"' "‘4""‘4.4'.<‘I 5,4:4‘4'4‘4'3, ‘,,4‘, ,‘IE' ' 4 “'4444 ‘14 I44 . . . . . ,44 . .., 4 | 44 4 4 4 . '4 , 4 4, 4. ""I':"""""1‘4“'I“""“" ‘I ‘ 4 4’4'." . 4‘4‘I 4 4'4 . 4 ""“l“'44,4'.',. 44.5.}: VVV ‘ ' 4‘134‘ $2,; ““343“ ‘43,}, ‘ 3. "'4' "'4'4‘4 '- 4 44, 4 4 ‘ . 44 ,4 4714 ‘ 1 4', 4, “3“? 4"~'4' "' 4‘4" 'L “3" ""‘,'I4‘. "'4'." " ""' ‘ ,434‘4'44.;.:,|,;,:::1,‘,""4 4A,, ,Il34'43434‘13‘4‘H' ,‘31344, “‘4 '4,4 4‘34, '4, ' “,4 ' 4,4" "1 {'3' 4.1,4444.I '34,34,4‘4,4 “,1 414343143434343434 ‘4 -‘4 "1"" ""44 "‘""'4 ’3‘“ ‘3‘.“ 41"4'4444 . ' 9.444" '- 4 4 .35.". ‘4'4 .4,. . ,, 4,,. 4 . ' "3‘37'4‘ 4‘. . ‘ 4 ' '13'V'I‘I'4I:I'E"L1‘I,4"3‘,"I3 ‘I‘34 IVLKI‘R ~‘,,:".343' k"“““\\": 4' 13"" “4,4,. ,414; 0,4, 44 .IL, . .I.I.I,~,H 4,,4‘4 VI“ , 4,3,sz 7,13,53,25 I, “4“4“ ,4 4,43,? ‘ 5M4, ‘ 4.4'."';"L'"" ' ." 1;“ "‘"‘4‘,"..’,4"4'4‘:"‘ N, ““V‘Jflbll "“"‘§“"““"“"I, H3434 I'4‘4','.'. 'U‘L: .4 ,':""' “4434,54. “‘43,", 1444‘, 3:1,:7‘,‘ ,4,4,4,4 3;, I4"""I'13"‘4"‘ Lg,4,434,43, "'I‘4“~,4 I343: 4“, ,.‘ ,,,,44 ‘3} UI,,‘,,4;,§,.1,4H‘,,.I,I !,'"V‘1 - 4 44.4 «,‘4' .=4,.‘ 44 4 ‘4' ‘4,4'44,,' 3""4‘4 4.434344%. “"“""‘4,;‘,' 1 , 4 ,434', " 44"4144,~,.‘44‘4 ' ..,..4.-'4"‘ " 4‘4“.‘ 54,431,943 44‘.'4‘.',"1‘ '31,; ‘4‘“ "44 l ,4 , 3.‘,.3.:-' '."".i:4 333.543 4,53 ; ., I, “434‘ 1‘444‘43434;.;..',4.4. ,4 4, 3y‘fi4.34"'4'. 435,354,, 43434; 4,45,24,43 “35,4; 3,5,- ,3,“qu $5,534 - “.“ .‘44‘44 44' "‘4 4,51,,” 4'44 ,4, 4 II'1"‘4.'2 4. l3'I444 ,x,,'l".'-", ,, 4 ,4.,,4‘444I ,.,44,4,,, 1,.1"4 34‘1‘4 N "43444 ,,., 45,41,44‘ ,444,,4.'.‘I,44,."4 “"."1!'I'I‘I"""‘" 'I',:'43‘4'4 4.34 $5,455 34‘.‘ R'4,4‘\,.,,I$,J . . 4 U. '4‘ 1,14,, ‘4' . ' ‘2“ . 4'. ,‘34, I “““"~:".. . ‘1.“ "'4'." ‘44. “-' ' " ,"‘,"" "" 343444' "‘4“‘ '1'4‘4 ‘ 4 4 "4 4' .4 4 H" . '-"“""" ‘ ‘V'I'":"““‘"‘:'I'4‘4“4"" ".V'.‘ ‘4‘4‘I'4‘4"‘4 1.44.‘1 “'" ‘4“ ‘3'" “" “‘1," \‘4‘ “Q“ 5‘3,“ ‘ ‘ ' V 4 4 """"'I"" ‘4'" ““"II‘, "' ‘."""' 3434 '4‘44 ‘::.‘3‘I"""“‘ 4“"4"“"I‘ 4V‘4 41133333“ 3‘43““. 1:3,: '!‘ I“ 'I .‘ '1 " ‘I 1'" "~“4 "3' '4?" 4'.,.'i,'§4 4‘I3434,4"4"4' ,4,3‘,,l4‘4 ,5,” ‘4““‘ 4‘4' I?“ ,5.“ 1,344, “3"‘""""' 44.41444 '. 44344',4441",IV,,1,~ 4.. 4,.,,:. 43‘1‘III,’I' .‘.. 4 ‘4"4‘, ,..4,44444.,I4 ...‘ .‘,,344,4434‘4.‘434‘3“‘: . . .4. 4:414. 4.444..4.....44:4:..4444.444.4444... 4 ‘44....44..4444’444 . . -..'.. ,44, . 4,34I ”'3!“ "4.": 4' ,4“ ,34343434 I" .,4 4,4 ‘4 ' '.\,4,4,4,4,434,4,4,4'4,I‘4‘4'4‘4'4‘3I3‘4"3'.4,.'.' 43,. ',‘,"I34" 3‘33“” “$3431 4,4,‘4 ,‘44 43:?" :1, , .. . '4 .l"' ..,44 4,4 .4, .44, 44”,.“ .,,I.,. 4‘.V"I‘ “44334304“ I.;,,:. 34:" 41““ 333474,: , 4,4‘\ I, L‘R'M‘ . . ‘4“"""‘4 4.444 4.4.4.. 1:444:44 4‘44 444 .4 4 4, "‘ .44 I"| ‘4‘, ‘4 “"15“,,” I 4 341,43 ‘I ‘1‘4‘ I'4‘.‘,‘3‘,‘,4 I 1 I“34'4‘ 4,353“, "‘ 14444 , 4,, ‘ 4‘4I‘1‘4‘4‘I4‘i‘h‘h1, .,44,$;:'1'.H . ..4". "" "4'94“. 41'- ""‘"'"'""‘1I"‘|‘44144'""44‘..I'I"IEI‘I"““‘“‘"‘3:,“‘“‘“‘4"§“"“H‘Ifgi‘lh‘ 1,1,‘44’1fi‘wk'44 $4 €5,445: ,. ‘."""i""""4"" -4V".“‘,4 “..,4, .., ,,, ..,, “1,4,4, ‘34" ‘45,, 44,, ..,,',I44'.,,.., 4,,4 44,4.,,,I 4,,”, “I333,3“"‘"I‘1'44‘I'4'43I‘44“"‘-"" £34.33: $1,"? ”9‘34 :03: .3'3‘4‘5‘4"? "4"“1‘31‘4‘1 I3'QK‘H'4334 “"4,§1‘;"‘.‘"‘4""" 3133353434VI‘45‘NI “\"}‘38I4I, “,9," "V‘I‘lqr' 4., 4‘ ‘4‘. 44; 44454444454, .1"..‘ “ '44;,,4.;,4, 443444;, "‘4‘- ‘4' 4'4 «, .44 4;!..4,.,,4,4,I 4‘ '43::4‘4 ”"4444 4‘". .4. ‘Q‘W‘ ‘4"4 44‘ 4 '4"‘4,4|4'3 33". 33,31,344 3"4‘ “4‘"1‘4“"‘ 4H4,4,:,;‘ 4,,,“- 'R‘H‘I‘ME'“. " " “" “"‘ “"‘ ' "“ ""“"" " ““‘I‘ I‘I3‘434I, ' “I "'4‘1‘l‘1‘l‘1 "13"“ “'1 h‘ " "4'4 3""'"".“‘1 W "" "‘I““"“4‘4 §434V““‘4‘ $343131, ‘1‘4‘43'333 .,4I , ,‘,'343: 315,435,355 "33:4, 34,335, :51343,c,,,3.‘4hu ,‘\,I 434 ".‘l‘1 1,‘I"""‘1, 31‘3I34'1,‘4 $34344" $15,?“ "‘43 “. ""1"" “""" 'I‘I""I"“I." “4'I"'4“‘“ R‘I‘I"" ““ $54.13 44.44.44 '3434“ ‘44,4,4‘. 333%!“ 4"34‘13'M" "" “‘“‘:"“‘4‘“I54‘" ‘4 ' .4‘44 4,4‘ .“““" 4.4'5‘434"‘4""4 " 53,4, ' 4,4, .,,,,,, “a“, .. 414444444244 4444.,14.444444444444454... “‘““"‘4"4 ‘4‘} ,5544'4‘ 4444 “1,4,4,4,"\3“4V\\4 ““§I‘ ,, 33:33.4. 43,4354“, .3531, £3,534, “3‘3 44,, 4..4 “‘1?‘:I.‘:“‘3I34,"" "‘3‘“ ‘I"44‘4‘-‘ 31““ ‘444“"“ X41"4“434‘I“"If“‘4“4‘4"““I“",I44“‘}‘ ‘1 ‘1‘,“‘4. ‘, 41444,,4414 ‘144'4', \V'I‘ ,1,4 4,, ‘533‘4 ,,,,,,,‘4I,, “53:4,“, . , I“ LII . .I 5,“, 41,, ""“ ‘4""""""“ "“4". “'34,, “454“" ,4‘43434, 44.44414. 4‘35? 3433‘ .434" 4'2! I M] 444.44." 44:". 4.434" 4144.444 4,,"? 4,4. .,4,4,<.4' ‘44.44,,.,4 44,1,4 'V,,44 ' "“‘" "44' 4.4444444 “4"“..4. $4 4‘44“ ., ,.' '11 4': ,I ‘4"‘11‘ 3‘“: ,‘4,13', I"; .34??- 4,4433,4,4‘4‘ ,,,, ‘35‘13I1q33h, a, I. , ~ 444.444! ‘4'14'44'444. 44".“ ,' "44 . .44 .‘,;,L 14443,,” 54, 44,444“ 44.35.54,, ,54454‘44' 4,,. ‘*:‘I‘4$‘:'““344“4¢‘§‘.5‘:§34‘,:“ ,,4 4., 4, . 4 4 r44:~'4‘4"‘4:. '44.... “‘44 4 $444 '4 "444444,“. '. 4,4,“. .4'4141,‘ “5,, 3,5246% “‘.I '44‘34“, i‘qfi‘l 1,“, 5,, ‘43,, It; 4, 43‘“ng I 43.“."4'( "4 3‘45}: f g? 13": 4. i “‘ 3%,,‘434‘34 4:4‘ ,.4'1 ,N' “‘33“ , , 3e, '3‘“ "d4," 3‘34“?" ' 434‘!" ' 35% “','4- ,4 “ "‘ -4' "3‘““‘;“' 'IL““I«‘3"“ 4'4 "“'~“"‘ “‘“‘“““‘"' '§“'M ‘g‘;“‘,“1 ‘E L."- ‘I'i, "1‘ 4.33;, , “Pf .1" .4 4 :éir *’ J" «*1 ‘r - :3‘ ‘ I43 I 4 , ‘V. L , ‘Li't 4" '44, “."135 '4I‘4V'. , "1"4 ‘I‘ ‘4' _. ‘1‘3 ', 33:33:,5 {3534 333,315,?! Lig“?3‘43:‘4‘:1fi‘,43,‘m‘ 12334“ L. ‘%4‘4‘4‘§31313I§‘| I,:§‘."t"::§"a,j%$\ §§v ,,‘ 4 “,“4‘1,11‘435'I"*'-‘4'.‘I '1'.,I ’ . ‘." ,I " ‘ " If , 4 .,14 4‘43? '33?“ £333, 53%,; 4 :1'441'4,:I, 53,4559”; 3:9 44,453fi‘3‘1’3‘fi323 3332;“ ' §§3RVE33I3I3IE§$331434 4}} f . 3 =43"? 4'“ '11 434'... 5.4.1.444 "4‘ .444 $534} 4,443,444 3‘444444'44, ‘ ' 313,455.44}.‘44....,. g 4 ‘54 3 ' ““‘4.4'14,""4'44 “"‘“‘ “““"‘4‘4'”“ ' "“54”“ "I"'" “ ““4 N‘g““‘"‘“‘i‘§""‘1“4i“‘.""‘;‘§4‘4.4'“43 " ‘ ' ‘ ‘ I" " 4 L ‘443I‘,.,.,!‘ ,1,” “k "3 "2‘5“ 3‘4 ‘I4I "4",4I 14"“ I3“ -. I; 41,4, \454, ". - ", , V4 . :3 ' "‘ 4*‘4‘MI144.I‘14‘4‘4'L“'4 1&3, ‘II‘Y ‘V‘g'gébé ‘ 4‘43“ 34$, ' “4 2"IV,‘ 33“" ‘ ' , "I‘IVV ‘ 31 ,4" >,,'4,,,‘,(,:; AW? “1 WI 434343'4'1“ 654% ' I‘ "‘ ; 1&1“ I " ‘4" I, (13'. ‘ I . -.‘ ' '. .‘ ‘4‘4‘4‘4 ‘ . . "4‘24. 44'4“..ij "WV 414'444'4'44 ,» "4 H. .4 "3‘14 ' 4 -. N14,. 354 "3"“. '4‘4‘44."“ ‘V\,‘4}I34,“,. ‘4" 4,4,43,44,55, ““I“II‘:‘34““}%LI"$:“‘ ,5,$,§3534,,,‘5§,, '4 $534,, 4, 54353,"? .4 , .4 ._ 4%,,ng 4" 1.4.4733, 1.,4, '4,“ .g . , 4 :44 ".4 , ,',.‘x,., ‘ , . .‘ - .. 4,, "4 ' "II‘ 444‘ .,4, .,4'1 gw‘k WI '4‘}; ‘33" . ‘1'4‘1‘ (‘52., ‘1‘". 9'431374'443’1‘IWIT. " .' 1 ' '. “ . ““x'zfi‘ ‘4‘ ‘3 ;. “.4345 335,41" ‘5‘. «4‘ 4. ‘4‘4. “114 44,4 4." 95,444.; 4.4 . .' I4. . 4444.45,... " '3 ""4‘.".‘.“"4"4 "" “ 3"“ *3.‘ "‘3‘ ‘44-'45 ‘44,:‘4‘3‘“‘“"““‘""‘i"4l‘ ‘ 9 ‘ "‘4'? §‘1'4.‘4“4'~‘4' 4.1‘ “4,4,. , 4,4.4 431,44 ",'. ’ " . - . ,4. . . .‘ 34,13," ‘1"4'1'I“‘3, 4‘4‘444,44, 443,1, 4,,, 13' ‘4‘4'4-‘54‘4 ‘1‘4‘4‘3‘ 5,44, “,\‘34:§§§,El¢1 . 4 ‘4" {£33, ‘33:,” 3, “\‘é‘,‘, V. ‘4'"4. \‘4' 4. 4.‘ 43414444.}! 44 5 44‘: 44 .44 4.44. 4 2., 1‘44, 44444 ..4 .4444. 4 44444334. .1344, .,4,4'.,,‘4u.4‘4‘.. 4 4.444444%44. “:44. '44. .3444 44444244444444.4144? 4444..- 44444443444. 44.4 4434444444 «44:44 I"“,‘I“" 4‘3“: “"4",,‘"" 4, 414,4 4,. ‘fix‘I3I‘EI‘I3I3fl' 5,2,43,3‘ 4,13,55,11 4, 4, 15:44, "‘~3‘““?“I‘t“r‘ ', 4‘ 444 , ‘4'4'4'3 'I .' “32:"! 4" 4" 44.4. .4 “44.4.4.- 4..» 33“ , . 5,,"33‘3‘5' ‘4 ,‘4. , .1 , .4, ‘34".‘L' . 43:," 44 ‘33" 4 4444 4"".44'444 9" - .34. ' 25...»; I, 4 4 3,3,, I 4" " “344,1,3, “""4‘I',‘:“4I ‘3.“ 4 ,' g. _4. ‘3' ‘43 Z‘ . .343. ' , 44- ‘ . "‘4 IIIM‘t, "‘4 1““4‘4'."4‘44 3“: -4 24..-.-- 3‘64 '2. sh- r". l» 4.4. ‘43""“ " ,4“? ,4'4 :“ "4. "41“1 '4' IT. “'I ,“’ 1 47:.- 4 . 4 4 . "~11 M4“ .1. I“ 33:3.-- 1:25.: $55,: ; < 1; 17:: K?“ '7‘; A ‘ . «97.3: 35233;: 232?»: ..... ' .z: ..4? V-‘:- ‘ ‘ “31‘ _ rpm, f“ ’._ . - .fffia— 2223.1“ ”‘7. 45%: T ' 4 '33:;- .._. - _...::: mg??? . 3: .. ‘12:“; 32.12, e- .‘ ........ --4-.. 4 ”2’. llllll ..ncsrs 31293010930117 Wing . .‘1 State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Relationship of Non-Market Resource Transfers and Quality of Life for Non—migrant Michigan Mexican Americans presented by Sharon M. Danes has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. A. Family Economics degree in and Management Major professor Date 61/2- 7/ O-7 639 RELATIONSHIP OF NON-MARKET RESOURCE TRANSFERS AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NON-MIGRANT MICHIGAN MEXICAN AMERICANS By Sharon M. Danes A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ART Department of Family Ecology T978 Q ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP OF NON-MARKET RESOURCE TRANSFERS AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NON-MIGRANT MICHIGAN MEXICAN AMERICANS By Sharon M. Danes The purposes of the study were to determine frequencies of non-market resource transfers for l06 randomly selected non-migrant Mexican American families in Saginaw, Michigan, and to ascertain the relationships between these frequencies, satisfaction with them, and perceived overall quality of life. The sample survey research design utilizing interviews was employed as part of Michigan Experiment Station Project NC-l28. Hypotheses and research questions were analyzed using nonparametric tests of association. Respondents reported: (l) more transfers being done by family for others than the opposite; (2) positive association between fre- quencies of transfers and satisfaction with them and between satis- faction with transfers and overall quality of life; (3) stronger association between frequencies of transfers and satisfaction with them for husbands; (4) stronger association between satisfaction with what family does for others and quality of life for younger families; (5) stronger association between satisfaction with what others do for family and quality of life for wives. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation for the contribu— tions, encouragement, and support of those who helped make this study possible: To Dr. Dennis Keefe, the major professor, for the large amount of time and patience, for the use of the NC-l28 Project data, and for the challenging opportunities and experiences provided through working with him on this research and the project. To Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Dr. Fernando Gomez, and Dr. Margaret Bubolz, members of the committee, for their reactions to ideas and guidance at various steps in the development of this thesis. To Dr. Linda Nelson, chairperson of the department, for her guidance and encouragement throughout the master's program in helping me pursue my interest in Spanish-speaking families. A special thanks to fellow graduate students, who offered a great amount of encouragement, support, and understanding. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study . Conceptual Framework . Dependent Variables. Independent Variable Third Variables . Analytical Framework . Hypotheses Research Questions. 11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE. Quality of Life. . Non- market Resource Exchange Mexican- American Family in the Midwest . Summary of the Literature 111. METHODOLOGY. Sample Design and Selection. Description of Sample. Data Collection. . Operational Definitions . Assumptions . . Analysis of Data Statistical Methods. Computer Programs Page viii Chapter IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION. Description of Independent and Dependent Variables . Frequency of What Family Does for Others. Frequency of What Others Do for Family . . . Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others . Satisfaction with What Others Do for Family. Quality of Life . . . . Tests of Hypotheses Research Questions. . Introduction of Third Variable Analysis. Summary of Findings V. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions . Limitations . Implications. Implications for Future Research . Implications for Educational Programs. REFERENCES CITED APPENDICES Appendix A. EXAMPLE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE QUESTIONS FOR NON- MARKET RESOURCE TRANSFER, TRANSFER SATISFACTION, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES B. REASONS FOR INCOMPLETE SCHEDULES. C. SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS . iv Page 100 100 102 105 109 114 115 Table #WN 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Sex of Adult Respondents. Family Income Age of Respondents. Level of Education of Respondents. Number of Children Living at Home. Age of Youngest Child Living at Home. Number of Years Lived in Community Number of Years Married . Percent of Responses in Each Category for Frequency of What Family Does for Others . . . . Percent of Responses in Each Category for Frequency of What Others Do for Family. . . . . . Percent of Responses for Satisfaction with Non—Market Resource Transfers . Percent of Responses for Quality of Life Kendall's Tau for Frequency of Transfer and Satisfaction with Transfer with p < .lO Chi-square and Kendall's Tau for Satisfaction with Transfer and Quality of Life. Kendall's Tau for Frequencies of What the Family Does for Others and Demographic Characteristics with p < .10. . . . . . Kendall's Tau for Frequencies of What Others Do for Family with Demographic Characteristics with p < .10. . . . . . . Page 43 44 44 45 46 47 47 47 58 6O 62 63 65 67 69 71 Table l7. Kendall's Tau for Total Frequencies and Demographic Characteristics with p .lO. . . . l8. Kendall's Tau for Satisfaction with Transfer and Demographic Characteristics with p .l0. l9. Chi- -square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others--Vehicle Repairs and Satis- faction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Number of Children and Years in Community . 20. Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others--Housework and Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Years Married and Number of Children . 2l. Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others--Sharing Extras and Satis- faction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Age, Years Married, and Number of Children. 22. Chi-square and Kendall‘s Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others--Transportation with Satis- faction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Number of Children. . . . 23. Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of Total of What Family Does for Others with Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Number of Children and Sex. . . . . . . . . . 24. Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Others Do for Family--Vehicle Repairs with Satisfaction with What Others Do for Family Controlling for Number of Children and Age of Youngest Child. . . . 25. Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Total Frequency of What Others Do for Family with Satisfaction with What Others Do for Family Controlling for Sex. 26. Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Satisfaction with What the Family Does for Others and Quality of Life Con- trolling for Age, Years Married, Age of Youngest Child, Income, Sex, and Years in Community . 27. Chi- -square and Kendall's Tau of Satisfaction with What Others Do for Family and Quality of Life Controlling for Sex. . . . . . vi Page 73 74 78 79 8O 81 82 83 83 85 86 Table B-1. C-6. An Accounting of All Names Selected From Original List . . . . . . . . . Chi-square and Kendall's Tau for Frequency of Transfers and Satisfaction with Transfers . . . . Chi-square and Kendall's Tau for Frequencies of What the Family Does for Others and Demographic Characteristics. . . . Chi-square and Kendall's Tau for Frequencies of What Others Do for Family and Demographic Character- istics. . . . . . . . . Chi-square and Kendall's Tau for Total Frequencies and Demographic Characteristics . Chi—square and Kendall's Tau for Satisfaction with Transfers and Demographic Characteristics . Chi- -square and Kendall' s Tau for Quality. of Life and Demographic Characteristics. vii Page 114 115 116 118 120 121 122 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Conceptual Model of the Relationship of Frequency of Non- Market Resource Transfers to Satisfaction with Non-Market Resource Transfers and Perceived Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Analytical Model of the Relationship of Frequency of What Family Does for Others, Perceived Satisfaction, and Perceived Overall Quality of Life and Frequency of What Others Do for Family, Perceived Satisfaction, and Per- ceived Overall Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . lO viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Since 1918 there have been fluctuating numbers of Mexican Americans who have either dropped out of the migrant stream in Michigan or have come purposely to work in the factories in the industrial areas of Michigan (Humphrey, 1943; Salas, 1972). During this time, a notable number have become permanent residents of Michigan. As of the 1970 census data, Michigan has 65,329 Mexican Americans, the second largest concentration of Mexican Americans outside the South- west (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1970). Regardless of location, family life is a key element in the life of the Mexican American (Alvirez and Bean, 1976, p. 276; Grebler et al., 1970, p. 351; Miller, 1975). Moore (1976, p. 130) states the Mexican Americans tend to place more value on family relationships and obligations than do most Anglo Americans. Family patterns among Mexican Americans have been involved in processes of change caused by generation, class differences, and increasing urbanization. Despite these changes, family life is a vital part of Mexican American lives. Studies on Mexican Americans have been done predominantly in New Mexico and Texas. They help us understand family life in tradi- tional rural environments, but give little insight into family behavior in more urban environments where today 80 percent of the Mexican American population resides (Miller, 1975). Due to a lack of systematic studies of Mexican American families, we know relatively little about how Mexican American families interact internally or how they contend or interact with external social units (Miller, 1976). Studies that have been done deal pri- marily with the twin concepts of assimilation and acculturation, but they stop there (De Hoyos, 1961; Goldkind, 1959 & 1963; Shannon and Shannon, 1973; Weeks and Spielberg, 1973). Few implications of the influence of acculturation and assimilation upon the family are drawn. Scarcely any studies have been conducted about the life-style conse- quences for Mexican American families of attaining different levels of education or of holding different kinds of occupations (Alvirez and Bean, 1976, p. 286). From the very beginning when Mexican American families began moving into Michigan, they moved in with relatives already in the area where they shared non-market resources (such as a place to live, food, care of children) until the family could move out on its own (Humphrey, 1945, p. 257; Humphrey, 1946, p. 433). The family may have been the only place of refuge for an individual, providing both emotional and material security. In fact, Mexican Americans are reputed to be clannish--an important defense for a poor and unskilled population in a demanding, indifferent, or hostile world (Moore, 1976, p. 135). Although it is suspected that non-market resources are a contributing factor to providing emotional and material security, we do not know what kinds and in what amounts non-market resources are shared among Mexican American family members in Michigan. Although there are a growing number of Mexican Americans in Michigan, we know very little about how they interact with their environment. One way to observe this phenomenon is to look at the number of interactions the family has with other families. If both family and culture are important to the Mexican American in providing emotional and material security, then examining the frequency of non- market transfers among Mexican Americans in an urban Midwest community might begin to determine the degree of interaction with the community where they are in the minority. Additional factors that also might be considered are with whom the resources are shared, the value, and the importance that is placed on them. Examining satisfaction with the transfer of non-market resources may begin to give some indication of how Mexican Americans feel about their interactions with other families. Examining the relationship between that satisfaction and perception of overall quality of life may give some indication as to the relationship of interaction with other families to perception of overall quality of life. Quality of life studies have been done in various parts of the U.S. including Michigan. However, little has been done with quality of life for ethnic groups (Bubolz and Eicher et al., 1976). There is a need for measuring quality of life of minorities as well as for the majority population. Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976, p. 143), stated, "There is a growing realization among social scientists of the need for social indicators on the life of American minorities, not only Blacks but Mexican Americans, native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Orientals.“ In looking at quality of life for any group of people, it is found to be defined by how well satisfied people are with what they consider important (Bubolz, 1976). If family life is a key element in the life activities of Mexican Americans, family life including the transfer of non-market resources should be a major indicator affecting quality of life of Mexican American families. Satisfaction with family life was a major indicator of overall quality of life in the Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) study, the Andrews and Withey (1974) study, and the Bubolz (1976) study. Purpose of the Study The purposes of this study are to determine the frequency of non-market resource transfers for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American families in the urban area of Saginaw, and to ascertain the relationship between these frequencies, satisfaction with these transfers, and with perceived overall quality of life. It describes the differences between these relationships by age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, age of youngest child living at home, number of years married, number of years in the community, and number of years in the state. This study does not examine with whom the resources are transferred, nor what value and importance is placed on the resources transferred. However, by determining the frequency of resources transferred, it sets the groundwork for examining with whom the resources are transferred and the value of those transfers. Specific objectives of the study are: Objective 1: To determine the frequency with which non-market resources are transferred among a sample of non-migrant Mexican American respondents. Objective 2: To determine the relationship between the frequency of non-market resource transfers and perceived satisfaction with them for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents. Objective 3: To determine the relationship between the perceived satisfaction with non-market resource transfers and the perceived overall quality of life for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents. Objective 4: To determine how the above measures and relationships vary according to the following demographic characteris- tics for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, age of youngest child living at home, number of years married, number of years in the community. Conceptual Framework The conceptual orientation of this study is the human ecological perspective. The human ecological perspective enables the researcher to study the reciprocal interaction between people and the natural, man-built, and behavioral environments (Hook and Paolucci, 1970; Morrison, 1974). This study concentrates primarily on the behavioral environment of a sample of Mexican American families. Application of this concep- tual framework provides a means for understanding the ways in which Mexican American families transfer non-market resources. The transfer of these resources affects the perceived overall satisfaction with life in an environment in which Mexican American families are in the minority, in an environment of the Midwest where the family may not have as much of a cultural cushion as in the Southwest. Dependent Variables In establishing an overall model for this study, satisfaction of non-market resource transfers is one of the dependent variables. It is the perception of how the respondent feels about the non-market resource transfers that are occurring in the respondent's environment. Satisfaction with non-market resource transfers is composed of both satisfaction with what the family does for others and what others do for the family. Perceived overall quality of life is the other dependent vari- able in the study. Perceived overall quality of life is the respondent's perception of life as a whole. Both the frequency of non-market resource transfers and satisfaction with those transfers feed into and are related to the respondent's perceived overall quality of life. These perceptions about the frequency of non-market resource transfers and their effect on perceived overall quality of life will feed back into the family system to alter or maintain the frequency of the non-market resource transfers both in relation to what others do for the family or what the family does for others. Independent Variable The independent variable is non-market resource transfer. Non-market resource transfer is a transfer from one family in society to another which does not involve the contractual,reciprocal exchange characteristic of a market transaction. Transfers, however, can occur as both inputs and outputs of the family in the behavioral environment. Frequencies of non-market resource transfers in this study are com- posed of both what the family does for others and what others do for the family. The conceptual model of the possible relationships that could be studied is shown in Figure l. The solid lines indicate relation- ships that are examined in this study. The dotted lines indicate relationships that could be examined in the future. Third Variables A series of third variables is used to elaborate the basic two-variable analysis. These third variables reflect various demo- graphic characteristics of the Mexican American families in the sample. Age of the respondent, number of years married, and age of the youngest child at home are an indication of the families' present stage of the life cycle. Total family income level and education level reflect the different resource levels available to the family. Number of children at home reflects the demand on these resources. Number of years in the community is an indication of the time span the family has been in the community environment creating the potential of other families outside the respondent's family with whom non-market resource |—> I Figure l. Frequency of what family does for others \/ Satisfaction with what family does for others Frequency of what others do for family Resource Transfer Frequency of Non-Market I \V l <—-——-—T-———> Satisfaction with what others do for family l J, Perceived Satisfaction with Non-Market Resource Transfer I I Perceived Overall Quality of Life \/ Conceptual Model of the Relationship of Frequency of Non- Market Resource Transfers to Satisfaction with Non-Market Resource Transfers and Perceived Overall Quality of Life. transfers could occur. Finally the sex of the respondent is a third variable used because husbands and wives within a family may view frequency of non-market resource transfers differently. Analytical Framework Frequency of non-market resource transfers and satisfaction with those transfers are composed of what the family does for others and what others do for the family. There may be a relationship between what the family does for others and what others do for the family. There may or may not be reciprocity between these two factors. There may or may not be reciprocity over time. These latter two questions are not being dealt with in this study, but they might be raised as indicated in Figure 1. This study sets the groundwork for the possibility of examining these questions. In order to clarify further what this study examines, Figure 2 provides an analytical model of the independent and dependent variables in both forms. Relationships are examined between frequency of what the family does for others, the satisfaction with these transfers, and perceived overall quality of life. Relationships of the frequency of what others do for the family, satisfactions with these transfers, and perceived overall quality of life are also examined in this study. However, relationships between what the family does for others and what others do for the family are not examined in this study. The series of third variables is used to elaborate on each of the basic two-variable analyses in the conceptual framework. lO Frequency of what family does for others for others H . Perceived satisfaction H . 1] —L> with what family does -——-)3 PDUETit/Sldongiia‘e \ 1 Demographic Characteristics l Frequency of for family what others do . , with what others do v Perce1ved sat1sfact1on L Perceived Overall 2 for family F72?) Qua11ty of L1fe Figure 2. Analytical Model of the Relationship of Frequency of What Family Does for Others, Perceived Satisfaction, and Per- ceived Overall Quality of Life and Frequency of What Others 00 for Family, Perceived Satisfaction, and Perceived Overall Quality of Life. —J 00 Hypothesis N Hypothesis w Hypothesis .5 Hypothesis Hypotheses There is a positive relationship between frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others. There is a positive relationship between frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family. There is a positive relationship between the satisfac- tion with what family does for others and perceived overall quality of life. There is a positive relationship between the satisfac- tion with what others do for family and perceived overall quality of life. 11 Research Questions In addition to looking at the above specific relationships, this study offers the opportunity for an examination of the following questions: Research Question 1: How will frequency of non-market resources transferred among a sample of non—migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents vary according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Research Question 2: How will satisfaction with non-market resources trans— ferred among a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents vary according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Research Question 3: How will perceived overall quality of life among a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents vary according to the following demographic characteris- tics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Research Question 4: How will the relationship between the frequency of non- market resource transfers and satisfaction with these transfers for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents differ according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Research Question 5: How will the relationship between the satisfaction with non-market resource transfers and overall quality of life for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents differ according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The research and related literature are reviewed in three major categories: quality of life, non-market resource transfers, and Mexican American family. Each category is handled as an entity in itself because there is no literature that interrelates the concepts. The section on quality of life deals only with subjective measures of quality of life, not with objective measures. Quality of Life Quality of life means different things to different people. At the present time no consensus exists as to what it is or what it means. Many definitions have been attempted, both theoretical and empirical. However, all agree regarding the importance of the quality of life concept, the need to define it, and its significance as a potential new management tool (Quality of Life Concept, 1973, p. 11). According to Butler (1977, p. 26) most of the definitions incorporate some ideas of want or need satisfaction. Andrews and Withey (1974) defined quality of life in their study as an indication at least in part of the way individuals perceive and evaluate their lives. Bubolz and Eicher (1976, p. 4) define quality of life as, "The degree 12 13 of well-being or ill-being of the people and/or the environment in which they live." Converse, Campbell, and Rodgers did not clearly define their concept of quality of life but refer to concern with a sense of well-being. That sense of well-being includes the basic essentials of life and an emphasis on less tangible values such as a sense of achievement in one's work, an appreciation of beauty in nature and the arts, a feeling of identification with one's community, a sense of fulfillment one one's potential (Converse et al., 1976, p. 1). Two major studies conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan in the early 19705 focused on people's perceptions of life satisfactions or quality of life (Campbell et al., 1976; Andrews and Withey, 1974). They revealed that people reserve their greatest satisfaction for those parts of their lives that are most intimate and personal. It was found that a modest number of domains can predict 50-60 percent of the variations in perceptions of life quality for the total population and also for a wide range of subgroups within it (Andrews and Withey, 1974; Converse et al., 1976, p. 95). Satisfaction is additive. The more satisfaction in any of a dozen or so domains, the greater the overall feelings of contentment. Certain domains carry a little more weight than others. Family life each of these two studies was a domain important to predicting overall quality of life (Butler, 1977, p. 409). Andrews and Withey (1974) state further that marriage and family life are the most satisfying parts of most people's lives and being married is one of the most important determinants of being satisfied with life. 14 Andrews and Withey (1974) report that the four domains which contribute most to perceived overall life quality are satisfaction with yourself, your family life, the amount of fun in your life, and a money lindex developed from satisfaction with family income and level of consumption. The remaining domains of the total twelve which Andrews and Withey identified as making a substantial contribution are your health, your job, goods and services, your house or apartment, things to do with your family, time to do things, spare time activities, and an index of satisfaction with national government. Andrews and Withey (1974) observe that the twelve domains do as well in explaining satisfaction with overall quality of life as do a much larger list. They indicate that information concerning sex, income, race, age, family life cycle stage, and education add nothing more to understanding why some people are content with their lives and others are not. Domains tend to be organized along a dimension of close-to- far, relative to the personal life of the individual (Andrews and Withey, 1974). Truax (1974) proposes that the reason the discrepan- cies are greatest in the impersonal spheres (in correlating them to overall perceived quality of life) is that societal norms are more apparent there against which an individual can compare himself. Both Campbell et a1. and Andrews and Withey state that people reserve their ratings of greatest satisfaction for those parts of their lives that are the most personal and intimate. In the Campbell et a1. study, respondents were most satisfied with their marriage, second most satisfied with their family life, and least satisfied with savings and investments. Satisfaction was also low in the domain of .III--_____ 15 level of consumption, which Campbell et al. refer to as standard of living (1976). Andrews and Withey report that persons of low social and economic status, urban residents, and Blacks find life less satisfying than do their counterparts. Young people are less pleased with their lives than are older people. In general, there is little difference in the satisfactions expressed by men and women. Race and cultural values play a significant role in deter- mining the quality of life experience in contemporary American Society. In Converse et a1. study (1976, p. 451), Blacks were found to be more dissatisfied than whites with many areas of their lives which shows that the source of their feelings reaches deeper than economics. A quality of life study was done by Bubolz and Eicher et al. (1976) in a rural Michigan county. In 1975 the respondents felt quite satisfied with their life as a whole. A relatively high per- ceived quality of life was found. Values placed on an interesting life, developing oneself, family life and work were positively correlated with overall life satisfaction, while high values on safety and financial security were associated with a lower perceived life quality. The value placed on certain domains is significant in that Bubolz et al. (1976) state that quality of life is dependent on how well satisfied people are with what they consider important. They found, as did the two national studies mentioned earlier, that a relatively limited number of highly valued concerns can be used to 16 measure and predict perceived life quality. Family life, health, and work were those found to be valued quite highly (Bubolz et al., 1976). Satisfaction with items related to oneself, family relation- ships and environmental resources to meet survival needs were significantly related to overall quality of life in the Bubolz et al. study. These same items accounted for nearly 60 percent of the overall variance in perceived quality of life. The degree of satisfaction with accomplishing something, work, having an interesting life, fun, developing oneself and independence, all of which are related to self-concept and self-fulfillment, were significantly related to overall satisfaction with life. The findings of Bubolz et a1. were very similar to the results of the two University of Michigan studies except for minor variations because the Bubolz sample was mainly elderly. As income increased, perceived overall quality of life went up. Persons living alone were least satisfied, families including minor children at home were most satisfied, and adults with no children at home were in between. Higher life satisfaction was found among those younger, those with higher incomes, those employed, and those having family members living with them. Definitions of perceived overall quality of life include a need or want satisfaction. They include how people perceive and evaluate their lives in achieving a sense of well-being. People reserve their greatest satisfaction for those parts of their lives that are most intimate and personal. In each of the three quality of life studies reviewed, family life was a domain important to predicting overall quality of life. 17 Family life was found to be the most satisfying part of most people's lives. Family life is composed of many facets. Each of these facets could affect satisfaction with family life and perceived overall life quality in different ways. The facet of family life being examined in this study is non-market resource transfers. The frequency of these transfers is one indicator of the openness and closedness of the family to its environment. The frequency of non-market transfers could thus perhaps be related to satisfaction with them and with perceived overall quality of life. Non-market Resource Exchange Kenneth Boulding has developed a philosophy for viewing non- market resource exchange which is known as the grants economy. As defined by Boulding, in the grants economy, a non-market resource exchange is a transfer from one individual or economic unit in society to another which does not involve the contractual, reciprocal exchange characteristic of a market transaction (Bivens, 1976). It is impor- tant when dealing with the grants economy to draw the distinction between transfers and exchanges. An exchange is when A gives something to B and B gives something to A; a transfer is when A gives something exchangeable to B and B gives nothing exchangeable to A at that particular point in time (Boulding, 1973, p. 1). Grants can be made in benevolence (out of love or trust) or out of malevolence (threat). "One of the most important aspects of the grants economy is the role it plays in the building up of integra- tive structures and communities--that is, groups of people who have 18 some feelings of identification and benevolence toward each other" (Boulding, 1973, p. 27). Benevolent-motivated grants lead to feelings of goodwill, trust, and affection. Grants involve not only money, but also time and human resources. An example of nonmonetary grants is facilitating know-how; the family helps younger members to understand how to get into a certain vocation or profession or to develop their capacities to deal with bureaucracies, both public and private. Part of grants includes the function of the family as a culture-transmitter which includes attitude and value formation (Bivens, 1976, p. 73). Boulding (1972) states that nuclear households have been so stable because intimate relationship is very hard to sustain with increasing numbers of people. Serial reciprocity has been a core concept within families; it is the idea that I do something for some- body because somebody else has done something for me. Family is a powerful structure in the grants economy. Fami- lies support each other, also. Many of the things families do for each other without being paid could be classified as non-market resource transfers. The early research in non-market resource transfers could be categorized as mutual aid in the kin network. In the latter 1960s and in the 19705 the concept was expanded to include interfamily transfers including both kin and nonkin relationships as well as intrafamily transfers. Sussman (1953 and 1954) was among the first to point out empirically the lack of independence in middle-class families. A high rate of transfer of services occurred between parents and their 19 married children's families with the former contributing material goods such as furniture, household and kitchen equipment, aid in purchasing or building a house, loans or gifts of money as well as services of gardening, landscaping, house construction, painting and repairing the house, care of grandchildren, and provisions for inexpensive vacations for the married children or grandchildren. In return, parents expected and usually received continued affectional responses and many of the same services they had given. Sharp and Axelrod (1956) reported the extensive nature of mutual aid relationships among related nuclear families in Detroit in 1955. Seven out of ten couples both gave some kind of help to rela- tives and received some kind of help from relatives outside the immediate household. Only one out of one hundred in the p0pulation was without ties to relatives through the exchange of aid. Baby- sitting and help during illness were two of the most frequent forms of help between members of the family network. Financial aid and help with housework ranked next in importance. The type of help received from relatives was highly influenced by the position of the family in the life cycle as measured by the age of the wife. In addition to babysitting services, young wives received more types of help than wives at other ages. The study further bore out the fact that help occurred primarily among close relatives. For almost all types of help received or given, parents,'children, and siblings were much more likely to be involved than were other relatives. In 1956, Sussman (1959) studied kin and family relationships in middle-class and working-class families in Cleveland. The help items in the questions included care of children, help during 20 illness, financial aid, housekeeping, advice, and valuable gifts. The results of that study indicated there was no significant difference between socioeconomic classes in the amount given or received during an illness of a family member. Middle-class more than working-class grandmothers took care of the grandchildren while working-class couples tended to call upon married brothers and sisters for this service. Middle-class more than working-class families exchanged advice and gave valuable gifts to one another with the gifts flowing from parents to children rather than from young couples to families of siblings. Middle-class more than working-class parent and child families gave and received financial help with the flow going from parents to children. But the flow showed no significant differences by social class. Sussman and Burchinal's (1962) review of the literature per- taining to the mutual aid in the kin network structure concluded that help patterns are probably more widespread in middle and working class families. The forms of these patterns represent an exchange of services, gifts, advice, and financial assistance among and between parents and children, siblings, and more distant relatives. Financial aid is received most commonly during early years of.married life and this aid is usually from parents. The services that are performed regularly or on occasion include shopping, escorting, child care, advice giving, housekeeping tasks, servicing transient members on the move, and aid during crisis periods. One of the first studies to look at non-market transfers in an interfamily transfer focus and not exclusively mutual aid in the kin network is Morgan et al. (1966). They state that 9 out of every 21 10 families engage in unpaid productive activity other than regular housework. They define unpaid productive work as work which otherwise someone outside the family would have to do and perhaps be paid for. They look at housework first, then at other unpaid productive activi- ties, and finally at the receipt of labor from outside the household (work done for the family by someone outside the family whether received free or paid for). Since housework is dealt with in the Morgan study as an intrafamily function, it will not be included here. The categories of unpaid productive work were home production which included painting, repair work, and other "do it yourself" activities to save money, volunteer work, and time spent getting more education. Sex and marital status, number of people in family, type of structure in which family lives, size of town where family lives, and age of youngest child under eighteen living at home were the variables explaining 11 percent of the variance for home production. Couples living in single-family structures who devote a large part of their time to home production include those with large families having heads with at least some high school education, those who live in rural areas, and those who have no children under two years old at home. Overall, high-income families reported more hours of home production than low-income families. Non—whites appear to devote less time to home production. In looking at the volunteer work category of the Morgan et al. (1966) study, a significant positive relationship appeared between family income and hours devoted to volunteer work. Low income 22 families compensate for their small contributions of money by doing volunteer work, and high-income families compensate for their "scarce" time by giving more money. More volunteer work is also done by persons at higher educational levels. On the average, people with strong family ties reported doing more hours of unpaid productive work in the Morgan et al. (1966) study. The well educated, upper income, settled, home owning, married man and his wife do the most, more than the retired man with more time, and more than twice as much as the single man or single woman. Five percent of the families received free help from outside their families; 87 percent paid to have something done. Morgan et a1. (1966) suggest that it is more appropriate to use the aggregate amount of outside help rather than the separate components. Those components included laundry, child care, painting, repairs around the house, lawn care, and time saved by eating out. Three groups of factors affect the amount of outside help received: (1) economic factors such as the amount one could make by working more hours for money versus the cost of outside help, (2) constraints such as limited availability of outside help, (3) people's motives and desires. The factors, in order of importance, that affected hours of help received in 1964 by families outside the family are as follows: (1) hourly earnings of the head of family, (2) sex and marital status, (3) hours of work for money in 1964 by the wife, (4) education of the wife, and (5) age of the wife. The extreme groups of families receiving outside help are those with either a highly paid head who works more than full time, or a wife who is less than thirty-five and working more than half time and has children to be cared for. The families with younger 23 working wives received more outside help, particularly if there were children under eighteen in the family, and dramatically so if there were children under six at home. Emerson (1970) investigated the relationship between a description of kin network help patterns and family characteristics of those who received and gave help. High income, employment, and an urban residence were associated with help participation. Help in participating families was classified as to type, source, recipient. No significant difference between low and high socioeconomic participants according to type, source, and recipient of help appeared. There was no significant difference between participants at varying age periods, different marital status or with or without children under eighteen according to type of help received or given. However, there was a significant difference at the .05 level between partici- pants at different ages, marital status, and with or without children under eighteen according to source and recipient of help. Emerson (1970, p. 50) defined help received as $50 or more gifts of direct income, financial assistance, services, other types of help given. Direct income including food, clothing, and durable goods was the major type of help received. Services of housing and child care ranked second. Young families were more dependent on parents and other relatives as sources of help; middle-age families were dependent on parents, children, and other relatives while older families were more dependent on children and other relatives. Help was given to siblings and other relatives at all age periods. Presence of a spouse was related to strong dependency on parents as a source of help, while lack of a spouse was related to a dependency 24 on more members of the wider kin network. Families with children under eighteen received help from more sources but relied heavily on parents. Families with no children under eighteen received from fewer but evenly distributed sources. Participants with growing children gave more help to parents, while participants without growing children gave more help to grown children. Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973, p. 257) state that the distribu- tion of help received from relatives according to age is U-shaped with more help received by young families and those headed by someone with an aged head, then by families with a middle-aged head. Contri- butions made to members outside the family have an inverted U-shaped distribution, with families headed by middle-aged persons more likely to be helping relatives than either their older or younger counter- parts. In the reporting of interfamily transfers, the average reported received is lower than the reported donations. Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973) hypothesized that donations and receipt of income in the form of free help would supersede monetary contributions in importance especially among low-income families. However, the data did not support this hypothesis. When asked if they Spent more than forty hours helping friends or relatives in the pre- ceding year, almost two-thirds of family heads at low-income levels reported helping individuals outside the family. There was some variation in the pattern of helping relatives by age of head, varying from about 60 percent of the young heads who helped relatives to 20 percent for the oldest heads of families. But there did not seem to be a greater donation of time among low-income families, even 25 though the cost of an hour of their time is lower than that of a high- income person. Intra-family transfers, as defined by Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973), are the amount of resources transferred within the family from those earning more than they consume, to those consuming more than they earn. A substantial amount of this type of resource transfer takes place within the family and Baerwaldt and Morgan describe these in detail. The literature reviewed in this section reveals that non-market resource transfers do occur in families. It further reveals that those transfers tend to vary by certain demographic characteristics. They differ for transfers received from and given to others outside of the family. Satisfaction with the transfer will depend upon the frequency required to achieve the perceived need or want of a particu- lar resource. Satisfaction with the transfers could then affect per- ceived overall quality of life. The need or want for non-market resource transfers could differ by ethnic groups because of the cultural characteristics of the families. The characteristics affecting the need or want for non-market resource transfers could thus affect satisfaction with ‘them for that ethnic family. In turn, it could affect perceived overall quality of life. The last category in the literature review focuses in on 'literature about family in the Mexican American culture and in the SJeographic area of the Midwest. 26 Mexican American Family in the Midwest Ever since World War I the Southwest has been the gateway of Mexican Americans moving to other areas. They have moved partly of their own volition, and partly in response to labor recruitment, and quite often through a process of "peeling off" of the migratory stream of farm workers. People of Mexican heritage outside the Southwest region are greatly concentrated in the Midwest especially in Illinois. Michigan ranks second in number of persons of Mexican heritage in states outside the Southwest according to the 1970 census data with 65,329 (ULS. Bureau of the Census, 1970). Among the Midwest cities with sizable Spanish-surname populations are Chicago, Kansas City, Detroit, and Milwaukee. One of the first researchers to study Mexican Americans in the Midwest was Norman Humphrey. In the early 19305, Humphrey (December 1944) hypothesized that there would be a change in the structure of the family as a result of the impact of the new social and cultural environment. He found that the structure of the family in Detroit changed in three ways. First, the status role and corresponding con- cept of self of the father declined relative to that of the women and children. Second, the wife tended to retain previous status role position through greater retention of Mexican meanings and under- standings. And, third, the status role of children reversed itself particularly for the oldest boy. The status hierarchy changed from father, mother, son, daughter to son equal with father and above the mother and daugther. Humphrey (May 1946, p. 433) stated that the family kin system played an important role in adaptation to the new environments. A 27 new family moving into the area would usually move into the housing of a relative or friend. The "immigrant's" family would assimilate faster if the original family they moved in with was quite assimilated. The presence in the home of married children of the second generation hastened parental generation's assimilation of the American culture and allowed for a fusion of Mexican and American meanings, objects, and usages in domestic life. At that time the geographic mobility was great within the city, with constant movement from less desirable to more desirable homes within a neighborhood. Children were a big contributing factor in causing or introducing a change in family food habits. The men tended to learn English faster because of their greater contact outside the home. The findings of Arturo De Hoyos (1961) provide a basis for understanding why children assist the Mexican American family adapt to the environment after moving to the Midwest. He found that the level of occupational and educational aspirations of Mexican American youth in Lansing, Michigan, was positively correlated with their acculturation to the dominant society. These two variables, in turn, were also positively correlated with their socioeconomic status. Hi5 findings further showed that the youth had achieved more education than their parents and seemed to have a high level of occupational and educational aspirations. In terms of social participation, orientation to achievement values and language orientation, it was shown that the acculturation of the Mexican American youth advanced considerably. Bustrillos (1963) explored the decision-making styles of sixteen Mexican American homemakers living in an unincorporated area 28 between Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan. At the time of the study, each was living with her husband and had at least one dependent child. A decision-making style in the Bustrillos study was defined as a behavioral profile resulting from a combination of three elements: mode, time reference, and decision-making rule. The dimensions of these three elements were expected to concentrate in three general decision-making styles. They were: (1) hypothetical oriented style consisting of hypothetical mode, future time reference, and preference ranking; (2) factual oriented style consisting of factual mode, past- time reference and objective elimination; (3) action oriented style consisting of action-suggestive mode, present time reference, and immediate closure. The mode tended to be factual for these Mexican American home- makers; the hypothetical mode appeared least often. The present time reference was most frequently mentioned. It was utilized in thirty- eight out of forty-eight decisions. Preference ranking was the decision-making rule utilized most, and immediate closure was utilized the least. Of the three predicted styles, only the factual one emerged. Combining the three elements of the decision-making styles, factual-present-preference ranking was utilized by one-third of the homemakers. Bustrillos (1963) found that the homemakers used two or more styles in arriving at a decision. But they tended to use one dimen- sion of an element at least twice in their decision processes suggesting that for a wider range of decision problems, they might predominantly employ a certain style. The nature of the problem was 29 found to affect the number of dimensions of the elements used and the number of styles employed. Samora and Lamanna (1967) state that the family is undoubtedly the best starting point for a study of the social life of a Mexican colony and that East Chicago is no exception to this pattern. They examined the kinds of changes that have occurred and the kinds of problems that have developed as the Mexican-American has tried to adapt himself and his family to the demands of life in a culturally heterogeneous, urban, industrial community. When Samora and Lamanna (1967) compared the population of East Chicago to that of the entire United States, among the most notable differences was the greater than expected proportion of very young (preschoolers) and the greater than expected pr0portion of males in the working ages. The high proportion of very young is a consequence of the group's very high fertility. Migration has continued to be substantial because the nearby employment opportunities attract to the area a considerable number of young single male workers. This large pool of unattached males is one indication of the now limited scope of traditional family controls. Many unattached males, however, find their way into established households. Almost 4 percent of the population in households consists of non-relatives of the head of the household (Samora and Lamanna, 1967, p. 33). The families were relatively stable in East Chicago. Almost 89 percent of the residents under eighteen years of age lived with both parents according to Samora and Lamanna (1967, p. 33). The welfare records of East Chicago indicated that very few Mexican 30 Americans received aid to dependent children. This basic stability and self-sufficiency as well as the tendency to marry within the colony, as indicated by the small number of inter-ethnic marriages, is important in accounting for the social and cultural continuity of the colony and in preserving the cultural distinctiveness of the group. Parental control continued to be extreme by American standards. The survival of traditional practices, such as the formal coming out party for fifteen-year-old girls, even with their contemporary adapta- tions, suggests the continuing ties with the past and its traditional family values. Certain social strains, however, were beginning to be felt in the family life of the Mexican-Americans in East Chicago according to Samora and Lamanna. The aging population and the high fertility of the group produced a high dependency ratio. The growing number of unattached older people is likely to become a problem in the future and the growing number of children is likely to put added pressure on the material resources of the families. The housing, already overcrowded and in inadequate supply and quality, is likely to get worse. The spatial dispersion of the population is also likely to undermine the group's cultural distinctiveness. According to Samora and Lamanna (1967), the Mexican American family has held up quite well under the impact of urbanization, industrialization, and acculturation. It still constitutes the major reservoir of traditional culture and also constitutes the major focus of conflict between old and the new, between the Mexican heritage and the American experience, between the traditional family structure and the demands of an urban-industrial social system. 31 An assumption often expressed about Mexican Americans is that the reason for the lack of rapid upward occupational mobility among Mexican Americans lies in the overly exaggerated influence of the family. However, the findings of a research project by Shannon and Shannon (1973) in Racine, Wisconsin, have some interesting implications in relation to the assumption. The main focus of the Shannon and Shannon study (1973) was the adjustment problems of inmigrant Mexican Americans in a northern industrial community around 1960. A very significant discovery for the researchers was that as the study progressed, the findings sug— gested the focus of attention should change from the individual to the social organization of the community which was the most powerful determinant of the way of life of the inmigrant Mexican American. They state that knowledge of the nature of the association of the Mexican American may be the most powerful predictor of who will be absorbed into the economy and who will be integrated into the larger culture within each race or ethnic group. The findings of the study deal with that community emphasis. Those findings include (1) There are indications that race and ethnicity have overshadowed lack of education and lack of appropriate work experience. (2) Having a high school education or partial high school education did not seem to help the inmigrant minority group member push above the job or occupational level corresponding with an eighth grade education, even with increased time in the community. (3) Race and ethnicity were efficient predictors of level of economic absorption because for Mexican Americans early life experience had handicapped them and the larger society was organized 32 in such a way as to limit the extent to which they could be absorbed into the economy. (4) Mexican Americans perceived themselves as having moved upward as a consequence of their geographic mobility though far from levels of living of the Anglos in the larger community. (5) The educational and occupational aspirations of the Mexican Americans were lower. (6) There was low level of social participation of Mexican Americans in voluntary associations. (7) The level of aspiration as an indicator of cultural integration may be closely related to the inmigrant's socioeconomic status than to his race or ethnicity. Haney (1972) did a comparison of the literature on Mexican Americans in three geographic areas: rural Mexico, the Southwest, and the Midwest. Familial authority was the emphasis of the comparison. Authority was defined as legitimate superior-subordinate relation- ships and the right to make decisions. The overall conclusions of Haney's study were that the greatest changes in ordering authority relationships within the family occurred between the two areas in which the greatest change in environ- ment occurred--between rural Mexico and the Southwest. Such changes in authority that occurred between the areas where environmental differences were slight were basically intensifications of the changes encountered above. And, Haney (1972) suggests that conjugal ties strengthen and familial roles become less rigidly divided sexually in response to the pressures of learning a new culture. She also suggested that this may apply to interpersonal relationships between all nuclear family members, not just relations between husband and wife. 33 According to Haney (1972, p. 138) there does appear to be a positive relationship between urbanization and industrialization of the Mexican American people and a greater equality between sexes and age levels in the family. However, the changes are slight and much of the change which is found is noted in second and succeeding genera- tions. The changes in patterning of familial authority found may therefore be a function of adaptation not only to the process of urbanization but to the process of assimilation into the culture of the majority p0pulation as well. There is evidence of considerable visiting back and forth between relatives throughout the areas. One aspect of retaining relations with extended kin which appears in the Midwest is a migration back to the Southwest. In the case of urban Mexican American families, there appears to have been more change in the male role and expectations than in the female role. Women still find their major role as wives and mothers, but men find their role shifting ideally from authoritarian to egalitarian. In the situation where the Mexican American left most of the family behind, the husband and wife rely more on each other because kin are not around. There is more outside interaction with co-workers, neighbors, and other individuals. It is in this situation, also, where the husband and wife relationship is more egalitarian. Weeks and Spielberg (1973) addressed the issue of the tendency to treat Mexican Americans as a group of people whose cultural, social, and demographic structures could be viewed as one undifferentiated mass. Those who do this generalizing have ignored the diversity of 34 timing and patterning of migration and also the social and cultural adaptive adjustments. The emphasis of the study was placed on the interrelation- ships between the nature of the organizational life, population size, and heterogenity in two broadly contrasting communities of Detroit, Michigan, and Fremont, Ohio. They found that a relatively large population and a relatively high degree of heterogeneity is necessary to the process of evolving higher levels of social organizational complex. Detroit exhibited these characteristics. In Fremont the population was small and recently out of the migrant stream, was characterized by social and cultural homogeneity, and had little organizational complexity. There were mostly familistic groups and churches which duplicated each other. Maria Rita Echeverri M. (1974) carried out a small study of eleven Mexican American families in Muskegon in 1974. She found that the majority of women interviewed were in agreement that children ought to begin to learn at home before entering school. There was a major desire for bilingual education. Families of Mexican origin would accept programs related to the education of the preschoolers. The educational aspirations of the mothers for their children was university level and they agreed that basic competencies for this level need to be learned early. As a result of her preliminary study, she suggested that Mexican American mothers are more crucial agents in the socialization of their preschool children than are the fathers in these families. She also suggested that unilingual inter- viewers obtain less information when interviewing Mexican American mothers than do bilingual interviewers. 35 Caine (1974) addressed the fact that Mexican Americans are characteristically viewed as an unculturated group. This is not to say that the Mexican American is seen as truly Mexican in his culture, but instead that the Mexican American is viewed as representing some halfway point between Mexican and American culture. His findings showed that Anglos were more socioeconomically mobile than Mexican Americans in that they had overall better job experiences. When comparing job or employment status held previously to the one presently held, there was little difference between Anglos and Mexican Americans. The length of residence in the community of St. Paul, age, and marital status did not vary substantially by ethnic classification. Occupational mobility, amount of education, geographi— cal mobility, length of residence in the state of Minnesota and number of children did vary with Mexican Americans having experienced less of all characteristics except geographic mobility and children. He also found that the cultural and lifestyle characteristics of the Mexican American group were not, according to his established criteria, different from the Anglo community. It was further found by Caine (1974) that the sampled com- munity could be divided according to interaction network types defined by the kinds of social networks of families. He found that the Mexican Americans hold to the core values of the community, but they express these values very differently. They seek to confront the problems of their community and to do something about these problems rather than just leaving things to the existing institutions. And, they are also very family centered. But their family centeredness is very different from that of the others in the community. Children 36 have status as children, but as children they are treated as indivi- duals with individual needs. Family activities are not adult-centered but nuclear family centered, being planned with both adults and children in mind. They are, in a sense, very middle class yet the quotations of the respondents in the text showed they are not really middle class at all. Their immediate world is still the immediate community and its values and opportunities. Michael Miller (1975) presented a paper at the 1975 Rural Sociological Society annual meetings that provided a framework of reference on the sociology of the Mexican American family. Miller states that "the" Mexican American family does not exist. He further states that the greatest variation from the "traditional" model of family is found in Midwest cities. Miller states that there is a conspicuous absence of extended households in Midwest Mexican American families. Role changes have also been most dramatic in the Midwest. The most significant change has been between father and children. The children are usually most acculturated and proficient in English so they serve as the linker to the outside world. The importance and relevance of the kinship relations has declined as the Mexican American has moved residentially out of the barrio according to Miller. Since 1920, there has been a noticeable increase in intermarriage for Mexican Americans in the Midwest especially in the heavy industrial areas. Intermarriage is related to occupational status, education, and ethnic make-up of the neighborhood. Spielberg (1977) outlines and gives a brief description of dimensions which shape the nature of Mexican American's work-related 37 values. He suggests that the family, as a social group, is what basically defines and coordinates the relevance of age, sex, and kin- ship roles for determining, "Who am I?" He further postulates that among Mexican Americans the family stands for or achieves this coordination of self-identity dimension through a particularly well delineated pattern of differential privileges and obligations made evident in the behavioral manifestations of authority, respect, and the division of labor within the family. Spielberg thus concludes that the extent to which success or failure in work shapes the individual's estimate of himself depends on Mexican American values more than the impersonal world's judgement. Summary of the Literature The literature review was divided into three separate cate- gories: Mexican American family in the Midwest, non-market resource transfers, and quality of life. Family life is still central to the Mexican American in the Midwest despite the impact of urbanization, industrialization, and acculturation. The Mexican American family has done well in maintaining continuity in the face of massive social changes and economic hardship. Literature on non-market resource transfers at first investigated almost solely mutual aid in the kin network structure. It has recently expanded to include interfamily transfers within and outside of the kin network as well as intra- family transfers. Subjective measures of quality of life show family life to be highly correlated with overall perceived quality of life measure. 38 No study investigates the relationships between these three concepts which is the primary purpose of this study. Interfamily transfers are a part of family life. Family life is central to Mexican American life and to subjective measures of quality of life. Neither quality of life literature, nor non-market resource transfer literature had samples with significant numbers of Mexican Americans. It seems logical, then, for a study of the interrelatedness of these concepts to be an appropriate direction for a family ecologist to take. Family ecologists are concerned with the interrelatedness of the family and its environments. Frequency of non-market transfers of a family is one way of viewing the openness or closedness of that family to its environment. Satisfaction with the frequency of those transfers is an indication of how the family feels about its level of Openness. The relationship between satisfaction with the frequency of transfers and preceived overall quality of life is an indication of its effect on overall life perception. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study focused on the relationship between frequency of non-market resource transfers, perceived overall quality of life, and specific demographic variables that might affect these relationships. Data collected in the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project NC-128, "Quality of Life According to Residence," were used to answer research questions about the interrelationships. These data were collected from families in the metropolitan area of Saginaw, Michigan, during the months of November and December, 1977, and January and February, 1978. Data were also collected in a rural area of Michigan. However, only the data from the urban sample were included in this study. The Michigan study was part of a regional study which included the following fourteen states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas. Arizona, California, Colorado, and Texas collected data on totally Mexican samples as was the case in Michigan. Each of the states in the project used a common (primary) instrument and compiled a unique (secondary) package. The questions on non-market resource transfers were developed by Purdue University and were included in the Michigan secondary package interview schedule. 39 40 The instrument included sections on frequency of non-market resource transfers, value of these transfers, the nature of the person or persons with whom the resources are transferred, and satisfaction with the transfers, While Michigan data were collected on all of these sections, only the questions on frequency of non-market resource transfers and satisfaction with these transfers were analyzed for this report. The quality of life question and the demographic characteris- tics were taken from questions in the primary interview schedule. This schedule was developed by a regional committee composed of peOple from the participating states. A complete listing of the questions used to obtain data is located in Appendix A. This researcher participated in several stages of the Michigan research project. Those stages included development of the interview schedule, selection and training of the interviewers, supervision of the interviewers, selection of the sample, and coding of the data. Discussion in this chapter takes the following order: 1. Sample Design and Selection 2. Description of the Sample 3. Data Collection 4 Operational Definitions 5. Assumptions 6. Analysis of Data Sample Design and Selection Michigan had ten standard metropolitan statistical areas which met the sampling criteria of the NC-128 Project which was that 41 the large metropolitan areas have a population between 50,000 and 250,000. Out of those ten, four communities had over 1,000 Spanish- speaking families with children under 18, which provided a sufficient concentration to obtain the 100 sample families needed in the urban area. The four communities were Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing-East Lansing, and Saginaw. Saginaw was randomly selected from those four communities. The original sample design was to be a systematic random area sampling design that assured the probability of proportionate represen— tation of city blocks where the highest concentration of Mexican Americans was found. However, after receiving input from the inter— viewers in the training session, an alternative sampling procedure was selected in order to maximize the project's resources. Since the sample families had to have both parents and at least one child, 18 years of age or younger, the cost in both time and money would be too great to do a systematic random sampling of city blocks. As an alternative method, sample families were selected from a list of Spanish surnames taken from the Polk City Directory for Saginaw. The Latin American Affairs Department of the Catholic Diocese of Saginaw composed the list. It included names and addresses. Based upon the fact that 43 percent of the Mexican American families in Saginaw had children under 18 and using 80 percent as a beginning cooperating figure, at least 135 names were decided as the number needed to obtain the 100 eligible families. A 4 percent sampling ratio was determined by dividing the total number of names in the list, 3551, by the number that needed to be selected, 135. The 42 selection began with a random number. Every twenty-fifth name from then on until the end of the list was selected to obtain the original 101 names that were distributed to the interviewers. There is a dis- crepancy between the 135 names that were needed and the first selection of 101 names because there were less than 3551 in the original list. To be eligible, the household had to have a family with both parents, at least one being Mexican American. It also had to have at least one child, 18 years old or younger, living in the home. One parent, who was randomly selected, was interviewed in each family. The other parent and the oldest child between 12 and 18, if there was one, completed a self—administered questionnaire. Four similar, additional selections were made from the original list to obtain sufficient names due to loss from ineligibility, refusals, sample list errors such as no house or address, moves, vacant dwellings, not at home after three visits, or interviewer dropout. The second selection included 99 additional names; third selection, 99; fourth selection, 100; and the fifth selection, 202 names for a total of 600 selected names. Using this sampling proce- dure, data were secured from 106 families in Saginaw. A table which accounts for all names selected from the original list is located in Appendix B. Description of Sample Each of the sample families was an intact family with at least one of the parents being Mexican American. It also had at least one child, 18 years old or younger living at home. 43 For the project as a whole data were collected through an interview with one parent in the family and through self-administered questionnaires for the other parent and a child between 12 and 18, if there was one in the family. However, for this study, only data from the interviewed parent were used. As a result, data were collected from both husbands and wives. The sample included more wives than husbands, as is shown in Table 1. Table 1.--Sex of Adult Respondents. Sex Number Percentage Husbands 30 28.3 Wives 76 71.7 Total 106 100.0 The range of family incomes for the sample is shown in Table 2. Nine families refused to answer this question. The largest group of family incone was $12,000-$19,999, and the second largest was $11,999 or less. This indicated that over one- half (56.7 percent) of the sample had family incomes between $12,000 and $19,999. There were more families with incomes below $11,999 (25.8 percent) than there were families with incomes above $20,000 (17.5 percent). The median family income of the sample was $13,649 compared to $15,958 for Saginaw in 1977. This census figure was adjusted from the 1969 median family income data (Michigan Statistical Abstract, 1977), based on per capita income percentage changes from 44 Table 2.--Family Income. Percent of Those Income Number Responding $11,999 or less 25 25.8 $12,000-$19.999 55 56.7 $20,000-$49,999 17 17.5 Refused 9 -- Total 106 100.0 1969 to 1974 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977) and consumer price index changes from 1975 to December 1977 (Survey of Current Business, 1978). The ages of the respondents, as is true of the other demo— graphic characteristics, were grouped so that the sample was as evenly distributed over the groups as possible. The grouping was necessary to have enough people in each cell for the analysis procedures. Table 3 indicates the ages of the respondents. Table 3.--Age of Respondents. Age Group Number Percentage 19-29 38 35.8 30-40 30 28.3 41-73 38 35.8 Total 106 100.0 45 Level of education is shown in Table 4; 68.3 percent of the respondents had not completed high school, 24.3 percent had completed seventh grade or less, 3.4 percent completed eighth grade through eleventh grade, and 41.7 percent completed high school or received some training beyond high school. Three respondents refused to answer the question. Respondents' level of education is compared to Saginaw S.M.S.A. in Table 4 (Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, 1970). The median number of years of education for this sample was 10.3 years as compared to 10.6 for persons of Spanish language throughout the state of Michigan (Michigan Statistical Abstract, 1977, p. 97). Table 4.--Leve1 of Education of Respondents. Percentage Percentage of Years Of SCh001 Completed Saginaw SMSA Those Responding 0-7 years 13.2 24.3 8-11 years 40.1 34.0 High school completion-- any additional training 46.7 41.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Number 43,335 103 Refused -- 3 The number of children living at home is shown in Table 5. The largest group of respondents (45.3 percent) had three or four children living at home. The next largest group (34.9 percent) were 46 Table 5.--Number of Children Living at Home. Number of Children Living at Home Number Percentage l and 2 37 34.9 3 and 4 48 45.3 5-13 21 19.8 Total 106 100.0 those families with one or two children living at home; 19.8 percent had five through thirteen children living at home. The age of the youngest child living at home is shown in Table 6. The largest percentage of the sample (42.5 percent) had children living at home between the ages of O and 4 years old. The next largest group (32.1 percent) had children living at home between 5 and 11 years old. The youngest child living at home was between 12 and 18 for one-fourth of the sample (25.5 percent). Number of years that the respondents had lived in the community is shown in Table 7. The largest group (43.4 percent) had lived in the community from eleven to twenty-nine years. The same percentage (28.3) had lived in the community less than ten years or over fifty years. The number of years married is shown in Table 8. The largest group (42.5 percent) has been married between one and ten years. Only slightly fewer (36.8 percent) were married between eleven and twenty- five years; 20.8 percent had been married from twenty-six to fifty-five years . 47 Table 6.--Age of Youngest Child Living at Home. Age of Youngest Child Living at Home Number Percentage 0-4 years 45 42.5 5-11 years 34 32.1 12-18 years 27 25.5 Total 106 100.0 Table 7.--Number of Years Lived in Community. Number of Years Lived in Comunity Number Percentage 1-10 years 30 28.3 11-29 years 46 43.4 30-50 years 30 28.3 Total 106 100.0 Table 8.--Number of Years Married. Numbfigrofezears Number Percentage 1-10 years 45 42.5 11-25 years 39 36.8 26-55 years 22 20.8 Total 106 100.0 48 Data Collection Personal interviews of one parent in the family and self- administered questionnaires of the other parent and the oldest teenager between 12 and 18, if there was one, were used to elicit and collect information for the project. The information about non-market resource transfers was collected only through parent interview. The interview schedules and the self-administered questionnaires were available in both Spanish and English. The contacts made in the first visit to the community were the County Extension Office and the Latin American Affairs Office. The County Extension Office had a Mexican American staff member who provided the project with some good leads for potential interviewers. More leads were obtained from the Latin American Affairs Office. An initial set of Mexican American interviewers was selected who were over 18 and could both read and write Spanish and English. Five women and one man were in the initial set of interviewers. All interviewers were trained prior to data collection. Interviewer training was held for two full days. It included back— ground information on the project, sampling procedures and screening, explanation of the use of the primary and secondary interview schedule, distribution and collection of the self-administered parent and teenager questionnaires, and role-playing of the initial contact and the interview itself. Names of the interviewers and a letter of explanation about the study, its purpose, and contact person for the study were shared with organizations and governmental bodies within the city. City chief of police, city mayor, city manager, Chamber of Commerce, County 49 Clerk, County Extension, and City Clerk were the offices that were given the information. In addition, the information was shared with the Latin American Affairs Office and the churches in the area because they cooperated in suggesting potential interviewer names and also had frequent contact with the Mexican American population in Saginaw. In addition to the community contacts, each interviewer was given a Spanish and English identification letter and an identifica- tion badge. These two things identified the interviewers with the project. If there were further questions by potential respondents, they could call any of the agencies that we had already contacted. Two of the six initial interviewers never went out into the field. One interviewer completed only two families. Another took four weeks before completing two families. As a result, a second wave of interviewer screening was held. Additional criteria used in securing more interviewers were that they be middle-aged, that they have as much education as possible, and that they not have a full—time job. The original criteria of being Mexican American and being able to read and write Spanish and English remained. Interviewers who were Mexican American, bilingual, and not already employed in the labor force were very hard to find. The inclusion of more specific criteria for the second wave of interviewer screening was a result of difficulties encountered with the first group. Interviewers who were younger, taking college classes, or who had full-time jobs put other priorities before the interviewing. Those interviewers who were middle-aged and had no other full—time job in the labor market were most successful. Those interviewers with 50 more education were able to grasp the interview process much more quickly. The second group of six interviewers was trained in one day. This time span provided less time for role-playing. As a result, more time was spent in supervision of these interviewers until they fully understood the process and the questions. Supervision of the interviewers was accomplished through a weekly appointment with each interviewer. At that time, completed schedules and questionnaires were examined. Telephone calls were utilized to follow-up on small amounts of missing data or to clarify confusing data. Major corrections were followed up with another visit to the respondent's residence. At times questions arose that needed immediate attention; interviewers then called the project director. When data for 106 families were completely collected, a debriefing session was held with the interviewers. Questions were asked in this session which provided an overall picture of how respondents reacted to the schedule or questionnaire. Operational Definitions Non-migrant Michigan Mexican American: A Mexican American who has had a Michigan permanent mailing address for a period of at least one year. The sample ranged from one year to fifty-five years. The median number of years in the state was twenty-six, the mean was twenty-four and one-half. Non-market Resource Transfer: The transfers that others do for the family and that the family does for others in each of the following household maintenance categories: 51 1. Babysit, take care of children after school, check on sick or elderly, run errands 2. Do or help with painting, carpentry, plumbing, electric repairs, lawn work, moving 3. Do or help with care and repairs of cars or other vehicles 4. Do or help with sewing, cleaning, other housework 5. Share extras such as garden produce, prepared food, fish and other things 6. Transportation Quality of Life: Indication of the satisfaction or dissatis- faction by the respondent with their quality of life according to the following scale: Extremely Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Mixed 1 2 3 4 Somewhat Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied 5 6 7 Mexican American: One who has a Spanish surname in Saginaw Polk Directory and classifies himself as a Mexican American on the interview eligibility sheet. Satisfaction with Non-market Resource Transfers: Indication of the level of satisfaction of both the things the family does for others and the things other people do for the family according to the following scale: 52 Extremely Somewhat _ Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Mixed 1 2 3 4 Somewhat Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied 5 6 7 family: An intact group containing both parents and at least one child eighteen years of age or younger in the home. Age: Actual age at last birthday as reported by respondent and grouped as follows: 1. 19-29 years 2. 30-40 years 3. 41-73 years Education Level: Highest grade or year of school the respondent has completed. Completion of high school and all types of post—high school education, college, or vocational training were treated as one category. 1. 0-7 years 2. 8-11 years 3. High school completion, plus any additional training Inggme: Total reported income of all family members before taxes in the last twelve months. It includes all sources of income such as earned income, investments, social security, their own busi- ness, job-related benefits, and welfare benefits. 1. $11,999 or less, low 2. $12,000-$19,999, middle 3. $20,000-$49,999, high Number 53 of Children Living at Home as reported by respondent and grouped as l. 2. 3. Age of follows: 1 and 2 children 3 and 4 children 5-13 children Youngest Child Living at Home as reported by respondent and grouped as 1. 2. 3. Number follows: 0-4 years old 5-11 years old 12-18 years old of Years Lived in Community as reported by respondent and grouped as 1. 2. 3. Number follows: 1-10 years 11-29 years' 30-50 years of Years Married as reported by respondent and grouped as follows: 1. 2. 3. 1—10 years 11-25 years 26—55 years Assumptions l. The survey research design, using an interview schedule, was an appropriate method for collecting information on non-market resource transfers, satisfaction with their transfers, and perceived overall quality of life. 54 2. Respondents were able to record accurately the frequency of non-market resource transfers. 3. Respondents can assess their satisfactions with various parts of their lives as well as their life as a whole. 4. The seven household maintenance categories asked in reference to what the family does for others and what others do for the family adequately measure frequency of non-market resource transfers. Analysis of Data Statistical Methods In order to detennine the relationships between frequency of non-market resource transfers, satisfaction with these resource transfers, quality of life, and specific demographic characteristics, two nonparametric statistical methods were selected: Chi-square and Kendall's tau. Nonparametric statistics or distribution-free methods do not assume that the underlying distribution of the population approximates a normal curve. They depend on the use of the median rather than the mean (Siegel, 1956, p. 3). Most nonparametric tests apply to data in an ordinal scale (Siegel, 1956, p. 31). Chi-square (x2) is suitable for analyzing data where the researcher is interested in the number of subjects which fall in various categories. It is used to test whether a significant differ- ence exists between an observed number of subjects falling in each category and an expected number based on the null hypothesis (Siegel, 1956, p. 43). 55 The chi-square test of statistical significance helps to determine whether a systematic relationship exists between two vari— ables. In addition, Kendall's tau, a measure of association between two ordinal-level variables, was employed to determine the direction of the relationship. The mutual association is expressed from a perfect positive association (+1) to a perfect negative correlation (-1) (Nie et al., 1975, p. 227). In the contingency table analysis, two Kendall rank-order correlation measures were applied, taub and tauc. Taub was utilized with square tables when the number of rows equalled the number of columns in the tabulation. When a rectangular table (one with an unequal number of rows and columns) was produced, tauC was obtained (Nie et al., p. 228). Tied ranks are taken into consideration. In general, the absolute value of tau tends to be smaller than that of Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (Nie et al., 1975, p. 289). The combination of chi-square test of significance and the tau measure of association was used to determine the relationships of frequency of non-market resource transfers, satisfaction with trans- fers, and quality of life with the demographic characteristics. It was also employed to determine relationships between frequency of non-market transfers and satisfaction with non-market transfers, and between satisfaction with non—market transfers and quality of life. The same statistical procedure was used in the third variable analysis. It was done when the two variable analyses were statis- tically significant. In the third variable analysis, the 56 relationships were determined between the independent and dependent variables controlling for certain demographic characteristics. The hypotheses were accepted if the significance level was less than or equal to .05. However, for all other two variable analyses a significance level of .10 was utilized. At the two variable analysis stage, .10 was chosen because at this point all possible relationships needed to be included. For this reason, the relation- ship of frequency of what others do for family-housework and satisfac- tion with what others do for family was included with a significance level of .088. The final test for relationships was at the three variable analysis stage. The significance level utilized at this stage was .05. Computer Programs Analysis was done by the Control Data Corporation 6500 model computer using the 7.0 version of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et al., 1975). All of the computations were implemented at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains the results of the analyses of the data. The results are presented under the following section headings: 1. Description of Independent and Dependent Variables 2. Tests of Hypotheses 3. Research Questions 1-3 4. Introduction to Third Variable Analysis 5. Research Questions 4-5 6. Summary of Findings Description of Independent and Dependent Variables The first step in the analysis was to determine the distribu- tion of the responses across the categories for frequency of non- market resource transfers, satisfaction with non-market resource transfers, and quality of life. This type of analysis was also done with the demographic variables; however, the frequency distributions are located in Chapter III under description of the sample. Frequency of What Family Does for Others The transfer frequencies of what family does for others are shown in Table 9. From most to least frequent, those transfers made 57 58 Table 9.—-Percent of Responses in Each Category for Frequency of What Family Does for Others. Several Several Several Response Never Seldom Times Times Times Year Month Week 1. Babysit, take care of 14.2 33.0 11.3 30.2 11.3 children after school, check on sick or elderly, run errands 2. Do or help with painting, 22.6 41.5 16.0 18.9 .9 carpentry, plumbing, electric repairs, lawn work, moving 3. Do or help with care and 31.1 39.6 12.3 16.0 .9 repairs of cars and other vehicles 4. Do or help with sewing, 32.1 29.2 11.3 19.8 7.5 cleaning, other housework 5. Share extras such as 18.9 35.8 20.8 19.8 4.7 garden produce, prepared food, fish, and other things 6. Transportation 15.1 34.0 15.1 30.2 5.7 59 several times a week were taking care of family members, housework, transportation, and sharing extras. House repairs and vehicle repairs were done the least often in the several times a week category. Taking care of family members and transportation were equal in frequency and the most frequent transfers in the several times a month category. The others in order of frequency in this category were housework, sharing extras, house repairs, and vehicle repairs. Sharing extras was the most frequent transfer in the several times a year category followed by house repairs, transportation, vehicle repairs, housework, and taking care of family members. In order of frequency from most to least, the seldom category included the following: house repairs, vehicle repairs, sharing extras, transportation, taking care of family members, and housework. The never category included this ranking from most frequent to least frequent: housework, vehicle repairs, house repairs, sharing extras, transportation, and taking care of family members. Frequency of What Others Do for Family The transfer frequencies of what others do for the family are shown in Table 10. The two most frequent transfers in the several times a week category were taking care of family members and transportation. House repairs, vehicle repairs, sharing extras were all equally frequent transfers in this category. No one reported doing housework for the family several times a week. Transportation was the most frequent transfer in the several times a week category followed by taking care of family members and 60 Table lO.--Percent of Responses in Each Category for Frequency of What Others Do for Family. Several Several Several Response Never Seldom Times Times Times Year Month Week l. Babysit, take care of 20.8 51.9 17.0 7.5 2.8 children after school, check on sick or elderly, run errands 2. Do or help with painting, 23.6 58.5 12.3 4.7 .9 carpentry, plumbing, electric repairs, lawn work, moving 3. Do or help with care and 26.4 50.9 14.2 7.5 .9 repairs of cars and other vehicles 4. Do or help with sewing, 38.7 46.2 8.5 6.6 -- cleaning, other housework 5. Share extras such as 22.6 48.1 22.6 5.7 .9 garden produce, prepared food, fish, and other things 6. Transportation 21.7 50.9 15.1 9.4 2.8 61 vehicle repairs. The least frequently done transfers were housework, sharing extras, and house repairs. In order of frequency from most to least in the several times a year category were sharing extras, taking care of family members, transportation, vehicle repairs, house repairs, and housework. The seldom category had the largest percentages. All transfers neared 50 percent. From most to least frequent, the transfers range as follows in the seldom category: house repairs, taking care of family members, vehicle repairs, transportation, sharing extras, and house- work. In the never category the most frequent transfer is housework. This transfer is followed in order of frequency by vehicle repairs, house repairs, sharing extras, transportation, and taking care of family members. Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others The frequency of satisfaction with what family does for others is shown in Table 11. The most frequent category is satisfied. There is a big jump in frequency, then, to the somewhat satisfied category. After that from most frequent to least frequent were mixed, extremely satisfied, extremely dissatisfied, and somewhat satisfied. No one responded in the dissatisfied category. Satisfaction with What Others 00 for Family The frequency of satisfaction with what others do for family is shown in Table 11. 62 Table ll.--Percent of Responses for Satisfaction with Non-Market Resource Transfers. $251322? item-1; Extremely Dissatisfied 2.8 2.8 Dissatisfied -- 1.9 Somewhat Dissatisfied 1.9 1.9 Mixed 9.4 6.6 Somewhat Satisfied 11.3 12.3 Satisfied 66.0 63.2 Extremely Satisfied 7.5 8.5 Missing .9 2.8 Total TIMETT TINT]; Again, the most frequent category was satisfied. After a drop in frequency the order of categories from most frequent to least fre- quent was somewhat satisfied, extremely satisfied, mixed, somewhat dissatisfied, dissatisfied, and somewhat dissatisfied. Quality of Life The frequency distribution of quality of life is shown in Table 12. The most frequent category was satisfied. In order of fre- quency from most to least for the remaining categories were somewhat satisfied, extremely satisfied, mixed, and extremely dissatisfied. No one responded in the dissatisfied and somewhat dissatisfied categories. 63 Table 12.--Percent of Responses for Quality of Life. Response Percent Extremely Dissatisfied .9 Dissatisfied -- Somewhat Dissatisfied -- Mixed 2.8 Somewhat Satisfied 13.2 Satisfied 74.5 Extremely Satisfied 7.5 Missing .9 Total TOOTO To summarize the frequencies of the independent and dependent variables, the distributions were not similar to those of a normal curve. The most frequent transfer in what family does for others was taking care of family members; the least frequent transfer was house- work. The most frequent transfers in what others do for family were taking care of family members and transportation; the least frequent transfer was housework. In general, respondents showed more transfers being done by the family for others than transfers being done by others for the family. Satisfied was the most frequent category for satisfaction with both what the family does for others and what others do for family as well as for quality of life. 64 Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 (null): There is no relationship between frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others. Kendall's tau was found by tabulating each transfer category of what family does for others with satisfaction with what family does for others. Statistically significant results at p < .10 are presented in Table 13. Chi—squares and other Kendall's taus which were not significant are located in Appendix C. The findings indicated that of the non-market resource transfers that family does for others, vehicle repairs, housework, sharing extras and transportation were positively and significantly associated with satisfaction with what the family does for others. They were all positively related at a significant level of less than .05 A total score of what family does for others for each respondent was computed by first assigning weight and then adding together the responses for each of the individual transfers. A Kendall's tau was computed between this total of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others. The results indicated that T = .290 at a significance level of .0009. The total of what family does for others was significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with what family does for others. Taking the transfers individually, the hypothesis was supported only for vehicle repair, housework, sharing extras, and transporta- tion. In addition, the hypothesis was supported when using a total score of what the family does for others. 65 Table 13.--Kenda11's Tau for Frequency of Transfer and Satisfaction with Transfer with p < .10 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with What Family Does What Others Do for Others for Family T p T p Do or help with painting, .226 .001 carpentry, plumbing, electric repairs, lawn work, moving Do or help with care .189 .026 .171 .041 and repair of cars and other vehicles Do or help with sewing, .202 .019 .133 .088 cleaning, or other housework Share extras such as .189 .026 garden produce, prepared food, fish and other things Transportation .169 .042 Total Frequency .290 .0009 .270 .001 66 Hypothesis 2 (null): There is no relationship between frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family. Kendall's tau was found by tabulating each transfer category of what others do for family with satisfaction with what others do for family. Statistically significant results at p < .10 are presented in Table 13. Chi—squares and other Kendall's taus which were not significant are located in Appendix C. The findings indicated that of the non-market resource transfers that others do for family, house repair, vehicle repair, and housework were positively and significantly associated with satisfac— tion with what the family does for others. House and vehicle repair was positively related at a significance level of less than .05; housework was significant at less than .10. A total score of what others do for family for each respondent was computed by first assigning weight and then adding together the responses for each of the individual transfers. A Kendall's tau was computed between this total of what others do for the family and satisfaction with what others do for family. The results indicated that T = .270 at a significance level of .001. The total of what others do for the family was significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with what others do for the family. Taking the transfers individually, the hypothesis was supported only for house repair, vehicle repair, and housework. In addition, the hypothesis was supported when using a total score of what others do for the family. 67 Hypothesis 3 (null): There is no relationship between the satisfaction with what the family does for others and per- ceived overall quality of life. A Kendall's tau was computed between satisfaction with what the family does for others and quality of life. The chi-square and Kendall's tau are shown in Table 14. The results indicated that T = .250 at a significance level of .005. Satisfaction with what family does for others was significantly and positively associated with quality of life. The hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 4 (null): There is no relationship between satisfaction with what others do for the family and per- ceived overall quality of life. A Kendall's tau was computed between satisfaction with what others do for the family and perceived overall quality of life. The chi-square and Kendall's tau are shown in Table 14. The results indicated that T = .305 at a significance level of .001. Satisfaction with what others do for the family was significantly and positively associated with perceived overall quality of life. They hypothesis was supported. Table l4.--Chi-square and Kendall's tau for Satisfaction with Transfer and Quality of Life. X2 P T P df=1 l. Satisfaction with 5.118 .0237 .250 .005 What Family Does For Others 2. Satisfaction with 7.771 .005 .305 .001 What Others Do For Family 68 Research Questions The research questions were designed to allow examination of the data from the sample to determine if trends may be found that would suggest hypotheses for further research or allow further compari— sons with the findings of other research. Research Question 1: How will frequency of non-market resources transferred among a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexcan American respondents vary according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the comnunity? Chi-square and Kendall's taus were computed for all of the frequencies of non-market resource transfers and demographic charac- teristics. Kendall's taus for what family does for others that were significant at < .10 are located in Table 15. Chi—squares for all transfers of what family does for others and taus that were not statistically significant are presented in Appendix C. Family does for others--taking care of family members was statistically significant at < .10 for the following demographic characteristics: age, years education, years married, number of children, and age of youngest child. All were positively associated with taking care of family members except for years education which was negative associated. Those characteristics not significantly associated were income, years in the community, and sex. None of the demographic characteristics were significantly associated with what the family does for others--house repair. Number of children and years in the community were signifi- cantly associated with family does for others--vehicle repairs. Both 69 Table 15.—-Kenda11's Tau for Frequencies of What the Family Does for Others and Demographic Characteristics with p < .10. Demographic T Characteristic p Babysit.take care of children Age .145 .085 after school, check on sick or Years Education —.140 .094 elderly, run errands Years married .186 .037 Number of children .282 .003 Age of youngest child .165 .057 Do or help with care and Number of children .320 .0004 repairs of cars and other Years in community .162 .045 vehicles Do or help with sewing, Years married .134 .094 cleaning, other housework Number of children .238 .009 Share extras such as garden Age .266 .005 produce, prepared food, fish, Years married .248 .008 and other things Number of children .297 .002 Transportation Number of children .222 .016 were positively associated. The following demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with vehicle repair: age, years education, years married, age of youngest child, income, sex. Family does for others--housework was significantly and positively associated with years married and number of children. Age, years education, age of the youngest child, income, years in community, and sex were the demographic characteristics not associated with housework. Age, years married, and number of children were significantly and positively associated to family does for others--sharing extras. Those characteristics not associated were years education, age of youngest child, income, years in community, and sex. 70 The only demographic characteristic significantly and posi— tively associated with family does for others--transportation was number of children. All others—-age, years education, years married, age of youngest child, income, years in community, and sex—-were not associated. Frequencies were added to obtain a total frequency score of what family does for others. Chi-squares and Kendall's taus were computed for this total with the demographic characteristics. Those characteristics that were statistically significant at < .10 were number of children and sex. They were positively associated. Wives reported a greater total frequency of family does for others transfers than did husbands. Results of these findings are located in Table 17. Chi- squares and taus that were not statistically significant are presented in Appendix C. Those characteristics included age, years education, years married, age of youngest child, income, and years in community. In summary, number of children was associated with all transfers of what family does for others where there were associations with demographic characteristics. In each case it was significant at a level of .01 or less. Frequency of taking card of family members for others increased with increasing age, years married, number of children, and age of the youngest child and decreased with increasing years education. Frequency of making vehicle repairs for others increased with increasing years married and number of children. Frequency of doing housework for others increased with increasing years married and number of children. Frequency of sharing extras with others increased 71 with increasing age, years married, and number of children. Frequency of transporting others increased with increasing number of children. Total frequency of what family does for others increased with increasing number of children. Wives perceived a greater total fre- quency of family does for others transfers. Kendall's taus for what others do for family that were signifi— cantly associated with demographic characteristics at < .10 are presented in Table 16. Chi-squares for all others do for family trans- fers and taus that were not significant are located in Appendix C. Table 16.--Kenda11's Tau for Frequencies of What Others Do for Family with Demographic Characteristics with p < .10 Demographic T Characteristic p Babysit, take care of children Years Education .131 .086 after school, check on sick or Years Married -.124 .091 elderly, run errands Do or help with care and Number of Children .151 .041 repairs of cars and other Age of Youngest Child .152 .042 vehicles Share extras such as garden Years Education .176 .035 produce, prepared food, fish, Income .159 .041 and other things Transportation Years Education .131 .086 Years in Community -.l35 .074 Others do for family--taking care of family members was statistically significant at < .10 for years education and years married. Years education was positively associated with frequency of others taking care of family members. Years married was inversely associated. Demographic characteristics not associated with frequency 72 of others taking care of family members were age, number of children, age of youngest child, income, years in community, and sex. None of the demographic characteristics were significantly associated with what others do for family in both house repairs and housework. Others do for family--vehicle repairs was significantly and positively associated with number of children and age of the youngest child. Age, years education, years married, income, years in community, and sex were the demographic characteristics not associated with vehicle repairs. Years education and income were positively associated with others do for family-—sharing extras. Those characteristics not associated were age, years married, number of children, age of the youngest child, years in community, and sex. Others do for family--transportation was associated with years education and years in the community. It was positively associated with years education and inversely associated with years in the community. Table 17 presents the only characteristic significantly associated with total frequency of what others do for the family. It was sex. Wives reported a greater total frequency of others do for family transfers. Chi-squares and taus of demographic characteristics not associated with the total frequency of what others do for family are located in Appendix C. Those characteristics were age, years education, years married, number of children, age of youngest child, income, and years in community. 73 In summary, frequency of others taking care of family members increased with increasing years education and decreased with increasing years married. Frequency of others doing vehicle repairs for family increased with increasing number of children and increasing age of youngest child. Frequency of others sharing extras with family increased with increasing years education and income. Frequency of others transporting family members increased with increasing years education and decreased with increasing years in community. Table l7.--Kendall's Tau for Total Frequencies and Demographic Characteristics with p < .10. Demographic Characteristic T p Total of What Family Number of Children .234 .002 Does for Others Sex .154 .052 Total of What Others Sex .139 .066 Do for Family Research Question 2: How will satisfaction with non-market resources trans- ferred among a sample of non—migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents vary according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Chi-squares and Kendall's taus were computed for satisfaction with transfers and the demographic characteristics. Statistically significant results for satisfaction with what family does for others and demographic characteristics at p < .10 are presented in Table 18. Chi-squares and taus of demographic characteristics that were not significant are located in Table C-5. 74 Table 18.--Kendall's Tau for Satisfaction with Transfer and Demographic Characteristics with p < .10. Demographic Characteristic T p Satisfaction with What Age .170 .033 Family Does for Others Years Married .212 .010 Age of Youngest Child .169 .033 Income -.257 .002 Years in Community .157 .044 Sex .206 .017 Satisfaction with What Sex .152 .061 Others Do for Family The findings indicate that age, years married, age of the youngest child, years in community, and sex are significantly and positively associated to satisfaction with what family does for others. Income was significantly and inversely associated with satisfaction with what family does for others. Number of children was not signifi- cantly associated with satisfaction with what family does for others. Table 18 indicates the one characteristic, sex, which was significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with what others do for the family. Wives were more satisfied with what others do for family. Table C-5 in the Appendix presents the following demographic characteristics which were not significantly associated with satisfaction with what others do for the family: age, years education, years married, number of children, age of youngest child, income, and years in community. Research Question 3: How will overall quality of life among a sample of non- migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents vary according to the following demographic characteristics: 75 age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Chi-squares and Kendall's taus were computed for overall quality of life with each of the demographic characteristics. The results are presented in Appendix C. None of the demographic charac- teristics were significantly associated with quality of life. Introduction of Third Variable Analysis Before indicating the findings for Research Questions 4 and 5, a brief explanation of the framework used in explicating the results of the relationships of these variables is important. According to Herriott (1969), there are two general uses for introducing a variety of third variables. One is specification and the other is explanation. The purpose of the former is to specify the conditions which differentiate a relationship. He classifies these conditions into two types. The first condition is where the primary relationship is expected to be stronger in one state of the third variable than in that of the other. He calls this a conditional variable because it specifies the conditions under which the primary relationship is expected to be different. A second type of specification occurs when the primary relationship is expected to be identical for both states of the third variable. In this case the third variable is referred to as a replication variable because it has the effect of demonstrating that the primary relationship is identical. A third type of specification occurs when it is thought that the primary relationship will not be as strong or zero, not because 76 there is little or no relationship, but because the partial tenns are of opposite sign and thus cancel or partially cancel each other. Here, the third variable is referred to as a directional variable because it affects the direction of the primary relationship. Herriott (1969) states that a second general use of third variables is to explain theoretically why a primary relationship exists or does not exist. The first type of explanation variable is one referred to as an intervening variable. In this case, the third variable is linked temporally in a causal sequence with the first and second variables. When it is demonstrated that the relationship of primary interest is not produced by a third variable, it is called a rival explanatory variable if it is thought to be cotemporal with the first variable. It is called a suppressor variable if it is suspected that the primary relationship is being hidden due to the effects of a third variable. The types of specification and explanation variables can be grouped in pairs. Each condition that could differentiate a relation- ship can be paired with an explanation for why a primary relationship exists or does not exist. The most logical pairing based on the definitions of each type of variable is as follows: conditional- intervening, replication-rival explanatory variable, and directional- suppressor. Each of these three pairs was used to explain the findings in the third variable analysis. Research Question 4: How will the relationship between the frequency of non- market resource transfers and satisfaction with these transfers for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents differ according to the following characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of 77 children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Chi-squares and Kendall's taus were computed for each of two variable analyses of transfer frequencies and satisfaction that were statistically significant at p < .10 controlling for demographic characteristics that were also significant with the frequency transfers. Table 19 presents the findings of frequency of vehicle repairs the family does for others with satisfaction with what family does for others controlling for number of children and years in the community. I = .189 and p = .026 for the original two way analysis between frequency of vehicle repairs family does for others and satisfaction. After controlling for number of children, the taus were all stronger but ranged from a negative association for a small number of children to a positive association for a large number of children. This third variable relationship could be called directional-suppressor. The primary relationship was positive. That positive relationship was not as strong because the negative association for a smaller number of children tempered the strong positive association for a large number of children. In controlling for years in the community, the findings showed that there was no relationship for 1 to 10 years in the community, nor for 30 to 50 years in the community. Only in the 11 to 29 year category was the primary relationship more positive. For this reason, it may be a conditional-intervening variable because one may be more satisfied with the vehicle repairs the family does for others if it has been in the community between 11 and 29 years. 78 Table l9.--Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others-~Vehic1e Repairs and Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Number of Children and Years in Community. (1:31 P T p Number of Children 1 and 2 1.137 .286 -.261 .0581 3 and 4 2.302 .129 .274 .0312 5 to 13 4.021 .044 .560 .0061 Years in Community 1 to 10 .137 .710 .145 .215 11 to 29 2.072 .150 .276 .031 30 to 50 .007 .932 .075 .344 In summary, the relationship of satisfaction with what family does for others and vehicle repairs that family does for others increased with increasing numbers of children at home or if the family had spent between 11 to 29 years in the community. Table 20 presents the findings of frequency of housework the family does for others with satisfaction with what the family does for others controlling for years married and number of children. T = .202 and p = .019 for the original two way analysis. After controlling for years married, none of the categories showed a significant relation- ship between frequency of housework done for others and satisfaction with what family does for others. Years married was a replication- rival explanatory variable. The taus for the individual years married categories were quite similar to the original relationship. Years 79 Table 20.-—Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others--Housework and Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Years Married and Number of Children. (1131 P T p Years Married 1 to 10 .998 .320 .198 .094 11 to 25 .163 .686 .127 .218 26 to 55 .371 .542 .288 .092 Number of Children 1 and 2 .002 .958 .071 .333 3 and 4 2.302 .129 .274 .031 5 to 13 .193 .660 .230 .157 married do not explain the primary relationship; they are just cotemporal. Number of children is a conditional-intervening variable. When controlling for it, the primary relationship differed only in the group which had 3 to 4 children. In summary, the relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and frequency of housework done for others was not associated with years married. It was associated with number of children at home only for those families having 3 or 4 children. Table 21 presents the findings of frequency of sharing extras with others and satisfaction with what family does for others controlling for age, years married, and number of children. T = .189 and p = .026 for the original two way analysis. All three 80 Table 21.-—Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others-—Sharing Extras and Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Age, Years Married, and Number of Children. x2 df=1 p T p Age 19 to 29 .047 .827 .096 .279 30 to 40 .000 .989 .070 .354 41 to 73 2.245 .134 .322 .024 Years Married 1 to 10 .303 .582 .131 .191 11 to 25 0.000 1.000 .061 .353 26 to 55 1.419 .233 .418 .027 Number of Children 1 and 2 1.057 .303 .230 .082 3 and 4 .568 .450 .160 .138 5 to 13 .137 .710 .073 .371 81 characteristics were conditional-intervening variables. The conditions under which there was a more positive association between satisfaction with what family does for others and sharing extras with others, were when the respondent was over 40, or married 26 or more years, or had only 1 or 2 children. Table 22 presents the findings of frequency of transporting others and satisfaction with what family does for others controlling for number of children. I = .169 and p = .042 for the original two way analysis. It was a conditional-intervening variable in that the primary relationship differed only for those families having the most children, between 5 and 13. Table 22.-~Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Family Does for Others--Transportation with Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Number of Children. 2 d)f<=l P T p Number of Children 1 and 2 .000 .976 .055 .369 3 and 4 1.186 .276 .207 .079 5 to 13 .193 .660 .230 .151 Table 23 presents the findings of total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others controlling for number of children and sex. T = .290 and p = .0009 for the original two way analysis. Number of children was a directional-suppressor variable. The primary relationship was positive for each categorfi but it became stronger as the number of 82 Table 23.--Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of Total of What Family Does for Others with Satisfaction with What Family Does for Others Controlling for Number of Children and Sex. dfil 1’ T 9 Number of Children 1 and 2 .342 .842 .058 .361 3 and 4 6.913 .031 .360 .004 5 to 13 8.029 .018 .471 .003 Sex Husband 3.608 .164 .364 .031 Wife 6.062 .048 .223 .012 children at home increased. Sex was also a directional-suppressor variable. For husbands the primary relationship was stronger. Table 24 presents the findings of frequency of vehicle repairs that others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family controlling for number of children and age of youngest child. I = .171 and p = .041 for the original two way analysis. Both number of children and age of youngest child were replication-rival explana— tory variables. The primary relationship changed very little when controlling for them. Number of children and age of youngest child do not explain the association between frequency of vehicle repairs the family does for others and satisfaction with what the family does for others; they are just cotemporal. Table 25 presents the findings of total frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family 83 Table 24.--Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Frequency of What Others Do for Family-—Vehicle Repairs with Satisfaction with What Others Do for Family Controlling for Number of Children and Age of Youngest Child. X2 df=1 p T F’ Number of Children 1 and 2 .322 .569 .170 .153 3 and 4 .200 .654 .133 .187 5 to 13 .182 .669 .208 .175 Age of Youngest Child O to 4 .263 .607 .145 .170 5 to 11 .320 .571 .175 .156 12 to 18 .097 .754 .166 .207 controlling for sex. I = .270 and p = .001 for the original two way analysis. Sex in this case was a directional-suppressor. When controlling for sex, the primary relationship was more positively associated for husbands. Table 25.--Chi—square and Kendall's Tau of Total Frequency of What Others 00 for Family with Satisfaction with What Others Do for Family Controlling for Sex. x2 df=1 p T p Sex Husband 3.647 .161 .320 .044 Wife 4.961 .083 .219 .015 84 Research Question 5: How will the relationship between satisfaction with non- market resource transfers and overall quality of life for a sample of non—migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents differ according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, number of years married, and number of years in the community? Chi—squares and Kendall's taus were computed for the two variable analyses of satisfaction with transfers and quality of life controlling for those demographic characteristics that were signifi— cant at p < .10 with satisfaction with transfers. Table 26 presents the findings of the relationship between satisfaction with what family does for others and quality of life controlling for age, years married, age of youngest child, income, sex, and years in community. I = .250 and p = .005 for the original two way analysis. Age, years married, and age of youngest child were conditional-intervening variables. With increasing age, years married, and age of youngest child, the relationship went from positive to negative. However, the categories which had the significantly different primary relationship were the youngest respondents, those married less than 10 years, and those having children age 11 or less. Income and years in the community were also conditional- intervening variables. With increasing income and years in the community the primary relationship went from negative to positive. The income category where the relationship between satisfaction with what family does for others and quality of life was most significant and positive was $12,000 to $19,999; for those respondents who have lived in the community between 11 and 29 years, the primary relation- ship was most significant and positive. 85 Table 26.-—Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Satisfaction with What the Family Does for Others and Quality of Life Controlling for Age, Years Married, Age of Youngest Child, Income, Sex, and Years in Community. x2 df=1 P T P Age 19 to 29 3.997 .045 .402 .007 30 to 40 .983 .321 .268 .007 41 to 73 .001 .967 - 133 .208 Years Married 1 to 10 4.431 .035 .378 .006 11 to 25 .687 .407 .214 .096 26 to 55 .241 .623 -.125 .282 Age of Youngest Child 0 to 4 3.182 .074 .338 .014 5 to 11 2.377 .123 .346 .023 12 to 18 .009 .923 - 147 .226 Income $11,999 or less .036 .849 - 193 .176 $12,000 to $19,999 9.450 .002 .478 .0003 $20,000 to $49,999 .264 -—- .344 .084 Sex Husband .896 .343 .262 .082 Wife 2.734 .098 .236 .021 Years in Community 1 to 10 .044 .932 -.O48 .398 11 to 29 8.509 .003 .494 .0005 30 to 50 .000 .977 .144 .221 86 Sex was a replication-rival explanatory variable. The primary relationship remained relatively the same. However, the relationship was slightly more positive for wives. In summary, the relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and quality of life was highest for the youngest respondents, those married 10 or less years, those with children age 11 or less, those having an income between $12,000 and $19,999, or those living in the community between 11 or 29 years. Table 27 presents the findings of the relationship between satisfaction with what others do for the family and quality of life controlling for sex. I = .305 and p = .001 for the original two way analysis. Sex was a directional-suppressor variable. For the respondents who were wives the relationship between satisfaction with what others do for family and quality of life was more positive. Table 27.-—Chi-square and Kendall's Tau of Satisfaction with What Others 00 for Family and Quality of Life Controlling for Sex. X2 df=l P T p Sex Husband .044 .832 .127 .250 Wife 8.726 .003 .390 .0005 Summary of Findings Respondents reported more transfers being done by the family for others than transfers being done by others for the family. The most frequent transfer that family does for others was taking care of 87 family members. Both taking care of family members and transportation were the most frequent transfers being done by others for family. Housework was the least frequent transfer in both categories. On a scale of extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied, the majority of the respondents were satisfied with both the transfers that family does for others and those that others do for family and with quality of life. Taking the transfers individually, there was a positive relationship between the frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with wnat family does for others for vehicle repairs, housework, sharing extras, and transportation. There was also a positive relationship between total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others. The relationship of frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction with those transfers was positive for house repairs, vehicle repairs, and housework. The total frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction was also positively associated. Both satisfaction with what family does for others and what others do for family was positively associated with quality of life. Of those demographic characteristics associated with fre- quencies of what family does for others, number of children seems to prevail over most transfers. Taking care of family members for others was positively associated with age, years married, number of children, age of youngest child, and inversely associated with years education. Vehicle repairs done for others by the family was positively associated with number of children and years in community. Housework done for others was positively associated with years married and number of 88 children. Sharing extras with others was associated with age, years married, and number of children. Transporting others was associated with number of children. Total frequency of what family does for others was positively associated with number of children and femaleness. Others taking care of family members was positively associated with years education and inversely associated with years married. Others doing vehicle repairs for the family was positively associated with both number of children and age of the youngest child. Others sharing extras with the family was positively associated with years education and income. Others transporting family members was posi- tively associated with years education and inversely associated with years in the community. Years education was positively associated with three out of four resource transfers that others do for family. Total frequency of what others do for family was positively associated with the femaleness of the respondent. Age, years married, age of youngest child, years in the community, and sex were positively associated and income was inversely associated with satisfaction with what family does for others. Only the sex of the respondent was positively associated with satisfaction with what others do for family. Of the demographic characteristics which were of concern in this study, none were significantly associated with quality of life. Third variable analyses were done if the two variable analyses were statistically significant. The relationship of satis- faction with what family does for others and vehicle repairs done for others increased with increasing number of children at home or if the family had spent between 11 to 29 years in the community. 89 The relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and frequency of housework done for others was not associated with years married. It was associated with number of children but only for those having 3 or 4 children. The conditions under which there was a more positive association between satisfaction with what family does for others and sharing extras were when the respondent was over 40, or married 26 or more years, or had only 1 or 2 children. The primary relationship of frequency of transporting others and satisfaction with what family does for others became more positive for those families having the most children between 5 and 13. The association between total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others was more positive as the number of children at home increased and for husbands. In the three variable analysis, number of children and age of the youngest child were not a contributing factor in the relationship between the frequency of vehicle repairs that others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family. The relationship between total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others was more strongly positive for husbands. The relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and quality of life was highest for the youngest respondents, those married 10 or less years, those with children age 11 or less, those having an income between $12,000 and $19,999, or those living in the community between 11 or 29 years, and somewhat more for wives. For the respondents who were wives the relationship 90 between satisfaction with what others do for family and quality of life was more positive. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions This research has examined the relationship between frequency of non-market resource transfers and satisfaction with these transfers and between satisfaction with non-market resource transfers and quality of life. It has also attempted to identify certain demo- graphic characteristics that might be associated with frequency of non-market resource transfers, satisfaction with transfers, quality of life, and the relationships between these variables. The following conclusions have been drawn about the proposed research objectives and hypotheses based on resultant findings. Objective 1: To determine the frequency that non— —market resources are transferred among a sample of non— migrant Mexican American respondents. Respondents reported a greater frequency of transfers being done by the family for others than transfers being done by others for the family. This finding agreed with the conclusions of Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973). Either what the family does for others was greater than what others did for the family or the respondents were more cogni- zant of what they do for others than what others do for them. Although the percentages of what family does for others were higher, the transfers that were most and least frequent were quite 91 92 similar. Both in the family does for others and others do for the family categories, caring for family members and transportation were most frequent and housework the least frequent. Generally. the oppor- tunities to do vehicle repairs, house repairs, and sharing extras do not occur as often. Taking care of family members and transporting family members (the most frequently occurring transfers) are people- oriented activities that families seem to share. Housework (the least frequently occurring transfer) is a maintenance activity that is done within the household and not a task that is shared with others. Objective 2: To determine the relationship between the frequency of non-market resource transfers and perceived satisfaction with them for a sample of non—migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents. On a scale of extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied, two-thirds of the respondents were satisfied with both transfers family does for others and those that others do for family. Taking the transfers individually, there was a positive relationship between the frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others for vehicle repairs, housework, sharing extras and transportation. There was no associa- tion between the most frequently occurring transfer, taking care of family members, and satisfaction. There was also a positive relation- ship between total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others. There may be no association between the most frequent transfer and satisfaction, but when the respondents take the total or all transfers into account, they are satisfied with what family does for others. 93 The relationship of frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction with those transfers was positive for house repairs, vehicle repairs, and housework. Those three transfers were the least frequent of those others do for family. The total frequency of what others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family was positively associated. Again, the most frequent transfers with what others do for family were not associated with satisfaction with what others do for family, but this fact was balanced off by an association between satisfaction with what others do for the family and the least frequently occurring so that the combined effect was satisfaction with the total frequency. Objective 3: To determine the relationship between the perceived satisfaction with non-market resource transfers and the perceived overall quality of life for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents. On a scale of extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied, three-fourths of the respondents were satisfied with their quality of life. Both satisfaction with what family does for others and what others do for family were positively associated with quality of life. Objective 4: To determine how the above measure and relationships vary according to the following demographic character- istics for a sample of non-migrant Michigan Mexican American respondents: age, education, income, sex, number of children at home, age of youngest child living at home, number of years married, number of years in the community. Of those demographic characteristics associated with fre- quencies of what family does for others, number of children seems to prevail over most transfers. With increasing numbers of children at 94 home, there are more people in the family and generally older children. Families with greater numbers of children have a greater need for transfers from other families but also have more people to contribute transfers to other families. Taking care of family members for others was positively associ- ated with age, years married, number of children, and age of youngest child. As one becomes older or married longer there is more time and money to contribute to doing things for others. Often times grand— parents will do things for their children. This finding agreed with the conclusions of Sharp and Axelrod (1956). As numbers of children in the family or age of the youngest child increase, there are more or older members of the family who could do things for others. There was an inverse relationship between taking care of family members for others and years of education. As years of educa- tion increases, there is a better chance that both parents work so that there is less time for the family to take care of others. Vehicle repairs done for others by the family was positively associated with number of children at home and years in the community. As people live in a community longer, their skills in certain areas such as vehicle repairs become known. With increasing number of children in the home, there is a better chance that there are older children who may be doing the vehicle repairs. Housework done for others was positively associated with years married and number of children. With a greater number of children, there are more people in the family not only to do the family's housework but that of others as well. As years married 95 increases, there is more of a chance that parents are helping their children with housework. Sharing extras with others was associated with age, years married and number of children. As age or years married increases, the family usually has more resources than when first starting out so that they are in a better position to share with others. When there are more children in the family, that usually means more friends coming in and out of the home and perhaps more acquaintances with parents so that the family thus shares what it has because more people are around. Transporting others was associated with number of children. With more children, that means more people who have to go places with more friends to take along while you are going there. Total frequency of what family does for others was positively associated with number of children and sex. As there are more children, there are more children to do things for others. Husbands and wives perceive a different total frequency of transfers done for others. Wives reported a greater total frequency. Others taking care of family members was positively associated with years education and inversely associated with years married. As years married increased there are less children to take care of and the children become old enough to take care of themselves and others who are younger. As years of education increases, there is greater likelihood that both parents work or are active in the community, so there is greater need to have others take care of family members. Others doing vehicle repairs for the family was positively associated with both number of children and age of the youngest child. 96 As the number of children increases and the age of the youngest child increases, there are less resources for the family as a whole so that if someone can assist with a costly item like vehicle repairs, it stretches the budget. Others sharing extras with the family was positively associated with years of education and income. Others transporting family members was positively associated with years of education and inversely associated with years in the community. The total frequency of what others do for the family was associated only with sex. Wives reported a greater frequency. Age, years married, age of the youngest child, years in the community were positively associated with satisfaction with what family does for others. As the respondents were older, married longer, children were older, or more settled in the community, they were more satisfied with what family does for others. Income was inversely associated with satisfaction with what family does for others. As income increases, the respondent spent more time acquiring that income and had less time to do things for others and perhaps was less satisfied with what they do for others. Wives were more positively associated with satisfaction with both what the family does for others and what others do for the family. Sex was the only characteristic significantly associated with satisfaction with what others do for the family. Of the demographic characteristics which were of concern in this study, none were significantly associated with quality of life. Quality of life is a rather global measure. In each demographic characteristic there are certain things that respondents may be 97 satisfied with and others that they are dissatisfied with. However, in the long run, these two sides balance each other out so that no matter what characteristics one has, there is a general satisfaction with quality of life. This study's findings are in agreement with that of Andrews and Withey (1974) in that information concerning sex, income, age, family life cycle stage, and education added nothing more to understanding why some people are content with their lives and others are not. However, this study is actually, in part, holding some demographic characteristics constant in that the respondents are all Mexican Americans and they all have the same type of family. Perhaps, then, it is not too surprising that the demographic characteristics in this study were not associated with quality of life. The relationship of satisfaction with what family does for others and vehicle repairs done for others increased with increasing number of children at home or if the family had spent between 11 to 29 years in the community. Doing vehicle repairs is something not everyone can do. Perhaps after a certain amount of time in the community or with more children who can spread the word, a certain amount of credibility is given to the family who has a member who repairs vehicles for others. This credibility creates more satis- faction with what the family does for others. The relationship between satisfaction with what family does for others and frequency of housework done for others was not associated with years married. It was associated with number of children, but only those having three or four children. There may be something about having three or four children that caused this relationship to become stronger. 98 The conditions under which there was a more positive associa- tion between satisfaction with what family does for others and sharing extras were when the respondent was over 40, or married 26 or more years, or had only 1 or 2 children. Under these conditions the family usually has more resources to share with others. The primary relationship of frequency of transporting others and satisfaction with what family does for others became more positive for those families having the most children, between 5 and 13. Perhaps, once one has a certain number of children at home, it becomes more satisfying to have others coming along with your own children. The association between total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others was more positive as the number of children at home increased and for husbands. Husbands are not as involved in what the family does for others most frequently; thus, they are satisfied with what they perceive is being done. Number of children and age of the youngest child were not contributing factors in the relationship between frequency of vehicle repairs that others do for family and satisfaction with what others do for family. The relationship between total frequency of what family does for others and satisfaction with what family does for others was more satisfying for husbands. This finding may be true for the same reason that it occurred in the family does for others category. The relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and quality of life was highest for the youngest respondents, those married 10 or less years, those with children age 99 11 or less, those having an income between $12,000 and $19,999, or those living in the community between 11 or 29 years. What family does for others seems to be of greatest importance for younger families as they are starting out and getting themselves established. As they grow older and become more established, what the family does for others is not as important. Parents become involved in other activities as do their children. For the respondents who were wives, the relationship between satisfaction with what others do for family and quality of life was more positive. For wives it is more important to have inputs from others into the family. Limitations The data for this study were from Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project NC-128, ”Quality of Life According to Residence." Michigan was part of a fourteen state regional research team. As a result, each state developed and contributed certain segments of the instrument. The instrument utilized for the study of non-market resource transfers was developed by Purdue and could not be changed so that there would be comparable data from all states in the regional project utilizing the instrument. The instrument collected data on the frequency of non-market transfers on an ordinal level. As a result only nonparametric statistics could be used in the analysis. The ordinal level of the scale of frequency of non-market resource transfers left much question as to when one level stopped and another began. There were no clear-cut lines that could be drawn between the various levels. Data collected on an interval level for frequency of non-market resource 100 transfers would have been much more effective in that a much clearer division of levels of frequency could have been drawn. In addition. parametric statistics could have been utilized with interval data. Data on frequency of non-market resource transfers was collected for six individual resource transfers. However, satisfaction with the transfers was collected as satisfaction with the total of the transfers rather than satisfaction with each transfer. The latter situation would have allowed a more effective comparison with the frequency of the non-market resource transfer and satisfaction with that transfer. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences does not pro— vide a way to do partial correlations with nonparametric statistics. As a result, in order to do three variable analyses, it had to be done through contingency table analyses. In order to have a big enough cell size, the variables had to be grouped into categories. The relationships were computed, then, according to categories rather than by absolute values as parametric statistics would have allowed. Implications Implications for Future Research This study has produced several implications for future research endeavors. Frequency of non-market transfers has been established to some extent from this study. It was found that what family does for others was greater than what others do for family. However, what we do not know is with whom the family transfers these non-market resources. Do they transfer these non-market resources only with other Mexican Americans, or with a mixture of 101 Anglos and Mexican Americans, or with mostly Anglos? With this kind of information, we could begin to see if the Mexican American family in Michigan is open primarily to the Mexican American community or to the majority community as well. It could be open to one of these and closed to the other. In addition, different characteristics of the families may cause some families to differ in their openness to these environments. This study has examined the relationship between frequency of non—market resource transfers and satisfaction with transfers and between satisfaction with transfers and quality of life. It has not addressed the question of reciprocity . Is there reciprocity between what the family does for others and what others do for the family? Is there a relationship between satisfaction with what family does for others and satisfaction with what others do for the family? This study analyzed the outside vertical relationships in the conceptual framework. It did not address the horizontal relationships that would begin to get at the question of reciprocity. A question of the reseacher that developed as the study pro- gressed was: Is it too big a jump to make from satisfaction with non-market resource transfers to satisfaction with overall quality of life? Quality of life is a very global measure which is a combination of satisfaction with many things. Family life has been found to have a high relationship to overall quality of life. Future research, utilizing the non-market resource transfer data from the NC-128 Project, might consider investigating the relationship between satis- faction with non—market resource transfers and satisfaction with family life rather than with overall quality of life. Satisfaction 102 with family life is still quite large in scope but yet not as global as quality of life. Satisfaction with family life data is also avail- able as part of the project data. Finally, although the respondents reported a greater frequency of what the family does for others than what others do for the family, was that really the case or was it just that the respondents were more cognizant of what they do for others? Perhaps the survey research method utilizing recall for collecting data on non-market resource transfers is not the most effective way to collect data. Other methods such as participation observation might be explored in the future. Implications for Educational Programs There are two findings from this study that have implications for educational programs: (1) The relationship between satisfaction with what family does for others and quality of life was more positive for younger families. (2) Satisfaction with what the family does for others and others do for the family was more positive for wives. The relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and quality of life was highest for the youngest respondents, those married 10 or less years, those with children age 11 or less, those having an income between $12,000 and $19,999, or those living in the community between 11 or 29 years. When the parents are young and getting the family started the family is the center of activity. As the respondents grow older, they become involved in more activities of their children, or they become involved in activi- ties outside of the family. 103 Educational programs designed for young families need to be focused around the family. As people grow older, they are looking for activities other than those focused around the family. The implication perhaps could be stated that it is important to design educational programs for various stages of the family life cycle. It might mean that for younger families educators will have to go into the community where they are and where the focus of their activities is. The least frequently occurring transfers had an association with satisfaction with transfers. The husbands had more positive relationship between frequency of resource transfers and satisfaction with resource transfers than wives did. Since the third variable analyses were done on the two variable analyses that were associated, the husbands were more satisfied with the frequency of the transfers that were done least often. The wives had a more positive relationship between satisfaction with what others do for the family and quality of life. The inputs from outside the family seemed to be a greater contributing factor to the quality of life of wives in this sample. An underlying theme behind the above findings is that the wives in the sample were perhaps affected more by the inputs and out- puts of the family. They were most affected by the relationship between satisfaction with what the family does for others and what others do for the family and quality of life. More research is needed before a more definite statement can be made, but because of her responsibilities with the family, her main contacts with other people might be as she is doing the maintenance chores (such as those 104 measured in this study) that keep the family together. Her husband may not be as concerned with these family inputs and outputs because he gets away from the family when he works and it is this time that many of the maintenance jobs are done. The implications of these findings for educational programs are that if the center of the wives' lives are the family's inter- actions with other families, educators will have to find ways to get themselves into the community where the families live. They will need to find a way to obtain access into this chain of family inter- actions. Also, if any educational programs are planned to include both parents, some initial groundwork will have to be done. Both husbands and wives have to realize a need before a step will be taken to go to an educational program to begin to meet that need. The findings imply that husbands and wives have a different perception of what is going on within the family and how that is associated with quality of life. REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED Alvirez, D., and Bean, F. D. “The Mexican American Family." In Ethnic Families in America--Patterns and Variation. Edited by C. H. Mindel and R. W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier, 1976, pp. 271-92. Andrews, F. M., and Withey, S. B. Assessing the Quality of Life as People Experience It. Paper presented for presentation at the 69th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 26-29, 1974. Baerwaldt, N. A., and Morgan, J. N. "Trends in Inter—family Transfers." In Surveys of Consumers 1971-72, Chapter 13. Edited by L. Mandell, G. Katona, N. Morgan, and J. Schmiedeskamp. Institute for Social Research: The University of Michigan, 1973, pp. 205-32. Bivens, G. E. "The Grants Economy and Study of the American Family: A Possible Framework for Trans—Disciplinary Approaches.” Home Economics Research Journal 5 (December 1976):70—78. Boulding, K. "The Household as Achilles Heel." Journal of Consumer Affairs 6 (Winter 1972):110-16. . The Economy of Love and Fear. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973 Bubolz, M. M.; Eicher, J. B.; and Evers, S. A Human Ecolo ical Approach to the Quality of Life: Results of a Study 1n a Rural Michigan County. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of’the American Home Economics Association, San Antonio, Texas, June 23-26, 1975. Bubolz, M. M., and Eicher, J. B. "Quality of Life Indicators: A Human Ecological Systems Approach." Unpublished manuscript, 1976. Bustrillos, N. R. "Decision—Making Styles of Selected Mexican Home- makers.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Butler, S. L. ”Quality of Life: A Human Ecological Approach.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. 105 106 Caine, T. A. Social Life in a Mexican American Community. San Franciscoz’Publishers and Distributors of Ethnic Studies, 1974. Campbell, A.; Converse, P. E.; and Rodgers, W. L. The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundat1on, 1976. De Hoyos, A. "Occupational and Educational Levels of Aspiration of Mexican American Youth.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Echeverri M., M. R. ”Selected Aspects of Life of Preschool Children of Mexican Origin in Muskegon.‘I Paper presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree, Ohio State University, 1974. Emerson, M. R. "Relationships of Family Economic Help Patterns to Specific Family Characteristics!‘ Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1970. Goldkind, V. "A Comparison of Folk Health Beliefs and Practices between Ladino Women of Denver, Colorado and Saginaw, Michigan.” Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1959. "Factors in the Differential Acculturation of Mexicans in a Michigan City." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Grebler, L.; Moore, J.; and Guzman, R. The Mexican-American Peggle: The Nation's Second Largest Minority. New York: The Free Press, 1970. Haney, J. B. “Authority in the Mexican-American Family; A Comparative Study." Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1972. Herriott, R. E. "The Survey Research Method.” In Enc clopedia of Educational Research, 4th ed. Edited by R. L. EBel. New York: Macmillan, 1969, pp. 1400-10. Hook, N. C., and Paolucci, B. “The Family as an Ecosystem." Journal of Home Economics 2 (May 1970):315-18. Humphrey, N. D. "The Migration and Settlement of Detroit Mexicans." Economic Geography 19 (October 1943):358-61. ”The Changing Structure of the Detroit Mexican Family." American Sociological Review 9 (December 1944):622-25. "Some Dietary and Health Practices of Detroit Mexicans." Journal of American Folklore 58 (July 1945):255-58. 107 "The Housing and Household Practices of Detroit Mexicans." Marriage and the Family 24 (May 1946):1944. Michigan Statistical Abstract. Edited by D. S. Venway and W. Grier. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administra- tion, Michigan State University, 12th ed., 1977. Miller, M. V. Variations in Mexican-American Family Life: A Review Synthesis. Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meetings in San Francisco, California, August, 1975. ”Mexican Americans, Chicanos, and Other: Ethnic Self- Identification and Selected Social Attributes of Rural Texas Youth.” Rural Sociology 41 (Summer 1976):234-47. Moore, J. W. Mexican Americans. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976. Morgan, J. N.; Sirageldin, I. A.; and Baerwaldt, N. Productive Americans. Survey Research Center Monograph 43, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1966. Morrison, B. M. ”The Importance of a Balanced Perspective: The Environments of Man.” Man-Environment Systems 4 (May 1974): 1 o Nie, N. H.; Hull, C. H.; Jenkins, J. G.; Steinbrennar, K.; and Bent, D. H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975. Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New Tool for Decision-Makers. The EnVironmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. Salas, G., and Salas, I. "The Mexican Community of Detroit." La Causa Chicana. Family Service Association of America, T972, pp. 6 - . Samora, J., and Lamanna, R. A. Mexican—Americans in a Midwest Metropolis: A Study of East Chicago. Los Angeles: Division ofuResearch, Graduate School of‘Business Administration, 1967. Shannon, L., and Shannon M. Mindrity Migrants in the Urban Community: Mexican and Negro Adjustment to Industrial Society. California: Sage PubT1cations, 1973. Sharp, H., and Axelrod, M. “Mutual Aid Among Relatives in an Urban Population.” In Principles of Sociology. Edited by R. Freedman and Associates. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1956, pp. 433-39. 108 Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Spielberg, J. B. ”Dimensions for the Study of Work-related Values in the Mexican American Culture: An Exploratory Essay.” In American Minorities and Economic Opportunity, Chapter 3. Edited by H. R. Kaplan. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1977, pp. 109-47. "Survey of Current Business." U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis 58 (February l978):5-8. Sussman, M. B. ”Family Continuity: Selective Factors Which Affect Relationships Between Families at Generational Level." Marriage and Family Living_l6 (May 1954):112-20. "The Help Pattern in the Middle Class Family." American Sociolo ical Review 43 (February 1953):22-28. . “The Isolated Family: Fact of Fiction.” Social Problems 6 (Spring 1959):333-40. Sussman, M. B., and Burchinal, L. "Kin Family Network: Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Functioning." Marriage and Family Living 24 (August l962):23l-40. Truax, D. Measuring the Quality of Life in America: A New Frontier for Social Science. University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research Newsletter 2 (Summer 1974). U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, Sfibject Reports, Final Report PC(2)—1C, Persons of Spanish Origin. Population Estimgtes and Projections: 1973 (Revised) and l975’Population Estimates and 1972 (Revised) and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Countries, Incorporated Places, and Selected Minor Civil Divisions in MHChigan. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Seves P-25, Number 670, May 1977. Weeks, J. R., and Spielberg, J. The Ethnodemography of Midwestern Chicano Communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Spring 1973. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE QUESTIONS UTILIZED FOR NON-MARKET RESOURCE TRANSFER, TRANSFER SATISFACTION, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 109 Non-Market Resource Transfer Questions In previous questions, I have asked in very general terms about family and community life. Now I'd like to ask some more detailed questions in some of these areas. 37. People differ in the kinds and amounts of things they do for each other without pay. Using this card (SHOW CARD E), does anyone in your family do any of the following for other persons outside your family without being gaid? (FAMILY HERE IS THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND OTHERS LIVING WITHIN THE SAME DWELLING.) (1) Babysit, take care of children after school, check # on sick or elderly, run errands. (2) Do or help with painting, carpentry, plumbing # electric repairs, lawn work, moving. (3) Do or help with care and repairs of cars and other # vehicles. (4) Do or help with sewing, cleaning, other housework # (5) Share extras such as garden produce, prepared food, # fish, and other things. (6) Transportation # (7) Other # Now I'd like to ask some questions about what others do for your family. 41. Using this card (SHOW CARD E), do any persons outside your family do any of the following for members of your family without being pa'd? (l) Babysit, take care of children after school, check # on sick or elderly, run errands. (2) Do or help with painting, carpentry, plumbing, # electirc repairs, lawn work, moving. (3) Do or help with care and repairs of cars or other # vehicles. (4) Do or help with sewing, cleaning, other housework # 39. 40. 31. 110 (5) Share extras such as garden produce, prepared food, fish and other things. (6) Transportation (7) Other Card Used with Non-Market Resource Transfer Questions Card E 1. Never 2. Seldom 3. Several times a year 4. Several times a month 5. Several times a week Transfer Satisfaction Questions How satisfied are you with doing these things for other people? (SHOW CARD A) How satisfied are you with the things other people do for you? (SHOW CARD A) Quality of Life Question How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your life? (SHOW CARD A) # # # 111 Card Used with Transfer Satisfaction and Quality of Life Questions Card A Extremely dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Somewhat dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Mixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Somewhat satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Extremely satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Demographic Variable Questions Sex, Age, Education Level: First, I'd like to ask a few questions about the people who usually live in the household. 1a. Let's begin with the husband and then the wife. a. b. How old What is the was highest grade on his/ or year of her last school ____has Sex birthday? completed? Husband 1 # Wife 2 # Years Married: 1f. How many years have you been married to your present spouse? Years 112 Number of Children Living at Home, Age of Youngest Child Living at Home: lg. Now please tell me how each person living in this household is related to the husband. (LIST IN COLUMN "9”) 1h. Are there other people not related who usually live here? (LIST IN COLUMN ”9”) 1i. Let's see, I have people listed. Have I missed any babies or small children? Any lodgers, boarders, or friends who usually live here? Anyone else who is away traveling or in a hospital? (LIST IN COLUMN "9“) g. j. k. Code sex (Ask if Household members not obvious) How old was on his/ M F her last b17thday? 1 2 1 2 l 2 1 2 1 2 l 2 Years Living in the Community: 19c. How many years have you lived in this community? Years Income: 11. Using this card (SHOW CARD C), please tell me into which income group your family fell in the last 12 months. This is to be total income before taxes and should include your own income and that of the other members of your family. Be sure to include ell sources of income such as earned income, investments, social security, your own business, job—related benefits, welfare bene— fits, and so on. Just tell me the number which appears next to your income group. #____ Card Used with Income Question 113 No income . Under $2,000 . $2,000-$2,999. $3,000—$4,999. $5,000-$6,999. $7,000—$8,999. $9,000-$ll,999 $12,000-$14,999 . $15,000-$19,999 . $20,000—$29,999 . $30,000-$49,999 . $50,000 or more . Card C APPENDIX 8 REASONS FOR INCOMPLETE SCHEDULES 114 Table B-l.—-An Accounting of All Names Selected from Original List. Number Refusals l6 Ineligible: Only one parent Spouse dead l5 Divorced 6 One parent--no reason given 13 Ineligible: Not Mexican American 18 Ineligible: Not a family No children 22 No children 18 years old or less living at home 19 Single 6 No family--no reason given 8 Ineligible: Family already interviewed 2 Ineligible: Reason unknown 8 Errors in sample list: No house l2 Errors in sample list: Business 1 Errors in sample list: Could not find, not on map. no such address 7 Vacant house 6 Moved 16 Not home after three contacts l4 Total contacts attempted without obtaining data 189 Total remaining selected names not used l40 Total selected names given to interviewers and not returned l65 Total completed households l06 Total selected names 600 APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS 115 Foo. omm. Koo. oNo.o oooo. ooN. moo. NN¢.o_ N u ow Pooch .N Fmv. o—o.- omo. woo. woo. ooF. om_. nwm.m compmpcoamcwch .o .mocwcu cmcpo new .cmwm .ooow umcwowgo .musuoco mom. omo. omo. moo. omo. oo_. moo. oom.m cmngwo ma zoom mmcuxw mcmcm .m .xcozmmzo: emgpo Lo .ocwccQPU moo. mmfi. oom. woo._ oFo. mom. woo. mm¢.m .oCTzwm saw; QFm; co oo .o .mw_o?;w> Locuo use mcmu mo meowc Foo. _N_. FoMF. wo_.m omo. ooF. moo. umo.m ocm mcmo saw: upm; co co .m .o:w>oE .xcoz c3m_ .mcwmooc owguumFo .ocwnss_o .chcoocmu __o. omm. woo. Nvo.v oom. omo. moo. mFo. .ocwwcwmq cuwz QFw; co co .N .mocmgco c3; .>_Lmv_m Lo xowm co xumgo ._oo;om mewm mom. omo. omo. moo. mm¢_. wop. mom. mm“. :mcopwsu we memo mxwp .uwmxamm ._ Fuwv Fumu o e a Nx o e a Nx >_wEwL com oo mcwgpo was: cow: cowuomwmowmm mcmspo Loo mmoo z—FEMd was: now; compoaymwpmm .mgwwmcwcp guy; cowuuwmm_pmm ocm mcwwmcwge mo xocwzowgd Low ooh m___meca¥ use acascm-wgu--._-u a_nap 116 oNo. mom. omo. N_N. moo. ooo. ooN. ooo. u o .mmoooo coooo ooo o_o.- ooo. ooo. moo. “mo. ooN. ooo.- ooN. " o .om_o .oooo oooooooo omm. ooo. “mo. moo. _oo. ooo. mom. moo. ” o .ouoooco ooocom mo Foo. moo. ooo.o _om. omo.m_ mom.o oo_.N moo.o "ox zoom mocoxo ocooo .o moo. omm. mo_. ooo. moo. omo. moo. oo_. u o ooo. moo. omo.- ooo. omm. ooo. ooo.- _N_. n p ooozomooo Loooo ooo. oom. mmo. ooo. moo. oom. ooo. Nmo. u o .oooooo_o .oooZom omm. omo. moo.o m_o._ oom.__ oom._ o_m._ o_o._ "Nx coo; o_oo oo oo .o _oo. ooo. o_N. _om. oooo. omm. omm. mom. a o ooo. No_. omo. ooo.- ooo. moo. _mo.- ooo. ” P mo_oooo> Loooo ooo ooo. moo. moo. omo. woo. woo. moo. ooo. u o memo o0 mo_oooo ooo oom. moo.o ooN._ NoN._ oom.m_ ooo. oNo. ooo._ "ox ocoo goo; o_oo co co .m .o:o>oE o_N. o_N. N__. ooN. oom. moo. moo. mom. n o .oooz coop .moooomo ooo. _oo. moo. Noo.- ooo. ooo.- _oo. Noo.- u o oooooo_o .mo_ooo_o moo. mmo. ooo. omo. oNo. mom. N_o. ooo. n o .ocooooooo .mooooooo o_o. ooo._ ooo.o ooo._ o_N._ ooo.o oom. ooo._ ”ox goo; o_oo to co .N mom. oNN. omo. moo. moo. moo. omo. ooo. n o .moooooo coo .m_ooo_o moo. _oo. _oo. oo_. Now. oo_. oo_.- oo_. " o co ooom :0 ooooo ooo. N_o. No_. moo. o_o. moo. o_o. ommo. u o ..oooom ooooo oooo_ooo oom. moo. ooo.o moo.N _oo.m ooo.o Noo._ o__.o "ox oo memo oooo .oomoooo .P ooouz oo_-z oo_-z oo_uz mo_uz oo—nz z mouz vFTLU cwgvowco oo_uz pwcoesoo omwccoz coououoom *xmm cw mcom> wEou:H wwwommm> Lemmoz mgow> moom> mo< .muwpmocwpoogogo uogooco -oamo oco momspo Loo owoo xooEoo mop goo: +0 mwwocwoowoo Low ooh m___oocwx vco mooooo-w;ouu.muo m—ooo 117 .Eocmmco oo mmcomo woo woo cows: xwm Loo Eocmmgm oo mmmcomo ozp w>oc Foo omgooomuwcoo omN. oNN. _mN. mom. o_o. Rom. o_o. omo. u o woo. Foo. “mo. Fmo. NNN. omo. NNo.- _N_. u p mom. omm. moo. Nmo. omo. om“. moo. mom. u o ooo. omo. ooo.o omo. ooo.o mom. moo. ooo.o umx coopopooomcoch .o oanz ooouz oopuz ooFuz mo_uz ooouz monz ooogo coco_o;o oopnz mxwm xwwcmfifimw wsooco pmmocoo> mo omwmmmz cowwmwmom wo< mo mo< oonoz .nwocwucooun.muo monoh 118 moo. ooo. _oo. moo. om_. ooo. ooo. ooo. u o .mmoooo coooo ooo ooo.- ooo.- oo_. ooo. _oo. mmo.- om_. ooo.- u m .omoo .oooo oooomoom omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. _oo. moo. mo_. ooo. u o .ooooooo ooooom mo o_o. ooo. _.m.o ooo. mom.o omo._ _oo.m ooo.o "ox ooom moooxo ocooo .o omo. moo. omo. ooo. oo_. ooo. ooo. omo. u o moo. moo. ooo.- o_o. ooo. omo. ooo.o ooo. u o .xoozomooo ooooo oom. ooo. o_o. oom. ooo. ooo. ooo. _oo. n o .oomooo_o .ooozom ooo. _oo._ oom._ ooo. omo. mom._ _oo. mom. "ox goo; m_oo co oo .o moo. ooo. ooo. ooo. _oo. __o. mmo. omo. n o ooo.- ooo.o mmo.- oo_. _o_. m_o. ooo.- ooo. u o .mo_oooo> cocoa oco oom. _om. _oo. oPo. moo. oom. ooo. mom. u o memo oo mcooooo ooo oo_. moo. mmo. moo.o ooo.o o_m.o moo. ooo. "ox . memo goo; o_oo co oo .o .o:w>os omo. ooo. ooo. moo. ooo. omo. ooo. ooo. u o .ocoz :2o_ .moooooc ooo. ooo.o moo.- ooo. moo.- ooo.- ooo. ooo.o " o o_oooomo .ooooEo_o oom. o_o. oom. omm. ooo. moo. oom. moo. u o .ocoomoooo .oooooooo ooo. ooo. moo. o_o. ooo. mo_._ oo_. oom._ "ox goo; o_oo co oo .o _oo. ooo. mmo. ooo. ooo. _mo. ooo. oo_. u o .moooooo coo .o_ooo_o moo.- ooo o ooo. mmo.- ooo.- oo_.- Po_. omo.- u o oo ooom :0 ouoou moo. oom. mmo. oom. o_o. ooo. moo. ooo. n o .Poooom Loooo oooo_oou ooo. ooo. ooo.o omo. omm. omm.. moo._ ooo.o "ox oo ocoo oooo .oomoooo ._ oopuz oo—uz - oo_uz - oo_uz oopuz - mxmm cw mgom> msoucH “Hwommm> commoz ogom> mmom> mo< .m0womwmwuuocogo owcoogooswo new xpwsoo Low oo ocmgwo pocz we mmwucmocmgo Loo ooh m.oooucmx too mgmoomuwsonn.muo m_noh 119 .Eovomow mo mmcomo moo mo; sows; xwo Loo poooxm soommcm mo mmmcomo 03p m>os Foo mmgoooouoooo ooo. omo. ooo. omo. moo. ooo. ooo. ooo. u o ooo. oo_.- ooo. ooo. omo.- ooo.- _o_. omo.- u o oom. oo_. omm. ooo. ooo. omo. mom. oom. n o m_o. moo.o o_o. oom._ oom. ooo._ moo.o ooo. ”ox oooooooommoooo .o ooonz oo_nz u oo_uz -- . coo oomuz oo_uz H No... 2:... mo. ooo.. o... o... co mgom> oo mo< Looaoz ooow> mcom> .ooooooooo--.o-o o_ooo 120 oo— u z ooo. oo_. _oo. moo.o ooo. oo_. ooo. oom.o xoo .o oo_ u z ooo. ooo.- ooo. omo.o oo_. ooo. o_m. mo_.o ooooossoo co oooo> .m mm H z ooo. mmo.- moo. omo.o ooo. ooo. ooo. o_o.o osoooo .o oo_ u z moo. moo.- omo. omo.o omm. ooo. moo. ooo._ o_ooo omooooo> oo moo .o ooo u z o__. oo_. ooo. omo.o ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo.m oooo_ooo oo oooEoz .o ooo u z ooo. o_o.- omo. ooo.o _o_. oo_. ooo. oom.m ooocooz mooo> .o mo_ u z ooo. ooo. ooo. omo.o ooo. ooo.- ooo. _om.m ooooooooo oooom .o ooo n z ooo. _oo.- ooo. ooo.o oo_. omo. omo. o_o.o moo ._ ouoo ouoo o H o Nx o o o Nx xpwsoo Loo oo momopo poo: we Pope» mgmnpo Loo omoo APwEoo poo: Lo Pooch .ouopmwowpuogogo oooooooosoo oco mmoucmoomoo Pouch Loo ooh m.Fooo:m¥ oco mgooomuwoosn.o-o woooo 121 .ommo oh mooooouoco omoomogoo o oco xoo Loo _ n moo ooo. oo_. omo. moo._ m_o. ooo. _oo. _oo.o oxoo .o oo_. oo_. _mo. _oo._ ooo. mo_. m_o. _oo.o ooocossoo co mooom .m ooo. ooo.- Fooo. omm.o ooo. mmo.- ooo. ooo.o osoooo .o ooo. mmo. ooo. oom. omo. oo_. ooo. ooo.o o_ooo omooooo> oo moo .o ooo. o_o. ooo. ooo.o omo. omo. moo. _oo. oooo_ooo oo oooEoz .o ooo. omo. ooo. oom. ooo. o_o. ooo. ooo.o ooocooz mooo> .m _mo. ooo.- oom. omo. omo. moo.- ooo. oom. ooooooooo mooo> .o ooo. ooo. _oo. omo._ omo. om_. ooo. mom.o moo ._ o P o ommo o o o omwo xhwsoo Low oo mgmcuo poo: ooh; cowuoomohpom mcmopo Loo mooo oooEoo woo: ooh: cohuuowowoom -Lopoooooo omooooooEmo oco ooomocooh zoo; cowpoomowpom Low ooh o.hhoo:mx oco mgoooouhoo--.m-o o_ooh .mooomo 122 Table C-6.--Chi-square and Kendall's Tau for Quality of Life and Demographic Characteristics. diéil P T p l. Age 2.062 .356 .078 .l65 2. Years Education 1.786 .409 -.080 .162 3. Years Married .241 .886 .030 .348 4. Number of Children 2.579 .275 .0l5 .420 5. Age of Youngest Child l.7l5 .424 .020 .397 6. Income .597 .74l .060 .221 7. Years in Community 1.524 .466 .087 .137 8. Sex* .093 .759 .058 .276 *df = l for sex and a corrected chi-square is used. MICHIGAN S T ATE UNIV. LIBRARIES WWIHI1111111111111111W" 13930117 312930