THE RELATION 0F SELECTED HOUSING FEATURES AND FURNISHINGS T0 EATING PATTERNS IN PROFESSIONAL~ MANAGERIAL FAMILIES Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JENNY M. RUTH 1967 . LIBRART’LE Michigan 5"" 7 : Univcmit)’ 3 1293 W III”! I ll IlllIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWII I ABSTRACT THE RELATION OF SELECTED HOUSING FEATURES AND FURNISHINGS TO EATING PATTERNS IN PROFESSIONAL-MANAGERIAL FAMILIES by Jenny M. Ruth Many new houses are built of standardized components and must function for a highly mobile society of unknown occupants. Due to this impersonal mode of construction and the fact that housing is relatively inflexible, it is conceivable that families residing in them will compromise or sacrifice their needs. Family patterns of living and their relation to housing must be clearly understood before dwellings meeting specific human needs can be designed with confidence. This study was initiated in an attempt to iden— tify housing features and furnishings associated with the activity of eating, though much emphasis was placed on the development of an instrument which would quickly and ac- curately describe housing features and furnishings. The objectives of this study were: (1) To identify family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, whether it sometimes ate together, or whether it almost always ate together. (2) To identify housing features associated with Jenny M. Ruth family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate together, or almost al— ways ate together. (3) To identify housing furnishings associated with family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate together, or almost al- ways ate together. An interview schedule was designed to obtain demo- graphic data, to classify families in three pre-established patterns of eating, and to identify housing features and furnishings which might be related to eating. Housing fea- tures in the food preparation area and eating area were rated according to condition, while housing furnishings were placed in categories according to the respondent's responses concerning usage. Personal interviews were conducted with thirty mothers of professional—managerial families in Lansing and suburban areas who had no children above elementary school age living at home, and whose families met criteria based upon income, occupation, education, and housing. The precoded data were analyzed according to chi square, analysis of variance, and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Findings indicated that over half the sample fell into the category of families who almost always ate to- gether, while one-third were classified as families who Jenny M. Ruth sometimes ate together. Only one-tenth were classified as families who almost never ate together. When the family did not eat together individual family members appeared to have established more regular times and places for eat- ing during the week than on Sundays. No demographic factors were related to the three patterns of eating. Staying together at the table, the mother's childhood eating patterns, other family-shared times, and interruptions appeared to be unrelated to the patterns of eating. Likewise, the reasons for the eating patterns did not prove to be significantly related. No relation was found to exist between features rated in the food preparation area and any of the three patterns of eating. Of the items rated in the eating area, the placement of doors was the only feature found to show a relationship, which was slight, to the patterns of eating. Significant relationships were found to exist for three variables in the furnishings inventory: the responses "I don't have enough and would like more," for "Items As- sociated with Eating" and for "Items Associated with Serv— ing," and "I don't have the item but want it“ for "Items Associated with Preparation." Therefore, no specific evidence was found to show that housing features were related to family eating pat- terns, though three types of housing furnishings were found to be related. In this sample, where over half of the Jenny M. Ruth families almost always ate together, it appeared that houses were designed in such a way to allow families a choice in the frequency of eating together. Housing features and furnishings did not emerge clearly as highly influencing factors in the type of family eating patterns, although some relationships appeared to exist. THE RELATION OF SELECTED HOUSING FEATURES AND FURNISHINGS TO EATING PATTERNS IN PROFESSIONAL-MANAGERIAL FAMILIES By Jenny M. Ruth A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Textiles, Clothing,and Related Arts 1967 \K ”I.” C“. \ fi\ .> ~45 \ Owl“) a (\\ \J g." ,f lSnell Putney and Russell Middleton, "Effect of T ‘41 Essband—Wife Interaction on the Strictness of Attitudes <:3”§~rard Child Rearing," Marriage and the Family, XXII, No. 2 C May, 1960), p. 171. 12 .interacting unit. Because eating is an activity engaged in daily, it affords the chance for development of family ,policy, discussion of daily activities, resolution of in- > be at its greatest ease, both physically and psycholog— Si.<::a11y. The act of eating together represents the family 43—171. action, focused upon a common interest; and table talk 3131.1hnctions as a form of family interaction by giving the ii—lrludividual a chance to learn and clearly define his role ‘N’lfilile the family functions as an audience, giving and with— }f1<:> 1ding responses. Due to its intimate and repetitive \ 1James H. S. Bossard, "Family Table Talk--An Area ::f<:>.r Sociological Study," American Sociological Review, 31:11, No. 3 (1943), pp. 295-301. 13 nature, the family mealtime often serves as a clearing house for family information, as a substitute classroom, and as a forum and evaluating conference. Bossard, Boll and Sangerl indicated that the fam- ily spends much of its group time in the dining room and described four types of eating activities: (1) rushed meet- ings with a minimum of conversation so that the meal can Ibe finished as soon as possible; (2) family meals charac— terized by quarreling, wherein the children are scolded «or nagged about table manners, the parents quarrel, and -there is much criticism of food; (3) family meals which sire occasions for the exchange of events and news of the (fleay and in which experiences are shared; and (4) family Itzeaals which are ritualistic, characterized by set patterns which make the meal a "private communion." Snow2 worked with the development of a method to ‘Llwsse in determining family shared time and the type of ac- ‘tlifiLvities involved. Families in her study kept records of EEEITIY activities participated in by two or more family mem- 12>gether on weekdays. Thorpe theorized that farm families IT\«an have spent more time in eating than urban families be— <:=eetween the frequency of family-shared meals and the per— sscanality scores of the students. As the number of meals sslrzared by the entire family increased, there was also an Upward trend in average personality scores. In Community «’\.,. those children of families who ate fourteen or more meals ‘t:<:>gether during the seven-day period had an average family E1<::'i.justment score twenty-six points higher than did those (Zilfiildren in families which ate five or less meals together. <::<:>mmunity B showed a difference of twenty-three points be- 1tl‘nreen the average family adjustment score of those children ‘:L~1TL families who ate twelve or more meals together and those \ 1Barbara Cohen and Joanne Kapneck, "When the Fam- ét: :II y Meets for Meals," Journal of Home Economics, XL, No. <2) (1948), pp. 577-78. 16 of families who ate seven or fewer meals together. Among the aims of a study conducted by Thurowl was the investigation of associations between selected family relationships in order to determine closeness of associa— tion and in order to study the influence of the presence or absence of these relationships. Her findings showed the eating of meals to be the most commonly shared activ- ity; evening meals were shared by members of more than three-fourths of the 200 families in the study, while morn— ing and noon meals each were shared by members of about cone-half of the families. Parental tensions appeared to (decrease and the children were more satisfied with their :Eflamilies when more meals were spent together, as well as .k>;irthdays and holidays. In summary, there are indications from previous -I? come together over an extended period of time. The eat- ii—Ifilg activity accounted for the largest block of time that :EFistmily members spent together. It was a significant fac- t*-'—<::.r in personality scores of children and an influence upon \ lMildred B. Thurow, A Study of Selected Factors jEE§EEEL Familnyife as Described in Autobiographies, Memoir 171, ‘Zhrrnell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Ithaca, NQW York, 1935), pp. 3, 24, 27. Ea. 2It should be noted that all studies cited here ftZTWe a minimum of 10 years old. l7 satisfaction or tension of family members. The eating ac- tivity also provides the essential initial exposure of child- ren to patterns of society. It follows, then, that the space and items utilized during the process of eating may be involved in the success or failure of the interactive process. Physical space and furnishings of the eating area Housing features and furnishings must be identified, and their relation to family activities established, before zany implications concerning their effect upon family and :individual development may be drawn. Not until inferences char a wide range of activities are projected can housing tzlneories be developed. Bossardl further expanded his Law of Family Inter- léi<::tion, previously mentioned, to include an interactive Esjgzace index, which takes into account the number of square iffesaet of floor space in relation to the number of family ITlesambers. This was accomplished on the assumption that :L-Ii.ving quarters are related to the stresses, strains, and I‘-?-II:.‘ustrations of family living. Such variables as sex, age, r1"<‘Elrital status, occupation of the family members, and stage <=>315’ the family life cycle were set up for use in this Fam- zi¥-:L_y Interaction Space Index. \ lBossard, American Sociological Review, XVI, No. 2 3 pp. 243-45. 18 A postulate concerning the effect of space upon families, suggested by Perry,1 stated that spatial inade- quacies were related to an individual's attitude concern— .ing the time his family spends together. Evidence was ob- -tained relating inadequate housing to stress and strain t substantiated by his research. The null hypothesis "'t:here is no difference between marital adjustment and £31;>ace utilization" was not rejected. Warner and Lunt3 designated specific spaces where ‘tlkfile family spends time as a group. The living room and the dining room are most often used, but of the two, the <3¢jL¢ning room is more frequently restricted to the intimate participation of the family. \ 1Mignon Perry, "Relationships of Space in Housing 1t3<3> Attitudes Toward Family Life" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, <::<:>.rnell University, 1958). E 2Phil K. McQueen, "Relationships Among Selected E:_<:>1using, Marital and Familial Characteristics” (unpublished h .D. thesis, Florida State University, 1964), pp. 30, 54. 3W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life ITIE§:—-a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, SE) 417, p. 1050 19 However, Hurley,1 in studying furnishing and usage patterns and subsequent satisfactions of the families in— volved, found that presence of a dining room depends great— ly upon ability to afford one. A significant relationship existed between the price range of a house and the absence or presence of a dining room; that is, more of the higher- priced houses included dining rooms. It has been accepted by Agan and Luchsinger2 that a separate dining room becomes a matter of social signif— icance, regardless of whether guests are present or absent, for it can make possible increasing bonds between members of the family group. The writers recommended that one or more meals daily be eaten in such an atmosphere. A dining area in the kitchen, which for a large percentage of Smith's3 sample was in addition to another dining area, was one of the desired features in housing. Beyer4 found that four—fifths of the 603 families lPatricia G. Hurley, "The Suburban Living Room: Processes of Furnishing, Patterns of Use and Satisfactions of Families” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Florida State Uni- versity, 1966), p. 78. 2Tessie Agan and Elaine Luchsinger, The House: PrinciplesyJResources, Dynamics (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1965), p. 93. 3Ruth H. Smith, "Housing Choices as Evidenced by Residential Mobility,” Journal of Home Economics, LVII, No. 1 (January, 1965), pp. 39-41. 4Beyer, op. cit., p. 24. 20 interviewed for his study of farm housing preferred eating some meals in the kitchen, while four-fifths also preferred eating some meals in the dining room. In a later study,1 he set up housing value categories,by means of a question— naire, which were analyzed socially and psychologically. His sample fell into four groups, three of which were used in his analysis: economic, with emphasis on thrifty use of goods and services; family, with emphasis on strengthen- ing of family relationships; and personal, with emphasis on freedom and independence. When asked where they ate their evening meal, almost 75 percent of the economy group designated the kitchen and 6 percent listed the dining room. Of the family group, the kitchen was mentioned by about 70 percent and the dining room by nearly 13 percent; and of the personal group, 67 percent listed the kitchen and about 20 percent preferred the dining room. Of those who ate in the kitchen, 31 percent liked it very much, 33 per- cent liked it somewhat, 20 percent were indifferent, and 16 percent were dissatisfied. In spite of indications that large numbers of fam— ilies eatiin the kitchen, when Montgomery2 asked college lIbid. 2James E. Montgomery, The Housing Images of Women College Students, University Research Publication 202 University Park, Pa.: College of Home Economics, April, 1963), pp. 6, 20. 21 students what type of eating area they envisioned in their first houses, he found that 76 percent desired a separate dining room, while only 42 percent expected to have one. On the other hand, 15 percent desired a dining room in the living room, but 28 percent expected it to be there. Only 29 percent wanted a dining area in the kitchen, while 47 percent expected it to be there. This indicated that a separate dining room was viewed as most desirable by col- lege students, followed by a kitchen-dining arrangement and a living-dining arrangement. However, expectations that these areas would exist in their first houses were considerably lower than were the desires. The study was conducted to determine the extensiveness of influence of geographic location upon housing desires and expectations and to identify factors affecting students' ideas concern- ing housing. Lack of adequate living space is frequently a prob— lem of young families. In reference to stage of the fam- ily life cycle, Campbelll mentioned that families with small eating areas generally had younger children than did those families with larger eating areas. However, although lack of adequate space is a commonly expressed problem, another aspect emerging from 1Catherine McLean Campbell, "An Evaluation Study of the Dining Area in Thirty Families" (unpublished Mas- ter's thesis, University of North Carolina, 1950), p. 73. 22 Niemi'sl study was lack of two or more eating areas. She noted that dissatisfaction was voiced concerning meal serv- ice locations by those families having eating space only in the kitchen and by those families who had a dining room but were lacking kitchen serving space. Within specific areas, an average seating space for 6.38 persons in the kitchen existed, while space for 7.4 persons was desired; an average seating space for 5.57 persons existed in the dining room, though an average seating capacity for 11.4 persons was preferred. The location of meal service was found to be re- lated to socio-economic status. Hurley2 stated that as socio-economic status increased, family meals were served less frequently in the living room or living-dining area. Almost half of the high socio-economic group indicated that they never or almost never served meals in the living area. With a closer look at the eating area, furnishings are generally found to be more significantly related to various aspects of housing than to family life. In a study conducted by Campbell,3 the type of dining table was more lTyyni Miriam Niemi, "Present Practices and Activ— ities of 84 Ohio Families and Factors Affecting Their Housing Preferences" (unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1949), pp. 148, 78, 149. 2Hurley, op. cit., p. 75. 3Campbell, op. cit., pp. 15, 19-20. 23 closely related to size of the dining area than to size of the family. The possession of buffets and china closets varied directly with the size of the dining area; but the number of dining chairs kept in the dining area varied with family size, rather than with size of the dining area. However, in general it would appear that the numbers of pieces and types of furnishings used by families were in- fluenced more by the available floor space than by individ- ual preferences or family size. Littlel examined furnishings owned by families in various stages of the family life cycle in order to gain information pertaining to the type of item, how it was ac— quired, and what values were held important by families in the furnishing of sleeping, living, and dining rooms. A total of 1005 items of furniture was listed for the din- ing area by thirty-two families. Some families had more than one dining table and more than one set of chairs, while over two-thirds of the families had enough tables and chairs to accommodate family and guests. Adequacy of the furnishings increased as the level of living increased; thus, there was a decrease in the percentage of the mini- mum amount of furniture as the size of the house increased. 1Lillie Bradshaw Little, "House Furnishing Prac— tices as They Relate to the Family Life Cycle and Certain Selected Factors" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1965), p. 53. 24 There was no significant association between adequacy of furnishings in the dining area and the stage of the family life cycle. Also, there was no significant association between adequacy of furnishings and size of the family. There was, however, a close relationship between adequacy of furnishings and home ownership. McCrayl conducted a study to learn whether housing features and furnishings were perceived by mothers to be related to family-shared mealtime. Purposes of the study were: (1) to establish mothers' preferences concerning family-shared mealtime, (2) to establish the housing fea— tures and furnishings mothers perceived to be related to family-shared mealtime, and (3) to establish the housing features and furnishings which appeared to be related to mothers' preferences regarding family-shared mealtime. The sample consisted of thirty mothers of families with pre-school children attending the Michigan State University Pre-school Laboratory. Findings indicated that twenty-eight of the thirty respondents said they preferred that their families eat together and did eat together, while two of the thirty respondents said they did not prefer that their families lJacquelyn W. McCray, "Housing Features and Fur- nishings Perceived by Mothers to Aid or Impede Family— Shared Mealtime” (Master's thesis in progress, Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts, Michigan State University). 25 share mealtime, though they did eat together. However, the respondents' statements indicating that their families did eat together were not substantiated by further question— ing. When asked to identify family members who ate together during each meal, only two mothers indicated that all fam- ily members ate together in the morning, one that they did so at mid-day, and one that they did so in the evening. Mothers apparently felt that the phrase "eating together" did not mean that all family members were required to be present, or they did not correctly interpret the question. When asked why the mealtime procedure had evolved as it did, those respondents who preferred eating together listed "occupation" as the primary reason, while those who did not prefer eating together mentioned "occupation" and "other activities of the family." Similarly, those who preferred eating together shared more meals with their husbands. When asked which features and furnishings aided or impeded family-shared mealtime, it was found that re— spondents were aware of more features that impeded family mealtime than they were of furnishings which were impedi— ments. However, mothers were more aware of those features and furnishings which aided family-shared mealtime than of the features which impeded it. While no tests of significance were administered to the data, McCray observed that one housing feature and 26 one housing furnishing were more often mentioned than others. Furniture arrangement was perceived by twelve respondents as an aid to mealtime and by twelve respondents as an im- pediment; in other words, a total of twenty—four out of thirty respondents mentioned furniture arrangement. An outdoor grill was mentioned a total of twenty times as aid- ing mealtime but was not mentioned as an impediment. McCray reported that the mothers who preferred eating together were aware of more forces that made eating together diffi- cult; the most frequently noted difficulty was inadequate accommodations, which was mentioned by nineteen of the re- spondents. A summary of literature dealing with the physical space and furnishings of the eating area shows that Niemi, Beyer, Smith,and Hurley indicated that families desired a separate dining area, while Montgomery found that 76 per— cent of the college students interviewed also desired sep- arate dining areas in their first homes. However, Hurley found a significant relation between a separate dining area and price of the house. This would pose the possibility that families might not be able to eat in the way they wish if they cannot afford the desired space. Because furnish- ings are related to size of the eating area, and size of the eating area is related to level of living, Campbell and Little found that these factors might also affect the way families eat. McQueen isolated one such effect; too 27 many room uses, an aspect of housing also related to the size of space, was found to influence family relations. Summary Conclusions from this review of literature would support research to determine the relation of housing fea— tures and furnishings to family activities. Several ques— tions may be posed: (1) If interaction is dependent upon activities, what space accommodations must be present for the activities to be accomplished? (2) Is there any meas- urable association between housing features and furnishings and family relations? and (3) If the activity of eating is still that time when families are most often together, what happens to those families who do not have an adequate eating area for their family size and needs? Objectives The objectives of this study were: 1. To identify family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate to- gether, or almost always ate together.1 2. To identify housing features associated with family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate together, or almost 1A detailed explanation of family eating patterns is found in "Definition of Terms Used," p. 29. 28 always ate together. To identify housing furnishings associated with family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate together, or almost always ate together. Hypotheses In order to attain the objectives of this study, the following hypotheses were established: I. II. There are significant differences in housing features associated with eating among families who almost never eat together, those who sometimes eat together, and those who almost always eat together. There are significant differences in housing furnish- ings associated with eating among families who almost never eat together, those who sometimes eat together, and those who almost always eat together. Definition of the Terms Used For the purpose of this study the following opera- tional definitions were employed: 1. Professional-managerial families: Terminology used to describe more specifically the sample in this study. Kahl, in his description of the upper—middle class, defined its members as "college-educated, prosperous people who are technicians, professionals, managers, 29 and businessmen."1 Families who eat together: All family members living at home and eating together. (Exception: Those mem- bers physically or mentally unable to eat with the family.) Family eating patterns (according to the mother's best ability to recall): a. Eating Pattern I: Families who almost never eat together-~those who eat together between one-third and two-thirds of the time, or seven or fewer meals per week. b. Eating Pattern II: Families who sometimes eat to— gether--those who eat together between one-third and two-thirds of the time, or eight through four— teen meals per week. c. Eating Pattern III: Families who almost always eat together--those who eat together over two-thirds of the time, or fifteen or more meals per week. Housing features: Structural or relatively permanent parts of the food preparation area or of the area where the family eats most often. Housing furnishings: Movable items associated with serving, storage, and food preparation as well as 1Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957), p. 193. 3O eating, clean-up and entertaining. 6. Eating area: Any part of the house or yard where food is normally eaten by the family. Limitations of the Research 1. Two paid interviewers aided the researcher with collection of the data, and all of the interviewers had received only limited experience in interviewing. It was possible that personal biases could have influenced these interviewers in their condition ratings of the features in the food preparation area and in the eating area. Ideal- ly, one experienced interviewer would have been preferable in order to make the ratings more consistent from interview to interview. 2. The sample was not randomly selected, which prevents making generalizations to a population. However, because the major aim of the study was to identify housing variables, the researcher felt that a randomly selected sample was not of prime importance. 3. Because of the small size of the sample, pro- ducing in turn small cells in the patterns of eating, some differences which would emerge with a larger sample may have been obscured. 4. All thirty families in the sample had fathers living at home, though no attempt was made to control this variable. Therefore, it was impossible to discern whether families without fathers had different patterns of eating 31 than did families with fathers. However, because identi- fication of possible housing variables associated with patterns of eating was the basic objective, the relation of patterns of eating to varying family compositions is left to future studies. CHAPTER II PROCEDURE OF THE INVESTIGATION Design of the Study For the purposes of this study it was decided to obtain data from mothers of families with no children above elementary school level living at home. The families were classified as professional—managerial. To obtain this classification income, education, occupation,and housing were employed as controls. Families were required to meet any three of the following criteria: (1) a minimum annual income of $7500, (2) a minimum of some college education for the head of the family, (3) professional or managerial occupation for the head of the family, or (4) residence in "single-family homes in the suburbs,"1 which were of sound structure, well maintained, and in a "respectable" neighborhood. Residence was judged visually by the inter- viewer at the time of the interview. The study was limited to families with children of elementary school age or younger, because the research- er believed that patterns of living alter greatly as lKahl, o . cit., p. 194. 32 33 children become involved in the activities of teenagers. If, however, there were older children who were no longer living at home, the activities of members still in the home were thought to be characteristic of a family primarily in the early stages of the family cycle. No attempt was made to interview only those fami- lies with the father living at home, since future studies of families in other socio-economic levels were planned. To adhere to such a strenuous criterion might make gaining a sample extremely difficult in other socio-economic levels. Development of the Interview Schedule This study was one in a series conducted as part of a master project of the Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University.1 McCray2 conducted a pilot study to determine whether housing features and furnish- ings were perceived by mothers to be related to family- shared mealtime. Following, in sequence, were studies by Ruth, Hussey,3 and Pletcher,4 dealing with selected housing 1L. Gertrude Nygren, research in progress concern- ing housing features and furnishings in relation to family activities (Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University), Research Project No. 71—6854. 2McCray, op. cit. 3Mary Hussey, "The Relation Between Housing Features and Furnishings and Family Eating Patterns in Assisted Fam- ilies” (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts, Michigan State University, 1967). 4Janice M. Pletcher, "Relation of Mothers' Preferences 34 features and furnishings and their relation to eating pat— terns of professional-managerial families, selected housing features and furnishings and their relation to eating pat— terns of assisted families, and selected housing features and furnishings as related to mothers' value and preference statements concerning family-shared mealtime, respectively. The interview schedule developed for this research was an outgrowth of the schedule used by McCray1 in her pilot study. She reported that responses to some of her questions might have been too gross to describe accurately the mealtime activity of the family, and others were too subjective to be reliable. In an effort to reduce gross- ness and subjectivity, the schedule was revised to become narrower in scope and more specific in information requested than it had been in the pilot study. McCray was concerned with preparation, eating, and clean-up under the heading of shared mealtime activity; the present study dealt only. with the activity of eating, thus deleting many of the questions in McCray's schedule. Other questions were in- corporated into an expanded time—and-place schedule of eat— ing activities, while those concerned with the importance About Families Eating Together to Family Eating Patterns and Selected Features and Furnishings” (Master's thesis in progress, Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts, Michigan State University). lMcCray, op. cit. 35 assigned to the mealtime activity were handled in a separ- ate study on the mothers' preferences. Also, an itemized inventory of furnishings related to the eating activity was compiled, rather than depending upon the respondent to think of items she felt aided or impeded the mealtime activity. Demographic data were placed at the beginning of the schedule rather than at the end, in order to obtain information needed in determining whether to proceed with the interview. McCray's phrase, ”family-shared mealtime," was abandoned in favor of "the activity of eating," to ac— commodate the narrower scope of the study. Also, the word "meal" was avoided throughout the schedule in the event that it might imply eating together and eating at a regu- lar time to the respondent. The schedule was planned so that interview time could be kept under one hour. The instrument was administered in three parts: Part A. The background information contained demo- graphic data, the nature of family eating patterns, and other factors describing family eating situations (see Appendix A, pp. 100-112). The demographic data consisted of personal infor- mation concerning mother, father, and children, as well as questions on income and status of home ownership. The respondent was asked questions such as whether she worked for pay and if so, what type of work she did; the number of working hours per week; amount of education; age; and 36 marital status. If the mother was currently married, she was asked to supply information concerning her husband's work, education, and age. The number, ages,and sex of the children were recorded. Although it had generally been established at the time of the telephone appointment that there were no children above elementary school level living in the home, a question on that topic was included to serve as a double check. If other persons in addition to the nuclear family lived in the home, this information was also noted on the schedule. The three patterns of eating were established by definition. In order to assign a numerical range of meals to each eating pattern, a theoretical twenty-one meals per week, assuming that a family normally eats three meals per day, was evenly divided among the three patterns of eating. Thus, families who almost never ate together shared between zero and seven meals per week, families who sometimes ate together shared from eight to fourteen meals per week, and families who almost always ate together shared fifteen or more meals per week. This division made it possible for a family to miss eating as many as six meals per week to- gether and still be categorized as a family who almost al- ways eats together. Such an arrangement took into account school and work days when the school-age children and father might eat away from home during the middle of the day. Each family was classified in one of the three 37 patterns of eating by the mother's best ability to recall a typical weekday during the school year and a typical Sun- day during the school year for her family. Those days dur— ing the summer months were not investigated, due to a pos— sible high degree of irregularity in the family's schedule of activities. Saturday was not used as a representative weekend day because it is a workday for some families; Sun- day was thought to be a day with a more consistent pattern of weekend activities for a larger number of families. The mother was asked if her family ate together during the morning, during the middle of the day, and dur— ing the evening on a typical weekday during the school year. The question was repeated for Sunday. She was also asked to identify the time and place of eating for each period of the day for which she had indicated that her family ate together. If she stated that her family had not eaten to— gether at certain periods of the day, there was no attempt to establish eating time and place for each individual. Rather, the respondent was asked if each individual had a regular time and place for eating, in order to determine whether individuals had any regularity of eating habits. The controlling variable employed in the analysis of all data was a question asking the respondent to calcu— late the average number of meals her family ate together during a typical week. This question served as a check on the eating schedule previously completed. If any discrepancy 38 appeared between number of meals eaten together, as recorded on the eating schedule, and the respondent's estimate, the interviewer then called her attention to it and aided her in resolving the discrepancy by revising the estimate or recalculating the eating schedule. Other factors describing family eating situations were covered by questions asking why the family ate as it did in the morning, in the middle of the day, and in the evening on a typical weekday and Sunday. Whether the fam— ily spent any time together other than at meals was estab- lished. An investigation was made concerning the presence or absence of mealtime interruptions and measures taken to control them. Part B. Questions concerning values and prefer- ences relating to the eating activity were developed; the data were collected as part of the interviews and will be utilized in a future study (see Appendix A,_pp. 114-124). Part C. The final section of the interview sched- ule consisted of a survey of housing features and furnish— ings related to the activity of eating. It included a rating of condition of features in the food preparation area, a rating of condition of features in the area where food was most often eaten, and an inventory of furnishings most often associated with eating (see Appendix A, pp. 126-136). 39 The scale for condition ratings of features in both the food preparation area and the area where food was eaten most frequently was developed from a "Housing Quality Meas— uring Scale"1 and a Michigan Agricultural Extension Service Bulletin, "Check Your Kitchen."2 While the general struc- ture and many of the categories of the Measuring Scale were incorporated into the condition ratings, they were not set up on a similar numerical scoring system but rather on a scale of "non-functional," "partially functional," and "functional" features. No attempt was made to score these ratings numerically. However, "zero," "one," and “two“ were used to rep- resent the three types of ratings. "Zero" indicated "non- functional," or lack of an item, poor condition, poor place- ment, constant maintenance required, or inability to func- tion; "one" indicated "partially functional," or easily repaired conditions, satisfactory placement, some main- tenance required, or incorrect function of an item; and "two" indicated "functional," or good condition, good place- ment, little maintenance required, or correct functioning of an item. lAnnette J. Schaeffer and Carlton M. Edwards, "A Housing Quality Measuring Scale," Michigan State University, 1966, Appendix B, pp. 16-26. 2"Check Your Kitchen," Michigan Agricultural Exten- sion Service Bulletin, Michigan State University (February, 1966). 40 The respondent was asked if she would object to the interviewer viewing the food preparation area and the eating area so that they could be rated. This procedure was adopted in view of the fact that any bias shown by the interviewer was more likely to be consistent throughout the gathering of data than would be biases of individual respondents. It also aided in expediting the interview. If, however, the respondent was reluctant to exhibit those areas of her home the questions were to be asked of her. There was no respondent who objected. The area used for preparation of food was investi- gated on the assumption that families are not inclined or are less inclined toward eating together if there are no functioning features with which to prepare a sufficient quantity of food, or if features make the preparation of food difficult. The presence of a sink, refrigerator, range, freezer,and dishwasher was investigated. Such items as counter space, storage space, handling of garbage, ar- rangement of the work center and traffic patterns, and condition of walls, ceiling, and floors also were rated. Locations of areas where the family ate together, which had been previously identified in the eating sched- ule, were established. For expediency, the area most often used for eating was rated for condition. This area was confirmed by the respondent at the time the features were rated. Condition and maintenance of walls, ceilings, and 41 I floors; condition and maintenance of tables and chairs; condition of windows, doors,and storage; type of air cir- culation; heating; artificial and natural light; and ori- entation of the eating area were rated, as well as privacy of the eating area; number of individuals at the table; convenience of the seating arrangement; and space at the table. Various possible eating arrangements were sketched on the interview schedule, and the one corresponding most closely with the respondent's seating arrangement was in- dicated. An estimate of space, in terms of feet and inches, was not specifically included in the interview schedule but was implied in various condition ratings, such as the convenience of the seating arrangement and the amount of space at the table. The researcher felt that a measure of floor space would be meaningless without an accompany— ing sketch of the floor plan. However, such a sketch was not employed in an effort to shorten interview time; also, such a procedure could be threatening to socio-economic classes used in future studies. If the family never ate together or if no specific eating area could be identified, the condition ratings of the eating area were omitted. The inventory consisted of seventy-one furnishings, categorized as "Items Associated with Eating," including dishes, flatware: glasses, tables, and chairs; “Items 42 Associated with Serving," including serving dishes and table linens; "Items Associated with Storage"; ”Items As- sociated with Preparation," such as small electrical cook— ing equipment, small electrical food preparation equipment, and non-electrical cooking equipment; “Items Associated with Cleaning"; "Items Associated with Entertainment"; and "Accessory Furnishings.“ This approach was adopted in lieu of McCray's method of asking the respondent what furnish- ings she perceived as aiding or impeding family-shared meal— time, after she theorized that mothers might not be able to think of furnishings related to family-shared mealtime.l Some items which did not appear to be related to the activ- ity of eating, such as an electric ice chopper, were omit- ted intentionally. Each item was read to the respondent and checked, according to her response, in the appropriate column. The columns were headed: (l) "I have the item and use it,“ (2) "I have the item and don't use it," (3) "I don't have enough of the item and would like more," (4) "I don't have the item but want it," and (5) "I don't have the item and don't want it."2 The five categories were developed in lMcCray, 0p. cit. 2Response categories were used in abbreviated form in the interview schedule (see Appendix A, pp. 133-136), but will be referred to in their full form throughout the text. 43 order to give the respondent a choice of answers so that she would more accurately be able to express her feelings about each item. No attempt was made to gain a number count of each item. So long as the respondent had, in her estimation, an adequate amount to meet the demands of her family and used the item, it was checked in the first column. The utilization of categories was another departure from McCray's study.1 However, since the objec- tives of this study did not include mother's preferences, the mother's estimation of furnishings aiding or impeding family shared mealtime was not relevant. To the knowledge of the writer there is no instru- ment available which measures housing features and furnish- ings possessed by families without becoming involved in a detailed inventory research procedure which involves time and expense and is monotonous to the respondent. In this study, much attention was given to the reduction of the inventory from an item-by-item count to one which swift- ly and efficiently rated features in terms of adequacy and categorized furnishings in terms of need and usage. Pretesting the Interview Schedule Prior to the collection of data, a pretest was ad- ministered to twelve mothers in families with children of various ages. The purposes of the pretest were to check lMcCray, op. cit. 44 for clarity of the questions and thoroughness of the sched- ule in gaining desired information, and to give the inter— viewers practice in reading the schedule to the respondent. Several changes in the schedule resulted. Intro- ductory statements were included at the beginning of the schedule and at the beginning of each major section. The vocabulary was simplified still further to include a more colloquial wording. Some questions were thought to be un- necessary to the objectives of the study or were redundant and were therefore eliminated, while others were combined. In the inventory section the category, "I don't have enough of the item and would like more" was added as a parallel to the category, "I don't have the item but want it." Selection of the Sample Criteria of the sample The total population consisted of thirty mothers from professional-managerial families in the Lansing, Mich- igan, area. Of professional-managerial families, referred to as the upper-middle class by Kahl, he stated: The upper-middle class is close to, but not at the top of the system. . . . They are the active people who are the leaders of the American work world. They are trained specialists in business and pro- fessional pursuits who make the daily decisions that guide the work of the little people. Upper- middle-class people do not have jobs, but occupy positions; they do not work, they pursue careers. lKahl, op. cit. 45 Respondents were selected according to four cri- teria—-income, education, occupation, and housing——three of which they were required to meet. They were all mothers with children of elementary school age or younger. This limitation was set with the feeling that a family's activ— ities are often guided by those of the children, and as children become adolescents they engage in many additional activities outside the home. Due to the design of the study, no attempt was made to select a random sample. Subjects who were will- ing to cooperate and who met the criteria for the sample were utilized. Locating the sample population In order to obtain a sample of thirty, a local chapter of the American Association of University Women was contacted for names of members likely to have children of elementary school age or younger; a list of nine names was obtained. Each woman was then contacted by telephone. The source through which her name had been obtained, the objectives of the study, and the general type of interview were explained to her. If she met the criteria and was willing to cooperate, an appointment was made. Upon com- pletion of each interview the respondent was asked if she had acquaintances who would meet the criteria and who might be willing to cooperate. These individuals were then con- tacted by telephone and engaged in a similar conversation. 46 In order to secure a sample population of thirty, thirty—four interviews were conducted. Four early inter- views were discarded when they failed to meet the criteria, apparently because the paid interviewer did not completely understand the criteria at that time. No subject refused to cooperate. Collection of the Data The data were collected by personal interview with each respondent during June and July of 1967. Two paid interviewers aided in the collection of the data. Each interview was approximately fifty minutes in length and was administered in the home of the respondent. With the exception of the condition ratings of the food preparation area and the eating area, the questions were read to the subject by the interviewer and her responses were recorded. The food preparation area and the eating area were rated by the interviewer. Statistical Analysis of the Data Data for analysis consisted of responses to thirty interviews. The schedule had been precoded at the time of its development, in preparation for machine computation. Three types of statistical tests were chosen for analysis of the data-—chi square, analysis of variance, and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Chi square statistics were computed for the frequencies 47 of families in each of the three patterns of eating, and that segment of Part C of the interview schedule dealing with the condition ratings of the food preparation area and the eating area. Chi square statistics were also ap- plied to frequencies in the patterns of eating and Part A of the interview schedule, encompassing the demographic data, the nature of family eating patterns, and other fac- tors describing family eating situations. Six variables were exempted from the chi square test of significance. Items fifteen, thirty-eight, and forty were questions investigating mothers' prefer- ences and will be incorporated into a future study. The number of children, the mean age of the children, and the number of people seated at the table (items fifteen, six- teen, and the seating arrangement for most meals), because of their interval data characteristics, were calculated in relation to the three patterns of eating by analysis of variance. Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by. Ranks was employed to obtain evidence of relationships between the three patterns of eating and the furnishings inventory (Part C of the schedule). In order to compute the test on each major category of furnishings, such as "Items Associated with Eating,“ the number of checks in each of the five response columns was totaled and Kruskal- Wallis computed for each response under each furnishing 48 category. Because Yates' correction for small frequencies was not available on the computer program, a more string- ent level of significance was applied to the data. The level of significance was set at .02. Although .05 level of significance was recorded, it is to be interpreted with caution. CHAPTER III FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings The sample consisted of thirty mothers of families who met the criteria for the study, based upon education level of those children living at home, occupation and education of the head of the family, housing, and income. All the respondents resided in Lansing, Michigan, and sur- rounding suburban areas. Families were classified in three patterns of eat— ing according to the mother's responses to questions estab- lishing the eating schedule of her family and according to the control variable asking fBr her calculation of the av- erage number of meals her family ate together during a typ- ical week. Any discrepancies which appeared between the mother's estimate of the number of meals eaten together per week and the number of meals eaten together as recorded in the eating schedule were resolved before continuing with the interview. Of the thirty families interviewed, three were classified in Eating Pattern I, or families who almost never ate together. These families ate seven or fewer meals together during the course of a week. Eating Pattern 49 50 II, families who sometimes ate together, teen shared meals, totaled ten families, or seven to four- while Eating Pat- tern III, families who almost always ate together, or fif- teen to twenty-one shared meals, totaled seventeen families. Eating Eating Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Families Who Families Who Families Who Sometimes Ate Together Almost Never Ate Together Almost Always Ate Together Total Number of families 3 10 17 30 Demographic data were subjected to tests of signif— icance in an effort to learn whether these factors appeared to be related to any of the three patterns of eating. None of the demographic variables was found by chi square or analysis of variance to be significantly related to any of the three patterns of eating. These data were there- fore reported by frequency or mean, in order to describe the sample. Of the thirty mothers who participated in the study, twelve placed their ages in the twenties and eighteen in the thirties. An education level of high school had been attained by three respondents and some college or an under- graduate degree by twenty-seven respondents. Four of the respondents reported that they worked for pay, three of them in a professional capacity and one as unskilled labor. Of the four working mothers, the three employed in a pro- fessional capacity worked ten or less hours per week, while the respondent engaged in unskilled labor worked between 51 eleven and twenty hours per week. None of the employed respondents worked shifts. When asked if they did any volunteer work, eleven of the mothers responded affirma- tively and nineteen negatively. All of the respondents were married, and all of their spouses held professional or managerial positions; no spouse worked shifts. Age categories of the husbands were recorded as: six husbands in the twenties, nineteen in the thirties, and five in the forties. Data on educa- tion revealed one spouse with an elementary school educa- tion, eleven with some college or an undergraduate degree, and eighteen holding advanced degrees. Total number of children in the families inter- viewed was seventy, thirty-seven males and thirty-three females. Mean number of children per family was computed as 2.33, while mean age of the children was found to be 4.59. All of the children, in accordance with the cri- teria for the study, were elementary school age or younger. In an effort to learn whether persons outside the nuclear family might influence family eating patterns, a question was included which asked if there were any other people living with the family in the home. No attempt was made to establish the relationship of that person to the family members. No persons living with the families were reported. Families ranged in reported income from less than 52 $7500 to over $20,000. The family with an income of less than $7500 was categorized in the $2000 to $4999 range, because the husband worked only half-time while completing his advanced degree. One respondent refused to divulge her family income. Twenty-eight families owned their homes, and the remaining two rented unfurnished houses. Description of the eating patterns The data identifying whether families ate together, where they ate, and what time they ate, was used to confirm the definition previously set for the eating patterns. These data were presented as tables of general character- istics through frequencies and ranges. The respondent was asked if her family ate together in the morning, in the middle of the day, and in the even— ing on an ordinary day during the school year. For each affirmative reply she was asked to identify the usual time and place where the meal occurred. Identical questions were then asked of her for an ordinary Sunday during the school year. Findings indicated that twenty-two families ate together in the morning, four ate together during the mid— dle of the day, and twenty-seven ate together during the evening on an ordinary weekday during the school year (see Table 1). The range of time for all responses was 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. in the morning, 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon dur- ing the middle of the day, and 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in 53 Table 1. Characteristics of family-shared meals on an ordinary weekday during the school year Characteristics of Morning Middle of Evening Family-Shared Meals on the Day an Ordinary Weekday N=22 N=4 N=27 Number of Meals Eaten Together 22 4 27 Range of Time for All Responses 6:30-8:00 11:30—12:00 5:30-7:00 Number of Times Rooms Were Mentioned Kitchen 15 2 16 Dining Room 5 l 7 Family Room 2 l 3 Place Varies - - 1 the evening. The kitchen was identified as the general eating area a total of fifteen times in the morning, two times during the middle of the day, and sixteen times in the evening, while the dining room was mentioned five times in the morning, one time during the middle of the day, and seven times in the evening, and the family room was re- ferred to two, one, and three times, respectively. One respondent said that the place for her family's evening meal varied too much to be positively identified. Of those families who ate together on an ordinary Sunday during the school year, twenty-three ate together in the morning, twenty-eight ate together during the middle of the day, and twenty-seven ate together in the evening (see Table 2). The range of time for all responses was 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. in the morning, 11:30 a.m. to 54 Table 2. Characteristics of family-shared meals on an ordinary Sunday during the school year Characteristics of Morning Middle of Evening Family-Shared Meals the Day on Sunday N=23 N=28 N=27 Number of Meals Eaten Together 23 28 27 Range of Time for All Responses 7:30-9:30 11:30-4:00 5:30-7:00 Number of Times Rooms Were Mentioned Kitchen 13 13 11 Dining Room 4 ll 7 Family Room 5 3 5 Living Room - - 1 Place Varies l 1 3 4:00 p.m. during mid-day, and 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. The area generally used for eating was iden- tified as the kitchen thirteen times in the morning, thir- teen times during the middle of the day, and eleven times in the evening, while the dining room was mentioned four, eleven, and seven times, the family room was mentioned five, three, and five times, and the living room was referred to zero, zero, and one time, respectively. The eating place varied too much to be positively identified for one family in the morning, one family during mid-day, and three fam- ilies in the evening. If the family did not eat together at some time during the day, the respondent was then asked if all the individuals in her family had a usual time and a usual place 55 for eating. No attempt was made to identify further the time and place. Eight respondents indicated that their families did not eat together in the morning, twenty-six during the middle of the day, and three in the evening on an ordinary weekday during the school year (see Table 3). Of those Table 3. Characteristics of individual eating habits on an ordinary weekday during the school year Characteristics of Morning Middle of Evening Individual the Day Eating Habits N=8 N=26 N=3 Time All individuals eat at a usual time 5 23 2 All individuals do not eat at a usual time 1 1 - Some individuals eat at a usual time 2 2 1 Place All individuals eat in a usual place 8 24 2 All individuals do not eat in a usual place - l - Some individuals eat in a usual place - l l families not eating together in the morning, five stated that their family members ate at a usual time, one that her family members did not eat at a usual time, and two that some family members ate at a usual time. Twenty-three respondents indicated that their family members ate at a usual time during the middle of the day, one that they did 56 not, and two that some of them did, while in the evening two mentioned that their family members ate at a usual time and one said that some ate at a usual time. In the morning the individuals of all eight fami- lies not eating together ate in a usual place, and of the twenty-six families not eating together during the middle of the day, twenty-four indicated that individuals ate in a usual place, one that they did not eat in a usual place, and one that some of them ate in a usual place (see Table 3). Two families not eating together in the evening iden- tified a usual eating place for the individuals and one indicated that some family members had a usual eating place. The same information was obtained from the respond- ents concerning eating patterns of individual family mem- bers for an ordinary Sunday during the school year (see Table 4). Of those families not eating together in the morning, three indicated that individuals ate at a usual time, three that they did not, and one that some of them did. During the middle of the day, one respondent said that her family members did not eat at a usual time, and one stated that some of them did, while in the evening two mentioned that family members did not eat at a usual time and one that some of them did. Four families indicated that all individuals ate in a usual place in the morning, two that they did not, and one that some of them did, while one indicated that 57 Table 4. Characteristics of individual eating habits on an ordinary Sunday during the school year Characteristics Morning Middle of Evening of Individual the Day Eating Habits N=7 N=2 N=3 Time All individuals eat at a usual time 3 - - All individuals do not eat at a usual time 3 l 2 Some individuals eat at a usual time 1 l 1 Place All individuals eat in a usual place 4 l - All individuals do not eat in a usual place 2 - 2 Some individuals eat in a usual place 1 l l all individuals ate in a usual place during the middle of the day and one that some family members did (see Table 4). Likewise, two families indicated that members did not eat in a usual place in the evening, and one indicated that some of them did. In other words, for both weekday and Sunday morn- ings responses appeared to be distributed among a usual time for all individuals to eat, no usual time for indi- viduals to eat, and a usual time for some individuals to eat. Responses were likewise distributed for eating place on a Sunday morning, but on the weekday morning all indi— viduals apparently ate in a usual place. The large major- ity of individuals eating at noontime on weekdays had a 58 usual time and place for eating, though this was not so at Sunday noontime. Finally, responses to characteristics of individual eating habits on weekday and Sunday evenings revealed no distinct patterning. All thirty of the respondents were asked what they thought to be the primary reason that their families ate as they did in the morning, during the middle of the day, and in the evening on weekdays and on Sundays (see Tables 5 and 6). The reason most frequently mentioned for weekdays was "schedule of daily activities," followed by the reason "everyone is home.“ Likewise, ”schedule of Sunday activ- ities" appeared as the reason most often mentioned for Sun- days, followed by "we felt like it." Reasons relating to housing features and furnishings were mentioned only once, when one mother noted that her eating area was too small. Respondents were asked if, when their families ate together, they stayed together until everyone was finished eating, on the supposition that families who stayed together until the end of the meal would be the families who almost always ate together. No significant relationship was es- tablished by chi square. Of the thirty respondents, eight- een replied that their families stayed together until every- one was finished eating, eleven said that their families did not stay together, and one was undecided. Likewise, the variable seeking to establish 59 Table 5. Reasons given by respondents for family weekday eating activities Reasons for Family Morning Middle of Evening Weekday Eating the Day Activities N=30 N=30 N=30 Total Always have done it this way; tradition 2 1 2 5 Schedule of daily activities 16 22 3 41 Convenience 5 5 3 13 We felt like it 2 - 8 10 Everyone is home 5 l l3 19 Eating area too small - - l 1 Other reasons - l - l Table 6. Reasons given by respondents for family Sunday eating activities Reasons for Family Morning Middle of Evening Sunday Eating the Day Activities N=30 N=30 N=30 Total Always have done it this way; tradition 2 7 3 12 Schedule of Sunday activities 12 10 3 25 Everyone is home on Sunday 6 5 7 l8 Convenience 3 3 6 12 We felt like it 6 4 9 19 Other reasons 2 - l 3 No reply - - l l 6O relationship between family eating patterns and similarity to the mother's childhood eating patterns proved to be non— significant. Thirteen of the respondents replied that their childhood eating patterns differed from their family's eat- ing patterns, and seventeen replied that they did not differ. When asked if there were periods other than meal- time when their families spent time together, twenty-nine of the respondents answered affirmatively and only one re- sponded negatively. A question referring to interruptions during meal- time was also examined in relation to family eating patterns and was found to be non-significant. Of the thirty respond- ents, nine replied that interruptions made it hard to keep the family together while eating, and twenty-one replied that interruptions did not interfere with keeping the fam- ily together. Of those families bothered by interruptions, five mothers felt that they had done nothing to stop inter- ruptions, three felt that they had, and one was undecided, while of the families not bothered by interruptions, nine mothers stated that they never had them, nine stated that they had done something to stop them, and three replied that interruptions were present but did not bother them. Housing features and furnishings associated with mealtime Data employed to measure the two hypotheses seek- ing the relation of housing features and housing furnishings 61 to the three patterns of eating were collected in Part C of the interview schedule. The data were divided into three sections for ease of handling. The condition ratings of housing features in the food preparation area and the con- dition ratings of housing features in the eating area were tested for relationships to the three patterns of eating by the chi square test of significance, while the inventory of furnishings associated with mealtime was tested for re- lationships to the three patterns of eating by the Kruskal- Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Each of the thirteen items in the food preparation area was rated for the thirty respondents, thus offering a possible 390 ratings. Of the 390 ratings, 308 were list— ed as "functional" ratings, forty-eight were given "par- tially functional" ratings, and thirty-four were recorded as "non-functional” ratings (see Table 7). None of the features rated in the food preparation area was signifi- cantly related to any of the three patterns of eating (see Appendix B, Table 1, p. 138). The area where food was eaten most often was uti- lized for the condition ratings of features in the eating area. This space, which was identified at the time that the respondent described the eating schedule of her family, was reaffirmed with a question at the beginning of the sec- tion dealing with condition ratings of features in the eat- ing area. The eating area was not related to any of the 62 Table 7. Condition ratings of features in the food preparation area Non- Partially Rating functional Functional Functional Total Sink - - 30 30 Refrigerator — - 30 30 Range - - 3O 30 Oven - - 30 3O Freezer 21 - 9 30 Dishwasher 11 l 18 30 Counter Space - 8 22 30 Base Storage Space - 4 24 30 Wall Storage Space - 6 24 30 Garbage-Trash - 2 28 30 Arrangement of Work Center - 8 22 30 Traffic Pattern 2 16 12 30 Walls, Ceiling, Floor - 3 27 30 Total Number of Ratings ” 34 48 308 390 63 three patterns of eating by the chi square test of signif- icance. The kitchen was mentioned as a major eating space by eighteen respondents, while eight named the dining room, and three identified the family room (see Table 8). One respondent could not identify a specific area where food was most frequently eaten. Table 8. Area where food was eaten most often by three patterns of eating Eating Eating Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Families Who Families Who Families Who Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Eating Area Ate Together Ate Together Ate Together Total N=3 N=10 N=17 N=30 Dining Room 1 4 3 8 Kitchen 2 5 ll 18 Dining-Living Room - - - - Family Room - l 2 3 Porch - - — - Patio, Yard - - - - Recreation Room Bedroom - - - — Living Room - - - - No Specific Place Identified l I H H chi square = 2.605 level of significance = NS 64 Twenty-three items in the eating area were rated for the twenty-nine respondents who were able to identify their eating spaces, thereby producing a possible 667 rat— ings. However, the view from the eating area of one re- spondent could not be rated, due to the use of opaque glass, so that of the 666 ratings, 556 were given "functional" ratings, while the "partially functional” category received ninety-four ratings and the "non-functional" category re- ceived sixteen ratings (see Table 9). Of the twenty-three features rated for the eating area, only one was significantly related to patterns of eating. Placement of doors in the room was significant at the .05 level (see Appendix B, Table 2, p. 139). As was stated previously, the .05 level should be interpreted with caution. At the time that the rating of features took place, seating arrangement was identified and categorized accord- ing to sketches of possible seating arrangements (see Ap- pendix A, p. 131). These arrangements included a table attached to the wall, a counter or bar perpendicularly attached to the wall, a counter or bar horizontally at- tached to the wall, a free-standing table, and a built-in nook. Twenty-six of the twenty-nine families who could identify a specific eating area possessed a free-standing table, while three respondents owned tables attached to the wall (see Table 10). Seating arrangement, when related 65 Table 9. Condition ratings of features in the area where food was eaten most often Non- Partially Rating functional Functional Functional Total Condition- Walls, Ceiling - 3 26 29 Maintenance- Walls, Ceiling - 3 26 29 Condition-Floor - 3 26 29 Maintenance-Floor — 4 25 29 Air Circulation - 26 3 29 Heating - - 29 29 Artificial Light - 3 26 29 Condition-Windows l - 28 29 Natural Light - 6 23 29 View - 3 25 28' Condition-Doors - - 29 29 Placement-Doors 1 6 22 29 Condition-Table - - 29 29 Maintenance-Table - l 28 29 Condition-Chairs - 2 27 29 Maintenance-Chairs - 1 28 29 Condition-Storage 7 4 18 29 Size-Storage 7 10 12 29 Placement- Eating Area - l 28 29 Traffic Patterns to Kitchen - 3 26 29 Space at Table — 2 27 29 Privacy of Eating Area - 12 17 29 Convenience of Eating Arrange- ment - l 28 29 Total Number of Ratings 16 94 556 660 ‘Windows of one eating area were constructed of opaque glass. 66 Table 10. Type of seating arrangement in the eating area by three patterns of eating Eating Eating Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Type of Families Who Families Who Families Who Seating Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Arrangement Ate Together Ate Together Ate Together Total N=3 N=10 N=l6‘ N=29 Table Attached to Wall 1 - 2 3 Counter/Bar Attached Per- pendicularly to Wall - - - - Counter/Bar Attached Horizontally to Wall - - - - Free-Standing . Table 2 10 14 26 Built-in Nook - - - - chi square = 2.943 level of significance = NS ‘One respondent could not isolate a specific area where food was most often eaten. to the three patterns of eating, was not significant. The twenty-nine respondents who could specifically identify an eating area were asked how many persons sat at the table. Mean number of persons seated at the table according to the three patterns of eating was not signif- icant by analysis of variance. Total mean number of per— sons seated at the table was calculated to be 3.97 (see Table 11). 67 Table 11. Mean number of persons seated at the table by three patterns of eating Eating Eating Eating Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Families Who Families Who Families Who Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Ate Together Ate Together Ate Together N=3 N=1O N=l6‘I Mean Number of Persons 3.33 4.40 4.06 analysis of variance = 0.112 level of significance = NS 'One respondent could not isolate a specific area where food was most often eaten. For each of the items listed in the inventory of furnishings related to the mealtime activity, respondents were asked to express whether they had and used the item, had but did not use it, did not have enough and wanted more, did not have but wanted it, or did not have but did not want the furnishing. The furnishings were categorized as "Items Associated with Eating," those associated with "Serv- ing," "Storage," "Preparation," "Cleaning," "Entertainment," and "Accessory Furnishings"; the total checks in each cate— gory were summed and that number subjected to the Kruskal- Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks in relation to the eating patterns (see Appendix B, Table 3, p. 141). A significance level of .02 was obtained in three cases: “Items Associated with Eating" (such as plates, flatware, tables, and chairs) were significant under the 68 response, "I don't have enough of the item and want more"; the same was true for "Items Associated with Serving" (such as trays, casseroles, napkins, and pitchers); "Items Asso- ciated with Preparation" (such as electrical and non-elec- trical appliances) were significant under the response, "I don't have the item but want it" (see Table 12). Table 12. Totaled checks in each significant category of furnishings by three patterns of eating Eating Eating Eating Level Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III of Families Who Families Who Families Who Sig- Category of Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always nifi- Furnishings Ate Together Ate Together Ate Together cance Items Associ- ated with Eating: Don't have enough- want more 6 3 l .02 Items Associ- ated with Serving: Don't have enough- want more 4 - — .02 Items Associ- ated with Preparation: Don't have but want 15 18 25 .02 Discussion The sample was distributed in a progressively in- creasing frequency under the three patterns of eating: three families in Eating Pattern I, or families who almost 69 never ate together; ten families in Eating Pattern II, or families who sometimes ate together; and seventeen families in Eating Pattern III, or families who almost always ate together. Perhaps families who met the criteria for this sample not only made conscious selections concerning fam- ily activities, but, to an even larger degree, they were in an advantageous position socially and economically for implementing these selections. Twenty-seven of the mothers had attained some level of college education, while twenty-nine of their spouses had achieved some level of college education; eighteen spouses held advanced degrees. Occupation was listed as professional or managerial for all those family members who worked, with the exception of one mother. Three of the four employed mothers worked ten hours or less per week. Income for twenty-eight families was recorded as $7500 or over, and housing for all thirty families was judged visually to be of sound structure, well maintained, and generally adequate in size. Thus, higher education, a somewhat more flexible working schedule found in a pro- fessional or managerial occupation, sizable income, and adequate housing allowed families considerable freedom in their choices of eating patterns and the implementation of those choices. The fact that over 50 percent of the sample fell into Eating Pattern III may have been influenced by the 70 number of children and their ages. Mean number of child- ren per family was 2.33 and mean age of the children was 4.59, which might indicate that the families were of a size small enough and the children were of an age young enough for the parents to exercise control over their activities. Also, many children were young enough to require aid in eating, which could force the choice of Eating Pattern III. The sample seemed to be quite homogeneous in all areas investigated in the demographic information, for none of the demographic data was significantly related to pat- terns of eating. For purposes of this study the approach was adopted that lack of significance in demographic vari- ables would make differences in eating patterns more clearly a function of housing features and furnishings. Of those meals shared by all the family members, the evening meals for both the weekday and Sunday were participated in by twenty-seven families, and the morning meals were participated in by twenty-two families on the weekday and twenty-three families on Sunday. In other words, there was a high degree of consistency from weekday to weekend for the majority of families in the sample. However, this was not true for the mid-day meal; at that time only four families normally shared the mealtime dur- ing the week, while twenty-eight families did so on an ordinary Sunday. Thus, Sunday at mid-day proved to be the time when the largest number of families ate together. 71 Just as the number of families who ate the evening meal together did not vary, the range of time for eating that meal remained the same for both the weekday and Sun- day; times mentioned for both days fell between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The range of times mentioned for morning meals was 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Sundays, indicating a more leisurely pace on the weekend. The range of eating time during the mid- dle of the day was quite rigid on weekdays in relation to the flexibility of the Sunday eating times--1l:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon, as opposed to 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The kitchen was mentioned as the usual eating area by the greatest number of families for all meals, followed by the dining room, the family room, and the living room. The dining room appeared to be used more frequently during the Sunday mid-day meal than at any other time. The liv- ing room was utilized by one family for the Sunday evening meal. Therefore, families who ate together appeared to do so most often on weekday evenings between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and at mid-day on Sundays between 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The kitchen was identified most often as the usual eating area, though the dining room was used for the Sunday mid-day meal more than at any other time. For those times when the family did not eat to- gether, data revealed that all the individuals in the 72 majority of families ate at a usual time and place for all three periods of the day on weekdays, but there were devi- ations from this pattern on Sunday. No mothers stated that all their family members ate at a usual time during the middle of the day or in the evening on Sundays, and no mothers reported that their family members ate in a usual place in the evening. This information would suggest that Sunday was a period of greater informality for families who did not eat together. Reasons given for family eating activities, ac- cording to the mothers in this sample, indicated that hous- ing features and furnishings did not determine daily rou- tines. All reasons set forward for the three times during the day on both the weekday and Sunday, with the exception of one mention of a small eating area, were based upon social, psychological, or economic demands rather than physical aspects of housing. Perhaps reasons primarily in the social, psychological, or economic areas were truly responsible for the eating activities, or there might have been a lack of focus upon housing features and furnishings as variables influencing families' activities. Schedule of daily activities was frequently mentioned as the reason for family eating patterns during the morning and middle of the day on both the weekday and Sunday, indicating that professional-managerial families appeared to have rigorous— ly scheduled activities during school and workdays, around 73 which they had to plan. However, the shared weekday even- ing meal took place for the majority of families because "everyone was home," while the shared Sunday evening meal evolved for the largest number of families because "they felt like it." Eighteen respondents indicated that their families stayed together at the table until all members were fin- ished eating, but eleven said that their families did not remain together. Because the data were not significant, there was nothing to indicate that the social factor of mealtime is more highly or less valued in one pattern of eating than in others. However, mealtime is only one type of shared family activity, and twenty-nine of the thirty respondents indicated that they spent other times together as families. The possibility that interruptions were a factor influencing eating patterns was not supported for this sample. Twenty-one of the respondents stated that inter— ruptions did not interfere with their family meals, pri- marily because they never had interruptions or had taken measures to stop them, while only nine mothers felt that interruptions made it difficult to keep their families to- gether. Lack of significant differences might be attrib- uted in part to restricted outside interests of the young children in this sample. Lastly, family eating patterns did not appear to 74 be traditions carried over from the childhood eating rit- uals of the mother, for thirteen of the sample said that their childhood eating patterns differed from their current practices. Whether the changes were due to preference or necessity was not investigated. In summary, the sample appeared to be quite homo- geneous in all aspects explored. It was generally composed of families who were upper—middle class by occupation, whose income was sizable, who lived in above-average housing, and whose major wage earners had some college or college degrees. The families were in the early stages of the family life cycle, with an average of slightly more than two children per family, whose mean ages were under five years. The majority of the families almost always ate to- gether regularly, with the exception of the mid-day meal on weekdays. However, their Sunday schedules were much more flexible than their weekday routines. The families ate most often in the kitchen, although the dining room was also mentioned with frequency. For those times when a family did not eat together, its individuals had a usual time and place for eating. The respondents stated that their families ate as they did, primarily because of daily activities or because everyone was home; they did not at- tribute family eating patterns to their childhood eating practices, and only one respondent mentioned housing fea- tures as a cause of eating patterns. And finally, no 75 distinctive problems emerged concerning interruptions or keeping family members at the table. Housing features and furnishings associated with mealtimes were found to be related to patterns of eating in four cases. Ratings were made of features in the food prepara- tion area in order to investigate the possibility that with- out an adequate area for the preparation of meals, the pos- sibility of a family eating together would be highly im- probable. Lack of significance for all items rated in the food preparation area to any of the three patterns of eat- ing was not unexpected, because the preparation spaces in homes of this study were designed for flexibility and could function effectively for any of the eating patterns. Be- cause the condition ratings on the thirteen items were dis- tributed evenly among the patterns of eating, there was no significant relation between the condition of food prep- aration features and patterns of eating by chi square. More than 50 percent of the sample identified the kitchen as the area where food was eaten most often. In many cases this meant a breakfast corner within the kitchen, but set aside from it by visual effects. Whether this space was selected as the eating area because families preferred to eat there or because they had no alternatives is not known. The condition ratings of features in the eating 76 area revealed that a vast majority of items were classified in the "functional" category. Such a development would seem to be another factor indicating homogeneity in the sample. Also, there may have been no lack of the features and no great problems with their maintenance due to mal- functioning. Storage appeared to be the feature that was rated most often as "non-functional." This occurred in a total of fourteen cases, because there was no storage in the eat— ing area. Storage was also categorized in the "partially functional" category for ten families because of a short- age of storage space. The other two items which were rated most often in the category of "partially functional" were air circu- lation and privacy of the eating area. Twenty-six of the twenty-nine respondents able to identify their eating areas had natural air movement or some mechanical means of cross ventilation, while the other three respondents possessed air-cooled eating areas. Privacy of the eating area was rated for twelve families as "some privacy--occasiona1 minor noises of the street, children, neighbors." It is quite likely that semi-privacy such as this is a character- istic of the suburban neighborhoods in the Lansing area, where houses are set close to the street and close to one another, and back yards are often without fences. The only variable in the condition ratings of the 77 eating area showing a positive relation to any of the pat- terns of eating was the placement of doors, which was sig- nificant at the .05 level. Because of such a low level of significance, this finding may be interpreted only as a trend. The ratings dealt with the placement of doors in relation to arrangement of furniture, service of food, and flow of traffic. Significance was influenced by Pattern I, or fam- ilies who almost never ate together, because one family in that pattern was rated in the "non-functional" category, while Patterns II and III had no families in the "non-func— tional" category. Because arrangement of furniture is great- ly affected by placement of doors, the trend of this finding is given support from McCray'sl study, which indicated that arrangement of furniture was perceived as aiding or imped- ing mealtime by twenty—four of the thirty respondents. Only actual door openings were considered.as the feature to be rated. However, because many eating areas were within another room, such as a breakfast corner in a kitchen, the researcher feels that the name of this rating should be changed from ”placement of doors" to "placement of openings to traffic." This change would take into ac- count the use of partial walls, bars, or counters which often serve as visual room dividers. For this study such features were not considered to be doors, which may have been, to some degree, obscuring. lMcCray, op. cit. 78 Type of seating arrangement, classified according to tables, showed twenty-six of the twenty-nine respondents to possess free-standing tables, around which were seated a mean number of 3.97 persons. When this information is compared to the mean number of children per family--2.33-- and the two adults living in every home, it is possible to assume that many families still had children too young to eat at the table. All three of the categories in the furnishing in- ventory found to be significant in relation to the patterns of eating developed their differences largely because of the respondents in Eating Pattern I, or families who almost never ate together. These mothers apparently felt that they did not have enough of various items associated with eating and serving, and felt that they wanted certain items associated with preparation,often to such an extent that significant relationships with the eating patterns were established. Respondents in Patterns II and III, families who sometimes ate together and who almost always ate to- gether, did not desire similar items with as great a fre- quency. Such a finding gives support to the theory that housing furnishings influence the family's ability to eat together. The category, "I don't have enough of the item and would like more," under "Items Associated with Eating," was significant at the .02 level; such items as flatware, 79 glassware, dishes, tables, and chairs were listed. Because no attempt was made to gain a numerical count of each item read to the respondent, her response was recorded in rela— tion to what she perceived to be adequate or inadequate for her family. In other words, what one respondent per- ceived to be inadequate for her family might have been con- sidered to be adequate by another respondent. It is also possible that, because the families in this sample were young, many respondents had not yet acquired all the items associated with eating that were required by their families. Likewise, the category, "I don't have enough of the item and would like more," under "Items Associated with Serving," was significant at the .02 level; such items as serving dishes and table linens were included. An explana- tion of the significance of this variable would be identi— cal to those possibilities mentioned for "Items Associated with Eating." Lastly, the category, "I don't have the item but want it,” under "Items Associated with Preparation,“ was significant at the .02 level. These items included a list— ing of small electrical cooking equipment, small electrical food preparation equipment, and non-electrical cooking equipment. It is feasible that the respondents had not purchased many of the items but planned to do so in the future. With the exception of items which they may have received as wedding gifts, it is unlikely that they had 80 been married for periods of time long enough to acquire plentiful supplies of these items. Summarizing, no condition ratings of features in the food preparation area were found to be significantly related to patterns of eating, and only one--placement of the doors--showed a trend toward significance in the rat- ings of condition of the area where food was eaten most often. This area was identified by more than half of the respondents as the kitchen. Storage was rated as "non-functional" more than any other feature, while air circulation and privacy of the eating area were rated as "partially functional" more than were the other features. Type of seating arrangement was listed most often as a free-standing table. The mean number of persons seat- ed around the table was 3.97. Three categories in the furnishing inventory were found to be significantly related to the patterns of eat- ing. These were "I don't have enough of the item and would like more," under "Items Associated with Eating" and "Items Associated with Serving," and "I don't have the item but want it," under "Items Associated with Preparation." CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Origin and Impgrtance of the Study_ Many housing decisions are currently based upon an economic mode of decision-making, and yet this is only one of many aspects of housing, and independently cannot produce a healthy living environment for people. Other modes, such as psychological and social aspects, must also be incorporated into housing decisions. However, before any great strides may be taken in this direction there must be research to help identify those housing features and furnishings which might influence various patterns of living. This study concentrated on analyzing the relation- ship of selected housing features and furnishings to eat- ing patterns of professional-managerial families. Specific Statement of the Problem The objectives of this study were: 1. To identify family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, whether it some- times ate together, or whether it almost always ate together. 81 82 2. To identify housing features associated with family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate together, or almost always ate together. 3. To identify housing furnishings associated with family eating patterns according to whether a family almost never ate together, sometimes ate together, or almost always ate together. Summary of the Procedures An interview schedule was designed to obtain demo- graphic data about the families; to classify families in one of three patterns of eating, which had been established by definition; and to identify housing features and furnish- ings which might be related to the three patterns of eating. Housing features were given condition ratings in the food preparation area and in the area where food was eaten most often, and housing furnishings were placed in categories according to the respondent's answers concerning what she perceived to be her needs or desires for the various items. The instrument was administered to 30 mothers re- siding in Lansing and suburban areas. The subjects were required to have no children above elementary school age living at home, and their families had to meet three of the four criteria set up as income, occupation, education, and housing. The pre-coded data were analyzed by relating each 83 of the spread variables to the control variable of patterns of eating. Relations between the variables were determined by computing the chi square test of significance and analy- sis of variance for the demographic data, certain factors related to eating patterns, and the ratings of condition in the food preparation area and the eating area, and by computing Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks for the inventory of furnishings. Conclusions Conclusions were drawn in relation to the two hy- potheses established, in order to attain the objectives of this study; major conclusions of the study follow. Hypothesis I: There are significant differences in housing features associated with eating among families who almost never eat together, those who sometimes eat together, and those who almost always eat together. The first hypothesis was tested by application of the chi square test of significance to frequency of condi- tion ratings for features in the food preparation area, as well as in the eating area, according to the three pat- terns of eating. Families were assigned to one of the three eating patterns according to mothers' responses to questions designed to establish frequency of eating together. Rat- ings of features were derived by defining three categories of condition; these were "functional," indicating that the 84 feature was present and working properly; "partially func- tional," meaning that the feature was present but was not of adequate size, required some maintenance, or was not in good working order; or "non-functional," indicating that the feature was not present or was present but did not operate. No relation was found to exist between the thirteen features rated in the food preparation area and any of the three patterns of eating. These features were rated pri- marily as "functional," regardless of the pattern of eat- ing, which indicated that the families of this sample had food preparation areas which could easily serve families who almost always ate together, as well as families who sometimes or almost never ate together. Because differ- ences in eating patterns could not be associated with fea- tures in the food preparation area, the hypothesis was rejected for that area. Of the twenty-three rated in the eating area, placement of doors was the only feature found to show a relationship to the three patterns of eating. However, that relationship existed only at the .05 level of signif- icance, which, because of the small sample and lack of avail- ability of Yates' correction in the computer program, could be attributed to chance. Lack of significance for other items was due to the evenly balanced distribution of rat- ings among the three patterns of eating. Thus, differences 85 in eating patterns could not be associated with features in the eating area, which rejected the hypothesis for that area. The hypothesis was therefore fully rejected. Hypothesis II: There are significant differences in housing furnishings associated with eating among families who almost never eat together, those who sometimes eat together, and those who almost always eat together. Hypothesis II was tested by application of the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks to each need or desire response for items associated with eating, serving, preparation, cleaning, entertainment, or for accessory items and the three patterns of eating. Significant relationships at the .02 level were found to exist for three variables: "I don't have enough and would like more," for "Items Associated with Eating" and for "Items Associated with Serving," and "I don't have the item but want it," for "Items Associated with Prepara- tion.” Because significant relationships were found to exist between these three variables and the patterns of eating, the hypothesis was accepted. Major conclusions of the stugy The sample was classified into three patterns of eating, though of the thirty families over half fell into 86 Eating Pattern III, or families who ate together for fif- teen or more meals per week. These patterns did not appear to be related to the demographic information or to vari- ables dealing with various aspects of family mealtime rou— tines. Also, there was no evidence from these data that housing features, with the possible exception of the place- ment of doors, varied from one eating pattern to another. On the other hand, the three housing furnishings found to be significant would indicate that the presence of furnish- ings is likely to vary according to eating patterns. Nei- ther Hypothesis I nor II was written in the belief that all items--or even a large quantity of items--would be significant; rather, they were set up in an attempt to identify Epigp, if any, features or furnishings might be associated with patterns of eating. There were indications from the furnishings inven- tory that the families in Eating Patterns II and III, those who sometimes ate together and those who almost always ate together, possessed different housing furnishings than did families in Eating Pattern I, those who almost never ate together. Whether families who sometimes or almost always ate together acquired different housing furnishings in or- der that they might implement those eating patterns, or whether they embraced such patterns of eating because of the availability of housing furnishings, is not known. 87 Likewise, it was not established if families who almost never ate together adopted this eating pattern because they could not acquire particular furnishings or whether they did not acquire these items because other things were more important to them. Such investigations must be left to future studies. However, there is always the possibility that so few items appeared to be significant because of various external reasons involving the design of the study; for example: (1) The sample used for this study may have been of a size which, when families were classified in one of the three patterns of eating, produced cells too small to allow subtle differences in patterns to emerge. The data indicated that there were places where items approached significance, such as the condition of the chairs in the eating area and space at the table, which might have shown a significant relationship to eating patterns had a larger sample been utilized. (2) The instrument may not have functioned as was desired and might therefore produce more relationships with further refining; however, there was evidence that the sam- ple was largely homogeneous, as the patterns of eating sug- gested. Other samples from other groups might show increased variability. (3) The fact that twenty-seven families in the 88 sample were able to eat individually or together meant that the housing variables associated with each pattern of eat- ing might not be identifiable by condition ratings of fea— tures or by an inventory of furnishings. There is a vital need for the identification of housing variables related to family activities before the effects of housing upon family interaction can be measured. This study, which is a beginning step in the identification of such variables, isolated four housing features and fur- nishings which appeared to be related to the activity of eating. Future studies are now needed to investigate these variables in depth in order to establish more clearly any existing relationships. Similar studies are also needed for all types of family activities. The Relationship of This Stugy, to Previous Research Snowl found that all members of the family ate to- gether at least once a week and that the morning and even- ing meals were more frequently eaten together than the mid- day meals. These findings coincide with the findings of the present study, in which twenty-seven of the thirty families ate together seven or more times per week, and primarily in the mornings and evenings on weekdays. While McCray2 did not probe eating patterns of lSnow, op. cit. 2McCray, op. cit. 89 families in her sample beyond asking what mothers perceived as their families' mealtime characteristics, she did ask why the mealtime procedure had evolved as it did. The majority of the respondents listed occupation as the pri- mary reason; respondents of the present study listed activ- ities of the day as the major reason, which is indirectly related to occupation. Littlel found that the adequacy of furnishings in- creased as the level of living increased, which could pre— sent evidence for the lack of significance of housing fea- tures and furnishings in this study. Because the sample met the requirements of professional-managerial families, level of living was high enough that features and furnish- ings were adequate. The kitchen was mentioned most frequently as the eating area by the present sample. Likewise, Beyer2 found that four-fifths of the 603 families interviewed for his housing study preferred serving meals in the kitchen. It was mentioned by the highest percentage of families in the family, economy, and personal groups as the area most often used for the evening meal. This contrasts with the desires of college students interviewed by Montgomery,3 who lLittle, op. cit. 2 . Beyer, op. Clt. 3Montgomery, op. cit. 90 envisioned a dining room in their first house, though few of them expected to have one. Recommendations for Further Study Several possibilities for future study became ap- parent as a result of this research project: (1) A study would be desirable which could establish whether the findings reported here are reliable, while prob- ing in greater depth the four variables which appeared to be related to the patterns of eating. (2) There is need to study each of the three eat- ing patterns separately, thus allowing greater attention to be focused upon variables emerging within each pattern and upon their relation to that pattern. (3) The use of a larger sample would make possible the classification of mothers' responses concerning their families' frequency of eating together according to cate- gories arising from the responses themselves, rather than limiting them to three predetermined categories of eating. Such an approach might make possible the identification of a more sophisticated patterning. (4) It is possible that the instrument used for the ratings of features did not differentiate enough among conditions of the features. A study incorporating an ex- panded series of descriptions for each feature rated is needed in order to identify the often subtle differences of quality which would be likely to occur in a comparison 91 of ratings between classes. (5) Each respondent was asked to name the area most often used for eating by her family, but no attempt was made to identify the total number of possible eating areas she had at her disposal. Information such as this could be helpful in analyzing reasons for the frequency with which areas are used for eating. (6) Studies are needed in other economic groups, other stages of the family life cycle, and other geographic areas. (7) Because the type of need and desire response employed in the inventory of furnishings is a good means of establishing types of furnishings a homemaker is inclined to want, a study based upon the inventory and related to consumer buying practices is suggested. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Agan, Tessie, and Luchsinger, Elaine. The House: Principles, Resources, Dynamics. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippin- cott Co., 1965. Bain, Read. "Producing Marriageable Personalities,“ Family, Marriage, and Parenthood. Edited by Reuben Hill and Howard Becker. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1955. Bauer, Catherine. Social Questions in Housing and Town Planning. London: University of London Press, 1952. Bell, Robert R. Marriage and Family Interaction. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963. Beyer, Glenn H. Houses Are for People. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1955. Bossard, James H. S. "A Spatial Index for Family Interac- tion," American Sociological Review, XVI, No. 2 (1961), 243-45. . "Family Table Talk--An Area for Sociological Study," American Sociological Review, VIII, No. 3 (1943), 295-301. . "The Law of Family Interaction," American Jour- nal of Sociology, L (January, 1945), 293-94. , and Boll, Eleanor S. Familnyituations. Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1943. , Boll, Eleanor S., and Sanger, Winogene P. "Some Neglected Areas in Family Life Study," Readings in Marriage and the Family. Edited by Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis. New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1952. Brown, Francis J. The Sociology of Childhood. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939. 93 94 Campbell, Catherine McLean. ”An Evaluation Study of the Dining Area in Thirty Families." Unpublished Mas- ter's thesis, University of North Carolina, 1950. ”Check Your Kitchen.” Michigan Agricultural Extension Serv- ice Bulletin, Michigan State University (February, 1966). Chermayeff, Serge, and Alexander, Christopher. Community and Privacy. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963. Cohen, Barbara, and Kapneck, Joanne. "When the Family Meets for Meals," Journal of Home Economics, XL, No. 10 (1948), 577-78. Homans, George Caspar. The Human Gropp. New York: Har- court, Brace and World, Inc., 1950. Hurley, Patricia B. "The Suburban Living Room: Processes of Furnishing, Patterns of Use and Satisfactions of Families." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Florida State University, 1966. Hussey, Mary. "The Relation Between Housing Features and Furnishings and Family Eating Patterns in Assisted Families." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts, Michigan State University, 1967. Jansen, Luther T. "Measuring Family Solidarity," American Sociological Review, XVII, No. 6 (December, 1952), Kahl, Joseph A. The American Class Structure. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957. Little, Lillie Bradshaw. "House Furnishing Practices as They Relate to the Family Life Cycle and Certain Selected Factors." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1965. McCray, Jacquelyn W. "Housing Features and Furnishings Perceived by Mothers to Aid or Impede Family-Shared Mealtime." Master's thesis in progress, Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts, Michigan State University. McQueen, Phil K. "Relationships Among Selected Housing, Marital and Familial Characteristics." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Florida State University, 1964. 95 Montgomery, James E. The Housing Images of Women Collegp_ Students. University Research Publication 202. University Park, Pa.: College of Home Economics (April, 1963). Niemi, Tyyni Miriam. "Present Practices and Activities of 84 Ohio Families and Factors Affecting Their Housing Preferences." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1949. Nygren, L. Gertrude. Research in progress concerning hous- ing features and furnishings in relation to family activities. Agricultural Experiment Station, Mich- igan State University. Perry, Mignon. "Relationships of Space in Housing to At- titudes Toward Family Life." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1958. Pletcher, Janice M. "Relation of Mothers' Preferences About Families Eating Together to Family Eating Patterns and Selected Features and Furnishings." Master's thesis in progress, Department of Textiles, Cloth- ing, and Related Arts, Michigan State University. Putney, Snell, and Middleton, Russell. "Effect of Husband- Wife Interaction on the Strictness of Attitudes Toward Child Rearing," Marriage and the Famil , XXII, No. 2 (May, 1960), 171. Schaeffer, Annette J., and Edwards, Carlton M. "A Housing Quality Measuring Scale," Michigan State University, 1966, Appendix B, 16.26. Smith, Ruth H. "Housing Choices as Evidenced by Residen- tial Mobility," Journal of Home Economics, LVII, No. 1 (January, 1965), 39-41. Snow, Carolyn Baldwin. "A Study in the Development of a Technique for Determining the Amount of Time and Types of Activities which Family Members Share." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Georgia, 1950. Stott, Leland H. "The Longitudinal Approach to the Study of Family Life,“ Journaliof Home Economics, XLVI, No. 2 (February, 1954), 79-820 Thorpe, Thurow, Warner, Wilner, 96 Alice Cutler. "Patterns of Family Interaction With- in the Home." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1956. Mildred B. A Study of Selected Factors in Family Life as Described in Autobiogrgphies. Memoir 171, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. Ithaca, New York, 1935. W. Lloyd, and Lunt, Paul S. The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Daniel M., Walkley, Rosabelle P., Pinkerton, Thomas, and Tayback, Matthew. The Housing Environment and Family Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962. APPENDIX A PART A OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 99 Code Number: Date: There is reason to believe that housing affects the way people live and develop, but to date there has been only limited research in this area. All previous studies are over ten years old, and we think the needs and behavior of families may have changed since these studies were com- pleted. Because there are so many areas of housing yet to be explored it is difficult to know where to begin a study. I have chosen to investigate the way families eat, why they eat this way, and whether housing relates to this activity. We cannot begin to know, however, what people want in housing unless we ask them. You can be a great help to those of us engaged in the planning, building, and teach- ing of housing by giving us this information. There are three parts to this interview. First, I will need some general information about you and your family; secondly, I would like to know what you would want to do in certain situations; and finally, I will need to know what items are used for eating in your home. lUO mHnmUHHoop p02 a oz H smemHzm smog so» on wow 0 . mHHMUHHoom poz o Ammumezsqo> H<9Homom Hman HHomne\mo oenHm m mo mmomu cum m< foams exec: HmEHu e\mum\Ho omuHm m— Hmmmaonoso mUH>mmm H24 on now on HmsHp «\Hueva oNIHH H HmeHn exHuoo oHIo o wmeB DOM OD xmmz < mmDOS N242 30$ mHnmUHHoom uoz m cohoHQEmCD m omHHHHmco a I omHHmenusuouomm m HMUHumHu m Hafiummmcmz H mHQMUHHQQm #02 m HMCOHmmmmowm o HmuacnumuIIHMCOHmmmmoum m om Hm>o e mmummo omocm>o< e «on so» on eHo m m.oe on» pH m mmoHHou m nachos omzoon m m.om one :H m mmmHHou meow N oz H mm» o omnmummom H m.om on» pH H Hoosum sme H omHuums o om noon: 0 sumucmsmHm o sw0 e mmummo pmucm>p< v omaawxmllhuouumm m m.oe one pH m momHHou m HooHumHu N m.om may CH m mmwaaou mEom N AMHummmcmz H m.oN or» pH H Hoosum anm H Hmconmmmoum o om umocb o humgcmEmHm o umrumm moo oz MH 02 H mmw o mmmDOm MHIH 2H 02H>HA mamomm mmmfio MZ< mmmmfi mm< .NH 3memme2H ma<2H2mma .mm» mH 02 H mm» 0 mmzom B4 OZH>HA m0< AOOfiUm Nm<fizm2 Imam m>0m< ZQmQAHmU M24 m>o m2 ooo.o NH I I OH I I m I I moomm mz 000.0 EH I I 0H I I m I I uoumummfluwmm mz 000.0 5H I I OH I I m I I XCHm h mm hz m hm m2 m mm m2 4. sHuz oHuz muz .MHcmHm mon> umruwmoe mu< umnummoa my< uwrummos mp< omumm mEmuH mo x m>m3H< umOEH< mmEHumEom um>wz umOEH< Hm>oH N or: moHHHeom or: mmHHHsmm on; mmHHHsom HHH cumuumm ocHHpm HH cumpnom ocHHom H outnumm mcHumm mCHpmm mo mcumupma mmuru >n mono COHumumamwm boom mru CH mOCHumu COHpHocou mo mumEESn < .H meme 139 m2 NHm.H HH N m m N m N I H mosuomesoHqusoo m2 N¢0.0 mH H I OH I I m I I mHHMfiUIwucmcmHCHm: m2 H00.v 0H I I m H I N H I mHHM£UICOHUHUGOU mz mom.H 0H I I m H I m I I mHQmBImucmcmuchz m2 000.0 0H I I OH I I m I I MHQMHICOHHHUCOU m0. mum.m MH m I b m I N I H muooalpcmewumHm m2 000.0 0H I I 0H I I m I I mHOOQICOHHHUCOU ..mz th.0 vH N I m H I N I I 3mH> m2 0HH.H NH w I m H I N H I prmHH Hondumz m2 000.H 0H I I m I H m I I SOUCHSICOHHHUCOU m2 0H>.N 0H m I 0H I I m I I prmHH HMHUHMHHH< m2 000.0 0H I I OH I I m I I mafiummz mz 000.N H mH I H m I H N I COHumHsuuHU MH< mz mm0.N mH H I m N I N H I woonIwucmcmHCHmz m2 m¢0.N wH N I OH I I N H I HoonICOHHHUCOU m2 000.N mH H I m H I N H I mmcHHHmU .mHHmz ImucmchCHmz m2 mN¢.0 SH N I 0 H I m I I mmcHHHmU .mHHszsoHqusoo m mm m2 m hm mz m mm m2 oQHNZ OHNZ MHZ .MHcmHm msHm> monummoa mp< wmrummoe mp< umrummoa mp< omumm mEmpH Mo x m>m3H< umoEH< mmEHumEom um>mz umOEH< Hm>mH N 0:3 mmHHHEmm or; mmHHHEmm 0:3 mmHHHEmm HHH sumyuom osHpom HH cumuusmINoHpom H suopuomImoHumm OCHumm mo mcuwuuma mourn he mono mcHuom mcu CH mmCHumu COHbHocou mo whosesm < .N mHQmB 140 .HmHumumE odomao Eouw pmuusuumcou mum: mmum OCHumm moo wo m3OUCH3 uman.. .cmwmo umOE cmbmm mos boom mums: mono UHMHqum m mHMHomH uoc UHSOU #cmpcommmu moo. HMCOHuuczh u m HMCOHuUczm >HHMHuumm H mm HMGOHHUCSMICOZ u m2 m2 mom.H 0H I I m I I .Hw< mcHummm mo mUGchm>GOU mz ooo.o oH o I o N I omu< mcHumm mo >UM>HHm m2 H0m.¢ 0H I I 0 H I mHQMB no woman mz Hv0.H mH H I m I I nonopHx o» mcuwuumm UHmmmue mz Nam.0 mH H I OH I I mmu< mafiumm IHcmEmUMHm mz mHo.o s o m e H H mmououmImuHm 141 Table 3. A summary of the inventory of furnishings by three patterns of eating Kruskal-Wallis Level of Category of Furnishings H Value Signif. Items Associated with Eating Have and Use 2.110 NS Have and Don't Use 0.892 NS Don't Have Enough--Want More 7.948 .02 Don't Have but Don't Want 3.404 NS Items Associated with Serving Have and Use 1.262 NS Have and Don't Use 0.117 NS Don't Have Enough--Want More 9.000 .02 Don't Have but Want 0.079 NS Don't Have but Don't Want 0.699 NS Items Associated with Storage Have and Use 2.779 NS Have and Don't Use 1.584 NS Don't Have Enough--Want More 0.000 NS Don't Have but Want 0.901 NS Don't Have but Don't Want 3.808 NS Items Associated with Preppration Have and Use 1.753 NS Have and Don't Use 0.089 NS Don't Have Enough--Want More 0.765 NS Don't Have but Want 8.242 .02 Don't Have but Don't Want 3.022 NS Items Associated with Cleanipg Have and Use 2.363 NS Have and Don't Use 0.079 NS Don't Have Enough—-Want More 0.000 NS Don't Have but Want 1.528 NS Don't Have but Don't Want 1.992 NS Items Associated with Entertainment Have and Use 0.066 NS Have and Don't Use 1.132 NS Don't Have Enough--Want More 0.000 NS Don't Have but Want 0.765 NS Don't Have but Don't Want 0.073 NS Accessory Furnishingp Have and Use 0.895 NS Have and Don't Use 0.396 NS Don't Have Enough--Want More 0.000 NS Don't Have but Want 0.379 NS Don't Have but Don't Want 1.706 NS MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 31293101387243