_ I .H ., ..r. myw‘ ‘ ... f ERA FAMILIEIIIIIROIIM '. STATE [NW 5 - .1971 .*'f9 :gDAIIIaII. IIII/ .67 g 1 5 .9. :ALICEI .59. :1 mmmmflfi Mgr; wag ,5 5% Mr M 7 . Is for MICHIGAN SHIP 0F EIIMILYI RELATION. T 1 a-Thes .. #Ew‘. , . 4.1mm 7 . . . . I I «in x _ I V . , _ ‘ . . A , a . , \ ‘ . . _ . _ . , . _ , , . . ., , _, _ . , . , y/rII/fl , 1 i} .. .. . 30‘; . .r . r g f, rJvr/frlrwrvva/v; I .f Ifr.).£)v.r7Y.I. : 2.... :yrr..ra~.”J 55:; I _ . I . . . . .. I . .Amémkwufiimflfiwfiu . .N .. . .fifihfiafiu E UNIVE SITY LIBRARY \\\W\\\l\ll\lll\l\\\l W \\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\ Till-«IVER "J 3 1293 10591 39 8 {Y ‘ ' I Michigan nab: k, University m§ \ .A» This is to certify that the thesis entitled Relationship of Family Interaction to Family Environment presented by Alice J. Davey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Home Management degree in Major professor D3“: Oct. 29, 1971 0-7 639 ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY INTERACTION TO FAMILY ENVIRONMENT BY Alice J. Davey As families seek to improve the well~being of their membership, they set goals and exert energy to attain these goals. To help families with their decision-making, measures are needed to determine effectiveness of means used as well as the outcome of goal achievement. A task ascribed to the family by the larger society is the social- ization and nurture of its members. In the management of this task, family members need to be together to interact. This study is designed to investigate selected characteristics of the family environment and family inter- action, defined as episodes of shared activity which involve two or more family members. Family environment includes the family members, the SES level of the family, the location and characteristics of the family dwelling. A purposive sub-sample was selected from data derived from the Walker-Telling time use survey of 1296 husband-wife families in Syracuse, New York. The sample was composed of 126 families with one, two, and three children between the Alice J. Davey ages of 6 and 11. Data were coded relative to the shared time of family members in five activity categories: social, eating, household work, physical and other care of family members, and management and record keeping. A family interaction score was developed. The score was calculated by multiplying the number of people in each interaction episode by the number of minutes used for each activity. The products were then added together and divided by the total number in the family. The score was used to test the effects of specific characteristics on family inter— action. Significant relationships between total family interaction scores and selected characteristics of the family environment were computed by analysis of variance and by Pearson's coefficient of correlation. A significant relationship existed between the total family interaction scores and the activities categorized as social, eating, and care of family members. Slightly over 61 per cent of the interaction episodes were attributable to social activity. By contrast, 9.6 per cent of the interaction episodes involved household work. Eating and care of family members were inversely related to the total family interaction scores. That is, increases in the amount of time used in eating and care of family members resulted in decreased family interaction scores. A significant relationship also existed between the percentage of time Alice J. Davey mothers shared with their children and family interaction. Family interaction increased as time shared by mothers and children increased. The fathers share of time was not significant which might raise questions about role modeling for the boys. It was further shown that there was a significant relationship between the total family interaction scores and school time, time of day, weekend days, and the school vacation season. As school time increased, the total family interaction scores decreased. Interaction in the evening also contributed to a decrease in the family inter— action scores. Morning and afternoon interaction had the opposite effect. Weekend days and the school vacation season significantly contributed to an increase in the family inter- action scores. The location of the family dwelling and selected characteristics of the family dwelling seemed to have no effect on the total family interaction scores. The study provided a way to quantitatively assess family interaction and identified some of the factors which contributed to an increase or a decrease. Since interaction was more prevalent for social activities, further research is needed to more specifically determine the dimensions of social activity in the family setting. No measures were developed for quality in this study, research is also needed to determine factors which influence the quality of family interaction. RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY INTERACTION TO FAMILY ENVIRONMENT B y ,2 J .un Alice Jy'Davey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To the members of my advisory committee; Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Miss Esther Everett, and Dr. Norma Bobbitt my appreciation. To Dr. Paolucci, advisory committee chairman, a very special thank you for her guidance, encouragement, and making the whole experience a rewarding one. To Dr. Mary Winter for her advice and help with the statistical measures, my deep gratitude. To the New York State College of Human Ecology at Cornell University, my thanks for financial support to analyze the data. To Dr. Kathryn E. Walker and Mrs. Irma Telling, research associate, my appreciation for the use of data from the Syracuse, New York, time study data bank. To my family and special friends, my gratitude for their encouragement and help. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . Vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . 3 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . 4 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . 5 Definitions . . . . . . . 8 Conceptual Orientation. . . . . . . 9 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 12 Approaches to the Study of Interaction . 12 The Function of Interaction in the Family 20 Management of the Family Environment for Interaction . . . . . . . . 24 i III. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Selection and Description of Sample . . 27 Data Selection . . . . . . . . . 34 Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . 36 IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Descriptive Findings . . . 43 Hypotheses Related to Family Members and the Socio— —economic Level of the Family. 48 Hypotheses Related to Family Activities . 53 Hypotheses Related to Location and the Family Dwelling . . . . . . . 59 V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . 64 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . 64 Implications for Further Research . . . 71 LITERATURE CITED. . _ . . . _ _ . . . . 74 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 iii Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Age, sex and number of children . . . . . . Ages of mothers and fathers . . . . . . . Distribution of SES scores as classified by Hollingshead . . . . . . . . . . . . Parents hours' of employment . . . . . . . Type of housing . . . . . . . . . . . Number of stories in family dwelling . . . . Number of rooms in the dwelling, excluding bathroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square footage of lot . . . . . . . . . Selected pieces of household equipment owned or used by the families. . . . . . . . Methods used for the analyses of data . . . . With whom interaction takes place . . . . . Number of episodes of interaction according to activity category. . . . . . . . . Range and mean of interaction episodes by family size. . . . . . . . . . . . Place of interaction. . . . . . . . . . Range of family interaction scores by family size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to family size . . . . . . Pearson's coefficientsof correlation between the family interaction scores and selected family characteristics (126 families, Syracuse, New York, 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 29 30 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 42 44 45 46 47 47 48 49 Table 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the percentage of time each parent shared with the children . . . Analysis of variance of the time mothers interacted with sons and the time mothers interacted with daughters . . . . . . . Pearson‘s coefficientsof correlation between total family interaction scores and percentage of the score contributed by family activities. (126 families, Syracuse, New York, 1967) . . Analysis of variance of the per cent of the total number of acts of less than one hour and acts of more than one hour . . . . . Pearson's coefficientsof correlation between total family interaction scores and the percent- age of the score contributed by morning, after— noon, and evening (126 families, Syracuse, New York, 1967) . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores with the day of the week . . . . . Analysis of variance of the family interaction score according to the season of the year. . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to where the family lived . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the number of stories in the dwelling unit. . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the number of rooms in the dwelling unit. . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the square footage of the lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the ownership or use of selected pieces of household equipment. . . Page 50 51 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page 1. Dimensions of family interaction . . . . 37 2. Example of family interaction data record for a family of five. . . . . . 38 3. Example of method used to compute the family interaction score. . . . . . . 38 4. Example of method used to compute dimension scores . . . . . . . . . 40 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In home management, attention centers "on the totality of living in the family. . . . The management function evolves from the conscious direction of behavior toward predetermined family goals" (1:7). Professionals in the field of home economics "operate from the assumption that the primary goal of the family is the growth and development of individual members" (1:7). Thus the family'x setting provides care and protection for its members as well as educating the child with regard to values, attitudes and skills. Ritchie suggests that "ideally, it offers him models to be emulated, aspirations to be pursued, and security when he feels threatened" (2:160). Since the family is instrumental in shaping the kind of person one becomes through "everyday experiences in the family, the quality of these experiences cannot be left to chance, they must be consciously decided and managed" (1:9). The most important type of decision made in the family setting is social in nature. ”Social decision- making occurs in those situations in the family where there is conflict in values or goals" (3:3). The process used "is one of order and direction of change rather than one of selecting and rejecting alternatives" (3:3). "The choice is a result of mediation rather than selection" (3:3). Social decisions involve people in joint action provided they are able to "share experiences and understand one another. People who constantly share action and experience are interdependent in the sense that a change in one produces an answering change in others" (4:236). *Thus social decisions are dependent upon interaction between and among family members. Effective interaction calls for opportunities for family members to share time and space. The White House Conference on Children expresses a concern that in our American society families may not be full- filling one of their chief tasks; that is, the socialization of children because parents and children seemingly are encouraged to pursue separate activities (5:228, 241). This study seeks information about the relationship between family interaction and selected characteristics of the environment. We need to know more about the inter- action which exists between and among family members so that we may help families and professionals who work with families, make judicious decisions as they seek to manage the family situation to improve family life. Few studies have been done which investigate the relationship between family interaction and given environmental characteristics. In addition, little is known about family interaction and value formation or the personality development of family members. Much of the literature (5, 6, 7, 8) takes a normative stance which assumes the more interaction, the better and the more family members involved, the better. Empirical data are needed to either support or negate these positions. Empirical data relative to family inter- action and environmental characteristics could provide information for planning strategies for family management. Objectives This study is designed to investigate the relation— ship between family interaction and specified character- istics of the family environment. Specifically, the objectives are: 1. To determine those areas of family life where interaction occurs. 2. To investigate the relationship between family interaction and selected characteristics of the family and its environment. Within the confines of the data used for this exploratory study, the investigation seeks answers to the following questions: Who interacts with whom in the family? What activities do family members share as they interact? When do family members interact? How frequently, within a 24-hour span, do family members interact? What is the time span for interaction in shared activities? Where does the interaction take place? Assumptions Several assumptions underlie this study: 1. The family is an essential life support system for its members; a major part of this support is dependent upon interaction between and among family members. Interaction can be determined by the examina— tion of records on how families use time. Limitations limitations of this study include the following: Only quantitative measures are used. No attempt is made to measure the quality of interaction. The time records used are based on a single day in the life of a family. Activities of less than 5 minutes duration are not reported. Since data were collected to study household work, detailed information is lacking for the other categories. Hypotheses Related to Family Members and Socio-economic Level 1. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of children in a family. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the age of the parents. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the percentage of time each parent shares with the children. Significantly more time will be shared by mothers and daughters than by mothers and sons. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of hours of employment for the mother. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of hours of employment for the father. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the average number of hours the children are in school. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the socio—economic status score of the family. Related to Family Activities 9. 10. 11. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and selected activi- ties of the family. a. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and interaction in social activity. b. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and interaction in the eating activity. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the frequency of shared acts in a 24-hour time span. There will be a significant difference between the per cent of the total number of acts that are less than an hour and those more than an hour in duration. 12. 13. 14. 15. Related to There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the time of day the interaction occurs. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the day of the week. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the season of the year. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the place of interaction. Location and Family Dwelling 16. 17. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the type of community in which the family lives. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and specific dwelling unit characteristics. a. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of stories in the dwelling unit. b. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of rooms in the dwelling unit. c. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the size of the lot. d. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the presence of a dishwasher and the use of a clothes washer, and clothes dryer. Definitions For the purpose of this study, the following defini- tions will be used. Family The family is operationally defined as a group which consists of a husband, wife and children living in a common dwelling. Either or both parents may be employed. Family Activities Activities in which the family members are in close proximity. The activities are categorized as social, eating, household work, care of family members, and manage- ment and record keeping. Family Interaction Episodes of shared activity which involve two or more persons. Family Interaction Score A score used to measure the configurations of family members as they are involved in episodes of shared activity. The configurations may be the whole family group, both parents, all the children, mother and all the children, father and all the children, mother and some of the children, father and some of the children, parents and one child, parents and two children, and two children out of three children. The interaction score is determined by multiplying the number of people in a shared activity or episode times the number of minutes used for the episode. The products for each family are totaled, then divided by the total number of family members. Conceptual Orientation The conceptual design of this study is an adaptation of the interactional approach to the study of the family derived from Olson's Systems Analysis of Research Strategies (9). It draws on work in small group theory, particularly that of Homans (10). The focus of the study is on the family as "a unity of interacting personalities" (11:97), measured by the time shared in common activities. The research method employed is self-report plus an interview schedule. 10 For the purposes of this study, the concepts under examination are family activity and interaction in relation to specified aspects of the family environment. The question posed is, "What is the relationship between the family environment and the number of kinds of activities which provide opportunities for interaction?" This research seeks to find the answer to what characteristics of the family environment may relate to the interaction of family members. 11 pcmfimfiswm poa mo mmMpOOM wHMDWm mEoon mo ponfisz mofluoum.mo Honfisz UZHHHMBQ mMDmDmINBHU mmoom mmm cospaflco mo wocmpcopuw Hoocom IN I, .mmHHHEmw cH GOAuownoucH How Npspm mo ponme mo Homo: mucwnmm mo ucofimoamfim xmm was smoom senssz AIIIIIIIIIII;III,I oneoammezH mmmmzmz MHHZSM madam/NE MQHzmm A mcflmwmm Uncomm paw ucoEmmmcmz mHoQEoE kHHEmM mo memo paonomsom mcflpmm wquqmso Hafioom ZOHBflUOQ mMHEH>HBU< Qm>mq.mmm MQHEco mHHEmw map mo mOHpmHHopomsmco campnoo szmszomH>zm was sofluomuwuefl saflsmm cmmsnmb oneoammezH quzam anameoflumflmu was mnmmnnmm>an on saHzaa > > m>HBumme CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The literature is reviewed under three headings: approaches to the study of interaction, the function of interaction in the family, and the management of the family environment for interaction. Approaches to the Study of Interaction A number of approaches have been used to study social interaction. Heiss relates social interaction to role theory (12). He distinguishes between two forms of role theory (social—psychological or Meadian, and structural): The structural theorist is primarily interested in questions of content, organization, and consequences. The Meadian might ignore these matters entirely; at least his theoretical interests would not require him to inquire into them. For him the major question is one of process. What are the learning processes involved and what is the nature of the interaction process? Another difference between the two approaches lies in the fact that the Meadian role theorist is almost entirely interested in internal processes of the family and has restricted his attention primarily to modern Western society (12:26). 12 13 Heiss considers the two approaches described to be comple— mentary rather than conflicting (12:27). Through social interaction family members are able to identify the various roles played by family members. Thibaut and Kelley describe a theory of interaction which they term "primarily functionalistic" (13:5). Here the focus is on the "solutions that must be found to problems created by interdependency" (13:5). Such solutions are judged in relation to providing for the nurturance or maintenance of the group. "Thus the focus is first of all upon what is functional from the point of view of the group" (13:5). They explain that, "because the existence of the group is based solely upon the participation and satisfaction of the individuals comprising it, the group functionalism becomes an individual functionalism" (13:5). Thibaut and Kelley distinquish two kinds of functions which must be provided for if a group is to be a viable one. These are task and maintenance. They explain that, . . . task functions would include such activities as diagnosing the problem posed by the environment- al task, preparing the task for group action, and training the various members to perform task assign— ments. Maintenance functions include such activities as assessing the outcomes being obtained by the various members, allocating rewards, and creating new rewards for the members, particularly affliative ones (13:290). They suggest that the social environment is influential in determining role differentiation in the group. In part this is attributable to communication within the group. 14 Argyle presents a view which stresses the need to study interaction in the natural habitats of men: . . . much recent work in social psychology [social interaction] has used highly artificial laboratory situations which are unlike anything in the outside world. There is a particular objection to this for the study of human social behavior: we learn to interact in a number of different kinds of social situation- in the family, at school, with friends, etc. -in each of which there are definite rules and role—relationships between the interactors. For this reason it is essential to study social behaviour in specific cultural settings (14:16). Argyle calls this the "new look research" and describes it as"'human ethology'"(l4:15). Here attention is focused on: . . . the sequence of events taking place during social interaction-at the level of bodily contact and proximity, facial expression, bodily posture and gesture, head movements and direction of gaze, the verbal and non-verbal contents of speech (14:13). These features he interprets as different elements of social behavior. Bossard and Boll study family interaction by investi- gating family rituals. They explain ritual as a . . system of procedure, a form or pattern of social interaction, which has three unvarying character— istics. First, it is definitely prescribed. . . . Ritual means exactness and precision in procedure. Second, there is the element of rigidity. The longer theprescribedprocedure continues, the more binding its precision becomes. And finally, there is a sense of rightness which emerges from the past history of the process, i.e., the oftener the repetition of the prescribed procedure occurs, the more it comes to be approved (15:16). By this definition, ritual is conceived "primarily as a social process, with definite forms of interaction and a specific cultural content" (15:17). Bossard and Boll 15 point out that "rituals are developed cooperatively" (15:200) contributing to a feeling of "group participation, a further sharing of intimacies, and a sense of lively satisfaction" (15:200). Besides participation, rituals serve to control the behavior of family members and to sustain family values (15:201). Bossard and Boll conclude from their study that rituals provide "a certain predictability of family and individual behavior, thus easing the stress and strain of group living" (15:187). They explain, . . . the analysis of our material shows the molding of many personality traits through the repeated practice of obligatory actions which, taken in combination, tend to develop habits of social stability and adapt- ability. More specifigally, family ritual is related to social habits of cooperation, regularity, punctual— ity, and recognition of the rights of others, which obviously are significant for intra-group relations in general, and for the family group in particular (15:187). The use of time to study daily social life has received little attention from the social scientists accord- ing to Robinson. He specifies the properties of time which make it a valuable research tool: First of all, time (along with space) is a universal 'container' of human phenomena. It is, furthermore, capable of measurement along a single dimension. Thus, because 'Everybody has to be somewhere,‘ a single number representing time expenditure has the potential of placing a particular segment of human behavior in nearly full perSpective (16:2). He then cautions about a "sufficiently complex categorization scheme" (16:3) to avoid mis-identifying that which is significant. Robinson says it is "because so much can be read into time use figures that the problems here are more acute" (16:4). 16 Thorpe, in 1956, used the idea of a time record to study family interaction in farm and town families of lower Michigan. One of the major purposes of the study was to demonstrate: . . . the applicability of the time record technique to a study of the family and in so doing to supply information concerning the amounts of time and kinds of activities which are commonly shared by family members in the home during the active hours of the day (17:103). In using the time record technique, Thorpe assumed "that there is a relationship between the amounts of time spent in shared activities and the development of feelings of family solidarity" (17:103). Thorpe found that "opportunities within the home for the socialization of children . . . are limited from the standpoint of time spent there in shared activities" (17:114). She did conclude that the study demonstrated "the value of the use of time records as a technique for the investigation of patterns of family interaction" (17:114). An earlier study, done by Snow, gave as a purpose "to develop a method and technique by which the amount of time and types of activities which family members share can be determined" (18:3). Snow reported "a careful check of the related literature revealed that no previous studies had been made which dealt primarily with the amount of time and types of activities which family members share" (18:11). Snow concluded the use of the time record was valuable to study family interaction: 17 Records of actual time spent together and activities shared by family groups form descriptions and con— crete material on which to base an understanding of contemporary family life. The interview method combined with record keeping of daily time schedules by individual families, produce a high percentage of usable records (18:62). Snow further concluded that the daily time record combined with the information questionnaire was valuable to study large and small families as well as variations in families since the age and sex of all persons was available (18:63). In terms of family interaction, Snow found that all the family was together in some activity an average of 1.78 hours per day, that eating together was the activity more family groups participated in than any other, that families were together more in the morning and evening than afternoon, that families were together more on weekends than weekdays, that fathers did not share in activities with their sons and daughters as frequently as did mothers, and that mothers shared more activities with daughters; fathers shared more with sons (18:36, 43, 46, 50, 58). Early research in the area of home management focused on the study of time from a resource use point of view (19, 20, 21). Several studies were done which investigated the time use of individuals; namely, the homemaker. Warren studied time (1936) to find a measure that could be used to compare the work loads of different house- holds and to determine the factors which affected the 18 homemakers use of time. The survey method was used with trained interviewers to fill out the records. The informa- tion given was based on the activities of the previous day and the preceeding week. Families ranged in size from two to thirteen persons with the average size, four. Of the 502 families interviewed, only half had children less than 15 years old. Warren found the homemakers used an average of 52 hours during the week for household work activities. On a daily basis this averaged about 8.75 hours (21). The cooperation or sharing of household tasks among family members depended on the size of the family as well as the age and sex of the family members. There was less cooperation on tasks in larger households than in the smaller ones. "In households of nine or more persons, 30 per cent of the males and 24 per cent of the females did not cooperate on any task" (22:236). By contrast, "in households of five persons or less, 95 per cent of the males and females cooperated on some task" (22:238). Warren also found that as the age of a girl increased, her participation in household tasks increased; a boy cooperated on few tasks, particularly if he was under 10 years of age (22:238). Wiegand replicated Warren's method in 1952. She studied the use of time of 250 full—time and part time home- makers. Activity records were obtained by personel interview for one weekday. Three-fourths of the households were comprised of 2, 3, and 4 persons; each household was 19 classified by one of 6 stages in the family life cycle. The amount of help or cooperation the homemaker received from family members was negligible. One—half of the home- makers reported no sharing of homemaking activities while the remainder usually received less than one hour per day (22). Walker and Telling's 1967-68 survey of time used in household work by 1296 husband-wife families in the Syracuse, New York, area revealed that full time homemakers used an average of 8 hours per day in household activities as compared with the employed homemakers who used 5 hours per day. Regardless of the hours worked by the homemakers, the husbands contributed an average of 1.6 hours per day to household work activity. The children contributed an average of 1.1 or slightly higher, hours per day to house— hold work. These findings reflect little contributed by family members to household work type activities (23:45). Early time record studies are of value from the standpoint of techniques and procedures used. The findings reported had little to do with family interaction except it may be noted that household work activities were not frequently shared. The studies of family interaction, based on the use of time records are limited. 20 The Function of Interaction in the Family Interaction in the family is defined differently by different authors. Theodorson and Theodorson define inter— action as, "behavior directed toward or influenced by another person" (24:211). Waller uses the term as . . . the generic name for a whole set of processes taking place between individuals; interaction denotes the set of processes by virtue of which society exists. Human beings work upon one another in divers ways. The behavior of one individual is the cause of the behavior or the mental states of others; each person's behavior is cause and effect in relation to the behavior of others (25:16). Similarly, Hill explains: When we come to regard two objects in a causal interconnection such that one acts upon the other we move to a level of explanation which Dewey and Bentley call interaction. Here explanations are not sought for within the skin of a given object, as it were, but in the interconnectedness of two objects or events (26:7). Bossard and Boll elaborate on the meaning of inter- action by distinguishing three levels. These are "sensory interaction, a comparatively simple form confined to reciprocal reactions through the various senses" (27:60); emotional interaction, "as in reciprocal joy, love, hate," (27:61); and the third level is intellectual, "the process taking the form of a reciprocal exchange of sentiments, ideas, abstractions, judgments, evaluations, and the like" (27:61). Bossard and Boll emphasize that 21 family interaction is a special kind of social interaction for several reasons, Its intimacies are of many different kinds and degrees. They are mostly continuing in character. With few exceptions, they have the full sanction of society. They come to express themselves in a terminology which has meaning to the family members and to no one else. . . . Another reason for the distinctive peculiarity of family interaction is to be found in the composition of the family. The family community is made up of units dissimilar in age and sex, complementary in their nature, mutually responsible, and with the unifying bond of kinship for all but husband and wife; There is about family interaction this additional distinctive feature; its naked incisiveness. One can dissemble only little in most phases of family interaction (27:58, 59). The literature on social interaction attaches outcomes to interaction. According to Klemer, total family interaction contributes to building good relationships in the family (7:306). Homans relates interaction to family solidarity. He posits three elements of behavior which are necessary to keep a group together in a particular environment (10:94). One of these elements is interaction- The other two are sentiment and activity (10:94). The interaction which evolves through shared activities plays an important part in the development of the child: 22 A child learns, he becomes human, primarily through participation in a challenging activity with those he loves and admires. It is the example, challenge, and reinforcement provided by people who care that enable a child to develop both his ability and his identity. . . . It is in work and play with children, in games, in projects, in shared responsibilities with parents, adults, and older children that the child develops the skills, motives, and qualities of character that enable him to live a life that is gratifying both to himself and those around him (5:241). Through shared activities, the child comes into contact with other family members. IKenkel states that "the only reason a human has a personality is that he has been reared by persons" (8:234). The report of Forum 15 from the 1970 White House Conference on Children emphasizes the importance of human contact: . . children need people in order to become human. , The fact is fundamental because it is firmly grounded both in scientific research and in human experience. . . The young cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It is primarily through observing, play- ing, and working with others older and younger than himself that a child discovers both what he can do and who he can become, that he develops both his ability and his identity. And it is primarily through exposure and interaction with adults and children of different ages that a child acquires new interests and skills, and learns the meaning of tolerance, cooperation, and compassion (5:242). Bossard and Boll emphasize that "a family pattern of interaction is not a one—way street with the arrow pointing from parents to children. Parents do things to and for children, it is true; but children reciprocate" (27:78). Klemer identifies this as the "new family inter- action concept" (7: 296). He explains, 23 As Americans moved into the space age, the parent— child emphasis shifted again. More and more experts came to believe that the parents weren't altogether to blame. The child, they postulated, was not a passive victim of his environment but rather an active participant in his family group. Considerable evidence was developed for the notion that, while the parent might affect the child, the child also affected the parents. Each family member was, according to this whole-family concept, an important actor whose presense codetermined the total performance of the family group (7:296, 297). Thus interaction, conceived as an on going process with no definite limits, serves to influence or change the behavior of both children and parents. Dorothy Lee in Freedom and Culture, gives a descrip- tion of growing up among the Tikopia which illustrates the function interaction plays in establishing attitudes toward work. At a very early age the child is intentionally introduced to a large number of people of different sex and age and relationship. She explains that this is "not merely a recognition of the dependence of the infant. It is an expression of the interdependence within the social unit" (28:30). In a Tikopia household all the family works together. The satisfaction which is derived from shared work activities seems to eliminate the distinction between household tasks and social activities, "no one apparently wants to be alone so as to concentrate or to work more efficiently" (28:33). As a consequence, the Tikopians find "joy and sheer satisfaction" (28:33) in work as 24 participation and seek fuller participation and involvement as a consequence. The literature on family interaction emphasizes the need for interaction and the positive outcomes which may be anticipated as a result of such interaction. There is, 9 however, a paucity of research to indicate the amount or kind of interaction which leads to positive outcomes. There is also a lack of research findings to substantiate the positive outcomes assumed in the literature as the result of family interaction. Management of the Family Environment for Interaction Home management viewed from the ecological perspective, focuses on the family unit and that part of the near environment over which the family has control. Such an approach is concerned with the interrelationships between the family and its physical environment as well as the interrelationships between and among family members. The physical environment together with the members of the family and the activities they perform comprise the family environment. To manage the various sub—systems of this environment so that desired outcomes may be attained, a systems approach may be useful. 25 Churchman defines system as "a set of parts coordinated to accomplish a set of goals" (29:29). He explains, . . . management systems can be looked upon as essentially information-processing systems, in which the information takes the form of data about objectives, environment, resources, and components (missions) (29:77). This study seeks information about the family environment which may influence the amount of family interaction. Such information should be useful in making decisions relative to the well-being of families. Attention needs to be given to activities in the home setting which may provide opportunities for interaction. For a number of years, home management researchers have given attention to kinds of activities performed in the household and who performed the activity. The Warren (22), Wiegand (22), and Walker-Telling (23) investigations, cited earlier, showed very little activity time under the house— hold work category that was shared with other family members. These studies did not record and or analyze shared time for other categories of activities since such did not serve their purposes. Snow (18) and Thorpe (17) broadened the range of activities studied as they investigated the time use of family members. Snow used nine activity categories which were: eating, doing household activities, doing outdoor activities, going on errands, having fun, going to community 26 affairs, making plans and discussing problems, taking care of personal needs, and miscellaneous (18). Thorpe used twelve . . . kinds of activities which were sometimes shared by family members. These were: house care, personal care, child care, laundry, sewing, farm chores, food preparation, eating, meal clearing (including dish— washing), leisure, studying or business activities, and miscellaneous (17:45). The literature supports the idea that time use is a viable method for gaining insight into the interaction of families and points out the need to study the relationship between family patterns of interaction and given environ- mental characteristics. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE The procedures used in the study are described in three sections: selection and description of sample; data selection; and data analysis. Selection and Description of Sample In 1967-68 Walker and Telling surveyed 1296 husband- wife families in the Syracuse, New York, area. Data for this study were derived from their survey. The survey sample was drawn: . . . from names of 45,000 husband—wife families, arranged by city and suburbs and by the number and ages of children-~the major control variable. From pools of names so arranged, 42 families were randomly selected for each of 32 classifications of family composition. The types of families sampled included families with no children and with l, 2, 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 9 children; families with youngest child under 1 year of age, 1 year old, 2 to 5, 6 to 11, and 12 to 17 years of age; and families with all children of the same age and with varying combinations of ages. In families with no children, age of the home— maker was the control variable. Families with adults other than husband and wife were excluded from the sample. No attempt was made to control socioeconomic status, but it was assumed that families with high, middle, and low socioeconomic status would be selected randomly in the same proportion that they existed in the population. Likewise, employment of the home— maker was a random variable (23:1). 27 28 For the present study, a purposive sub-sample was selected to conform to predetermined criteria. The criteria were: homogeneity in terms of families with 1, 2, and 3 children between the ages of 6 and 11, economy, availability of complete time records for the total family, and intact (husband and wife present) families. The ages of the childrenwerethought to represent a group which has received less attention than the adolescent and the infant or young child. Number, Age, and Sex of Children The children ranged in age from 6 to 11 years old. All families had at least one child. The number, age, and sex of the children are shown in Table 1. Age of Parents Mothers ranged in age from 25 to 54 years with 77 per cent between 25 and 39 years of age. Fathers ranged from 25 to over 55 years of age with 61 per cent between 25 and 39 years of age. Table 2 shows the age distribution for mothers and fathers. Socio-Economic Status of the Family The socio—economic status of the family was based on the combined Educational—Occupational score developed by Hollingshead. This scorevnnscomputed from the occupational role of the household head, based on an occupational scale 29 NH wH HH mH NH HH Hm m m w m CH w me me cOMUHHEO m h w m 5 HH m Hv m m S OH w m me me COHUHHSO N w h m H w o mH m w m N m m mm Ne UHHQO H HH OH m m h m HvHuZ HH OH m w h w HHHHZ mmHnZ monz monEmm moHHHEmm mon2 m0 mmm< mo Hmnfisz mmHmEmm mo mmm< mo Honfisz wo Honfisz mNam sesame .coHUHfleo mo Hogans pew Xom .omdlI.H mamme 30 TABLE 2.--Ages of mothers and fathers. Age Range Mothers Fathers N % N % N=126 N=126 Under 25 O 0 0 0 25 — 39 97 77 77 61.1 40 - 54 29 23 48 38.1 55 & over 0 0 l .8 100 100.0 and the amount of formal schooling, based on an educational scale. The factors of occupation and education were combined by weighting the individual scores. Class scores were divided into five groups with one the highest (30:13). From the scores, rankings from 11 to 77 were made. the distribution for this study. Table 3 shows TABLE 3.—-Distribution of SES scores as classified by Hollingshead. Class Families N % s_c_or_e Bari N=126 I 11-17 18 14.3 II 18—27 18 14.3 III 28-43 43 34.1 IV 44-60 38 30.2 V 61—77 9 7.1 31 Employment of Parents For this study, parents were classified as employed if they worked during the seven day period prior to the interview and if they did any work for pay or if they worked 15 hours or longer as an unpaid worker in a family enterprise. In the 126 families studied, over 55 per cent of the mothers were not employed. By contrast, over 90 per cent of the fathers worked 40 hours a week or longer. Table 4 shows the number of hours worked by the parents in the 7 day period which preceeded the initial interview. TABLE 4.--Parents hours' of employment. Hours Mothers Fathers N % N % N=126 N=126 0 74 58.7 2 1.6 l — l4 14 11.1 0 0 15 — 29 15 11.9 2 1.6 30 - 39 11 8.7 5 4.0 40 5 4.0 47 37.3 41 — 49 5 4.0 18 14.3 50 — 59 2 1.6 34 27.0 60 - 69 0 0 12 9.5 70 & over 0 0 6 4.8 32 Location and the Family Dwelling The families lived in either the city (55.6%) or in the suburbs (44.4%). Over 75 per cent lived in a single family dwelling. Table 5 gives the details of house type. TABLE 5.—-Type of housing. Type'of House Number of Families Per Cent N=126 Apartment 5 4.0 Single dwelling 108 85.7 Two-family dwelling 13 10.3 100.0 Other housing characteristics related to the number of stories, number of rooms, square footage of the lot and household equipment are presented in Table 6, 7, 8, and 9. TABLE 6.--Number of stories in family dwelling. Number of Stories Families N % N=126 1 38 30.2 2 69 54.8 3 5 4.0 Split level 14 _ll;l 33 TABLE 7.--Number of rooms in the dwelling, excluding bathroom. Number of Rooms Families N % N=126 l to 3 0 0 4 3 2.4 5 18 14.3 6 39 31.0 7 26 20.6 8 24 19.0 9 or more 16 12.7 100.0 TABLE 8.-—Square footage of lot. Square Footage N % N=126 Unknown 4 3.2 Under 6,000 square feet 27 21.4 6,000 to 9,999 square feet 54 42.9 10,000 to 19,999 square feet 24 19.0 Over 20,000 square feet 17 13.5 34 TABLE 9.-—Se1ected pieces of household equipment owned or used by the families. Equipment Families N % N=126 Dishwasher Owned 44 34.9 Not owned 82 65.1 100.0 Clothes Washer Used 77 61.0 Not used 49 39.0 100.0 Clothes Dryer Used 52 41.3 Not used 74 58.7 100.0 Data Selection Specific data were selected from the data bank of the Syracuse, New York, study. The Walker and Telling instrument consisted of three parts; the interview schedule, menu sheets, and two twenty-four time records.* The inter- view schedule provided demographic and environmental data. The schedule was administered by trained interviewers. The menu sheets, prepared by the homemakers, gave information about the number of meals served, who prepared the meals and the number who ate together as well as the food items served at each meal. * The complete instrument is on file with Dr. Kathryn Walker, New York State College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. ‘ 35 Use of time was recorded for two days in units of 5 minutes. The first day's record was filled in by a trained interviewer as the homemaker recalled the time use of family members for the previous day. At the same time, the interviewer instructed the homemaker on how to keep the time record. A second record was then left with the homemaker to be completed for the next day. Both records were checked by other family members for accuracy in record— ing their time use. Fifteen categories were used to record the time. These categories were regular meal preparation, special food preparation, after-meal cleanup, regular house care, special house care and maintenance, care of yard and car, washing by machine, ironing, special care and construction of clothing and household lines, physical care of family members, other care of family members (for example, helping with lessons and reading to children), marketing, management and record keeping, other work (school, paid and volunteer work), and other activities (all other personal, family and social activities). For the present study, the investigator selected and coded specific information that would relate to interaction in the family. The researcher coded from the time record for the second day only that information which gave evidence of family members sharing time together. The evidence used, was two or more family members sharing the same activity block for the same unit of time. The 36 activity categories used were: social, eating, household, care of family members, and management. For these shared activities additional information about the day of the week, time of day, season of year, time activity started and duration of the activity was coded. In addition, who participated in the activity as well as the age and sex of each child was coded. This coded information was placed on coding sheets, checked, then punched on IBM cards and verified. Additional demographic and housing information was used from previously coded material. The EWAY library program developed by the Computer Activities Group at Cornell University was used for the marginals. Data Analysis The dependent variable of family interaction was measured by the family interaction score. Dimensions of family interaction which were thought to contribute the variations in the family interaction scores were measured to determine the percentage these independent variables contributed to or influenced the family interaction score. The four dimensions associated with interaction were conceived to be (1) who participated in the activity, (2) what the activity was, (3) where the activity took place, and (4) when the activity took place. Each dimension was made up of several categories. The categories associated with the dimensions are listed in Illustration 1. 37 ILLUSTRATION 1.--Dimensions of family interaction. Dimensions Categories Who participated in the activity What activity Where the activity took place When the activity took place Whole family Both parents All children Mother plus a child or children Father plus a child or children Mother and all children Father and all children Parents with 1 child Parents with 2 children Two children with 3 in the family Social Eating Household Physical and other care of family members Management Home Away from home Morning Afternoon Evening Calculation of the Family Interaction Score A family interaction score was developed. Then a score was calculated for each family. This was done by multiplying the number of people in each activity or episode of interaction by the number of minutes used for each activity. The resultant products were then added together and divided by the total number in the family. The follow- ing formula was used: V 38 a Family Interaction Score = Z N. x T. l: 1 1 1 F total number of acts or episodes per family a single act or episode of shared time number of people involved in a single act number of minutes used for a single act whole family or total number of family members “Ill-321441! II II II II II A sample computation of the family interaction score is given in Illustration 3, based on data presented in Illustration 2. ILLUSTRATION 2.--Example of family interaction data record for a family of five. Episode Who Number What Where When Time in Number of Minutes People 1 Parents 2 Social Home Morn. 20 2 Whole family 5 Eating Away Aft. 60 3 All children 3 Social Home Eve. 40 4 Parents & 2 children 4 Social Home Morn. 15 ILLUSTRATION 3.——Example of method used to compute the family interaction score. Episode Number Minutes Product Score Number of People 1 2 20 40 2 5 60 300 3 3 40 120 4 4 15 60 Total 520 + 5 140 39 The interaction score combined the elements of people and time. These were thought to contribute to the measurement of small group interaction. Since the size of the family was a part of the calculation, the family interaction scores were comparable, regardless of family size. Calculation of the Dimension Score To examine the dimensions of who, what, where, and when, a score was computed for each category subsumed under a dimension. The computation was similar to that used for the family interaction score. Illustration 4 gives a sample computation for the dimension scores based on the data record found in Illustration 2. It may be noted that the total of the scores for each dimension is the same as the family interaction score obtained from the calculations shown in Illustration 3. It may also be noted that the scores are the same for each of the four dimensions. Since the dimen— sions relate to shared activity and since the interaction score is involved with shared activity, the dimensions contribute to the family interaction score. The percentage of the interaction score contributed by each of the four dimensions was used to test hypotheses 9, 12, 13 and 15, Statistical Tests Used The statistical tests selected were appropriate to the form of the independent variables. Significant 40 HOH u I omm Hmuoe omH ow m mchw>m m oom om m coocumpmm m ow mH v v ow om N meacuoz ewes a voH u + omm Hmpoe com om m saga N om mH v v omH ow m m ow om N oEom muons H VOH n I omm Hmuoe com ow m manned N om mH v v omH ow m m OH on N HMHoom umcz H vOH n I omm Hmuoe ow mH e cmeHHco 03¢ pew muconmm e omH ow m coHpHHEU HH¢ m oe om m mucmnmm H oom om m sansmw mace: on: m onomm wo Honssz ouoom uosooum mmpDcHz Honsnz whomwpmo QOHmcmEHQ mpOmHmm .monoom GOHmcoEHt ounmfioo ou poms poepmfi mo onmemII.e onesmemeqH 41 relationships between family interaction scores and selected characteristics of the family environment were computed by analysis of variance and by Pearson's coefficient of correlation. Seventeen hypotheses of significance were specified and a probability level of .01 was selected to support each hypothesis. The .01 level was used in order to reveal definite trends. Table 10 shows the statistical procedures used to test the relationship between family interaction and characteristics of the family environment with respect to seventeen hypotheses, and the instrument associated with each of these. 42 .munHo>HcD HHmcHOO .mOHEocoom HouspHDOHHmfi mo .pmmo .cmBH suwnmNHHm an poHMHpoE paw MHGM>HMmccwm mo huHmHm>HcD esp .oocmeHm mo Hoonom coupon: .cmfinoz.m .2 we coppan Azaomv Emnmonm conmmHmoH coHumEHumm Amqavmwumsvm pmmoq cmHmmp mmsloco .wocMHHm> mo mHmaHmcs How Emnmoum mmwumxm msouw moHuH>Hpo¢ Hmpnmfioo :mHmmp mmsloco .oocmHHm> mo mHmMHmcd HOM Emnmoum mmmumxm mpHmuo>HcD HHocHou mo macho mmHuH>Huo< Hopsmfioo mwuoow :oHpomnoth MHHEmm mpmp opHmomfioo NHHEdm pump opHmomfioo >HHEmm mouoom GOHpomuwch mHHEmm chop 0H£mmwmofimm pump opHmomEoo hHHEmm mH .NH OH .m .m .n .w .m .N mmmwawomxm mo pmoe v .m mommSpomhm mo umoe AH .oa .afl .MH .HH .H mwmwnuon>m wo umme Emsmonm Housmfioo cam UHumemum mHmmHmca CH poms sumo mHmemc< mo mmoaudm .mump mo mommHmcm men MOM poms moosuoEII.OH mamme CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The chapter presents the results of this study in relation to each of seventeen hypotheses. The hypotheses are divided into three groups: (1) those related to family members and the socio—economic level of the family, (2) those related to family activities, and (3) those related to location and the family dwelling. In addition, des— criptive findings are presented to give supplementary background. Descriptive Findings Related to Group Configurations The group configuration most common was that of the mother and all the children. The whole family con- figuration was second. The configurations least in evi— dence involved the parents with one or two of the children. It thus seemed that if the parents were in the picture, all the children were with them. Table 11 gives the group configurations based on the number of interaction epi— sodes. 43 TABLE 11.--With whom interaction takes place. 44 Grou , Number of Percent of Confi urgtions Interaction Interaction g Episodes Episodes N=2321 Whole Family 412 17.8 Parents 285 12.3 All Children 354 15.3 Mother plus some Children 242 10.4 Father plus some Children 115 5.0 Mother and all Children 426 18.4 Father and all Children 334 14.4 Parents and one Child 35 1.5 Parents and two Children 29 1.3 Two out of three Children 89 3.8 100.2* *Error due Related to to rounding. Activities Family members participated in a variety of activi— ties. Over sixtyper centof these were categorized as social; this included such activities as recreation, play, 45 and visiting. Social activity combined with eating accounted for seventy five per cent of the interaction in the fami- lies. The next highest per cent,care of family members, included both the physical care and other activities such as helping with lessons and reading to children. A break down of the activities by categories is given in Table 12. TABLE 12.—-Number of episodes of interaction according to activity category. Activit Number of Percent of Cate ory Interaction Interaction g y Episodes Episodes ’ N=2283 Social 1406 61.6 Eating 339 14.8 Household 220 9.6 Meal Preparation 41 1.8 Meal Cleanup 39 1.7 House Care 45 2.0 Special House Care 25 1.1 Yard Care 19 .8 Laundrying l 0.0 Ironing 0 0.0 Marketing 50 2.2 Care of Family Members 304 13.3 Management 14 0.6 99.9* *Error due to rounding. 46 Related to Frequency of InteractIBh Families varied considerably relative to the number of episodes of interaction. There were as few as 5 and as many as 42 episodes. A list of the families with the number of interaction episodes for each is given in the Appendix. The range and mean for the number of inter- action episodes according to family size is given in Table 13. TABLE l3.--Range and mean of interaction episodes by family size. 'Family Size Range Mean 1 child 5 - 25 13 2 children 6 - 38 21 3 children 11 - 42 22 Related to Place of Interaction Over eighty-five per cent of the interaction episodes took place in the home setting which included the yard and dwelling. For the most part, marketing activity accounted for the interaction episodes away from home. Table 14 gives the information about the place of interaction based on number of interaction episodes. 47 TABLE 14.--Place of interaction. Number of Percent of Place Interaction Interaction Episodes Episodes N=2373 At Home 2077 87.5 Away 296 12.5 100.0 Related to the Family Interaction Score The interaction of the families in this study as measured by the family interaction score showed a wide range. The interaction score for each family is given in the Appendix. The range of the interaction scores by family size is given in Table 15. TABLE 15.—-Range of family interaction scores by family size. Family Size Range 1 child 96.67 — 806.67 2 children 233.75 - 792.50 3 Children 256.00 - 786.00 48 Hypotheses Related to Family Members and the Socio-economic Level of the Family Hypothesis 1: Interaction and Family Size There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of children in a family. ‘ The three sub-groups of the sample representing families with one, two and three children were compared on the basis of their interaction scores. Analysis of vari— ance was used to test differences between the three groups. The results of the analysis of variance were not signifi- cant (Table 16); therefore, the hypothesis was not sup- ported by this study. TABLE l6.——Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to family size. Family . . Number Of Inter- Standard Degrees F Family Size Families . . . of . * _ action Dev1at1on Ratio N—126 Freedom Score 1 Child 42 381.11 175.20 2/123 4.06 2 Children 42 482.14 160.03 3 Children 42 454.79 168.78 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 4.78 Since the number of children did not contribute to differences in the family interaction score, a decision 49 was made to treat the sample as a single group of 126 families to test the remaining hypotheses. Hypothesis 2: I‘Interaction and Age of Parents There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the age of the parents. The correlation coefficient between family inter- action as measured by the family interaction scores and the age of the parents was not significant (Table 17). This hypothesis was not supported. TABLE l7.-—Pearson's coefficients of correlation between total family interaction scores and selected family char- acteristics (126 families, Syracuse, New York, 1967). Correlation Coefficients between Family Character- istics and the Inter- action Scores Family Characteristic Age of Parents Mothers —.026 Fathers -.052 Socio-economic Score of Fathers .063 Employment of Parents Mothers .030 Fathers —.141 School Time of Children -.755** Number of Family Acts, Shared .455** **Significant at the .01 level, r = .228. 50 Hypothesis 3: Interaction with Parents There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the percentage of time each parent shares with the children. Analysis of variance was used to test differences between family interaction as measured by the percentage of the interaction score contributed by mothers to the time shared with their children and the percentage of the interaction score contributed by fathers. The results of the analysis of variance given in Table 18 showed that mothers did share significantly more time with their child— ren than did the fathers. This hypothesis was supported by the study. TABLE 18.——Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the percentage of time each parent shared with the children. Number Percent of Degrees Parents of Family Inter— Standard of F. * . . . Dev1ation Ratio Families action Score Freedom Mothers 126 23.30 18.16 1/250 10.10 Fathers 126 16.46 15.90 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 6.70 Hypothesis 4: Interaction of Mothers with Children Significantly more time will be shared by mothers and daughters than by mothers and sons. 51 Analysis of variance was used to test differences between timaper cent.of total time contributed by mothers as they shared time with their sons and the amount of time shared with their daughters. This hypothesis was tested by using only those families who had sons and daughters and by eliminating those cases where mothers interacted with all the children. The results of the analysis of variance given in Table 19 showed that the sex of the children had no effect on the measure used; namely, total time. The hypothesis was not supported by the study. TABLE 19.--Analysis of variance of the time mothers inter- acted with sons and the time mothers interacted with daughters. Number of Percent Standard Degrees F Group Families Of Total Deviation 0 Ratio* Time Freedom Sons 48 2.65 5.09 1/94 1.96 Daughters 48 4.51 7.67 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 6.90 Hypothesis 5: Interaction and Employment of Mother There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of hours of employment for the mother. The correlation coefficient between family inter- action as measured by the family interaction scores and 52 the number of hours of employment for the mother was not significant (Table 17). This hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 6: Interaction and Employment of Father There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of hours of employment for the father. The correlation coefficient between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and the number of hours of employment for the father was not significant (Table 17). This hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 7: Interaction and School There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the average number of hours the children are in school. The correlation coefficient between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and the average number of hours the children were in school was significant (Table 17). The more time the children were in school, the lower the family interaction score. This hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 8: Interaction and Socio—economic Level There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the socio—economic status score of the family. 53 The correlation coefficient between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and the socio-economic status scores of the fathers was not significant (Table 17). This hypothesis was not supported. Hypotheses Related to Family Activities Hypothesis 9: Interaction and Activity Categories There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and selected activities of the family. a. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the inter- action in social activity. The correlation coefficient between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and social activity was significant (Table 20). As the per— centage of time contributed to the interaction score by social activity increased, the total interaction score increased. This hypothesis was supported. b. There will be a significant relationship between interaction and interaction in the eating activity. The correlation coefficient between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and the eating activity was significant (Table 20). As the percentage of time families contributed to the interaction 54 score by eating together increased, the family interaction score decreased. This hypothesis was supported. TABLE 20. —-Pearson' s coefficients of correlation between total family interaction scores and percentage of the score contributed by family activities. (126 families, Syracuse, New York, 1967). Family Activities Correlation Coefficients Social .404** Eating -.333** Household .019 Care of Family Member —.297** Management .081 **Significant at the .01 level, r = .228 Hypothesis 10: Interaction and Frequency of Activity There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the frequency of shared acts in a 24-hour time span. The correlation coefficient between family inter- action as measured by the family interaction scores and the frequency of shared acts during a 24-hour time span was significant (Table 17). As the frequency of shared acts increased, the family interaction score increased. The hypothesis was supported. 55 Hypothesis ll: Interaction and Duration of Activity There will be a significant difference between the per cent.of the total number of acts that are less than an hour and those more than an hour in duration. Analysis of variance was used to test differences between the number of shared acts of less than one hour and the number of shared acts of more than one hour. The results of the analysis of variance (Table 21) showed there was a significant difference between the per cent of the total number of acts of less than an hour and the acts of more than an hour. This hypothesis was supported. TABLE 21.-—Analysis of variance of theper centof the total number of acts of less than one hour and acts of more than one hour. Number Degrees Length of Per cent Standard of F of Act . . of Acts Deviation Ratio* Families Freedom Less than one hour 126 78.413 14.907 1/250 91550 More than one hour 126 21.589 14.906 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 6.70 Hypothesis 12: Interaction and Time of Day There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the time of day the inter- action occurs. 56 The correlation coefficients between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and the time of day the interaction occurred were significant (Table 22). As the percentage of the family interaction scores contributed by interaction in the evening increased, the family interaction scores decreased. As the percentage of the family interaction scores contributed by morning and afternoon interaction increased, the family interaction scores increased. This hypothesis was supported. TABLE 22.--Pearson's coefficients of correlation between total family interaction scores and the percentage of the score contributed by morning, afternoon, and evening (126 families, Syracuse, New York, 1967). Time of Day Correlation Coefficients Morning .405** Afternoon .387** Evening -.566** **Significant at the .01 level, r = .228 Hypothesis l3: Interaction and Day of Week There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the day of the week. Analysis of variance was used to test differences between family interaction as measured by the family 57 interaction scores and the day of the week. Two groups of days were used, weekday and weekend day. Weekdays were Monday through Friday and weekend days were Saturday and Sunday. The results of the analysis of variance were significant (Table 23). This hypothesis was supported by the study. TABLE 23.—-Ana1ysis of variance of the family interaction scores with the day of the week. Dig gzflinegf Family Inter- Standard Deggees F . . . . * Week N=126 action Score Dev1ation Freedom Ratio Week- day 90 367.98 127.13 1/125 94.68 Week- end day 36 617.77 137.61 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 6.84 Hypothesis l4: Interaction and Season of Year There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the season of the year. Analysis of variance was used to test differences in family interaction as measured by the family inter— action scores that could be associated with the season of the year. Families were divided according to when the data collection occurred; that is, during the season school was in session or during the vacation season. The results 58 of the analysis of variance showed that the season of the year was significant (Table 24). The family interaction score increased for the vacation season. This hypothesis was supported by the study. TABLE 24.--Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the season of the year. Season ggfigIlegf Family Inter— Standard Deggees F _ action Score Deviation Ratio* N—126 Freedom School 106 421.12 173.40 1/124 7.90 Vaca— tion 20 535.95 131.18 *Critical value of F at the .01 level — 6.84 Hypothesis 15: Interaction and Place There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the place of interaction. The correlation coefficient between family inter— action as measured by the family interaction scores and the percentage of shared time which occuraiwithin the home and away from home was not significant at the .01 level. Therefore the hypothesis was not supported. 59 Hypotheses Related to Location and the Family Dwelling Hypothesis 16: Interaction and Type of Community There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the type of community in which the family lives. Analysis of variance was used to test differences in family interaction as measured by the family interaction scores that could be associated with the type of community in which the family lived. Two community types were com- pared, city and suburb. The results of the analysis of variance shown in Table 25 indicated no relationship be— tween the family interaction score and the type of com- munity. This hypothesis was not supported by the study. TABLE 25.—-Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to where the family lived. Where NJ .er Of Family Inter— Standard Degrees F Family Families t' Score D . tio of Rat%# Lives N=126 ac ion ev1a n Freedom 1 City 70 419.21 149.88 1/124 2.17 Suburb 56 464.52 192.03 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 6.84 Hypothesis l7: Interaction and Dwelling Characteristics There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and specific dwelling unit characteristics. 60 a. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of stories in the dwelling unit. Analysis of variance was used to test differences in family interaction as measured by the family inter- action scores associated with the number of stories in the dwelling unit. The results of the analysis of vari- ance given in Table 26 showed no relationship between the family interaction score and the number of stories. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported by the study. TABLE 26.——Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the number of stories in the dwelling unit. Number Number of Family Inter- Standard Degrees F of . . . . . of . . Families action Score Dev1ation Raticfi Stories Freedom N=126 l 38 413.96 188.94 2/123 .702 2 69 454.91 161.09 3, plus split level 19 433.58 179.28 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 4.78 b. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the number of rooms in the dwelling unit. Analysis of variance was used to test differences in family interaction as measured by the family 61 interaction scores associated with the number of rooms in the dwelling unit. The results of the analysis of vari— ance given in Table 27 showed no relationship existed between family interaction scoresand the number of rooms. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported by the study. TABLE 27.-—Ana1ysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the number of rooms in the dwelling unit. Number Number Of Family Inter— Standard Degrees F Of Families action Score Deviation Of Rati * Rooms N=126 ' Freedom 0 4 3 400.55 225.40 5/120 2.14 5 18 352.79 154.77 6 39 487.77 205.03 7 26 444.22 166.91 8 24 397.03 114.13 9 and over 16 481.50 141.55 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 3.17 c. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the size of the lot. Analysis of variance was used to test differences in family interaction as measured by the family inter- action scores associated with the square footage of the lot on which the dwelling unit was situated. The results 62 of the analysis of variance given in Table 28 showed no relationship between the family interaction score and the size of the lot. Therefore this hypothesis was not sup— ported by the study. TABLE 28.——Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the square footage of the lot. Number Family Size of Lot of Inter— Standard Degrees F Families action Deviation Ratio* Freedom N=122 Score 3,000 sq. ft. 27 418.57 177.46 3/118 .170 7,000 sq. ft. 54 439.10 165.12 15,000 sq. ft. 24 450.10 156.74 20,000 sq. ft. 17 488.05 216.07 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 3.94 d. There will be a significant relationship between family interaction and the presence of a dishwasher and the use of a clothes washer, and clothes dryer. Analysis of variance was used to test differences in family interaction as measured by the family inter- action scores associated with the use or ownership of selected pieces of household equipment; that is dishwasher, clothes washer, and clothes dryer. The results of the analysis of variance given in Table 29 showed no relationship between the family 63 interactionscoresand any of these pieces of household equipment. Therefore,the hypothesis was not supported by this study. TABLE 29.-~Analysis of variance of the family interaction scores according to the ownership or use of selected pieces of household equipment. .Number Family Degrees . of Inter— Standard F Equipment Families action Deviation Frggdom Rathf N=126 Score Dishwasher Owned 44 437.65 158.13 1/124 .007 Not Owned 82 440.26 180.21 Clothes Washer Used 77 432.06 174.18 1/124 .352 Not Used 49 450.79 170.15 Clothes Dryer Used 52 404.41 166.40 1/124 3.72 Not Used 74 463.90 173.03 *Critical value of F at .01 level = 6.84 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS The findings raise more questions than they answer but do suggest some possible directions for future studies related to the management of the family environment and family interaction. Some of the questions and limited conclusions as well as implications for future research will be given in this chapter. Discussion and Conclusions The basic objective of this study was to investi— gate the relationship between family interaction as mea- sured by the family interaction scores and certain char— acteristics of the family environment. Family environment included members of the family, the socio-economic level of the family, the location and selected characteristics of the family dwelling. Before discussing the findings related to these aspects of the family environment, some attention will be given to the dimensions of interaction which contributed to the family interaction scores. 64 65 Dimensions of Interaction A group configuration which contributed to an increase in family interaction was that of mother and all the children. It was hypothesized that there would be a significant relationship between family interaction and the percentage of time each parent shared with the child- ren. Mothers were found to share significantly more time with their children than did the fathers. The earlier studies of Snow (18) and Thorpe (17) also found mothers spent more time in shared activities with their children than did the fathers. Thorpe (l7) concluded that fathers had only limited opportunities to be with their children regardless of sex. Possibly, the role expectations held by our society for mothers may influence this phenomenon. However, the findings did indicate,although no analysis was done,that another group configuration of importance was that of the whole family. Thus fathers were a part of the interaction episodes some of the time. This find- ing may be indicative of a change from the time of the Snow (18) and Thorpe (17) studies which were completed in the 1950's. A significant relationship was found between social activity and the family interaction scores. That is, as 1 social activity increased, the interaction scores in— creased. The reverse was found for the activity of shared eating. By contrast, Snow (18) and Thorpe (17) found that 66 eating together was the activity more family groups par— ticipated in than any other. Leisure was the activity that Thorpe (17) ranked second in relation to time shared by the whole family. For purposes of interpretation, leisure and social activity may be considered the same. An outcome of the present study seems to indicate that families need to share more than the meal hour if their interaction scores are to increase. Warren's (21) study of time, and the subsequent studies by Wiegand (22), and Walker and Telling (23), showed low family cooperation in household activities. The present study also showed low family participation in household activities. A distinction was drawn between cooperation and participation. In previous studies, cooperation referred to help given by family members in the performance of work. Time and space may or may not have been shared. For this study, participation related to persons sharing time and space. The present study attempted to identify shared house- hold activity which could provide opportunities for role modeling. It seemed important in terms of a better under- standing of socialization and more effective family management to be knowledgeable about the degree to which family members performed given activities and the degree to which they shared or interacted in such activities. Consistency in findings over time raised the question, "Why so little cooperation or participation in such repetitive and necessary activities?" Does the homemaker prefer to work 67 alone in activities for which she has developed a routine? Have we devalued household work so that family members do not feel the'joy of participation"(28)? Do we not view participation by the children in work activities as resource building? If work is not done cooperatively, so that children may be taught, by what means or in what ways are homemaking skills transmitted? What roles played in the home influence the formation of values for both adults and children? Of note is the inverse relationship between the family interaction scores and the care of family members. An increase in the time contributed to the care of family 11 members resulted in a decrease in the total family interaction scores. What does this mean? To further family inter- action, should the care of family members be delegated to others or should the process of management be directed toward the families increased involvement in the mutual care of family members? Table 14 showed that 87.5 per cent of the inter- action in families takes place at home, however, the coefficient of correlation for place of interaction established no significance. Does this indicate that the amount of interaction in the home setting is so little that to increase the interaction score, the family will have to be together away from home? Thorpe (17) also found that the whole family shared in few activities. If 68 family members are not in the home for periods of time and this seems to be the case with school age children and if interaction among family members is important, where then and under what conditions may the family be together? In what ways and in what places can interaction be achieved outside the family dwelling? What changes in the family environment or situation might result in more interaction within the home? It was found that families with high interaction scores interacted in the morning and afternoon; as evening interaction went up, the total family interaction scores went down. Snow (18) found that families were together more in the morning and evening than afternoon. The differences may be related to the definition of afternoon. For this study, afternoon extended from the hour 12:00 to 17:00 and evening from 18:00 to 24:00. Why does even— ing interaction affect the family interaction score adversely? Do other systems make demands on the evening hours such that family members are segregated by age and activity? In relation to the day of the week, the findings showed a significant relationship between family inter— action and weekend days; that is, family interaction increased on the weekend. Snow (18) and Thorpe (17) also found that families were together more on weekends than on weekdays. If the weekends afforded more opportunity 69 for interaction what difference would a four or three day work week make? What difference would a shorter work day make? The season of the year also influenced the inter— action scores with the vacation season contributing to an increase. If school systems were to operate with a twelve month calendar, what effect would this have on family interaction? What difference would the continuous time afforded by a weekend or vacation period make in terms of the kinds of activities families may share? Related to Family Members Family size did not appear significant but the sample did not include large families. Should large families have significantly influenced the family inter- action score what bearing would this have on family plan— ning? Should some families have four or five children and others none? What is a desirable family size in terms of effective interaction? The age of the parents was not significant. The age grouping was such that the under 25 years of age and over 55 years of age were not included. Would a more varied age range have made a difference? Sex of parents was significant in that the mother shared more time with the children than did the father. Sex of children did not seem to make a difference. If 70 the roles of mother and father become more blurred in the family, would this finding still hold? The employment of neither the mother nor the father had any significance in relationship to the inter- action scores. In this sample very few of the mothers were employed. Would there have been a difference if the hours of the mothers employment had matched the hours of the fathers? There was a significant relationship between school time and the family interaction scores. As the average amount of time spent in school increased, family interaction scores decreased. The finding may not be surprising but it raises the question, if the task of socialization and per- sonality development ascribed to families by the larger society interact, what role can the school system effectively play in this area or is there some other system that could do the job? Related to the SES Level Contrary to popular thought which attributes differences in values and life styles to families of different socio~economic levels, the SES level of the family as measured by Hollingshead's Educational- Occupational score was not significant. The finding sup— ports increasing evidence that socio-economic class is becoming less valuable in determining differences in family life styles. 71 Related to Location The city-suburb location of these families was not significant in relation to the interaction scores. Would there have been a difference if rural had been included? Related to the Family Dwelling No characteristic of the family dwelling was significant in relation to the interaction scores. May it then be assumed that physical characteristics make no difference or were the critical characteristics not studied? Would a study which investigated the design and layout of rooms have produced different findings? Implications for Further Research The following directions are suggested by this study for further research in family interaction: 1. With the significance of the social activity established, more complex data is needed about the content of this category. What are families actually doing when they socialize? 2. Knowledge about the amount of interaction is only a first step. Of crucial importance is the quality of this interaction. Research is needed to determine quality indicators and relate these indicators to the specific goals of socialization and personality develop— ment. 72 3. The interaction network of the family has been studied but this is only a part of the picture. Family members interact with others both within the home and out- side the home. What patterns of interaction are observ- able with non—family groups? What are the outcomes of these patterns to the individual family member? Are other- person networks more instrumental in shaping values and personality development than the family network? 4. Are the everyday activities of the family so broken up for the children with school and community activities and for the parents with work and community activities that insufficient time is left in which to interact? Does duration of interaction make a difference in outcome? Over time, what accrues from sustained periods of interaction with the same group? Homans (10) suggests increased sentiment for group members but are there other outcomes such as feelings of security and belongingness? 5. Some families had high interaction scores, some low. What would an in depth study of these selected families net in terms of providing tools to understand and explain interaction? 6. Would time records which extend over a longer period of time such as a week or a month result in dif- ferent findings? This study has given some clues as to what con- tributes to more interaction time in the family. It has 73 provided an indicator for assessing the amount of family interaction. Critical,at this point in time,is an indi- cator for assessing the quality of family interaction. From a managerial stance, knowing the contribution that interaction makes to the development of family members, empirical data that would provide both quantitative and qualitative measUres would be valuable to the manager in arranging the family environment to achieve desired goals. LITERATURE CITED 74 10. ll. LITERATURE CITED Paolucci, Beatrice. "Home Economies: Its Nature and Mission." Paper given at the Clara Brown Arny Symposium on Family Values, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 17, 1970. (Mimeographed). Ritchie, Oscar W. and Koller, Marvin T. Sociology of Childhood. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1964. Paolucci, Beatrice. "Family Decision—Making," John Wiley and Sons (Eds)., Focus. New York: April, 1965. Diesing, Paul. Reason in Society. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962. . White House Conference on Children. Washing- ton: Government Printing Office, 1971. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. Two Worlds of Childhood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970. Klemer, Richard. Marriage and Family Relationships. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970. Kenkel, William F. The Family in Perspective. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1966. Olson, David H. "Systems Analysis of Research Strategies." Seminar given at Michigan State University, College of Human Ecology, East Lansing, Michigan, May 19, 1971. (Mimeographed). Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1950. Nye, F. Ivan and Berado, Felix M. (Eds.) Emerging Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966. \75 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 76 Heiss, Jerold (Ed). Family Roles and Interaction: An Anthology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.,’I968. Thibaut, John W. and Kelley, Harold H. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Argyle, Michael. Social Interaction. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Bossard, James H. W. and Boll, Eleanor, S. Ritual in Famil Livin . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950. Robinson, John P. "Social Change as Measured by Time— Budgets." Paper read before the American Sociological Association, August, 1967. (Mimeographed). Thorpe, Alice C. "Patterns of Family Interaction within the Home." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1956. Snow, Carolyn B. "A Study in the Development of a Technique for Determining the Amount of Time and Types of Activities which Family Members Share." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Georgia, 1950. . Bureau of Home Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Unpublished Data, 1929. Wilson, Maud. The Use of Time by Oregon Farm Homemakers. Bulletin 256, Oregon State College Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oregon, November 1929. Warren, Jean. Use of Time in Its Relation to Home Management. Bulletin 734, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, New York, June 1940. "Use of Time in Its Relation to Home Management." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics of the Household and House- hold Management, Cornell University, 1938. Wiegand, Elizabeth. Use of Time by Full-time and Part- time Homemakers in Relation to Home Management. Memoir 330, Cornell University Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Ithaca, New York, July 1954. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 77 Walker, Kathryn E. "Time-use Patterns for Household Work Related to Homemakers' Employment." Talk given at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washington, D. C., February 18, 1970. Theodorson, George A. and Theodorson, Achilles G. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1969. Waller, Willard. The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation. New York: The Dryden Press, 1938. Hill, John P. "Discussion of Bell's 'Changes in Family Values Related to Early Parent—Child Interaction'." Discussion given at the Clara Brown Arny Symposium on Family Values, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 17, 1970. (Mimeographed). Bossard, James H. S. and Boll, Eleanor S. The Sociology of Child Development. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966. Lee, Dorothy. Freedom and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Churchman, C. West. The Systems Approach. New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1968. Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven: Hollingshead, 1957. APPENDIX 78 79 Family Interaction Scores and Number of Shared Acts, Grouped by Family Size. Family Identification Interaction Number of Number Scores Interaction Episodes One Child Families 1. 140001 331.67 14 2. 140005 350.00 6 3. 140006 183.33 12 4. 140007 103.33 6 5. 140009 260.00 13 6. 140012 496.67 15 7. 140041 333.33 10 8. 140047 223.33 14 9. 140052 320.00 21 10. 140054 466.67 12 11. 140055 243.33 14 12. 140058 793.33 25 13. 140074 300.00 12 14. 140093 806.67 18 15. 140127 286.67 10 16. 140128 405.00 15 17. 140.136 663.33 8 18. 140141 96.67 12 19. 140142 633.33 23 20. 140152 515.00 20 8O Family Identification Interaction Number of Number Scores Interaction Episodes 21. 140175 348.33 14 22. 140215 353.33 5 23. 140423 433.33 6 24. 140424 223.33 5 25. 140432 683.33 11 26. 140433 195.00 13 27. 140437 295.00 19 28. 140438 445.00 13 29. 140440 385.00 15 30. 140443 503.33 11 31. 140448 296.67 8 32. 140449 270.00 15 33. 140450 358.33 21 34. 140452 250.00 13 35. 140455 183.33 5 36. 140456 566.67 15 37. 140459 470.00 18 38. 140466 173.33 13 39. 140468 681.67 14 40. 140470 330.00 10 41. 140924 436.67 12 42. 140938 313.33 11 81 Family Identification Interaction Number of Number Scores Interaction Episodes Two Children Families 43. 244003 400.00 19 44. 244005 620.00 25 45. 244006 792.50 22 46. 244007 607.50 20 47. 244008 306.25 16 48. 244014 321.25 19 49. 244016 695.00 29 50. 244017 636.25 23 51. 244037 265.00 15 52. 244038 412.50 6 53. 244040 548.75 19 54. 244042 293.75 15 55. 244045 680.00 38 56. 244046 255.00 8 57. 244047 710.00 38 58. 244049 605.00 21 59. 244050 721.25 13 60. 244051 233.75 10 61. 244052 782.50 30 62. 244053 405.00 13 63. 244092 440.00 17 82 Family Identification Interaction Number of Number Scores Interaction ‘ Episodes 64. 244124 380.00 17 65. 244125 286.25 28 66. 244129 386.25 32 67. 244406 542.50 18 68. 244407 550.00 24 69. 244409 588.75 24 70. 244414 540.00 22 71. 244425 510.00 26 72. 244437 320.00 20 73. 244446 783.75 15 74. 244447 422.50 15 75. 244449 355.00 15 76. 244450 590.00 31 77. 244453 552.50 19 78. 244455 442.50 21 79. 244458 307.50 15 80. 244459 482.50 22 81. 244460 340.00 28 82. 244914 361.25 19 83. 244928 377.50 36 84. 244957 400.00 17 83 Family Identification Interaction Number of Number Scores Interaction Episodes 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 344001 344002 344003 344004 344005 344006 344007 344008 344009 344010 344011 344012 344013 344014 344018 344020 344036 344038 344073 344086 344093 Three Children Families 456.00 15 416.00 13 324.00 26 379.00 13 764.00 28 643.00 42 292.00 30 767.00 25 417.00 33 348.00 18 456.00 14 715.00 15 557.00 35 627.00 25 681.00 17 386.00 22 696.00 31 397.00 23 292.00 28 786.00 26 114.00 15 84 Family Identification Interaction Number of umber Scores Interaction Episodes 106. 344124 322.00 17 107. 344126 275.00 21 108. 344128 581.00 21 109. 344130 513.00 38 110. 344134 294.00 25 111. 344412 651.00 17 112. 344423 577.00 22 113. 344433 488.00 36 114. 344436 278.00 11 115. 344438 303.00 18 116. 344439 394.00 13 117. 344441 312.00 30 118. 344446 298.00 14 119. 344447 500.00 32 120. 344448 491.00 15 212. 344449 256.00 19 122. 344452 314.00 22 123. 344454 355.00 14 124. 344461 372.00 29 125. 344700 333.00 16 126. 344705 681.00 22 LIBRARIES NICHIGRN STQTE UNIV, 5.31 .. Vhfififlfix n3 \ u