1974). Saving time and human energy through appliance use is perhaps most necessary for the homemaker who is participating in the labor force. Her working week, including both time spent on employment and household tasks, is longer than that Of her nonemployed counterpart. Although she does not spend as much time on household work, the employed homemaker still has primary responsibility for completion of household tasks (Walker, 1970, p. 12). Studies of two earner families reveal that ownership and use Of household appliances result in great efficiency in the Operating of their households. Case studies of five British dual career pro- fessional families revealed that appliances were used to eliminate a great deal of household work which was formerly performed by the home- maker. One professional woman felt the use of her appliances gave her more time to devote to her family. Another mother felt that the appli- ances owned were a substitute for paid household help (Rapoport and Rapoport, l97l). I3 Interviews with twenty New York City area husbands and wives both employed, revealed that their household appliances were very important in saving time and energy for both partners. Hiring house- hold help or shifting the burden Of household tasks to other family members were not satisfactory alternatives for these families. They felt that a better solution was to use their incomes to buy appliances that would increase the efficiency of the Operation of the household (Holmstrom, 1972, p. 70). In a randomly selected sample Of 30 employed and 30 nonemployed homemakers in Carbondale, Illinois, the respondents were asked to count how many appliances they perceived as having the characteristics Of saving time and human energy. The employed homemakers believed that a greater number of items saved them time and energy than did the nonemployed homemakers (Henerfauth, 1973, p. 21). In Nolan and Tuttle's study Of full—time homemakers and home- makers who were employed 30 or more hours per week outside the home, three-fourths of the employed homemakers had changed housekeeping practices since they had begun to work outside the home. Simultane- ous use of several appliances helped the employed homemakers to com- plete their household tasks more efficiently (1959, p. 26). Household Appliance Expenditures Of Two Earner Families Analysis of expenditures for single and dual earner families reveals different allocation patterns for household appliances. The Bureau Of Labor Statistics 1960 Study of Consumer Expenditures shows that two earner families allocated a larger percentage of their ' I4 budget to the purchase of household equipment. These families spent more annually for major appliances (Linden, 1965). The one and two earner families were matched on the demographic characteristics Of the ages of the couple, number and ages Of children, and length of marriage. It was found that the two earner families allocated a greater amount of financial resources for both major and small appli— ances. The purchases for the two types of families over an equal number of years of marriage showed that the two earner families replaced their appliances more frequently and purchased more equip- ment (Hafstrom, 1968). Appliance Ownership by Households with EmpTOyed Homemakers Research related to ownership of household equipment is influ- enced by several demographic and economic factors. Income is conceiv- ably the most important determinant of the quantity owned. The higher the income level of the household, the more appliances it is likely to own (Energy Policy Project, l974b, p. 122). A homeowner generally owns more appliances than a renter (Berman, et al., 1973, p. 3). The influence of the employment status of the homemaker pre- sents a less clearly documented situation. Most studies that have tried to determine the influence Of the employment status Of the homemaker on appliance ownership have been highly descriptive studies. The sample sizes used have been relatively small and sampling proced- ures have prevented generalization to the larger population. Analysis 11f the data has relied primarily on descriptive statistics and very little on correlational statistics. I5 In an empirical study Of 100 low income families in a low income housing project in an urban area of Tennessee, using analysis of variance, it was discovered that the homemakers participating in the labor force owned significantly greater number of small appliances. Food preparation was the function performed by these appliances (Mc Cluskey, 1972, p. 14). Stein studied a randomly selected sample Of 91 households in upstate New York. She focused on the composition of household pos- sessions. The inventories were quantified and each household received a score Of high, medium, or low on an index which reflected the Quan- tity of possessions owned by the household. In this descriptive study, the part and full-time employed homemakers occupied the high and medium index positions for major and small appliances (1965, p. 44). She noted that full-time homemakers were more inclined to be in the low inventory position for the ownership of all types Of durable goods, including appliances. Stein speculated that employed home- makers use their earnings to acquire possessions for the home, in order to raise the family's level Of living (1965, p. 43). In the randomly selected sample Of 30 employed and 30 non- employed homemakers, Henerfauth found that the mean number of appli- ances owned by the employed homemakers was higher. This difference did not prove significant when a t-test was used. The employed home- maker owned a greater variety of food preparation appliances. Blend- ers, electric waffle irons, and microwave ovens were owned more fre- 9uently in this group (1973, p. 19). I6 Holmes' study of homemakers in a low income area in the south central region of North Carolina found a higher percentage of the rural employed wives to have an automatic clothes washer, electric sewing machine, or home freezer. In both the urban and rural areas, the employed homemakers were more likely to have a vacuum cleaner (1967, p. 34). Energy Consumption Of Appliances Residential energy use by all appliances in the home accounts for approximately 43% of total direct residential energy consumption. The following table reflects the energy consumption Of appliances in the household in 1968. TABLE l.--Consumption of Residential Energy by Appliances. Water Heating 14.9 Refrigeration 6.0 Cooking 5.5 Air Conditioning 3.7 Television 3.0 Clothes Drying 1.7 Food Freezer 1.7 Other Appliances 5.8 42.5% of total Residential Energy Consumption Source: U. 5., Office Of Science and Technology, Patterns of Energy Consumption in the United States, p. 30. I7 The Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation reported that residential energy consumption for appliances had increased about 50% in the years 1960-1968. During this same time period, the population had grown only 11% and the number of households increased by 17% (l974a, p. 2). The growth rate of residential consumption of electricity from 1950-1970 was 530%, nearly three-fourths of which was accounted for by increased consumption per individual household. During this time period, the consumption of electricity for the average household in the UnitxiStates grew from 1800 kwh to 7000 kwh per household. About three-fourths Of this increased consumption per household was due to the greater use of residential energy by major appliances, water heating, air conditioning, and lighting (Tansil, 1973, p. 4). Design changes in appliances in the last two decades have also affected energy consumption by appliances. The self-defrosting refrigerator consumes about two-thirds more energy than a manual defrost model. Color televisions are higher energy users than black and white models. Rapid-recovery water heaters also utilize more energy (Energy Policy Project, l974a,p. 2). In addition, the direct residential energy consumption Of the appliances as they are used in the household is preceded by other processes involving energy consumption. Energy is used all along the chain: from the mining of the natural resources, manufacturing, dis- tribution and sales, through the life time energy cost of Operation, and finally ending with the energy cost of disposing of the broken or Obsolete item (Herendeen, 1973, p. 30). 18 The annual indirect energy consumption of appliances owned by the middle class family has been estimated to be 6-9 million Btu's. This consumption reflects the total manufacturing cost of the appli- ances typically owned for this income group and has been amortized over the life time of the use Of the appliance by the family (Energy Policy Project, l974b, p. 127). Each dollar of consumer expenditure for kitchen and household appliances in 1971 used 58.9 thousand Btu's (Energy Policy Project, 1974b, p. 39). These estimates do not include life time energy cost Of Operation Of the appliances by the consumer. Demographic Factors Affecting Residential Energy Consumption Research related to demographic characteristics that influ- ence residential energy consumption is in its initial stage. Berman found that the quantity of residential energy consumption is directly related to the income level of the household (Berman, 1972, p. 39). The Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation research showed that the upper income household with an annual income Of $16,000 or more consumed approximately twice as much residential energy as the poorer households who used about 207 million Btu's of residential energy per year (l974b, p. 117). The flow of financial resources into the house- hold seems to have the greatest influence on the quantity of residen- tial energy consumed. The family living in a single family dwelling, regardless of its income status, will consume more energy than an apartment dweller (Newman, Wachtel, 1974, p. 3). As the size of the dwelling increases, 19 the amount Of energy required for heating also increases (Energy Polioy Project, l974b, p. 39). Another component of a family's lifestyle is the employment status of the homemaker. Fisher, an energy systems planner for General Electric Company, reported in a speech at Michigan State University on January 24, 1974, that paid employment Of the home- maker does increase the direct residential energy consumption of the household. The higher per capita income Of the two earner family allows the household members to consume more energy. Fisher believes that more energy is consumed for hot water heating and home heating when the homemaker participates in the labor force (1974, p. 7). In a stratified national random sample Of 1,455 households, the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies collected data on the respondents' dwellings and habits affecting energy consumption. From utility and home heating fuel Oil companies, data were Obtained for the quantity of residential energy consumed by respondents in the sample. It was found that in households in which the homemaker was canployed, the consumption of residential energy was about 10% higher than in households with one earner (Newman, Wachtel, 1974, p. 6). This study also constructed an index based on high energy consuming household appliances. Using the average kilowatts con- Sunked annually by the major household appliances as determined by the Electric Energy Association (1974), the index reflected the quantity of Prigh energy using appliances owned by a household. The score received by the household was found to be an accurate predictor of residential energy consumption (Newman, Wachtel, 1974, pp. 10-12). 20 Thus a household with a greater number of higher energy using appli- ances will consume a greater quantity of residential energy. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study focuses on the effects of participation by the homemaker in the labor force on the ownership of household appliances and direct residential energy consumption. It is part of a larger interdisciplinary study entitled "Functioning of the Family Ecosystem in a World of Changing Energy Availability," funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. Within this chapter, the discussion will center on the follow- ing points. 1. Description Of Sampled Community Sample Design and Selection Description Of Subsample #WN Survey Research Method a. Collection Of Data b. Processing of Data 5. Analysis of Data a. Independent Variables b. Dependent Variables c. Statistical Analysis. 21 22 The Sampled Community The initial sample, selected from the larger interdisciplinary study, was from the greater metropolitan area of Lansing, Michigan. This S.M.S.A. is a well-defined community, containing a unique divers- ity Of functions. The area is the seat Of the state government, and contains light and heavy industry, primarily related to the auto industry, and a major university (Michigan State University). It can be defined as a centrally located area Of commercial enterprise and activity, surrounded by a productive diversified agricultural sector. Lansing, Michigan, was considered to be a viable geographical unit, containing a heterogeneous population from which it would be possible to draw a multistage probability sample, consisting of urban, suburban, and rural families. This type of sample Offered the inter- disciplinary research team the Opportunity to study the impact Of the “energy crisis" on a relatively contained geographical area with diversity in its socioeconomic characteristics. Selection of the Sample A multi-stage area probability sample design was carried out for the sample selection of the urban area. A random selection of ten census tracts was made with each tract having a probability proportionatelx>the number of households therein. It was determined that the selected tracts were a reasonable approximation of the urban area of the Lansing S.M.S.A. A total Of 615 households were randomly 23 selected from addresses available in the 1973 Polk City Directory for Lansing and suburbs for the 34 blocks contained within the ten selected census tracts. In the rural area of the Lansing S.M.S.A., the sampling was done from the counties, to townships and finally to selected sections in each township. Households to be interviewed were randomly selected from the list of rural addresses. For both urban and rural sample, procedures were established to assure attainment of at least 150 urban and 50 rural families. The final sample contained 217 families, 160 urban and 57 rural families. In order to assess the representativeness of this sample, a comparison was made between the census data of 1970 for the Lansing S.M.S.A. and the sample. It was determined the selected sample was representative of Lansing S.M.S.A. families (Zuiches, et. al., 1975). (See Appendix 8.) Selection Of the Subsample An area probability sample was useful for the problem under investigation because it should yield a sample with homemakers with varying employment status and differing inventories of appliances and quantities of direct residential energy consumption. The subsample for this study was selected from the larger pilot sample on these criteria: (1) completeness of data on appli- ance ownership, (2) presence of a female adult in the household, and (3) complete energy data, total Btu's by household mix. The first criterion reduced the subsample size from 217 to 208 households. The second criteriOn reduced the subsample size to 24 207 households and the third criterian reduced the subsample to 131 households. A preliminary check of the data determined that out of 207 households fitting the criteria, twenty were households with female heads (no male respondent present). A suggestion to treat them as a separate group was rejected on the basis of the smaller number (20 households) as compared with 187 intact households. Although with a larger sample, this comparison would have been considered interesting, it was also found that the characteristics Of the twenty households with a female head differed markedly on income and educational attain- ment. Thus, the decision was made not to include these homemakers in the subsample of this study. The subsample finally contains 187 respondents; a number sufficient for testing the hypotheses of this study. The subsample is reduced to 131 respondents for the hypothesis concerning the effect of employment Of the homemaker on direct residential energy consumption. This was necessary because complete household energy data was not available for the entire 187 respondents in the original subsample. This elimination applied primarily to apartment dwellers and those who did not give permission to have their records of consumption released from the utility companies. Description of the Subsample In order to better understand the characteristics of the subsample (n-187), the following tables are presented. 25 TABLE 2.--Age of Selected Homemakers. Age Categories Percent 18 - 25 years 15.4 26 - 35 years 34.0 36 - 45 years 18.6 46 - 55 years 16.5 56 - 65 years 11.2 66 years and over 3.2 Declined response __l;l 100.0% This table indicates that the subsample exhibits character- istics one might observe~h1atypical national population Of females. At both ends of the age classifications, the youngest (18-25 years) and Oldest age groups (55-66 years and 66 years and over), have the smaller numbers, while the ages Of 25-55 years are more highly represented. TABLE 3.--Educational Attainment Of Selected Homemakers. Years of School Completed Percent 0 - 11 Years 18.7 (less than high school) 12 years 44.9 (high school completed) 1 - 3 years of college 17.7 4 years or more of college 18.7 26 The overall education attainment for this group appears to be relatively high. About 45% had completed high school. Over 36% had attained education beyond completion of high school. Thus, 81% Of the subsample were women with a high school education or more. The higher proportion of those completing four years of college or more may be explained by presence of the large university and a community college in the Lansing metropolitan area. TABLE 4.--Occupations of Selected Homemakers. Percent Professional, technical 11.7 Educational related 4.8 Manageria1,sa1es 5.3 Clerical 29.4 Skilled worker, craftsman 7.5 Private household workers 41.5 (including homemakers) 100.0% The homemakers were asked to indicate their present occupa- tion, or if they were unemployed, the occupation at which they had previously worked was recorded. Their responses were then recoded to reflect approximately the classification system used by the U. S. Census (1971). The private household workers, which included those females who listed their occupation as homemaker, comprised approxi- mately 42% of the sample, the largest percentage for any one group. About 30% of the homemakers were classified as clerical, which 27 includes secretaries, bookkeepers, etc. About 16% of this sample had occupations classified as educational and professional. These occu- pations require attainment of education beyond the secondary degree, which 36% of the sample had attained. Skilled workers, craftsmen, and sales personnel were the types of occupation for about 13% of this sample. TABLE 5.--Income Characteristics of Selected Homemakers. Income Categories Percent Less than $ 4,999 7.4 $ 5,000 — $ 9,999 16.5 $10,000 - $14,999 33.1 $15,000 - $24,999 ‘ 28.3 $25,000 or more 14.4 100.0% At least three-fourths Of the families have incomes Of over $10,000. Aproximately 42% of all families have income above the $15,000 level. The Ford Foundation Energy Policy Report classified those families above $14,000 as upper middle, and those above $25,000 as well Off. The median income for the Lansing S.M.S.A. in 1970 was $11,213 (Zuiches, et al., 1975). Approximately 69% Of the non-employed homemakers had a total family income that was less than $15,000. For the full-time employed homemaker, approximately 43% had incomes below $15,000. This 28 TABLE 6.--Tota1 Family Income by Employment Status Of the Homemaker. Employment Status Of Homemaker Total Family Income Non-Employed Part-time Employed Full-time Employed O hrs/wk 1-34 hrs/wk 35 or more hrs/wk Under $ 4,999 9.8 8.3 5.6 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 19.6 8.3 15.2 $l0,000-$l4,999 40.2 37.5 22.2 $15,000-$24,999 17.4 41.7 37.5 $25,000 plus _I§-_Q __‘.I_-_§ .1211. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% difference possibly reflects the influence of the wife's contribution of income to the total amount of the household's financial resources. Description of Subsample with Complete Energy Data The following tables offer a limited description Of the sub- sample for which complete residential energy data was available. TABLE 7.--Income Characteristics of Homemakers with Complete Resi- dential Energy Data. Income Categories Percent Less than $ 4,999 5.0 $ 5,000 - $ 9,999 13.0 $10,000 - $14,999 35.0 $15,000 - $24,999 31.0 $25,000 and over _l_6_._0_ 100.0 29 The income characteristics of this subsample are slightly different than the original subsample Of 187 respondents. The per- centage Of households having incomes less than $10,000 annually is slightly smaller than the larger subsample. TABLE 8.--Type Of Dwelling Of Respondents Having Complete Residential Energy Data. Type of Structure Percent Single family 93.0 Mobile Home 4.0 Duplex 3.0 100.0% Lacking in this subsample are the apartment dwelling families as well as a lesser number of single family households. Due to the types of metering system in the apartment buildings, it was not possible to obtain energy data on them. Single family dwellings are the predominant type Of structure in which the families in this sub— sample live. Survey Research Method Collection of Data The data analyzed in this study is only a small portion of the data collected for the original study. The basic design of the pilot study was the cross-sectional survey. The data was collected in May and June, 1974. 30 A combination of self-administered questionnaires and per- sonal interview schedules was designed to elicit information from the basic unit of analysis of the study, the family. The interviewing process consisted of three stages: (1) the initial contact, (2) com- pletion of the questionnaire by the family, and (3) retrieval of the, completed questionnaire and personal interview. The first stage consisted of an initial introductory contact in which the household was screened to determine if it fulfilled the criteria for being a family. The interviewer clarified the purpose Of the study and the procedure to be used by the family when filling out the questionnaire. In the second stage, the family completed the various components of the questionnaire. The set Of questionnaires elicited information about energy use, food consumption, transporta- tion, housing facilities, financial expenditures and resources. The last stage was the return of the interviewer to the household to pick up the questionnaire. One adult member Of the household was then asked a set of questions relating to family characteristics, includ- ing income, ages of family members, educational attainment, and occupational information. The respondents were promised confiden- tiality and payment for a completed set of questionnaires. The use of a self-administered questionnaire is an efficient way to collect data on a large number Of variables, including spe- cific data on the quantity and types of appliances owned. It is a much more efficient way to elicit information about the appliances a household owns than using a personal interview, due to the exten- siveness of the inventory listing. The interviewer-administered 31 portion is useful for gathering demographic characteristics, important in hypothesizing relationships between variables; as the interviewer and respondent rapport allows in depth questioning of a personal nature. Also Opportunity is given for clarifying ambiguities (Ker- linger, 1964, p. 408). A second phase Of the data collection consisted of collecting information on the respondents' energy use from utility and fuel Oil companies. After permission was given by the respondents, the detailed records of fuel consumption for the year May, 1973 to June, 1974, were released by fuel oil companies. These records were then compiled to determine the completeness of the residential energy con- sumption for the given time period. It was not possible to obtain a complete residential energy value for every household. Some respondents did not give permission to have their records released. Others used types of fuel on which it was not possible to collect information. These included wood, coal, and L.P. (bottled) gas users . Processing Of Data After the completed questionnaire and interview schedules were returned to the research team, the data were further checked for the completeness and individuality of the responses. The raw data werethen transferred to coding sheets by a team of trained coders. The key punching and verification was completed by a commercial firm. After the cards were returned to the research teams, the cards were further verified against the raw data and found to be extremely accurate. 32 The data used in this study came entirely from the larger study. The sectionsof the questionnaires used in this study are included in Appendix A. Analysis Of Data For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to recode the original data from the original pilot study. The following discussion focuses on the ways the original data were transformed in order to be used in the analysis Of the data for this study. Independent Variables 1. Employment Status.--The actual numbers Of hours spent by the homemaker in paid employment outside the home was recoded accord- ing to the classification used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1974). Part-time employment is defined as 1-34 hours of paid employment per week. Full-time employment is defined as 35 or more hours Of paid employment per week. All unemployed respondents, including full-time homemakers, were classified as nonemployed hOme- makers. 2. Income.--The original income categories used in the "Confidential Report" questionnaire (Appendix A) were collapsed to reflect the income classification scheme used by Warren in his study of energy beliefs (1975). The categories attempt to reflect divisions between the various income groups found in the larger population. 33 Dependent Variables 1. Direct Residential Energy Consumption.--Each type of fossil fuel used in the household on which data were available, i.e., fuel Oil, natural gas and electricity, was converted into Btu's (British Thermal Units).* The components were then added together for a total score that reflected the quantity of mechanical energy used in the Operation of the household. The score reflected the quantity Of residential energy used for the period of one year, June, 1973, through May, 1974. 2. Functional Appliance Group,--Prior to the initial analysis of the data, it was decided to group the appliances according to the function that the appliances would perform in the household. For example, every appliance which could be used in activities related to food preparation, storage and after meal clean-up was designated as belonging in functional group of "food preparation and storage.“ This type Of categorization was also completed for clothing mainte- nance, household maintenance, personal care, environmental control and recreational types Of appliances. The larger categories were *A Btu is the amount of energy needed to raise one pound of water by one farenheit degree. Energy from all fuels can be converted to Btu's. Conversion rates are approximately as follows: 5.8 million Btu's 1,031 Btu's 3,413 Btu's l 42-gallon barrel of oil 1 cubic foot of natural gas 1 kilowatt hour Of electricity Source: Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project, Exploringnergy Choices, p. 2. 34 further grouped into major (high mechanical energy using) and minor (low mechanical energy using) appliance groups for each Of the func- tional groups. The division was based on the estimated annual kilo- watt usage of the appliances as published by the Electric Energy Association (1974). For example, ranges, dishwashers, refrigerators, which are commonly thought of as major appliances, were classified into the major (high mechanical energy) food preparation and storage functional group. Small or minor appliances such as toasters, blend- ers, mixers and frypans were classified into the minor (lower mechani- cal energy) fOOd preparation for storage functional group. In addition, all inclusive categories for both major and minor appli- ances were devised. According to this scheme, a household would receive a score reflecting the actual number Of appliances owned in each of the existing categories. After the initial analysis of the data had begun, the func- tional groups as devised were found to be lacking in the power to discriminate among the possible differences in the types of appliances owned. The only exception was the personal care group, which included hair dryers, electric hair curlers, electric razors, etc. In this case, the full-time employed homemakers were found to own a greater quantity Of personal care appliances. The decision was then made to redefine the functional appli- ance groups. The original idea Of combining based on the function they performed in the home was retained. It seems possible that the ownership of appliances would be influenced by the amount Of disposable income that is available in 35 the household and could be used for the purchasing of appliances. Another possible influencing factor is the potential Of appliances to act as substitutes for human energy and time. In the former case, income beyond what is needed to maintain an adequate level of living could be used to buy "discretionary" items. Some examples commonly thought of as "discretionary" items are the dishwasher, microwave oven, self-cleaning oven, and air conditioning in addition to the wide variety of minor appliances. Under this scheme, the composition Of the functional groups was changed to reflect the concept Of "discretionary" and "necessity." Using the frequencies generated for the sample as a whole, appliances which were owned by 85% of the sample were eliminated from the origi- nal functional groups as being considered necessary (most households had them). The group Of appliances left reflect the more discretion- ary appliances owned by functional appliance groupings. This pro- cedure reduced the number Of appliances in each Of the functional groups. The composition Of the functional groups was decided before the final analysis of the data had begun. The score for each house- hold reflected the total quantity Of appliances owned in each func- tional group. The composition of the functional groups can be found in Appendix C. 3. ,Quantity Of Appliances.--TO determine if a difference existed among the quantities Of appliances owned by the homemakers of differing employment status, all major appliances with the exception of the hot water heater (all households having one) were added 36 together for each household. The same procedure was followed for the minor appliances (Appendix A). In addition, an item by item analysis was completed for selected appliances to determine if a difference in quantity Of appliances owned existed among the three types of employment status. Where two or more appliances of the same type were owned by the house- hold, these categories were collapsed to reflect the range Of appli- ances owned. Statistical Analysis In order to determine if the ownership of appliances and the quantity of residential energy consumption actually differed for the three categories of participation in the labor force or the employ- ment status groups, analysis of covariance was selected as the sta- tistical method to be used. This tool permits an answer to the question: Is the variability between the quantity and types of appli- ances owned and the quantity of direct residential energy consumption for the three different employment statuses large enough in compari- son with the variability within groups to justify the inference that the means of the three groups are significantly different? (Issac, 1972, p. 140). Income of the household was used as a covariate in the analy- sis Of the data. Family income allows the household to buy goods and services in the market place. According to Energy Policy Project, the greater the income of the household, the greater will be the quan- tity of appliances owned and residential energy used by the household 37 (1974b, p. 122). By using income as a covariate, it is possible to control for the influence of income and more precisely determine the influence of the participation Of the homemaker in the labor force on the quantity and types of appliances owned, and the quantity of resi- dential energy used. It allows one to determine the interaction between the variables of income, employment status, and appliance ownership, and residential energy consumption (Kerlinger, 1964, p. 229). CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains the results Of analysis of the data. For each hypothesis, the results of the statistical tests are reported and followed by discussion of the findings.* Hypothesis I: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will own a greater quantity Of total appliances, compared to households with part-time and nonemployed homemakers. Findings A total score for each household was compiled based on the total number of appliances owned. Using income as a covariate, analysis of covariance was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in ownership Of total appliance for the three employment status groups. The F-test value was p < .2076. Income explained 13% Of the variance. Discussion This measure for total appliances was used as a first step in an attempt to determine if the ownership Of appliances differs for the three employment status groups. By examining the cell means for *No a priori significance level was determined before the analysis Of the data had begun. (This is after the influence Of Morrison and Henkel, 1970.) 38 39 the total quantity Of appliances owned (Table 9), there appears to be some nonsignificant differences between the households with the non- employed compared tO households with a partrtime and full-time employed homemaker. TABLE 9.--Means Total Quantity of Appliances Owned by Employment Status of Homemaker. Total Quantity Appliance Owned Employment Status N (Cell Mean) Nonemployed 92 26.0 Part-time Employed 24 30.0 Full-time Employed 71 30.0 Subhypothesis 1: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity Of major appli- ances as compared to households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. Findings Using analysis of covariance, the null hypothesis stating that there was no difference in ownership Of major appliances by the three employment status groups was tested. The F-test value was p < .8273. In this case income explained a relatively high amount of the variance, about 21%. Discussion By looking at the cell means and standard deviations for the quantity of major appliances owned for the three employment status groups (Table 10), some patterns can be Observed. 40 TABLE 10.--Mean Income and Quantity of Major Appliances, Standard Deviation and Ranges for Major Appliances by Homemaker Employment status. Homemaker Income Quantity of Major Appliances Employment N C e11 Mean* Standard Status (Interval Value) Cell Means Deviation Range Nonemployed 92 3.0 7.3 2.5 4.8- 9.8 Part Time 24 3.2 7.4 3.0 4.4-10.4 Full Time 71 3.5 7.6 2.6 5.0-10.2 *Mean interval value for income category $10,000 - $14,999. Reflective Of increasing dollar values. The means for annual gross income (range $10,000 - $14,000) of the household increases as the amount of time spent for paid employ- ment increases. As the mean for income increases, the mean reflect- ing the total number of major appliances owned also increases slightly. By using income as a covariate, it was found that the annual income of the household has greater predicting power than the employment status of the homemaker. Logically, as the income level of the family increases, the number of major appliances owned by the house- hold will also increase. For the household with a full-time employed homemaker which also had highest mean income, both ends Of the range are somewhat higher than the nonemployed homemaker. Although the income mean and mean for major appliances owned increases as the amount of time spent by the homemakers in the labor force increases, the difference between the three employment status groups do not differ greatly. Looking at 41 the ranges for the quantity Of major appliances owned, it is possible to see that very little difference exists between the three categories of employment status, i.e., all three ranges are very similar with .6 difference in the number of major appliances owned. This patterning suggests this sample is quite homogenous in the ownership of appli- ances. The homogenity is probably related to the relative high median income of the pilot sample (Zuiches, et al., 1975). Another possible explanation is that a household may reach a certain saturation point for the quantity of major appliances owned. At some point, an additional major appliance would not be useful to the family butwould create a disutility for the household if it were owned. This explanation seems plausible when the high and low ends of the ranges of major appliances owned by the three employment status groups are observed (Table IO). In order to further understand the lack of difference of owner- ship for the major appliance, a series of chi-squares were performed to see if any patterns of ownership appeared among the three employ- ment status groups. This procedure produced no significant differences at a = .05 nor did the gamma values show any strong relationships. This again seems to indicate the sample's ownership of appli- ances for their employment status groups is quite homogenous. The lack Of difference can also be explained by the high saturation levels of major appliances in the United States. The Energy Policy Project noted in .its report that almost all homes have a range, refriger— ator, washing machine and at least one television (1974). Appli- ances commonly thought Of as "luxury" items, i.e., the clothes 42 dryer, dishwasher, air conditioners, approach saturation levels of 40% or more (Stanford Institute, 1972). Subhypothesis 2: The household with a full-time employed homemaker will own a greater quantity Of minor appliances as compared to households with a part- time or nonemployed homemaker. Findings Analysis Of covariance was used to test the null hypotheses of no difference in ownership Of mihor appliances by the three employ- ment status groups. The F-test value was p < .07. Discussion Although the null hypothesis was not rejected at a level of a = .05, its probability level was closer than either for total or major appliances. In order to find out between which groups (either nonemployed and full-time employed or part-time and full-time home- makers) the greatest difference existed,ana1ysis Of covariance was used again. Accepting an a = .10, the nonemployed homemakers were found to differ significantly from the full-time employed homemakers. This was not true for the comparison Of the part-time employed homemakers to the full-time employed homemakers. McCluskey (1972) found the mean number of appliances for the low income employed homemaker to be 9.0 items as compared to 6.0 items for the nonemployed homemaker. Logically, the mean number of appliances owned in this sample with a relatively high median income is higher than in McCluskey's study (1972). The full-time employed homemakers were found to own a mean Of 22.0 items and the nonemployed homemakers approximately 19.0. 43 Once again, a series of chi-squares were performed to ascer- tain if any differences in ownership of minor appliances existed for the three employment status groups. Once again, the chi-square test did not prove significant (8 = .05) nor did the gamma value indicate any strong relationships. The percentage of employed homemakers owning a waffle iron, electric typewriter, floor waxer, electric broom, portable broiler and microwave ovens was slightly higher than for the part-time or nonemployed homemaker. On the other hand, the nonemployed homemaker was likely to own food waste disposal, vacuum cleaner and fan. The part-time employed homemaker was found to own a tape recorder, electric fry pan, and electric haircurlers. Once again, it should be remem- bered that these differences were not great. This further analysis points out that the greatest difference seems tO exist between non— employed and full-time employed homemakers. Stein also found that the real difference for the ownership Of minor appliances was found between full-time homemaking and full-time employed homemakers with little difference between the part and full-time employed home- makers (1964). Hypothesis II: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will own a different constellation Of appliances by functional group when compared to households with part- time and nonemployed homemaker. This hypothesis was tested using analysis of covariance (income was used as a covariate). Therunl hypothesis (no difference between employment status and the configuration of functional groups) was tested. The univariate analysis of covariance values are presented in Table 11. 44 TABLE ll.--Univariate Analysis of Covariance: Values for Functional Appliance Groups. Variance Explained Functional Group Un1var1ate F p < by Income (%) Food Preparation .08 .91 10 Clothing Maintenance .05 .95 10 Environment Control .49 .60 9 Outdoor Environment Control .39 .67 4 Personal Care 2.30 .10 1 Recreational .31 .72 6 Indoor Environment Maintenance 1.21 .29 4 Discussion The concept of functional appliance group as tested in hypothe- sis II was introduced by the researcher to test the idea that employed homemakers might own different types or configurations Of appliances when compared to the nonemployed. This concept was based on previous research which pointed out the differences in ownership of individual appliances by employed and nonemployed homemakers (McCluskey, 1972; Holmes, 1967; Henerfauth, 1973). Accepting a significance level of a = .10, the functional group Of personal care was found to differ between the nonemployed and full-time homemaker, but not between part- time and full-time employed homemakers. The lack of difference in this study may be influenced by the overall homogenity of this sub- sample, in general being quite well educated and having relative high median incomes. The appliances in the functional groups are components of the larger groups of major and minor appliances, both which did not prove to be significantly different for the three employment status 45 groups (Hypothesis I, p.45). The lack Of difference in these func- tional group categories may have been influenced by the lack of difference in the larger groupings of major and minor appliances. An examination of the means of the functional groups for the three employment status groups, as presented in Table 12, Offer some interesting, although nonsignificant, patterns. The following groups were selected because the difference between the means for the three employment status groups were the greatest. TABLE 12.--Cell Means of Functional Groups by Employment Status Of Homemaker. Employment Status Food Environ. Indoor Personal Recrea- £33Y33e33r "89k N Prep Control En. Main. Care tion Nonemplo ed (0 hours) 92 4.6 1.5 .26 2.3 5.2 Part time (1 - 34 hours) 24 5.0 1.4 .29 2.7 5.8 Full time (35 hours or more) _11_ 4.9 1.8 .43 3.1 5.5 187 For each functional group with the exception of environmental control, the mean for the households with a nonemployed homemaker is the lowest. The mean value for income of households (Table 10) was also the lowest. This trend of lower income and owning fewer appliances is consistent with the findings of Newman and Wachtel (1974), Energy Policy Project (1974) and Berman, et al. (1972) which conclude that those households 46 with the least amount of financial resources own fewer appliances. Conversely, for the functional groups (environmental control, indoor environmental maintenance and personal care), the household with a full-time employed homemaker, having the highest mean value for income, also has the highest means for those functional groups. The above functional groups contain a greater prOportion of minor appliances. This proportion may reflect the finding that the household with a full-time employed homemaker did own a significantly different (a =.10) greater number of minor appliances than the household with a nonemployed homemaker (Subhypothesis l, p. 42). The functional groups of food storage and preparation are composed mainly Of small appliances. This time, however, the means for these two groups are the highest for the part-time employed home- maker. While the differences are not significant, the pattern sup- ports the conclusion reached by Stein that part-time homemakers in particular use their earnings to acquire household possessions (1964, p. 44). It should be remembered that none of the differences for the functional groups for the three employment status groups were found to be significant. Generally, the greatest difference between the means occurred for the nonemployed and full-time employed homemakers. Perhaps if this concept were tested on a more heterogeneous population which contained a wider range of income levels, significant differ- ences might occur. Hypothesis III: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will consume a greater total quantity of direct resi- dential energy (Btu's) as compared to the households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. 47 Findings For the group of households (n=l3l) with complete residential energy data, analysis Of covariance was performed to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the total quantity Of direct residential energy for the three categories of homemaker employment. The F-test value was p < .3228. Discussion It was expected by the researcher that the households with full-time homemakers would use a greater quantity of residential energy. More hot water use, more rooms heated and greater ownership and use of appliances were noted by Fisher, Newman and Wachtel to account for greater use Of residential energy in households with employed homemakers. This was not the case in this study. In spite Of the non-significant difference found between the three categories a very important unexpected inverse relationship was uncovered. In the following table, the cell means for income and resi- dential energy consumption along with standard deviations and ranges for residential energy consumption are reported for the three cate- gories Of employment status. Those households with a nonemployed homemaker have the larg- est cell mean for the quantity of total residential energy consumed among the three categories of homemakers employment statuses. This finding is contrary to the finding Of Newman and Wachtel (1974), who found residential energy consumption by two-earner households to be approximately 10% higher than single earner households. The cell 48 TABLE 13.--Mean Income and Energy Consumption (Total Btu's), Indica- ting S.D. and Ranges for Energy Consumption by Homemaker Employment Status. Income Direct Residential Energy Consumption Homemaker Employment N Cell Mean* Cell Means Standard Dev. Range Status (Interval (Millions (Millions (Million Btu's) values) Btu's) Btu's) Nonemployed 63 3.0 188.4 76 122.4-264.4 Part-time Employed 17 3.2 177.3 77 100.3-253.3 Full-time Employed _51_ 3.5 174.4 82 92.4-256.4 131 *Mean interval value for income category $10,000 - $14,999. Reflective Of increasing dollar values. means for residential energy use by the nonemployed homemakers was 8% higher than the full-time employed homemakers and 6% higher than the cell means Of residential energy consumption Of those households with part-time employed homemakers. The range of values for the full-time employed homemaker is lower at both ends Of the range (92 to 256 millions Btu's) as compared to the range Of values (112.4 - 264.4 millions of Btu's) for the full-time homemakers. When comparing the cell means Of both residential energy use and income, a further interesting relationship is apparent. The means Of the household gross income (1973) (means for income range between $10,000 - $14,000) increase slightly from the lowest mean for non- employed homemakers to the highest mean for full-time employed home- makers. The increase is an expected almost monotonic direction. 49 However, as pointed out earlier, it is a reverse monotonic relation- ship for residential energy consumption, (decreasing Btu's for more time spent in the labor force). Translated, this indicates the households with nonemployed homemakers, having a slightly lower income mean, are consuming a greater quantity of residential energy. Con- versely, those households with full-time employed homemakers which have the higher income mean are using the lowest quantity of resi- dential energy. This finding is contrary to the general consensus that as income increases, the quantity of residential energy use will also increase. The full-time employed homemakers had approximately the same quantity of major appliances and slightly larger quantity of minor appliances (p. 42). This study's finding that these homemakers use less residential energy seems to suggest that appliances do not act as a substantial substitute for the homemaker's physical human energy and time. Appliances may be used by these homemakers more efficiently (for shorter periods of time or less frequently) or perhaps are owned but not used. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS Within this chapter, the discussion will focus on the follow- ing points: 1. Summary of findings for each hypothesis Other conclusions Implications Of study Limitations 01-th Implications for future research. Hypothesis I: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will own a greater quantity Of total appliances, compared to households with part-time and nonemployed homemakers. This hypothesis was only partially confirmed. An analysis Of covariance (income as a covariate) revealed a significant differ- ence (a = .10) that indicated that the full-time employed homemaker owned a slightly greater quantity Of minor appliances than her part- time and nonemployed counterparts. NO significant differences were found among the three employment status groups on the total quantity Of appliances owned or on the quantity of major appliances owned. The ownership of major appliances was influenced by the level of financial resources (annual income) the household reflects. 50 51 Hypothesis II: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will own a different constellation of appliances by functional group when compared to households with part- time and nonemployed homemaker. This hypothesis was not confirmed. No significant differ- ences (a = .05) were found between the three employment status groups for the ownership of appliances by functional group. A significant difference (a = .10) was found between the full—time employed home- makers and the nonemployed homemaker for the functional group of personal care. Examination of the cell means for the three employ- ment groupsindicate that households containing a full-time homemaker owned a slightly greater quantity of appliances for the functional appliance groupings of environmental control and indoor environmental maintenance as compared to the other employment status groups. The part-time homemakers were found to have a slightly higher cell mean than the full-time or nonemployed homemakers for the functional appliance groups Of food preparation and storage and recreation. The lack Of significant difference for the functional appliance groups (a more refined measure) was probably influenced by the nonsignificant differences found for the more grossly measured categories (quantity of major appliances and total quantity of appliances), as well as the homogenity of this subsample (similar income and other character- istics). Hypothesis III: The household with a full-time employed home- maker will consume a greater total quantity Of direct residential energy as compared to the households with a part-time or nonemployed homemaker. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Although differences were not significant, an unexpected inverse relationship was uncovered. 52 The households with a full-time employed homemaker, although having a higher mean income value than the other employment status groups, were found to consume the least quantity of direct residential energy (174.4 million Btu's). A slightly greater quantity of direct resi- dential energy, although not significant, was used by households with part-time employed homemaker (177.3 million Btu's). The greatest quantity of direct residentail energy was consumed by households containing nonemployed homemakers (184.4 million Btu's). This is interesting because this group had the lowest mean value for income for the employment status groups. The full-time homemaker, being in the household during the day, carries on many energy-consuming activities, e.g., washing clothes, fOOd preparation, and recreational activities, such as watching television. The dwelling also must be heated and lighted for the nonemployed homemaker when climatic con- ditions dictate. Other Conclusions When observing the nonsignificant patternsof ownership of appliances in general, the full-time employed homemaker seems to own a slightly greater quantity of appliances than the other employment status groups. It suggests that the increased flow of financial resources (due to homemaker participation in the labor force) influ- ences the flow of material goods (appliances) from the market place. Ownership patterns for appliances suggest that the full-time home- maker differs very little from the part-time homemaker. Thus, the influence Of employment on the ownership of appliances seems to depend 53 at least to an extent on the presence or absence of the homemaker's participation in the labor force, rather than the degree of partici- pation (part time or full time). While the theoretical section of the review of literature suggests that the use of residential energy and appliances may act as substitutes for time and human physical energy, the findings Of this study do not strongly support that proposition. One cannot infer, based on the findings of this study related to residential energy consumption, that the full-time employed homemaker uses appli- ances and residential energy as substitutes for time and human energy. The households in this study with full-time employed homemakers have slightly more appliances, slightly higher gross annual family income, but consume less residential energy than their part-time or nonemployed counterparts. This indicates a difference in appliance and residential energy use. These households may use their appliances less or more efficiently or not at all. Household residential energy patterns may also differ, i.e., heating less during weekdays, washing clothes fewer times a week, cooking fewer meals at home are possible explana- tions. The literature related to home management styles for employed homemakers also pointed out that employed homemakers may reduce the quantity of tasks performed (completing them less frequently or not at all) or may lower standards Of acceptable performance. The homogenity of the subsample used in this study may have greatly influenced the lack of significant differences found for the ownership of appliances. Yet this study seems to imply that there 54 might be some minimum threshold of appliance ownership which most American households experience (provided there is some level Of disposable income in the household). This threshold may be related to the high material expectations in the American culture generally. At the other end of the range, a saturation point for the ownership of appliances may exist. After that point is reached, the household may prefer to use their disposable income for goods other than pur- chasing additional appliances. Implications Traditionally, when a homemaker is trying to come to closure on the decision to enter the labor force, one would suspect the employ- ment-related costs would be compared against the size of her potential earnings to determine how great the financial return will be. The cost of transportation, meals, clothing and child care have been traditionally cited as costs to consider when making a decision related to entering the labor force. However, the cost of energy in any form (human or mechanical) has not been a part of traditional considerations. Until fairly recently, the cost of residential energy has been low. Presently the cost Of residential energy is rising rapidly. If participation in the labor force were found to influence the quan- tity of residential energy consumed, this expense should be calculated when making a cost-benefit comparison of the financial aSpects Of entering the labor force. The findings of this study seem to suggest that households with an employed homemaker use less residential energy. In a world 55 of increasing residential energy costs and increasing scarcity of energy resources, the decisions that a homemaker makes to work out- side Of the home or not may be greatly influenced by the energy costs involved. The findings of this study indicate that residential energy costs may actually decrease when the homemaker enters the labor force. If this is indeed the case (further studies could confirm or deny), then being a member of the working force has residential energy con- servation advantages. Of course, if transportation energy had been included in the total quantity of energy consumed by the households, the results might have been quite different. The quantity of trans- portation energy used by the employed homemaker might be much larger than the quantity Of residential energy saved. Another critical aspect Of the full-time employed homemaker's use of residential energy is the time of day it is most likely to occur. Using washer and dryer, watching television and food prepara- tion are activities which are more likely to be performed by the nonemployed homemaker during the electrical utilities peak demand period (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.). Size Of the demand during peak period has greatly influenced investment and construction of electrical power producing facilities. The capacity Of the power plant must be large enough to meet peak load demand; otherwise, con- sumers will experience "brownouts" or other forms of power deficien- cies. The potential to generate power is not used to fullest capactiy during the evenings and weekends. On the other hand, this is the time period when the employed homemaker is most likely to be using appli- nces and residential energy (Vanek, 1974, p. 118). Energy used during 56 these time periods does not add to the problem Of peak demand. As more homemakers enter the labor force, the strain of the ever- increasing demand for residential electrical energy during peak demand times may lessen. Implications for Educational Programs Educational information concerning residential energy should stress the problems related to the use of residential energy especially during peak demand periods. Use of the media (radio and television) has potential to transmit this type Of information to nonemployed homemakers. Warren found that people at home during the day (home- makers, unemployed, retired) were less likely tO believe in the reality of the energy problem (1974, p. 21). It was also this group who recorded fewer practices related to household energy conservation. All households are energy consumers. However, middle and upper income housholds, irregardless of homemaker's employment status, have the greatest potential to conserve energy because the quantity they consume is much higher than low income households, indicating more flexibility in how energy is consumed (Ford Foundation, 1974). Warren also notes households with incomes of $5,000 - $9,999 were less likely to cut down on use of appliances or turn down heat (op. cit., p. 21). It should be remembered that these householdsinitially do not have the same potential for or flexibility to conserve. Their consumption of residential energy, in comparison with upper and middle income families, is limited to the essential household residential energy end used (heating, lighting and food preparation) in the main. 57 Therefore, it would seem that educational programming con- cerning residential energy should be aimed at the middle and upper sociO-economic classes where more conservation can take place, i.e., more Options for residential energy practice changes are present. Another educational strategy toward residential energy con- servation could be concerned with how appliances are perceived. A de-emphasis on appliances as symbols of status and economic well being as compared to an emphasis on appliance energy efficiencies and conserving quantities could become a “new" value toward and appre— ciation of the "vital functions“ appliances perform. Information concerning the life cycle cost of an appliance, including the energy cost Of: modifying the natural resources, the Operation in the household and disposing Of the discarded appliance (solid waste disposal), could aid the consumer in understanding the total energy costs Of appliance consumption decisions. If information related to energy cost of Operating an appliance, such as Energy Efficiency labeling as proposed by members of the U. S. Congress were instigated, the consumer would have more information on which to base ones consumption decisions (Nemy, 1974). Limitations Of this Study The homogenity of the subsample (lacking a wide range of income and educational levels) influenced the findings Of this study, i.e., the results indicate little difference in the variables studied. A larger sample size would also probably help to increase the number Of part-time homemakers sampled (only 17 were included in this 58 subsample ). Also a larger sample might include a larger number of female-headed families, which were omitted from this study (n = 20, creating empty tabled cells when making comparisons). Some informa- tion should be Obtained relative to residential energy consumption of single parent families in a future study. There “H; a growing number of single parent families in the nation, linked to a rising divorce rate and society's generally greater acceptance of single parents as heads of households. The inventory Of appliances used as the basis for analysis is quite extensive. Yet the inventory gives no insight into the exact appliance specifications (size in cubic feet, performance character- istics, etc.), which obviously influences the level of residential energy consumed. Examples of this are the range and freezer, which come in a variety Of sizes and types, each lending variability to energy consumption. It was not possible to Obtain complete energy data.gesidential energy data)for all respondents for which appliance ownership was available. This was due to difficulty encountered in Obtaining valid energy data for apartment dwellers. This virtually eliminated all apartment dwellers from the original subsample, thus reducing the subsample for 187 to 131 families on the total residential energy variable. This forced elimination acted to make this study's sub- sample more homogeneous. 59 Implicationsfor Further Research Need for Study Replication A replication of this exploratory study with a larger more heterogeneous sample would be of value. The subsample used in this study was Obviously a rather homogeneoussocio-economic group (similar income, similar appliances,configuration and similar energy use). A replication is also needed to further explore the findings presented in this study, particularly the effect nonemployment or employment Of homemakers has on household residential energy consumption. The presence Of conflicting evidence (this study compared to others) indi- cates a need to clarify in some definitive manner this relationship. Need for More Complete Energy Data Methods need to be devised to get at energy use of apartment dwellers in particular. Gross master metering of energy consumption for larger apartment complexes, especially where utilities are included in therent, needs to be designed. Gathering data for these types of dwellings presentsa very special problem of data collection and manipulation for the researcher. Also a more effective system for gaining respondent's per- mission for direct residential energy data is needed. The reduction Of the sample size from 217 to 131 respondents for complete resi- dential energy data indicates this important need. 60 Need to Consider Other Independent Variables The relationships explored in this study primarily concerned the effect Of employment status of the homemaker and income on direct residential energy consumption. In further analysis of the data, it would seem fruitful to introduce other independent variables: housing tenure (owner, renters), ages Of family members, structure of dwell- ing (number of rooms) and number of people in the household. These explanatory variables have potential to reduce the amount Of unex- plained variance. Need for a More Refined Measure Of Appliance Type While it is extremely important to know the exact quantity Of appliances owned, it would be useful to have a measure (scale or index) that would reflect size, model differences and variation in appliance construction that would influence energy consumption. A refined measure would give a more precise description of the appli— ancesowned by the household and their potential to consume residen- tial energy. Need to Know More about Completion of Household Tasks in Relation to AppTiances Owned This study does not answer directly the question concerning use Of residential energy and appliances in relation to the comple- tion Of household tasks. Some unanswered questions include: What appliances are used in the completion of household tasks? Who are the primary and secondary users of household appliances? and at what 61 times Of day and for what length of time are appliances generally used? This data could be obtained by actually monitoring appliances with metering devices or by self report methods. Summary The findings of this study shed some light on the appliance configuration (quantity and types) of a sample which has similar sociO-economic characteristics, having homemakers with differing labor force participation. The patterns Of ownership seem to indi- cate a threshold level of appliance consumption. Also indicated by the findings of this study is the greater quantity of residential energy used by nonemployed homemakers as compared to both full-time and part-time employed homemakers. The presence of the homemaker in the dwelling allows her more time to use residential energy. The possibility then exists to overuse resi- dential energy as the means to achieve a level of control over house- hold environmental conditions. The findings Of this study indicate the need for future research. Although it is exploratory research, the findings also indicate possible directions for educational programs concerned with appliance acquisition, use and total residential energy con- sumption toward energy conservation. APPENDICES 62 APPENDIX A SELECTED QUESTIONNAIRES--PILOT STUDY 63 12. PenoltheenergyueedinthehomecomeefromtheueeolIndividud qspllarnee. How-nany,whatqeandhowmanytimee week are your familyfliencee used? INSTRUCTIONS: In the two spaces to the left of the appliance listed, please give: (1) the number of each appliance your family has (0 if none, I, 2, 3 etc.) (2) the 2 approximately of each (model year or year of purchase) In the spaces to the rid“ of the appliance listed, please: (1) check (VF the number of hours approximmly the appliance is used per week. Number of OGII Less than 1—4 5—10 11-50 51—1“) one hour hours hours hours hours All the per week per week per week per week per week time Electric stove with url‘ace burners —. Gm stove with wrlace human Self-cleaning electric oven ____.. —_ 01W I|||I||||||||||I||||ll||§§ Mere-wave oven Color televielon Black & white “Widen Waehing machine Electric clothes dryer __ _ Gas clothes dryer __ —_ Electric mace heater Humidifior (winter) __ _ Dehumidifier hammer) Room air-conditioning (summer) _ _ Central air-conditioning (winner _ —- Self-defrosting dectric refrigerator _ —— Electric Refrlgeresor (without delroet) GaeBeIrigerator __ __ Self-defrosthomefreuer _ __ Home freezer lwitlsout defrost) Electriowaeerheaser 64 65 13. Below are listed mailer qsplieltces family's own. (11 INSTRUCTIONS: In the spaces after each appliance, please give: the number of each your family has (0 if none, 1, 2, 3 etc.) (2) the 9: approximately of each. (model year or year purchased) (3) indicate if the appliance was new or used at time of purchase. (4) do you plan to purchase or replace in the next 6 months? Appliance lumber of each Age of each New—Used Plan to purchase at time of or replace in next purchase 6 months New Used Yes No Outdoor (electric will) Oltdoor lee-1 will Electric witar Electric hair-curlers Hair dryer, standing or portable Electric ice cream miter Iron, reader or steam Electric knife sharpner Standard lenplsi Electric lawn and garden tools Electric lawnmower (summer) Gee lawnmower (summer) Lights, indoor wall fixtures Outdoor lawn lights Electric mixer Electric organ Movie proiector or slide projector Clock radio or stmdtd radio Electric razor Record player Power tools lectric blanket Bender Electric broiler (portable) Electric broom Electric can opener Electric coffeemaker Electric clock Food wute diwoeer Electric fan Floor waster Foodwermertray 66 (Ciuestion 13 continued) Appliance Number of each Age of each New—Used Plan to purchase at time of or replace in next purchau 6 monthe New Umd Yes No Electric frypm Electric garqedoor Sewing machine Electrictoe recorder Tooter Electric toothhmeh Electric typewriter Electric vacuum cleaner Electric vaporizer Electric waffle iron Mower APPENDIX B COMPARATIVE TABLES FOR LANSING S.M.S.A. AND PILOT STUDY 67 TABLE 14. --A Compa rison Of Income Distributions Between LanSing S. M. S. A. Familiesa and Sample Families. Income Categories Lansing S.M%S.A. Families Sample gamilies Less than $4,999 13.2 8.1 $5,000 to $9,999 28.2 20.6 $10,000 to $14,999 31.6 31.1 $15,000 to $24,999 22.0 26.8 $25,000 or more 5.0 13.4 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 (N) 89610 209 Median Income 11213 13425 aSource: Income Characteristics of the Population: 1970, Table P-4, Census Tracts, Lansing, Michigan, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970, p. P-31. 68 69 TABLE 15.--A Comparison of Educational Attainment, Families Lansing S.M.S.A.a Sample Families. Years Of School Completed Lansing S.M.S.A. Families % Sample Families 0-11 years (Less than High School) 12 years (High School Completed) 1-3 Years College 4 years or more (College Graduate 8 Professional Training) TOTALS (N) 36.1 33.1 13.5 17.3 100.0 89610 38.4 19.0 21.4 100.0 411 aSource: Families by type and composition Education and Labor Force Participation Of Head and Wife. Table 158, Detailed Characteristics, Michigan, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau Of the Census, 1970, p. 24-753. 70 TABLE 16.--A Comparison Of Marital Status by Sex and Age, Lansing S.M.S.A. Familiesa and Sample Families. Total Married Population Sample Families Age Categories Lansing S.M.S.A. Lansing S.M.S.A. Males Females Males Females % % % % Under 18 years .001 .004 -- -- l8 - 29 years 25.6 31.9 28.5 34.1 30 - 44 years 32.2 31.7 33.3 36.5 45 - 64 years 32.1 29.4 33.4 25.1 65 years & over 10.0 6.6 5.8 4.3 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) 83055 84296 207 211 aSource: Lansing S.M.S.A. data calculated from Table 152, Detailed Characteristics, Michigan, U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce, U. 5. Census of Population, 1970, p. 728. APPENDIX C COMPOSITION OF FUNCTIONAL APPLIANCE GROUPS 71 Food Preparation and Storage Indoor Environmental Maintenance 1. Dishwasher 1. Floor waxer 2. Microwave oven 2. Electric broom 3. Freezer 4. Self-defrost refrigerator 5. Range, self-cleaning oven Recreational 6. Range, two ovens 7. Fry pan, electric 1. Color television 8. Portable broiler 2. Black & white television 9. Blender 3. Electric guitar 10. Food waste disposal 4. Electric organ 11. Food warmer tray 5. Movie or slide projector 12. Knife sharpener 6. Tape recorder 7. Record player 8. Radio Clothing Maintenance 9. Ice cream maker 1. Washing machine 2. Clothes dryer, gas or electric Personal Care 1 Electric curlers 2 Hair dryer 3. Electric vaporizer 4 Electric razor Environmental Control Humidifer Dehumidifier Room air-conditioner Central air conditioning Electric blanket mthd e e e e e Outdoor Environmental Maintenance 1. Electric lawn & garden tools 2. Power tools 3. Electric lawn mower 72 REFERENCES CITED 73 REFERENCES CITED Books Berman, M. 8.; Hammer, M. J.; and Tihansky, D. P. The Impact Of Electricitngrice Increases on Income Groups: Western United States and California. Report for the california State AssembTy} P-lOSO-NSF7CSA. Santa Monica, Cal.: The Rand Corporation, 1972. Energy Policy Project. Exploring EnergyChoices. Washington, D. C.: Ford Foundation, 1974a. , “ _ . A Time to Choose: America Energy Future. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing CO., l974b. Fitzsimmons, Cleo, and Williams, Fora. The Family Economy. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Edwards Brothers, 1974. Herendeen, Robert A. The Energy Cost Of Goods and Services. ORNL- NSF-EP-58. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak'Ridge National Labora- tory, 1973. Holmstrom, Lynda. Two Career Families. Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman Publishing CO., 1972. Issaac, Stephen, and Michael, William B. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego, Cal.: Robert E. Knapp.71972. Kerlinger, Fred. Foundations Of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Morrison, Denton E., and Hinkel, Ramon E., eds. The Significance Test Controversy; A Reader. Chicago: Aldine Pfiblishing Co., 1970. _ Rainwater, Lee; Coleman, Richard P.; and Handel, George. Working. Man's Wife. New York: Oceana Publishing, Inc., 1959. Rapoport, Rhona, and Rapoport, Robert. Dual Career Families. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1971. Stanford Research Institute. Patterns Of Energy Consumption. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 74 75 Steidel, Rose, and Bratton, Ester C. Work in the Home. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968. Sweet, James A. Women in the Labor Force. New York: Seminar Press, 1973. Tansil, John. Residential Consumption Of Electricity 1950-70. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-NSF-EP 51, 1973. United States, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Handbook of Labor Statistics. Washington, D. C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1974. 3mg; Unauthored. "Applications of Electricity to Domestic Use.“ Journal Of Home Economics, Vol. 22 (August, 1930), 631-640. Unauthored. “Electricity and Home Economics Research." Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 20 (March, 1928), l77-l78. Unauthored. "Establishment Of Household Budgets." Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 25 (February, 1933) 109-114. Hayge, Howard. "Marital and Family Characteristics of the Labor Force in March, 1973. Monthlprabor Review, Vol. 97 (April, 1974), 21-27. Johnston, Dennis F. "The U. S. Labor Force: Projections to 1990." Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 96 (July, 1973): 3-13. Linden, Fabian. "The Appliance Market.” The Conference Board Record. June, 1965, pp. 65-68. Muntz, Irene. "How Modern Equipment Is Changing Homemaking Practices." Journal Of Home Economics, Vol. 45 (January, 1953), 20-22. Nale, Clara 0. "Home Economics in the Field of Rural Electrification." Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 28 (April, 1938). Schnore, Leo F. "Social Morphology and Human Ecology." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 (May, 1958): 620-634. Vanek, Joan. "Time Spent in Housework." Scientific American, November, 1974, pp. 116-20. 76 Dissertations Hafstrom, Jeanne L. "Economic Choices of One and Two Earner Families." Master's thesis, University of Illinois, 1968. Henerfauth, Judy E. "A Comparison Of Ownership and Utilization Of Selected Household Equipment by Employed and Nonemployed Homemakers." Master's thesis, Southern Illinois University, 1973. Mc Cluskey, Margaret A. "Ownership and Use of Small Appliances by Selected Families in Western Heights Housing Project, Knox- ville, Tennessee." Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1972. Stein, Anne. "A Pilot Study Of Inventories of Household Goods Other Than Apparel of 91 Families in Ithaca, New York, 1964." Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1965. Printed Materials Electric Energy Association. “Annual Energy Requirements of Electric Household Appliances." New York: Electric Energy Associa- tion, 1974. Fisher, John C. "Energy Crisis in Perspective. " A speech given at "Perspectives on Energy" seminar, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mi. ,January 24,1975. Nemy, Enid. "Seeking to Tell Consumers the 'Energy Cost' Of that New Appliance." New York Times July 29, 1974, p. 18C. Newman, Dorothy K. , and Wachtel, Dawn Day. Energy, Environment and the Poor. Report to Society for. the Study Of Social Problems, August, 1974. Washington, D. C. Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, August, 1974. Nolan, Francena L., and Tuttle, Dawn H. Certain Practices, Satisfac- tions, and Difficulties in Families with Employed Homemakers. Agricultural Emperiment Station, Bulletin 655, University Park, Pennsylvania: PennSylvania State University, 1959. Schlater, Jean 0., and Ferrar, Barbara M. "Monetary Gain from the Wife's Employment." Quarterly Bulletin. East Lansing, Mi.: Michigan Agricultural Station, Vol. 46, 1963. U. S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1970 Census of Population Classification. Washington, D. C.: Bureau Of Census, 1971. 77 U. S., Department Of Agriculture, Home Economics Research Division. Job Related Expenditures and Management Practices of Gain- fully Employed Women in Four Geopgja Cities by Emma G. Holmes. Home Economics Research Report NO. 15. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. U. S., Department of Agriculture, Home Economics Research Division. Job Related Expenditures and Management Practices Of Gain- fully Employed Wives in North Carolina by Emma G. Holmes. Home Economics Research Report No. 34, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Walker, Kathryn E. "Time Use Patterns for Household Work Related to the Homemaker's Employment." Printed copy of a speech given at 1970 National Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washington, D. 0., February 18, 1970. U.S.D.A. Ag. Research Service NO. 349 a, 14 pp. Warren, Donald I. Individual and Community Effects on Response to Energy Crisis of Winter 1974: An Analysis of Survey Find- ing; from Eight Detroit Area Communities. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Institute Of Labor and Industrial Relations, University Of Michigan, 1974. Zuiches, James; Morrison, Bonnie, M.; and Gladhart, Peter. On Interviewing Families, Methodology and Design of "Energy_ and the Family" Survey, Occasional Paper NO. 2, Project 3152, "Functioning of the Family Ecosystem in a World of Changing Energy Availability. " Institute for Family and Child Study, College of Human Ecology, Michigan State University, April, 1975. MICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIE I III IIII III IIII III II IIII III III II III IIIII II III