STUDENT S' WIVES VALUES AS REFLECTED IN PERSONAL AND FAMILY ACTIVITIES TIursls for flu Diana 'oI MVA. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Doris Montgomery. Dyer 19 62: um mm m m: nu mm In I Milli! "@111:qu n ' 3 1293 ABSTRACT STUDENTS' WIVES VALUES AS REFLECTED IN PERSONAL AND FAMILY ACTIVITIES by Doris Montgomery Dyer This study was designed to gain knowledge about homemakers' awareness of values as they are mediated through family activities. Values are thought to be criteria that determine goals and direct managerial choices. If home management is concerned with the con- scious mediation of a consciously chosen value system then identification of values becomes vitally important in maximizing the purposes of home management. The sample consisted of 50 homemakers selected to meet definite criteria which confined the study to the expanding stage of the family life cycle. Each family consisted of the homemaker, two pre-school age children and husband who was enrolled at Michigan State University. All families lived in university apartments. Personal and family activities of the homemaker were chosen as the behavioral situation from which value content would be determined. The homemakers categorized reasons for activities they performed into nine selected values. The values used were family centrism, health, aesthetics, friendship, freedom, education, economy, prestige and religion. The 50 homemakers were able to recall an average of 49. 14 activities for a one day. The total number of activities ranged from 30 to 75. About 80 per cent of the total activities and accompanying reasons reported were assigned to three value categories: health, aesthetics, Doris Montgomery Dyer and family centrism. Many of the health activities and reasons were concerned with daily care of family members. Relationships between three ranking techniques were summarized and inferences drawn concerning statistical correlation and degree of personal situational involvement considered by the instruments. The hypotheses formulated for this study were: 1. students' wives will place the value of family centrism in highest priority; 2. students' wives will place the value of freedom in lowest priority; and, 3. reasons given by students' wives for day-to-day activities will reflect value content of those activities. The three techniques used to rank values were a rank order test, projective stories and a mechanical device for categorizing reasons for activities performed by the homemakers. {Family centrism and health values appeared in the top three ranks of all tests. Religion and education were held high on the rank order test but this did not hold true when home- makers placed reasons for activities performed into value categories; The number of reasons assigned by each homemaker to each value category was counted. The number served as a basis for ranking the values one through nine. Most of the homemakers used about six value categories when classifying their reasons. Spearman Rank Order Correlation was used to determine the relationship between the three ranking devices. Four correlations were made. The results in correlating the first choice values showed: a coefficient . 625 between the rank order test and the projective stories; a coefficient . 512 between the rank order test and the categorized reasons; and a coefficient .804 between the projective stories and the categorized reasons. These correlation coefficients seemed to indicate that the more Doris Montgomery Dyer projective the instrument the more likely it is to reveal the values underlying actual behavioral situations of these homemakers. A least choice correlation was made between the rank order test and the pro- jective stories; a coefficient .887 resulted. This correlation strongly indicates that homemakers seem to know what they feel is least desir— able. Hypotheses one and two were supported by the rank order test and projective stories. The findings revealed, however, the greatest number of reasons given were those that directly related to health and the fewest number of reasons given were those that directly related to religion. Reasons for family centrism were assigned third priority and reasons for freedom were assigned fifth priority by the homemakers. STUDENTS' WIVES VALUES AS REFLECTED IN PERSONAL AND FAMILY ACTIVITIES BY Doris Montgomery Dyer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MAS TER OF AR TS Department of Home Management and Child Development 1962 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Beatrice Paolucci for her guidance, unfailing help and contagious enthusiasm during the planning of this study and the prepa- ration of this thesis. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Alice Thorpe and Dr. Meta Vossbrink for their helpful suggestions; and to Mr. Glenn Beyer for his correspondence concerning the instruments. Gratitude is also expressed to the fifty students' wives of Spartan and University Villages who so willingly cooperated to make this study possible. ‘1' 2:: >{c >:< ::< :k >:< >1: >:< ):< a}: 3:: 3,: :k ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .......... Operational Definition of Terms . . . . . ..... Purpose of Study . . . . . . ............ Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . ........... Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Limitations of Study . . . . . . . . . . . II. THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT . .......... Values Defined ................... Values in Home Management ............ Theoretical Development for this Study . . . III. METHODOLOGY . ................... Methodological Development . . .......... Method ........... . . ........ Developing the Instruments . . . . . ....... Pretests... ....... The Sample ............ . ........ Collection of the Data . . . . . .......... Analysis of the Data . . . . ......... IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE ....... Selection ofSample . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Description of Sample . . . ..... V. VALUE CONTENT OF HOMEMAKERS' ACTIVITIES . Description of Activities within Value Categories. Reasons for Activities within Value Categories . . VI. RANKING OF VALUES ....... iii Page U1 vbrbwww \l 12 12 17 l7 19 20 20 22 23 Z3 Z4 33 37 40 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER RankOrderTest... ..... Projective Stories . . . . Assigned Activities and Accompanying Reasons. . Correlation of First Choices. . . . . . . . . . . Correlation of the Least Choices ........ VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . ......... Value Content of Homemakers' Activities . . . . Ranking of Values . . . .......... . . . Hypotheses . . . ..... . ........... VIII. IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Further Research ..... Further Development of Methodological Techniques.. ..... Further Analysis of the Data. . ........ BIBLIOGRAPHY . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... APPENDICES . . . . . . . .................. iv Page 49 51 53 53 56 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 65 LIS T OF TA BLES TABLE Page 1.NumberandSexofChildren.. .. 25 2. Ages of Children . . ..... . . .* ..... . . . . . 25 3. Ages of Homemakers. . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . 26 4. Educational Level of Homemakers. . . . . . ..... 26 5. Number of Years Married . . . . . ...... . . . . 27 6. Number of Years at Present Residence ........ 28 7. Number of Years at Previous Residence . . ..... 28 8. Location of Previous Residence . . . . . . . ..... 29 9. Occupational Aspirations of Husbands ......... 29 10. Student Level of the Husbands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 11. Family Income . . . . . . . . . . ........... 30 12. Source of Income . ........... . . . . . . . . 31 13. Range in Number of Activities . . . ...... . . . . 34 14. Total Number, Per Cent, and Average Number of Activities.............. ..... 37 15. Number of Values Used in Categorizing . . . . . . . . 41 16. Range in Number of Reasons Assigned to Value Cate- gories......................... 42 17. Total Reasons Stated and Assigned by Homemakers to Nine Value Categories . . ...... . ...... 47 Continued LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Values Ranked According to Number of Homemakers Categorizing Reasons . . . ........... Number of Homemakers Placing Values in First, Second, and Least Choice by Rank Order Number of Homemakers Placing Values in First, Second, and Least Choice by Projective Stories . Number of Homemakers Placing Values in First and Second Choice by Ranking Reasons ..... Rank Order Correlation of Rank Order Test and Projective Stories .............. Rank Order Correlation of Rank Order Test and Categorized Reasons ............... Rank Order Correlation of Projective Stories and Categorized Reasons. .. . . . . . . ....... Rank Order Correlation of Least Choices of Rank Order Test and Projective Stories ........ The First, Second and Least (Ninth) Choices Selected by the Homemakers on the Rank Order Test and Projective Stories ................... Number of Reasons Categorized by Each Home- maker ......................... Homemakers‘ Ranking of Reasons Into Value Cate- gories Showing Ties. . . . .......... vi Page 50 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 87 89 91 LIS T OF APPENDIC ES APPENDIX I. Interview Schedule ................... II. Summary Tables of Data ................ vii CHAPTER I INTRODU CTION Today, leaders in the home management field are focusing their attention on the family, its value system and the resources it utilizes to mediate this value system. In 1955 a home management conference group explored the idea that values and goals are motivators of decision-making and determine, to a degree, the quality and quantity of management possible in home situations.l Basically home management concerns itself with how family goals are selected and achieved. One way families achieve their goals is through day-to-day activities. A study of such activities and reasons why they are performed may lead to identifying the values held by families. Values give direction to managerial goals. If an awareness of values were attained by families opportunities would be available for more effective management. Studies have been undertaken to determine the relationship of values to particular kinds of decisions; for example, Beyerz examined the relationship of values to housing decisions. Few studies have been done to determine the values which act as motivators in day-to-day decisions in the home. 1Values and Decision-Making in Home Management, Developmental Conference (Michigan State University: East Lansing, Michigan, 1955). zGlenn H. Beyer, Housing and Personal Values (Cornell University: New York State College of Home Economics, Agr. Exp. Memoir 364, July, 1959). This study attempts to explore those values that are related to the day-to-day decisions made by the homemaker. Values are thought to be products of cultural environments. Values reflect the human experiences of the past and direct action in the future. What values seem to be evident in the personal and family activities performed by homemakers ? If this study can identify the values which seem to underlie and motivate the decisions concerning day-to-day activities it may be helpful in clarifying the decision-making processes utilized by homemakers in the family setting. This should afford clues for better understanding management in the home and enhance the possibilities for imparting knowledge about home management. Operational Definition of Terms Homemaker refers to the female of the family whose major re- sponsibility is to manage the household and care for the family. Students' wives refer to the specific homemakers in this study whose husbands were students. Activities refer to the overt actions which the homemaker per- forms alone or with others at a particular point in time. Reasons refer to the verbal responses given by the homemaker for why an activity was performed. Values refer to the criteria that determine goals and direct choices to achieve what is desired. Family centrism3 refers to an orientation held by individuals who regard the family as a relatively self- sufficient and tightly knit unit. Allegiance and loyalty will be given to the family in preference to individuals and other groups. 31bid., p. 7. Freedom“ refers to an orientation held by individuals who place emphasis on being allowed to make and to implement as many of their own decisions as possible. There is a tendency to rebel at assignment, regimentation, outside influence and other forms of restriction. Pu rpo s e of Study The overall purpose of this exploratory research was to gain in- sights and ideas about activity decisions made by homemakers (in this case, students' wives) and the values mediated therein. Specifically, research objectives were to: (1) identify the value content of day-to-day activities of the homemakers; (2) identify the priority of values which motivate family activities of homemakers; (3) compare these priorities using three different research techniques; and (4) examine the three techniques in relation to the degree of involve- ment with actual behavioral situations. Hypothe s e s The hypotheses formulated for this study were: 1. Students' wives will place the value of family centrism in highest priority. 2. Students' wives will place the value of freedom in lowest priority. 3. Reasons given by students' wives for day-to-day activities will reflect the value content of those activities. 41bid., p. 12. As sumptions In this study it was assumed that: 1. Students' wives with two children have established a pattern of family living. 2. Students' wives are able to recall the previous day's activities and to verbalize the reasons for performing those activities. Limitations of Study This study was limited to: 1. The sample of students' wives that participated. 2. The exploratory nature of the instruments and techniques employed. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT This chapter is designed to present a review of literature pertinent to establishment of the theoretical orientation developed and used in this research project. It concerns itself with how others have defined and delineated values, how values have been related to home manage- ment and what theoretical construct governs this research. Values Defined The disciplines of sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy and anthropology have defined values in various ways to suit the needs of their field and the particular point in time. Williams describes values as: . . observable variables in human conduct . . . They (men) select particular objects and courses of action out of a range of possibilities present in a situation. Some human behavior, at least, is purposive: people can and do state their goals in advance and can then be observed to act as if they were in fact pursuing those ends.1 Beyer e_t 341. , focusing upon developing the concept of values stated that: Values are based on the totality of a number of factors, such as an individuals ideals, motives, attitudes and tastes, which are determined by his cultural background, education, habits, and experiences . z 1Robin Williams, American Society, A Sociological Interpretation (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1960), pp. 399-401. ZGlenn Beyer, Thomas Mackesey, and James Montgomery, Houses are for People--A Study of House Buyer Motivations, Res. Pub. No. 3 (Cornell University Housing Research Center: Ithaca, New York, 1955), p. 49. 5 Lee and Parsons maintain that values are part of and contained in symbol systems of the cultural or individual environments which they help to create. Without symbolic interactions no values are con- veyed or mediated: Whatever may be the origins and processes of development of symbol systems it is quite clear that the high elaboration of human action systems is not possible without relatively stable symbolic systems where meaning is not predominantly con- tingent on highly particularized situations . This fundamental relationship is also common to all types and modes of interactional orientation . . . and element of a shared symbolic system which serves as a criterion or standard for selection among the alternatives of orientation which are intrinsically open in a situation may be called a value.3 The system of symbolization, by means of which the individual shapes . . . reality, transforming it into the world of sensory preception and concept, is implicit in a variety of behavioral patterns within a culture . . . With participation in situations the meaning of the symbol increases; and when the situatipn contains value the symbol itself contains and cOnveys value. Families comprise social units within a culture. Behavioral situ- ations made up of day-to-day activities result in symbolizing values held by families and therefore these activities contain and convey value. Malone and Malone relate value systems to social units within the society: We do not establish value systems alone. The society in which we are reared sets the broad framework around which our values usually grow. Our own family has the strongest influence . . .5 3Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 11-12. 4Dorothy Lee, Freedom and Culture (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1959), P. 79. 5Carl C. Malone and Lucile A. Malone, Decision-Making and Management for Farm and Home (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 1958), p. 29. Flewelling6 believes that all values are human values in that they are born in human experiences and situations which do not exist apart from the services, welfare and gratification of other human beings. Some definitions of values involve the influence of pragmatism. Such is the case with Millar: Value is defined as that property of a thing by virtue of which it is esteemed desirable, or useful.7 Values in Home Management Educators working in the field of home management are dissemi- nators of information and need to be vitally interested with family values as giving foundation to the discipline in which they are involved. According to Hill: Human values are of first concern to all of us. They must be if we accept the fact that the over-all purpose of Home Economics is to promote the well being of individuals and families. 8 Different persons may hold different values or the same values in varying degrees of importance. Likewise, different families may hold different values in varying degrees of importance. Such values may be conflicting if for no other reason than that when two persons marry, two separate value systems merge to form the basic foundation of the totally new family value system. Blood and Wolfe state: The extent to which a family achieves its goals profoundly affects the degree of satisfaction the members feel.9 6Ralph Flewelling, The Things That Matter Most (New York: ‘ Ronald Press, 1946). P. 46. ' ' 7Pamelia L. Millar, "A Pilot Study of Patterns in Home Manage- ment over a Period of Three Generations in a Select Group of Families" (unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1959), p. 4 . 8Edna Hill, "Human Values in Home Economics, " Journal of Home Economics, LXVII (October, 1955), p. 592. 9Robert 0. Blood Jr. and Donald M. Wolfe, Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), p. 77. Achieving family goals through managerial activities may be evaluated in terms of satisfactions gained by the family. If families are aware of their values, can translate these to goals and mediate these through activities, they should realize greater degrees of satis- faction. According to Paolucci and O'Brien: People do not usually verbalize their values. They may not have a clear idea of what their values are. Only when values are clearly defined . . can they serve as the foundation of all management. 10 Enlarging upon the responsibility of home management as a source of human values Frank wrote: It is evident that home management is not merely a question of skills and standardized equipment, important as they are for the conservation of human energy and time, but more a way of life for which the homemaker needs clarification of aims and purposes, aspirations and values, a faith in the supreme im- portance of the human relations that alone give the home social justification. 11 Gross and Crandall believe that: This responsibility is linked to home management because in the sharing of family plans and managerial activities values are of necessity 'caught'. If all the relatively mature members have a voice in the decisions about the use of family resources, they share even more fully in family values through helping to shape those values. 12 If the individual is aware of values then it is possible to so manage activities that these conscious values are achieved. 10Beatrice Paolucci and Carol B. O'Brien, "Management: the Importance of Values, " Forecast (June, 1960), p. 43. 11LEIWI‘Emce K. Frank, "The Philosophy of Home Management, " Seventh International Management Congress: Home Management Papers, Vol. 7, 1938, p. 6. 12Irma H. Gross and Elizabeth W. Crandall, Managgment for Modern Families (New York: Appleton Century Croft, 1954), p. 39. Theoretical Development for this Study Values are held to be that criterion or set of criteria used by an individual (in this case, homemaker) to determine goals and means of attaining these goals. . Such values may be instrumental or intrinsic. An intrinsic value is important or desirable for its own sake; i. e. , a beautiful painting viewed for its own sake. Instrumental values on the other hand, are means for attaining the intrinsic values, a way of progressing and are closely associated with tangible goals. Some writers think of values in light of goals and define values in terms of their relation to goals and goal systems. Kluckhohn writes: Since a‘ value is a complex proposition involving cognition, approval, selection, and effect, then the relation between a value system and a need or goal system is necessarily complex. Values both rise from and create needs. . . . Values are not the concrete goals of behavior, but rather are aspects of those goals. Values appear as the criteria against which goals are chosen and as the implications which these goals have in the situation.13 Gross and Crandalll4 say that goals grow out of or have root in values. They envision values as being a part of goals. Values are basic to decision-making. Geiger states: M Man's long time preferences, his deep-rooted tastes and interests, his objects of respect and reverence are his values. . . . 1 He makes dec1s1ons on the ba31s of them. 5 Decision-making based on values held by the individual or group, is a process that involves among other things, the elimination of possible alternatives in favor of that alternative which, in the mind of the 13Clyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value Orientation in the Theory of Action, " Toward a General Theory of Action, ed. Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils (Camgridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), Pp. 428-429. 14“Gross and Crandall, c_>p_. gi_t., p. 59. 15George Geiger, Philosophy and the Social Order (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1947), P. 167. 10 decision-maker, is the most desirable course of action. The process, in simplicity, is one in which the individual incorporates his knowledge of available resources, facilities and responsibilities and weighs these against the consequences of each of the cognizable alternatives, select- ing that alternative for action which maximizes goal directiveness. Goal directiveness here is construed as meaning what ever is recog- nized as the goal. Nickell and Dorsey state: As the values to be derived from each course or choice (decision) are weighted and compared, hesitation becomes deliberation. Finally a choice . . . emerges which is based on consciousness of the values that have been identified in the process of deliberating. The decision is then made. 16 Kluckhohn states: Values both rise from and create needs, a value serves several needs partially, inhibits others partially, half meets and half blocks still others. ‘7 Because needs are continually changing in an emergent society values are of necessity also changing. Williams sees value systems as changing: It must be always kept in mind that these . . . values, and systems of belief do not operate as single and separate units but are in continually shifting and recombining configurations marked by very complex interpenetration, conflict, and reformulation. 18 Wilkening, in developing a technique for assessing farm family values, notes that: While the definition of what values are varies with different ‘ writers there is general agreement that values: (1) are abstract concepts inferred from behavior, (2) operate to influence a 16Paulena Nickell and Jean M. Dorsey, Management in Family Living (New York: John Wiley and Son, 1959), p. 29. 17Kluckhohn, 92° c_i_t_., p. 428. ”Williams, 22. c_i_t_, p. 440. 11 selection of the available means and ends of action, and (3) have either favorable or unfavorable connotations for the well being ‘ of the individual or of the group.19 Values derive from symbol systems in cultural situations provid- ing the situation has value. They are expressed in beliefs, attitudes and motivations for action. They emerge from human interaction and pressures of the cultural environment. Values underlie decisions made. Values are a dynamic concept. Change in situations forces change in value systems; concomitantly, value systems bring about change in situations. In such a framework is this research pursued. 19Eugene A. Wilkening, "Techniques of Assessing Farm Family Values, " Rural Sociology, XIX (1954), p. 39. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Methodological Development Literature was reviewed to ascertain methodologies utilized for studying values. This chapter discusses that literature which was relevant to the development of instruments for this particular research study. If home management is concerned with the conscious mediation of a consciously chosen value system than identification of values becomes vitally important in maximizing the purposes of home manage- ment. At the developmental conference on "Values and Decision- Making in Home Management" McKee stated: The values problem may easily be the most significant intellectual problem of our time.1 No two families hold identical values. Value identification there- 'fore becomes a real problem in that every family must be able to bring their own values to a level of awareness. Ability to identify values is necessary if educators are to help family members increase their managerial ability. According to Ketchum: In order to select alternatives, the family needs to know or be aware of what they are working toward. Awareness of values 1William W. McKee, "Values in Home Management, " Proceedings of the Conference on Values and Decision-Making in Home Management, (East Lansing: Dept. of Home Management and Child Development, Michigan State University, 1955), p. 8. 12 l3 and converting them into action so that satisfaction can be achieved is a vital part of the managerial process.2 People have difficulty in verbalizing values and goals and often are not consciously aware that their actions and decisions are satis- fying any desirable end. For example, Honey3 gt a_._1. , found in a study of family financial decisions that seventy per cent of the husbands and sixty per cent of the wives were unableoto state a specific financial goal for the current year. Researchersé’ 5 have employed a number of techniques for probing the values particular groups of individuals hold. The literature supports the idea that values can be effectively studied or inferred through ob- served behavior and choice making in either actual or hypothetical situ-i ations. Sets of values or value systems have been established by researchers to assist them in developing instruments for bringing values to the level of awareness. The danger which looms with pre-established sets of values is that they probably are not all inclusive. The range of possible values is not likely to fit into a finite set of categories. Each researcher must therefore, delineate those values he wants to study and devise methods for their measurement. Parker6 developed a descriptive model for observing personal zFrances N. Ketchum, "A Study of Homemakers' Values as Reflected in Time Used for Family and Personal Activities, " (unpub- lished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1961), p. 12. 3Ruth Honey, Virginia Britton, and Alida S. Hotchkiss, Decision- Making in the Use of Family Financial Resources in a Rural Pennsylycg' nia Community (The Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Exp. Sta. Bulletin 643, March, 1959), p. 19. 4P. E. Vernon and G. W. Allport, "A Test for Personal Values, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXVI (1931). 5A. D. Woodruff, "The Relationship Between Functional and Verbalized Motives, " Journal of Educational Psychology, Feb. 1944. 6DeWitt H. Parker, Human Values (Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr, 1944), p. 46. 14 values which included: health, comfort, love, ambition, ethical value, knowledge, efficiency in work, play, art, and religion. Williams7 studied cultural values. He identified fifteen values for the American culture: achievement and success, activity and work, moral orientation, humanitarian mores, efficiency and practicality, progress, material comfort, equality, freedom, external comformity, science and secular rationality, nationalism--patriotism, democracy, individual personality, and racism. . Cutler8 researched values as they related to housing needs. She developed a forced choice instrument using the values of: beauty, com- fort, convenience, location, health, personal interest, privacy, safety, friendship activities and economy. Beyer9 also researched values as they related to housing. The Guttman scaling technique was employed to rank values. . He identified values of: family centrism, equality, physical health, mental health, economy, freedom, aesthetics, prestige and leisure. Kimball10 developed a ranking technique for studying personal values as they related to farm and home practices. They were: security, influence, repognition, helpfulness, freedom, new experience, friend- ship, family life, religion, orderliness and workmanship. 7Robin Williams, <3p_. C33." pp. 417-468. 8Virginia Cutler, Personal and Family Values in the Choice of a Home (Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Sta. Bulletin 840, November, 1947). p. 6. 9Glenn H. Beyer, 22. 93., p. 6. 10William James Kimball, "The Relationship Between Personal Values and the Adoption of Recommended Farm and Home Practices, " (unpublished Ph. D._ Dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1960). 15 Rank order tests used by Beyer11 and Kimball12 where one value is ranked over another in terms of preference helps to establish aware- ness of those values and a hierarchy among them. '\ \ . Forced choice tests were developed by Cutler” and Kimball. 1‘1 The forced choice technique used by Cutler and Kimball necessitates that the respondent makes one choice which is most important to him from two choices given in a situation. All values in a given set are paired in such a manner that the reSpondent is forced to choose between each value represented in the set. Beyer15 used a Guttman scale analysis16 technique where the order of statements dealing with a central value are so arranged that if the respondent agrees with a statement it is assumed he also agrees with statements previously listed in the order given. Aside from studying values through observation of behavior or appraising activity patterns, several studies have examined family expenditures to see what can be related to general value systems. Honey and Smith17 examined such expenditures in relation to the goals and attitudes of families and individuals who identified values held. Phelan18 also looked at family expenditures in relation to the satisfaction realized in terms of the values held by the family. “Beyer, pp. pip., p. 18. ”Kimball, pp. c_it_., p. 205. ”Cutler, pp. pip. pp. 8-16. ”Kimball, c_>p_. c_i_t_., pp. 208—214. 15Beyer, 22' 213., p. 36. 16Samuel A. Stouffer gt apl. , Measurement and Prediction (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950c), pp. 312-361. l7Ruth H. Honey and W. M. Smith, Jr. , Family Financial Manage- ment Experiences (The Pennsylvania State College Res. Pub. 113, ‘ > December, 1952). 16 Goals and values held by homemakers in regard to managerial activities were explored by Van Bortel and Gross19 in their study of the managerial practices, satisfactions and dissatisfactions of two groups of homemakers. Data were collected from interviews, rating scales, weekly time sheets and projective stories. Ketchum20 studied homemakers' values as they were reflected in family activities. Her sample consisted of fifty homemakers, all of whom were members of home extension groups. She adapted Kimball's rank order and forced choice tests. She interviewed the homemakers to find out what activities they had performed and why these activities were performed. The homemakers ranked twelve" selected values. Ketchum found that activities and reasons when classified into value categories correlated significantly with the instruments used for measuring values. Kohlmann21 developed an instrument to determine values of home- makers. A set of eight values was used and a forced choice instrument was built around them. Each value was paired with each other value three times and therefore was represented twenty-one times. 9” Rank order tests have proved effective in bringing values to a level of awareness. Forced choice tests establish a priority of values but choices must always be made between two values even though neither 18Jean McStea Phelan, "The Relative Importance of Five Values and the Satisfaction With Which They Were Realized in 93 Family Financial Plans" (unpublished Master's Thesis, .The Pennsylvania State University, 1959). 19Dorothy Greey Van Bortel and Irma H. Gross, A Comparison of Home Management in Two Socio-Economic Groups (Michigan State College, Agricultural Exp. Sta. Technical Bulletin 240, 1954). 20Ketchum, 22. cit. 21Eleanore L. Kohlmann, ”Development of an Instrument to Determine Values of Homemakers, “‘(Review from the Journal of Home Economics, March, 1962). 17 may be held at a significant level. Projective stories have proved effective but need more development. Method For this study homemakers' day-to-day activities were used as the behavioral situation. The interview method was used to get historical data and a description of the behavioral situation (activities) and reasons for why the situation existed. A rank order test, a series of projective stories and a technique that allowed the homemaker to categorically sort activities and accompanying reasons were administered. The rank order test was used to bring values to a level of awareness. The pro- jective stories were devised to elicit values of which the homemaker was not consciously aware or was unwilling to accept on the rank order test. Reasons were sought for each activity to discern the value. The results from the rank order test and the projective stories were used to compare any relationship between values so discerned and those values identified by categorizing activities and accompanying reasons. DeveIOping the Instruments An interview schedule (see Appendix, page 72) was developed to obtain background information about the family and about the preceding day's activities of the homemaker. ‘ Two open-ended questions were asked to obtain information about the activities. The questions were 2 modified from two used in the Ketchum study. 7' These questions were: How did you spend your time yesterday--from the time you got up 'til bedtime? and Why did you do these activities--what were the reasons ? m ZZKetchum, pp. Sip” p. 20, l8 Statements about the activities and reasons for performance were recorded by the interviewer. Blocks of one-half hour time intervals were used. A rank order value test was developed (see Appendix, page 72). The set of values used was patterned somewhat after those used by Beyer.Z3 The definitions were modified to apply to family activities. The nine values used were: health, family centrism, aesthetics, economy, education, religion, freedom, friendship, and prestige. These values were stated and defined with application given to family activities. Nine descriptive stories were developed (see Appendix, page 81). Raw data from the Ketchum study concerning the activities and reasons for the activities stated by the homemakers served as the major source for the statements in developing the projective stories. Each descriptive statement was classified according to the value it described. This was done by three graduate students working independently. Those state- ments which were not clearly associated with one particular value or caused disagreement were discarded. The remaining statements were arranged in story form and the "ordering" of the statements was dictated according to the degree with which it stressed the value. The degree of the value stressed increased as the story progressed. . In their final form each story described a homemaker who held one of the nine values in high priority. Each story related what the homemaker did and why she did it. A mechanical device was developed whereby homemakers could sort their reasons into value categories. Nine envelopes were attached to a manila folder, labeled with a value as described in the rank order test and arranged so all nine envelopes were equally visable. Activities and their accompanying reasons were placed into the envelopes by the homemakers. ”Beyer, pp. 9.13., pp. 7-17. 19 Pretests The open-ended questions, a rank order test and the projective stories were pretested. Members of an undergraduate section of a home management class, all of whom were young married women, were asked to answer the questions, fill out the activities form and give l; reasons for their home activities. Each student was asked to rank the values first, second and least descriptive of themselves. They also ranked the projective stories in the same way. In addition, the students were encouraged to make comments as to where they disagreed with the stories and what other course of action might have been taken. In this pretest the objectives were: to compare the results to see if the projective stories would correlate with the rank order test; to test the "ordering" of the statements in the projective stories in re- lation to the degree of the value held; and to gain knowledge of the workability of the activities form. A second pretest was done with graduate students in an informal seminar in home management. Only the rank order test and the pro- jective stories were used. The graduate students were asked to read and rank the values and projective stories and to add any criticism to improve the form of the instruments. These two pretests resulted in minor changes of the form on the rank order test. It was reduced from two pages to one page. , Some of the wording in the projective stories was changed for clarification. The modified schedule and instruments were pretested. A home- maker with one pre-school age child was selected and interviewed by the researcher. The pretest objectives were: to determine if reasons could be obtained and recorded by an interviewer with the schedule; if the reasons and activities as stated could be categorized by the home- maker; and if the rank order test and projective stories were clearly 20 understood by the homemaker. All of these objectives were realized and no changes were made in the schedule or instruments. The Sample The sample consisted of fifty selected homemakers who met the following criteria: 1. They were a part of a family consisting of husband, wife, two pre-school children. ~ 2. They were fulletime homemakers, non-student and not em- ployed outside the home. 3. Their residences were in the Michigan State University student apartments. 4. Their husbands were students at Michigan State University. Collection of the Data A telephone contact was made to each participating family to solicit cooperation and to set a time for the interview. Data for the study were obtained through personal interviews with each homemaker in her home. . During the interview the following procedures were followed: 1. Biographical information was secured. . Open-ended questions were asked. .. Homemakers responded to the rank order test. \ . Homemakers ranked the projective stories. . . Homemakers categorized reasons for activities performed Uer-wN into the value categories. Collecting the biographical data served a twofold purpose. First, it gave information to further describe the sample. Second, it served to establish general rapport between the researcher and respondent. The open-ended questions were asked and responses were recorded. 21 The rank order test was given to the homemaker. The directions were read aloud to her and opportunity was given to clarify instructions or answer questions. , Each homemaker chose two of the nine values which she considered were most important to her and ranked them one and two. From the remaining seven values she chose the one which was least important to her and checked it, essentially ranking it ninth. The projective stories were given to the homemaker. .As before, directions were read aloud and further explanations were given when necessary. The homemaker was told that final ranking was easier if she indicated generally which of the stories she felt described or failed to describe her. From the stories with which she agreed in part, two were chosen by the homemaker and ranked one and two according to the degree of agreement. From the stories she felt did not describe her she checked the one which she felt described her least. While the homemaker was choosing among the projective stories, the researcher separated the responses given concerning each activity with its accompanying reason. The homemaker was then given a mechanical sorting device (see page 19) and asked to read and classify each response she had given about activities and their reasons into an envelope labeled with a value category. This sorting of responses into value categories took from fifteen to sixty-five minutes per homemaker. Some homemakers were slow and indecisive about what value was 'right' for their activities and reasons; others showed no hesitation. . If the homemaker was unable to classify a reason, the researcher recorded them as "other" values mediated. The interviews were conducted in the morning, afternoon, or evening, depending upon the convenience of the homemakers. Activities were recalled for the day preceding the interview. Activities were recorded for 15 Sundays, 12 Mondays, 4 Tuesdays, 11 Wednesdays, and 8 Thursdays. No Friday or Saturday activities were collected because 22 interviewing was confined to week days. The interviews were collected in May and June of 1961. Analysis of Data The data were analyzed using descriptive and statistical techniques. The biographical information such as ages of children, education of the homemaker and family income was analyzed and described. Reasons for activities performed in each value category were counted and reported on a graphic profile. The number of values used by each homemaker to classify her reasons was described and examples of activities and reasons found in each value category were noted. The values selected by the homemakers on the rank order test and the projective stories were tabulated and described. Correlations between the rank order test, the projective stories and the categorized reasons were made using Spearman Rank Order Correlation (Rho). The numbers of reasons as categorized by the homemaker in each of the value categories served as the basis for ranking these values one through nine. The number of reasons was used as a matter of con- venience. This action can be justified because the homemaker had a choice in assigning reasons for activities to the value mediated and deleting the repetitive activities seemed to make little difference in the rank of the value. Relationships between the rank order tests, the projective stories and categorized reasons were summarized and inferences drawn con- cerning the results of the statistical correlation. CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE Selection of Sample The study was confined to families of like composition. Each family had a father, mother and two pre-school age children}? The mother was a full-time homemaker.z Such controlled specifications were important because the sample was being used as a part of a larger study of home management in homes of married students. It was also necessary to control the variable of the stage in the family life cycle. Only families representing the expanding stage in the family life cycle were selected. The population consisted of married students' families living in university housing at Michigan State University. The married student housing office and the student directory served as major sources for locating families that met the criteria specified. The student directory revealed the marital status and address of each student as of Fall term, 1960. Using these sources: 1. Single students and married students living ”off campus" (housing other than apartments provided by the university) were eliminated. 2. Student wives were identified as those with the same name and address as those of married male students. These families were 1Pre-school age: any child of ages from birth to and including the fifth year as long as they had not attended formal public or private school beyond nursery school. 2’Full-time homemaker: the majority of the homemaker's time Spent in the home, eliminating gainfully employed or student homemakers. 23 24 eliminated. At this stage knowledge was lacking about the ages and number of children, the employment position of the wife, and any changes in the married student population from the previous two terms. 3. Application forms made available by the married housing office gave number and ages of the children at the time of application by the families. Families having three or more children or no children were eliminated. The married student families in university housing numbered 1, .527.3 These were alphabetically listed and every fifth family on the list was contacted by telephone. Families were eliminated for the following reasons: (1) no answer after three attempts, (2) disconnected telephone, (3) change of address to off campus housing, (4) homemakers who were gainfully employed outside the home, (5) homemakers who were students, (6) children in the family number one, none and three or more, and (7) children in the family who were attending school. On the average, forty-atwo calls were made for each family that met the qualifications. Thirty-six homemakers were selected by the random telephone call selection. the remaining fourteen homemakers were acquaintances of the first thirty-six and known by them to meet the sample qualifications. These families were contacted by telephone. De 5 cription of Sample All families included a father, a mother, and two pre-school age children. Forty-two per cent of the families had one male and one female child (Table 1). 3The number included 1, 501 from the student directory and twenty- six furnished by the married student housing office. The number did not include those families where the homemaker was listed as a student in the directory. 25 Table 1. “Number and sex of children. Number and Sex Number of Per Cent of of Children Families Families (N = 50) 2 females 10 20 2 males 19 38 1 male and 1 female 21 42 Total 50 100 There were 100 children in the sample. The ages of the children ranged from under six months up to and including five years. The majority of the children (58 per cent) were between 18 months and 3. 9 years of age (Table 2). Table 2.--Ages of children. Number of Per Cent of Age Group Children Children (N = 100) 0- 5.9 months 10 10 6-11. 9 months 14 14 12-17.9 months 5 5 18-23.9 months 22 22 2- 2.9 years 22 22 3- 3. 9 years l4 l4 4- 5 years 13 13 Total 100 100 The ages of the homemakers are shown in Table 3. None was under eighteen nor over forty years of age. More than half of the homemakers were in the 22-25. 9 age group. 26 Table 3. --Ages of homemakers. Number of Per Cent of Age Group Homemakers Homemakers (N = 50) Under 18 years 0 0 18-21. 9 years 3 6 22-25.9 years 27 54 26-30.9 years 17 34 31-40 years 3 6 Over 40 years 0 0 Total 50 100 The educational level of the homemakers is shown in Table 4. All had had at least a high school education. Table 4. --Educational level of the homemakers. Highest Grade Number of Per Cent of Completed Homemakers Homemakers (N = 50) 12 years (High School) 15 30 1 year college 3 6 2 years college 8 16 3 years college ' 3 6 4 years college 14 28 Master's degree 1 2 Other 6 12 Total 50 100 27 The length of time the homemakers had been married is shown in Table 5. The range was from less than two to over ten years. Seventy-two per cent had been married from three to seven years. Table 5. --Number of years married. Number of Number of Per Cent of Years Homemakers Homemakers (N = 50) 1-1. 9 years 1 2 2w2. 9 years 4 8 3:3.9 years 11 22 4-4. 9 years 10 20 5-5. 9 years 6 12 6-6. 9 years 9 18 7-7. 9 years 4 8 8-8. 9 years 2 4 9-9. 9 years 2 4 10 and over 1 2 Total 50 100 The residences of the entire sample were similar. All families were renting temporarily while the husbands attended school. The rent included all utilities except telephone. The majority (98 per cent) were paying the same rent.4 The length of time at the present residence is shown in Table 6. The majority (56 per cent) had lived in the same apartment for one to three years. 4Rent figures on one or two bedroom units. Only one family of the entire sample lived in a single bedroom unit. 28 Table 6,--Number of years at present residence. m Numbe r of Number of Per Cent of Years Families Families (N = 50) Less than 1 year 9 18 1—1.9 years 14 28 2-2. 9 years 14 28 3-3.9 years 11 22 4—4. 9 years 2 4 5 and over 0 0 Total 50 100 The number of years the families had lived at a previous residence is shown in Table 7. The range of years was from less than one to over five. The majority (58 per cent) had lived at a previous residence for less than three years before returning to or beginning university study. Table 7. —-Number of years at previous residence. Numbe r of Number of Per Cent of Years Families Families (N = 50) Less than 1 year 4 8 1-1.9 years 16 32 2-2. 9 years 9 18 3-3.9 years 10 20 4—4. 9 years 3 6 .5 and over 3 6 Total 45* 90* >1: Five families had no residence previous to university apartments. 29 The location of previous residence is shown in Table 8. . Of the fifty families, five had had no residence other than university housing since marriage. Twenty-one families (42 per cent) had lived in other states than Michigan. Of these, sixteen families came to Michigan so the husbands could enroll in graduate work. Table 8. --Location of previous residence. Location of Previ- Number of Per Cent of ous Residence Families Families (N = 50) None established 5 10 Local Lansing Area 10 20 Out-state Michigan 14 28 Outside of Michigan 21 42 Total 50 100 Although husbands were students, data regarding their occupational aspirations were collected. The occupational aspirations are shown in Table 9. Sixty-two per cent aspired to enter an educational occupation. Table 9.--Occupational aSpirations of husbands. Occupational Number of Per Cent of Aspiration Husbands Husbands (N = 50) Professionalw‘ 4 8 Managerial 3 6 Educ ational" 31 .6 2 Other 10 20 Undecided 2 4 Total 50 100 ‘NOTE: professional refers to legal, medical, veterinarian and dental occupations. Educational occupations were recorded separately. 30 The student level of the husband is summarized in four categories in Table 10. The undergraduate category contained one sophomore, seven juniors, and eight seniors. Nearly two-thirds (66 per cent) of the husbands were at the master's or doctoral level. Table 10. --Student level of the husbands. Student Number of Per Cent of Level Husbands Husbands (N = 50) Undergraduate 16 32 Master's 14 28 Doctoral 19 38 Other 1 2 Total 50 100 The level of income ranged from below $2, 000 to above $7, 500. The level of income for these fifty families is summarized in Table 11. Seventy-two per cent had incomes in the $2, 000 to $3, 999 range. The income was reported for the current year while in school. Table l 1. --Family income. Number of Per Cent of Income Level Families Families (N = 50) Under $2, 000 2 4 $2, 000 to $2, 999 16 32 $3, 000 to $3, 999 20 40 $4, 000 to $4, 999 7 14 $5,000 to $7,499 3 6 $7, 500 to 10,000 1 2 Total 49* 98* "NOTE: one homemaker was unable to give family income. 31 The sources of income are shown in Table 12. The majority of the families had more than one source of income. Twenty-seven families had two income sources; six families had three income sources; and one family had four income sources. The largest source of income was employment. Table 12. -~Source of income. Source of Number of Per Cent of . Income Families Families (N 2: 50)” Savings/Investments 9 18 Her Parents Only 5 10 His Parents Only 4 8 Both Parents 6 12 Loans 4 8 Employment 40 80 Grants/Fellowships 4 8 G. I. 14 28 Other 6 12 ..—. “-o~ A :NOTE: The total number or total per cent is not meaningful here because the majority of families had more than one source of income. The sample qualifications dictated great resemblance for the families involved. All families lived in rented university furnished5 apartments. Fathers were full time students and mothers spent the majority of their time in the home. , Each family had two pre-school age children. 5The second bedroom of the two bedroom units was not furnished; childrens' furniture was the responsibility of the renter. 32 The families were alike in many other respects. The "average" family had children between 18 months and 3. 9 years of age. The home- maker was between 22 and 25. 9 years old, and had at least a high school education. Length of time married was three to seven years. The families had lived in university housing for one to three years, and in their previous residence for less than three years. The "average" husband was enrolled in graduate school and aspired to work in the field of education upon completion of his studies at the university. The family income was between $2, 000 and $3, 999 during the current year. The major source of this income was from employment of the husband and from G. l. benefits. These families appear to be like other student families in university housing.6 They are representative of married student families at a given time in history. They represent the expanding stage in the family life cycle. 6Marian Myers MacNab, ”Financial Management, " Journal of Home Economics (December, 1961), pp. 832-834. CHAPTER V VALUE CONTENT OF HOMEMAKERS' ACTIVITIES The homemakers were asked what activities they performed the day before the interview. For each activity the homemaker was asked to state a reason as to why the activity was performed. An analysis of these activities and accompanying reasons for performing them was made. The reasons were important in that they served to bring to a t verbal level of awareness means-goals which led to values. No attempt /: was made to record time spent in any activity; rather time intervals were used as a reference point to facilitate recall of activities. This chapter discusses the values assigned by the homemaker to her daily round of activities. The fifty homemakers performed a total of 2, 457 activities. The number of activities per homemaker ranged from 30 to 75 for the recalled day (Table 13). Forty-four per cent of the homemakers said they performed from 41 to 55 activities. The average number of activi- ties for the recalled day per homemaker was 49. 14. The reasons given by each homemaker for the activities performed were classified by her into value categories (see Chapter 111, page 19 for details of the device used). The operational purpose of the mechani- cal device was explained to the homemaker. It was emphasized that the homemaker was to examine each activity and reason for performing the activity (see Chapter III, page 22 for details of separating the responses) and ask herself what underlying value prompted her to perform this activity. In situations where the activity and the reason given for its performance had no relevance for the homemaker to any value category the homemaker was not forced to classify it. 33 34 Table 13. --Range in number of activities. Range in Number of Per Cent of Number Homemakers Homemakers (N = 50) 0-30 5 10 31-35 3 6 36-40 7 14 41-45 10 20 46-50 6 12 51-55 6 12 56-60 3 6 61-65 5 10 66-70 3 6 71-75 2 4 Total 50 100 Twenty-eight homemakers were able to categorize all of the reasons given for activities into value categories. Twenty-two home- makers failed to classify a total of 53 reasons. The homemakers categorized a total of 2, 404 reasons into nine value categories. The numbers of activities and their accompanying reasons were used by the researcher to assign rank to values. This arbitrary ranking, dependent on numbers of reasons, is justifiable in that the homemaker had choice as to the value to which each reason was assigned. An activity could have mediated one of several values. Different reasons (that is, different goals) were often given for the same kind of activity. Each activity, therefore, had value content in the framework of the reason given for its performance and for the particular homemaker who was involved. The reasons and value categories varied 35 with each homemaker as she considered the activity in reference to why it was performed: Activity Reason Value Category To put children “She (child) was being down for a nap too noisy for my husband Education to study" To put children "He (child) needed rest" Health down for a nap To put children "1 (mother) was tired" Freedom down for a nap Different activities mediated different values for the homemakers as they considered the same reason: Activity Reason Value Category "Fixed some lunch" It was time Health "Made the beds" It was time Aesthetics ”Dressed him (son) It was time Religion for church" Therefore it is meaningful to have knowledge about the reason for performance of an activity in order to elicit value content from activities. The number of reasons for activities performed and their value assignment is shown in Figure 1. Activities assigned to health were more than double the number of activities assigned to the second ranked value, aesthetics (Figure 1). About 79 per cent of the activities were classified into three value cate- gories: health, aesthetics and family centrism (Table 14). Twenty-one per cent of the activities were assigned to friendship, freedom, education, economy, prestige, and religion. The total number, per cent and average number of activities in each value category per homemaker is shown in Table 14. The average number of activities categorized by each homemaker was 48. 08 per recalled day. 36 1 Scale in Number Number of Reasons 1100_ 1000_ 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1087 469 i 346 ) 1L5 13‘ ~82 51. Value ,6, e '6 Q Q] .' 5’5 2‘6 6611 Figure 1. Number of reasons and value assignment. 37 Table 14. --Total number, per cent and average number of activities in nine value categories. Value Number of Per Cent of Average Number Category Activities Activities of Activities (N = 2404) per Homemaker (N = 50) f Health 1087 45. 22 21.74 7, Aesthetics 469 19.51 9.38 3 Family Centrism 346 . 14. 39 6. 92 7 Friendship 155 6.45 3.10 5/ Freedom 134 5. 57 2. 68 b Education 81 3. 37 1.62 7 Economy 52 2.16 l. 04 9 Prestige 49 2.04 .98 7 Religion 31 1.29 .62 Total 2404 100.00 48. 08 Description of Activities within Value Categories The total number of activities assigned to each value category by the homemakers was examined. This section describes the different kinds of activities which were interpreted by the homemaker as those mediating/the value described. It must be kept in mind that an activity could mediate more than one value depending upon why (for what reason) it was performed by the homemaker. Health. --Homemakers assigned 1087 activities (45. 22 per cent) as mediating the value of health (Table 14). This category ranked first in total number of activities. The homemakers averaged 21. 74 health activities per recalled day. The majority of the activities had to do with 38 meeting physical needs of the family. They centered around meal preparation, feeding family members and caring for the children-- washing hands, changing clothes, putting them down to nap. Aesthetics. --Homemakers cited 469 activities (19. 51 per cent) as mediating the value of aesthetics (Table 14). This category ranked second in total number of activities. The homemakers averaged 9. 38 activities. The majority (76 per cent) of these activities were concerned with household tasks such as picking up toys, making beds, washing dishes, vacuuming and laundering clothes so that the environment would express a certain aesthetic feeling. Family Centrism. --Homemakers assigned 346 activities (14. 39 per cent) to the value of family centrism (Table 14). The homemakers mediated family centrism through an average of 6. 92 activities. The majority of these activities were social in nature and involved other members of the immediate family. . Examples of these activities were: read stories to children, talked to children, helped husband organize a paper, played with children, watched television with the family and went on a picnic. Other types of activities which did not directly involve other family members were means toward a future interaction situation. Exemplary of this kind of activity was getting up in the morning to arrange for the whole family to eat breakfast together. Friendship. --One hundred fifty-five activities (6.45 per cent) were assigned to the value of friendship (Table 14). This was an average of 3. 10 activities per day per homemaker. . Considering the close proximity of the living units in the sample, the number of activities mediating friendship is significantly low. The friendship activities were social in nature and involved persons outside the immediate family. Activities cited were: going out with friends, having friends in, visiting, drinking coffee with friends and letter writing to friends and relatives. 39 Freedom. --One hundred thirty-four activities (5. 57 per cent) were assigned to the value of freedom (Table 14). An average of 2. 68 activities per day was devoted to fulfilling this value. Freedom was expressed in going out of the apartment for walks, rides and visits. The homemakers activities which mediated freedom often included the children; to be away from the house seemed to be the common criterion for activities assigned to this value. Twenty-one of these activities con- cerned the homemaker and her personal care: bathing, putting on make- up and combing hair. Education. --Eighty-one activities were assigned to this value (Table 14). The average was less than two activities per day per home- maker. These activities were informal kinds of educational pursuits such as reading newspapers and magazines. Eight activities out of the total performed by the fifty homemakers involved helping husbands with studies and only four activities were concerned with self study or formal educational improvement on the part of the homemaker. Economy. --Homemakers assigned 52 activities to the value of economy (Table 14). About one activity per day per homemaker was directed toward this value. The activities were mainly concerned with: saving money--doing laundry by hand... dying tennis shoes, making clothes; earning money--baby sitting, giving a permanent; and saving goods-- changing childrens‘ clothes, doing dishes once a day to save soap, patch- ing pants. Prestige. --Homemakers assigned 49 activities (2. 04 per cent) to the value of prestige (Table 14). An average of one activity per day was devoted to this value. These activities had to do with changing to appropriate clothes, having clean clothes for self and family and main- taining a clean and neat appearing house. One homemaker attended church to mediate the value of prestige. 40 Religion. --Homemakers assigned 31 activities to the value of religion (Table 14). These activities pivoted around church attendance or events; getting ready, going to, coming from church. Two home- makers mentioned nightly prayers and grace at the table. It seems evi- dent that religion was nearly always mediated on Sunday if at all. Few activities mediating religion were performed on week days. Reasons for Activities within Value Categories Homemakers were asked to state reasons for the activities and to assign these reasons to specific value categories. The following section discusses the reasons given and their value assignment. The homemakers used nine value categories in classifying reasons. The possible number of value categories ranged from one to nine. The number of homemakers using each possible number of categories is shown in Table 15. One homemaker used one value--health, to classify all of her reasons. Another homemaker used all nine values to classify her reasons. The majority used five, six, or seven value cate— gories for classification. The number of reasons assigned to each of the value categories ranged from 0 to 51 (Table 16). The total number of reasons stated by the homemakers was analyzed and described into each of the nine value categories. Health. --All homemakers assigned at least six reasons to the mediation of health. Health was the only value category used by all of the homemakers (Table 16). The homemakers varied in the kinds of reasons they gave for activities which they assigned to health. . Home- makers viewed health as having both physical and mental aspects. In placing the reasons for' activities performed in the health category the following are typical examples: 41 Table 15. --Number of values used in categorizing. == Number of Values Number of Per Cent of Possible Homemakers Homemakers (N = 50) 1 1 2 2 0 0 3 2 4 4 2 4 5 18 36 6 8 l6 7 10 20 8 8 16 9 1 2 Total 50 100 Activity Reason Went to the grocery store "To get some needed groceries. " Gave son a cookie "He'll go better if he has a snack and is not overly hungry at supper- time. " Pulled out toys for son "I wanted him to play while I ironed." Had coffee ”To give myself a lift. " Put baby on pottie ”I'm training her. " Put son to bed "He was tired and it was his bed- time." It can be noted that a number of reasons indicated that the home- maker felt the activities associated with health were routine and allowed little or no choice. Two hundred forty-five (22. 5 per cent) of the reasons were stated as "routine, it was time, " "I always do, " "I have to. " 42 no 0. O. O. .0 0. O. O. H Nm-ov .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. wetmv .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H 31:» .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. A oeuhm .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. m omumm .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H N Nmuom .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H w wmtmm .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. w wNuHN .. .. .. .. .. .. N N Na out: . . . . . . . . . . . . v o a can: . . H . . . . .N H 2 a: v Nana H N m a. E .3 m: S H w ..m 2 3 S on -3 3. ma .6. .. a. -2 mm mm om om : 2 m N ..._ ecoZ sowwflem oWflmeunH >Eonoom eoflmo Eopmmnh mEm 83.3260 .moflefimeds Buamom -spm sepia smash ”mo $335 05 oh mCOmMmm wchcmhmmaq. mymxmfieaom mo uenESZ. $5852 a: wwcmm .mofinomoumo 633/ on posmwmmd memmou Ho .5983: ch emsmmln A: 3an. 43 The majority of reasons concerned meeting needs of the children, husband or homemaker herself. Aesthetics. --Forty-three homemakers classified five or more reasons for activities performed as mediating the value of aesthetics (Table 16). Homemakers stated a total of 94 reasons (20 per cent) as "routine, " "habit, " or "time that I usually do it. " About the same per cent of reasons was found in the health category. These seem to indi- cate little or no choice for those activities mediating aesthetics. Some homemakers gave reasons which indicated that the activity was an expected part of their homemaker role; for example, "its my job, " or' "it's what I should do. " The reasons attached to activities assigned to the value of aesthetics seemed to be task oriented. The following are examples: Activity Reason Empty ash trays ”They were full--my husband is a heavy smoker. " Scrubbed and waxed floors "A routine--I do it every week. " Pick up toys "To get them out of the way. " Changed the beds "It's what I do every Thursday. ” Picked up dishes "I don't like a mess on the table. " Swept the kitchen floor "It was dirty. " FamilLCentrism. --Thirty-four homemakers stated at least five reasons for activities which : they said mediated family centrism (Table 16). "Routine" was the reason given for twelve activities (3. 5 per cent). It is reasonable to assume then, that homemakers are more consciously aware of why they perform activities mediating family centrism. The majority of the activities mediating family centrism seemed to be per- ‘ formed for reasons of enjoyment, companionability, and helpfulness. These activities were, for the most part, interactional with the homemaker 44 and one or more other family members. Examples of activities and reasons which were categorized as mediating family centrism are: Activity Reason Played on merry-go-round "Our son really enjoys it. " Ate breakfast "I enjoy eating with my husband. " Went on a picnic "We all enjoy the animals at the park." Let the children play "It helps them grow socially. " together Listened to my daughter "She likes to read to me. " read. Watched a T. V. show "Our family watches this one together. " Friendship. --Fifteen homemakers gave five or more reasons for activities mediating the value of friendship (Table 16). . No reasons were stated as ”routine. " The reasons stated for activities furthering friendship expressed social interaction with people outside the family. Examples of activities and reasons are: Activity Reason Had coffee with a neighbor "To be sociable. " Sat around with a neighbor's "We thought it would help her sick child morale. " Visited with a friend "I enjoy talking--we have a lot in common. " Had a guest in to visit "We had things to talk about. " Went to a friend's home "My daughter enjoys playing with her daughter. " Freedom. --Thirteen homemakers stated five or more reasons for activities mediating freedom (Table 16). No reasons were cited as "routine. " Homemakers gave "personal comfort" or "personal enjoy- ment" as reason for 30 per cent of activities. Other reasons for 45 activities performed to mediate freedom expressed the idea that the homemakers performed activities because "they wanted to, " "it was something new, and "relaxation. ' Specific examples are: Activity Reason I sewed "I like to sew. " Put son down in his bed "I was hoping he'd go to sleep. " Mixed up a cake "I just felt like it. " Made kool-aid and chips "We were all hungry for kool-aid and chips. " I went shopping "I like to shop on double stamp day.” Visited a neighbor "I hadn't been over for some time. " Had coffee with a friend "We felt we deserved it. " The reasons stated for activities mediating freedom indicate that reasons for these activities are difficult to describe. Education. --Thirty homemakers stated reasons for activities which reflected this value (Table 16). Ten reasons (12. 3 per cent) were stated as "routine. " About half of the total reasons stated were for "enjoyment" or “to gain knowledge (daily informal information). " Other reasons for activities performed to mediate education were: Activity Reason I read the paper "I like to have knowledge about what's going on. " Proof read my husband's "It makes me feel useful. " papers Watched T. V. news "To find out the important happen- ings of the day. " Read a magazine “I enjoy reading. " The reasons stated for activities mediating education were interest- ing in that there was little or no evidence that these homemakers were interested in furthering their own formal education. 46 Economy. --Twenty homemakers stated reasons for activities mediating the value of economy (Table 16). . None were stated as ”routine. " Reasons stated for activities mediating economy indicated the immediate need to save. Examples are: Activity Reason Sat with two other children "We need the money. " Went to mother's to wash "Wash at mother's to save money. " Made a meat loaf "I had some hamburger that needed to be us ed." The reasons stated for activities mediating economy were character- istic of short term goals. Few reasons indicated that economy was held as high priority as a value. Prestige. --Seventeen homemakers stated reasons for activities to mediate this value (Table 16). . No reasons were stated as "routine. " Reasons which were given dealt with "appearances. " Examples were: Activity Reason Put a table cloth on the table "We had company. " I dressed "Didn't feel a bathing suit was appropriate for a picnic. " Took a sunbath ”I like to have a tan. " Changed clothes "I wanted to wear casual clothes for our outing. " Religion. --Thirteen homemakers stated reasons for activities performed mediating the value of religion (Table 16). . Although home“.- makers assigned the fewest activities and reasons toward the mediation of religion the reasons stated are important in that they were consistently intrinsic (religion for religion's sake) rather than instrumental in nature. Examples were: Activity Attended church Went to evening church Went to church Listened to childrens' prayers "It's our belief. " Reason "We were taught to attend. " "We think religion is important. " “I feel it is important. " A summary of reasons stated by the fifty homemakers for the activities they performed in a recalled day is shown in Table 17. Table 17. --Total reasons stated and assigned by homemakers to nine value categories. Value Number of Per Cent of Homemakers Reasons Reasons (N=2404) Stating Health 1087 45. 22 50 Aesthetics 469 19. 51 48 Family Centrism 346 14. 39 47 Friendship 155 6. 45 39 Freedom 134 5.57 33 Education 81 3. 37 30 Economy 52 2.16 20 Prestige 49 2. 04 17 Religion 31 1. 29 13 More reasons were stated for activities mediating health and aesthetics than for all other value categories combined. Thirty or more home- makers used health, aesthetics, family centrism, friendship, freedom and education for categorizing their activities and accompanying reasons. The fifty homemakers were asked what activities they performed and what were the reasons for their performance. Activities and reasons were described in terms of the value categories to which they 48 were assigned. The findings are significant in that they support the idea that day-to-day activities performed by homemakers have value content. Observing behavioral situations alone does not reveal under- j lying values. Verbalization of reasons tends to bring to a level of awareness homemakers motives for action. Activities, therefore, based on their reasons (motives) seemed to have value content for the s e fifty homemakers . CHAPTER VI RANKING OF VALUES The homemakers ranked nine values using three different tech- niques: a rank order test, projective stories and a meChanical device for sorting activities and their accompanying reasons into value cate- gories. The homemakers' activities and accompanying reasons were counted (see Appendix, page 89). The values were ranked one through nine according to the number of reasons assigned by the homemakers ' to each of the value categories. If the same number of reasons was assigned to two or more value categories by a homemaker, no attempt was made to split the tie. All fifty homemakers ranked the health value either first or second (Table 18). Aesthetics and family centrism were ranked from first through seventh. Friendship, prestige, and religion were ranked second through eighth. Only economy and freedom appeared in the ninth rank. The homemakers assigned too few reasons to education to have it rank either first or second. . Rank Order Test. In the rank order test, values were listed and described (see Appendix, page 80). The homemaker was asked to read all nine value descriptions, choose the one which was most important”. to her and rank it first, choose the one which was next in importance to her and rank it second. From the remaining seven values she was asked to choose the one which was least important to her and check it or essentially to rank it ninth. Family centrism, health and religion were ranked first or second by most of the homemakers (Table 19). Aesthetics, prestige and 49 50 . . m a. m m N N a . . seamenm . . N m 6 n 6 a N . . passed a 6 m a a a. N a . . afioeoem o m S 2 2 N N .. .. eoseuapm . a , N m 6 m 62 N N . . Espesnm .. N m s S S 2 m .. assesses; . . .. a a a 2 ON 2 2 82.3.80 sesame .. .. a N 6 a 62 NN 2 66365664 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. N we spasm ex. £6 .3 £6 £6 fie ppm EN ”.2 msfiufinomoumO muoxmgoaom mo ponasz >6. posfianopefl Momm 63m> .mQOmdon mofiuiomeU mnmxmaogoa mo songs: 0» msfipuooom poxsmp mmam> .wH 3an 51 freedom were ranked in lowest priority by most of the homemakers. Friendship, aesthetics and freedom were not placed in first rank. All values were selected one or more times as either first or second choices by some homemakers. Three values, family centrism, health and education were not placed in lowest priority by any homemaker (Table 19). The other six values: religion, friendship, economy, aesthetics, prestige and freedom were selected one or more times as least important. Freedom was ranked by 29 homemakers as the least important value. Table 19. --Number of homemakers placing values in first, second and least choice by rank order. Number of Homemakers First ' SecOnd L'e'ast Value Choice ' Choice Choice Family Centrism 23 11 . Health 14 6 . Religion 7 9 2 Education 1 8 . Friendship 8 1 Economy 4 4 2 Aesthetics . . l 4 Prestige 1 1 12 Freedom . . 2 29 Projective Stories. The projective stories consisted of nine descriptions about fictious homemakers each of whom held one value extremely high (see Appendix, page 81). Each homemaker was asked to read all nine stories indicating as she read whether the description fitted her or not. From those that she felt described her, she was 52 asked to rank as first the one story that best described her, and, as second the one that next best described her. From those stories which did not describe her she selected the one that described her least and ranked it ninth. Half of the homemakers selected the story describing a home- maker who held family centrism as the highest value as best describing them (Table 20). In second choice ranking, the ”story of the homemaker holding religion as the highest value was selected most often. . Sharing third place equally were stories describing homemakers who held family centrism, education and friendship as highest valuesfi The stories built around prestige and freedom as values were neither selected as a best nor next best descriptions of any of the homemakers. Table 20. --Number of homemakers placing values in first, second and least choice by projective stories. Number of Homemakers First Second Least Value Choice Choice Choice ‘ Family Centrism 25 8 Health 8 6 Religion 6 1 1 3 Education 2 8 Friendship 2 8 2 Economy 1 3 1 Aesthetics 6 6 1 Prestige . . . . 13 Freedom . . . . 30 53 Thirty homemakers indicated that the story built around freedom as a value was least like them. Stories pivoting around prestige, religion, friendship, economy and aesthetics as values were also low (Table 20). The stories centering around family centrism, health and education as values were not selected as least choices by any of the homemake r s . Assigned Activities and Accompanying Reasons. The homemakers placed reasons for activities into nine value categories. Each category was defined and described in the same manner as in the rank order test. The numbers of homemakers placing values in first and second choice according to the numbers of categorized activities is shown in Table 21. .All homemakers ranked health either first or second. Over half of the homemakers' ranked aesthetics first or second. Family centrism was ranked first by one homemaker and second by 28 home- makers. Six values received no first place rankings. Education was the only value which was not ranked either first or second. Correlation of First Choices. Rank order correlations were determined for three comparisons: rank order test and projective stories; rank order test and categorized reasons; projective stories and categorized reasons. . When the first choices of the rank order test and the projective stories were compared the same two values emerged. Family centrism was consistently placed in top priority and health was consistently placed in second priority (Table 22). Prestige and freedom were in the bottom three rankings on both tests. Six values were selected one or more times in the rank order test while seven were selected in the projective stories. The first choices of the rank order test and the projective stories were correlated using Spearman Rank Order Correlation.1 The rank 1N. M. Downie and R, W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods (New York: Harper and Brother, 1959), Pp. 178-179. 54 Table 21. --Number of homemakers placing values in first and second choice by ranking reasons. _: 4r Number of Homemakers First Second Value Choice Choice Total Health 48 2 50 Aesthetics 1 28 29 Family Centrism 1 19 20 Friendship . . 3 3 Freedom . . 2 2 Education . . . . . Economy . . 1 l Prestige . . 2 2 Religion . . 1 1 order coefficient .625 indicates that there is significant correlation between the rank order test and the projective stories. When the first choices of the rank order test and the categorized reasons were summarized, family centrism and health were common to the three highest ranked values (Table 23). Friendship and freedom were common to the values ranked seventh. or below. The first choices of the rank order test and categorized reasons were correlated using Spearman Rank Order Correlationz in Table 23. The rank order coefficient. 512 indicates that there is significant correlation between the two tests. The . 512 coefficient was the lowest correlation between any of the tests used. Rank order test and cate- gorized reasons are devices used to indicate the two ends of the home- make r involvement continuum . ZIlsid. 55 Table 22. --Rank order correlation of rank order test and projective stories. ——_ 1- m —M L Number of Homemakers Selecting the Value as First Choice Rank Projective Value Order Stories R1 R2 Di D2 Family Centrism 23 25 1 1 0 0. Health 14 8 2 2 0 0 Religion 7 6 3 3. 5 . 5 . 25 Education 1 2 5 5 5. 5 0 0 Friendship 2 8 5. 5 2. 5 ' 6. 25 Economy 4 l 4 7 3 9 Aesthetics . .. 6 8 3. 5 4. 5 20. 25 Prestige 1 . . 5. 5 8. 5 3 9 Freedom . . - . . 8 8.5 .5 .25 (2132) = 45.00 r = .625 The correlation of first choices of the projective stories and the categorized reasons are shown in Table 24. Family centrism and health were held in high priority on both tests. The values of economy, prestige and freedom appeared in the lower four ranks of both tests. . Spearman Rank Order Correlation3 was used to compare the pro- jective stories and categorized reasons. The rank order coefficient . 804 indicated there is significant correlation between how these home- makers see themselves and how they categorize their reasons into similar value categories. The test evidence seems to indicate the more projective the instrument the more likely it is to reveal the values of the individual being tested, in this case, the homemaker. 3Ibid. 56 Table 23. --Rank order correlation of rank order test and categorized reasons. W Number of Homemakers Selecting the Value as First Choice Rank categorized ' Value Order Reasons R1 R2 ' Di D2 Family Centrism 23 ’ 1 1 2. 5 1. 5 2. 25 Health 14 48 '2 - l 1 1 Religion 7 . . 3 6.5 3.5 12.25 Education 1 . . 5. 5 6. 5 1 1 Friendship 6.5 1.5 2.25 Economy 4 . . 4 6.5 2.5 6.25 Aesthetics . . 1 8 2.5 5.5 30.25 ‘ Prestige 1 . . 5.5 6.5 1 1 Freedom .. .. 8 6.5 1.5 2.25 (ZDZ) = 58.50 r = . 512 Although the projective stories were hypothetical situations, the sources of the stories were taken from actual situations involving home- makers (see Chapter III). The projected involvement by the homemaker resulted in a more positive correlation than was evident in tests lacking similar association i. e. , rank order test and categorized reasons. Cgrrelation of the Least Choices. A least choice correlation between the rank order and the projective stories was determined using the Spearman Rank Order Correlation.‘ (Table 25). ' " The same value, freedom, emerged at least choice of both tests. Prestige followed freedom in lowest priority. . Family centrism, health and education were not selected on either test as a least desired choice. ' 4161a. 57 Table 24.--Rank order correlation of projective stories and categorized reasons. = m Number of Homemakers Selecting the Value as First Choice Projective Categorized Value Stories Reasons R1 R2 Di DZ Family Centrism 25 1 l 2. 5 l. 5 2. 25 Health 8 48 2 1 1 1 Religion 6 ' . . 3.5 6.5 3 9 Education 2 5. 5 6. 5 l 1 Friendship 2 5. 5 6. 5 1 1 Economy 1 . . 7 6. 5 5 25 Aesthetics 6 1 3. 5 2. 5 1 1 Prestige . . . . 8.5 6.5 i 2 4 Freedom .. .. 8.5 6.5 2 4 (éDZ) = 23.50 r = .804 Religion, friendship, economy and aesthetics were selected by four or fewer homemakers as least choice on both tests. The correlation coefficient .887 is a highly significant indicator that homemakers seem to know what they do not desire. However, values held in lowest priority may be influenced by social acceptability and consistent ranking of such values as least desirable may be partially the product of cultural acceptance. Spearman Rank Order Correlation was used to compare statistically the three instruments used in ranking of values. The resulting co- efficients showed: 58 Table 25. --Rank order correlation of least choices of rank order test and projective stories. Number of Homemakers Selecting the Value as Least Choice Rank Projective Value Order Stories R1 R2 Di D.2 Family Centrism 8 8 0. 0 Health . 8 8 0. 0 Religion 2 3 4. 5 3 1 5 2 25 Education 8 8 0 0. Friendship 1 2 6 4 2 4 Economy 2 1 4 5 5. 5 l l Aesthetics 4 l 3 5 5 2.5 6 25 Prestige 12 13 2 2 0. 0 Freedom 29 30 l 1 0. 0 (€ D2) = 13.50 r = . 887 ‘ 1. high correlation between what homemakers say they value (rank order test) and how they perceive themselves (projective stories); 2. low, but still significant correlation between what homemakers say they value (rank order test) and how they categorize their reasons into value categories; 3. very high correlation between how homemakers perceive them- selves (projective stories) and how they categorize their reasons into value categories; and, 4. high correlation in what homemakers say they value least (rank order test) and their least choice value as identified in the projective stories. 59 The values of family centrism and health appeared in the top three ranks of all three tests. Religion was held high on the rank order test and projective stories, but homemakers apparently did not per- form daily activities to support this since the value of religion was assigned below third rank when the homemakers classified their reasons. Homemakers ranked aesthetics low in the rank order test but high in categorized reasons; higher correlation appeared in projective stories and categorized reasons. Freedom and prestige appeared as the least and next to the least values in the rank order test and projective stories. Least choice values correlated more significantly than any of the positive choice value correlations. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This study of fifty” homemakers in the expanding stage of the family life cycle gave some insights into identifying underlying values concerning a day's activities, the motives as verbalized by reasons given for those activities and the ranking of nine selected values. The values used were family centrism, health, aesthetics, freedom, friendship, education, economy, prestige and religion. Value Content of Homemakers' Activities These 50 homemakers were able to recall an average of 49. 14 activities for each previous day. The total number of activities ranged from 30 to 75. Nearly 80 per cent of the total reasons reported for activities fell into three value categories: health (1087), aesthetics (469), family centrism (346). Many of the health reasons were con- cerned with daily care of family members. The data from this limited sample seems to indicate that activities centering around keeping the family healthy were more important to homemakers than growth in interactional activities among family mem- bers. Although the entire sample had husbands attending the university, the wives seemed to allocate little time to educational activities. Perhaps homemakers relinquish their own educational values when they take on the mother role in the expanding stage of the family life cycle. 60 61 Ranking of Values The three techniques used to rank values were a rank order test, projective stories and a mechanical device for categorizing of reasons by the homemakers. Family centrism and health values appeared in the top three ranks of all tests. Religion and education were held high on the rank order test but this did not hold true when homemakers placed reasons into value categories. The number of reasons assigned by each homemaker to each value category was counted. The number served as a basis for ranking the values one through nine. Most of the homemakers used about six value categories when classifying their reasons. Both extremes were reached, however, as one homemaker used only one category and one homemaker used all nine categories when classifying reasons. All fifty homemakers ranked the health value either first or second according to the number of reasons they categorized. The homemakers assigned too few reasons to education to have it rank either first or second. Spearman Rank Order; Correlation was us ed to determine the relationship between the three ranking devices. Four correlations were, made. The results in correlating the first choice values Showed: a coefficient .625 between the rank order test and the projective stories; a coefficient . 512 between the rank order test and the categorized reasons; and a coefficient .804 between the projective stories and the categorized reasons. These correlation coefficients indicate: that the more pro- jective the instrument the more likely it is to reveal the values underlying the actual behavioral situations of these homemakers. A least choice correlation was made between the rank order test and the projective stories; a coefficient .887 resulted. This correlation strongly indicates that homemakers seem to know what they feel is least desirable. 62 Hypothes e s The hypotheses formulated for the study were partially supported by the findings. The hypothesis that ”Students' wives will place the value of family centrism in highest priority" was supported by the rank order test and the projective stories. The findings revealed, however, that the greatest number of activities performed were those that directly related to health. Homemakers when assigning reasons for their actual behavior gave the health value first priority. A question arises relative to attempting to rank priority of values on the basis of number of reasons. The hypothesis that "Students' wives will place the value of freedom in lowest priority" was supported by the rank order test and the pro- jective stories. The findings revealed, however, that the fewest number of activities performed were those that directly related to religion. Reasons concerning freedom were assigned to fifth priority by the home- makers. The hypothesis that "Reasons given by students' wives for day-to- day activities will reflect family values" was supported significantly by the findings . CHAPTER VIII IMPLICATIONS No single research activity stands alone. . It must have ties with the past and future. Implications must be recognized in accord with the support that a specific project has given to past assumptions and likewise should indicate researchable problems for the future. Home management focuses on the family, its resources and values that serve as criteria for judging the achievement of its goals. This study has attempted to explore those values that motivate homemakers in managing family activities. The findings reported herein have significance for the understanding of these phenomena. The purpose of this chapter is to raise questions and draw implications for research. Few previous studies have specifically addressed themselves to exploring homemakers' values as reflected in their day-to-day activities and motives or reasons for action. This research seems to support the theoretical framework that there is value content in everyday activities and that homemakers do in fact mediate their values through these activities. Further, it is hoped that this study with all its recog- nized limitations may serve as a bench mark for further 'research in depth' in this area. Further Research Further research may explore value systems of individual families to establish their origin. . If it can be established why values are held ii} a particular hierarchy and where their impact originated as in family, 63 64 peers or formal education, then educators in the field of home economics and elsewhere can reinforce, maintain or otherwise shape the value I patterns of present and future homemakers to strengthen the American family as an institution where basic and vital choices among values must be made. The findings of this study suggest as Rokeach1 it rapl. , are suggesting, that decision-making is not necessarily a rational process--man is as rational as need be, as irrational as he can be. Values, as a basis of managerial action, may be held because the society dictates their popu- larity at that point in time. For example, currently, importance has been placed on togetherness of the family. Homemakers maintained in this study that activities that united the family into a strong social unit were important in their system of values. Further examination of these homemakers' reasons for activities performed revealed that health and general well being for themselves and family members took priority over 'family centered' activities.. Further research might examine such inconsistencies in the verbalized value and those contained in action. The work of Festinger2 pt apl. , in cognitive dissonance may have rele- vance for understanding this phenomenon. In this study of homemakers, it was assumed that her activities and reasons for action which she gave would serve as indices of family values. This may or may not be true. . Further study which. included the husband and other family members would strengthen the findings and as sumptions held herein. 1Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books, Inc. , 1960). ZLeon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1957). 65 Further Development of Methodological Techniques The findings of this study indicate the creditability of using pro- jective techniques as a method for identifying family values. Higher correlations resulted with the projective stories than with the rank order test when compared with categorized reasons of the homemakers. No single research will validate a method. The projective stories should be tested in further research using similar samples, similar samples with one variable changed, different samples and different stages of the family life cycle. Reliable and valid methods are essential in scientific research. The instruments used in other studies for identification of values: (1) force'd Choice tests'and’ role internalization--how the homemaker sees herself, (2) twenty statements test3 combined with refined projective stories may serve further researchers with effective implements for helping families identify and clarify values. Further Analysis of the Data The data collected for this Study were analyzed for the purpose of comparing the values assigned by the homemakers using three dif- ferent techniques. Further analysis could be done by comparing values of homemakers to income levels of the family, age of the homemakers, occupational aspiration of the husbands. 3Manford H. Kuhn and Thomas S. McPartland, "An Imperical Investigation of Self Attitudes" American Sociological Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, (Feb., 1954). pp. 68-78. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Blood, Robert O. , Jr. , and Wolfe, Donald M. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1957. Flewelling, Ralph. The Things That Matter Most. New York: Ronald Press, 1946. - Geiger, George. Philosophy and the Social Order. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1947. Goodyear, Margaret R. , and Klohr, Mildred C. Management for Effective Living. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1954. Gross, Irma H. , and Crandall, Elizabeth W. .Manggement for Modern Families. . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,. Inc. , 1954. Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Values and Value-Orientation in the Theory of Action, " Toward a General Theory of Action. . Edited by Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951. Lee, Dorothy. Freedom and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. , 1959. Malone, Carl C. , and Malone, Lucile Holaday. Decision Making and Management for Farm and Home. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1958. Nickell, Paulena, and Dorsey, Jean Muir. Management in Family Living. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1959. 66 67 Parker, DeWitt H. Human Values. Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr, 1944. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960. Stouffer, Samuel A. , gt apl. Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950. Williams, Robin M. American Society, A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960. Articles Hill, Edna H. , "Human Values in Home Economics, " Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 47 (October, 1955), pp. 592-594. ‘/Kohlmann, Eleanore L. "Development of an Instrument to Determine Values of Homemakers, " Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 54 (March, 1962). S Kuhn, Manford H. , and McPartland, Thomas S. "An Imperical Investi- gation of Self Attitudes, " American Sociological Review, Vol. 19 (February, 1954), pp. 68-78. Lee, Dorothy. . "The Individual in a Changing Society, " Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 52 (February, 1960), pp. 79-82. VP/aolucci, Beatrice, and O'Brien, Carol. ”Management: The Importance of Values, " Forcast far-Home Economics, Vol. .78 (June, 1960), pp. 43-44. Vernon, V. E. , and Allport, G. W. "A Test for Personal and Verbal- ized Motives, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, v61. 26 (1931). Wilkening, Eugene A. "Techniques of Assessing Farm Family Values, " Rural Sociology, Vol. 19 (1954), p. 54. u-‘Woodruff, A. D. "The Relationship Between Functional and Verbalized Motives, " Journal of Educational Psychology, (February, 1944). 68 Unpublished Mate rial Davis, Mildred Jean. "Decision-Making in Relation to the Performance of Household Activities in New York State Homes. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1957. Ketchum, Frances Nettie. "A Study of Homemakers' Values as Reflected in Time Used for Family and Personal Activities. " Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1961. , Kimball, William James. . "The Relationship Between Personal Values and the Adoption of Recommended Farm and Home Practices. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1960. McKee, William W. ”Values in Home Management. " Proceedings of Conference on values and Decision-Making in Home Management. Department of Home Management and Child Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing (July, 1955), pp. 8-15. (Mimeographed.) Millar, Pamelia Lott. "A Pilot Study of Patterns in Home Management Over a Period of Three Generations in a Select Group of Families. " Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1959. Bulletins Beyer, Glenn H. Housing and Personal Values. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Memoir 364 (July, 1959). Beyer, Glenn H., Mackesey, Thomas, and Montgomery, James. Houses are for People--A Study of House Buyer Motivations. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Housing Research. Publication Number 3 (1959). Cutler, Virginia F. Personal and Family Values in the Choice of a Home. Ithaca,-- New York: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 840 (Nov. , 1947). Honey, Ruth, Britton, Virginia, and Hotchkiss, Alida. Decision-Making in the Use of Family Financial Resources. University Park, Penn.: Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 643 (March, 1959). 69 Honey, Ruth H. , and Smith, W. M. Jr. Family Financial Management Experiences. Pennsylvania State College Research Publication 113 (December, 1952). Van Bortel, Dorothy Greey, and Gross, Irma H. A Comparison of Home Management in Two Socio-Economic Groups. . East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Home Economics, Technical Bulletin 240 (1954). APPENDIX I INTERVIEW SCHEDU LE 70 71 Schedule Number Date of Interview , 1961 Day of Name Activities: 8 M T W Th F Length of Address Interview to 72 (1) No. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Background Information: I. Persons in the family husband wife children other II. III. IV. VI. VII. NUmber of children male Educa l-‘UNQNO‘O fl 0 female to 5.9 months to 11.9 months to 17.9 months 23.9 months to 2.9 years to 3.9 years to 5 years Number of years married tion of homemaker (grade ‘completed) grade School high school junior college college Age 0 other f homemaker under 17.9 18 to 21.9 22 to 25.9 26 to 30.9 31 to 40.9 Over 40 NUmber of years at present residence VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. Previous residence where how long Cccupatlonal aspiration of husband professional, identify managerial educational other Student position of husband undergraduate graduate special Employment of husband full time part time occasionally graduate assistant Family income (current year) under $2,000 $2,000 to $2,999 $3,000 to $3,999 $4,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 to $10,000 of current income savings/investments parents, hers parents, his parents, both loans employment grants, fellows, etc. other 3’ I: H n m ..‘M n I . O '.. ..o 0 , . . O ,. l .. .. rpa’ \ u o g -1 \ ., o ‘ ' l ~ I f l o 1 IL: I. ..'1 - .. .c" ufu‘ ct ‘ ’. ‘3. _.. . .7 nr'.- ..: l’>' .. ‘ u...- .. l . . , .. ,. . . l . . --q C l' . . . a . , . ... w 0! o ’ ‘9 in..-.: - ‘ . . *—0.-- H...- . o..- - ‘ ,- . . ‘. v.. . f . . . -. 1 3" I . .. . ._ . . . _. _. .. -- ~‘ I \.J .u- -q .., or . . .A 0" ‘- o t.’- - u a; , _h‘ .' I I. .' .,. I ' ‘. 4 . IA A‘ I . r -. . . . ' - uw" "'- . .0 I ‘ o n ‘0‘- . I : l-~ ' .1 .u a. ”I .~. .... . n _ ‘1... .a ‘ ‘ .. o u . l A . u .o ‘ ~ 0".” H. . , . . " - ,..- , , . I . - ' - ' . cl . r .a - I - . ”a ..-"n " .,.. t~' .o ‘_.,-. - a Ctr-.‘* - H ’ .a. .,_. n . u r < . Q , u .4 . c o n ‘ ~ 0 4 3 I , ‘-..- I v u ..-.v- .‘wo\ ~ 4 .. .oo v" . -- ~, . _.... .. . - u- -. ~ . n - ‘ ' -v I . . . ,- o. u'c- ‘ n o , . n a l‘ ,' , . Q! " ‘ I _ H. I ' a . M' 73 (2) No. ACTIVITY RECORD 1. How did you Spend your time yesterday? (6 A.M. to bedtime) 2. Why did you do these activities? (What were the reasons) TIME BLOCK ACTIVITY REASONS AoMo 6:00 to 6:30 A.M. 6:31 to 7:00 A.". 7:01 to 7:30 AoMo 7:31 to 8:00 74 (3) No. ’TIME . g BLOCK ACTIVITY REASONS ; I I“ : A.M. 3 8:01 to 8:30 I I 4 A.M. E ,8:31 I to E 9 :00 : AOMO 9:01 ; to ; 9:30 i i i i AoMo '! ‘9:31 2 to a 10:00 I ! f 7' *A.M. E 10:01 ' to 10:30 .- I ~‘.-z u .- .pn . .. - ., .n. -.,. J.|-—.->.-‘-v.~_ -~ . .H»~A . .. .... . . . . r r ‘ _. -.-. . . a 1 -Wr - .~-.. Cl ‘1- u o c . . . l .on- - .n-o-cnw .- . o- .‘ o . .. U. . , - 75 ( ) No. TIME BLOCK ACTIVITY REAS ON! S A.M. 10:31 to 11:00 A.M. 11:01 to 11:30 .O- p! “ A.M. 11:31 to 12:00 noon . J-O.-I-----..I‘- ‘ P.M. 12:01 to 12:30 no. -.p-er-- P.M. 12:31 to 1:00 “—0—” ”fidflJfic-o -o- “Q 0 "0-. 76 (5) No. TIME BLOCK ACTIVITY REASONS P.M. 1:01 to 1:30 P.M. 1:31 to 2:00 P.M. 2:01 to 2:30 1 3°”: 2:3; to 3:00 P.M. 3:01 to 3:30 77 (6) No. T IME BLOCK ACTIVITY REASONS P.M. 3:31 to 4:00 P.M. 4:01 to 4:30 P.M. 4:31 to 5:00 P.M. 5:01 to 5:30 P.M. 5:31 to 6:00 17., 1.0. 78 (7) No. T.B. ACTIVITY REASON P.M. 6:01 to 6:30 P.M. 6:31 to 7:00 P.M. 7:01 to 7:30 P.M. 7:31 to 8:00 P.M. 8:01 to 8:30 79 (8) No. TIME BLOCK ACTIVITY REASON P.M. 8:31 to 9:00 P.M. 9:01 to 9:30 P.M. 9:31 to 10:00 1?.14. 10:01 to 10:30 P.M. 10:31 to Bed- time Below is a list of value descriptions. values in varying degrees. that describes you best; put a "l" in the blank preceding this description. "2" in front of the one that describes you next begt. descriptions, select the one that is Least likely to describe you. 80 FORCED CHOICE GRCUP "A" No. Most people hold several or all of these Now select the value Put a From the remaining seven Hit a check ( v, ) Read all nine value descriptions. in the, blank preceding it. ______1. 2. _____3. ____ 4. _______5. ...._....7- 8. _____9. I WAIT TO GET THE. HOST FOR MY HONEY. I shOp around for bargains. I try not to waste things, money, or time. I consider nurself economical. I WANT THE THINGS MY FAMILY DOES TO BE SOCIALLY ACCEPTED AND INFLUENI'IAL. I would always want In family to do things that other people like and would want to com. I want other people to respect my house and family. I want to be admired by other people. I LIE TO DO THINGS THAT 1m MY FAMILY HEALTHY AND GOOD NATURE). I want to prevent illness in my family and avoid accidents. I see that the family gets nutritious meals and arrange the house and activities so they get enough rest. I LIKE TO DO THINGS MTH MY FAMILY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR FAMILY MEMBLRS T0 3.. TOGLTHIR BOTH IN HORK AND PLAI. I want to help nw family be content. I arrange the home atmosphere so that family members can be with each other in work and play. I LIKE. THE THINGS THAT I DO TO AGREE \t/ITH THE TEACHINGS AND BELIEFS OF M! RELIGION. I arrange so nw family can practice our religion--attend religious services, hear prayers and the like. I teach my fanily to be honest and kind to other people. I ENJOY MY FRIENDS AND LIKE TO DO THINGS FOR THEM. I like to be around people. I like to get together with w friends. I think it is important to have close friends. ‘ IWANTIOTS OFFREEDQITO DOTHETHINGSIHANTTODO. I would prefer to come and go as I please. I would like to do things as I want, without restrictions of daily duties. I take the time to do things that interest me. I LIIE TO DO THlNGS THAT INCREASE MY EDUCATICXv' AM) FITNESS FOR PW AND FUTURE TIMES. I want to know what is going on around me. I want W family to be interested in learning. I arrange house and activities for new. experiences for my family. Reading material is available for all the family. I WANT TO HAVE THINGS ATTRACTIVI AND ORDLRLI. I would like nw surroundings to be harmonious. I enjoy working with pretty things. I arrange so that as family members can express themselves artistically. 81 No. FORCED CHOICE GROUP "B" On the following pages you will find several descriptive cases about homemakers. You may find that one of the cases fits you best. More likely you will see yourself in several. Read all nine cases. , Put a "1" in front of the case that fits you best. Put a "2" in front of the one that is next best in describ- ing you. Check (.J ) the one which is least like you. You may have trouble deciding on these three stories but remember that no case is apt to fit you perfectly nor is one apt to directly Oppose you. 1. Mrs. C. likes to do things that build mutual understanding and loyalty within her family. She thinks it is important for parents and childfen to work and play together. Hrs. C. feels her job is to keep the family going; to please them, and to be aware of the needs of everybody in her family. Mrs. C. is very apt to start dinner early in the afternoon so more time is available to play with the children during their cross time in late afternoon. She bakes special goodies to please the tastes of her family. She'd choose to go picnicing with the whole family than to go out for a restaurant meal with her husband alone. Mrs. C. likes to be visited by relatives and enjoys family re- unions a great deal. Mrs. C. refuses to involve herself in community activities because she's needed at home. 2. Mrs. H. believes that a healthy family is the key to a happy family. She protects her family members so as to avoid situations that might lead to physical fatigue, ill health, or accidents. She arranges activities where the family can get lots of fresh air and sunshine. She doesn't approve of children devoting lots of time to television viewing because they become less physically active. Hrs. H.. plans on the children getting adequate rest, and would avoid activities that interferred with their nap time. She arranges nutrious meals be- cause good diets are essential to good health. AI.‘... -.e.,. ,- p: . . ~ - I‘~ _ p I D . - ' e - . u .- '3 . l - y r “ . ' ‘ I . l 7 ‘ v A ' S ‘ . ., . I . "1 .«’~ ‘ A] ; - . A‘ . .. . 5 r u . ~ - a ' . ‘ I l ' . 0 ' .) ' a ' a e. ‘ '- ' 4 I . . . I I [I ‘M ' t u v ‘ ' n‘ , .~ v .4 v F s ‘ . 7 . - .I, .1 -.._ ll: . -' . f ‘ ' e . s - 4 . -. ' - _ ' e ‘n. ‘ "' ‘ ~ ' . ' . o .. a _ .. ' ' 3 ‘\.~- .0 C l . . . . . \ , , . ' . ‘ 5‘ f : , . R . '~.. 0 . . y - I ‘ - . s ‘9 ~ .‘ o ' ' . ' . V - .» .- 7 ’ O - . . ‘,".. .' . . _ __ 5 ~ ‘I ‘ . . ' " . ' . v 4~ , . 1 ' .' -‘ , . w . . . . . c ' . ' A. a a ' ‘ - '- g. u ' a- . n s . . | .. Irdv --.— - . '. ' . n , , , . . ' ' 7‘ s I 1 . ,, u ‘D - {‘ . .. . 0 . . . . . ., -' - _ i . \ ' ' J . ‘ JV " ' ' .- s ... . . ,y, ' . v I J , . .. ,. , _ . . .' . , . . . - .' ' “.. I . ‘ , ,'.'J ' ' - ~' "‘ -- - "'r. .v . . , . .- a u. - '- . c , _ . , ‘ . . I (A - _ '. . » ‘1 ' f . I ‘ . I - ' Z V ' . ' _ ‘ , . -, . . A l l. . ' ‘ oo‘ u. , ' . p l o - , | : 1 ‘ ,’ r , . .. ' I ' .‘ ' a' 4 . ' g , * ‘ ' . I I‘ .‘ ~-“ , " a. ‘ . . a ' Q , C ' a .. .I...- 'A a, - . . - ...,' . , . . r . .' . . ‘ - l . _' '- l' ' ' ' ‘ . I - n -. i t . . . ~-~ \ . - v ' ‘ A ‘-' g - . ' ~I. 3 ' ' l.I I), RF . \ .7 g i 7‘ ‘ IV - . - s 7 ' r s o < b ' ' ' V - ~ '-".~ \ - pf - s '...- . .'- . . I A \ A a . , ‘ I , ' ‘ I _ , . ‘ . , Q l. . a . .I ‘ - h 4 . .A .~ - - . . e '0 '_' ‘ 0 ' . J . . . a . . -. ' ‘ 7. r ‘ - I: H ,- _ . _ - _ , | ’. ~ I n . _ . o ' o .. , - t . .- ..- '..' I. I ~ .' ' 2‘ ..-.‘ ".~. I '0 .' ,.. . - - I'- . .. ‘ _.- . -7 ' .’ - . . . e ‘ -- 8 ' 7 . -' ~ ‘ sea ' -e' V I ‘ . .‘ ‘ l ' ‘. ‘ n n ‘ - I o ’ . \ " . . . v I ' , 'r " 'I I e ‘- . ‘: - . ' ' ' * as. 7 ‘3 ", \ ' '7. " - if . l“ . ' l a' .. . “V "J- -‘ ' . .- .r e .s f V . . ' ~v . . . ' _ _ ' s O. _‘ n -. e ‘ _. ' . I I e i ‘ ‘. ‘ .- . . . .-‘ a. . I .¢ \ -, s ‘ _.- . | . . .1 . a l s . . ' . . , . . . 1*- .__A . . v n , ' D u I a . ' . ' ' 4 y ’ .q‘ ‘ [I . .' ::t .‘ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ a J I , r) a - , Q 7 a. . . e ’ . .4' - 4 I ' .' a _ J '. .1 .. . . - i. .0. . . ‘ . , . . . . I &. .. -L . , . . I ~ .’ . V! I. r. '1' in ‘1 I. 1' . , 1. ‘ . . . , .c‘ I , ~ - - q .- -, - ' .03.. '.‘_‘.1... .‘ i J’ . ‘I ~ 8- “ T- ’ ’ ‘.- f . , . . ' , . - . a . ‘ . 2‘ n . . . 'uv' .' g. . _' -'J . l . , . \- . _ .- -e .e v. o .. hr . o e O . ., L ' -' . ‘ ‘ ' g . . . _. Q . . e . . ‘ - to fl ...:;-, '2 . n p: s " \ t . . - . . . 5 . . ... ,. .. - .2 7 : .4. . , -- . . . - ‘ :-.-. . . . ., , - . ' '1 - ' v . c . g I . ’ ‘ . ~s ‘ , ., . .. a, . ' ' 3 ' . . l ‘ a ‘ 1 C - _ 5 ¥_ _. l. - [.r .‘ . J. ‘1 . . -.—' ' - . - . . 0 ' n a .7.- . . » . . . . .- 0- 9 . .7 ° ‘ ' ' .. ‘ . ' ' t ' . ' ‘I‘ ' . ‘e . . . " _ I . .. . ..v 1 I ,, . , . ' ' . ' , v. u ‘ h . i f f 1 ' t ; I ' \ I '. . ' I 1 I '. v J . . , , t. s. ' ‘ . . . _ . , A, u . u» , I '.’ - I ‘ J ‘ ° . ' s ' ' ’ ‘ l " ' - ‘ 'r I .0 - l u: ' . . 2 .4 ‘ ' ' ' v'J‘ " ‘ ' '. , I .- 0 .: .. o ' - . .. v ,\ ‘ v _ ‘ n r 7‘ I . _ 1 . ’ ; I ' . ‘ I I . . ' ', ‘ \ " ' a . '- . —‘ . ‘ ~. . ‘ ‘ ' . . 1 ' -- . . - 0. ‘ ’ .' A ' - i I .' m . ' . .. \ I . . 1' e 4 K . ‘ I ‘ ‘ 'r ‘. . J - . J ~. , . o -' “t . 1 ‘ ' ~‘... . -~. . - . u. - —. A. - ‘ . ; - , .... ‘ ... . -~ . - H. Y: . - . ‘ u o . . , . ‘ . _ ' e , - x - o._ . 5 j ‘ . | ,. A _ ‘ ' at ' - ' . .4 ‘ 82 Group "B" cont. (2) . No. 3. Mrs. E. believes that children should know that most things cost money and therefore, there is a limit to what they can have. She arranges to make clothes for herself and the children because the finished product is made better and you can get so much more for your 'money. Mrs. E. doesn't habitually use cake mixes because they are too eXpensive. She plans to shop from a grocery list because it helps keep her food bill down. She shaps for bargains. Mrs. E. feels that extra time in a do-it-yourself project is time well Spent to save money for something the family wants more. She feels that families should be self-supporting, even when in school. Too many of Mrs. E's friends are not good money managers because they know that their parents are standing by ready to help them financially; with no arrangements for systematic repayment. 4. Mrs. F. likes to sleep later in the morning than she's able to do with the demands of her family. She arranges time for herself and enjoys getting out of the house for awhile, alone. Mrs. F. takes long leisurely baths and when relaxing she just sits--hoping not to be interrupted by needs of others. Mrs. F. sees definite advantages in vacations separate from her husband and family. She believes such a vacation would be quite refreshing. If Mrs. F. could do what whe wanted to do, she would go some- place for a few hours by herself. She'd like to Spend money and time in ways in which she would not have to account to anyone. 83 Group "B" cont. (3) No. 5. Mrs. A. likes a nice house. She keeps things where they be- long and feels uncomfortable if she lets the dusting go. Still, Mrs. A's house has its cluttered places. The children's walls exhibit their artistic xpressions of crayons, paints and soap- suds pictures. She feels that children should learn to appreciate' art and music, and plans piano and dancing lessons for her children. The children are encouraged to express themselves artistically. Mrs. A. selects children's books that are attractive and reads the tradition- al childrens classics to them. hrs. a has started a collection of the great musical works so her family might come to know and enjoy them. She plans trips to the theater and Sunday afternoon concerts so that the whole family can attend. Mrs. A. enjoys arranging flowers, likes table centerpieces and recently, dyed a bedspread so it would blend with the wall color. 6. Mrs. P. thinks that what her friends think about her family is important. She continually cautions the children against behavior that would meet their neighbors' disapproval. She strives to keep the children well dressed.and she herself, attends the beauty shOp regular- ly to have her hair done. She subscribes to fashion and decorating magazines. She likes to be the first in the neighborhood to try out recipe or wear a high style dress. She manages money to belong to the country club. Mrs. P. plans on the children having nice playmates and is pleased to know that their school district is in an area where people of shmilar social class live. If she were to have a choice of activity today, Mrs. P. would have some friends in for tea and bridge. . .. x l . vC . r ' ' 1 . V . . . n. e '. .. . ‘) on a . a. i I. . o . u . '. - In . . '4 s A. u , u a . . y n to u b!. ‘5 ..n t .5. . ... _ _ . at o. J . .‘I. .Jd ,0 f It}... . I a. I \o— ‘ t w .0: . .l. . o o. , .r . . . . u I: 0 IL . . . . J .5 ‘ 1 It .6 i '. I b J a .-.t - O i 0 ll ' 0‘. o . . ( . . . . . l . . ' l . r b . I y. t . V . . n c‘ l l n .4 u I . .I .6. . . . . . ..\ P . . . . I I . . J I. . . . 4 .. g . . . .. a l r v . II o . . . .. ‘ I . . o . . . I a .l , .. . . . ~ . p . . . . .. D A ‘ . 1 y r n J . ... 4 . . . u . .. . o . u . . o i . V\. I u . l . _ s . . 1r c o . U v v n I . l . . . . I. . ‘ o I. .. v .. . . r. . I . . r A i z . . A u o . m - . I v . . g . . . . ‘ r s .. . . . . . ‘ . 4 ~ 0 o .r . . . ~ u . . . u n 0 n . I i F. a I .. . a II . I. . a . 'v I I u n l . . t .l n u . I 4 X4 . ._ .. . .. . u . A o . . o . y . . \ . I a , . . O . . . . . . u a . . _ «4 I s. I I -O I .. . . -I O .. . .a a A . O a . . a . a l — .1. a. tout 84 Group "B" cont. (4) No. 7.Krs.S. likes’her friends. She feels that without friends one has little in this world. She arranges to have her neighbors in for coffee because it allows her to get together with them. Mrs. S. thinks that children can learn to be friendly and ‘most of this learning comes from watching and imitating their parents. She thinks it is important for children to arrange their activities to include their friends. Mrs. S. plans. vacations so that friends may be visited along the way. Mrs. S. arranges her home to be open to friends who need a place to eat or stay overnight, and includes them in the family break- fast the next morning. Mrs. S. would like to have more time to visit friends whom she hasn't seen for awhile. She .Spends much time writing friends in other places. She would leave everything if a friend called who needed her. 8. Mrs. R. and her family attend church regularly. She feels that the teachings of their religion is the foundation of the family. Mrs. R. believes that she should put all her effort into making re- ligion the power of daily life. The family members say grace at meal- time and prayers daily. Mrs. R. participates in the church choir. her husband serves on the governing committee . , Mrs. R. believes that formal religious education is important for her children, the oldest of whom is already participating. . Ere. R. thinks her beliefs should govern her life in helping others, being honest and kind. She hOpes that her example will re- present her religion and help others to learn about their God. . . , a n . 2 i. . . . . . o : . ¢ . . . n . . O c o . . . . . J . c . p . ~ . . . . c , . .o u . .l .v D. , . o . . . . .. . o o . . p 0 ~ . r J . I u . o . u I .o . , .. y n .1 n. . . . . ... . . . .. r ., . n u . . . . u . o n . Q n u . . o . . . O . . r, . . i . . . , . I , t . . . ._ r. . . u .- la . u . .1 1 . ... . . . . .n I . n . v . n . l u . . . n o , . . o o . . .. . . . u n v. .. . f , . . . . . ‘ . . , H. ... a, c u . o . L . . . .\, , a . . . u u n n . l. o y . . , I .. _. v . a . p . . y . . a . n u) .0 .3 . . . . . . ._ .n v . a O I . .— v-p- — 85 Group "B" cont. (5) No. 9. Mrs. D. thinks that education should never stop. She reads to extend her learning and broaden her interests. She sets aside timev for reading the new3paper nightly so she'll know what's going on in the world. Mrs. D's husband is a full time student. Mrs. D. plans time to discuss classes, papers, or problems with him. She is always willing to take the time to help hime review for exams. firs. D. plans to re-enroll to finish her degree. It will necesitate leaving three pre-school age children with a baby sitter four days each week. She maintains that her education level should equal that of her husband and is willing to sacrifice many things to- 'ward this end. Mrs. D. plans time to teach her children to help with iittle chores of the house. She buys and helps them with numerous education- al toys. She arranges quiet times for them when her husband is home studying. APPENDIX II SUMMARY TABLES OF DATA 86 87 H ...q N O‘ O‘ N \O N N N o o H a mN N m o H H HVN m o N N H H MN m m. N H N H NN «u o N N H H HN 0 H N N H ON a o N N H H 9H m H N N H wH N o o H H N 5H 9 a N N H H 0H m o N N H H mH H H o «a N N HVH o N N H m mH m o H H N N NH N N o o H H HH 0 H H N N OH 0 o N N H H o m o H H N m N o m H H h o a H H N N o a H N o N H m N H m m H H. m o N N H H m o o N N H H N o o N N H H H a. m 4 m a. m < .. m 4 m 4 m 4 m < m a. Gon .omfi >5 coHpmo 50p QHHHm 833900 muflofi aHpHmoHH Hongdz uHHom nmonnm » uosoomHA ..de nmonrm :95th >HHEmh umm< onEmm .moHHOam o>fiomflonm new “no“ nopuo vHsmn ofi so muovaaoEoHH 9.3 .3 wouooHom meoHoflHo H555 ummvH Hosp .Hosooom .3us oaHHuu .oN wHormrH. mvHuoum o>floowounm «we» umpuo xsmm 4 26m 88 NAM—1N r—‘NNNN NNN—t H O‘O‘ O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘ O‘C‘O‘O‘ O‘ O‘C‘O‘O‘ O‘ C‘O‘O‘C‘O‘O‘O‘ O‘CFO‘ N HHNr—Q HNNHv—d r-I NH—«HNN HNNr—i om mm mm 5V ow mm HIV mm NHV HHV 0H... mm mm mm om mm Hsm mm Nm Hm om 0N wN 5N Nm 0 N o H o 0 NH NH mH NN cm 0 o o m m o o NH oN 0N mm o o o m o w w HH HN mN we 0 H o o H\. 0 MH mH 0H «N H; o c o m H o N 0N NHV mN me o N o H h N H. HH Hum NN H1. o o N o o m NH 0 Hm HN cm 0 o o o o o o 0 0H» ON HH.. 0 o o o H... w m N. ¢H oH no G o o m m HH m mH wN wH Ho 0 N o N n H NH o wN NH 0m 0 o w o o H b o o .. 0H mm o o o w o o Hv oH MN mH Harv o N H o o HV .-.o Hm o HuH cm H o H Hg H C CH w mH mH mm me o HV m o H o w HVH NN NH NHV o o N o Hy Hu N m mN HH cm 0 o o m o N HH HH mN 0H NH» m o o N N m HVH w mH my Hm N o H H o o o 0 MN m S o N. H m o a S o 8 a on o H N H m h HV HVH mH c we 0 o N H. NH N mH w HVN m Hum o o o m o N e o HVH Ha 0H. H o N N Hy H o o HIN m Hum o o o HV m o o NH NH N mHV -o o o o o o m HH «N H pongdz :on owHu >5 confine 80p NHAm EmHuucoU moflofi fiHmmHH nonadz H.308 nHva :monnm nocoumH .29me ..monh A upcoHuh >HHEmh nmo< oHQEmm 03m > " l \l .uovaEoanH gone .3, moHnomoumU @515 CH poomHm mnemmou mo mnmnHESZu: .hN oHnHmrH. 4O 12 16 18 24 14 28 29 3O 31 65 19 43 11 30 34 43 12 22 17 36 20 33 26 15 17 20 25 18 12 16 17 18 26 15 27 32 33 11 47 10 34 35 36 37 38 44 44 6O 53 10 14 3O 39 37 39 4O 41 51 13 11 42 3O 31 43 44 45 3O 39 40 90 12 46 47 52 38 69 48 11 25 49 50 2404 49 81 52 1087 469 346 155 134 Total Table 28. -Homemakers' ranking of reasons into value categories showing ties. Reli- Pres- tige Econo- Edu- my Value Friend- Free- ship dom Aes- Sample Family gion cation Centrism thetics Health Number O O o IN -IN a m [N M sh -N m N to <14 N H r—d Ln \0 <1“ 91' \0 Ln 0 O .IN 0 oo 1‘ ..N ..N l‘ \0 Ln 47 1» av “N M N. Ln fi" «‘1‘ V‘ M N“ Ln Vt‘ ad‘ .—-1 M N Ln ‘1‘ ..w m M N .—-1 N 00 0‘ 10 w 0 O 1‘ \D O \0 d“ m \0 c. «N “NP O 0 L0 00 ..N N I» m a \O ..N Ln 0 M \0 fl‘ “N -N N Ln M N N M 0—4 H H r-4 N M 0-4 P4 H 14 15 O O \O O em “‘1 «IN 0 \O o «N m 0 ‘3‘ Ln 1‘ «N N fl" M H r—4 \0 F H v—i as (x I: ooooooooooooxommmodwooooo Ln o. Ln ‘0 oo oooo-Nomoo\oooor~“moc>Nooooo \o co [3 m m ooomooooooomooom.n*o.N.Noo o v VI" [.0 00 (x 00 « .. . 1» Ln «pooch-mommhwosooohmoo.¢o.mo¢o .. . o m \o .. LO w L0 L0 . {N400 .N\o | 5‘ w .r . '. ..u '- I .3! . n! . - I - ‘o a x, .. . . _ .r s r . .. m. we . m , .... fi — .v.. 1‘. V we! xi . , . r . v .~ I a 4 ’. .-. L‘..\r. . a. v . I l ark“ . I l h! .. .4‘. fl 1 h . x. . v . our ... . . ... . a « «...... . ._ . . .9. . - . ... a. _. . 1‘ . . . y I ’ . 4 :3 ....\. 5 i .o. ‘ I I. l . ., ...... .... . .. ‘ r». . . .r s ..I. t I... I- .m c (x . n a h m .V. ‘41) Sawing... if. 6 ..I,Inlu1.nn.|l..ln.uirl. 111114111: "111111 11111111 1711 I