A. MUUY IU :AVLUHI: m: Wm ur aiuvsnlo
TAKING- A HOME MANAGEMENT COURSE
{HMCD 83-23;) AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR
COMPARING GOALS AMONG SELECTED GROUPS

Than {or flu Dog". OI M. A
MICHIGAN STATE EHIVER'SITY

Jean Rowan Hallway, B. Sc.
1960

-_.._.._

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

llillllUlUIIIIHIIllllllllllllfllflfllHfllellel

3 1293 10

 

A STUDY TO EXPLORE THE GOALS OF STUDENTS TAKING A HOME
MANAGEMENT COURSE (HMCD 3328) AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT

FOR COMPARING GOALS AMONG SELECTED GROUPS

By
Jean Rowan Halliday, B.Sc.

AN'ABSTRACT

Of a thesis submitted to the College of Home Economics
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Home Management and Child Development

1960

Jean Rowan Halliday

ABSTRACT

This exploratory study was conducted for two pur-
poses: (l) to explore home management goals, identifying
four that seemed important to students, and toward which
they made decisions and took action; (2) to experiment with
the develOpment of an instrument for comparing the relative
ranking of these goals by selected groups.

The sample for this study consisted of selected
groups from undergraduate students enrolled in the home
management residence course, HMCD 332a, at Michigan State
University, from fall term,1959, and winter and spring
terms, 1960, and home management staff and graduate stu-
dents at Michigan State University.

In exploring the area of values and goals, an
attempt was made to consolidate and evaluate what leaders
in home management advance as the conceptual framework for
the consideration of values and goals, and comparisons were
drawn with the thinking in related disciplines.

Four important goals in home management to students
were identified on the bases of formal and informal obser-
vation of student behavior in the home management residence
course, students' statements obtained through open-end
questionnaires, perusal of home management literature,
discussion with home management staff, participation in a

seminar on values, review of some sociological literature

Jean Rowan Halliday

on role and expectation, and considered thought. The four
goals thus identified are:
Goal I: To meet the expectations of significant
other people (other girls in the group,
the instructor in terms of a grade, hus-
bands when applicable).
Goal II: To meet own expectations, self-realization.

Goal III: To have happy, harmonious group or family
life.

Goal IV: To create conditions for optimum develop-
ment of individuals in family or group,
physically, emotionally, mentally, spirit-
ually.

An instrument was developed using the forced-choice
technique, in which tetrads were used. Each tetrad was
composed of four items, each representing one of the four
identified important goals. The procedure was as follows:
a pool of items was established, based mainly on students'
responses to the open-end questionnaires; each statement
represented a means goal leading to one of the four ends
goals identified as being among the most important in home
management to students. These items were submitted to a
selected Jury of home management staff and graduate stu-
dents who classified them into goal categories, Judged
them for ambiguity and bias, and rated them for social
acceptance. A Social Acceptability Index was calculated.
Ona weakness being realized, yi§,, that the rating for
social acceptance should have been done by a group more

representative of the population on which the instrument

would eventually be used, the items were submitted to a

Jean Rowan Halliday

selected group of students for rating in an effort to
remedy the weakness to some extent.

After elimination of items on the basis of the jury's
Judgement, the usable items were combined into tetrads in
which each of the four goals was represented, two with
almost equally high and two with almost equally low Social
Acceptability Index numbers. Sixteen tetrads were combined
to form the completed instrument.

The instrument was administered to selected groups
with instructions to mark the one item in each tetrad ”most
like" and the one ”least like” the respondent.

Responses were tabulated and analyzed using a chi
square test for possible relationships between pairs of
groups with respect to the common median for each goal.

On the basis of the analysis, the first hypothesis

postulating a_difference with respect to the relative im-

 

portance of the four goals between a selected group of
undergraduate students and a group of home management staff
and graduate students was not confirmed. There was simi-
larity for some goals, but there was a difference signifi-
cant at the 5 per cent level between the groups for the
first goal: to meet the expectations of significant other
people, with students rating this goal higher than the other
group did. This finding serves to emphasize the importance
of home management teachers realizing to what extent stu-
dents tend to assume the goals of the teacher and of the
group, that they need to give students true freedom to

make choices within clearly defined limits, that they need

Jean Rowan Halliday

to help students to clarify their own goals and to recognize
situations in which they can make real decisions in terms
of their own goals.

_ The second hypothesis, postulating no difference

 

with respect to the relative importance of the four goals
between a selected group of undergraduate single students
and a selected group of undergraduate married students, was
accepted on the basis of the analysis, as no significant
difference was shown.

The third hypothesis, postulating n2_difference with

 

respect to the relative importance of the four goals between
two selected groups of undergraduate students, one group
having completed the home management residence course and
the other not yet having taken any work in the course, was
not confirmed. There was not difference for three of the
goals, but there was significant difference at the 5% level
for the third goal: to have happy, harmonious group or fam-
ily life, with the before-course group rating it higher than
those who had completed the course. The implication may
be that the course may tend to influence redistribution of
emphasis on the four goals. This finding cannot be taken
as conclusive, as it was not the/same group before and after
the course, and the difference may lie in the students rather
than be related to the effects of the course.

An important limitation of this type of instrument
is that its use is for analytical rather than descriptive

purposes, for making comparisons between groups rather than

Jean Rowan Halliday

for rank-ordering variables for any particular individual

or group.

A STUDY TO EXPLORE THE GOALS OF STUDENTS TAKING A HOME
MANAGEMENT COURSE (HMCD 332a) {AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT

FOR COMPARING GOALS AMONG SELECTED GROUPS

By

Jean Rowan Halliday, B.Sc.

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Home Economics
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Home Management and Child Development
1960

/,’
é K L'— _,_,//'l [II// 5
Approved , »/ '46 " '3“C/<-’" ‘46 z,,.¢.,(.-C/,

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express gratitude to many people
for their help, interest, and encouragement: to Dr.
Beatrice Paolucci for assistance and guidance, to Dr. Alice
Thorpe and Dr. Beatrice O'Donnell for advice, to the staff
and graduate students who gave time and helpful suggestions
in the development of the instrument, to the students who
cooperated in the study, and to her friends for moral sup-

port and willingness to discuss ideas.

ii

CHAPTER 7 PAGE
Establishment of Social Accept-
ability Index .................... 55
Construction of Tetrads and
Instrument ....................... 6O
Tabulation of Responses ............ 62
IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................... 63
V. DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS ....... 71
Implications for Further Study ........... 78
Weaknesses, Limitation and Strengths ..... 80
Summary .................................. 86
Conclusions .............................. 9l
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... 94

APPENDIX 0.00000000COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0 98

TABLE

I.

II.

III.

VI.

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Dispersion of Means Goals in Relation to

Ends Goals ................................ 52
Arrangement of Items in Numerical Order

of the Social Acceptability Index

Numbers Under Goals ....................... 59
Construct of Tetrads Showing Pairings of

Goals and High and Low Social Accepta-

bility Index Numbers ...................... 61
Comparison Between "All Undergraduate

Students" and "Professional" Groups

with Respect to the Common Median,

by Goals .................................. 65
Comparison of ”Married Students” and

"Single Students" with Respect to the

Common Median, by Goals ................... 67
Comparison Between ”All Undergraduate Stu-

dents" and "Spring Students" with Respect

to the Common Median, By Goals ............ 69

CHA PTER I
INTRODUCTION.

In home management literature and teaching, the
words "values," "goals," "decision-making," and "standards"
appear repeatedly and in the same context. They are basic
in the present concept of management. Gross and Crandall
state,

One of the important shifts in home management

as a field of study has been from the emphasis upon
skill in using resources to stress upon people and
their goals as the focal point of management.

This exploratory study was done in the hope of mak-

ing even a small contribution to our understanding and

work in the area of goals and values in home management.

Purposes of the study

 

The Clarification of goals is increasingly impor-
tant in a society as complex as ours. Many pressures bear
upon family members; many outside influences have effects
of which the extent is not yet fully known. In comparison
with a time when change was less rapid and fewer options
were present in family situations, a large number of
choices or decisions face families today and will in the

future. Technological development, for example the many

 

lIrma H. Gross and Elizabeth Walbert Crandall,
Management for Modern Families (New York: Appleton-
Century-Croffs, Inc., 1954), p. 39.

 

 

new products available have brought changes in standards
of homemaking and in ways of family living; growing
knowledge in the behavioral sciences have brought chang-
ing attitudes toward family interaction and child rearing.
The changing conditions of family living are well known
and it is not necessary to labor the point except that
this situation brings with it increasing difficulties in
making decisions. Families can no longer rely heavily on
past experience; they must make many choices without any
precedent to follow.

It seems that there are two extremeés which families
can follow regarding decisions: (1) they can try to define
their goals, identify what is really important for their
own family in itself and in its relation to society,
and make decisions and take action in the light of these
goals, or (2) they can take no action in making real
decisions, but rely on what other people do and think as
the basis for action. Probably many families follow both
extremes or a middle ground between at different times and
in different situations. Some students of the society
see inherent danger in the tendency they Observe in
people to follow the second course. Riesman1 with his

concept and interprdation of the "other-directed”

 

1David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney,
The Lonely Crowd (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor
BOBks, Dofibleday and Co., Inc., Abr., 1953).

 

social character and Whytel with his concern about "organ-
ization man” are Just two of those who see the society as
increasingly looking to others for their guide to action
instead of making real decisions themselves in terms of
their own goals.

Whether this tendency is real or apparent is not the
issue here. What is relevant is that the well-being of
families and eventually of the nation depends to a large
extent on the values held and goals striven toward by in-
dividuals and families and on the decisions they make in
achieving them.

If families have only a hazy idea of what they are
trying to achieve, if their goals are obscure, on what
basis and to what end do they make decisions? Toward what
are they managing? Are the goals that a husband and wife
strive to reach the same, different and compatible, or dif-
ferent and conflicting? Can they identify their goals?

Does each know, for example, the goals of the other in
bringing up their children, or for that matter, the goals
they themselves hold in this respect? Are a family's goals
what professional home management people assume them to be
as they work with that family? Are home management students'
goals in a residence course what their teachers assume they

are? How can staff evaluate management unless it knows

 

1William H. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man (Gar-
den City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, DouBIeday &
Co., Inc., 1956).

 

toward what objective students are managing? Do staff mem-
bers know their own values and goals relative to a course?
Do professional people within home management agree upon
the values and goals of this discipline?

These are some of the questions that arise in con-
sidering goals in relation to home management. If a pur-
pose of professional home management people is to help
families to clarify their goals and values, how do they
attempt to do this? There is a scarcity of tools for
helping to determine goals in home management.

In doing research in an area as intangible and
fundamental as values and goals, it is difficult to know
where to start and what approach to use. During fall term,
1959, while the writer lived as faculty resident adviser
in home management house, Unit 1, at Michigan State Univer-
Sity and worked with students there, her interest became
gradually more centered on the "why?" of home management.
What, precisely, were the students managing toward? There
was concern about evaluating students' management; if one
does not know toward what ends students' management is
directed, then how can one Judge it?

During the fall term the writer observed student
behavior both informally in day-to-day living and formally
for assigning a grade (in planned conferences and through
written work and examinations). The question of goal

identification became increasingly interesting and important

to the writer and thus the specified area for study was
decided upon.

Concurrent with the thinking about goal exploration
was consideration of the possibility of devising an instru-
ment for use in the study of goals. The forced-choice
technique seemed a possibility. Murray Strauss' approach

to the study of values in rural life1

appeared to have
potentialities for analytical purposes in comparing home
management goals of selected groups. The forced-choice
instrument he used offered four choices out of which the
respondents would be forced to choose one of two almost
equally complimentary items as being most like them, and
one of two almost equally unflattering items as being least
like them. In constructing the instrument, the researcher
established the four goals among which the choices would
be made. Thus this type of instrument could not identify
goals but it might be used to compare four already estab-
lished. (This technique is discussed in greater detail in
Chapter II).

Specifically, the purposes of the study were:

(1) To explore home mangement goals, identifying

four that seemed important to students toward which they

made decisions and took action.

 

lMurray A. Strauss, "A Technique for Measuring Values
in Rural Life." Pullman: Washington Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, State
College of Washington. Technical Bulletin 29, August,
1959.

(2) To experiment with developing an instrument
for comparing the relative ranking of goals by selected

groups.

Definition of terms

 

Home management. Throughout this study home manage-

 

 

ment was defined as:

Home management consists of a series of decisions
making up the process of using family resources to
achieve family goals. The process consists of
three more or less consecutive steps: planning; con-
trolling the various elements of the plan while
carrying it through, whether it is executed by
oneself or by otherf; evaluating results preparatory
to future planning.

Goals was used through out the study to mean "An
end toward which a design is directed. It is an aim or
purpose."2 Goals were referred to on two levels: (1)

Means goals, the relatively short-term and tangible obJec-

 

tives leading to (2) ultimate, more long-term and intan-

gible obJectives referred to as ends goals.

 

Limitations of the study

 

This study was limited to the exploration of home
management goals of Michigan State University home econom-
ics students in the home management residence course (HMCD
332a), who (1) lived in home management house, Unit 1, fall
term, 1959, (2) enrolled for winter term, 1960,

 

1Gross and Crandall, op. cit., p. 4.

2Cleo Fitzsimmons, The Management of Family Resources
(San Francisco, California: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1951),

p. 69.

 

 

(3) would be living in home management house, unit 1,
spring term, 1960.

For purpose of comparison with students, a"g?6uptflfl
of faculty and graduate students scored the instrument.
This group was limited to home management staff and grad-
uate students doing work in home management at Michigan
State University.

In the instrument, the stating of items represent-
ing home management goals was limited as much as was pos-
sible to the students' experience in home management house

or in their living situations, and to as small an extent

as possible to their future homemaking situation.

Hypotheses

 

Since peOple vary in what they value or to what
they give highest preference, it is possible that home
management goals may vary from group to group. We do not
know all the factors that influence the setting of goals,
especially the ultimate, long-term, ends goals. Age and
experience could have a bearing; goals worked toward at
age twenty may be quite different in importance at forty.
Training and professional experience could make a differ-
ence; a professional person compared with an undergraduate
could consider the same goal in a different light. The
circumstances of the situation, its permanence or tempor-
ary nature; the status of the people in the situation, and

other situational factors could influence the relative

importance of the goal. Goals worked toward by single
students in three weeks in the home management house could
be viewed differently by married students whose home manage-
ment is on a more permanent basis. -Role expectation could
be a factor; what is expected by the student in home manage-
ment of herself as she views her role and as she consid-
ered significant other people view it could be different
from what is expected by the married student as she sees
herself in the role of wife and mother and as she considers
her husband and children see it. There might be a different
emphasis placed on certain goals by students who had Just
completed a residence Course than by those who had not had
this experience.
Specifically, three hypotheses have been formulated:

(1) With respect to the relative importance given to each

of four specified goals in home management, all under-

graduate students who completed HMCD 332a winter term,

1960, will differ from a selected sample of home man-

 

agement staff and graduate students.
(2) With respect to the relative importance given to each
of four specified goals in home management, married

undergraduate students will not differ from single

 

undergraduate students, all of whom completed HMCD
332a winter term, 1960.

(3) With respect to the relative importance given to each
of four specified goals in home management, all under-

graduate students who completed HMCD 332a winter term,

9

1960, will not differ from a selected Sample of under-

 

graduate students enrolled for Spring term, 1960, and

who have not taken this course.

CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Values, Goals, and Decision-Making as Related to Home
Management

 

 

Decision-making has been identified by Gross and
Crandalll as the crux of home management. Values and goals
underlie and are closely related to decision-making.

These concepts are basic to the theoretical framework Of

home management.

f“

Increasing concern with values and their relation

i.

{Ito various areas of human endeavor and thought and partic-

\; { ularly their relation to home management was stressed by

' l MCKee at a 1955 Conference on "Values and Decision-Making
\.in Home Management":

In recent years there has been increasing evi-
dence that more and more people have explored the
question of values, seeking meaning and significance
in their field of work. Certainly academic confer-
ences and Journals are devoting greater attention to
values. It seems a part of the climate of the times
that men and women are asking questions which bear
upon purposes and goals more frequently than a few
decades ago, expressing concerns which would not have
been asked save by professional philosophers. Clyde
Kluckhohn at a conference at Merrill-Palmer this
spring characterized the value problem as easily the
most significant intellectual problem of our time.

Yet this relatively new focus on values should not
be interpreted as signifying that values are some-
how a recent and additional dimension to life. The

 

1Gross and Crandall, op, cit., p. 19.

ll

formal study of values as such may not go back

very far in the history of human thought, but the

process of valuing is one of the distinguishing

characteristics of the human species. The ability

to evaluate, to make value Judgments, is man's

ability to select out of the multiplicity of possi-

bilities continuously available to him through his

life-time those interests, those ends, those ideas

which seem more significant, most satisfying and which

give meaning and a pattern to his life.1
%A Disciplines related to home management (education,
economics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and
sociology) use the term "values" with varying degrees of
precision. There is, however, a lack of agreement upon the
definition of "values" and "goals." Frequently there is no
clear-cut discrimination between them. A different word is
used to denote the same concept, e.g., some authors label
certain entities "values" which others call ”attitudes" or
"goals." Definitions differ between and within disciplines.
Some of these differences are basic, e.g., the belief that
values are only group-held as opposed to the view that they
can be held both by groups and by individuals. Thus, this
lack of concensus results in the overlapping and interchang-
ing of ”values" and "goals" and makes it difficult to
delineate a conceptual framework for examining or measuring
either.

Various authors, as they define and discuss "values”

and "goals” show the base of departure for their thinking,

 

1William W. McKee, "Values in Home Management" in
Proceedings of Conference on Values and Decision-Making in
HOme ManagemEfit, Dept. of HBme Managemenf'and'Child'DeveI:
ment, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
1955. p. 8.

 

 

 

 

12

and comparisons can be made in relation to the thinking in
home management. Fichter, for example, draws a clear dis-
tinction between "values” and "goals":

TA It is also clear that values.as such are not goals
'V or obJectives of social action and thought. They
are not the things sought, but they are what gives
the sought-after things importance. People use them
as norms and criteria that point the way to goals
and obJectives.

Linton defines the relation of value to decision-
making, but in this definition makes no reference to goals:

A value is thus anything capable of influencing
the individual's decisions in choice situations, or,
going one step back and as a necessary preliminary to
such influence, anthing capable of producing an
emotional response.

.} In defining a value, Kluckhohn associates it with

Jboth goals and decision-making:

A value is a conception, explicit or implicit,
distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a
group, Oi‘the desirable which influences the selec-
tion of various modes, means, and ends of action.3

He differentiates values and goals:

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 ImpIIcafions which these goals have in the situa-

tion.‘I

 

 

1Joseph A. Fichter, Sociology (Chicago: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 301.

 

2Ralph Linton, "The Problem of Universal Values,"
Method and Perspective in Anthropology, ed., Robert F.
Spencer, E . 145-168 (Minneapolis: The University of Minne-
sota, 195 I, pp. 147-148.

 

3Clyde Kluckhohn, and others, "Values and Value-
Orientations in the Theory of Action," Toward a General Theory
of Action, ed., Talcott Parsons and Edwara A. Shlls, pp. 384:
E33 ICamBridge: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 395-

4Ibld., p. 429.

13

Williams expresses essentially the same differentia-
tion between values and goals as Kluckhohn:

Values are not the concrete goals of action, but
rather the criteria by which goals are chosen....
Values are modes of organizing conduct--meaningful,
affectively Invested pattern prinEIples that guide
human action.

 

Wilkening, in his study of farm family values, made
a survey of literature dealing with values in relation to
decision-making, and on this basis stated:
The notion that values operate as criteria for
making choices between alternative courses of action
or between action and no action has been developed
by both psychologists and sociologists.2
The notion that values operate as criteria for mak-
ing choices between courses of action is familiar in home
management, but that they underlie the choice between
action and no action has not been emphasized. This suggests
a possible avenue for the exploration of values and goals
in home management, which to date has received little atten-
tion.
The Malones, in their work on decision-making with
farm failies, describe the nature and function of values
and goals rather than defining them. They divide goals in-

to long-run, intermediate, short-run, and incidental.

Values furnish the guiding compass for everyone's
life. They provide the basis by which individuals

 

1Robin M. Williams, Jr., American Society A Socio-
logical Interpretation (New York: AIfred A} Knopf, I957),

Pp- 373-375.

2Eugene A. Wilkening, "Techni ues of Assessing Farm
Family Values," Rural Soc., Vol. 19 T1954), pp. 39—49.

 

 

 

14

and families tell what is more worthwhile and what is
less so.... If strongly held, they ZIOng- -run goal_]7
guide the setting of many intermediate goals that
lead toward them. But if these are merely good in-
tentions rather than real goals, they have little
influence on the goals at a lower level. Strongly
held goals are associated with firmly held values,
weak goals with uncertain or inconsistent ones.l

Authors of home management literature discuss values
and goals primarily in relation to the family. Within this
context they show the interrelatedness and dimensions of
values and goals, and the philosophy underlying their use
of these terms. Nickell and Dorsey, in a definition of
home management, relate goals, values, and decision-making.

Management, in general terms, may be said to be

planned activity directed toward accomplishing de-
sired ends. It involves the weighing of values and
the making of decisions.2

Simply stated, goals are nothing more than the
ends that any individual or family is willing to
work for.

Gross and Crandall, in discussing the concepts
"values" and "goals" as determinants of the management
process, refer to their interdependence and relation to
decision-making:

In the discussion of decision-making..., the role

of values was not stressed; nevertheless, they under-

lie decisions. Value Judgemeflts influence particu-
larly the selection of goals.

 

1Carl C. Malone and Lucile Holaday Malone, Decision
Making and Management for Farm and Home (Ames, Iowa Tfie
Iowa State College Press, I958), p. 27.

2Paulena Nickell and Jean Muir Dorsey, Management
in Family Living (3rd ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.,?1959). p. 35.
3Ibid., p. 31.

“Gross and Crandall, op, cit., p. 38.

 

 

 

 

15

They do not define but write descriptively of the function
and nature of values. They suggest that if all relatively
mature family members have a voice in family decision,
through this activity
...values become the property of all or differ-
ences in values are honestly faced. Much if not most
of the material... [EC handled has to do directly or
indirectly with the managemen of family resources.
This management then becomes the anvil on which fam-
ily values are forged.l
Similarly, Goodyear and Klohr relate values and
goals to home management:

Management is the process of realizing values and
goals through the effective use of resources.

I
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0

Values determine the goals that give direction to
‘the management of resources.

Fitzsimmons emphasizes decision-making as the
essence of home management, and relates it to goals:
...management is very largely choice—making:
choice among goals to be gought and ways of using
"resources to secure them.
McKeeLL considers values from the VieWpoints of both
the descriptive "what is" and the normative "what might be."

Margaret Liston5 examines five relationships of values in

home management:

 

1Gross and Crandall, 92' cit., p. 39.

2Margaret R. Goodyear and Mildred Chapin Klohr,
Management for Effective Living (New York: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc., 1951), pp. 3-1.
3Fitzsimmons, op, cit., p. 6.
uMCKee’ 2.2.. Cite, pp. 8-150

5Margaret Liston, "Interrelationship of Values and
Decision-Making in Home Management," Proceedings of Confer-
ence on Values and Decision-Making in HOme“Managefi§nf, Dept.
of H055 Management and Child Develofifient, MiChigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955, pp. 61-72.

 

 

 

 

 

16

(1) Values delineate our horizons as to goals,
standards and resources.

(2) Values are essential to the decision-making
process.

(3) Values are inherent in each phase of the man-
agement process.

(4) Values and decision-making are dynamic and
variable.

(5) Values and decision-making are important compo-
nents of our professional Job.

She differentiates values and goals: ”Values are
the ultimates from which goals stem as more tangible ob-
Jectives."l This is a different distinction from that made
by Kluckhohn,2 Piohter,3 and Williams,“ who call values the
criteria against or by which goals are chosen, and by
Linton5 who considers that values influence decisions, while
Liston conceptualizes goals as having their source in values.
This seems to be a fundamental difference in the basic con-
cept of "values";if values are criteria for the goals, then
goals can exist apart from values. But if values are the
source of goals, then goals cannot exist apart. Gross and
Crandall give the same idea as Liston, "Goals stem from
values whether ok\not either values or goals are clearly

6

defined in the person's mind.

 

lListon, op, cit., p. 64.
2Kluckhohn,9_p_. cit., p. 395.

3Fichter, op, cit., p. 301.
“Williams, op. cit., pp. 374-375.
5Linton, op, cit., pp. 147-1u8.

6Gross and Crandall, op, cit., p. 37.

17

On the other hand, they suggest that goals can exist apart
from values:

An individual family goal must be in harmony with

the values of the person or group choosing it if

the goal is to have much chance of attainment.1
These apparent inconsistencies may be the result of using
"values" and "goals" without a constant basic definition,
and perhaps of referring to them at different levels. That
is, the frame of reference may shift in the discussion. In
one part they may be referring to small, tangible, short-
term goals which could be at variance with a person's values,
while in another part of the discussion they could mean the
intangible, long-term, ultimate kind of goals referred to
,as "goal value” and considered to have their sources in
values.

Discrepancies in basic underlying concepts show the
difficulties in communication when working With values and
goals.

There is, then, lack of agreement between and within
disciplines as to both the nature and the interrelationship
of values and goals.vLHowever, there is agreement on their

importance. There is need for intensive work on this

intangible, elusive, but vital aspect of home management.

Varying Identifications of Values and Goals

 

Great as the difficulty is in reaching agreement on

the concepts and interrelationships of "values" and "goals”

 

1Gross and Crandall, op, cit., p. 38.

18

within and between disciplines, greater lack of concensus
exists regarding the specific values and goals that are
important to a society and to the individuals and families
composing it.

Williamsl orders his values (or "value-orientations”
as he terms them) for American society to the criteria of:
extensiveness in the total activity of the system, duration
of the value over time, intensity with which it is sought
or maintained, prestige of value carriers. These value-
orientations are:

achievement and success, activity and work,

efficiency and practicality, progress, material com-
fort, science, individual personality, moral orien-
tation, humanitarian mores, equality, freedom,
external conformity, nationalism, democracy, racism.
The first seven can easily be related to home management.

As Parker's list of ten values2 are so frequently
quoted in the home management literature, they would seem
to be compatible with the thinking in the field:

love, health, comfort, ambition, ethical value,

knowledge and wisdom, technological interest or
efficiency in work, play, art,and religion.

While Williams' and Parkerrs lists of important
values have points of agreement, some items on the latter's
list do not stand up when Judged against William's criteria
for ordering values. Home management needs to take a crit-

ical look at Parker's list when tempted to adopt it, and to

re-examine the criteria by which values are determined.

 

1Williams, pp. cit., pp. 372-442.

2DeWitt H. Parker, Human Values (Ann Arbor, Wahr,
1944), p. 46, quoted in Gross and Crandall, pp. cit., p. 37.

 

l9

Cutler lists ten values in her study:
beauty, comfort, convenience, good location,
health, personal interests, privacy, safety, friend-
ship activities, economy.1
This list is limited to a defined situation-~the choice of
a home--and Gross and Crandall suggest it is an ”applied
list."2 By some of the preceeding definitions, all of
these are not values and some might be considered goals.
The same comment might be made regarding Kyrk's3
list of values that relate to home management: happiness,
health, rest, recreation, and association with family and
friends.
The Malones suggest that each family must complete
its own list, and gave as a start:
religious ideas, love, security, understanding,
prestige, progress, personal freedom, personal gain,
proficieRcy in work, pleasure, cooperation, con-
formity. .
Again, in applying some of the preceding definitions to
this list, the question arises as to whether some of these
are goals rather than values.
McKee5 lists four values that he as an outsider saw

as having special emphasis in home management: planning,

skills, order, efficiency. These he considered as means

 

 

 

lVirginia F. Cutler, Personal and Famil Values in
the Choice p£_p_Home, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.
EEO} November, 1937, p. 6.

2Gross and Crandall, pp, cit., p. 37.

3Hazel Kyrk, Economic Problems 23 the Family (New
York: Harper & Bros., 1933), p. 58, quoted in Gross and
Crandall,pp, cit., p. 37.

 

”Malone and Malone, pp, cit., p. 30.
5McKee, pp: cit., p. 9.

20

leading to other values which are ends. There are those
who would quarrel with this list being called "values” at
all, certainly not by some previous definitions. This
means-ends classification of values is similar to Nickell
and Dorsey's "intrinsic or instrumental"l separation.
McKee discusses these means and ends values further:

...I would conclude that as a central goal value
home management is interested in developing the kind
of atmosphere or setting in a home which enables all
the people in that home, old and young,to grow into
mature and healthy persons-~physically, emotionally,
intellectlially, socially, spiritually. Put another
way, home management seeks to create the conditions
which will allow each person in the home to become
the kind of person he is capable of becoming. The
instrumental values which home management furthers--
such as order, efficiency, skills, and planning--
therefore need to be seen in the context of the kind
of situation they establish and the quality of living
they make possible for the comfort and all-around
health of persons.

As McKee has done above, some writers avoid the
overlapping of "values" and "goals” by using the term
"goal value" to mean the long-range, ultimate, ends goal.
At this level, the distinction between a value and a goal
is slight, and it may exist only in the way the idea is
stated.

McKee has stated precisely what home management
holds as its central goal value. In theory at least, it
is fostered and promoted by home management people, and
there is an ever-present danger of this goal-value being

obscured by the details involved in achieving it.

 

lNickell and Dorsey, 9p. cit., p. 23.
2McKee, pp. cit., p. 10.

21

Importance of Clarifying Values and Goals

Many writers stress the importance of families and
individuals clarifying their values and goals.

The Malones state:

A family that knows clearly its values and beliefs
and knows how to integrate them with action is able
to establish logical goals; and goals that are logical
are more easily reached.

Lane might have been writing of home management in-
.stead of parenthood when she wrote:

... a piecemeal approach to parenthood, 'a Jab and
a spurt' ... by that we mean that some of us aren't
very clear about the larger goals for which we as
parents are working or wish to work.

We are likely to do the best we can with the thing
of the minute or the day and hope that all will turn
out well. Sometimes it does, but there is greater
chance of success if we are highly aware of the things
in life we prize and if we are consciously manipu-
lating the daily bits so that they help us to reach
not only our immediate but also our long-term goals.
Knowing where we want to go, in parenthood as in
motoring, does help us to get there.2

Esther Bratton emphasizes the importance of teaching
students and homemakers to clarify their goals, which she
calls "purposes":

The difficulty in developing a technique of home
management teaching which stimulates the individual
to clarify her thinking about purposes without in
effect imposing superficially those of the teacher
or of the group is one of the most important and
difficult problems that we management teachers have
to face.... But it is a problem which does have to
be faced, because if there is one management tech-
nique which education can and must strengthen in the

 

1Malone and Malone, pp, cit., p. 30.

2Bess B. Lane, Epriching Family Life Through Home,
School, and Community (WashIngton,fiD. C.: PuBIIc AffaIrs

Press, 1957), p. 9.

 

 

22

. student it is the ability to see clearly the relations
of all the activities and tasks in the home to one's

own and the faily's purposes.... Lita Bane expresses
this idea a few years ago in a quotation that I like,
'To him who knoweth not thp port to which he is bound
no wind can be favorablel.

Her concern that students may have the goals of the
teacher or of the group superficially imposed upon them is
also one of the concerns of this study: what students'
goals are, or whether students accept those of the teacher
for the duration of the course. If this happens, then stu-
dents do not clarify their own goals and one of the maJor

purposes in home managementteaching is defeated.

Nickell and Dorsey express the importance of goal

clarification in this way:

Clearly defined goals not only encourage the wise
use of family resources, but they also stimulate
the cooperation of the...people who have set the
goals.... As the years go by, the family's goals
help direct and control the desires of the group
and thus shape the family's pattern of living.2

Fitzsimmons identifies goal-clarification as being

' a problem in families and a prerequisite for home manage-

ment:

...a considerable problem exists because goals are
imperfectly understood by the individual or family
to whom they belong. Their definition or delineation
is probably the first step in management.3 -

 

1C. A. Bratton and Esther C. Bratton, "Decision
Making in Home Management," Proceedings of Conference on
Values and Decision-Making inDHome Managafient, Dept. T—Home
Management and CHiId DeveIoEfient, MIChlgan State University,
East Lansing, 1955, p. 32.

2Nickell and Dorsey, pp, cit., p. 32.

 

 

 

 

3Fitzsimmons, pp. cit., pp. 6-7.

23

Goodyear and Klohr give the same idea, ”Clarifying

goal values precedes effective management."1

In discussing the vital role of the family in foster-
ing and promoting society's values,-Mayo asserts:

Sharpened awareness of ethical and spiritual
values gives rise to a sense of unity, clear vision
of duty and direction, and inner security....

0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

No nation was ever conquered, no culture ever
destroyed from without, that was not first the victim
of its own internal moral and spiritual weakness.2

Mayo, then, sees "sharpened awareness" (which is another
way of saying "clarification") of this type of values (and
by their relatedness,of goals) as being vital to our very
existence.

Goodyear and Klohr3quote Lawrence K. Frank in his
address to an audience on "Housing and Human Values” at
the Ohio State University, January 17, 1952:

...concern with the goal values is not an ab-
stract philosophical occupation, is not an idealis-
tic evasion of the very concrete, recalcitrant
practical problems we must face. 0n the contrary,

I would assert, that until we can clarify these
goals, recognize more clearly what we are seeking

we are liable to be misled, diverted, even betrayed
into decisions and actions that unwittingly, but
still very effectively, frustrate what we are trying
to do.

lGoodyear and Klohr, pp, cit., p. 11.

2Leonard N. Mayo, "Strengthening Ethical and Spir-
itual Values in Family Life,” Journal of Home Economics,
Vol. 44 (October, 1952), pp. 6I3-5I5.—

 

3Goodyear and Klohr, pp, cit., p. 11.

24

In home management, as well as in other related
disciplines, the clarification of values and goals is con-
sidered to be of high importance. Goal clarification is
one means of families coming closer.to achieving their
reasons for being. The importance is well recognized, but
the means for helping families to define their values and

goals are lacking.

Review of Research

 

In home management, relatively little research has
been done upon goals and values as such. Earlier, the con-
cern in home management was with establishing a body of
knowledge in the more tangible aspects of the field which
would be securely based on research findings. But from
its beginning, in fact before home management was a separ-
ate area within home economics, there was realization of the
importance of the underlying values and goals. Emphasis
on values underlying homemaking was given at the Lake
Placid Conferences in the beginning of the century.1
Attempts to do research in this area, however, are com-
paratively recent.

Since values and goals are so closely related to

the whole management process, work on any part necessarily

includes them, implicitly or explicitly. Research on the

 

1Lake Placid Conferences on Home Economics, Pro-
ceedings of tHe FIrSt, Second, and THIrd‘COnferences, Lake
Placid, N. Y., 1901, cited in Gross and Crandall, pp, cit.,
p. 522.

 

 

25

facets of home management might be divided into three cate-
gories in which values and goals at different levels are
directly or indirectlyinvolved:

2 Decision—making

l; Managerial practices
3 Use of resources: money, time, energy.

(1) Managerial practices.-- The device developed

 

by Gross has two sections for measuring the degree to which
homemakers have short- and long-range goals: ”Your Present
Activities for Future Development" and ”Your Incentives for
Home Management."1 The method used (checklist) has use-
fulness in obtaining information as to values and goals
considered important by the respondents, but it does not
eliminate the possibility that the points may be checked
because they are considered "good” and may not be the real
values and goals held by the respondents.

In Thorpe and Gross' study of managerial practices
of married students,2 goals are indicated in the responses
regarding the planning of use of money, time, and energy,
and values might be inferred from these. While this study
was primarily concerned with managerial practices, it could

provide leads for the study of values and goals as such.

 

1Irma H. Gross, Measuring Home Management, Michigan
State College Agric. Exp. Sta. Circular BuII. 21 , (East
Lansing, March, 1948), pp. 38-40.

2Alice C. Thorpe and Irma H. Gross, Managerial
Practices in the Homes of Married Students atIMiChigan
Stafe CollEgeT—ReprIfiteO—from‘MichIganAIriEfilturaI Experi-
mefif_StatIOnpguarterly Bulletin, V01. 32, No. 3., IFeEruary

T956): pp. 288'3060

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

Van Bortel and Gross,1 in their study of home manage-
ment in two socio-economic groups, made a specific attempt
to find out if the values of the two were similar or differ-
ent:

In trying to find out the values which influenced
their goals, the homemakers were asked what were the
purposes or values which influenced the way they
managed their homes. This was a difficult question
for both groups to answer. The sentence completion
test however gave some insightin pointing up impor-
tant values and goals, as did direct and open-end
questions. Parker's list of values ...form the basis
of the analysis of these findings. For the most part
the presence of the values had 50 be deduced from the
goals which resulted from them.

The means of identifying values and goals by Open-end
questions seemed usable, although the sentence completion
technique was not considered feasible for this study.

(2) Decision-making.-F Research on decision-making

 

in relation to home management is scarce.

Paolucci's3 work on decision-making by beginning
teachers in home management was concerned more with the
understanding of the decision-making process and the possi-
bility of developing critical thinking than with values and
goals, although these might be deduced and studied from

 

lDorothy Greey Van Bortel and Irma H. Gross, A Com-
arison pf_Home Management ip_Two Socio-Economic GrOfipST_
NIcHigan State ColIege A ricultural Experiment Station
Technical Bulletin 240, East Lansing, April, 1954).

2Ibid.., p. 19.

3Beatrice Paolucci, ”Decision-Making in Relation to
Management in Classes of Home Economics by Beginning
Teachers." (Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1956).

 

27

examining the decisions made. Of interest for this study
was the consideration of role eXpectation as it might
affect decision-making.

In her study of decisions of the adolescent girl,
Pricel developed a device for measuring ability to make
decisions. In collecting data as a basis for forming her
device, she attempted to ascertain values accepted by the
girls (either stated or implied) and conflicting values
involved in the decisions.

Glommen attempted to develop a projective technique
”to ascertain farm family values."2 Although she discarded
the technique as inadequate, her discussion of-its construc-
tion and weaknesses was valuable.

While the foregoing studies in decision-making were
done in different areas and were not concerned, primarily,
with values and goals in home management, they were helpful
background for this study.

(3) Use of resources: money, time, energy.-- No
research was found that was directed specifically at deter-

mining values and goals in home management through a study

 

1Hazel Price, Securing Valid and Reliable Evidence
of the Ability of the AdOlescent Girl to Make InteIligent
DECisions ConcePfiing the Use Of PersonEI Resources, Reprinted
from Abstracts othoctoraIDDissertatIOns, No. 29 The Ohio
State University’Press,Il939, pp. 954102.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2Margaret E. Glommen, "Developing and Testing of an
Instrument to Analyze the Decision-Making Process in Rela-
tion to the Advancement of Rural Family Financial Security"
(unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University,

1957), Pp. 47-59.

28

of use of resources. Research in the managerial process,
such as those previously mentioned, overlaps and includes
this area to some extent. The study of use of resources
is a possible avenue of exploration of home management values
and goals, although it would seem that the dangers inherent
in deducing and inferring values from the way peOple use
resources would have to be overcome by an additional, more
direct means of measurement.

Studies on values and goals as such are scarce, if
not non-existent, in home management. There are some studies
of family values and goals, such as that done by Fitzsimmons
and Holmes,1 but home management is not considered except
by inference (as it would be involvedin financial plans,
for example). Probably the most significant study of values

in relation to homes is the Cutler study2

previously men-
tioned, in which families' values as operative in selecting
a home are measured.

This review of the research literature indicates
the scarcity of studies in the area of values, goals, and
decision-making in home management. While the review is not
exhaustive, the research studies mentioned seem to be the

only ones of those examined that have any relevance for

this study.

 

lCleo Fitzsimmons and Emma G. Holmes, Factors
Affecting Farm Family Goals, Research Bulletin 663, :Purdue
University Agr. Exp. Stafion, Lafayette, Indiana,(July,
1958 .

2Cutler,pp. cit.

 

29

Forced-Choice Technique

 

Two types of forced-choice techniques are exemplified
in the Cutler1 and Strauss2 studies.

Cutler attempted to rank-order personal and family
values in the choice of a home. Each of ten predetermined
values was paired with each other value, and the respon-
dents chose one of each pair, thereby being led to think
in terms of the functions a home should serve in order to
Satisfy their basic values.

Seemingly better suited to the purpose of this study
was the technique used by Strauss in which choice was to
be made among four values.

Forced-choice technique, as used in this Rural
Attitudes Profile, consists of twelve sets of four
phrases called 'tetrads'. ...Each of the four varia-
bles which the profile is designed to measure...is
represented by a phrase in the tetrad. Furthermore,
in each tetrad, two of the phrases are.approximate1y
equally complimentary (as indicated by their Social
acceptability Index values). Two are about equally
uncomplimentary. The respondent is asked to choose
from each tetrad the one phrase which is most like
himself and the one pEPESe which is leastIIIEe him-
self. Thus the PESpondent who wants To present him-
self in a favorable light cannot merely say "yes” to
all socially desirable statements and ”no” to all
undesirable ones, as can be done in the usual "yes—
no" type test. Instead, he is forced in effect to
make rankings within the tetrad.

Forced-choice is thus similar to the well known
paired comparisons technique. But, as noted above,
there is one important difference: Each description
in a forced-choice has been previously assigned a
"social acceptability” score. Only items with approx-
imately equal acceptability scores are included in
the pair. Although equally acceptable in terms of

 

lCutler, pp. cit.

2Strauss, pp, cit.

30

the social norms for the group on which the test
will be used, the items are also chosen so that
each represents (either positively or negatively)
a different attitude or variable.

The forced-choice format has several technical
advantages besides the theoretical desirability of
measuring valuesin terms of choice. First, the type
of response required eliminates ”response set" in the
sense of the tendency of some respondents to answer
most questions as either "yes" or "no.” Second,
despite the unfortunate name, the forced-choice for-
mat often arouses less respondent resistance than the
same questions asked in the usual yes-no or intensity
of agreement format.... Third, the respondent cannot
respond positively to all items. Since each item in
the tetrad is paired with another which is equally
flattering or derogatory, the underlying theory of
the forced-choice type instrument is that the respon-
dent will select the item which in fact most describes
himself. Fourth, in a limited but important sense,
the forced-choice format specifies the context within
which a Judgment is to be made and thus helps control
varying definitions of the situation.

Fifth, forced-choice format is particularly
suited to situations which require tests which can
be completed in a relatively brief period.... The
cumulative effect of these characteristics seems to
be a measuring instrument which is difficult to fake
and wpich appears to provide a more valid measure-
ment.

This type of forced-choice instrument appeared to
have real possibilities for rank-ordering goals in home
management, and Strauss' methods of development provided

the guide for developing the instrument in this study.

 

lStrauss, pp, cit., p. 5-6.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

 

Procedure. An attempt was made to determine some

 

important home management goals of students in HMCD 332a,
fall term, 1959. Formal and informal observations of stu-
dent behavior were made over the term. To obtain state-
ments regarding expectations, satisfactions and their lack,
and what they considered important, an open-end ques-
tionnaire was constructed and given to students who had
lived in Unit 1 of home management house during the term.
A second open-end questionnaire was constructed and given
to students enrolled for winter term, 1960, which was
designed to obtain statements regarding role expectations
and what the students considered important in home manage-
ment, prior to their having taken any work in the course.
Statements in response to both questionnaires were ana-
lyzed in an attempt to discern important goals. 0n the
bases of observation of student behavior, responses to
questionnaires, discussion with various staff members,
reading, and considered thought, four goals were iden-
tified as seeming to be most important to students in

home management.

32

An instrument was developed patterned on Strauss'
study of values in rural life and incorporating the four
goals identified previously. A pool of items was estab-
lished, based on the students' statements and home manage-
ment literature. Each item represented one of the four
goals. These items were submitted to a selected Jury, who
classified them into goal categories and Judged them for
social acceptability. After some items were eliminated,

a Social Acceptability Index was established. The items
were then submitted to a selected group of students for
their Judgement of social acceptability, and on this basis,
more items were eliminated. Items were then combined into
tetrads in which each of the four goals was represented,
two with almost equally high and two with almost equally
low Social Acceptability Index numbers. These tetrads
were then put together to form the instrument.

The completed instrument, with instructions for
scoring, was administered to selected groups for the pur-
pose of making comparisons between groups regarding the
relative importance they placed on the four goals.

The responses were tabulated, analyzed, and con-

clusions were drawn.

Selection of the sample. The sample consisted of

 

seven groups selected as follows: (1) Respondents to
first open-end questionnaire: the fifteen undergraduate
students who had lived in home mangement house, unit 1,

Michigan State University, fall term, 1959, and who had

33

Just completed the home management residence course, HMCD
332a. (2) Respondents to second Open-end questionnaire:
the fifty-three undergraduate students enrolled in HMCD
332a at Michigan State University for winter term, 1960,
who had not yet had any Of the course work.

(3) A Jury of twenty-four to Judge the items for
the instrument, selected from home management staff members
at Michigan State University, home management graduate
students who were at Michigan State University in 1958—59
and who were currently working professionally elsewhere,
graduate students in an advanced home management class at
Michigan State University, winter term, 1960, and one home
economics teacher education staff member at Michigan State
University.

(4) Respondents to the instrument--four groups, all
at Michigan State University, selected as follows:

(i) forty-two single undergraduate students who had
completed HMCD 332a, winter term, 1900;

(11) six married undergraduate students who had com-
pleted HMCD 332a, winter term, 1960;

(iii) thirteen undergraduate students enrolled for
HMCD 332a spring term, 1960, who would be living
in home management house, unit 1, and who had not
yet had any of the course work;

(iv) fifteen home management staff members and grad-
uate students who were on the Jury as listed in
(3) above and who were on campus when the instru-
ment was administered.

34

B. Exploration of Goals

 

During fall term, 1959, behavior of students taking
HMCD 332a and living in home management house, unit 1, was
observed in an effort to find out what goals in home man-
agement were important to students. As resident adviser
in the house, the writer had contact with these students
both formally for purposes of assigning a grade (arranged
conferences, written and laboratory work, and examinations)
and informally in day-to-day living.

Isolated pieces of behavior may not be valuable in-
dicators, but behavior over time and in different situa-
tions can give some clues, at least, as to what students
consider important enough to work toward.

Much behavior appeared to take place in terms of
expectations. Many plans seemed to be made to meet what
students thought were the expectations of the other girls
in the house. It seemed more than change that there was
so little variation from student to student in the kinds
and methods of managerial activities carried out. More
frequently than not the first manager in the group "set
the pace" and other members more or less followed her
lead. There seemed to be more difference between groups
than there was within groups, i.e., a pattern of behavior
would appear to be established in each group which followed
through with some slight variation from student to student
in most cases, while a slightly different pattern would

develop in another group. Differences appeared so slight

35

that one might question that they actually exist. The con-
cern today about the prevalence of conformity in the soc-
iety tends to make observers alert to its presence, with
the accompanying danger of exaggerating its extent. In-
stead of conformity, it may be that managerial activities
do not seem important enough in this situation to warrant
students' being individualistic, and there appears to be

no merit in variation or individualism for its own sake.
The remarkable sameness, however, in a situation which pro-
vides SCOpe for more creative approaches to management than
are utilized, leads one to believe that meeting others
approval is an important goal.

Some managerial activity seemed to be carried out
according to what students believed to be the adviser's
expectations, in light of a future grade in the course.

It is unrealistic to suppoaa that a grade is not an im-
portant goal to students. Role performance in the ad-
viser's presence is sometimes different than when the
student is alone with the others. A rather typical example
of this was provided when a student who was light-heartedly
cha-cha-ing from the refrigerator to the sink during meal
preparation in the presence of the other girls ceased
abruptly, with some embarrassed laughter, when the adviser
approached, and became "motion-minded." Obviously, she
thought the adviser's expectations for her role performance
did not include dancing. It seems reasonable to suppose

that efforts are made to meet instructors' expectations in

less obvious and more significant ways.

. 36

There was some evidence that students worked to
meet their own expectations. They had certain ideas of
their own as to their role and certain standards of their
own which they attempted to meet. Evidence of this appeared
in situations when a student was quite dissatisfied with
herself for the way a plan worked out although everyone
else was pleased. Sometimes students spent a long time
working over arranging a table. Expressions of pleasure
and satisfaction gave some evidence of their own expecta-
tions being met. In evaluating an activity that "came
off” well and had pleased them and in which they felt they
had fulfilled their role, they verbally expressed satis-
faction. Evidence was more concrete in the asthetic
area, e.g., a few students appeared to enJoy lingering
and rubbing when polishing a piece of furniture,making
comments such as "I Just love this table."- This appeared
to be evidence of self-satisfaction or self-realization.
Some of the evidences of meeting their own expectations
or image might be satisfaction with meeting the expecta-
tions or approval of others, but the writer thought she

could discern genuine self-realization in certain situa-
tions.

0f the importance of role expectation in behavior,
Neal Gross pp_pl, say:

The concept of role has assumed a key position

in the fields of sociology, social psychology, and
cultural anthropology. Students of the social

sciences frequently make use of it as a central
term in conceptual schemes for the analysis of the

37
structure and functioning of social systems and for
the explanation of individual behavior.1

They define expectation as: "...an evaluative standard

”2 and role as:

applied to an incumbent of a position,
"a set of expectation.”3 .
The part played by expectations in decision-making
(and therefore in management) is stated by Fromm:
A great number of our decisions are not really our
own but are suggested to us from the outside; we
have succeeded in persuading ourselves that it is we
who have made the decision, whereas we have actually
conformed with the expectations of others.... In

watching the phenomenon of human decisions, one is
struck by the extent to which people are mistaken

in taking as 'their' decision what in effect is
submission to contention, duty or simple pressure.”
Observation of student behavior in combination with

reading led the writer to believe that two goals toward
which students managed were: to meet the expectations of
Significant other people (other girls in the house or the
adviser in terms of a grade), and to meet their own ex-
pectations.

Evidence of a strong desire for goodwill and "peace-

ful coexistance" appeared to be present. Students

 

1Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, Alexander W. McEachern,
Expectations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc., 1958), . 3.
2Ibid., p. 58.
31bid.’ p. 60.

 

uErich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Rine-
hart and Co., Inc., 1931), p. 33, quofed in Beatrice
Paolucci and Carol O'Brien, "Decision-Making: The Crux of
Mana ementJ'Forecast for Home Economics, Vol. 57, (November

1959 . p. 30.

 

38

constantly came to one another's rescue, e.g., rectifying
mistakes or omissions, thus saving the other from bearing
the consequences of her decisions. Since the residence
period is short, potential sources of friction were smoothed
over and endured which might over a longer period of time
have resulted in conflict. There was considerable evi-
dence of the importance students placed on this harmonious
group life. This as a goal in students' home management

. is not astonishingin the light of the emphasis given it
throughout their life when "getting along with others" is
held before them as desirable, from nursery school age, or
before, on to the present. This goal has high sanction from
society, and it would be surprising if it were not demon-
strated to be present and operative in this situation.

This, then, was thought to be a third important goal

toward which students managed, to make everything harmon-
ious and pleasant, and to get along well together.

Since the writer was concerned whether students and
staff had the same goals, or whether students adopted the
instructors' goals as being expedient from the vieWpoint
of a grade if the goals did in fact differ, considerable
thought was given to the question of what the staff's
goals in home management were. From the literature and
many conversations with staff members as to what their
goals were, as well as discussion in a seminar in values
in home management, one important goal seemed to have

concensus: that of creating conditions for the optimum,

39

maximum development of individuals in the family, physi-
cally, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. This
could be considered a professional credo and was stated
quite fully by McKee.l It was realized that there was a
possibility that this was not a highly held goal by the
students. In the first place, they are young and may not
be "professionally-minded" as yet; at least this is an
assumption that might be made regarding many of them.
Secondly, the home management house situation is some-
what artificial: it is temporary and structured, and when
all is said and done, it is a course and not "for real"
as their own homes will be. On the other hand, there is
a possibility that students at this level (Juniors and
some seniors) may be more professionally-minded than is
suspected, and they may be concerned with the health and
general well-being of the individuals in the group to a
far greater extent than is thought. They may, too, have
this as a long-range goal for their own homes and may have
absorbed this idea from their parental home. Since this
is a goal in home management that is held high by staff and
one that the students may or may not make decisions and
manage toward, ”Optimum development” of individuals was
settled upon tentatively as the fourth important goal.
Interpretation of behavior as evidence of important
goals is subJective and always open to question. It is

difficult to look at pieces of behavior and be sure that

 

1McKee, pp, cit., p. 10.

40

they are evidence of one or more important goals; hence,
other evidence was sought.

It is customary for the advisers to encourage the
students to verbalize their goals during their pre-
managerial conference. For example, in discussing menu-
planning1 students were asked, "What did you have in mind
chiefly as you were planning these menus?" as well as other
questions designed to help them verbalize their goals.
Replies were usually such statements as: ”To have them
nutritious," "I tried to have variety of color and texture,"
"To have things everybody will like," "To keep within the
cost," "To plan things that won't take too much time to
prepare," with occasional replied of a rather vague nature,
”Oh, I don't know--I guess I was thinking to have them
nutritious, good variety,” the latter vague type of reply
appearing to be a play-back of things learned in foods
classes as to what a "good" meal should be.

Questions repeatedly arose: Wpy_does she want the
meals to be nutritious, for example? Toward what important
goal is nutrition a means? Were the students' goals in
terms of expectations of significant other people? The
other girls have also taken courses in nutrition and would

expect her, in the role of menu-maker as part of her man-

agerial responsibilities, to provide nutritious meals.

 

1Examples will be given in terms of the provision
of meals, because students spend so much of their time in
this area and also because it is such a tangible aspect
of managerial activity.

41

She may think the adviser expects it of her and that she
will be graded accordingly. She may have high nutrition
standards herself and would be unhappy serving meals that
did not meet her own image of herself as a person who plans
nutritious meals. The goal might be in terms of making
everybody happy, particularly if combined with the desire
to have "things everybody likes." The student may be
highly conscious of health (a few girls appear to be),

and plans nutritious meals with the goal of physical well-
being in mind. But for this particular means, nutrition,
it seems a little unrealistic to believe that meals are
planned with this fourth goal primarily in mind as no one
becomes malnourished in the very few days each girl is
responsible for providing meals. It is suspected, while
students give attention to nutritive requirements in

their meal-planning, that there may be a number of goals
towards which this activity is directed.

Thus, the verbalization that they planned toward
having meals nutritious does not tell very much in itself,
unless it is known toward what end or goal this planning
is directed. It is likely that more than one of the four
goals is being worked toward, but there is no way of know-
ing which ones had highest priority.

In some situations, behavior appeared to be at
variance with verbalized goals. For example, in group
conversations, there was talk, with lamentations, about

how much weight they were gaining in the home management

42

house, and of how they were going to go on diets when they
moved out. However, not one manager planned low-calorie
meals following such conversations, rather, high-calorie
foods continued to appear on the menu, with desserts and
other items everybody liked. When discussing their menus
at this time, some students would seriously verbalize that
they had nutrition uppermost in mind when planning. This
apparent contradiction could have several interpretations,
one being that they could be acting on incomplete knowledge
and understanding in thinking that if the meals met all

the requirements for essential nutrients, they were adequate
nutritionally, and not realize that good nutrition also in-
volves weight control. Thus they could be quite sincere

in stating that good nutrition was most important to them
when planning.

At first glance, the foregoing evidence might lead
one to think that the third goal of having everybody happy
was not high in this situation, or low-calorie meals would
have been planned. On looking at this behavior more
closely, it could be speculated that the girls were Aot
really distressed about weight gain. The menu-maker,
probably being one of those lamenting, and knowing the
real situation, knew that she would keep everybody happy
by continuing with food everybody liked, calories or no

calories.

43

Students can verbalize the short-term, immediate,
or means goals they are managing toward, and evidence of
these can be seen (e.g. evidence of "nutrition" as a means
goal can be seen in such behavior as the menus planned,
the conservation of nutrients in cooking and storing food).
But the ultimate, long-range, ends goals are Obscure, and
evidence provided by behavior is open to subJective inter-
pretation.

The four goals tentatively considered to be impor-
tant in the students' home management were, in brief: to
meet the expectations of significant other people (other
girls in the house and the adviser in terms of a grade);
to meet their own expectations; to have everybody happy
and everything harmonious; and the goal professionally
fostered, to create conditions for optimum development of
individuals. It was decided to obtain statements from
students regarding some of the things they considered im-
portant as further evidence of important goals.

The fifteen students who had lived in home manage-
ment house, unit 1, fall term, 1959, were given an open-

1 Questions were framed to obtain

end questionnaire.
statements of the expectations of the manger's role:
their present concept of the role, what they believed the
other girls' and the adviser's expectations to be, and
their own expectations before taking the course. They

were asked about satisfactions and dissatisfactions, in

 

lAppendix, Questionnaire I, p. 98.

44

the hope of uncovering what they considered important.
Questions were included as to their own values and what
they considered were values of other people. This was an
exploratory questionnaire, for the purpose of obtaining
some leads and further evidence of which goals were impor-
tant to students. The students who responded had Just com-
pleted the course, and it was realized that their replies,
especially about expectations, might be colored by course
content and experience.

To obtain expressions of role expectations that
might be truer, without bias from classwork, a second
open-end questionnairé—was prepared, more specific than
the first. Fifty-three students enrolled in HMCD 332a
for winter term, 1960, responded before the course began.

An attempt was made to classify the responses to
both questionnaires. Many of the same ideas were repeated
in various ways, and such statements as the following
were typical:

be organized so that meals, etc. are on time

develop a friendly and warm atmosphere among

members

keep the house clean and neat

to know how to run my home efficiently with-

out fuss

to give my group good meals and help keep a

comfortable home for them

spend money and time wisely

happiness

neatness

tidiness

planning nutritious meals

to keep the house looking attractive

to know efficient methods of doing things
to learn how to keep a budget

1Appendix, Questionnaire II, p. 99.

45

”Efficiency," ”neatness,” “cleanliness,” ”planning” appeared
probably more Often than any other idea, and "to know how
to--” or ”to be able to” appeared almost as often. The
statements seemed to echo the four “values” as seen by
McKee: ”The values of planning, of skills, of order, of
efficiency.”1 There appeared to be clusters of ideas be-
longing together: skills and knowledge; planning and
efficiency; neatness, orderliness, cleanliness. Other
ideas expressed by such statements as ”to have the house
look nice? "an attractive home," "everybody comfortable"
seemed to suggest a cluster: beauty, comfort, creativity.
These clusters the writer chooses to call "means goals.”

Some of them such as beauty and creativity may fall into

 

a ”goal-value" or ”ends goal" category, but as used by
the students they are more nearly on the ”means goal”
level.

In giving further thought to the ”ends goals" that
these "means goals" might serve in relation to the stu-
dents' statements, it seemed that there was evidence
reinforcing the tentative selection of the third goal:
that of the happy, harmonious group or family life. There
were many statements of this sort: "a pleasant attitude
between membens" ”prepare meals pleasing to all members,"

II II

”maintain a harmonious atmosphere for the family, serving

of meals should be pleasantand relaxing for everyone,”

 

lMcKee,pp. cit., p. 9.

46

”work shared by all,” ”pleasant home environment," and so
on. There also appeared to be some supporting evidence
for the other three goals, but not as much as for the third.

It was decided to establish the four goals, tenta-
tively considered earlier, as the four "ends goals” to be
used in the construction of the instrument.

On the bases of subJective interpretation of student
behavior observed, statements made by students in response
to the two open-end questionnaires, supported by litera-
ture in the field, discussion with staff, participation in
a seminar in values, and with considered thought, the
following were established as being four of the most im-
portant goals toward which students make decisions and
take action in home management:

Goal I: Tpoeet social approval.

 

--expectations of significant other people,
such as other girls in the group,
husbands (when applicable), home
management instructor (largely in
terms of grades)

Goal II: ‘Tp meet own expectations

 

--standards

--feeling of personal worth or accomplishment
--self-satisfaction

--self-image

Goal III: To have happy, harmonious group or family
IIfe '"' '"'

--freedom from friction between members

--good interpersonal relations

--cooperation, sociability

--contented pleasant relationships and
atmosphere

 

 

47

Goal IV: Tp create conditions for Optimum develop-
ment pfindiVIduals ip fami y pp group

 

 

--physical well-being (health, comfort)

--emotional well-being

--mental development through education in
its broadest sense

--spiritual development

C. Development of the Instrument

 

To develop an instrument for analyzing the rela-
tive importance of the "ends goals" in selected groups,
it had been decided to use the forced-choice technique as
described by Strauss in his study of rural life values.1
Originally, it was hoped to construct twenty tetrads of four
items each, each item representing one of the four prede-
termined "ends goals." This did not prove to be feasible.

A pool of 152 items was established on the basis of
the students' responses to the two questionnaires. Res-
ponses were categorized according to "means goals." Addi-
tional wording shaped them into items designed to lead to
each Of the four "ends goals." These were supplemented by
items suggested by or taken from home management litera-
ture by items suggested by staff members, and by the
writer's own ideas.

Items were stated on personal rather than general
terms, e.g. "Think that pp_family--" rather than "Think

that families--."

 

lstrauss, pp. cit.

48

An effort was made to have the items applicable to
all students in their different living situations: items
referring to "the others," "everybody in the house,” for
example, could apply to all. Use of vague terms such as
("keeping things neat” allowed for flexibility in points
of reference: students might think of utensils in the
home management kitchen, books and ornaments in their
living rooms in married housing, or belongings in their
bedrooms in home management house, married housing, dormi-
tories, sorority houses, or other approved living situa-
tions.

Many difficulties were encountered in shaping the
items. It was difficult to avoid ambiguity; e.g., to
state the means goal, "to be neat," in terms of the ends
goal, "to meet the expectations of significant others,” as:
"want to have the reputation of being neat” has the ambigu-
ity that the person scoring it might want to be neat for
a number of reasons and to meet others expectations may
have little to do with it. She may not care about having
the reputation ppp_pp_but she may want to be pppp, or she
may want the reputation merely because it is an indication

that she is, in fact, neat. It may be the fact of neatness

 

rather than the reputation that would cause her to score

 

the item, perhaps for a different reason entirely--her own

satisfaction and meeting her own expectations, for example.

49

Another difficulty was in stating means goals in
terms of the ends goal ”to create conditions for optimum
development of individuals..." that would be applicable
in the home management house. As discussed previously,
it seemed unrealistic to think that the students were
primarily concerned with this goal. Thus many of the
items were projected to their future homemaking situation;
this is probably a weakness in the construction of some
items.

A difficulty in forming brief items that would be
representative of the broad picture of home management
resulted in statements so general as to be almost meaning-
less. An example is constructing an item which represents
planning as a means to optimum development of family mem-
bers. The original idea was thellse of planning so that
a homemaker's time is not filled with trivia to the point
where she is so distracted that she is unable to see evi-
dence in her family of psychic needs--a child in need of
understanding, her husband in need of moral support and
encouragement-~in other words, her awareness of their
needs may be dulled by her "busy-ness." If her family's
needs of this type are important to her, she may plan her
activities so as not to be harassed and frantic. To ex-
press this idea in a compact item is almost impossible, and
the attempt resulted in the nebulous statement: "Want to
plan so there will be time for me to be observant of

others emotional and spiritual needs," with the idea

50

that the girls in the house might be aware of each others
needs or might proJect to their future homes. One mem-
ber of the Jury commented, "Things are in a bad state if
people have to plan for this.” Other comments indicated
that the point had not been made, hence the item was re-
Jected. In the same vein, items to express creativity,
for example, as a means toward seILrealization, or toward
meeting ones own expectations in terms Of the home manage-
ment house or married housing resulted too often in
triteness; in expressing creativity concretely there was
the danger of ambiguity. The item seemed to be scored
for content rather than for idea. The thought was that
one might be creative in many ways: in resolving Con-I
flicts, in approaching routine tasks, in arranging every-
day items in new and different combination. To state
this meaningfully was difficult. "An arrangement I've
made” might be food on a plate, furniture, flowers,

”an

driftwood, a table setting, but sounds trite as
arrangement." Ambiguity enters, and the item is scored
for content rather than idea, e.g., people who react
negatively to centerpieces, for example, might instantly

" whereas

equate "an arrangement" with "a centerpiece,
"arrangement" was specifically used to present a biased
reaction of this sort. One person might react positively
and another negatively to the same concrete example, while
both might be in agreement with creativity as a means to

the same ends goal.

51

An effort was made to formulate items that would
have varying degrees of social acceptability. Two equally
true items may have different degrees of social acceptance,
e.g., l'I do this to make people happy” can be said with
social sanction and approval. ”I do this so that others
will think well of me” may be equally true, but it cannot
be said with equal impunity. Words and ideas can be posi-
tively or negatively value-laden. An effort was made to
establish items worded in such a way that there would be
some with high and some with low social acceptance.

An attempt was made to have the number of items
representing each means goal as nearly equal as possible.
Categorizing and formulating resulted in a pool of 152
items.1 There were 38 items designed to lead to each of
the four ends goals. The distribution of these is Shown
in Table l.

The total for the means goal cluster "skills,
knowledge" is smaller than for the other clusters. The
”Skills, knowledge” cluster overlaps the other clusters
to a large extent: "to know how to--2'to have Skill in--"
brings a certain repetition of ideas; for example, "to be
able to make decision" leading to a specific ends goal

involves the cluster "planning, efficiency."

 

1Items (152) Submitted to Jury, Appendix, pp.lIKL

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF MEANS GOALS IN RELATION TO ENDS GOALS

52

 

 

 

Means goals Ends Ends Ends ' Ends Total by
goal goal goal goal clusters
I II III IV of means
goals
Skills,
knowledge 5 5 8 8 26
Efficiency 5 6 4 5 4
5
Planning 6 6 6 7
Neatness,
orderliness 6 6 5
4O
Cleanliness 6 4 5 3
Creativity 5 5 6 5
Beauty, “1
comfort 5 7 3 5
Total by
ends goals 38 38 38 38 152

 

53

Judging of Items by a Jury. Because the ends goals

 

are not mutually exclusive--in fact the first three might
be means goals (on a higher level than the other means
goals) leading to the fourth, the optimum development

goal, and because there are possibilities of ambiguity

as discussed previously as well as personal bias in the
construction of items, a Jury was asked to Judge the items.
The Jury was composed of home management staff and graduate
students.

Each Jury member received a covering explanatory
letter1 and the 152 items on separate slips of paper.
Each also received five 9 1/2 x 4" envelopes; on four of
these envelOpes was stated an "ends goal" in full, and on
the fifth was stated "Does not fit any of the four cate-
gories." Each Jury member was asked to Judge the items
on the following bases:

(a) possible bias and ambiguity in wording.

(b) social acceptability, in order to establish a
Social Acceptability Index. They were asked
to mark a ”+” if they would like the item to be
said of them, a "-" if they would dislike the
item to be said of them, and a "0” if they would
neither like nor dislike the item to be said of
them; i;e., if they considered the item to be
more flattering to them than otherwise, "+",
more derogatory, "-P, neutral ”0".

(c) classification according to goal categories;

they were asked to place each item in the
envelope in which they considered it belonged.

 

1For full covering letter, see Explanatory Letter
to the Jury Sent with Items to be Judged, Appendix, p.111.

54

It was arbitrarily decided that items with less than
75 per cent agreement as to goal category would be elimin-
ated. It was hoped that 80 items out of the 152 could be
retained after Judgement by the Jury, 2O usable items to
represent each goal.

The responses of the 24 Jury members were tabulated.
Totals were computed for the number of respondents placing
each item in the separated goal categories. Any item hav-
ing less than 18 (75 per cent of respondents) agreeing on
the proper category was eliminated.

From the comments of Jury members it was realized
that they had not been given sufficient information about
the setting in which the items were to be used, and had
Judged some items as ambiguous on this basis. However,
students would not find these same statements ambiguous
because they would be instructed to think Of their own
situation in home management house or their living quarters.
Accordingly, items marked ambiguous by the Jury were re-
tained if the basis of Judgement had been entirely on
setting.

As a result of the Jury's Judgement, 94 items were
retained:. Goal I-25, Goal 11-27, Goal III-20, Goal IV-2l.
There was less discrimination between Goals III and IV as
indicated by the smaller number of items on which there
was 75 per cent agreement; that is, the two goals "To have
happy harmonious group or family life” and ”To create con-

ditions for optimum development of individuals in family

55

or group” are less mutually exclusive than the other goals.
The lack of mutual exclusion was realized fully for the
first time at this point, and that the statement of Goal
III and the items representing it did not convey fully or
completely enough the idea of the goal.

Establishment of the Social Acceptability Index.

 

A Social Acceptability Index (referred to hereafter as

the S. A. Index) was next established. The Jury had

marked the items "+", "-”, or "O”, to indicate accepting,
rejecting, or neutral reactions, respectively, to each
item. To calculate the S. A. Index for each item, the
number of "—'s" was subtracted from the number of "+'s” and
divided by the total number of respondents. For example,
if 19 respondents scored the item as "+", 3 respondents as
”~", and 2 respondents left it blank or scored it as "O”,

the S. A. Index number for that item was calculated to be

l25%_ = .67. This procedure was carried out for each of

the items. The numbers ranged from 1.00 (24 out of 24

scoring the item "+") to -.83 (a maJority of 19 "-" scores).l
From various comments made by Jury members, a weak-

ness was recognized at this point. It became apparent to

the writer that a group of faculty members and graduate

students (who are older and may be assumed to be more

professionally-orientated than undergraduates) regard some

 

1Distribution of Social Acceptability Index Numbers,
by Goals, Appendix, p. 112.

56

items with different degrees Of acceptance or reJection
than undergraduates for whom the instrument was being
prepared. For example, faculty and graduate students
tended to reJect the word "efficiency," while the students
used it again and again in their responses to the ques-
tionnaires. Similarly, there was rejection of some items
regarding neatness and cleanliness (reJection being shown
by majority of "-” or ”O" scorings). These items were used
so repeatedly by students that the S. A. Index showed up
some real differences of opinion as to the importance of
these means goals to faculty as opposed to students. It
is possible that the Jury members were rejecting the trite
statements used to represent neatness, e.g., one Jury mem—
ber commented that she considered it insulting to be asked
about tidiness of bureau drawers. That this item might

be far removed from the broad view of home management was
apparent to the writer. However, the intent of the item
was to find out to what end the student wanted to be neat,
and it seemed that "bureau drawers" might express the goal
of meeting her own expectations, not neatness to meet other
people's expectations, or any of the other goals. It was
realized that directions to the Jury for scoring for S. A.
Index might have been more explicit, as several expressed
difficulty in making items with the criterion of whether
or not ”you would like the item said of you." As the

S. A. Index was one of the bases on which the tetrads were

to be constructed, the weakness outlined seemed important.

57

The S. A. Index would have increased validity if scoring
had been done by people more similar to those to whom the
instrument was to be administered, and if directions to the
Jury had been more explicit.

An attempt was made to remedy this weakness. A
selected sample of students who had taken the HMCD 332a
course in fall term, 1959, were asked to score the 152
items with "+", "-", or "0". Instructions were given:

to mark "+" if they felt positive or accepting toward the

item, ”-" if negative or reJecting, and ”0” if neither
positively nor negatively, that is, if their reaction was
neutral.1

Six students responded. Plus and minus scores were
counted, but no index numbers were determined nor were
corrections made in the S. A. Index already established
because the number of respondents was small. Instead,
subJective Judgement was used to discard items showing
large discrepancies; e.g., if five or six of the students
scored the item ”+” and it had a low S. A. Index number,
or vice versa, it was discarded.

It then appeared that it would be impossible to use
some of the items with the lowest S. A. Index numbers under
Goal I because there were no items with which to pair them

under the other goals. Also, some items with the middle

 

l+lCovering Letter to Students with Items, Appendix,
p. 11 .

58

and top S. A. Index numbers in Goals II, III and IV could
not be used. Thus, the original plan of making 20 tetrads
was not feasible, and the number was reduced to 16. After
the eliminations resulting from the students' scores for
social acceptance and the discarding of items not usable
becauseof lacking comparable items with which to pair
them, the 64 remaining items were arranged in numerical

order under the goals they represented as Shown in Table 2.

ARRANGEMENT OF
OF THEIR SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY INDEX NUMBERS

TABLE 2

ITEMS FOR EACH GOAL IN NUMERICAL ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. A. Index Goal I Goal II Goal III Goal IV
Numbers
95-100 .96 1.00 .96
.96
90-94 .92 .92
.92
8 - O .88 .88 .88 .88
5 9 .88
.88
80-84 .83 .83 .83 .83
.83
75-79 .75 .79 .79 .75
.79 .75 .75
.75 .75
.75
70-74 .71 .71
.71 .71
65-69 .67 .67 .65 .67
.67
.67
60-64 .63 .63 .63 .63
.63 .63
55-59 058
50-54 0514’ 054 054
.54 .54 .54
45-49 .46 .46
40-44 .42
30-39 033
20-29 .29
.21
Below 20 .17 .17
.13
Totals 12 16 16 16

 

60

Construction of the Tetrads and the Instrument. The
tetrads were constructed as follows:

(1) Each tetrad had four items, each item repre-
senting one of the four ends goals.

(2) In each tetrad there were two items with approx-
imately equally high S. A. Index numbers, and
two items with approximately equally low S. A.
Index numbers.

(3) There was as even distribution as possible of pair-
ings of goals, e.g., Goal I with Goal 11, Goal I
with Goal 11, Goal I with Goal IV, and so on, from
tetrad to tetrad.

The tetrads were arranged in the intrument so that
no discernable pattern would emerge for those scoring the
instrument, e. g., Goal II would not always follow Goal I
nor a high S. A. Index number always follow a low one.

From the remaining usable items as listed in Table
2, it was apparent that if 16 tetrads were to be made,
some items would need to be repeated in different group-
ings since Goal 3: had 12 remaining items and because of
the lack of enough items of comparable high and low S. A.
Index numbers under all the goals. To make them more dis-
criminating, it was decided to have a difference of at
least 10 points between high and low pairings. The items

were combined as shown in Table 3.

61

TABLE 3

CONSTRUCTION OF TETRADS SHOWING PAIRINGS OF GOALS AND HIGH
AND LOW SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY INDEX NUMBERS FOR EACH TETRAD

 

 

 

Tetrad Social Acceptability Index Numbers
Number Goal I Goal II Goal III Goal Iv

1 .83 .83 .63 .67

2 .29 .96 .33 .96

3 .88 .92 .71 .71

4 .75 .63 .75 .63

5 .17 .13 .75 I .75

6 .63 .88 .88 .67

7 .67 .42 .46 .67

8 .63 .83 .79 .67

9 .54 .79 .54 .83

10 .46 .54 1.00 .96

11 .88 .63 .83' .67

12 .58 .92 .63 .92

13 .83 .79 .65 .63

14 .88 .75 1.00 .71

15 .21 .17 .75 .88

16 .75 .54 .54 .75

In the above construct, each goal was represented
by 16 items, 8 of which had high and 8 low S. A. Index
numbers. The distribution of the pairing was as follows:

Goals I and II paired against Goals IIIand IV 6 times
Goals I and III " ” " II and IV 6 times
Goals I and IV " " ” II and III 4 times.

62

The instrument1 was then put together from the
preceeding table with the order of the goals scrambled
within each tetrad.

The instrument was next scored by the following
selected groups:

(1) 42 undergraduate single students who had Just
completed HMCD 332a, winter term, 1960.

(2) 6 undergraduate married students who had Just
completed HMCD 332a, winter term, 1960.

(3) 15 home management staff and graduate students
from among those who had served as a Jury in
the development of the instrument.

(4) 13 undergraduate single students who would be
living in home management house, unit 1, during
spring term, 1960, but who had not yet had any
course work in HMCD 332a.

Tabulation of Responses. For each respondent, the

 

number of times each goal was scored "most like” and
”least like" was tabulated. The resulting score for
each goal was computed by subtracting the number of

"least like" from the number of "most like" for each

goal. For example, for each respondent:

 

lCompleted Instrument, Appendix, p.115.

63

 

Goal 1 Goal 11 Goal III Goal IV

 

 

 

Most like 1 2 5 8
Least like 10 4 2 0
Score for each goal -9 -2 +3 +8

 

The scores for all respondents were then transferred
to a master sheet for each group by goals and numerical

order of scores.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

After tabulating the responses to the instrument,
working out scores for each respondent by goals, and
transferring these raw scores in numerical order to a
master sheet for each group, an analysis of these data
was made.

The method of statistical analysis used was the
chi square test for possible relationships between
groups. Medians were determined for the raw scores of
pairs of groups, and these groups were compared with the
common median by chi square analysis.

The groups involved in the comparisons were:

(1) A11 undergraduate students who completed HMCD
332a winter term, 1960 (this group shall be
referred to as "all undergraduate students”), 48
in number (42 single + 6 married).

(2) Home management staff and graduate students
(referred to as ”professional”), 15 in number.

(3) Single undergraduate students who completed
HMCD 332a winter term, 1960 (referred to as

"single students"), 42 in number.

65

(4) Married undergraduate Students who completed
HMCD 3323 winter term, 1960 (referred to as
"married students”), 6 in number.

(5) Undergraduate students enrolled for HMCD 332a who
would be living in home managementrnuse, unit 1,
spring term, 1960, and who had not yet taken any
of the course work (referred to as "spring stu-
dents”), 13 in number.

Comparisons for differences or similarities in
relation to each goal were made between each of the follow-
ing pairs of groups:

(1) "all undergraduate students” (48) and ”profession-
al” (15).

(2) ”married students” (6) and ”single students” (42).

(3) "all undergraduate students” (48) and ”spring
students" (13). A

The comparisons between these pairs of groups appear
in Tables 4, 5, and 6. (Chi square = x2)

TABLE 4

COMPARISON BETWEEN "ALL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS” AND
”PROFESSIONAL" GROUPS WITH RESPECT TO THE I
COMMON MEDIAN, BY GOALS

 

 

Goal I: To meet the expectations of significant other

 

 

 

 

people.
Median: -4.36 All under- Professional Total
graduates (N=15)
((N=48)
No. above
median 28 4 32
No. below
median 20 ll 31
Total 48 15 63

 

x2 = 4.59 Difference at the 5% level of Significance.

\i/

TABLE 4-(Continued)

 

Goal II: To meet own eXpectations

66

 

 

 

 

Median: -O.41 All under- Professional Total
graduates ((N=15)
(N=48)

No. above

median 23 9 32
No. below

median 25 6 31
Total 48 15 63

 

x2 = 0.668 Trend to difference but not significant.

Goal III: To have happy, harmonious group or family life

 

 

 

Median: 3.3
No. above

median 24 8 32
No. below

median 24 7 31
Total 48 15 63

 

x2 = 0.051 No significant difference; high similarity.

Goal IV: To create conditions for optimum development Of

individuals in family or group
Median: 1.10

 

No. above

 

 

median 24 8 32
No. below

median 24 7 31
Total 48 15 63

 

x2 = 0.051 No significant difference; high similarity.

67

As shown in Table 4, these two groups, ”all under-
graduate students” and "professiong," differed from each
other for Goal I at the 5% level of significance. There
was a trend to difference for Goal II, but it was not
significant. The two groups did not differ, but were al-
most equal with respect to the common median for Goals 111
and IV.

In comparing the two groups "married students” and

I

"single students,l a chi square analysis was not applicable
because of the small sample of married students. Instead,
the Fisher test was made, which is equivalent to the chi

squarein function but designed for use with small samples.

The findings from the Fisher test appear in Table 5.

TABLE 5

COMPARISON BETWEEN "MARRIED STUDENTS" AND "SINGLE
STUDENTS” WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMON MEDIAN,
BY GOALS

 

 

Goal I: To meet the expectations of significant other

 

 

 

 

people
Median: -3.86 Single Married Total
students students
(N=42) (N=6)

No. above

median 21 3 24
No. below

median 21 3 24
Total 42 6 48

 

Fisher test = O No difference.

68

TABLE 5-(Continued)

 

Goal II: To meet own expectations

 

 

 

 

 

Median: -1.0 Single Married Total
students students
(N=42) (N=él

No. above

median 23 l 24
No. below

median 19 5 24
Total 42 6 48
Fisher test = 3.048 Trend toward difference, but not

significant.

Goal III: To have happy, harmonious group or family life
Median: 3.29

 

No. above

 

 

 

median 20 4 24
No. below
median 22 2 24
Total 42 6 48
Fisher test = 0.762 Trendtto difference, but not signifi-
can .

Goal IV: To create conditions for Optimum development of
individuals in family or group.

Median: 0.875

 

 

 

No. above

median 21 3 24
No. below

median 21 3 24
Total 42 6 48

 

Fisher test = O No difference

As shown in Table 5, the two groups, "single stu-

' showed no difference for

dents" and ”married students,I
Goal I, a trend toward difference but not Significantly

for Goals II and III, and no difference for Goal IV.

69

The two groups ”all undergraduate students," and

”spring students” are compared in Table 6.

TABLE 6

COMPARISON BETWEEN "ALL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS" AND "SPRING
STUDENTS" WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMON MEDIAN, BY GOALS

 

 

Goal I: To meet the expectations of significant other

 

 

 

 

people
Median: -4.2 All undergrad- Spring Total
uate students students
1N=48) (N=13)

No. above

median 27 4 31
No. below

median 21 9 30
Total 48 13 61

 

x2= 2.66 Trend to difference but not significant.

Goal II: To meet own expectations
Median: -1017

 

 

 

No. above

median 25 6 31
No. below

median 23 7 30
Total 48 13 61

 

x2 = 0.144 Slight trend to difference but not significant.

Goal III: To have happy, harmonious group or family life
Median: 4.00

No. above

 

 

 

median 21 10 31
No. below

median 27 3 30~
Total 48 13 61

 

x2 = 4.504 Difference Significant at the 5% level.

70

TABLE 6-(Continued)

 

Goal IV: To create conditions for optimum development of
individuals in family or group

 

 

 

 

Median: 0.93 All undergrad- Spring Total
uate students ~students
ilN=48) (N=13)
No. above
median 24 7 31
No. below
median 24 6 30
Total 48 13 61

 

x2 = 0.061 No difference.

The two groups ''all undergraduate students” and
"spring students” showed a trend to difference for Goals
I and II but the difference was not significant. A sig-
nificant difference at the 5% level appeared for Goal III.
Goal IV showed no difference.

In summary, the only differences significant at the
5% level that were shown in the comparisons between three
selected pairs of groups with respect to their common
medians and for each of the four specified goals were:
(1) the ”all undergraduate students” group differed from
the ”professional” group for Goal I (Table 4), (2) the
”all undergraduate students” group differed from the

”spring students" group for Goal 111 (Table 6).

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

On the basis Of the analysis of the data given in
Chapter IV, the hypotheses were considered in relation to

the findings. Hypothesis (1):

 

With respect to the relative importance given to
each of four specified goals in home management, all
undergraduate students who completed HMCD 332a,
winter term, 1960, will differ from a selected sample
of home management Staff and graduate students.

 

The findings, as shown in Table 4, confirm this
hypothesis for Goal I, as the groups differed at the 5%
level of significance. There was a trend to difference,
but not significant, for Goal II. For Goals 111 and IV
the hypothesis is reJected as there is strong similarity
between the groups. On the basis of the findings,
hypothesis (1) is not substantiated.

While the hypothesis as a whole does not seem to
be confirmed, there may be some implications for home
managementteaching in the finding of significant differ-
ence between the undergraduate students and the staff-
graduate students in their relative ranking of Goal 1:
to meet the expectations of significant other people.

With respect to the common median, 28 undergraduate stu-

dents were above and 20 below, while of the staff-graduate

group there were 4 above and 11 below. This would seem

72

to indicate that undergraduate students place greater
importance on this goal than the staff-graduate students.
There are several possible explanations for this differ-
ence. One might be that this finding supports Riesman'sl
view of the society's becoming increasingly ”other-
directed,” the younger people showing this trend to a
greater extent. But the difference in this situation is
more likely to be because the staff-graduate students
group, with greater experience may have greater self-
confidence and be less dependent on the good Opinion of
others. They may work toward the other goals with less
concern about meeting others expectations, having greater
security in their own knowledge and experience than the
undergraduates have had time to develop.

A possible implication for home management teaching
is that there needs to be increasing emphasis on helping
students to make independent decisions: to recognize real
decision-making situations and to make decisions conscious-
ly in those situations rather than to follow unthinkingly
someone else's lead. This is not to belittle the impor-
tance of meeting others expectations; life could indeed be
chaotic if there were not a high degree of expectation
fulfillment. But there is need of awareness, and meeting

others expectations should not be habitual, blind behavior.

 

lRiesman, pp, cit.

73

Bratton1

emphasized the difficulty and importance

of assisting students to clarify their thinking about goals,
without superficially imposing those of the teacher or the
group. Teachers need to be aware of the extent to which
students do assume others goals. Some concrete evidence

of this tendency to assume the teachers' goals was provided
near the completion of this study. A student, whose grade
was not in Jeopardy as she had finished the course, initia-
ted a discussion with the writer in which she indicated
having experienced frustration in being left to make her
own decisions without knowing what the instructor expected.
Frankly, and without hostility, she said in effect, ”Let's
face it. That was a course and I had my eye on keeping

my 3-point. In our other courses we do what we think the
instructor likes, why should we suddenly believe we are
free to make our own decisions in this one?' Let's not kid
ourselves--in a Clothing course we make the pattern we
think the instructor likes--sure, we bring a bunch of
patterns but we can tell which one the instructor thinks

is best, and we pick that one. In making a house plan; do
we put in what we really like? No; we might put it in
when we build our own house, but if we know the instructor
thinks it isn't good, we're not going to risk our grade to
put it in our house plans for the course. It's the same

in courses outside of home ec.” This student was speaking

 

lBratton,pp. cit.

74

for herself, as she obviously believed her road to academic
success lay in meeting her teachers' expectations, (and her
high grade-point average might indicate that she is right).
She may, however, have been speaking for many other students,
some of whom may not be aware of or admit even to them-
selves that this is the goal towards which they are working.
The foregoing seems to illustrate something fundamental

for home management teaching: students must be given pppl

opportunity to make decisions, not the illusion that they

 

have this freedom. If they have only the illusion, then
the point of much home management teaching is lost.

For Goal II, "to meet own expectations,” there were
23 undergraduate students above the common median and 25
below, while of the staff-graduate students 9 were above
and 6 below. These findings are, in some respects, the
opposite of those in Goal I, with more of the staff-graduate
students placing Goal II higher than undergraduates did.
The difference is not Significant, but the trend is indi-
cated, and the same explanation might apply as was given
for the significant difference for Goal 1: the older, more
experienced group may feel more self-confidence in meeting
their own expectations as well as decreased need to meet
the expectations of others.

There was marked similarity between the groups for
Goal III ”to have happy harmonious group or family life”
and for Goal IV ”to create conditions for optimum develop-

ment of individuals in family or group.” Both these goals

75

have sanction from society. It had been expected that
there would be a difference between the groups in the way
they viewed these goals, especially Goal IV. The similar-
ity shown may indicate that the goals of staff and stu-
dents may be closer than had been SUSpected; at least there
is no conflict for these two goals; differences lie in the

groups' separate views of expectations.

Hypothesis (2).

 

With respect to the relative importance given to
each of four specified goals in home management,
married undergraduate students will not differ from
single undergraduate students, all'of WHOm completed
HMCD 332a, winter term, 1960.

 

There was no difference for Goals 1 and IV between the
groups, and the trends to difference for Goals II and III
were not significant. 0n the basis of the findings as
shown in Table 5, this hypothesis is accepted. Most of
the married students were about the same age as the single
students and had not been married long. Thus it was
expected that there would not be significant differences
in the way the two groups view the four goals. While

the differences were not significant, it is interesting
to note in which direction the trend lies for Goals II
and III. For Goal II, ”to meet own expectations,” with
respect to the common median, 23 of the single students
were above and 19 below, while of the married students, 1
was above and 5 below. For Goal III, ”to have happy,

harmonious group or family life,’ Of the single students,

20 were above and 22 below the common median; of the
married students, 4 were above and 2 below. These trends
are in the direction that might be expected: early in
marriage there might be a tendency for married students to
give happiness and harmony more importance and possibly for
that reason place meeting their own expectations lower than
the single students did. The sample was so small, however,
and the difference so insignificant that no conclusions can
be Justifiably drawn. There do not seem to be any implica-
tions for teaching in these findings, as regards a differ-

ent approach in teaching the two groups.

Hypothesis (3).

 

With respect to the relative importance given to
each of four specified goals in home managemnt, all
undergraduate students who completed HMCD 332a winter
term, 1960, will not differ from a selected sample
of undergraduafe students enrolIed for spring term,
1960, and who have not taken this course.

 

This hypothesis, on the basis of the findings as shown in
Table 6 was not confirmed for Goals I and II. Although
there were trends to difference they were not significant.
For Goal III, thehypothesis is reJected, as there was
difference at the 5% level of significance. The hypothesis
is accepted for Goal IV as there was no difference be-
tween the groups in their relation to the common median.
The hypothesis as a whole was not confirmed.

The direction of the significant difference for
Goal III: ”to have happy harmonious group or family life"

was that the students who had taken the course placed this

77

goal lower than those who had not had the course. With
respect to the common median, 21 of those who had finished
the course were above and 27 below, while 10 of those who
had not taken the course were above_and 3 below. It seems
that no real implications can be drawn, as far as consid-
ering the effect of the course, on how these students
viewed this goal. However, the significant difference
between the two groups may indicate that the course had
influenced a redistribution of emphasis, making some goals
slightly more and others slightly less important. This
difference suggests a possibility of checking the course
effects by applying the instrument to a whole class be-
fore and after they have taken the course.

In relation to the three hypotheses, the only im-
portant implications for home managementtsaching that the
total findings seem to indicate arise from the significant
difference between the staff—graduate students group and
the undergraduate students in relation to meeting others
expectations. While this finding is not in the nature of
a discovery, it does serve to underline one of the most
fundamental problems in home management teaching--that of
teaching students to make their own decisions. The im-
plications seem to be as follows:

(1) Teachers should recognize the extent to which

students assume the teachers' and the group's
goals;

78
(2) They should give students true freedom to make
choices within clearly defined limits;

(3) They should help students to clarify their own
goals;

(4) They should help students to recognize Situations

in which real decisions can be made in terms of
the students' own goals.

Implications for Further Study. The technique used

 

in this study might be used for comparisons between other
groups, with suitable items applicable to the situations.
It might be used for comparison of values and goals of
groups of homemakers of different socio—economic levels,
racial or ethnic backgrounds, rural or urban residence.

It might also be used for comparing the values and goals
of professional groups, such as extension agents or social
workers, with those Of the people with whom they work. It
might be used cross-culturally, although there would be
difficulty in establishing items that would be comparable.
In the development of the instrument, other possible ways
of identifying important values and goals were suggested.
In connection with thejury's categorizing of the items by
goals, it has been previously mentioned that there seemed
to be less mutual exclusion between Goal III "to have
happy, harmonious group or family life” and Goal IV ”to
create conditions for Optimum development of individuals
in family or group" than among all the four goals. The
writer was surprised to find less mutual exclusion, as in
her mind they are more distinct. It was realized that

this was some indication of how the writer views Goal 111

79

in relation to how the majority of the Jury members appeared
to View it as they categorized the items by goals; it is
her personal belief that ”happiness” is given too much
prominence as a goal or value in our society. The fact
that the majority of Jury members tended to equate the two
goals more closely hinted at this as a possible means of
determining values, to find out what is equated with a
known highly held goal-value. If the items are well enough
formulated so that they really express these goals, then
such ideas as the acceptance of new methods in homemaking
(innovation), or satisfaction with homemaking as a vocation,
or other values or goals held by different peOple in vary-
ing degrees of strength might be scored against some value
or goal that is well established as being highly held. By
determining which of the other values or goals is most
closely equated with the known highly held one, it is possi-
ble that important values or goals might be isolated.
Something might be done with certain modifications
of this type of instrument in relation to the means goals.
No attempt was made in this study to analyze the responses
from this point of view. If fewer means goals Could be
used, repeated in different contexts, and expressed by
statements of high and low social acceptability, something
significant might be determined. It might be shown that
people working toward conflicting means goals might in fact
have the same end goal in view. If this could be known,

then an integrated resolution of the conflict might be

reached more easily. People tend not to be vocal about

80

the important goals, even if they know what they are. An
example of a situation in which this kind of conflict might
exist in a family would be the question of having a dog for
the children. The father might believe that the respon-
sibility of having a dog would be a fine thing for the
children's development. The mothernight believe that dogs
are unsanitary, and that a clean home is the best thing for
the health and well-being of all. Both would have the same
end goal in mind, but the means of achieving it would be
opposite. This is a rather obvious example, although there
are many people who could not verbalize beyond a sort of
general idea that it would be nice to have a dog as Opposed
to the idea that dogs are dirty and therefore not acceptable.
If the real reason for the importance of the means goals
can be known, then the benefits from these goals can be
more easily realized as the opposing parties resolve the
conflict to some extent and move toward the common ends

goal.

Weaknesses, Limitation, and Strengths of the Study.
NO claim is made that the instrument as developed for this
study is either valid or reliable. The following weak-
nesses precluded any attempt to validate the instrument
statistically.

Many of the items were inadequate. Some of the dif-
ficulties encountered in formulating the items have al-
ready been described, such as the difficulty Of making

brief items that really expressed both the means and the

81

ends goals and at the same time avoid being general and
meaningless. In preventing that danger by using concrete
examples, there was rflflc in making items that would be
Judged on content rather than on idea, as well as making
the items sound trite and far removed from the broader con-
cepts of home management. This weakness might be overcome
to some extent by submitting the items repeatedly to dif-
ferent groups, polishing and changing them until a more
satisfacory set was developed. Another way of sharpening
the items might be by group work on them rather than their
being the product of one person's efforts. This would add
variety and prevent a certain repetitious dullness in the
items.

A second weakness was the rating of items for
social acceptability. Directions to the Jury might have
been more explicit regarding the setting in which the items
were to be considered. Since the instrument was to be used
primarily with undergraduate students, it would have been
.better to have had other undergraduate student rate it for
social acceptability rather than the staff-graduate student
Jury. However, since the findings indicated less differ-
ence between these groups than had been expected, this
weakness may not have been as serious as it appeared at
the time it was recognized. An attempt was made to rectify
this weakness to some extent by having a selected group of
undergraduate students score the items, and by discarding

items Showing large discrepancies.

A major weakness was shown when the staff-graduate
student group scored the completed instrument. Some mem-
bers of the group found it impossible to rank ”most like”
and ”least like” within some of the tetrads. Several
commented that the items were not comparable, that they
were not mutually exclusive, and that it was impossible
to choose among them. For this reason several of this
group returned the instrument partially scored and the
results were therefore not usable. It is interesting to
note that out of the total undergraduate student responses
(61), there was not one that was not usable because of
being incompletely scored. This suggests that the staff-
graduate students group may have scored the instrument more
critically and thoughtfully, whereas the undergraduates
quickly marked their first reaction. The latter scored
the instrument at the beginning of a class period under
the supervision of instructors, and the average time for
scoring was about twelve minutes. The other group was
given the instrument to score when they would have free
time to do it, and there is no way of knowing how long
they spent scoring it. Their criticism was valid, and this
difficulty in choosing among the items is an acknowledged
weakness. However, this weakness is inherent in the tech-
nique to some extent and is not wholly confined to this
particular study. It might be overcome somewhat by estab-

lishing variables with a greater degree of mutual exclusion.

The smallness of the sample is another weakness.

The married student group (6) was separated out chiefly to
see if there would be any indication of possible differ-
ence from single students in the way they viewed these

four goals, and it was not hoped to obtain any significant
findings. It would have strengthened the study to have

had some of the other samples larger. Time was the great—
est limiting factor; e.g., there was not time to Contact
all those who had previously served as a Jury for the
staff-graduate student group to score the instrument, as
some were not on campus at the time. In addition, insuf-
ficient time was allowed for this group to score the instru-
ment and return their responses. Thus, some responses were
received too late for inclusion with the data. The whole
spring class, rather than a section of it, could have been
used to increase the size of this sample, had time per-
mitted.

The instrument has an important limitation that needs
to be indicated. At the outset of the study, it was thought
that it might be possible to rank-order the four goals for
individuals or for groups, i.e., that it could be deter-
mined if one goal had precedence over another for an in-
dividual or a group. It was also thought that a degree
of validation could be established by checking the scoring
of the instrument against the actual behavior of selected
individuals as recorded through detailed one-day observa-

tions in the home management house. These Observations,

84

plus the open—end questionnaire to which these students
responded during the early stages of the study, along
with other evidence such as written and laboratory work,
might then be used to form a pattern of behavior with
which the responses on the instrument might be compared.
Detailed one-day observations were in fact made on nine
students. However, it was realized that the instrument
cOuld not be used for the purpose of rank-ordering goals
for individuals. Correspondence with MUrray Strauss1 and
discussion with statisticians at Michigan State University
helped to show why this use of the instrument was not
possible. The four variables being scored needed to be
equalized before meaningful rank-ordering for individuals
could be done. Its use is, therefore, analytical rather
than descriptive. However, the relative ranking of var-
iables can be compared between groups, as was done in this
study. The determining of the Social Acceptability Index
was an attempt to equialize the variables, and in this
study, as was noted in the discussion earlier, a weakness
in establishing it resulted from;H:Ning the rating made by
a group representative of the population on which the instru-
ment was eventually to be used. It seems important to
emphasize that the instrument's use is for analytical

comparisons of groups rather than for descriptive pur-

poses.

 

lStrauss, pp, cit.

85

As well as weaknesses and limitations, the study
as a whole does have some strengths. It would seem that
the four goals important in home management to students
were identified with some sound support: observation of
student behavior over time, both formally and informally;
student responses to the open-end questionnaires; support
from sociological theories about role and expectation;
discussion with staff members; a seminar on values partici-
pated in by home management staff and graduate students;
and literature in home management and related disciplines.
In addition, it might be stated that the subject of values
and goals has been of interest and concern' to the writer
for a number of years, and the concentrated thought given
during the development of this study served to focus some
previous serious thinking.

While the items themselves had weaknesses as indi-
cated, the method by which they were formulated has some
merit. The items were based to a large extent on students'
actual statements in their responses to the open-end ques-
tionnaires regarding what was important to them, and their
expectations. This was supplemented from home management
literature and the writer's own ideas. The setting was
kept to the students' present situation as much as possible,
and an attempt was made to develop items that were appli-
cable to both single and married students.

One of the main strengths in the study appears to

be the attempt to consolidate and evaluate the thinking

shown in home management literature: how leaders in home
management define values and goals, how they relate these
concepts to decision-making and management, what they iden-
tify as important values and goals. It was attempted to
relate values and goals as seen by other disciplines, to
see the degree of concensus within and between home manage-
ment and other disciplines, and to indicate where clari-

fication is needed.

Summary. The purposes of this study were:

(1) to explore home management goals, identifying
four that seemed important to students toward
which they made decisions and took action.

(2) to experiment with developing an instrument
for comparing the relative ranking of goals
by selected groups.

Three hypotheses were formulated:

(1) With respect to the relative importance given
to each of four specified goals in home manage-
ment, all undergraduate students who completed
HMCD 332a winter term, 1960, will differ from
a selected sample of home management StaffIand
graduate students.

 

(2) With respect to the relative importance given
to each of four specified goals in home manage—
ment, married undergraduate students will not
differ from single undergraduate students, a11
of“Whom completed HMCD 332a winter term, 1960.

 

(3) With respect to the relative importance given to
each of four specified goals in home management,
all undergraduate students who completed HMCD 332a
winter term, 1960, will not differ from a selec-
ted sample of undergradfiate students enrolled
for spring term, 1960, and who have not yet
taken this course.

 

In the review of literature an attempt was made to

consolidate and evaluate what leaders in home management

87

conceptualize in the area of values and goals, and to make
comparisons with the theories in related disciplines.

There is scarcity of research on values and goals
as such, although work which focused on the managerial
process included values and goals to some degree, in such
facets of home management as managerial practices, decision-
making, and use of resources.

A forced choice technique in which tetrads were used
was described in detail, as it served as a model for devel-
oping the instrument used in this study.

Exploration Of important home management goals to
students included formal and informal observation of stu-
dent behavior and the application of two open-end question-
naires to selected student groups. Four home management
goals considered to be among the most important to students
were identified on the basis of interpretation of observa-
tion mentioned above, analysis of responses to the ques-
tionnaires, supported by home management and sociological
literature, discussion with staff, participation in a sem-
inar on values, and considered thought. The four goals
identified were, in brief:

Goal I: To meet the expectations of significant
other people (other girls in the group, the
instructor in terms Of grades, husbands
when applicable).

Goal II: To meet own expectations.

Goal III: To have happy, harmonious group or family
life.

Goal IV: To create conditions for Optimum development
of individuals in family or group, physically,
emotionally, mentally, spiritually.

88

An instrument was developed using the forced-
choice technique, in which tetrads were used. Each
tetrad was composed of four items, each representing one
of the four identified goals. The instrument was devel-
oped as follows: a pool of items was established, based
on students' statements in their responses to the Open-end
questionnaires, home management literature, and the writers
own ideas. Each statement represented a means goal directed
to achieve one of the four previously identified ends
goals. These items were submitted to a selected Jury of
home management staff and graduate students who classified
them into goal categories, judged them for ambiguity and
bias, and for social acceptance in order to establish a
Social Acceptability Index. Onthe basis of the jury's
judgement, items were eliminated that had less than 75 per
.cent agreement for goal category and that were considered
ambiguous.

A weakness was realized, that the scoring for social
acceptance should have been done by a group more represen-
tative of the population on which the instrument was even—
tually to be used. Since the instrument was being prepared
for students, an attempt was made to rectify this weakness
by having a selected group of students rate the items for
social acceptance and by discarding items which showed
large discrepancies with the Jury's rating.

A Social Acceptability Index was established. Items

were then combined into tetrads in which each of the four

89

goals was represented, two with almost equally high and
two of almost equally low Social Acceptability Index num-
bers. Sixteen tetrads were combined to form the completed
instrument.

The instrument was administered to selected groups
with instructions to mark the one item in each tetrad ”most
like" and the one ”least like” the respondents.

Responses were tabulated and analyzed using 8 Chi
square test for possible relationships to the common median
between pairs of groups.

On the basis of the analysis, the first hypothesis,
postulating a difference with respect to the relative
importance of the four goals between a selected group Of
undergraduate students and a selected group of home man-
agement staff and graduate students, appeared to be rejected.
There was similarity for some goals and differences for
others. The second hypothesis postulating no difference
with respect to the relative importance Of the four goals
between a selected group of single and married undergrad-
uate students, was accepted, as no significant differences
were shown with respect to any of the four goals. The
third hypothesis, postulating no difference with respect
to the relative importance of the four goals, was consid-
ered not confirmed, as there was similarity for some goals
but a significant difference for one.

As no validity or reliability is being claimed for

the instrument because of acknowledged weaknesses, these

9O

findings are not considered conclusive, but indicative only
of possible trends. The sole important indication that
appeared to be shown was the difference, significant at

the 5% level, between the group of undergraduate students
and the group Of home management staff and graduate students
in their relative ranking of Goal I: to meet the expec-
tations of significant other people. This finding appears
to have implications for home management teaching: teachers
need to recognize the extent to which students assume their
(the teachers') goals and those of the group, should give
students true freedom to make choices within clearly de-
fined limits, help students to clarify their own goals and
recognize situations in which they can make real decisions
in terms of these goals.

The technique used in this study has possibilities
for use in comparing the relative importance of values and
goals between groups of families in different situations,
of different socio-economic levels, racial backgrounds,
and for comparing the values and goals Of professional
groups such as extension and social work personnel with
the reladve ranking of these values and goals by the people
with whom they work. There were other possible ways of
studying values and goals suggested in the development of
the instrument: determining which of several selected
goals is most nearly equated with a known highly ranked
value or goal; working from the means goals angle in

addition to the ends goals.

91

The main weaknesses of the study appear to be: the
inadequacy of the items in the tetrads, failure to have
the rating for Social acceptability made by a group more
nearly representative of the populalation on which the
instrument would eventually be used, the difficulty in
making choices among four items that were not comparable
and were not mutually exclusive (a difficulty partially
inherent in the technique), and the smallness of the Sample.

The main strengths of the study appear to be: the
bases on which the four goals important in home management
to students were identified, and the attempt to consoli-
date and evaluate the thinking by leaders in home manage-
ment in the area of values and goals in relation to thought
in other disciplines.

An important limitation of the instrument is that
its use is for analytical rather than descriptive purposes,

for making comparisons between groups.

Conclusions. An exploratory study is characterized

 

by following up leads, making false starts and stops and
new starts, groping for a way, shaping and developing the
study as work progresses. This is particularly true in
exploring as intangible an area of home management as val-
ues and goals.

There is scarcity of research in this important area.
Until there is a sound body of knowledge based on research

findings, much of the professional work with families and

92

students is carried out on the basis of assumptions. This
is a shaky foundation.

It is stated in home management literature that
decision-making is basic to management. What is really
known about decision-making in families? It is stated
that home management is a means to achieving family goals,
which stem from values. Are there "family goals” any more
than there are “family decisions?” Or are these the province
of one or a few members in the family? How much is known
about conflicting goals, at means or ends levels, in fam-
ilies? Do all family members have the same values?, Tra-
ditiOnally, the transmitting of different kinds of values
from generation to generation was the role of the family.
Is this true today? If it is not true, then who or what
agencies are most influential in transmitting values? Has
there been a change in the role of the family in this area
tijarallel technological and social change? What is
really known about values?

Other disciplines have much to contribute and home
management must continue to draw on them. They each have
their special emphasis and particular vieWpoint: psychol-
ogy with its focus on the individual, sociology on the group
and the larger society, and so on through the other dis-
ciplines, each with its special contribution. Home mange-
ment has a special emphasis: the family in itself and its
relation to the larger society. While home management will
continue to draw on other disciplines,as a responsible dis-
cipline itself, it has its own particular contribution to

make.

93

There is lack of clearly defined concepts in the
intangible aspects of home management. There is need for
sound research on which to build, and there must be criti-
cal examination Of some of the assumptions that are made.
There is need for a conceptual framework within which to
examine family values, goals, and decision-making.

If home management is to assume its place as a respon-
sible discipline, able to contribute to other disciplines
and to total human knowledge, there is serious work to be

done.

BIBLIOGRA PHY

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY'

BOOKS

Fichter, Joseph H. Sociology. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1957.

 

Fitzsimmons, Cleo. The Management Of Family Resources.
San Francisco, California: W: H. Freeman and—'
Company, 1951.

 

 

Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. New York: Rinehart
and Company, Inc., 1941.

 

Goodyear, Margaret R. and Klohr, Mildred Chapin. Manage-
ment for Effective Living. New York: John WIIey
and Sons, Inc., 1954.

 

Gross, Irma H. and Crandall, Elizabeth Walbert. Manage-
ment for Modern Families. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc . , 1954 .

Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward 3., and MCEachern, Alexander W.
Expectations in Role Analysis. New York: John

Wiley and SonE: Inc., 1958.

Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Others. "Values and Value-Orientations
in the Theory of Action." Towards p_General Theory pg
Action, ed. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, p .
3843933. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 195 .

 

 

 

Kyrk, Hazel. Economic Problems pf_the Family. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1933.

Lane, Bess B. Enriching Family Life Through Home, School
and CommufiIt . washington,7D. C.: PUblic Affairs
Press, 1957.

 

 

Linton, Ralph. "The Problem of Universal Values.” Methdi
and Perspectiyp in Anthropology, ed. Robert F.
'Spencer, pp.7145:168.“Minneapolis: The University
of Minnesota, 1954.

Malone, Carl C., and Malone, Lucille Holaday. Decision
Making and Management for Farm and Home. Ames,
Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1958.

 

 

 

Nickell, Paulena and Dorsey, Jean Muir. Management ip_
Family Living. 3rd ed. New York: ’JOhn Wiley
and—Sons,—Inc., 1959.

 

 

Parker, Dewitt H. Human Values. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Wahr, 1944.

 

Riesman, David, Glazer, Nathan, and Denney, Reuel. The
Lonely Crowd. Garden City, New York: Doubleday
Anchor BOOks, Doubleday and Company, Inc., Abridged,

1953.

Whyte, William H., Jr. The Organization Man. Garden City,‘
New York: Doubleday AnChor BOOks, Doubleday and '
Company, Inc., 1956.

 

 

Williams, Robin M., Jr. American Society A Sociological
Interpretation. New YorR: AIfred A} Kfiopf, I957.

BULLETINS AND PERIODICALS

Cutler, Virginia F. Personal and Family Values in the
Choice p£_p_Home. CorneII UniversIty AngEUItural
ExperIment StatIon Bulletin 840 (November, 1947).

 

Fitzsimmons, Cleo, and Holmes, Emma G. Factors Affecting
Farm Family Goals. Purdue UniverSIty A rICuItural
Experiment Station. Research Bulletin 63,
Lafayette, Indiana (July, 1958).

 

 

Gross, Irma H. Measuring Home Management. Michigan State
College AgricuIturaI Experiment Station Circular
Bulletin 211, East Lansing, Michigan (March, 1948).

 

 

Mayo, Leonard W. "Strengthening Ethical and Spiritual
Values in Family Life,” Journal of Home Economics,

Vol. 44 (October, 1952) pp. 6134615.

Paolucci, Beatrice,and O'Brien, Carol. "Decision—Making:
The Crux of Management," Forecast for Home Economics,
Vol. 75 (November, 1959).

 

 

Price, Hazel. Securing Valid and Reliable Evidence of the
Ability of the Adolescent GIrl to Make IntellIgeRt—
DecisionE—Concerning the Use OfVPersonal Resources.
Reprifited from Abbtracts of”D5€toral Dissertations,
NO. 29, The Ohio State UnIversity Press (1939) pp.
95-102.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strauss, Murray A. A Techniqpe for Measuirng Values in
Rural Life. PullmanTIWasHIRgton: washlngton Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Institute of Agricul-
tural Sciences, State College of Washington, Techni-
cal Bulletin 29 (August, 1959).

 

 

 

96

Thorpe, Alice C., and Gross, Irma H. Managerial Practices
in the Homes of Married Students at Michigan State
Ufiiversity. REprinted from MiOhigan Agricultural
Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 32, No.

3 (Fefiruary. 1950) pp. 288-306.

Van Bortel, Dorothy Greey, and Gross, Irma H. A Compari-
.son of Home Management in TWO Socio-EconOmic Groups.
MIEhIgan‘State College AgricultUral Experiment Station
Technical Bulletin 2 0, East Lansing, Michigan (April,

1954).

Wilkening, Eugene A. "Technique of Assessing Farm Family
Values,” Rural Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1954), pp.

39‘49 o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCES

Bratton, C. A., and Bratton, Esther C. "Decision Making
in Home Management.” Proceedings of Conference on
Values and Decision-Making in Home—Management. '—_
Department of Home Managemefit and ChIldeeveIOpment,
Michigan State University, East Lansing (July 4-6,

1955) 3 pp 0 26-34 0

Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. Proceedings Of
the First, Secondj'and Third Conferences, Lake
Placid, New York (1901). '

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liston, Margaret. "Interrelationship of Values and Decision-
Making in Home Management.” Proceedings of Confer-
ence on Values and Decision-Making in HomE7Management.
Departfient of’Home Management andCEIldDevelopmefit,
Michigan State University, East Lansing (July -6,

1955) 2 pp. 61‘720

McKee, William W. "Values in Home Management." Proceed-
ings of Conference on Values and Decision-MaEIng in
Home MEnagement. DEEartment of7Home7Management—afid
Child Development, Michigan State University, East
Lansing (July 4-6, 1955), pp. 8-15.

 

 

 

 

 

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Glommen, Margaret E. ”Developing and Testing of an Instru-
ment to Analyze the Decision-Making Process in Rela-
tion to the Advancement of Rural Family Financial
Security." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan

State University, 1957.

97

Paolucci, Beatrice. ”Decision-Making in Relation to
Management in Classes of Home Economics by Begin-
ning Teachers.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1956.

APPENDDC

98

Questionnaire I

 

1. My idea of a manager is

2. I think that the other girls' idea of a manager is

3. I think the house faculty adviser's idea of a manager
is

4. Before taking this course my idea of a manger was

5. While living in the Home Management House,
I received the greatest satisfactions from
I received the least satisfactions from
I would like to have had more
I would like to have had less

6. Values that are important to me are

7. Values that seem to be important to other people but
are of little importance to me are

99

Questionnaire II Name

 

 

My idea of home management is

As a manager in the Home Management house or in my own
home, I expect to

The other girls or my husband and/Or family expect me, as
a home manager, to

The instructor in Home Management expects that I, as a home
manager, will

It is commonly believed that people operate according to
what they think is really important to them. As a home
manager, some of the things that are important to me are

Not all people consider the same things important. Some
things that seem important to other home managers are

100

Items (152) Submitted to Jury

 

Items designed to express ends goal I by means goals:

 

 

Ends Goal 1: ‘3p_meet social approval.

 

--expectation of significant other people,
such as other girls in the group,
husbands (when applicable), Home
Management instructor (largely in
terms of grades)

Means goal: Skills, knowledge

 

Would like to have the reputation of being a good cook.

Want to know how to make decisions because my Home Manage-
ment instructor expects it.

Want to show that I know how to organize myself and my
time.

Am embarrassed if people watching me think I am awkward
when performing a household task.

Would like to have the reputation of knowing a lot about
homemaking.

Means goal: Efficiency

 

Would like to be though of as a person who gets things
done well by the quickest, easiest way.

Would be unhappy if the other girls thought I was less
efficient than they.

Think others expect me to manage the house efficiently
without fuss.

Want to be efficient because people expect it of Home
Economists.

Want my Home Management instructor to consider me efficient.

lOl

Means goal: Planning

 

Want to plan my spending because I'm expected to have my
money last all month.

Would like to organize well because the others expect me
to have things run smoothly.

If my husband wants me to make and carry out plans, I
shall make a great effort to do so.

Would like to be thought of as a good planner.

Would like my Home Management instructor to think I am well
organized.

Want to be able to plan balanced meals in any budget range

because people expect those with Home Economics training
to be able to do this.

Means goal: Neatness, orderliness

 

Dislike people to see beds unmade and clothes scattered
around rooms for which I am responsible.

Would like to have the reputation of being neat.

Usually get upset if someone comes and my things are un-
tidy. ,

As long as the part of the house people see is neat, I
don't worry much about untidiness in other areas.

Don't like people to see the kitchen if it's messy when
I'm cooking.

Would dislike to be considered untidy.

Means goal: Cleanliness

 

After I've cleaned the house up, I feel it is all for nothing
if no one notices.

Think there is little use in having things clean if no one
sees them.

Would like to have the reputation of being clean.

When visitors come, I like to have floors clean, furniture
dusted.

102

Would be a spic-and-span housekeeper if my husband likes
the house that way.

If a guest came to a meal, I would exchange a slightly

soiled tablecloth which I would ordinarily leave on for
"family."

Means goals: Creativity

 

Am pleased if others in the house like my original ideas.
Would like to have the reputation of being creative.
Feelhighly complimented when people say my ideas are unique.
Dislike to be though of as a person who is not creative.
Want my Home Management instructor to think I have some

originality.

Means goal: Beauty, comfort

 

Would like people to think that I make the house look
attractive.

Feel an arrangement I've made is a success if others
notice and praise it.

' If I've gone to a lot of trouble to set an attractive
table, I feel it is not worth the time and effort unless
people admire it.

Like to arrange things so that the others think the house
is comfortable.

It would make me unhappy if my friends did not like my
choice of color combinations.

Ends Goal II: Tp_meet own expectations

 

~~standards, self-image
--feeling of personal worth or accomplishment
--self-satisfaction

Means goal: Skills, knowledge

 

Want to know how to organize my time and money wisely so
that I can accomplish the things I want to.

103

It is important to be able to provide nutritionally ade-
quate meals whether the people who eat them are aware of
their adequacy or not.

Feel unhappy when what I do does not meet my standards,
even if other people are pleased with my results.

Take pride in doing something well even if no one sees it.

Like to feel I am competent in making my decisions.

Means goal: Efficiency

 

Want to be efficient so as to have satisfaction in my-
self and in what I do.

It would please me to do my work using the least amount
of time.

Feel satisfaction in getting the most done in as little
time as possible.

Like to do each Job as quickly and as well as possible for
my own Satisfaction.

Am unhappy if I don't measure up to my own standards of
efficiency.

Feel satisfaction when I make effective use of my resources.

Means goal: Planning

 

Feel thrifty if my money lasts as I've planned.

Feel satisfied when I plan and arrange various tasks and
then accomplish them to the best of my ability.

Would like to think of myself as a good planner.
Feel rewarded when my work goes as I've planned it.
Like to plan my time because I dislike feeling rushed.

Feel satisfaction when I have used my time and money wisely.

104

Means goal: Neatness, orderliness

 

When I tidy things up, I enjoy the sense of order, even
though I know they won't stay that way long.

Because I am neat myself, it bothers me to live with un-
tidy people. .

Get discouraged if I come home to a messy room after a hard
day of classes. 3

A neat and orderly arrangement of things satisfies some-
thing inside me.

I like to keep my bureau drawers ”neat as a pin."

Means goal: Cleanliness

 

I like to keep dishes washed because it's difficult to
work in a kitchen piled with dirty dishes.

Would scour the bathtub after each using even if I'm the
only one using it.

Because I dislike going to a sinkful of soiled dishes, I
like to keep them washed up.

If I drop a fork on the floor when setting the table, I
wash it even if no one is around. .

Means goal: Creativity

 

Like to think of myself as being creative.

Enjoy doing things in an original way even if no one but
myself knows.

It wouldn't bother me if people criticize my creative
efforts as long as I am pleased with the results.

Enjoy arranging every day objects in new combinations of
color and texture.

Means goal: Beauty, comfort

 

It wouldn't bother me if my friends didn't like the way I
decorate my house as long as it meets my standard of what
is beautiful or good design.

105

Enjoy the beauty of silver so much that I wouldn't mind
the extra work necessary to keep it nice.

Enjoy the things I think are beautiful even when my ideas
of beauty are different from others'.

Think a fire makes a room cozy and attractive that I would
go to the trouble of having one even when I'm all by my-
self.

Get Satisfaction from polishing a piece of furniture

Would enjoy setting a table or tray with beautiful linen
and china when I'm eating by myself.

Enjoy looking at and using china and glassware.

Items designed to express ends goal III, by means goals:

 

 

Ends Goal III: ¥p have happy, harmonious group or family
fe 7""_—""_

 

 

--freedom from friction between members

--good interpersonal relations

--cooperation, sociability

--contented pleasant relationships and
atmosphere

Means goal: Skills, knowledge

 

Want to know all phases of homemaking so as to make a happy
home.

Want to know how to make group decisions so everyone is
happy about what is done.

Think I should know how to manage a home effectively if my
marriage is to be harmonious.

Want to be able to make decisions that will bring happiness
to those I live with.

Want to know how to run the house smoothly so everyone will
get along well together.

Want to know methods of doing my work capably so as to
have time to spend socially with others.

Think knowledge of homemaking skills will aid in making
out relationships in the house harmonious.

Want to know how to work with a budget to avoid trouble
over money in my home.

Means goal: Efficiency

 

If my being efficient will add to harmony and good feel-
ing, I would make a great effort to be efficient.

Think that if I run the house effectively, there will be
less friction between the people who live there.

Think efficiency leads to the smooth working order of the
house with everyone in it comfortable and happy.

Would try to simplify my work if it would result in having
more time with my family.

Means goal: Planning

 

Like to organize the work in the house so that everyone
will be happy and comfortable.

Think it is important to manage the house for the most
comfort and enjoyment of everyone concerned.

Think that planning of time can help prevent rushed eat-
ing and family tensions.

Want to plan so there is time for all of us to do things
that we enjoy doing together.

Would follow a work schedule if it gave me more time for
my friends.

Think that a well-planned budget should help avoid family
disagreement.

Means goal: Neatness, orderliness

 

If keeping the house neat will make for greater happiness
among the people living there, I would make a great effort
to keep it that way.

Think that if all of us keep things where we can find them
easily, there is less friction and unpleasantness gener-
ally.

107

Think if everyone tries to be neat and orderly, there is
a more pleasant relationship in the house.

If the person with whom I share a room is happier when it
is neat, I try to keep everything picked up.

Think that orderliness in the houSe tends to make harmony
in our personal relationships

Want to keep everything spic-and-span so that my family
can take pride and pleasure in the home.

Means goal: Cleanliness

 

Think a clean home adds to family contentment.

If the other people I live with have higher standards of
cleanliness than I, I would raise mine for the sake of
harmony.

If it would make the others happier to live in clean sur-
roundings, I would make a special effort to keep things
clean.

Want things clean so the house will be a pleasant happy
place.

Think that keeping things sparkling contributes to our
pleasure and enjoyment of the house. '

Means goal: Creativity

 

Believe that one way to foster unity is for all of us to
do something creative together.

Think that our group achieves more harmonious relation-
ships quickly by making our own fun.

Think that as a homemaker I can be creative in thinking
of ways to make our life happier.

Think that by using a creative approach to settling our
differences, we can achieve greater understanding.

Want to encourage my family to think of different ways of
using time to give greatest satisfaction.

Want to make mealtime an occasion for cheerful associa-
tion.

108

Means goal: Beauty, comfort

 

Think that making my home comfortable is important for
agreeable relationships.

Think that having our house decorated with good color com-
binations and design will add to the happiness of my family.

Think our family can increase our happiness by finding
beauty in the everyday things around us.

Items designed to express ends goal IV, by means goals:

 

 

Ends Goal IV: To create conditions for Optimum development
§::individua1sIp,family‘pp'group

 

 

--physica1 well-being (health, comfort)

--emotional well being, growth

--mental development through education in
its broadest sense

--spiritual development

Means goal: Skills, knowledge

 

Want to be capable in handling household tasks so as to be
free to deal with the less tangible aspects of my home.

Want to know how to use resources effectively to provide
an environment for mental growth.

Want to have skill in making decisions that will result
in wholesome attitudes towards life in my family.

Want to be competent in routine tasks so that I will find
time for family needs, physical and otherwise.

Want to know how to manage so there is a minimum of emotion-
al stress in the house.

By using my knowledge of home management, I hope to provide
a favorable moral, emotional, and physical environment for
my family.

Want to have wide knowledge of homemaking to advance my
family's well-being.

By being aware of what we as a family want, I can set the
stage for us to achieve it.

109

Means goal: Efficiency

 

Hope to manage my home expertly so that I will have time
and energy to encourage my family in developing their
interests and abilities.

Want to run my home effectively to provide surroundings
for my family to develop well.

Want to use our resources so that we can have worthwhile
activities.

By managing skillfully, I can provide time for us to keep
up with our studies.

Want to be proficient in managing because it will give all

of us an Opportunity to do things together for pleasure
and profit.

Means goal: Planning

 

Want to plan our resources to provide for my family's
mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

By planning, I can budget so there will be some money
for books, music, concerts.

By planning my time well, I can get enough sleep to main-
tain health.

Want to plan so that I can provide conditions for our
health and general well-being.

By planning, I can prevent family chaos and disorder,
making for greater peace of mind.

Want to plan so there will be time for me to be observant
of others' emotional and spiritual needs.

Want to arrange for privacy for family members.

Means goal: Neatness, orderliness

 

Think that order and tidiness where we live makes it
easier for us to do our best work.

Think that neatness and orderliness in the house contri-
butes to our emotional well-being.

Think that is the house is kept tidy, there is less tension.

110

Feel less frustrated working in an orderly kitchen than
when it is upset.

Think that the establishment of fairly regular meal hours
gives family members a feeling of security.

Means goal: Cleanliness

 

Want to keep the house clean and sanitary to provide
healthful surroundings.

Like to scald dishes to protect health by destroying germs.

Want to handle food in a sanitary way to safeguard health.

Means goal: Creativity

 

Would allow my children to use their own ideas in decorat-
ing the Christmas tree even if my standards of beauty were
not met.

Believe that each of us Should have a creative outlet to
promote mental health.

Think individuals in the house develop best if given free-
dom to be original in what they do.

Think creativity in my homemaking can be mentally stimu-
lating.

By being creative in my everyday home tasks, I can reduce
boredom.

Means goal: Beauty, comfort

 

Feel I need a comfortable bed for good health.

Want to encourage people I live with to express their own
ideas of beauty even though they might be different than
mine.

By being aware of the potential for interest and pleasure
in everyday objects, I can help others to have more signif-
icance in their lives.

Want to arrange and combine things in my home in such a way
that my family may have enriching visual experiences in
daily life.

Want to help my family to be aware of the beauty in every-
day things around us.

Covering Letter to Jury Sent with Items to be Judged. 111

unit 1, Home Management House
East Lansing, Michigan
February 19, 1960 '

Dear

Would you be willing to act on a jury to judge items to be used in
an instrument I am developing for my master's thesis? I am asking
Home Management faculty members and graduate students at M.S.U.

to be the jury.

My tentative thesis title is: "A Study to Explore the Goals of
Students Taking a Home Management Course at Michigan State Univer-
sity (H.M.C.D. 3328)". I hope to use this study as a pilot for
further research in an advanced study. My plan is to develop an
instrument for use in determining important Home management goals
of the students, using a "forced-choice” technique in which tetrads
will be used. I wish to have the jury judge the items (from which
the tetrads will be composed) for:

(a) ossible bias and ambi uit in wordi . Will you
pIe"a' "se'n'o' 't'e" 'on' "‘t'h'e EOE 0' Plan y" Ewan—1% you consider

it biased or ambiguous.

(b) social acce tabilit , in order to establish a social
acéeptaBIIITy Index. If you.wou1d like the item to be
said of you, will you mark a "+," if you would dislike
the item to be said of you, will you mark a ".," if you
would neither like nor dislike it to be said or not,
will you mark an "0;” i.e. if you consider the item
more flattering to you than otherwise, (+) more
derogatory than otherwise, (-), neutral (0).

(c) classificappon according to goal categories. Will
you place each‘Itemtln e enve ope n w c you
think it belongs? There are 5 envelopes, on four

of which is stated a goal each, plus another envelope
marked "Does not fit any of the four categories."

 

I realize that you are all busy people and that it is asking a

great deal to take your time for this purpose. I would really

appreciate your assistance, and I would appreciate if you could
possibly return this material to me before March 2.

YOurs sincerely,

Jean Halliday
Jflzjw

Enclosures

.‘ 1 i
,1;
. a
- I
I -
. I.
1‘. ‘
t
u“ .
I 1'
4,71- '

 

.
n
.
V.
n
a
.
v .
a
.
a
-v
1 .
.
s
4 .A

. ,
0
.1
1-.
‘ l
I Y
- . 4t.
. .-
1
. . -.
1
. o
.
-A -... x.
' V
1 .. o
I
. ' ¢ I
1
..‘ ‘ '1‘ '
1
e‘ ‘
l - . ‘
i A c‘ |
e‘ . -
f, . . ‘ ‘
I. .
0‘ ‘
. .
.
v
4
1, - .'
‘ I
'l ‘ .
. a .
..
i
u ~J~
-
‘9 .r . .
. u: a
. .4 c .
l . i- w l
l
.1
s .
, .
_ '1
,.
-4 1. 7
o
L .. _
I
I
..
, .
1
. I
‘ §

. i . _ 1'}.

 

' . . u
.
‘ ~
1. v» . . -
I Q
.
" l
, 1
_. ' .
‘ . I
I . .. o
. ‘ . '
n O ’r ‘ '
r _ . ’u . N‘
‘ .
. VI
.c
I . . ' .C >
1
\l O . v o
. . .. . 1
u
. ~ - ‘ ‘\
v ’ f A
1 1
J 'l _ I 1 .
I . 1
. . k' .A ‘ I
I' I' l
. n ' 1
V
.
.. ¢ . ~o. . . « . ~ .4-
. .
n ‘ .
-‘- - V V"
a . .-‘ w ‘ 1
o ‘ A -
.
a I. ‘
a . - -
53.] .
-.
o
A 1 9“ a v
. . .
n -. . .‘7 .‘
V
. p a 'v
. . '
. o ‘ .
. ' '\ .
i n h
a . -
. a
, p
.
. .
._ . _~_ .. - , 1 Mar
. . " I
._ a
n '
I A U U
.
_ ‘ n
1
i . .
. . ;
1' a
,’ ‘ ‘
. . * ' ’.
I ‘ ‘
. ~
' 1

‘ v I
d o- / i s

.. 1
. . ( ‘

. . n‘”. o -- __.
, . 1 0‘ ' ' I .‘.

- .u ." ,

. u

‘7

112

Distribution of Social Acceptability Index Numbers, by

 

Goals ~Tafter eliminaEIOn by category disagreement of’jury)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. A. Index
Number Goal I Goal II Goal III Goal IV
.95-1.00 .96. 1.00 .96
.96
.96
.90-.94 .92 .92
.92
.85-.89 .88 .88 .88 .88
.88
.88
.88
.86
.80-.84 .83 .83 .83 .83
.83
.83
.75-079 075 079 079 079
.79 .75 .75
.79 .75 .75
.75 .75
.75
070'- 074 07]- o7l 071
.71 .71
.65-.69 .67 .67 .67 .67
.65 .67
.67
.60—.64 .63 .63 .63 .63
.63 .63 .63
.63
055-059 058 058 058
058
.5o-.54 .54 .54 .54
054 .54 .54
.50
.45-.49 .46 .46 .46 .46
.46
.uo—.uu .42
035-039
.30-.34 .33
025-029 .29
.25

 

(continued next page)

113

Distribution of Social Acceptability Index Numbers,etc.
(Continued?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. A. Index
Number Goal I Goal II Goal III Goal IV
.20-.24 .21 .
015-019 017 017
.17
.10‘314 013
.O5-.O9 .08
.08
O-.OU
Below O
..04
-.17
-.21
-.21
-.21
-.38
-.42
-.112
-.83

 

Totals 26 items 24 items 20 items 21 items

 

114

Letter Sent to Students with Items

Unit 1, Home Mgt. House
March 5, 1960

Dear

At the end of last term you cooperated in my re-
search by replying to an open-end questionnaire. At this
time I wish to ask you, as one of a random sample of Home
Management students, for further help which should not
take more than 15-20 minutes of your time.

Will you read the accompanying items and react to
each in the following way:

If you feel positively or accepting towards the
item, please mark a ”+” beside it;

If you feel negatively or rejecting towards the
item, please mark a "-" beside it;

If you don't feel either positively or negatively
towards the item, if your reaction is neutral,
please mark an "O" beside it.

Read each item equickly and mark your first reaction.
Don't ponder over them or take a lot of time. If you are

left-handed, you may put the mark in the left margin,
otherwise in the right margin.

I shall appreciate your help very much.

Sincerely,

Jean Halliday

Completed Instrument

 

At the beginning of the term you were asked to help with my
thesis by replying to a short questionnaire. At this time I am ask.
ing you to help again by marking the accompanying sets of items. I
am anxious to get an honest reaction, so please mark the items as
you really feel. I appreciate your cooperation very much;

Jean Halliday

DIRECTIONS

Below and on the following pages are 16 sets of 4 statements
each. There is some duplication as several of the statements are
repeated. Please read the h statements in each set and mark the one
statement most like or most descriptive of you. Then, of the 3 ""
remaining statements, mark the one least like or least descriptive
of you. Thus, for each set of H‘Etatements, you should have one

checkmark in the "most like" column and one checkmark in the "Ieast
like" column.

For example:

Most Lea at

like like

( ) (1*) Enjoy washing dishes.

( ) ( ) Think nutritious meals promote health..

( ) ( ) .Would like to have the reputation of being neat.
(‘J) ( ) Want to know how to make people comfortable.

Perhaps all the h statements above are like you, but you con-
sider the last one to be more nearly like you most of the time than
the others, so you'd put a mark opposite the statement and under the
"most like" column. Of the 3 remaining, perhaps the one least nearly
like you is the first one, so you'd put a mark opposite it under the
"least like" column. Thus, for the set of # statements, you should
have one mark under the "most like" and one under the "least like"
columns, a total of 2 checkmarks per set. Please mark each as},

You can think of these statements as referring to the Home
Management house, your living quarters, or your future home. Do
not ponder over them, but read and mark them quickly. ‘You should
be able to complete it in 15-20 minutes.

Name
Home Ngt. House Living-Out

 

1.‘ Most Least
like like

( ) ( ) Would like people to think that 1 make the house
look attractive.

( ) ( ) When I tidy things, I enjoy the sense of order even
though I know they won't stay that way long.

( ) ( ) Think if all of us keep things where we can find them
easily, there is less friction and unpleasantness
generally.

( ) ( ) Think neatness and orderliness in the house contri-
bute to our emotional well-being.

I
hi

I - ‘
. .
u “a:
u
l I
,1
I ‘
r c
4-
1
(h
.
. I
O
‘ -~ .
. '.
5 L;
O
l‘ . .
I '9
i.
o
.0
. r
- .
s.‘ '

. . .
D no ‘4
‘ . -:‘ T‘.'

- v
- .
f ,c l.‘
u
.i -
>\
'1
.5 \
.
‘|_\
. ,
. I.
‘ .“n' 4
_ .‘e.
.

muc‘a .-

..

‘

V
.?
‘.‘ s I
.. . .J.
" .A
1“. )
r
a
‘I
~
.
k
I a
I o ‘
, Ya
.
I .
|
-
c
4
4 D
o
v».- ..
e n
I
- - l
e I ‘ 'l
a ‘1'
o i 0‘ .6

...-0 v
.s
.
I
u ‘
.,1.,
a ‘ "-

B.
9 .- L.
I
O ’0‘
i ' C v I
r
. _ e
3 v
u , l
. 'J
"o c
s 1 J i. '\
w’o t - ‘
‘-
g . .
' ‘N c

.

..~Ig’-e

o I
o n.
..
-.
. .
A. .
., e

. . a' ' . v .‘- . " -. . ' .
u r -
d . l - .. a
u a
v
‘ I u U ,‘ '. a. c .
1
‘ a 5 e v u. l:
o r . 1
l \" O , '
n o c ‘
O I ~ . . —.
o
. - ,-
1 ' ' * . - f' 1
J . .1 ' t t 1 ‘ .
1
1 - a
a ’ n ' . . 5 _
‘ u . . e . :0. ”n‘: o ‘
a. ' -. e V
, .
v c . ‘
' 1 'd , V x
. . u 0" . I ' .1 n
-
..
a ' . :\ . ‘-.‘ ,v. .. . ,
' ~l _ v
. I
. I

die I
. .,
1
-
c
5., ,. '
.
g .
I ‘ v I
-.
4..
s \-‘

4‘. ‘ ' .
. - n
‘ . J
'.‘ ~. '1'..." ‘ \_
J ‘4' I .- on

V

I

C

.
l‘\ 1‘
— .r’ \e

I ' ‘ ,.‘ P so . .‘E l ’
~ I 1.3. n
-
-v-ur- .- -.. «.4 -- , . . I «e o a 1 .-....

c . ’ . .'. '2. 'V i
a. . . x . e
I l ‘ I
.. r- ‘

Q ~ -

' ' . n p ' “1' .‘
JJ. ‘ . ‘ ‘l i a r
t ’. ‘ t

. .1 r ,’ ' *9 f

, . g .. . ' J. 1 .' -...

- u
- ‘0 ' a
nJl . .‘a L - ' i .L.
. H, , -... in.“
‘ l "“‘. - ‘. u ‘.

a -‘ - ~: ' ’ :- ..
( u..‘ o .;‘-- 'u-‘O. 9 "4‘
I ' ’ , ‘ ,' .U‘
I 0 ' .. a I ‘

I . Q- .l the .

' I I . a ‘ e -“
\
;. .. " . l... A4. .
..- ‘I : \- e
-r'-~.
,1 ... nib-
.
0‘ _
".
1- . " n .I '1 I
.
I 4
. I‘ 1‘
L . - .I ‘
u\I.. ‘.
. , . ' \ 1’
1
". . ‘ I ‘
. \ ‘ k
u
0 7'
, ,. .
w ._ ‘ . I I
n I g '-
. J. .
- - ...‘ . z

2 . Most Least

page 2

Think if everyone tries to be neat and orderly,
there is a more pleasant relationship in the house.

'Want to know how to organize my time and money wisely
so that I can accomplish the things I want to.

Want my Home management instructor to consider me
efficient.

By using my knowledge of Home management, I hope to
provide a favorable moral, spiritual, and physical
environment for’my family.

Feel satisfaction when I make effective use of my
resources.

Think knowledge of homemaking skills will aid in
making our relationships in the house harmonious.

Think individuals in the house develop best if given
freedom to be original in what they do.

Am pleased if others in the house like my original
ideas.

Think the establishment of fairly regular meal hours
gives family members a feeling of security.

Think making my home comfortable is important for
agreeable relationships.

Would like to be thought of as a good planner.

Am unhappy if I don't measure up to my own standards
of efficiency.

like like
()()
()()
()-()"
()()
3. Most Least
like like
()()
()()
()()
()()
A. Most Least
like like
()()
()()
()()
()()
5. Most Least
like like
()()
()()
()()
()()

If keeping the house neat will make for greater
happiness among the people living there, I would
make a great effort to keep it that way.

Because I am neat myself, it bothers me to live with
untidy people.

Would like to organize well because the others
expect me to have things run smoothly.

By planning my time well, I can get enough sleep to
maintain health.

d.
\~ ‘
~". ... ; .
,A'.‘ .J . .o
dT‘-' .
.r. A. ‘A—
_ . .' ' . ‘ .. . .‘. . “ ’_ r . .. s .. \
. I ' ‘ ‘ ‘H V -. ‘ ' '1 rrt .3, .' r 0 I ‘
‘ 'v. " I ' ‘ ‘ ‘ --.’ I~‘\ .. O: . ... I k I
.
_ _. ‘.(. . . , --, - . Ls -.

 

   

' ' . f ..
‘ - ' '. : ' -
n , l I. o ‘ - ~ _ . A ' . . I - ,, . . l n _
' F ‘0
‘. I '7' v I r. C i '. v .
' o . .
o .1 , . . . . . , , . .. _ - . .. . . .. H
o . I ‘
, v ~ ‘
,J ' . . . u .‘ ~.._ . Qr
_ . ‘ . {-3; . . - ‘ ‘. _ .1 v. _. l‘. ‘ . ' ‘ I 1‘ , -v '
. . ‘ t 4
I
"‘II P ‘1
o . a . , h.
' ' ~ '- ' o. I '\
’ ' ’. ‘ 2' . ' Q. . l ' " .' 0 ‘ f a" A f .
- . - * ‘ , ~ ‘ ‘ OI . , ' r _ \ I. 5'
. fl _. ‘ 1 . d " l ‘ I
- I. , . . ' . ’. ..
I. . | V‘- I ' .‘_ . ‘- ' Q l A... '. § '. . l tu‘fiy
.. , ”40': I‘ll ‘ .- ~.‘ A ‘ . -. . . , . . ._. .\ . ‘
I ." I
_ r ' : l‘ .‘ ‘. . ‘ o r 1" (o . '
. ,Iu 0|- I .. . .. .. .g. ... ..n‘_ .
....05. ID. ‘ - “n-—“-CV '4‘ -c--.~ n -- o'oor- -' .. a u I o- «In.
a . .
4 ,— f .f. '
l .
v .« L . ... . .L
' l O
‘ .2
a r;
. '. .'_ .
. f " 5
r . k I f o ‘
_ . v . A‘ .
v t P f . - , ’7 ‘ i . ' ".~ . 'b . , . f . . i g
, _ - _ _ f , ‘ . u ‘. .1” - ‘ .1 K . ' ' ‘
-~.‘ l ' ‘IA‘I
o .- k M ...
a
. .- . v' - c _ .. , ’ ‘ . . ~ _ _ II .‘ _‘ a‘ " ‘v " ‘
. ' t ' I ‘\ I 5 . H. ' ‘ 'I I ' ‘ ‘ .
a . _‘ \' , . ' I r 4 ¢ . . . ‘- . .A ' ‘ 4‘
- u - ‘ ,~ . ‘ - , . . - . — ,~ . v‘ .
\ a ' l y, l \
s 'A -'. .'l ‘I . , I x . . . '. ‘ .‘.
A v ‘ , ‘ . , - -...- V _ . , \ ,r \
' v 'I .- ‘ ‘ I“ my. : ' . '0. ‘ I. ‘ ,. ‘ ! i '
‘ ‘ , d . ' - , . . . _ 4 . . . . .o \ \ "
. ~° - ' - - - . . . '. ~ r-w“
) - I v | . . - I s I ,
. ‘ ‘ .n . ‘ l ‘I . ‘I ,..
n . I l
I ' . I. " , ‘ .
v," .-‘I (-‘ - . .. ..J ‘ - t ' v". ‘ 7‘ . f] I f
.‘ . *‘ I... . A. 3 I. J ..' .I a . . ‘ . .. . . . . A I‘
I ‘.
I -‘ y
0-4 yr. ... . a. — o1 .. . -au- .. ..- .. .. . .. .. .. ,..v.
. I
Q. , ‘ 1'
" .- A , .

 

| ' i ‘ . 1 -

g 1 l 1 . ' l g s w ,. .“ ‘ ‘.
I

F .
I . - . ‘ -' 7

I
‘ . , , ... I .
a 4 - l » -. - . . 4‘ ' .I .7 7‘ ..., . . . .5 : , ' ‘

‘ . . a .
‘ U
. \ g . . V . i . 4. p . ‘ | x
. I've .
o s .. ' o

O
a g .o’
.‘,‘.1,.‘ pure; .g. .. .fi— .Ig... .. - .. - ...-v.» r.
-_ 1 r "
. ' ‘
- 0
I“ _
f - .k.
I a
t V y ' A .
. » -' .’ ..| . . ’ , . . . . '
. - .
, I ,, . "t .A. ' c - r -- O s.
. . L . .
v ’, u . ' ' l - . , 4 . '
. f . . . ‘ ‘
I A A .
.. ., ' i - . . , .
., ~ —. ... . , . u _ .—.
g I n v
o u ' - .',.' . ... \ b
l

. .3 . ‘ - I - _ _ .‘ .‘ . .
' . n , ._ . 1 \ ‘ \A , . J < . l - . A 3 ‘ "
. ,
. , ‘ v I
., .
O . . - Ats

- . -, ‘I 1 , ,
- , u I _ v ' v f ’
‘ I - c ’ ‘ '— . -c ., .a U . . v . “ . a .1 ‘A .A A
‘ . ' I
. , _. ‘ 7‘ ’._. . O . ~
g 3 .4 ..’A . g . ‘ .. . ' ‘

6.

page 3

Like to feel I am competent in making my decisions.

Think neatness and orderliness in the house contri-
bute to our emotional well-being.

Want to be able to make decisions that will bring
happiness to those I live with.

Would like to have the reputation of being creative.

Want to keep the house clean and sanitary to provide
healthful surroundings.

Would like to be thought of as a person who gets
things done well by the quickest, easiest way.

Think a fire makes a room so cozy and attractive
that I would go to the trouble of having one even
when I'm all by myself.

Think orderliness in the house tends to make harmony
in our personal relationships.

Enjoy the things I think are beautiful even when my
ideas of beauty are different from others.

Feel we need comfortable beds for good health.

Think others expect me to manage the house efficient-
ly without fuss. '

Think it is important to manage the house for the
most comfort and enjoyment of everyone concerned.

Most
like
()
()
()
()
MOst
like
()
()
()
()
Most
like
()
(

()
()
Most
like
()
()
()
()

Least
like
()
()
()
()
Least
like
()
()
()
()
Least
like
()
()
()
()
Least
like
()
()
()
()

Want to arrange and combine things in my home in
such a way that my family may have enriching visual
experiences in daily life.

Feel rewarded when my work goes as I've planned it.
Want to know how to run the house smoothly so every-

one will get along well together.

When visitors come, I like to have floors clean,
furniture dusted.

. ._
9 .3.
"on c ' '
. w . I ‘ ‘Ih
éw' ‘ Ir‘
~ .. _ s ‘ J o
9‘ ' . ' f ‘
I l
, , . . . . ~ _ . n v - I
. I ' : .. . , r - ..f‘. ‘l' a. . x ’ I
. ,. -- - - 0' . - ~ ‘ -.
I I
n ’ .
. ' . . x. ', ‘ ‘ I
. 4 .
,. H _ ‘ . ' _ .,‘ . J ‘ ‘ , ....“ '; ' , \ . :
~ 4
I
(, _- . H
no . ‘ ' . . r ‘
O ‘I‘4 u ‘ I

' t
. r - . O ‘t ‘ . ‘ f . 1 ,
' l‘ '0 ' ' . V 4’ ‘ L' I - . - ‘ I { I f ‘ ‘ .
‘1’: ‘ , I ‘ tun, . \v . .. \ n. .. u . . .. .. J. o . \ !
o I ~ I
. . ‘ _ 1 v. ‘ 1 .. '. . ‘
. l )1 . 0‘ .
. . u . - J ‘J I - _ l . ‘. ‘ - 6
_ » 1 °' ‘ - ' ' ' - . ~ I 0‘ ' 1‘
I ‘ . 1 ‘ I ’ :4 : ’ I. ‘ ' 'I .l‘ r .‘ "' I O ‘ ‘ ‘ r t ’P . I .
. - . _ - . .1. . - - w ‘ -‘o no! _‘ I r In ‘¢ v -’ '. .- 89’s ‘ a. 1‘ i ‘\
. I
. . I p n- a v . .. o .‘ A o u - -. -. o. ‘ ... _ n. ,0 .- .. § .- v ._ . ._ . -p
0 ‘ . , ,fl
1 --.. :I\ a, . ~- |4 ‘
\l ‘ -‘. -. - O
7' .
a I 4 .
u I ' ' ' “ .
u .
. . 1 \ .
O l O _ A. I v .
.""-'. “1'. .. f u, a MH‘rf r ' '~- ,~ 1 4 . . a
. ~ ~ , ' J .. - I' . .. -. r -. . . - I . ..J ‘
- . l .
0' . ' -.I. ‘ 1.." I a o .. - 5’ 'Lo' . I
O ‘ .
. x ' ,
v I' . I» . I . - -. r R a 1‘ ’N " -' 1 r -- .' .-- r + f ' V' ' ' : 'I z \
'\_.\' ,‘ . . 1” . .1 . s. .. ~. ~ . .. u.- . - k, _ , ,. . 1 .t \ I \ ,
Q ‘ .
_ ' . ‘ I - at a, J ‘ . . a ' . - . - ¥

‘. ‘ ~ ‘ I '. Q. r) “ - v ': I 'd ~’ .. u. I , 5 n . c ‘ , '
‘ o - I .
. ‘ l . ' "
. _ - . - on ‘ v. ' . --. b l - . .
w , I _' . ~ I ‘ , . . ‘ . . .
. ~ 2" , ll L 0“] h.‘ . - .- . 4- ' s ' 50“.‘ ~ 5‘ J‘ ~- ./ " ... . u‘lf
' O .
. ‘ r . .-,. .. r :3- “.-.,
' Q o . ' ' 1. , . n .3 o . . I
‘
. . - ‘ \ I
- . l g ' v ’ w . \
~._ . - .‘-. v -‘ ~¢ - .0 -, - ._p' . - ~ . - .v ~ . ~ ‘ . - . -
4.~.', w ._ ,. “ ,' ‘ ‘ r .‘ _‘ “ f pl; .._.. r.) , ‘ ,. t 1
..J...‘ g 5 ‘A-J' - ‘4 . \ ¢ .. Q .. . A a. .. I , J ( - _ - Jo . g 4 - , ‘ . -
‘ . \ I
’ ' 1 -1 ' r ‘ .
. - _.' . ' ."", I -.¢"‘ .' .‘r' ‘ - r-
, . o ' I - .. .. ,- o; . .. - -. .' '_ i ..A. y. .A...
~ - v o~ Q- - . a p . -~, .- ou ... .o o- v — .4. - c... . ~ ... > -4 no 5‘
_ 'V . z-
. 5 A
- . k - _
a
I .‘
. o ‘ u, T
o 7 I
' - ' 3 - f u r. ‘ a.'~ f v “ Q. .‘ Ar 5 ,9 IA 1 u -,- - ' \ \
(Y a! . , ‘ . . , l 1‘ I f . | ‘ I o. . . , I
o ‘ . 'I _ x ' ’. - H. J . ‘ . ~ I . . \ _ n , - o ‘3‘. ‘ ‘
_ . fl .‘ ._ I r" o _ . ' 0.2 ‘ '
:r l “- a J “ ‘ ' ' ‘.' ‘h a. o. .r
0 .-.~ ’ u . I . l u..- . r » - n‘l .... ..
Q I
‘ - . ‘ ., ,4 ‘- ,' .f ‘ . "T' -}.,. . ’ 3 . . ...,I‘.‘ i ’ " \x
‘ ‘ A ' n i v
. . . 'p'—_ ‘ -‘ . a — l" ‘1 - .. t .~ ~: ~ . . ' ‘. l
I

. n . ‘ . , , ,
". . -‘ - - ., . . . ‘ .. , _ f. _- , ‘ I; a ‘,
' L -. _
'5 v
0' ' n- -..I .
O . . I ‘ a
pm ' .-~¢.--{ ‘ - .. . Y,,.~ .... ' 5‘, I .v0 . ‘ r \
- . i,. o . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ )Or I _
‘ . l.\t - .,> ; .-...’t k 1‘“ _ , ,. \ I \ I
. h l
,. . c‘ I '[i'fc'T'tx ‘ .- .._ A ‘ '4, (- \ .'_.-" ‘ I '
. ..-‘z'.‘ n’. ‘bqu -. ' -2“ “ ‘.30J ., J ->
...-w- Q- I'D..- .. -- --. ...-a. o .. .... .‘ ...-o.
a I " r ' .
. - I'I ‘,
. I -
!
. r

. . x I ‘
. ' .- . . , . f " . s ,. m, . ' . . ’ ‘\ .
.1 ‘ . X .‘ . . . n ' .- _. . ."J .0.) _ r . ‘ \ ‘
I \
0 l . f
. .’ - . ‘ o 'l . . Q - . ‘ - . * ‘0”. I- If 3 . - . '
»‘ . v .-. Ln-.. . . -J-u . . . .' a-JJ. 0.. x .t' ‘: -
\ . q x .-
' o . I ' . n
— » ‘ If a . I ‘ ' ‘3 J. '. ll.
0 ‘ I .- o. 1" .g I.. . , . ‘ . -
I
- . . '1 . . - ' . _ ., K
.p g, f. L . 9 (%'~ l .' I r ;)r ..I ( ’I N - ‘ 1 ‘ I \
V . 1.. A, .. ‘. . .1 . ._. .‘ ‘ . n ‘ I. ‘ , ‘ v
0 4 O ‘ , J
- . . ‘ . I
. ‘ . ‘ '0 ‘73- -‘ ..- ‘- r . ‘ ‘ _ L 1.. . - ‘ s '1 -. ‘ ~ - \“ ‘ \ l \‘
‘ . -' .-, . » . ' . .1 . - . A h ' .
. . o o .t . ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ \ , u
I. ’ l ' .

~ .. .t. . . 'f . ‘ . ' n .', \ ‘ r ‘-

O . . I 'J d . ' ' - h. - a ‘ -'
. , ' n. I. I - w ' ’ '

, ’ ’ ‘ , g 1' 'o ' - l ‘ ' , ' g . . '
'~ -~, I . .. .‘ .- _ . _ J, ' . . J ‘ A, . \ '
"3")! r-n 1 '7 ‘ u ’
a . . .,- .

page 4
Least

Like to organize the work in the house so that
everyone will be happy and comfortable.

Like to keep dishes washed because it is difficult
to work in a kitchen piled with dirty dishes.

Want to arrange for privacy for family members.

Would like my Home Management instructor to think I
am well organized.

Want to make mealtime an occasion for cheerful
association.

Want to keep the house clean and sanitary to provide
healthful surroundings .

Am pleased if others in the house like my original
ideas.

It would please me to do my work using the least
amount of time.

-------------‘----*--—---------—--

10. Moat
like
()
()
()
()
ll. Mest
like
()
()
()
()
12. Nest
like
()
()
()
()
13. Most
like
()
()
()
()

()
()
()
Least
like
()
()
()
()
Least
like
()
()
()
()
Least
like
()
()
()

Feel satisfaction when I make effective us of my
resources.

Dislike people to see beds unmade and clothes
scattered around rooms for Which I am responsible.

Think a well-planned budget should help avoid
family disagreement.

Believe that each of us should have a creative
outlet to promote mental health.

Would like people to think that I make the house
look attractive

Enjoy doing things in an original way even if no
one but myself knows.

Think the establishment of fairly regular meal
hours gives family members a feeling of security.

Think a clean home adds to family contentment.

.
‘f
.!r

I
.
,
I
. .
,
,
1.?”
u..
Alr.
-n.
-

o
... c
n .
v
. ‘
* l
,0
~‘
t
. a.
-,
r. '.
.;
"w

.
~ iv‘ o

v f.

I' .

O I ‘

v.

a 1_
‘nl _ .
{...

.. .

V .

u

‘ b-

I

’ n

.

n .
. . .
.~‘, ...,n ,
-A ~ .0.

r

.. Ir. ,

. .'..' ’

f’x ‘
> I
. P'
. . .

o .‘J
l

.

I"..' - g

- 4

o .
Ni». ‘ “d
’a\.' \v‘

' o

', . ;"

Q

t
. I

.. ..

I ‘ "

.4.

.

_ l
.

~..

‘\
.

..-
.

1"

.

. .

a
I.

..

o

.

.

v

C

v .-

.
as

'u.
.
'u
\

...

Va

-

‘1

.

I 'I

.-

......
C
,.
t
‘1
a
J

. '

V

.‘

...a-

' t’.
1
{.b-
s
-\
O c “
". o.
0..
O
I
..
\‘(rA
”.
.H. J.
. ‘
'.
‘ .
u—I 7‘ G
K .
. . 5'.
., .
I
lh. .‘
a ,t'
n
k
_. J,
.H .
\.

m'.
. O
O P
- A.
..
"c
I
,.
0"
I.
at
-O'

, -
u!
C
' l
..
l "
1».-
.
'I
g .
.. -..
‘
.
‘.
. i
. VI
-4
.
D...
f
,.
\
.- .,
, 3
N-
O"‘
I
. . .
-.
\l
. .,
‘
e
‘l
.
.
I ~
.
.. ...
C. _'
.4-Ovc
(“|
..-J
’ I.
I
- ’.
, -
' I
. .
't
u.
. ,

. . c .
. ‘ .
u
‘ v‘ ‘ ,N
. ‘ l vJ
" ~
\. a _'. ‘-
‘ o '.‘ ‘ ‘j'
a ’ '
Zn -.
’ v . a
.’ ’ .
‘ .
J. .J .u .
,. . a"

It; r Q . .
4“. u , ., .
l \ - ..- ’
4 ‘ - .. '-
.. .
0".0- . k; "
', ...
\r . l
' Q
:* I . ' .
a '~ 1 a. .
O
.._ ‘ , \
,_ . .' f‘.
. _ :
D . . . ..L
p
I. '1 ’
u ' I
.
n' r ‘ . ‘-
.. . ‘ _}
.. h .l - - ,. M.I
f
' 1 . l'
.1 , , ‘.
. o- - 3“
x I I . '.I \. .-
u .
I \ I 'I ' '
, . (
... .. '.' .4. L.
0‘ s',‘ '. |. ‘ '
. ' - -‘ r
."a ‘ If. ‘ '3
b ‘ as;
. .
, . . . -
l
.
A. . .
first "
.<~ V v V
, .
l I y
. .
.. .. ..
l. . v . 0‘ . v
.. I. .
—. ’ C
.. n 1'
a ‘A ‘ I |
- I .. , e
r
_, .
, A
' I
4| '- .. .\
~v , . ,
. ' ll.
". .
. "I h . -
. “ ':'
t‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
.
‘ ' a ‘ ‘ ' .0
V d .5- Q .,
I U- - D

-
I .
a o D
' A
. . .
r |

I ‘1
x
, .

-' 0*". O...

. A
4 o l
.
.
v j ‘
v ‘,
. ‘

.... .‘ ..

a-a-n.

1'".

‘~.— a,

.‘ ,.

A ‘---~

y A
‘ .‘o 1.
an .- - .0 .r
f

C —

w .u—m“

I "

..v
i §.0~
- n o.

page 5

Want to run my home effectively to provide surround-
ings for my family to develop well.

Like to organize the work in the house so that every-
one will be happy and comfdrtable.

Feel satisfaction in getting the most done in as
little time as possible.

Am pleased if others in the house like my original
ideas.

Would scour the bathtub after each using even if I'm
the only one using it.

Think that by using a creative approach to settling
our differences, we can achieve greater understand-

ing.

Would like to have the reputation of knowing a lot
about homemaking.

Want to plan our resources to provide for my
family's mental, emotional, and spiritual well-

being. .

16.

Most
like
( )
( )
( )
( )
Most
like
( )
( )
( )
( )
Mbst
like
( )
( )
( )
( )

Want to know how to work with a budget to avoid
trouble over money in my home.

Want to handle food in a sanitary way to safeguard
health.

Enjoy arranging everyday objects in new combinations
of color and texture.

Would like to be thought of as a good planner.

 

v , . .. ,. 1,
- u
— J . . -.’A . 1.- .
I
' . - w o-
‘ a ‘ ‘ .. u
.
t J
A . ‘ ‘ .
s f u
‘ I. —
,. .. l
L w
' \ .. . .-.
. .
.‘ . l ‘ I ~ '
, L. . I. c < . _ .
v A . *-
:, v '
g . \- I K v \
r . . ~
\ . ' .
I - n r J a - . I a
o- ... . - g | . If
. , .
t .
e ‘ ‘ _‘ ‘ c
. - . J J ‘.' . . V 0 ‘
.
n 1 '
. e
4
I Q
'. , ‘ _‘ n A . . _ .
. .
. . . . - ., L . _ .. .|
.
r ’ . . . - ~
.- I ' ': i; .. I. U Iv . I.
' .. .t- . . K u‘n r . .‘t . -

I; ./ . . .¢ 1 :‘ .
I
. ‘. .. .
‘ Q
0 "_ - » c
. } , ..
film, . ) ._ _-.
-. ., , . ' . .\ A
. . ..
‘ 6- t '. ~'. ' '.- .- I ‘:. .', I.‘o '
c \

~unm~qu--.-.'

: 'r l
-o , . a ,... - . . . o v . ,
u _
(I. _ _ ._ .1 If .
I
. ‘ ,. w, ' ‘ I’m
. . . . .
g .. i .1 ’ | .l . ,. . I
.
.
"r A. N. ' r \‘
I .. - A T L
I , . .. . l -.
. .- ‘ | ‘ c. a a o .- . .I (
. _ . . (.J v ’ . . c '
, f a a
I ’ ' . ’1' l
. u .
~ V‘ .I .I ‘k._ ( ., 1
. .1 . , u _ X .I
v.1. - o. . ’4' u..— ..

ROUM USL LHL ,

...I i

a "
I
1 I"
a P
.‘ t
.1
q-
1
$

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

III! |
6

312931038 6822