ABSTRACT FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING AS REPORTED BY 100 FARM FAMILIES IN MICHIGAN by Peggy K. Schomaker This investigation was undertaken in order to study decision—makinp in relation to the use of farm family fin- ancial resources. The study attempted: (a) to get a real- istic and detailed picture of how financial decisions are made, (b) to determine the influence upon certain decision- making practices of such factors as age, education, size of family, tenure status, net worth, and organizational participation, (0) to compare practices followed in making satisfactory and unsatisfactory financial decisions, and (d) to discover to what extent families are able to verba- lize their financial goals and to find out which financial goals they consider most important. Data were obtained from 100 farm families living in Eaton and Clinton Counties in Michigan. The interview- questionnaire technique was used to gather data. The financial decision-making in the farm families was analyzed as to the reasons the problem arose, the sources of information consulted other than persons, the persons outside the family with whom the problem was dis- cussed, the adequacy of facts, the degree the problem was discussed in the family, the risks and alternatives con- Peggy Schomaker sidered, the decision-makers, and the length of time to make the decision. These factors were compared against age of head, educational level of husband and wife, size of family, tenure status, net worth, and organizational participation of family. Frequency tables were constructed, using these factors. To determine whether the character- istics were independent, chi-square tests were made. Practices followed in satisfactory and unsatisfac- tory financial decision-making were compared. To deter- mine differences between these decision-making practices, the "t" test for significance of diffenmwm between prOpor- tions was used. In light of the findings of this study, it appeared that financial decision-making of the 100 farm families consisted of the following subprocessesf (a) the recogni- tion of the problem, (b) the observation and/ or acquisi- tion of information relevant to the solution of the problem, (0) the deliberation regarding the problem,1 (d) the mak- ing of the decision, and (e) the taking-action on the de- cision. Findings show that decision-making practices are influenced in particular by age and education. Families with heads under #5 years of age were more likely to carry out various'decision-making practices than those with heads 35 ye rs and over. As the education of the husband and wife increased, the percentage of families carrying out various decision-making practices increased. Peggy Schomaker It seemed evident from the data that decision-making practices were utilized to a greater degree in the satis— factory than in the unsatisfactory decision-making. In the satisfactory decisions, sources of information other than persons were consulted more often and the problem was 'discussed with persons outside the family more than in the unsatisfactory decisions. Within the family the problem was discussed to a greater degree and more risks and al- ternatives were considered in satisfactory than in unsat- isfactory decisions. The findings showed that farm families have goals which can be Verbalized; some of these goals are consid- ered of greater importance to the family than others. The future financial goal most frequently mentioned was improv- ing or building new farm buildings. Next, in order of frequency, were goals for improving land, and for improving or building new farm homes. When the couples were asked what had interfered with or delayed them in reaching these goals, they most frequently mentioned lack of money. .a-;-. “-- 1 Deliberation regarding the problem meant consider- ing carefully; weinhing facts and arguments with a View to a choice or decision. ' FINANCIAL DECISION—MAKING AS REPORTED BY 100 FARM FAMILIES IN MICHIGAN BY Peggy K. Schomaker A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Home Management 1961 ) '3 2 5’: J» -.A / d.— - ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation to the chairman of her committee, Dr. Alice C. Thorpe for her guidance during the course of this study. She also is appre- ciative of the valuable help given by the oth- er members of her committee: Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Miss Esther Everett, and Dr. Harold J. Dillon. In addition, the author wishes to thank Dr. William D. Baton for his suggestions for statistical analyses. Grateful acknowledgment is also due the one hundred farm families for their coopera- tion and interest in this study. tfififiififi ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SHAFTER I. II. III. IV. FORMULATION OF PROBLEM . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . Decision-making Process . . . Factors Relating to the Decision-Making Process . . . . . . . . . . Farm Family Goals . . . . . . METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . Selection of the Sample . . . The Schedule . . . . . . . . The Interviewing . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF FAMILIES STUDIED Age of Family Head . . . . . Education of Husband and Wife Size of Family . . . . . . . Tenure Status . . . . . . . . Net Worth . . . . . . . ... . Organizational Participation iii PAGE 5‘ \J \J N \J‘ '1h 31 35 35 38 39 39 NZ h2 #2 ’43 an TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER v. FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING . . . . . . . . . Reasons Given by Families for Problem AriSing e c e e e 0 Sources of Information Consulted than Persons . . . . Persons Outside Family with Whom Discussed . . . . . Adequacy of Information Discussion of Problem in Family Risks Considered . . . Alternatives Considered Decision-Makers . . . Length of Time to Make Decision 0 VI. COMPARISON OF SATISFACTORY AND UNSATISFACTORY FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING . Reasons Given by Families for Problem Arising e c e e o 0 Sources of Information Consulted than Persons . . . . . . . . . Persons Outside Family with Whom Discussed . . . . . Adequacy of Information Discussion of Problem in Family Risks Considered . . . Alternatives Considered iv 0 PAGE 50 51_ 53 57 6h 67 72 75 78 81 BM 85 86 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER PAGE Decision-Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Length of Time to Make Decision . . . . . 9U VII. FINANCIAL GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Achieved Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Goals for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . 99 VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . 103 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . .I. . 105 Financial Decision-Making . . . . . . . 105 Satisfactory versus Unsatisfactory Fi- nancial Decision—Making . . . . . . . 112 Financial Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . 11“ Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O C O O O 128 TI‘IBLE P 1. Formal Education of Husbands and Wives . . . 2. Distribution of Children According to Age. . 3. Distribution of Families by Tenure Status and Farm Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Distribution of Families by Net Worth and Indebtedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Distribution of Families by Net Worth and Selected Family Characteristics . . . . . 6. Reasons Problem Arose . . . . . . . . .-. . 7. Types of Informational Sources Consulted . . 8. Sources Other Than Persons Consulted in Fin— ancial Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Persons Outside Family with Whom Problem Discussed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Classification of Persons Outside Family with Whom Problem Discussed . . . . . . . . . . ll. Adequacy of Information in Financial Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Degree Problem Discussed between Husband and Wife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Discussion of Problem with Children . . . . lu. Risks Considered in Financial Decision— Making.................. 15. Alternatives Considered in Financial Decision LIST OF TABLES Naking.................. vi #6 37 1+9 53 56 61 62 66 7O 71 7h LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. Alternatives Reported When Families Asked if They Considered Doing Something Else Than What They Did . . . . . . . . . . . Decision—Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Length of Time to Make Financial Decisions. Reasons Problems Arose in Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision-Making . . . . . Sources of Information in the Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision-Making. . . . Sources Other than Persons Consulted in the Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision- Making................'. Persons Outside Family with Whom Problem Discussed in the Satisfactory and Unsat- isfactory Decision-Making . . . . . . . . Adequacy of Information in the Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision-Making . . . Degree Problem Discussed in Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision-Making . . . Risks Considered in the Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision—Making . . . . . Alternatives Considered in Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Decision-Making . . . . . Alternatives Reported When Families Asked if They considered Doing Something Else vii PAGE 77 8O 86 37 88 \O O 91 ‘0 TO 92 LIST OF TABLES - Continued T ABLE PAGE Than What They Did . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 28. Decision-Nakers in the Satisfactory and Un- satisfactory Decision-Naking . . . . . . 9h 29. Time Involved in Satisfactory and Unsatis- factory Decision-Naking . . . . . . . . . 95 30. Financial Goals Achieved . . . . . . . . . 97 31. Sacrifices Made by Families in Order to Achieve Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 )2. Financial Goals for the Future . . . . . . 100 \J \J 0 Factors Which Interfered With or Delayed Families in Reaching Their Goals . . . . 102 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Schema of Analytic Categories Specifying Interrelations Anticipated in the Accu- mulation of Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. Location of Sample Areas in Baton County . . 36 3. Location of Sample Areas in Clinton County . 3? ix CHAPTER I FORMULATION OF PROBLEM Decision-making is an integral part of management. Some have phrased it the crux of management (23819), or the atomic unit of the management process (6331). Decision- making is unavoidable in management and the quality of one's decision determines the quality of the management. Need for the Study Information is needed as to how financial decisions are made since such decisions govern to a great extent the level of living a family will have. Only as decision- making is better understood can families be assisted in the attainment of their financial goals. Mention has often been made of the wide time lag that exists between the discovery through research of a new technique or practice and the ad0ption of that prac- tice by the majority of the peeple. One reason, frequently stated, for persons not acting on suggested improvements is their inability to make decisions. Specific reasons, 'reported by Bratton (6), why decision-making is difficult for some people are: many people do not want to accept the economic reSponsibility for their decisions, it is not easy in many instances to get all the information one would like to have before making the decision, uncertain- ties make it hard to decide on things that will carry into the future, some individuals try to give equal attention 1 2 to all decisions, and many people lack any clear-cut goals or objectives to guide them in making their decisions. Therefore, educators have the responsibility to help peo- ple develop competence in making decisions. Developing the ability to make and carry out intel- ligent decisions in the use of personal, family, and com- munity resources is considered of such value today that the American Home Economics Association has stressed it as one of the most important objectives of the profession. In a rapidly changing society such as ours, it is imperative that young people be taught how to think and make intelligent choices. New facts, ideas, skills, and attitudes appear so rapidly that much of what is now be- ing taught will soon become outdated. Therefore, people must be equipped to make intelligent decisions and judg- ments so that they can adequately adapt to the future. Statement of the Problem In order to explore decision-making in relation to the use of farm family financial resources, this study attempts: 1. To get a realistic and detailed picture of how financial decisions are made. 2. To determine the influence upon certain decision making practices of such factors as age, educa- tion, size of family, tenure status, net worth, and organizational participation. 3. To compare practices followed in making satisfac- 3 tory and unsatisfactory financial decisions. u. To discover to what extent families are able to verbalize their financial goals and to find out which financial goals they consider most impor- tant. Assumptions An assumption basic to this study is that all fami- lies are faced with the necessity for making decisions regarding use of family resources. Therefore, information can be obtained about factors which contribute to finan- cial decision-making, and this knowledge will assist fam- ilies in attainment of their financial goals. Another assumption is that farm business and home decisions are necessarily related and to attempt to sep- arate them for purposes of studying the decision-making process is futile (35). And thirdly, it is assumed that decisions are made in light of the family's values and goals. Hypotheses In this study, the following hypotheses were tested: 1. The decision-making process followed by farm fam- ilies in the use of their financial resources consists of the following subprocesses: (a) the recognition of the problem, (b) the observation and/ or acquisition of information relevant to the solution of the problem, (c) the deliberation h regarding the problem, (d) the making of the decision, and (e) the taking-action on the de- cision. 2. Characteristics of the family such as age, edu- (cation, family size, tenure status, net worth, and organizational participation are positively related to certain practices or components of the decision-making subprocesses. 3. The components of the decision-making subprocess- es are utilized to a greater degree in satis- factory than in unsatisfactory financial decision- making. h. Farm families have goals which can be verbalized; some of these goals are considered of greater im- portance to the family than others. Definition of Terms Decision. In this study decision was defined as the act or product of determining in one's own mind upon a course of action. It was the cutting off of the processes of acquiring information and deliberating about a problem. Deliberation. Deliberation was defined as the care- ful consideration and weighing of facts and arguments with a view to a choice or decision. Risks. In this study risks were classified as eco- nomic and personal. Economic risks were defined as those things which destroy the market for one's services, his funds or the products of his business enterprise. Personal 5 risks were those which result from such contingencies as sickness, accident, old age, and death (#33166-172). Limitations of the Study This work was limited to the study of financial decision-making in the farm family. Because husband and wife were interviewed together, responses may have been restrained due to the spouses pres- ence. However, it is believed that less restriction would be placed upon the validity of data by this method than if the responses of only one member of the family had been secured. Data were subject to the accuracy of recall made by the respondents. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Decision-making in recent years has been a subject of growing concern in the fields of sociology, psychology, economics, and farm and home management. In this chapter, literature and research concerning the decision-making process, factors relating to the decision—making process, and farm family goals are reviewed and discussed. Decision-Making Process According to many writers there are two kinds of behavior, habitual behavior and genuine decision-making. Habitual behavior involves common, routine acts repeated over and over again. It is largely determined by past decisions and experiences. Genuine decision-making, on the other hand, is uncommon and is made according to the requirements of the situation. Katona differentiates between habitual behavior and genuine decisions. In habitual behavior, there is no de- liberation, no choosing. It is carried out quite auto- matically, without being influenced by motives or atti- tudes. Problem-solving behavior or genuine decision-making is characterized by “the arousal of a problem or question, by deliberation or thinking which involves reorganization in a specific direction, by understanding the requirements of the situation, by weighing alternatives and taking their consequences into consideration, and finally, by choosing 6 7 among alternative courses of action“ (383139).' Genuine decision-making, according to Katona, is relatively rare and may result in action which is new rather than repetitive. It occurs under the influence of strong motivational forces and new events. An example of this would be new developments which make a person dis- satisfied with his habitual ways of action. Problem solv- ing or decision-making is influenced by motives, attitudes, expectations and emotional factors. ‘ Although not always true, purchases which are made rarely, or which involve large amounts of money, purchases of real estate or securities, or additions to bank accounts tend to be a result of genuine decision-making while ex- penditures on food, clothing and other necessities are frequently habitual. Simon points to frequency of routine behavior when he states that the pattern of human choice is uoften more nearly a stimulus-response pattern than a choice among alternatives“ (583108). Habits, he believes, are valuable in purposive behavior because they permit “similar stimuli or situations to be met with similar reSponses or reactions,"/ ‘(58388) thereby permitting attention to be focused on the new aspect of a situation requiring decision. If the farm family were to consider every item of information they re- ceive in relation to their problems, and not follow any established principles, rules of thumb or habitual practices, they would have no time to do farming or homemaking. 8 In his Psychological Analysis 2; Economic Behavior, Katona (393229-231) writes that much of the behavior of businessmen is habitual. Problem solving behavior or genuine decision-making is not an every day occurrence in [Egsiness life A businessman follows habitual behavior because it is a path of minimum effort and it serves to reduce uncertainty and tension by relying on procedures which have proved to be satisfactory in the past. Accord- ing to Katona, businessmen abhor uncertainty and they try to avoid decisions “the consequences of which they cannot foresee, and try to make decisions the consequences of which are in their opinion least uncertain...in circum- stances of uncertainty, doing the thing that was done be- fore appears the safest way to proceed and the one involv- ing the smallest amount of risk“ (393230-231). Problem-solving behavior or genuine decision-making, according to Katona, is not the same as rational behavior. Rather than being a trial-and-error process in which all possible courses are listed and weighed against one another, the essential feature of problem solving, the reorganization or restructuring of the situation, is a highly selective process. By utilizing certain (not all) clues from the environment, an item of in- formation is seen in a different context and there- fore in a new light... (38:1uo). Too often scientists have treated decisions that did not conform to the rational model as if they were in a region beyond the pale of science. Back (3) points out that each decision is partially rational, irrational, and non-rational - it is determined jointly by'the objective 9 situation, individual predisposition, and conscious com- mitment“(3=19)o Whether the decision-maker is rational or irrational is not the question. He is a human being, influenced by past experience. Sociocultural norms, attitudes, and habits, as well as his emotions and his belonging to groups, all influence his decisions. He is apt to prefer short cuts, follow rules of thumb, and behave in a routine manner. But he is also capable of acting intelligently. When he feels that it really matters, he will deliberate and choose to the best of his ability (38:1h5). In a study of purchase decisions, Mueller (#7) found that genuine decision-making was a highly selective process. It seldom consisted of a careful consideration of all the aspects of purchasing. In fact, some buyers restricted information seeking, deliberation, and weighing of alter- natives to considerations of price or appearance or mechan— ical properties and performance. Tannenbaum (62822-33) points out that individuals can never gain complete.knowledge of all the factors which underlie their choices. The need for decision-making arises out of the fact that knowledge is inadequate and the future is uncertain. If all knowledge concerning a situation were available, decisions would not have to be made. If the consequences of each behavior alternative were within the awareness of an individual, judgment would not have to be exercised because one alternative would then be de- termined by consequences relating to this superior alter- native. 10 Five different knowledge situations in which a per- uson might find himself when he is in a decision-making position are envisioned by Johnson(36xll): (1) Perfect knowledge, or at least the conviction that knowledge is nearly enough perfect to act as if it were perfect. (2) Risk (3) Learning Imperfect knowledge (h) Inaction (5) Forced action If the farm family find themselves in a situation in which their knowledge is nearly enough perfect for them to act as though it were perfect - without taking precautions, then they are said to be in an apparently perfect knowledge situation. In such a case the decision is either to act or not act. A risk situation exists when the family feels that their information is good enough to make a decision and that the cost of additional information is not worth the cost of acquiring or learning it. When 'the family postpones their action under consideration un- ‘til they learn more because they feel that what they learn is; worth more than.the cost of learning it, they are in a The family is in an inaction situation 1 earning si tuati on. if‘ what they know is inadequate for positive action and the cost of additional information exceeds the value of what Wtuxld be learned. In a forced action situation some out- .Sixie influence forces the family to act even though the 11 existing knowledge is considered inadequate. If time were available in such a situation, more knowledge could be acquired by the family at a cost less than its value. Little is actually known in relation to the decision making process. What mental Operations are really involved in decision-making? Knight expresses his point of view on this subject when he writes that: The ordinary decisions of life are made on the basis of 'estimates' of a crude and superficial character. In general the future situation in relation to which we act depends upon the behavior of an indefinitely large number of objects, and is influenced by so many factors that no real effort is made to take account of them all, much less estimate and summate their sep- arate significances... The mental operations by which ordinary practical de- cisions are made are very obscure, and it is a matter for surprise that neither logicians nor psychologists have shown much interest in them. Perhaps it is be- cause there is really very little to say about the subject... 50 when we try to decide what to expect in a certain situation, and how to behave ourselves accordingly, we are likely to do a lot of irrelevant mental rambling, and the first thing we know we find that we have made up our minds, that our course of action is settled (#23210-211). Writers, however, have made various hypotheses as to the steps involved in the decision-making process. (Gross and Crandall (23:20) see the decision-making process as; a threefold task, that of seeking alternatives, thinking trxrough the consequences of these alternatives, and choos- ing one alternative. Nickell and Dorsey view the process similarly but they emphasize the weighing of values and state that choice i-$'based on consciousness of values identified in the proc- 68$. 12 Before making a decision, one makes a Spontaneous mental selection: he prefers one thing to another; he weighs one alternative against another. “While one is trying to arrive at a decision, these conflicting pref- erences or alternatives hold each other in checké/Hes- itation delays the decision. As the values to be de- rived from each course or choice are weighed and com- pared, hesitation becomes deliberation.' Finally a choice or preference emerges which is based on con— sciousness of the values that have been identified in the process of deliberating. The decision is then made 0h9829). Another variation of the decision-making process is suggested by Gartner, Kolmer, and Jones (2036-10). They conclude that the process censists of four phases‘ search- ing for total available alternatives, determining relevant alternatives, appraising relevant alternatives, and making the final choice. Throughout their discussion, they em- phasize that family resources and objectives are extremely important factors influencing family decision-making. Bross agrees with the above authors in that he vis- ualizes decision-making as a "process of selecting one action from a number of alternative courses of action"(7:l). .He sees decision-making as a-three step process: predicting (outcomes for each action, evaluating these outcomes in terms (If some scale of desirability and using a criterion, based orl the purposes, to make the actual selection (7322). The decision-making process viewed by Johnson (3588) is; very similar to the one viewed by Heady and Jensen.(263 11-"--l8). They agree that after the problem has been identi- fieui, the process consists of observing and acquiring in- fOI‘mation relevant to the solution of the problem, of an- 13 alyzing this information, and of making the decision. Johnson adds two steps to the process - putting the de- cision into action, and accepting responsibility for the consequences of actions taken. Heady and Jensen classify putting the plan into effect as supervision rather than decision-making. Various guides have been developed for decision- making. One is termed the "Decision Calculus“ and is in- tended to apply to making any type of decision. It con— sists of the following parts: a. Analysis of the decision area to discover appli- cable elements. b. Location or creation of criteria for evaluation. 0. Appraisal of the known information pertinent to the applicable elements and correction for bias. d. Isolation of the unknown factors. e. Empirical setting of values on the unknown factors. f. Weighting of the pertinent elements, known and un- known, as to relative importance. Projection of the relative impacts on the objective, and synthesis into a course of action (23h7-53). {IQ Another guide is that developed by Carl and Lucile Ialone, a farm management specialist and a home management slmecialist from Iowa State University. They recommend truat a family keep the following points in mind when making decisions of any importance: a. Each decision should have a purpose, and the purpose should be in harmony.with family goals. b. Each decision should be based on pertinent facts. All of the facts must be assembled and examined before an important decision is made. 1h c. Each decision should take into account family de- sires, feelings, and attitudes. d. Each choice that has real possibilities should be fully appraised, and a careful estimate made of both the total costs and the probable outcome, if that choice is made. e. Each decision should allow for what is unknown and uncertain. f. When all the above have been taken into account, it is time to make a decision and put it into use. There are times when the best decision is the firm one to do nothing (##317). The Nalones point out that if a family develops the habit of using the above process in making decisions, it will save itself time and be able to make better decisions. It is recognized, however, that certain decisions will re— quire more time and effort than others. Concerning this, the following rule is recommended: "put time, effort, and study into a decision in proportion to the importance of the outcome you expect to get“ (bb817). Factors Relatinggto the Decision-Making Process In this section, literature and research concerning the following factors which relate to the decision-making Jarocess are reviewed: motivation, acquisition of informa- tixan, deliberation, influence differentiation in decision- rnaJcing, decision-makers, and action-taking. Motivation. In a paper presented at the 1958 con- ference on Household Decision-Making, Morgan (b6381-102) efiuihasized the importance of motives in decision-making. H153 theory is th:t motives operate both with reSpect to the dGeision as such and with respect to one's relationships .15 with the rest of the family. An individual's strength of preference for a particular alternative is affected by the way it contributes to his basic needs. The basic needs of an individual can be classified as physical and social. At the physical level an individual has the need for food, shelter, sex, and entertainment; and at the social level - achievement, affiliation, power, and curiosity. To these are added incentives and subjective probabilities of the outcome, an individual's experiences and his habits - to- influence his preferences among alternatives. When an individual's preferences are combined into a family decision, the process becomes even more complex. Here the decision is influenced by concern for what others in the family desire. This is valued because the individual feels a need for affiliation and also because of more mun- dane necessities for keeping the family together. One's desire to exert power and influence over others without making the family a battle ground is yet another factor. Hill (27:57-80) points out the many factors which :are brought to bear when the family makes a decision. Some <3f the ones he mentioned which may be expected to account fwar the success or failure of families in managing and girtting ahead were: family values; knowledge about methods Of‘ problem-solving; family power structure: openness of the Ckuannels of communication within the family; adequacy of Conununication between family members, and accuracy of per- Ception of the wishes and desires of other members. Figure 16 1 shows the interrelations anticipated which may have a bearing on the success or failure of a family in the ac- cumulation of its assets. rCeneral Value Family Goals and 'Orientations Long Range Policies, : Fam. Life Styles L / ‘~\ .17 ‘x / "xx x _ ' \\ h .4 . \‘\\ \_ { Effectiveness‘ Social Placement Cumulative Career ‘\' 5 in Long Rangei - Situational -. Patterns from thi4j ‘ Planning % Categories j Family History ji U‘ f: y “’f “ ‘ TAccumulation a _ ,, - , t \\ ‘- \\\ ’ 31 of Assets GeneralQFamily - Family Action Poten- Organization tials, Competencies & Structure _in Problem - Solving Figure l. Schema of analytic categories specifying inter- relations anticipated in the accumulation of assets In her master's thesis, Steckle (59) made an attempt to analyze motives for good and poor decisions which were described by fifteen home management students. The motives were classified as subjective, objective and environmental. Subjective motives had to do with the ideas and feelings of the person or persons concerned with making the decision. (Dbjective motives dealt with material resources of the per- :son or persons involved in the decision; and environmental nuntives concerned those factors over which the person or persons felt they had no control. An analysis of the good decisions showed that in nine Of‘ the 15 cases, the motive for making the decision was en- Vironmental. The other six cases showed subjective motives. b“) objective motives were given for making good decisions. 17 In the poor decision analysis, 12 cases were class- ified as having subjective motives; two, objective motives; and only one, an environmental motive. Green (22) made a study in 195% of factors inducing decisions to build farm houses. TWo-hundred sixty-six North Carolina families cooperated in the study. An analy- sis of the verbalizations of the motives revealed that those situational components most closely associated with their need-dispositions, their former housing, and the changing structure of their family were the most frequently mentioned. Certain cultural norms, although not in themselves decisive, were shown to be very influential. The third element - the family's means - had the least direct effect on the decision. Acquisition of Information. In studying information seeking in relation to the purchase of large household ap- pliances, Mueller (M7) found that over half of the buyers got advice from acquaintances'who owned these appliances. .A third of the buyers bought a brand they had seen in some— <3ne's home. It appeared from this study that information :seeking from relatives, friends, and neighbors was of gureater importance than information seeking from shopping arwound in stores. Another study by Mueller (#8) showed that friends ru)t only served as sources of information but they often Sexmved as salesmen. Seeing a product in a friend's home aTKi learning about it from her was found to promote the D acoeptancc of innovations. 18 Wilkening (65) found that the most frequently men- tioned contacts for information about eight improved farm practices were other farmers, agricultural agencies, and mass media. Farmers of high socioeconomic status depended more upon agricultural agencies, farm journals, and news- papers while farmers of low status depended more upon other farmers and-radio programs for information. Family members, friends, and neighbors; direct con- tact with the extension service; and self-origination were sources of information most frequently mentioned by Vermont farm women for the adoption of eight recommended homemaking practices (6D). -A Washington study (56) reported that neighbors and commercial dealers top the list as sources of information for adopted homemaking practices. Families ranked third with magazines coming next. The ways most in use by rural women in Ontario for acquiring homemaking information were through reading mag- zazines and newspapers, through television and radio, and tflarough the home economics service of the Department of Agriculture (1 ) . Deliberation. Dewey and Tufts point out that: Deliberation is actually an imaginative rehearsal of various courses of conduct. We give way, in our mind, to some impulse; we try, ig_gg£ mind, some plan. Following its career through various steps, we find ourselves in imagination in the presence of the con- sequences that would follow: and as we then like and approve, or dislike and disapprove, these consequences, we find the original impulse or plan good or bad ... 19 The advantage of a mental trial, prior to the overt trial (for the act after all is itself also a trial, a proving of the idea that lies back of it), is that it is retrievable, whereas overt consequences remain. They cannot be recalled. Moreover, many trials may mentally be made in a short time (153323-32h). Norris (50896-110) has written that the extent of deliberation that families make in their financial deci- sions varies with the expenditure. According to her theory, consumer expenditures may be divided into three major cate- gories: areas in which careful weighing is absent, areas in which careful weighing occurs, and the dynamic residual. Expenditures in which careful weighing is absent include past commitments, expenditures on minor goods, and expendi- tures to satisfy rigid habit. Areas in which careful weigh- ing occurs include goods consumed regularly but suffi- ciently costly so that buyers must weigh their purchase carefully. And thirdly, the dynamic residual, is the re- maining income after all commitments have been met and ha- bitually consumed goods have been purchased. This type of expenditure represents an “experimental fund used by the consumer in unpredictable ways,“ (503105) and it involves deliberate decision-making. — In their studies of purchase decisions, Mueller and Katona have extended and empirically tested some of Norris' ideas. In one particular study (#7), they concerned them- selves with the kind and extent of deliberation that fam- ilies make. Data revealed that the care with which con- sumer decisions were made varied from one type of purchase 20 to another, and from one consumer to another. When con- sumers bought a major household appliance they chose much more deliberately than when they bought a sport shirt. Spur of the moment decisions were not uncommon when buying a Sport shirt but they were very rare when it came to pur- chases of major household goods. A great difference was shown in the way consumers went about buying the same type of commodity. They found that 20 percent of the 1000 dur- able goods buyers that were interviewed displayed most of the essential features of deliberate decision-making - planning, seeking information, and considering alternatives. At the other extreme, there was a group of about the same size (22 percent) who showed almost a complete lack of deliberation - they arrived at their decisions quickly and without hesitation and in most cases gave the impression of being indifferent or apathetic. Fifty-eight percent of the buyers fell into an intermediate position with respect to deliberation. In analyzing the conditions that give rise to various kinds of decision-making, it was found that both the indi- vidual characteristics of buyers and conditions under which the purchase takes place are important. Characteristics of the buyers that fell into the highly deliberate decision- making group were: those with a college education, those with incomes between $5,000 and $7,500, those under 35 years old, white collar workers, and peOple who expressed a lik- ing for shopping around. There was a tendency toward de- 21 liberation among people who felt no urgent need for the product and those who either had an unsatisfactory or no experience with the product. Lack of deliberation occurred mostly among the dur- able goods buyers with only grammar school education, who earned incomes below $2,000, worked in unskilled or ser- vice jobs, were age 65 or over, and expressed a dislike for shopping. Conditions under which the absence of de- liberation was found tended to be when the product was inexpensive, urgently needed or when the buyer had had previous satisfactory experience with the product. A study in Pennsylvania by Dix (16) found that only a third of the farm families interviewed consciously used more than one of the recommended decision-making steps. Being aware of using recommended decision-making steps was found to be related positively to farm ownership and group decision-making. Farm owners used more steps than farm tenants and families who made decisions as groups used more steps than families who made them as individuals. No re- lationship was found between number of decision-making steps used and number of years married, or educational level of husband and wife. Paolucci (51) in a study of decision-making in re- lation to management in classes of home economics, found that the length of time required by beginning teachers to reach a decision varied. Two~fifths of the decisions were spur of the moment, a fifth took several hours to make, and 22 over a fourth required several days of cogitating. The remaining 11 percent took several weeks or were still in process. Situational as well as personal factors were found to influence the length of time required in arriving at closure in a decision. About two-thirds of the factors mentioned by these teachers were situational factors of time available, number of people involved, accessibility of resources, pupil demands, school policies, and number of alternatives to be considered. The other third of the factors were personal ones: feeling others would accept decisions, feeling secure in the situation, feeling con- fident, and having successful past experiences in decision- making. Davis's study of one hundred high school girls re- vealed that the majority of the planning for purchases of new clothing was done on the "spur of the moment.” In re- gard to their most recent clothing purchase, 30 percent of the students reported that they had decided they needed the new garment while.at the store shopping; 28 percent reported that they had given the purchase only slight planning - they made the decision as the occasion arose. Twenty-one percent had planned for the clothing purchase several months beforehand and twenty percent had planned for it at the beginning of the year(13). Influence Differentiation in Decision-Making. At Iowa State University, Kenkel (“0) studied twenty-five mar- 23 ried undergraduate couples to determine how influence was distributed between spouses. Each couple was asked to assume that it had received a gift of $300 and was then asked to decide between themselves how the money should be spent. Bales' procedure of interaction process analysis was used for observing the behavior of the mates. A tape recording of the session was also made. . Husbands were found to have the greater influence in this decision-making session - influence being defined in terms of the preportion of the adopted items suggested by each of the spouses. The husbands were also found to do most of the talking, contribute most of the ideas while the wives did more toward keeping the session running smoothly. Findings of this study show that wives with a high or even medium influence in the family decision-making session were generally those that played the more tradi- tional wifely role - “praising and rewarding.their hus- bands, condescending to them, and only occasionally letting their own ideas be known" (#0325). In another report of this study Kenkel and Hoffman point out that husbands and wives were unable to recognize -their roles in decision-making. Even when the judgment was made after, instead of before the session only a slight improvement in accuracy was made. 0f the 50 individuals in the study, 17 were able to judge accurately concerning the distribution of total amount of talking in the session. Even afterwards, over half of the individuals were inaccur- 2% ate. With regard to which mate would contribute the most ideas and suggestions, 16 judged accurately before the de- cision-making session and 17 afterwards. Nine of the 50 made accurate judgments as to who would do the most to keep things going smoothly. Post session results showed that only seven mates were able to state accurately what had really happened. The authors feel that creating role awareness must be the first step in teaching rational de- cision-making. Only then can one go on "to scrutinize the decision-making process more thoroughly in terms of isolat- ing and ranking their broader goals, relating immediate plans of action to the goals, deveIOping alternatives, and the like“ (h13316). Results of two past studies ”Husband-Wife Interaction Over Revealed Differences'I (61) and ”The Family as a Three Person Group" (60), show that decision-making power is associated with high participation. In other words, the person who does the most talking in a group decision-making task is likely to have the greater influence. In the book Husbands and Wives, Blood and Wolfe re- port that the balance of power between the two partners was affected by education, organizational participation, and work. The partner who had more education, who belonged to more types of organizations, and who worked more outside the home, had more influence in family decisions. No dif- ference was found in the relative power of husband versus 25 wife in cultural subgroups such as farm families, immigrants, Catholic-families, old couples, or uneducated couples. Power 'not in American marriages, according to these authors, is a matter of brute coercion and unwilling defeat so much as a mutual recognition of individual skills in particular areas of competence and of the partners' dual stake in areas of joint concern" (hibj). Decision-makers. A national study made by Wolgast (69) revealed that in the urban American family, major eco- nomic decisions are mostly made jointly by husbands and wives. When responsibilities are divided, they are fre- quently understood and approved by both partners. In the opinion of both husbands and wives, the following purchases are the exceptions: the decision to buy a car is most com- monly made by the husband and the decision to buy furniture and household appliances is made mostly by the wife. The amount of joint decision-making in the family was found to decline with increasing age and length of marriage. Whether a wife works has no effect on her de- cision-making function, but whether she has young children does. Wives with pro-school age children had less inde- pendent responsibility for economic decisions than other wives. Regarding the family's economic plans, there was a general agreement between husbands and wives. Such differ- ences as did appear suggest that the wives' plans are slight- ly better thought out than the husbands'. 26 A similar study dealing with economic decisions was made by Sharp and Mott (57) in greater Detroit. However, the data in this study represents only the wife's opinion as to the economic decision-making balance in the house- hold. The decision areas investigated in the study in- volved: automobile purchases, food, housing, vacations, life insurance, outside work by the wife, and handling of money and bills in the family. Vacation plans and the selection of a new residence were most likely found to be the joint reSponsibility of both spouses. Selection of life insur- ance is made jointly in about no percent of the homes and by the husband in a similar proportion. But the decision as to which car to buy is definitely the husbands. In decisions concerning the labor force status of the wife, buying groceries, and handling money and bills, the most common arrangement was for the wife to decide. An interest- ing note here, which appears from the examination of the available data, is that when the husband makes the decision about outside work for his wife, he acts to keep his wife out of the labor force, but when the choice is hers, the wife seeks employment. The making of joint rather than unilateral decisions in the areas of housing, vacations, and labor force status of the wife was more frequently characteristic of households at the upper than the lower income levels. A study of Ontario farm homes (1), showed that in the majority of the farm families, the husband and wife 27 made most economic decisions as a team. Over two-thirds of the families reported making decisions jointly on whether their next purchase of desired equipment would be farm equipment or home equipment. Sixty-two percent reported joint decisions in relation to the plan of farm finance. It is seen from this study that wives are involved in farm management decisions on farms ranging from those with a large to a small volume of business. Perhaps this is due to the very real contribution which women make to the labor force on the farms. Ninety-eight percent in this study performed some work on the farm such as feeding live- stock, keeping farm accounts, operating farm machinery, or marketing farm produce. In a study by Wilkening (68), it was reported that joint decision-making in a family is associated with the wife's social participation, the family's income, and the amount of their indebtedness. Wives who participated in parent-teachers associations or similar groups were more likely to have made decisions with their husbands than those participating in no such associations. A high amount of joint decision-making was found in the middle income group ($6,000 - $8,999); and a low amount, in both the high and low income classes. The amount of indebtedness was positively associated with joint decision-making of hus- band and wife. Families with $h,000 or more of debt were more likely to discuss and decide major decisions together than those with less indebtedness. 28 Results of this study suggest that the involvement of husband and wife in decisions pertaining to family and farm is 'a product of the goals and means for attaining those goals, which may change over time as well as of in- stitutionalized definitions of husband and wife roles“ (685192). Another study by Wilkening (67) revealed that there was no significant association between father-centered decision-making and the acceptance of technological changes in the home. In her doctoral dissertation on IDecision-Making in Relation to the Performance of Household Activities in New York State Homes,“ Davis (1“) reported that the home- maker alone made 85 percent of the household decisions. The highest proportion of these decisions were in washing, ironing, and care of the house. Only three percent of the household decisions were made by the husband alone and these were in the areas of buying, leisure, upkeep of the house, gardening and care of the yard. Seventeen of the #10 household decisions which were analyzed in this study were made jointly by husband and wife. In only five cases was decision-making shared by all the family. A master's study of decision-making in clothing pur- chases of 100 home economics students revealed that 70 per- cent had made their own decision concerning their last clothing purchase. Sixteen percent said their mothers had helped them to decide, and 11 percent reported that their 29 mothers alone had made the decision. However, Davis feels that the mothers were influential in the students' selec- tions because of the preportion that had shOpped for cloth- 'ing with their mothers (13). Two studies of family financial managment showed that children seldom participated with their parents in decisions to buy items. However, children's greatest par- ticipation in the farm family study (30:11) was in relation to decisions to buy their own clothing, play eouipment, and reading material. In the study of college students (33:11), participation was greatest for decisions in re- gard to clothing and educational expenditures. Action-taking. It is often argued that no decision is final until expressed in terms of an action. The basis for such an argument is that a choice not terminated in action may lead to a different decision. Little empirical research has been carried out on the interrelatedness of decision-making and action-taking. However, a number of extension studies have examined fac- tors which relate to taking-action or adopting recommended practices. These studies (12, 25, 55) show that education, income, social participation, farm ownership, and size of farm are positively associated with the adoption of rec- ommended practices. . _ ' Burleson (8,9,10,11) observed in Louisiana that farmers and homemakers who adopt recommended practices 30 have more contact with the extension agents, a higher level of living, and more formal schooling than those who do not adopt the practices. In a master's thesis, Jennings (33) reported that taking-action on recommended homemaking practices was pos- itively associated with home ownership, high level-of- living, and nine or more years of formal schooling. Another study (6h) showed that Vermont farm women who were thirty to forty-four years of age and those in the upper income and educational groups adopt more recommended homemaking practices than the older, lower income, and less educated women. Two general types of reasons for not taking-action on recommended homemaking practices are failure to recog- nize the advantages or effectiveness of the improved prac- tice, and lack of means for implementing the practice. Reitz (53) believes that one important reason why farm families do not plan their kitchens according to rec- ommendations, is the cost of modernization. The young families, she feels, are putting their money into farm production; and tolerating existing conditions in the home until they can have the ideal they see pictured in maga- zines. Burleson (10) corroborates her thoughts. He found that homemakers have two reasons for not adopting the practice of providing compact spacing in arrangement of large pieces of kitchen equipment (refrigerator, stove, 31 sink, work-table) for convenience to worker: "waiting for a new house“ and "old home, no changes have been made." Ridder (5h) has stated that women dorkm adopt rec- ommended practices because of their failure to recognize the advantages or effectiveness of the improved practice. She believes that in general, homemakers are unaware of the waste of effort and time and the unnecessary confusion that exists in their practices, but once they become aware, they make many ingenious improvements. Farm Family Gogls A goal may be defined as ”an end toward which a design is directed. It is an aim or purpose ... some- thing toward which effort is directed ..." (18369). Making decisions implies the existence of goals toward which decisions are oriented (6381117). Simon states that ”each decision involves the selection of a goal and a behavior relevant to it; this goal may in turn be mediate to a somewhat more distant goal, and so on, until a relatively final aim is reached" (58th). The relationship of goals to decisions is shown in a case study of two Illinois farm families (19). In this study the goals, managerial practices, and decisions made in attempting to achieve these goals are analyzed for a 23 year period. The authors feel that these data provide an interesting example of the important role that family goals play in making financial decisions. 32 The importance of a farm family considering its goals is stressed in many farm management texts. Bradford and Johnson, in their Farm Management Analxgig, have writ- ten that it is not proper for Specialists to impose schemes of values on families but it is necessary to point out the need of developing and integrating a family's “concepts of the relative importance of various objectives into a set of goalsn (5387-88) which they can reasonably achieve. Some of the goals, according to these authors, with which a farm family is likely to be concerned are: “accu- mulation of extra assets ( such as a home, land, and modern conveniences), soil conservation, home employment for sons, educational investments,investments in family health, se- curity, and self-eXpression"(5:87-88). A number of studies (28,29,65) of farm families in- dicate agreement between husband and wife on goals. Wil- kening (65) found that in ranking five goals, both part- ners ranked “owning the farm free of debt' and "providing the children with a good education' highest. “having the farm well equipped“ was third; “having modern conveniences in the home," fourth; and "providing the family with an opportunity for travel and recreation“ was ranked last by both husband and wife. When the couple was asked to make a choice in a hypothetical situation between the purchase of needed household furniture and needed farm machinery, the majority of both husbands and wives chose the farm equipment before the home equipment. More wives, however, 33 than husbands chose buying the farm equipment first. The reasoning behind this was that "it took the farm item to make the money to obtain the home item; hence, the farm equipment should come first.’I A study by Hillman investigated major goals of young farm families in Ohio. From this research, she found that both partners frequently referred to the same goals, indicating that the “majority of husbands and wives know what they, as a family, are trying to do over a long time period and are endeavoring to accomplish these things together" (28357). In her study of farm family goals, Holmes (29) found that families thought more in terms of short time goals than long-time ones. Of the 70 families in the study, bl mentioned a time more than one year distant when they expected to attain a goal, while 33 mentioned dates five or more years ahead - usually with uncertainty. A study of 252 couples in Pennsylvania (31) showed that more families mentioned financial goals for the next 10 years than for the current year or for age 65. Both studies found that the ability or willingness of families to express their goals varied considerably. Why do families not attain,all their goals? Rea- sons mentioned by respondents in the Pennsylvania study (32) were poor health or illness, lack of money, unemploy- ment, debts, crop failure or loss of livestock. Other factors which affect the attainment of goals 3b are listed by Pattison (52$1b-l7) in her study of the relationship between expressed values of certain farm fam- ilies and their expenditures for living. Four factors which she believes influences the abilities of families to attain goals by use of their real incomes are: the preportion of the various resources that make up the real income avail- able for family living, the stability of money incomes, the price level, and the efficiency with which resources are used. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study was coordinated with the North Central regional project entitled “Factors Affecting the Finan- cial Security of Rural Families.“ Projects relating to different phases of the problem were undertaken by ten states in the region. Michigan's project focused on de- cision-making. Selection of the Sample Eaton and Clinton Counties, in Central Michigan, were selected as the sampling area for this study. Town- ship maps containing landholders' names and number of acres owned were obtained from the agricultural extension serv- ice. Two areas in each of the 16 townships in the above counties were selected for the study. One area containing six sections was located in the northeast corner and the other containing six sections was in the southwest corner of the township, figures 2 and 3. To secure 50 eligible families in each county, a third sampling area was chosen in the center of three Baton County and four Clinton County townships. Names of all landholders in these sampling areas were recorded and their eligibility checked. A report as to why each of the families was ineligible was made. Knowl- edge of eligibility was gained from community leaders who were suggested by the county home demonstration agents or 35 36 Figure 2. Location of sample areas in Baton Countya " T W ' ' ’ "-"I‘_ 1’ “Y u h A I H: A ' U- i" “T " V W 1' f I . ,. - ‘ _ P 1 1 I ' t ‘ . +1. 11, : , i 1 . 1 j 4 1 1 i Sunfield : Roxand I Oneida ; Delta _ a "‘rttfvv ‘vvr’rvfi ”*“rfi'vi 1"*“" r* r ’ ‘ 1 1 1" ._, l_. h. 1 I L I 1 ! »——~: ~ , - 1 Y - - fi-y , - 1 1 1__, ,1- 1h_c.1 1 as 74.4» ,. 1 ‘ *1; 1177-1—— . 1 , a ' 1 1 1 ‘- 1 V . p 1 11i1_wjrfi --ii-,ii_gli 7,1_.i__i___ _ . ; I" Vermontville‘ Chester Benton Windsor . l 1, . 1 - . A, .7 w w ,1 _A,__- Wafflnr , ‘1 71 cqui-q , f 1r . ii. a" 1 1 .‘ 1 1 . 1 1 : 1 ‘ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 ‘ y < ~‘Vti 1 - 1 1 1 . 1 ~ . :u j ‘ :3 ‘ 1_ L ,1 7 ...- ‘ 1L- 1. Kalamo Carmel Eaton ‘ Eaton Rapids ”AT ’7 ’7 : ’8 7"? 7" '_7 L.—_.. , 41.4 7 _.+_—£ — ..i 1 1 ,4 L‘ “‘1’ 1 ’ ’ 1 I ' I 1 1 7"“ 1—-—1—— f 1 a -4 4—4; 1 it ‘ 1. 1 ‘7 WWW. 11,, 1.”. ; Bellevue I Walton 1 Brookfield ; Hamlin 1 ; ‘r 1 “‘1'"; “‘1 iii} I 5 1,...i_ir, ; ‘ ”1‘1 M; , 1 1 ‘ . 1 1 j I 1 . ' , . 1 1 L i 1 L 1 1 ___47_ L a Blocked sections indicate sample areas, the red dots the sample. Figure 3. Location of 1 v I \-. u o ' I I l , I ‘ . t1. . - . ‘ . 1 1 _,._ lfifl Lebanon Essex _ ---? I 'f"' e e L 1 '. 1 _.__...__..___| __+ h“- 1.! . i 1": 1 * ' 1 . i. ' t, i , Dallas Bengal t 1' 1 1 "* *‘1 *1 s , l~ -’. . y ‘ Westphalia ' fiifiey ‘ c f '8'! ,_ . J .. . + ' c~. ' “1 1 ..ol 1 .1 d u: i ; I ; 1&1 1 . Eagle Watertown $1.» 9 0 37 1 1. .f.... 1 a 1 . i l I ... . »—-b——-—- ....-- ‘ l l ! 1 1 1 a ; 14 + a 1 . c Greenbush - 1--—-.«—-—-~ 1 i ' 1 l 1 - | i5 -+--- -?— 1 ‘ i n 1 1 Bingham 1 i 1 1'1‘"1 1 1 .. . gt .r ‘1“1 : ! I .-—-—————f—---—~—$~ ’ 1 ~ 1 olime "1_4__; ..-41 1 1 1 1 1 1‘ ' ’*" E 1 Dewitt sample areas in Clinton Countya ' 1 @Vid 1 ; 4'. 1 . H! _ 1 i 1 L _ «1-4 1 ' ~ L __ 1 e ' *~ V———_—.—_ ——-_.._—..—.’—.—_4 < ...—fl...” 0 ‘ d. d .1 we"? 1 I .7——— --o- *‘fi—v. ' ' 5 1 1 ‘ r b ‘- e a Blocked sections indicate sample areas, the red dots the sample. 38 by house-to-house canvassing. A total of 121 families were found to be eligible in the sample areas and 100 families participated. Criteria for selection of families were aimed at procuring families at a stage in their life cycle when the family was well-established and at a period when income and expenses would be high. The criteria were as follows: 1. Each family consisted of a husband and wife and at least one child between 12 and 18 years of age living at home. 2. The family belonged to a middle-income group. 3. Over half of the family's income was derived from farming. h. The husband was under 5% years of age. 5. The family Operated the farm independently. 6. The family had'lived on the farm at least three years. 7. The husband and wife were native born. 8. Neither husband nor wife had been suffering from any unusual or long illness. The Schedule Data used in this study were taken from the schedule (21) developed for use in the NC-32 regional project "Fac- tors Affecting the Financial Security of Rural Ji‘amilies.‘I Questions in the schedule covered such items as: family background, net worth, past financial accomplishments, future financial objectives, and statements of satisfac- tory and unsatisfactory decision-making and family goals, see appendix. 39 Open-end questions as well as precoded ones were used. The Open—end type of question was used to obtain information concerning family goals, events which inter- fered with family goals, and sacrifices made by families to achieve their goals. The Interviewing A 19h0 study (2h) of research methods in home man- agement had shown that personal interviews yielded the best results in completeness, clarity, and vividness of answers. Therefore this method of data collection was chosen. Interviews were made between September 1957 and June 1958 by the writer and other fieldworkers whom she trained. The interviewing was all done by appointment. At the time of the first contact, the purpose of the study and the main parts of the schedule were explained to the family and assurance of complete anonymity was given. In all cases, the husband and wife were interviewed together. The length of time required for the interview ranged from two to three hours. Immediately following each interview, the schedule was edited and comments about the family were added to it 0 Analysis of Data Data from the schedules were coded, punched on IBM cards, verified, and machine tabulated. Some of this tab- IIJ in... I I'll.“ III I '1.“ I I. III‘ I l- MO ulation was then refined and reclassified for cross tabula- tion by hand. Classifications were developed for answers to Open- end questions on the schedule. The major groups of data to be classified were: financial accomplishments, finan- cial objectives, family goal interferences, and family sacrifices made to achieve goals. To set up such class- ifications, like statements were grouped and from these groupings, tables were develOped. Satisfactory financial decisions were analyzed as to the reasons the problem arose, the sources of informa- tion consulted other than persons, the persons outside the family with whom the problem was discussed, the adequacy of the facts, the discussion of the problem in the family, the risks and alternatives considered, the decision-maker, and the length of time involved in deciding. These fac- tors were compared against the age of the head, the edu- cational level of the husband and wife, the family size, the tenure status, the net worth, and the organizational participation of the family. Frequency tables were constructed, using the above factors. To determine whether these characteristics were independent, chi-square tests were made. The chi-square statistic (17:222) used for two-way classification tables was‘ iii " 1,1,2 V 2 z A. 2 r1 #1 For two-by-two tables, the statistic below (173226) was used to test independence: 3(2__ ad-bc‘ - éNJZ N ' a+b Tam) lbw) (cm Satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions were com- pared as to the reasons the problem arose, the sources of information consulted other than persons, the persons out- side the family with whom the problem was discussed, the adequacy of the facts, the discussion of the problem in the family, the risks and alternatives considered, the decision-maker, and the length of time involved in decid- ing. Differences between satisfactory and unsatisfactory decision-making practices were tested statistically by using the standard 't” test for significance of differ- ences between proportions (#5876). (P1 ' P2) ' 0 2 2 w/Qg;_ + 0P2 Goals, both achieved and for the future, were ana- lyzed by number and percentage for the husband and wife, and for the group as a whole. In this study, significance at the 10 percent level of probability was indicated by the use of one asterisk (’). Significance at the five percent level was shown by the use of two asterisks (**), and at the one percent level by three asterisks (**‘). ll ii‘lflllfllll‘o'l CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION OF FAMILIES STUDIBD As a background for the discussion of financial de- cision-making, a description of the families as to age, education, size of family, tenure status, net worth, and organizational participation is presented in this chapter. Age of Family Head The range in ages of the men heading the one hun- » dred families was from 32 to 53 years with a median of nu years. The distribution of families by age of head and net worth is shown in table 5. Education of Husband and Wife 7 The average years of formal education for husbands was 10.6 and for the wives 11.3. The educational level of husbands ranged from one with a sixth grade education to five who had completed a four year college course and for the wives it ranged from sixteen who had received an eighth grade education to two who held college degrees. Twenty husbands and twenty-four wives had received special training other than college work. More wives than husbands had had high school and college training. Sixty-nine percent of the wives had graduated from high school and nineteen percent had at- tended college. Of the husbands, fifty-one percent had graduated from high school but only eight percent had at- tended college, table 1. #2 60" . Illlul‘irll 'I'JII. I I ‘ l 'I.‘ I‘ll! III I (I (I'll. ll ”3 Table 1. Formal education of husbands and wives Formal Education Husbands ' Wives percent percent Attended grade school 1 0 Graduated from grade school 30 16 Attended high school 18 15 Graduated from high school #3 50 Attended college 3 l7 Graduated from college 5 2 Total 100 100 The distribution of families by education of hus- band and wife and net worth is shown in table 5. A larger, proportion of grade school trained husbands and wives than of college trained ones was found in the lowest net worth group while the opposite was true in the highest net worth classification. Size of Family The average number of children per family was 3.62 with a median of three. The range in number of children was from one to thirteen. Six families had one child; '26 had two; 26, three; 20 had four; and 22 had five or more. The majority of the children were thirteen to eigh- teen years old. At the time of the study, thirty chil- dren from 21 families were not living at home. Distribu- nu tion according to age is shown in table 2. Table 2. Distribution of children according to age Age Group Number of Children no. percent 0 - 6 56 15.uu 7 - 12 10» 28.65 13 - 18 152 “1.87 19 - 2h ' us * 12.uo 25 - 30 6 1.65 Total 363 100.00 A larger proportion of the families with five or more children than with a fewer number was found in the lowest net worth group. In the $30,000 to $59,999 net worth classification, the largest percentage of families had only one or two children, table 5. Tenure Status Thirty-seven percent of the families owned all of their land; nu percent owned half or more of it; and 15 percent owned less than half. Only four percent were tone ants. Table 5 shows that the largest percentage of owners was in the net worth group under $30,000 and that the largest percentages of part owners were in the $30,000 to $59,999 classification. us A comparison of tenure status and farm size shows that the largest percentage of owners had farms 60 to 159 acres and the largest percentages of part owners had farms 2&0 to 319 acres in size. As ownership of land increased, the percentage of families farming 2h0 acres or more de- creased from sixty-three percent to twenty-seven percent, table 3 0 Net Worth To estimate net worth, these families were asked_to determine the amount they had invested in each of the sev- eral kinds of assets listed below. The percent of the families having such investments was as follows: land & buildings 97 automobile 100 machinery 99 insurance 87 livestock & poultry 97 savings 51 feed, seed & supplies 9% cash reserve nu household goods 99 accts. receivable 31 Liabilities were similarly figured and the percent- age having mortgages or notes on different items was: land & buildings 65 household goods 6 machinery 28 automobile 16 livestock a poultry 11 other items 16 feed, seed & supplies 9 Net worth of the families varied from less than $7,500 to over $191,000 with a median net worth of $u6,181. About three—tenths of the families had not worth under $30,000; four;tenths had not worth between $30,000 and $59,999; and about three—tenths had not worth over $60,000. 1+6 oo« cod oo.o~ om oo.mm um oo.am mm oo.:~ 3N Amway cod an Hm.oa : NN.@~ w n#.Nn Na am.o& n“ gonzo 00a :: nm.u~ Na mn.m~ Ma oo.m~ «a m«.ma m used we once no Rom ease I gonzo oped ooH ma mo.HN : Ha.ma w mm.«m w om.m a pcea mo mom can» ewes were a goose when no acecoa mm .0: mm .o: a .0: ha .oc hm .o: 3323 omauomn fiancee. Reno? $78 33% 0.559 ~H< peeked moao< cede show one msaevm cause» an nowadaem Ho soapenaupmwm .n canoe #7 Table 0 shows the distribution of families by not worth and indebtedness. 0f the 25 families that had less than $1,000 indebtedness, most were found in the $60,000 and over not worth group. Debts of less than $1,000 were principally for machinery, livestock, feed, and household goods. As indebtedness increased from less than $1,000 to $10,000, the percentage of families in the highest net worth group decreased. The largest percentage of families with liabilites of $1,000 to $10,000 was found in the mid- dle net worth group. - Twenty-seven families had debts of $10,000 and over. These were equally distributed in the low, middle, and high net worth groups. All of the families having debts of this size had mortgages on their land and buildings. Over one third of them had debts on machinery and about one fourth, on livestock. Table 0. Distribution of families by not worth and in- debtedness NET WORTH All Liabilities Under $30,000- $50,000 Families $30,000 159.999 & over no. ‘% no. % no. if _ no. if Under $1,000 6 20.00 9 36.00 10 00.00 25 100 $ 1,000- 0,999 5 20.83 . 12 50.00 7 29.17 20 .100 $ 5,000- 9.999 9 39.13 11 07.83 3 13.00 23 100 $10,000 & over 9 33.33 9 33.33 9 33-33 27 100 Total 29 29.29 01 Hl.h2 29 29.29 99 100 08 Organizational Participation The number of organizations to which a family be- longed ranged from 0 to 13, with a median of five. About four-tenths of the families participated in three to five organizations; threertenths, six to eight; two-tenths, nine or more; and one—tenth participated in two or fewer organizations. In 75 percent of the total families, one or more elective offices were held. The distribution of families according to number of offices held was as follows; one office held 18 two offices held 25 three offices held 15 four or more offices held 17 0f the families belonging to less than six organi- zations, a higher percentage were in the low and medium, net worth groups than families which participated in a greater number of organizations. The more active families, on the other hand, had a higher percentage in the $60,000 and over not worth group, table 5. 49 Table 5. Distribution of families by net worth and selected family characteristics Family' Net Werth: All Characteristic Under ‘”$3o,ooo - *$60,ooo Families $30,000 59.999 and over no. $9 no. 97' no. %9 no. #37 ALL FAMILIES 29 29.00 42 42.00 29 29.00 100 100.00 Age of Family Head Under 45 years 16 30.77 18 34.62 18 34.62 52 100.00 45 years and over 13 27.08 24 50.00 11 22.92 48 100.00 Ed. of Husband Grade School 9 29.03 15 48.39 7 22.58 31 100.00 High School 19 31.15 22 36.06 20 32.79 61 100.00 College 1 12.50 5 62.50 2 25.00 8 100.00 Ed. of Wife Grade School 7 43.75 7 43.75 2 12.50 16 100.00 High School 18 27.69 27 41.54 20 30.77 65 100.00 College 0 21.05 8 02.11 7 36.80 19 100.00 Number of Children One or two 10 31.25 14 43.75 8 25.00 32 100.00 Three or four 11 23.91 20 43.48 15 32.61 46 100.00 More than four 8 36.36 8 36.36 6 27.27 22 100.00 Tenure Status Tenant or part owner8 7 36.84 8 42.11 4 21.05 19 100.00 Part owner 8 18.18 21 47.73 15 34.09 44 100.00 Full owner 14 37.84 13 35.13 10 27.03 37 100.00 Org- Participation Less than.three org. 4 30.77 7 53.85 2 15.38 13 100.00 Three to five org. 16 42.10 1? 44.74 5 13.16 38 100.00 Six to eight org- 5 15.63 14 43.75 13 40.63 32 100.00 Nine or more org. 4 23.53 4 23.53 9 52.94 17 100.00 __ aOwns less than 50 per cent of land bOwns 50 per cent or more of land CHAPTER V FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING The practices and opinions of one hundred farm fam- ilies in regard to their financial decision-making were studied and are discussed in this chapter. Husbands and wives in this study were asked to state some of the fin- ancial decisions that they had made during the past two years. From these decisions, they chose one with which they felt most satisfied to discuss with the interviewer. All of these satisfactory decisions that were chosen for study were decisions which involved large amounts of money or decisions which were never made before or were made rarely by the family. Eighty-three percent of the couples thought that this satisfactory decision was one of the most important decisions they had made during the past two years. It was assumed in this study that the decision-mak- ing process consists of the following subprocesses: the recognition of the problem, the observation and/ or ac- quisition of_information relevant to the solution of the problem, the deliberation regarding the problem, the making of the decision, and the taking-action on the de- cision. Because this assumption was made, the following factors or components of the decision-making subprocesses were discussed with the family: the reasons the problem arose, the sources of information consulted other than persons, the persons outside the family with whom the prob- 0 5o 51 lem was discussed, the adequacy of information, the dis- cussion of the problem in the family, the risks and alter- natives considered, the decision-makers, and the length of time to make the decision. Reasons Given by Familigs for Problem Arigigg The re5pondents were asked how they happened to start thinking seriously about actually making this set- isfactory decision. They most frequently mentioned neces- sity, conscious need over a period of time, and unexpected opportunity, table 6. Local conversation, unexpected emer- gency, cash on hand, and influence of mass media were men- tioned by only a few. Sixty-three percent of these reasons were suggested by the husbands, 20 percent by both the husbands and wives, and 1? percent by the wives alone. A smaller percentage of the practices or components of the decision-making subprocesses were followed by the families which listed necessity, unexpected Opportunity, or unexpected emergency as reasons for the problem arising than families listing other reasons. In addition, a small- er percentage of the families listing such reasons felt their facts were adequate before making the decision than the other families. A smaller percentage, however, felt pressure exert- ed on them to make the decision in the way they did than families not listing the above reasons. This may have been due to the wide range in length of time to make the 52 decisions because there were more of these families taking over one year than those taking three months or less to decide. Table 6. Reasons problem arosea Person Suggesting‘Reason Total Reason Husband Wife Both . N 123 no. no. no. no. 9% —_ Necessity ' 36 10 16 62 50.uo Conscious Need Over Period of 18 8 6 32 26.02 Time Unexpected l5 3 2 20 16.26 Opportunity Local Conver- 5 0 0 5 b.07 sation Unexpected Emergency 1 0 l 2 1.63 Cash on Hand 1 O 0 l .81 Influence of Mass Media 1 O O l .81 Total 77 21 25 '123 100.00 0 a A problem frequently had more than one reason. 53 Sourcg§;9f Information Consulted Other Than Person; _ Fifty—six percent of the families consulted sources other than peeple in making their financial decisions, table 8. The sources from which they get information were magazines, bulletins, newSpapers, and radio, in that order. The source mentioned by over half of the sample was that of magazines. Four-fifths of the magazines from which the families get information were farm. The others were women's magazines, and business and news. Most of the information from each source was obtained through general reading and listening rather than through adver- tisements, table 7. Table 7. Types of informational sources consulted Origin of Information Sources Families that General. Consulted 0°"5“1t°d Advertise- Reading & Both Source ments Listening percent percent Magazines 52 h 33 15 Bulletins 22 O 16 6 Newspapers 20 2 17 1 Radio 15 3 12 O Other 7 3 3 1 A greater percentage of the families with heads under Us years of age consulted these sources of infor- mation in solving their problems than those with heads U5 and over, table 8. As the educational level of the husband and wife 5h increased, the percentage of families consulting such sources increased. The percentage of college trained husbands consulting these sources was twice as great as the percentage having only a grade school education and almost twice as great for the wives. A highly signifi- cant degree of association was found between sources other than persons consulted and the educational level of hus- band, table 8. The percentage of families consulting these sources decreased as the size of the family increased. Sixty-five percent of the families with one or two children consulted such sources while only no percent of the families with more than four children consulted them. Information was obtained from sources other than people by a larger percentage of families who owned 50 percent or more of their land than by families who were tenants or those who owned less than half of it. Appli- cation of the chi-square test revealed a 10 percent level of significance in association between sources consulted and tenure status. The percentage of families consulting these sources was the same for those with a net worth under $30,000 as those with a net worth of $60,000 and over. Of the three net worth groups the middle one had the greatest percent- age of families that did not consult these sources. As the organizational participation of the family increased, the percentage consulting such sources in- 55 creased. The degree of association found between sources consulted and organizational participation was significant at the 10 percent level by the chi-square test. 56 Table 8. Sources other than persons consulted in financial decisions Family Sources Consulted A11 Characteristic One or More None Families ‘M no . % no . % no . 96 ALL FAMILIES 56 56.00 on uu.00 100 100.00 Age of Family Head Under #5 years 32 61.54 '20 38.h6 52 100.00 h5 years and over '2 50.00 20 50.00 #8 100.00 Ed. of Husbandttt ‘ Grade School 11 35.h8 20 6h.52 31 100.00 High School 38 62.30 23 37.70 61 100.00 College 7 87.50 1 12.50 8 100.00 Bd. of Wife Grade School 6 37.50 10 62.50 16 100.00 High School 37 56.92 28 u3.08 65 100.00 College 13 68.u2 6 31.58 19 100.00 Number of Children One or two 21 65.63 11 3h.38 32 100.00 Three or four 26 56.52 20 h3.h8 #6 100.00 More than four 9 b0.9l 13 59.09 22 100.00 Tenure Status* . Tenant or part owner3 7 36.8h 12 63.16 19 100.00 Part Ownerb 30 68.18 1h 31.82 nu 100.00 Full Owner 19 51.35 18 h8.65 37 100.00 Net Worth Under $30,000 18 62.07 11 37.93 29 100.00 $30,000 - $59,999 20 u7.62 22 52.38 uz 100.00 $60,000 and over 18 62.07 11 37.93 29 100.00 Org. Participation‘ Less than three org. 5 38.h6 . 8 61.5h 13 100.00 Three to five org. 20 52.63 18 h7.37 38 100.00 Six to eight org. 17 53.13 15 06.88 32 100.00 Nine or more org. 1h 82.35 3 17.65 17 100.00 a Owns less than 50 percent of land. b Owns 50 percent or more of land. 57 Persons Outside Family With Whom Problem Discussed Eighty-eight percent of the sample said they had discussed their problem with persons outside the family, table 9. The percentage of families discussing their prob- lem with others increased with the education of the hus- band and wife, the family's net worth, and its organiza- tional participation. Families having more than four chil- dren were more likely to discuss their problem with others than those having less children. As the tenure status in- creased from tenant to full owner, the percentage of fam- ilies discussing their problem with others decreased. In an analysis of each source with which the fam- ily discussed their problem, it was found that fifty-six percent had discussed it with salesmen and workmen, table 10. The degree to which the majority of these families had discussed the problem with these persons was "much.“ As the age of the head increased to 50 years and as the net worth and organizational participation of the family in- creased, the percentage discussing their problem with salesmen and workmen increased. Forty-six percent of the sample discussed their problem with friends and neighbors, table 10. In consider- ing the degree that the problem was discussed, over two- fifths of the group had discussed it "some“ and about two- fifths had discussed it a 'little.' The percentage of fam- ilies discussing their problem with friends and neighbors tended to increase as the age of the head increased to 50 58 years and as the educational level of the husband and wife increased. Of the families in this study, thirty-eight percent discussed their problem with relatives, table 10. About one-third of the group had discussed this "much“ and about one-third to "some'I degree. As the age of the head in- creased, the percentage of families discussing the prob- lem with relatives decreased. Twenty-two percent of the families discussed the financial problem with community leaders, table 10. The majority of this group discussed it to 'some' degree. A greater percentage of families with heads under #5 years of age discussed their problem with leaders than those #5 and over. The percentage increased with the education of husband and wife to the level of high school and then declined. As the family size increased, the percentage of families discussing their problem with leaders also in- creased. A greater percentage of the families with net worth of $60,000 and over discussed their problem with leaders in the community than families with net worth under $30,000. . Twenty-two percent also discussed their problem with specialists, table 10. It was discussed to ”some” degree by the majority of the families. The problem was discussed with specialists by a greater percentage of the families with heads under #0 years of age than those 50 years and over. The percentage discussing the problem 59 with specialists increased with educational level of hus- band and wife, size of the family, and net worth. Application of the chi-square test revealed a sig- nificant degree of association between: salesmen and workmen consulted and age of family head** salesmen and workmen consulted and organizational participation* specialists consulted and education of husband* specialists consulted and net worth* The percentage of families discussing their prob- lem with salesmen and workmen increased with the age of the family head and the family's participation in organ- izations. The percentage consulting specialists increased with net worth and educational level of husband. What Influenced Decision Most. When the families in this study were asked from whom or what (persons or other sources) they get information that influenced them most in making their decision, one—third said they did not know, and about one—fourth said salesmen and workmen. The next,in order of frequency, were leaders and specialists, friends and neighbors, farm periodicals, relatives, and bulletins. Of the 88 cases that reported discussing their prob- lem with persons outside the family, most said that they got their best facts from salesmen and workmen. Others mentioned specialists and leaders, friends and neighbors, 60 themselves, and relatives. Only two percent of this group reported that they did not use the information that was given them. Of the families that reported consulting sources other than pecple, most said they got their best informa- tion from magazines. Some mentioned bulletins, and a few, radio. 61 Table 9. Persons outside family with whom problem dis- cussed Persons With Whom Family Problem Discussed All Characteristic Families One or More None 6 no. ‘73 no. 96 no. 0/2 ALL FAMILIES 88 88.00 12 12.00 100 100.00 Age of Family Head Under #0 years 19 95.00 1 5.00 20 100.00 #0 to ## years 26 81.25 6 18.75 32 100.00 #5 to #9 years 36 9#.7# 2 5.26. 38 100.00 50 and over 7 70.00. 3 30.00 10 100.00 8d. of Husband Grade $611001 26 83e87 5 16e13 31 100e00 College 8 100.00 0 O 8 100.00 Ed. of Wife Grade School 1# 87.50 2 12.50 16 100.00 High School 57 87.69 8 12.31 65 100.00 College 17 89.#7 2 10.53 19 100.00 Number of Children One or two 28 87.50 # 12.50 32 100.00 Three or four 39 8#.78 7 15.22 #6 100.00 More than four 21 95.#5 1 #.55 22 100.00 Tenure Status Tenant or part ownera 19 100.00 0 0 19 100.00 Part owner #0 90.91 # 9.09 ## 100.00 Full owner 29 78.38 8 21.62 37 100.00 Net Worth Under $30,000 25 86.21 # 13.79 29 100.00 $30,000 - $59,999 37 88.10 5 11.90 #2 100.00 $60,000 & over 26 89.66 3 10.3# 29 100.00 Org. Participation ' Less than six org. #3 8#.3l 8 15.69 51 100.00 Six or more org. #5 91.8# # 8.16 #9 100.00 a Owns less than 50 percent of land. b Owns 50 percent or more of land 62 00.m N aN.aN 0 N0.an a «a.0: 0 00.00 as m0.0m as use» can» 020: am.0s n 00.0N NH an.0s 0 0a.:n 0“ 0m.«: 0s a2.Nn 0N Noon to ooons mm.w N om.Na : mm.md w no.0: Ma oo.om ma mn.mm ma cs» he one ooooaaao No uooazz ma.na m 0m.an o no.2N e Nn.eN m o0.am as 00.50 as omoaaoo no.0 0 00.0N ma No.0N ea sm._e AN ma.ce on mm.mn on Hoogom swam on.Na N mN.e s 0m.Na N 00.50 0 mN.am m mN.en 0 200000 .0000 023 HO coaudonfim 00.nN N 00.0w 3 0 0 00.nn n 00.Ne m 0m.am a omoHNoo No.3 0 m0.NN as 0N.0N ea N0.N: 0N sm.as oN 00.Nm N0 Hooaom swam 0a.Na : 00.Na e mm.0a e 00.0N 0 Ha.0m Na sw.sm so Hoonom 00000 .. ccgmsm no 83358 00.0“ a 00.0N N 00.0N N 00.0“ a 00.0: a 00.00 m oo>o a 0000s on «n.0a e Nm.eN 0a Ne.0a a "N.sm as me.Nm 0N 00.na 0N oases 0: u m: mN.0 N 00.Na : 00.mN 0 00.:0 as 00.0: no 00.0: ms memos e: - 0: 00.00 N 00.0n o 00.mN m 00.n0 ms 00.nm a 00.0: 0 0000s 0: 00000 .. 0%: 320a 0o owe 00.0 a 00.NN NN 00.NN NN 00.00 00 00.00 0: 00.0m on 0MHaH=so o0 oosaa 0 0 00.0 s 00.0s N 00.00 a 00.00 0 00.00 0 .00000 oosns can» oeos * scaveadoaaaem .semso 00.0s e 00.s0 0 00.00 0s 00.0N 0 00.00 0s N0.00 0s so>o 0:0 000.000 es.0 0 0s.0N ss 0N.0s 0 00.N0 0s 00.N0 NN 00.00 0N 000.00 . 000.000 00.0 N 00.0 N 00.0N 0 00.se Ns 00.00 ss 0N.00 es 000.000 sous: . 00003.0oz 00.N s N0.sN 0 s0.0s 0 00.0N ss 00.00 as 00.00 sN gonzo ssoa s0.0s 0 00.NN 0s 0N.0N Ns 0s.0s 0s 0N.N0 0N N0.00 0N 00030 0000 0N.0 s 00.sN a N0.0N 0 ss.Ns 0 00.00 0 00.N0 0s 000020 so sauces msvmvm 0.2508 00.0 0 00.NN NN 00.NN NN 00.00 00 00.00 0: 00.00 00 mmssszsa s40 Rt .0: R .0: R .09 fi .00— M .0: & con whocoog muoanwfioz ccsxuo3.0 sheave opedaewooam hdwcsssoo mo>auoaem 0 00:00am coswodmm owumwuouooAdno 080 «so .8320 sass: 5s: 28.80 0:50 r canwsooac EoHpoaa so:s.npdz_hafieeu opwmuso accused me c0000000000000 Acossavcoov .00 canon 6# Adequacy of Informatigg Eighty-two percent of the respondents in this study said that they felt their facts were adequate before making their decision, table 11. Families with heads in the younger age group were more likely to feel they had all the facts needed before making the decision than those in the older age group. Application of the chi-square test revealed a significant degree of association between age of head and adequacy of facts in the financial decisions. As the education of the husband increased, the per- centage of families that felt their facts were adequate decreased. A greater percentage of grade school trained wives than college trained wives felt they had all the facts needed before making the decision. However, the highest percentage that felt their facts were adequate were wives having high school training. Families having three or more children were more likely to have felt they didrwm have all the facts needed before making the decision than those with fewer children. Tenants or those who owned less than half of their land were more likely to feel their facts were adequate than families who owned 50 percent or more of their land. The percentage of families reporting their facts adequate decreased with net worth from 97 percent for net worth under $30,000 to 72 percent for net worth of $60,000 and over. Application of the chi-square test revealed a significant degree of association between adequacy of facts 65 and the degree of net worth of family. As the family's participation in organizations in- creased, the percentage considering their facts adequate decreased. The degree of association found between ade- quacy of facts and organizational participation was sig- nificant at the 10 percent level by the chi-square test. 66 Table 11. Adequacy of information in financial decision- making Family Adequacy of Facts All Characteristic Adequate Inadequate Families no. ‘73 no. 96 no. ‘fo ALL FAMILIES 82 82.00 18 18.00 100 100.00 Age of Family Head" Under #5 years #8 92.31 # 7.69 52 100.00 ’45 and Over 31" 70e83 ll" 29e17 1‘8 100000 Bd. of Husband Grade School 26 83.87 5 16.13 31 100.00 High School ‘ 50 81.97 11 18.03 61 100.00 College 6 75.00 2 25.00 8 100.00 Ed. of Wife Grade School 13 81.25 18.75 16 100.00 College 15 78.95 # 21.05 19 100.00 Number of Children One or two 27 8#.38 5 15.63 32 100.00 Three or four 37 80.#3 9 19.57 #6 100.00 More than four 18 81.82 # 18.18 22 100.00 Tenure Status Tenant or Bart ownera 16 8#.21 3 15.79 19 100.00 Part owner 35 79.55 9 20.#5 ## 100.00 Full owner 31 83.78 6 16.22 37 100.00 Net Worth“ Under $30,000 28 96.55 1 3.#5 29 100.00 $30,000-59,999 33 78.57 9 21.u3 #2 100.00 $60,000 and over 21 72.#1 8 27.59 29 100.00 Org. Participation‘ Less than three org. 12 92.31 1 7.69 13 100.00 Three to five org. 3# 89.#7 # 10.53 38 100.00 Six to eight org. 2# 75.00 8 25.00 32 100.00 Nine or more org. 12 70.59 5 29.#l 17 100.00 a Owns less than 50 percent of land. b Owns 50 percent or more of land. 67 Discussion of Problem=in Family The couples were asked how much they had talked this problem over between themselves - none, little, some, or much. The majority (69 percent) reported that before making the decision they had discussed the problem be- tween themselves I'much." Fifteen percent had discussed it “some“ and 16 percent ”little or none,“ table 12. The problem was discussed to a greater degree by couples in which the husband was under #5 years of age than those in which he was #5 and over. As the formal education of the husband increased, the percentage of couples who discussed the problem 'mucn'increased. There was no indication that the edu- cational level of wife was significantly related to the percentage of couples discussing the problem to various degrees. As the number of children in the family increased, the percentage of couples who discussed the problem be- tween themselves"much'decreased. Seventy-eight percent 01‘ the couples with one or two children discussed the PIWIblem"mucH'as compared to 59 percent of those with more than four chi 1dren . The problem was discussed to a greater degree by a ldirger percentage of those who owned 50 percent or more of their land than those who were tenants or who owned less than half of it. It was also discussed to a greater degree by a 68 larger percentage of couples in the high net worth group than in the low group. In the high net worth group 97 percent and in the low net worth group 83 percent of the couples discussed their problem'somd'or'much." Seventy-six percent of those in the middle group discussed their prob- lem to this degree. The problem was discussed to a greater degree by a larger percentage of couples who participated in six or more organizations than those who participated in less. Table 13 shows that #1 percent of the families dis- cussed this financial problem with their children. Over two-fifths discussed it"mucH'and two-fifths discussed it to"somé'degree. 'The problem was discussed with the children by a greater percentage of families in which the head was over #5 years of age than those in which he was under #5. A larger percentage of husbands and wives with a college or grade school education discussed the problem Imith their children than those with a high school educa- tion. As the size of the family increased, the percentage Of‘ families discussing the problem with the children in- creased. Application of the chi-square test revealed a significant degree of association between family size and ‘31°_p< covasmcoo mmomaom c3138....qu walla H... o 22; 828a mcHxasuconHoop huouomHmHadmcs pas huoaoamnHvom on» :H confluence escaped can» acnvo moohzom .HN oHnma 88 Persons Outside Family With Whom Pgoblem Discussed The problem was discussed with persons outside the family in more of the satisfactory than unsatisfactory decision-making. Seventeen satisfactory and 1“ unsatis- factory decisions had been discussed with persons outside the family, table 20. The difference, however, was not statistically significant by the “t” test for difference between proportions. The source of information that ranked highest and to the same degree on both lists was salesmen and workmen, table 22. In twice as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory decisions, the problem had been discussed with friends and neighbors. Relatives, leaders, and specialists were also consulted in more of the satisfactory decisions. Table 22. Persons outside family with whom problem dis- cussed in the satisfactory and unsatisfactory decision-making Persons With Whom Decisions Problem Discussed Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. 76 no. W Salesman & workmen 11 61.11 11 61.11 Friends & neighbors 8 ““.““ 3 16.67 Relatives 6 33.33 1 5.56 Leaders “ 22.22 1 5.56 Specialists “ 22.22 1 5.56 Others 2 11.11 2 11.11 89 What Influenced the Decigigns Nest. An analysis of sources that families felt influenced them most in making financial decisions showed that salesmen or workmen ranked highest in both satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions. Half of the satisfactory and about half of the unsatis- factory decisions had salesmen or workmen listed as the source of greatest influence. Friends or neighbors and farm magazines were also listed. These sources were men- tioned in a slightly greater number of unsatisfactory than satisfactory decisions. Leaders and bulletins were men- tioned only in the satisfactory decisions. Of the families that reported discussing their prob- lem with others, most said that they got their best facts from salesmen or workmen in the satisfactory as well as the unsatisfactory decision. The next, listed in order of frequency, for both types of decisions were neighbors or friends, themselves, and specialists. Leaders were also mentioned but only in the satisfactory decisions. None of the families in making a satisfactory decision and only one in making an unsatisfactory decision reported that they did not use the information that was given them. Magazines and bulletins were the sources other than people from which the families said they got their best information. And both of these were mentioned about twice as frequently in the satisfactory as in the unsatisfactory decisions. 90 Adequacy of Information The number of decisions in which the facts were considered to be adequate was about the same for the sat- isfactory as for the unsatisfactory, table 23. Applica- tion of the "t“ test showed no significant difference be- tween decisions in this respect. Table 23. Adequacy of information in the satisfactory and unsatisfactory decision-making Adequacy of Decisions Information Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. 33: A no. ‘76 _ Adequate 1“ 77.78 13 72.22 Inadequate “ 22.22 5 27.78 Total 18 100.00 18 100.00 M Q‘scusgion of Problem inggmily Table 2“ shows that the problem was discussed be- tween husband and wife to a greater degree in the satis- factory than in the unsatisfactory decisions. One and a half times as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory decisions had been discussed 'much.‘ Application of the ”t" test revealed a significant difference at the 10 percent level between the decisions that were discussed by the couples to this degree. In twice as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory de- cisions, the problem had been discussed with the children, tab]. 9 2“ e 91 Table 2“. Degree problem discussed in satisfactory and unsatisfactory decision-making Degree Problem Decisions Discussed Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. 9% no. ‘70 Between Husband & Wife Much 13 72.22 8 nu.uu* Some 2 11.11 5 27.78 Little 3 16.67 “ 22.22 None 0 0 1 5.56 With Children Much 3 16.67 2 11.11 Some “ 22.22 1 5.56 Little 2 11.11 1 5.56 None 9 50.00 1“ 77.78 Risks Considered Slightly more risks were considered in the satis- factory than the unsatisfactory decisions - a total of 19 were considered in the satisfactory decisions and 15 in the unsatisfactory. The number of decisions, however, in which risks were considered was about the same for both types of decisions, table 25. No significant difference was found by use of the 't' test between satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions in which risks were considered. 92 Table 25. Risks considered in the satisfactory and unsat- isfactory decision-making Decisions Risks Considered Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. 9‘3 no. 76 None 5 33-33 7 38.89 One 7 38.89 8 ““.““ Two or more 5 27.78 3 16.67 Total 18 100.00 18 100.00 Alternatives Congidered Examination of data in the interview-schedules showed that more alternatives had been considered in the satisfactory than unsatisfactory decision-making, table 26. Three or more alternatives were considered in three times as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory decisions. A total of ““ alternatives were considered in the satisfactory de- cisions and 38 in the unsatisfactory ones. Table 26. Alternatives considered in satisfactory and un- satisfactory decision-making Number of Alterna- Decisions tives Considered Satisfactory Unsatisfactory _b no. 76 no. 33 Two 11 61.11 16 88.89 Three 6 33.33 2 11.11 Four 1 5.56 0 0 Total 18 100.00 18 100.00 93 When the families were asked if they seriously con- sidered doing anything else than what they did in their financial decisions, only about half of the families re- plieddyes: table 27. Application of the "t" test showed no significant difference between satisfactory and unsat- isfactory decisions in this respect. Of the alternatives that were reported in the sat- isfactory decisions, all had risks and consequences con- sidered. In the unsatisfactory, all of the reported a1- ternatives had consequences expressed and all but one had risks considered. Table 27. Alternatives reported when families asked if they considered doing something else than what they did Alternatives Decisions Reported Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. ? no. ‘,’6 None 10 55056 9 50.00 Two or more . 8 ““.““ 9 50.00 Total 18 100.00 18 100.00 Decision-Makers The number of decisions in which the husband or the husband and wife together were the decision—makers was a— bout the same for the satisfactory as for the unsatisfac- tory, table 28. Twelve of the satisfactory decisions were made by the husband alone and six were made jointly by 9“ husband and wife. or the unsatisfactory decisions, 11 were made by the husband, six by the husband and wife to- gether, and one by the wife alone. In both cases, about twice as many decisions were made by the husband as were made jointly by husband and wife. No significant differ- ence was found between decision-makers in the satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions. Table 28. Decision-makers in the satisfactory and unsat- isfactory decision-making Decisions 960151°“’Nak9r5 Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. ‘36 no. ‘76 Husband 12 66.67 11 61.11 Husband and Wife 6 33.33 6 33.33 Wife 0 O 1 5.56 Total 18 100.00 18 100.00 Length of Time To Make Decision About the same-number of satisfactory as unsatis- factory decisions required three months or less to make, table 29. However, twice as many satisfactory as unsat- isfactory decisions required over three months to one year of cogitating while twice as many unsatisfactory as satisfactory decisions required more than one year. No significant difference was found in this respect between satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions. 95 These results may indicate that there is a point beyond which a longer period of deliberation is not de- 51rab13 0 Table 29. Time involved in satisfactory and unsatisfactory decision-making Length of Time Decisions To Make Decision Satisfactory Unsatisfactory no. ‘7: no. ‘76 Three mo. or less 8 ““.““ 9 50.00 Over 3 mo. to 1 yr. 7 38.89 3 16.67 Over 1 yr. 3 16.67 6 33.33 Total 18 100.00 18 100.00 CHAPTER VII FINANCIAL GOALS The couples were asked to state some of the finan- cial accomplishments they had made since they started farming and some of the financial objectives they had for the future. These items were then ranked individually by husband and wife as to importance. For the purposes of this study the accomplishments were termed goals achieved and future objectives were considered to be goals for the fU ture o Achieved Goals All families mentioned financial goals they had achieved. Analysis of major goals (goals ranked as the first three in importance to the family) showed that buy- ing farm machinery and equipment was mentioned most fre- quently as one of the most important financial goals the couples had achieved since they began farming - 65 percent of the husbands and 5% percent of the wives mentioned this, table 30. Goals of next importance to the couples were in- creasing livestock and poultry, owning additional land and increasing production, improving or building new farm buildings, and owning a farm. Improving land or landscap- ing grounds, improving or building a new farm home, and improving facilities on the place were also expressed fre- quently. 96 97 Table 30. Financial goals achieved FINANCIAL GOALS Goals Achieved Husbands ‘Wives Total no. no. no. 8% Buy farm machinery & equipment 65 5h 119 60 Increase livestock or poultry 31 32 63 32 Own additional land, increase prod. 29 30 59 3O Improve or build new farm buildings 31 27 58 29 Own farm 28 27 55 28 Improve land, landscape grounds 3O 24 5h 2? Improve or build new farm home 12 26 38 19 Improve facilities on place - 1# 20 34 17 water, electricity Increase savings, insurance, retirement 5 5 10 5 Buy household equipment 2 5 7 h Pay debts and loans 3 3 6 3 Educate children or help them get 2 2 h 2 started on their own Buy car 1 O 1 1 Increase income 0 O O 0 Other 1 1 2 1 98 Sixty-six percent of the husbands and wives agreed as to which were the major financial goals they had achieved since they began farming. Seventy-nine percent ranked the same goal as first in importance. Husbands more frequently than wives mentioned such goals as buying farm machinery and equipment, and improving the land. Wives more frequently mentioned improving or building a new farm home or improving facilities on the place. The couples were asked to name some of the things they had sacrificed in order to achieve these goals. He- plies are summarized in table 31. Trips and vacations were most frequently foregone - over half of the families mentioned these. Next in order of frequency were! rec- reation and entertainment, new clothes and other personal items, new cars and household goods. Eleven percent of the families felt they had sacrificed nothing. Wives mentioned one and a quarter times as many sacrifices as did the husbands. New clothes; household equipment and furnishings; water,e1ectricity,and bath- rooms; remodeled houses; and fancy foods were mentioned about three times as often by the wives as by the husbands. Husbands more frequently mentioned new or better farm machinery. 99 Table 31. Sacrifices made by families in order to achieve goals Persons Nentioning Sacrifice Sacrifices Husbands Wives _ number number Trips and vacations 29 I 25 Recreation and entertainment 1” 16 New clothes and other per- sonal items 8 20 New car, truck, tires 13 10 Household equipment, furni- ture, television, piano,etc. 5 18 Leisure time, wife being at home, time with husband 7 8 Remodeled house 3 10 New or better farm machinery ll 2 Water, electricity, bathroom 2 6 Luxuries h h Fancy foods 1 h Easier job with shorter working hours 3 2 Other 1 1 Goal; for the Future All of the couples were able to verbalize their future financial goals. And, eighty-one percent of the families had taken steps toward achieving one or more of their major goals (goals ranked as the first three in im- portance to the family). 99 Table 31. Sacrifices made by families in order to achieve goals Persons Nentioning Sacrifice Sacrifices Husbands Wives _ number number Trips and vacations 29 ' 25 Recreation and entertainment lb 16 New clothes and other per- sonal items 8 20 New car, truck, tires 13 10 Household equipment, furni- ture, television, piano,etc. 5 18 Leisure time, wife being at home, time with husband 7 8 Remodeled house 3 10 New or better farm machinery ll 2 Water, electricity, bathroom 2 6 Luxuries h h Fancy foods 1 h Easier job with shorter working hours 3 2 Other 1 1 Goals for the Future All of the couples were able to verbalize their future financial goals. And, eighty-one percent of the families had taken steps toward achieving one or more of their major goals (goals ranked as the first three in im- portance to the family). 99 Table 31. Sacrifices made by families in order to achieve goals Persons Nentioning Sacrifice Sacrifices Husbands Wives _ number number Trips and vacations 29 I 25 Recreation and entertainment 1h 16 New clothes and other per- sonal items 8 20 New car, truck, tires 13 10 Household equipment, furni- ture, television, piano,etc. 5 18 Leisure time, wife being at home, time with husband 7 8 Remodeled house 3 10 New or better farm machinery 11 2 Water, electricity, bathroom 2 6 Luxuries h h Fancy foods 1 h Easier job with shorter working hours 3 2 Other 1 1 Gogls for the Future All of the couples were able to verbalize their future financial goals. And, eighty-one percent of the families had taken steps toward achieving one or more of their major goals (goals ranked as the first three in im- portance to the family). 100 Table 32 . Financial goals for the future FINANCIAL GOALS Goals For the Future Husbands ‘Wives Total no. no. no. % Improve or build new farm buildings 63 59 122 61 Improve land, landscape grounds #0 38 78 39 Improve or build new farm home 28 33 61 31 Buy farm machinery & equipment 28 22 50 25 Increase livestock or poultry 20 25 45 23 Own additional land, increase prod. 18 16 3h 17 Pay debts and loans 13 13 26 13 Educate children or help them get 10 11 21 11 started on their own Improve facilities on place - 6 h 10» 5 water, electricity Buy household equipment 3 4 7 4 Increase savings, insurance, retirement 3 3 6 3 Buy car 3 3 6 3 Increase income 2 2 h 2 Other 2 2 9 2 101 Forty-three percent of the most important goals listed by the couples had had progress made toward them. Steps were more frequently taken by the families toward obtaining the first goal, than the second; and the second more than the third. The goal most frequently mentioned by the couples was the improvement or building of new farm buildings, table 32. Next in order of frequency were goals fer im- proving land, and for improving or building new farm homes. Other goals frequently mentioned were buying farm machin- ery, increasing livestock, owning additional land and pay- ing debts. Sixty-six percent of the husbands and wives agreed as to which were the three most important goals that they wished to achieve. And seventy-nine percent of them agreed on which goal was of top importance to the family. Hus- bands slightly more often than wives mentioned goals to buy farm machinery and improve or build new farm buildings. Wives more frequently mentioned increasing livestock and improving the farm home. When the couples were asked whether any thing had interfered with or delayed them in reaching these goals 95 percent replied"yesf table 33. Lack of money was the most frequently mentioned factor - over 60 percent of the families mentioned it. Other factors listed in order of frequency were not enough time; low farm prices and high cost of farm operation; illness, accidents, and medical 102 bills; and loss of crops and livestock. Table 33 shows that the husbands mentioned over twice as many things which interfered with or delayed the families in reaching 9 their goals as the wives did. This may be due to the husbands” greater feeling of responsibility for the a- chievement of the family's financial goals. Table 33. Factors which interfered with or delayed fami- lies in reaching their goals Factors Which Prevented Persons Mentioning Factor Achievement of Goal Husbands Wives number— number Not enough money ho 2b Not enough time 16 9 Low farm prices, high cost of farm operation 22 l Illness, accidents, medical bills 12 9 Crop failure, disease in cattle, poor land 1b 2 Fire and other catastrophe 7 5 Cost of raising and edu- cating children h 5 Economic conditions 5 3 Not enough labor, land, livestock 6 l Indecision h 2 Buying land, machinery, car 2 3 Not enough ambition 3 0 Government controls 2 O Other . 5 0 CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This study was coordinated with the North Central regional project entitled “Factors Affecting the Finan- cial Security of Rural Families." The assumption basic to it was that since all families are faced with the ne- cessity for making decisions regarding use of family re- sources, information can be obtained about factors which contribute to financial decision-making and that this knowledge will assist families in attainment of their fi- nancial goals. The four major hypotheses which guided this study were as follows: 1. The decision-making process followed by farm families in the use of their financial resources consists of the following subprocesses: (a) the recognition of the problem, (b) the observation and / or acquisition of information relevant to the solution of the problem, (c) the delibera- tion regarding the problem, (d) the making of the decision, and (e) the taking-action on the decision. Characteristics of the family such as age, edu- cation, family size, tenure status, net worth, and organizational participation are positively related to certain practices or components of the decision-making subprocesses. 103 10H 3. The components of the decision-making subproc- esses are utilized to a greater degree in set- isfactory than in unsatisfactory financial de- cision-making. I h. Farm families have goals which can be verbalized; some of these goals are considered of greater importance to the family than others. Data were obtained from 100 farm couples living in Eaton and Clinton Counties in Michigan. Criteria for se- lection of families were as follows: each family con- sisted of a husband and wife and at least one child be- tween 12 and 18 years of age living at home; the family belonged to a middle-income group; over half of the fami- ly's income was derived from farming; the husband was under 5h years of age; the family operated the farm independent- ly; the family had lived on the farm at least three years; the husband and wife were native born; and neither husband nor wife had been suffering from any unusual or long ill- ness. ' The interview-questionnaire technique was used to gather data. Questions in the schedule covered such items as: family background, net worth, past financial accom- plishments, future financial objectives, statements of satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions and family goals. Open-end questions as well as pro-coded ones were used in the schedule. Financial decision-making in the farm families was 105 analyzed as to the reasons the problem arose, the sources of information consulted other than persons, the persons outside the family with whom the problem was discussed, the adequacy of facts, the degree the problem was discussed in the family, the risks and alternatives considered, the decision-makers, and the length of time to make the deci- sion. Selected factors such as age, education, size of family, tenure status, net worth, and organizational par- ticipation were compared against the previously mentioned decision-making practices. Practices followed in satisfactory and unsatisfac- tory financial decision-making were compared. Goals which the families had achieved and goals which they held for' the future were also analyzed. Findings egg Conclusions Financial Digision-Making. The data seemed to sup— port the first hypothesis in this study. In light of the evidence, it appeared that the financial decision-making of these 100 farm families consisted of the following sub- processes: (a) the recognition of the problem, (b) the observation and / or acquisition of information relevant to the solution of the problem, (c) the deliberation re- garding the problem,1 (d) the making of the decision, and (e) the taking-action on the decision. —_——— g 1 Deliberation regarding the problem meant consider— ing carefully; weighing facts and arguments with a view to a choice or decision. 106 These subprocesses seem to be interrelated. A de- cision-maker does not necessarily follow the steps as out- lined above - he may acquire information and deliberate at the same time. He may also deliberate about a problem and see some alternatives, then acquire information, and deliberate again as he becomes aware of more alternatives. All of the families were able to recognize their problem because all were able to give reasons for the prob- lem arising. It appeared that all families observed and/or ac- quired information relevant to the solution of the problem. Eighty-nine percent of the families discussed their prob- lem with persons outside the family and/or consulted sources of information other than persons. The remaining eleven percent that did not follow these practices discussed the problem in the family so they may have gotten information from the partner or from the children. They also may have previously acquired the information that was needed in their particular situation. From the data, it appeared that all of the families -deliberated about the problem. All of the families had considered alternatives and all but one had discussed the problem between partners. Sixty-two percent of the cou- jples had considered risks. In all cases, a decision was made and action taken on it. The hypothesis that the characteristics of the fam- 107 ily such as age, education, family size, tenure status, net.worth, and organizational participation are positively related to certain practices or components of the decision- making subprocesses was only partially substantiated by the data. When the families were asked from what sources other than people they got information to help them in making their financial decision, magazines, bulletins, newspapers, and radio were most frequently mentioned. The percentage consulting such sources increased with educa- tional level of husband, tenure status, and organizational participation of the family. Between these factors, sig- nificant degrees of association were found. fiighty-eight percent of the sample said they had. discussed their problem with persons outside the family, such as salesmen and workmen, friends and neighbors, rela- tives, leaders in the community, and specialists. The percentage of families discussing their problem with oth- ers increased with the education of thehusband and wife, the family's net worth, and its organizational participa- tion. As the tenure status increased from tenant to full K owner, the percentage of families discussing their problem with others decreased. A statistically significant relationship was found between: (a) the salesmen and workmen consulted and the age of family head, (b) the salesmen and workmen consulted and the family's organizational participation, (0) the spe- 108 cialists consulted and education of husband, (d) the spe- cialists consulted and the family's net worth. The per- centage of families discussing their problem with sales? men and workmen increased with the age of the family head and the organizational participation of family. The per- centage consulting specialists increased with the net worth and educational level of husband. Eighty-two percent of the respondents in this study said that they felt their facts were adequate before making their decision. Application of the chi-square test reveal- ed a significant degree of association between adequacy of facts in their decision and age of head, net worth, and organizational participation. Families with heads in the younger age group were more likely to feel they had all the facts needed before making the decision than those in the older age group. The percentage reporting their facts adequate decreased with the family's net worth and its organizational participation. The majority of the couples (69 percent)reported that in making their satisfactory financial decision they had discussed it between themselves much. Fifteen percent had discussed it some, and 16 percent little or none. The problem was discussed to a greater degree by families with heads under #5 years of age than those with heads over U5. As the formal education of the husband increased, the per- centage of families who discussed the problem much increased. As the number of children in the family increased, the per- 109 centage of families who discussed the problem much de- creased. The problem was discussed to a greater degree by a larger percentage of families who owned 50 percent or more of their land than families who were tenants or those who owned less than half of it. Forty-one percent of the families discussed the financial problem with their children. Two Pennsylvania studies (30,33) also found that children participated to a limited extent in the financial decision-making of the family. The percentage of families discussing the problem with their children increased with the size of family and decreased with the family’s net worth. In making this satisfactory decision, 62 percent said they had considered risks. Examination of data showed that as the education of the husband and wife increased the percentage of families considering risks also in- creased. And as the size of the family and net worth in- creased, the percentage that considered risks decreased. A significant degree of association was found between risks considered and community participation. The percentage considering risks decreased as the degree of organizational participation increased. Examination of data in the interview-schedule showed that all couples had considered alternatives in their fin— ancial decisions. However, when the couples were asked if they seriously considered doing anything else than what 110 they did in their financial decision, only 30 percent re- plied yes. This may have been due to the wording of the question or to the length of the schedule. PeOple may have become tired and therefore given a negative response to this question. Another factor might be considered. Gartner, Kol- mer and Jones (20:22) report that education increases the level of knowledge possessed by a family. And this they believe may affect the number of alternatives considered. In our study, the level of education was found to affect the alternatives reported in response to the question 'Did you seriously consider doing anything else than what you did?" As the educational level of husband and wife increased, the percentage of families reporting a1terna-‘ tives increased. When the couples were asked who made the final de- cision, 59 percent said the husband did and 3“ percent said the decision was made jointly by the husband and wife. The remaining decisions were made by the whole family or the wife alone. These data are not in agreement with the Ontario study (1) which showed that in the majority of the farm families, the husband and wife made most economic de- cisions as a team. The differences may be due to the dif- ferences in cultural groups sampled. When the decision-maker was considered by age of family head it was found that in the older age group the husband was more likely to be the sole decision-maker while 111 in the younger group there was more joint decision-making. This fact is supported by Wolgast's study (69} in which he found that the amount of joint decision-making in the family declined with increasing age. As the size of the family increased, the percentage of families in which the husband was the sole decision- maker decreased. And as the tenure status increased from tenant to full owner, the percentage of families in which there was joint decision-making increased. Of the 100 satisfactory financial decisions that were reported by these farm families, over two-fifths re- quired more than a year for the final decision to be made. About one-fourth required over three months to one year and one—fourth required three months or less for the de- cision. A larger percentage of husbands and wives with a grade school education took less than three months to make the decision than those with a college education. And a larger percentage of'those with a college education took over three months to one year to make the decision than those with a grade school education. These data are par- tially supported by Mueller and Katona's study (#7) of de- liberation. Lack of deliberation, they found occurred mostly among the durable goods buyers with a grammar school education while the highly deliberate decision-making oc- curred among those with a college education. As the family size increased, the percentage taking over a year to make a decision decreased. Families who were - 112 tenants or those who owned less than half of their land had a higher percentage taking three months or less to make a decision than the full or 50 percent owner families who had a higher percentage taking over a year to decide. Satisfactory versus Unsatisfactory Financial Qggi; sion- Makigg. In general the data seemed to support the hypothesis that the components of the decision-making sub- processes are utilized to a greater degree in the satis- factory than in unsatisfactory financial decision-making. 0f the 100 families interviewed in this study, only 18 reported financial decisions that were unsatisfactory. In comparing these with satisfactory decisions of the same families, it was revealed that sources of information oth- er than persons were consulted more often in making the satisfactory than in making the unsatisfactory decisions. The source mentioned most frequently in both types of de- cisions was magazines. Other sources of information were bulletins, newspapers, and radio, in that order. All of these sources were consulted more in making the satisfac- tory than in making the unsatisfactory decisions. I The problem was discussed with persons outside the family in more satisfactory than unsatisfactory decisions. The source of information that ranked highest and to the same degree on both lists was salesmen and workmen. In twice as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory decisions, the problem had been discussed with friends and neighbors. Relatives, leaders, and specialists were also consulted 113 in more of the satisfactory decisions. The number of decisions in which the facts were considered to be adequate was slightly more for the satis- factory than for the unsatisfactory. In the satisfactory decisions, the problem was dis- cussed between husband and wife to a greater degree than in the unsatisfactory. In thirteen of the satisfactory and eight of the unsatisfactory decisions, the problem was discussed much. Application of the "t'I test revealed a significant difference. In twice as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory decisions, the problem had been discussed with the chil- dren. It was also discussed with them to a greater de- gree in the satisfactory than in the unsatisfactory deci- sions. Slightly more risks were considered in satisfactory than unsatisfactory decisions - a total of 19 were con- sidered in the satisfactory decisions and 15 in the un- satisfactory. Risks were considered in one more satis- factory than unsatisfactory decision. Examination of data in the interview-schedule showed that more alternatives had been considered in satisfactory than unsatisfactory decision-making. A total of an alter- natives were considered in the satisfactory decisions and 38 in the unsatisfactory ones. When the families were asked if they seriously con- sidered doing anything else than what they did in their 113 in more of the satisfactory decisions. The number of decisions in which the facts were considered to be adequate was slightly more for the satis- factory than for the unsatisfactory. In the satisfactory decisions, the problem was dis- cussed between husband and wife to a greater degree than in the unsatisfactory. In thirteen of the satisfactory and eight of the unsatisfactory decisions, the problem was discussed much. Application of the "t' test revealed a significant difference. In twice as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory decisions, the problem had been discussed with the chil- dren. It was also discussed with them to a greater de- gree in the satisfactory than in the unsatisfactory deci- sions. Slightly more risks were considered in satisfactory than unsatisfactory decisions - a total of 19 were con- sidered in the satisfactory decisions and 15 in the un- satisfactory. Risks were considered in one more satis- factory than unsatisfactory decision. Examination of data in the interview-schedule showed that more alternatives had been considered in satisfactory than unsatisfactory decision-making. A total of an alter- natives were considered in the satisfactory decisions and 38 in the unsatisfactory ones. When the families were asked if they seriously con- sidered doing anything else than what they did in their 11“ financial decisions, only about half of the families re- plied yes. Consideration of alternatives was reported in one more unsatisfactory than satisfactory decision but the total number of alternatives considered was the same for both types of decisions. Analysis of decision-makers showed that 12 of the satisfactory decisions were made by the husband alone and six were made jointly by husband and wife while in the unsatisfactory decision, 11 were made by the husband, five by the husband and wife together, and one by the wife alone. About the same number of satisfactory as unsatisfac- tory decisions required three months or less to make. How- ever, twice as many satisfactory as unsatisfactory deci- sions required over three months to one year, while twice as many unsatisfactory as satisfactory decisions required more than one year. These results may indicate that there is a point beyond which a,longer period of deliberation is not desirable. Financial Goals. The data seemed to support the hypothesis that farm families have goals which can be ‘verbalized; some of these goals are considered of greater iummrtance to the family than others. All families mentioned financial goals they had a- chieved. Analysis of the three most important goals showed that buying farm machinery and equipment was mentioned most frequently - 65 percent of the husbands and 5h percent of the wives mentioned this. Goals of next importance to 115 the couples were increasing livestock and poultry, owning additional land and increasing production, improving or building new farm buildings, and owning a farm. , Sixty-six percent of the husbands and wives agreed as to which were the major financial goals they had a- chieved since they began farming. Seventy—nine percent ranked the same goal as first in importance. When the couples were asked to name some of the things they had sacrificed in order to achieve these goals, they most frequently mentioned trips and vacations. Next in order of frequency were recreation and entertainment, new clothes and other personal items, new cars, and house- hold goods. All of the couples were able to verbalize their future financial goals, and 81 percent of the families had taken steps toward achieving one or more of their ma- jor goals. The goal most frequently mentioned was improve- ment or building new farm buildings. Next in order of frequency were goals for improving land, and for improving or building new farm homes. The choice of farm items over home items is sup- ported by Wilkening's study (65) in which he states that 'when a couple are asked to make a choice between the pur- chase of needed household furniture and needed farm ma- chinery, the majority of both husbands and wives choose the farm equipment before the home equipment._ The reason- ing behind this is that “it takes the farm item to make 116 the money to obtain the home item; hence, the farm equip- ment should come first.’ Sixty-six percent of the husbands and wives agreed as to which were the three most important goals that they wished to achieve. And seventy-one percent agreed on which goal was of top importance to the family. A number of studies (28,29,65) of farm families in- dicate agreement between husband and wife on goals. Hillman believes that this indicated that the "majority of husbands and wives know what they, as a family are trying to do over a long time period and are endeavoring to accomplish these things together" (28857). When the couples were asked whether anything had interfered with or delayed them in reaching these goals, 95 percent replied yes. Lack of money was the most fre- quently mentioned factor - over 60 percent of the families mentioned it. Lack of money was also listed in a Penn- sylvania study (32) as one of the major reasons why fam- ilies do not attain their goals. Implicatigps In a rapidly changing society such as ours, it is imperative that people be taught how to think and make in- telligent choices. New facts, ideas, skills, and attitudes appear so rapidly that much of what is now being taught will soon become outdated. Therefore, people must be e- quipped to make intelligent decisions and judgments so that they can adequately adapt to the future. It is the belief 117 of the writer that educators can help individuals in- crease their skill in decision-making by helping them understand the process deduced from this study. If per- sons are helped to become aware of their problems, seek information relevant to the solution of these problems, consider this information and the possible alternatives for resolving the problems, and then make a decision and take action on it, they should attain a greater satisfac- tion from the use of the resources available to them. The data revealed that more alternatives were con- sidered in the satisfactory than in the unsatisfactory de- cision-making. In light of this, it would appear that the consideration of a number of alternatives is desirable. Educators may help peeple become aware of additional a1- ternatives for solving a problem by pointing out some al- ternatives for the person's consideration and by referring the people to sources of information which would provide additional alternatives. Educators can also help peeple evaluate the alternatives which they have under consider- ation by supplying them with technical information con- cerning these alternatives. Another important implication for educators, es- pecially extension workers is suggested by the data in- dicating the high degree with which satisfactory decisions were discussed in the family and with persons outside the family. Comparison of the eighteen satisfactory decisions 'with the eighteen unsatisfactory decisions of the same 118 families also revealed that discussion within the family and with persons outside the family was more desirable for satisfactory decision-making. This would suggest that ex- tension workers place emphasis on family financial dis- cussions and conduct extension meetings which involve group discussion of problems concerned with management situations. With reSpect to how families are reached and who are reached, the study has direct implications for exten- sion personnel. The data indicated that over twice as many families seek information concerning their problems from friends and neighbors as from specialists. This sug- gests that an additional way for disseminating home manage- ment information to families might be through local people. The data also indicated that the persons seeking advice from specialists were the higher income and better educated ones. Therefore, it would seem that emphasis needs to be placed in extension on reaching the low income and grade school trained families. Lack of money and lack of time were most frequently mentioned as factors which interfered with or delayed fam- ilies in reaching their goals. These results indicate that educational programs need to emphasize the management of the family's resources of money and time in order to a- chieve their goals. This study also has implications for research per- sonnel in home management. All of the families listed 119 goals which they had for the future. A further study would be valuable in which the families were reinterviewed as to which goals were actually achieved and why other planned goals were not achieved. A complete analysis as to how decisions were made should be carried out for goals which the families had now achieved. A comparison of satisfactory and unsatisfactory de- cision-making revealed that the problem was discussed to a greater extent in the family and with more persons out- side the family in the satisfactory than in the unsatis- factory decisions. Nore sources such as magazines, bul- letins, and newSpapers were consulted and more risks and alternatives were considered in satisfactory decisions. Other differences in decision-making practices might be revealed or these differences might be proven significant if a larger number than eighteen unsatisfactory decisions could be obtained for analysis. In this study, the fami- lies were asked to state some of the financial decisions they had made during the last two years and then asked if there was any they wished had been done differently. It may be that a larger number of unsatisfactory decisions could be obtained for analysis if the respondents were asked after the question "Which of these decisions do you feel most satisfied with?" the question, "Which do you feel least satisfied with'l'I Another possibility for comparing satisfactory and unsatisfactory decisions would be to have the families 120 rate the decisions mentioned on a five-point scale of sat- isfactoriness. Then the interviewer could question the family further concerning the practices followed in a de- cision rated highest on the scale and in one rated lowest. There is need for further research concerning the subprocesses of decision-making. Why is genuine decision- making sometimes fragmentary or superficial but yet not entirely lacking? And, what effect does this fragmentary characteristic have on the decision? Certain subprocesses of decision-making are worthy of individual study. Emphasis needs to be placed on study- ing motivation in decision-making. This work only touched the surface in finding out why the problems arose for the families. We need to delve deeper into how a‘person's values and attitudes, his past experiences and his social and physical needs affect his decision-making. Some of the data seemed to imply that the level of knowledge possessed by a family affects the number of al- ternatives of which the family is aware. A study to de- termine the relationship of education to the family's awareness of available alternatives would deepen the under- standing of another subprocess of decision-making. The data seemed to indicate that the subprocesses of decision-making were similar for the families but that the components of these subprocesses differed. It seemed to the writer that a study of how decision-making differed in families would be valuable if a similar decision could 121 be chosen for study. One possibility for this would be to study the decision-making process involved in the pur- chase of a home in a housing develOpment. Such a decision would be one made rarely and one which involved a large amount of money; therefore, one in which we could expect problem solving behavior to occur. This study analyzed the discussion of the finan- cial problems in families. Further study needs to be done on family interaction during decision-making. How is de- cision-making affected by the family's power structure, the adequacy of communication within the family, and the accuracy with which members can perceive the wishes and desires of others in the family? 1. 10. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abell, Helen C. "Special Study of Ontario Farm Homes and Homemakers.” Progress Report No. b. Toronto, Canada, Ontario Dept. of Agr., 1960. (Nimeographed.) Abendroth, W. W. ”The Research and Decision-Making Pro- cess," in Documentation in Action, eds. Jesse H. Shera, Allen Kent, and James W. Perry. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1956. Back, Kurt W. "Decisions Under Uncertainty-Rational, Irrational, and Non-rational,” The American Behavioral Scientist, b, No. 6 (February, 1961), lh-19. Blood, Robert 0. and Wolfe, Donald N. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Bradford, Lawrence A. and Johnson, Glenn L. Farm Man— agement Analysis. New York: John wiley and Sons, Inc., 1953- Bratton, C. A. and E. C. "Decision-Making in Home Man- agement,“ in Proceedings of Conference on Values and Decision—Making in Home Management. East Lansing, Mich- igan: Dept. of Home Ngt. and Child Development, Nich- igan State University, 1955. (Mimeographed.) L Dress, Irwin D. J. Design for Decision. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1953. Burlesen, G. L. Studying Extension Work With Farmers and Farm Homemakers In Madison Parish, Louisiana. Agr. Ext. Service. Baton Rouge, La. State Univ., 1952. (Mimeographed.) . Studying_Extension Work With Farmers and Farm Homemakers in Red River Parish. Louisiana. Agr. Ext. Service. Baton Rouge, La. State Univ., 1950. (Nimeo- graphed.) __. StudyinggExtension Work With Farmerségnd Farm homemakers in Washington Parish. Louisiana. Agr. Ext. Service. Baton Rouge, La. State Univ., 1950. (Nimeo- graphed.) and Gallup, G. Extension at Work in Lafourche. Agr. Ext. Pub. No. leh. Baton Rouge, La. State Univ., 1950. Coleman, Lee. "Differential Contact with Extension Work in a New York Rural Community,“ Rural Sociology, 16 (September,l951), 207-216. 122 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Zn. 123 Davis, Linda Lee. 'Decision-Making in Clothing Pur- chases ef 100 Home Economics Students in Five High 'Schools of Morgan County, Indiana.‘I Unpublished Mas- ter's thesis, Ohio State University, 1958. Davis, Mildred Jean. "Decision-Making In Relation To the Performance of Household Activities in New York State Homes." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cor- nell University, 1957. Dewey, John and Tufts, James H. Ethics. New York: Hen- ry Holt and Company, l92h. Dix, Louise Carter. IDecision-Making in the Farm Fam- ily.’ Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1957- Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Massey, Frank J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. ‘ ' Fitzsimmons, Cleo. The Management of Family Regources. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1950. Freeman, Ruth C. and Due, Jean M. “A Case Study of the Influence of Goals on the Financial Management of Two Illinois Farm Families, 1933-1955." Department of Home Economics Extension and Agriculture. Urbana, Univer- sity of Illinois, 1960. (Mimeographed.) Gartner, Joseph, Kolmer, Lee, and Jones, Ethel B. 233: sgmer Marketing Bulletin I. Consumer Decision-Making. COOperative Extension Service. Ames, Iowa State Uni- versity, 1960. Glommen, Margaret E. "Development and Testing of an Instrument to Analyze the Decision-Making Process In Relation to the Advancement of Rural Family Financial Security." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1957. Green, James W. "Factors Inducing Decisions To Build Farm Houses,“ Rural Sociology, 19 (September, l95b), 263-270. Gross, Irma H. and Crandall, Elizabeth W. Management For Modern Families. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 195M. et al. A Study of Three Methods of Research In Home Management. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 171. East Lansing, Mich. State Univ., 19h0.’ 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33- 3’4. 35- 12h Gross, Neal. "The Differential Characteristics of Ac- cepters and Non-Accepters of an Approved Technological Practice,“ Rural Sociology, 1h (June,19n9), 1&8-156. Heady, Earl 0. and Jensen, Harald R. Farm Management Economics. Englewood cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 195D. Hill, Reuben. "Patterns of Decision-Making and the Accumulation of Family Assets,“ in Household Decision- Makin ed. Nelson N. Foote. New York: New York Uni- versity Press, 1961. Hillman, Christine H. Factors Ingluengigg the Lives Of a Group of Young Farm Families. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 750. Wooster, Ohio State University, 195h. ' Holmes, Emma G. I'Factors Affecting Farm Family Goals.‘ Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1956. Honey, Ruth R. Family Financial Management Experiences As Reported_byg 2 Farm Families and ;;g Farm Children in Pennsylvania. College of Home Economics Research Publication 1H1. University Park, Pennsylvania State University, 1957. and Britten, Virginia. Some Aspects of Finan- giglyglannigg_fimong Rural Families in a Central Penn- gylvania Community. College of Home Economics Research Publication 13h. University Park, Pennsylvania State' University, 1956. , Britton, Virginia, and Hotchkiss, Alida S. Decision-Making in the Use of Family Financial Re- sources in a Rural Pennsylyania Community. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 6H3. _University Park, Pennsylvania State University, 1959. and Smith, W. M. Family Financial Management Experiences as Reported by 179 College Studentg. Col- lege of Home Economics Research Publication 113. Uni- versity Park, Pennsylvania State University, 1952. Jennings, S. “Studying Home Demonstration Work with Rural Hememakers in Winn Parish." Unpublished Master's thesis, La. State Univ., l95h. Johnson, Glenn L. "The Interstate Cooperative Research Project on Decision-Making in Farm Management, ' in Pro- ceedings of Conference on Values and Degision-Maki ng in Home Management. East Lansing ,Michigan: Dept. of Home Mgt. and Child Development, Michigan State Univ., 1955. (Mimeographed.) 36. 37- 38. 39- no. #1. b2. #3. DD. #5. D6. U7. US. 119. 50. 125 . Managerial Concepts for Agriculturalists. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 619. Lexington, University of Kentucky, 195%. and Haver, Cecil. Decision-Maging Principles in Farm Management. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 593. Lexing- ton, University of Kentucky, 1959. Katona, George. The Powerful Consumer: Psychological Studies of the American Economy. New York: McGraw Hill Book—Cempany, Inc., 1960. . . Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951. Kenkel, William F. “Influence Differentiation in Fam- ily Decision-Making,” Sociology and Social Research, #2 (September—October,l957),18-25. and Hoffman, Dean. IReal and Conceived Roles in Family Decision-Making,I Marriage and Family Living, 18 (November, 1956), 311-316. Knight, Frank H. Risky UncertaintyL and Profits. Bos- ton: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1921. Kyrk, Hazel. The Family in the American Economy. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Malone, Carl C. and Lucile. Decision Making and Man- agement for Farm and Home. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 1958. ' McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955. Morgan, James N. “Household Decision Making,‘I in House- hold Decision-Makin , ed. Nelson N. Foote. New York: New York University Press, 1961. Mueller, Eva and Katona, George. “A Study of Purchase Decisions,“ in Egnsumer BehaviorL Vol. I, ed. L. H. Clark. New York: New York University Press, 1955. . “The Desire for Innovations in Household Goods,' in Consumer Behaviornygl. III, ed. L. H. Clark. New York: New York University Press, 1958. Nickell, Paulena, and Dorsey, Jean M. Management in Family Living. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959: Norris, Ruby T. The Theory of Consumer's Demand. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. 51. 52. 53- 5h. ’55. 56. 57- 53- 59. 60. 61. 62. 126 Paolucci, Beatrice. "Decision-Making in Relation to Management in classes of Home Economics by Beginning Teachers.“ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1956. Pattison, Mattie. "Implications for Education in the Relationship between Expressed Values of Certain Farm Families and their Expenditures for Living.I Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,l9h5. Reitz, Joanne V. 'A Study of 100 Kitchens In Owner-' Operated Farm Houses In Five Selected Communities of Pennsylvania In Relation To Some Kitchen Planning Guides Available To Families.” Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1952. Ridder, Clara Ann. Basic Distances in 100 Farm Homes For Preparingyand Servinngood and Washing Disheg. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 879. Ithaca, Cornell University, 1952. Ryan, Bryce and Gross, Neal. Acceptance and Diffusion of Hybrid Corn Seed in Two Iowa Communities. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 372. Ames, Iowa State University, 1950. Scantland, Lois, Svinth, C. A., and Taves, Marvin J. A Sguare Look At Extension Work In Spokane County, Washington. Agr. Ext. Bul. #63. Pullman, State College of Washington, 1952. Sharp, Harry, and Mott, Paul. "Consumer Decisions in the Metropolitan Family," Journal of Marketing, 21 (October,l956), 1&9-156. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative thavior - A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organ- ization. New York: Macmillan Company, 1957. Steckle, Jean M. "Five Techniques Tested to Study Fam- ily Decisions in Household Processes." Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1956. Strodtbeck, Fred L. “The Family as a Three-Person Group,n American Sociological Review, 19 (February, 195“), 23-290 . ”Husband-Wife Interaction over Revealed Dif- ferences,‘I American Sociological Review, 16 (August, 1951), u68-h73. Tannenbaum, Robert. ”Managerial Decision-Making," Journal of Business, 23 (January, 1950), 23 — 39. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 127 Thomas, D. Woods. "Sociological Aspects of the Deci- sion-Making Process,“ Journal of Farm Economics, 37, No. 5 (December, 1955), 1115 - 1118. U.S.D.A., Federal Extension Service. The Egfiension Seryigptin Vermont, Part Two: Farm Women and the Ex- tension Service. Washington, D. 0.: G.P.0.,19H7. (Mimeographed.) Wilkening, Eugene A. Acceptance of Improved Farm Prac- ticeszin Three Coastal Plain Counties. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 98. Raleigh, North Carolina State College, 1952. . Adoption of Improved Farm Practices As Re- lated To Family‘Factors. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 183. Madison, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1953. . “Change in Farm Technology as Related to Familism, Family Decision-Making, and Family Inte- gration,u American Sociolggical Review, 19 (Feb., 1951‘" ) 3 29-370 . "Joint Decision-Making in Farm Families as a Function of Status and Role,“ American Sociologi- cal Review, 23 (April, 1958), 187 - 192. Wolgast, Elizabeth H. ”De Husbands or Wives Make the Purchasing Decisions?“ Journa1_of Marketing, 23 (October, 1958), 151-158. APPENDIX 128 FINANCIAL DECISIONS OF FARM FAMILIES Part I-Background Case No: Date: Not Age Highest Living Nearest Grade Com- At Birth- pleted or Special Training Eams_1__Daz__1_A&1§ndin2 Husbggg m d I 11_. 1:: 21 _i 3. EL._ 1e 1. "What year were you married?" 2. "When did you start farming on your own?" 3. "Have you changed farms since you began farming?" Yes__No__ (If "yes") a. "How many times?"m_huhy b. "Why did you change farms?" H. "Have you ever left farming to do something else?" Yes__No__ (If Ityesll) a. "How long were you off the farm?" 5. "How long have you lived on present farm?" 6. "How long have y6u lived in this neighborhood?" H W 7. "Do you own or rent?" Own Rent 1 8. a. "We are interested in knowing what organizations you have belonged to as individuals or as a family. Would you tell me the names of such organizations?" b. "Have you held an elective office in any of these?" N 0r agizgii H W C Elective Office Held Church & Affil- iated Organi- zations Civic 'Farm ‘fiomeww P311tical School Veteran Other Part II FINANCIAL SITUATION (When family started farming) Guide Question: "I want to talk with you about the things you have done and the things you want to do in order to be better fixed financially. These would depend on what you had to start with. I have here a form which makes it easier for me to get a picture of your financial situation when you started farming as a family. would you tell me what you had as I go over it?" Directions: unless headings are self-explanatory, further directions are given. The idea is to provide information that will portray a meaningful picture of the family situation. Assets 1-2. Land and Buildings: Try to describe as to type, condition, adequacy or inadequacy and any other facts that provide a better picture of the farm set-up. Do not try to value individually. 3. Machinery: Do not try to list kinds of machinery owned. Describe in general noting adequacy or inadequacy. (Did they have enough machinery to carry on farming operations?) h. Livestock and Poultry: Describe livestock as, 1.6., 6 purebred Holstein cows. Do not try to value individually. 5, 6 and 7. Describe briefly and estimate value as a whole. 8. Indicate person on whom the policy has been taken. Llflhlll£1£§ The idea is to get a general estimate of amount family owed when they started farming. Checking items helps remind them of things they may have owed for. ‘ ‘*_ ..—__ Part II FINANCIAL SITUATION (When family started farming) Estimated 2. Buildings Farm: Central Chicken Value of Land and Buildings as a whole 3. k. Livestock and Poultry 5 Description Estimated %. (cont.) 5. Feed Seed and 6. 7. 8. Insurance Farm and Home: (check those carried) Perso . Health and Est. Total CashQValue of Life Insurance Description 9. Savings: (check those indicated) avin ts P sta avi gov. Bonds cher Bongo §tocks Contracts or Mortgages Other: Total Savings 10. Cash resergo_ 11. Accts. Receiv- able (Colleotiolo) Est. Total Assets L1§2111£1£§ Mortgages & Notes (check items mentioned) Land & Bldgsa Machinery Livestock & Eggltry Feed, Seed & Supplios Housohold Goods. Automobile he b s ow Est. Total Liabilities Est. Net Werth (Assets minus Liabilities)$ (This figure may be + or -. Be sure to show if figure is negative, 1.6. , “3500.000) Additional Comments: (Use back of preceding page if necessary.) ‘ . 'IIII'II I I‘ll ll. ..‘ll' II‘: II III .lallf ‘III. ‘11 I I 1 "ill Ill-Ill]- Ii PAST FINANCIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS guide ngotiono and Direotiogo: 1. "You have told me what your financial situation was when you first started farming. During the time you've been farming you probably have done things to help you become better fixed financially. What are some of the things you've accomplished?" (As the accomplishment is mentioned, record on table circle person mentioning it and ask what year it was accomplished.) 2. "I would like to get some idea of the degree of impor- tance you feel each of these things had toward becoming better fixed financially. Which of these was the most important?" (Rank "most important" as number 1 in column provided. Fol- low up ranking by asking "next important", ranking it as number 2, etc., until all are ranked. Separate columns are provided for rankings given by husband and wife.) .-—...——-—— ~——-————.-___ PAST FINANCIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Ranking Person H W Part III Desoription Mentioning 3.22 H W 1. H W 2. H 'W 3. H w 1+. l H w 5. H W 6. H W 7. H W 8. H W 9. H W 10. H W 11. H W 12. Year Accom- pushes FUTURE FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES o s r one: 1. "We have talked about the things you have done to become better fixed financially. What are some of the things you still want to do?" (Circle person mentioning it.) 2. "Have you taken any steps toward any of these?" (If "yes") "When?" (Describe.) 3. "Again I would like to get some idea of the degree of importance you feel each of these things has for you. Which of these is most important?" (Rank "most important" as number 1 in column provided. Fol- low up ranking by asking "next important" ranking it as number 2, etc., until all are ranked. Separate columns are provided for rankings given by husband and wife.) 10 Part IV FUTURE FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES Ranking Person Taken Steps Mentioning If "Yes" If "No" H W atom ri n Note Yr, Qheok H W 1. H W 2. 1 H W 3. H W h. H W ‘5. H W 6. l H W 7. i | 11 OTHER FAMIIY OBJECTIVES guide Quootions and Qiroctiono: 1. "Possibly there are other things your family would like to do that are not necessarily related to financial security. Could you tell me some of these other things you would like to do?" (Circle person mentioning it.) 2. "I’d like to get some idea of the degree of importance each of these has for you also. Which of these is most important to you?" (Rank "most important" as number 1 in column provided. Fol- low up ranking by asking "next important" ranking it as number 2, etc., until all are ranked. Separate columns are provided for rankings given by husband and wife.) Ranking Person Mentioning H W Jfiem H W H W H W H ‘W H W H W H W H W H W H W 12 Part V OTHER FAMILY OBJECTIVES Deseriaflen 2. 9. 10. l|{ll.“ll) 13 Part VI A. DECISIONS TO ACT 1. "One of the things I would like to do in this study is to gain a better understanding of the way in which fam- ilies make decisions. I'd like to talk with you about a financial decision you have made during the past two years. WOuld you tell me a little about some decisions you have made?" (List below.) a. b. C. Yes "Which decisions do you think were the most impor- tant?" "Which one of these decisions do you feel most satisfied with?" "Is there any one you wish you had done differently?" No (If "yes") "Describe." 1% B. SATISFACTORY DECISION 1. "I would like to talk with you about your decision (Refer to 1b, p.15)tOOOOOOOOO.......OOOOOOOOOO0...... I'm interested in finding out some of the thinking and planning you did before you decided to do what you did. First, how did you happen to start thinking seriously about actually doing this at that particular time?" (Check below indicating whichever one suggested the item.) Reason Problem Arose Cash on hood 5 ous ee r a r od t Influonoo of mass media Looal oonvorsation Neoosgity Unoxpootod emorgonoy n x rtun fiaaasie C d t re 9:22; 2. a. 15 "Can you remember what you did between the time the problem first arose and the time you actually made the decision? What was the very first thing you did? the next? etc." (Write down in sequence the things the family did.) b. (Complete as directed on p. 21.) 3. 16 "How much did you talk this over between yourselves?" None Little Some Much (Check) "What were some of the main problems you had to decide when you talked it over between yourselves?" (List below.) "Did you feel you needed more facts before you went ahead?" Yes No "Did you have a clear idea of what the situation ought to be for a family such as yours?" Yes No (If "yes") "What?" 17 7. "I would like to get a more complete picture of any other people who may have had a part in helping you make your decision. Did you talk it over with anyone else?" Yes__ No ~ —. (If "yes", check below.) a. "With whom?" b. "How much did you talk it over?" c. "Why did you talk it over with _M_ '2" (Ask above questions about eVery person they talked with and record replies in appropriate places in table.) Name or Be- lationship Lit1 H :le W Some H w Mu H Reason Children Relatives check if follow Friends or Neighbors ng mentioned F‘ ead ers (ListV Specialists: County Agent Home Agent E2£;_A£;_2§§Cher Others 18 8. "In talking with these other people you probably wanted to get 'the facts' in some cases. In other cases, you may have been trying to clear up your own ideas about what you thought the situation for a family such as yours 'ought to be' before deciding 'what to do'. Now you have mentioned talking this matter over with , , etc." (Refer back to Question 7.) a. "Which ones did you go to for the facts?" (Check below.) b. "Which ones did you depend on to help you clear up your ideas about 'what ought to be'?" (Check below.) Name or Be- lationship The Facts What Ought to Be Children golatives (Check if folloWing mentioned Erj gnds or N91 2! bars C mmunity Imde's (List) Specialist 9222£2_Aasat Home Dem.Agt. Voc. Ag. Toocher Others Others 9. 10. 11. (If 12. 13. 19 "Who gave you the best facts?" "Did you use this information?" Yes___ No___ "Where do you think you got the best ideas as to what 'ought to be' for a family such as yours, from yourselves or from others?" Yourselves___ Others___ (Check) "others") a. "Who do you think gave you the best ideas as to what 'ought to be'?" b. "Did you use their ideas about 'what ought to be'?" Yes No "In solving financial problems, which of you usually pays the most attention to getting the facts?" H W (Circle either or both) ”Which one of you pays the most attention to clarifying your ideas about what 'ought to be'?" H W (Circle either or both) (If both H and W are indicated, reframe questions to include both. 1h. 15. "Now do you think that in most other family problems that the o is the main source of facts?" Yes No "Do you think the is the one who is most concerned with clarifying ideas about what 'ought to be‘?" Yes No 2O 16. "I'd like to get a clearer picture of the sources from which you got information other than the people we have Just talked about. During the time you were reaching your decision, did you consult any other sources than people?" Yes No (If "yes") "Which ones?" (Check sources below. For each one mentioned, ask whether through advertisements or general reading, listening, viewb ing, etc.) Ads General Reading Check Menti H W ther Comments: 17. "From which of these did you get your best information?" 18. "Of all the people you talked to besides yourselves and the places or pecple from which you got information or advice, which did you feel influenced you the most?" 21 19. "We have reviewed your decision to quite carefully. I would like to go back and go over what you did between the time the problem arose and the time you made the decision and fill in anything that may have been left out the first time." (Return to 2b, p. 15 and write down steps in making decision. Read back to family to check accuracy.) 20. "How long was it between the time you first really began considering doing this and your final decision?" (Check) 1 month or less Over a month to 3 months Over 3 months to 6 months Over 6 months to 1 year Over 1 year to 2 years Over 2 years 21. "What do you feel was the thing that really decided you?" Husband: Wife: 22. "Was there any pressure on you to make the decision in the way you did?" Yes___ No (If "yes") "What was it?" 23. "Who made the final decision?" 2%. "When you made the decision did you consider the risks you might be taking in doing what you did?" Yes No (If "yes") "What were they?" (List below.) 25. (If 22 "Did you seriously consider doing anything else than what you did?" Yes___ No___ "yes", ask following for each alternative.) a. "What?" (List below.) b. "What were the risks you would have taken?" c. "If you had done this, what might have happened?" ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative: H W (Circle which person men- tioned it.) Risk: Possible Consequences: 3. Alternative: H W Risk: Possible Consequences: Alternative: H W Risk: Possible Consequences: Alternative: H W Risk: Possible Consequences: 23 (Circle which person men- tioned It.) (Circle which person men- tioned it.) (Circle which person men- tioned it.) 2% C. UNSATISFACTORY DECISION 1. "When we talked about the financial decisions you have made in the past two years, you said you had (Refer to 1c, p. 15) but wished you had done differently. I‘m interested in finding out some of the thinking and planning you did in this case also. First, how did you happen to start think- ing seriously about actually doing this at that particular time?" (Check below indicating whichever one suggested the item.) Reason Problem Arose H W Qasb_ea_band__ goggoiogo good oyog g oogiod of timo mas m nggl g9flV§P§§§19§ ...“..I. 'l' I11]. I pl Ail-I'll] Ill I I'll] I‘ll! III II“ 1 {lull III-Ill" I [III I! III I i I i ..IIVI: 25 2. a. "Can you remember what you did between the time the problem first arose and the time you actually made the decision? What was the very first thing you did? the next? etc." (Write down in sequence the things the family did.) b. (Complete as directed on p. 31.) II 11.-II III) II ‘IIIII. 1 I ll 1| .. I! II II 3. 26 "How much did you talk this over between yourselves?" None Little Some Much (Check) "What were some of the main problems you had to decide when you talked it over between yourselves?" (List below.) "Did you feel you needed more facts before you went ahead?" Yes No "Did you have a clear idea of what the situation ought to be for a family such as yours?" Yes No (If "yes") "What?" l1|l.1[lll.u.l|l l 27 7. "I would like to get a more complete picture of any other people who may have had a part in helping you make your decision. Did you talk it over with anyone else?" Yes___No___ (If "yes", check below) a. "With whom?" b. "How much did you talk it over?" c. "Why did you talk it over with ?" (Ask above questions about every person they talked with and record replies in appropriate places in table.) Name or Re- Little §Qme _Me h latiggehip H W H W H W Reeson Children Relatives. (check if following mentioned) Friends or Neighbors leeders (List) Specialists: gounty Agent Home Agt. Voc, Ag, Teacher Others 28 8. "In talking with these other people you probably wanted to get 'the facts' in some cases. In other cases, you may have been trying to clear up your own ideas about what you thought the situation for a family such as yours 'ought to be' before deciding 'what to do'. Now you have mentioned talking this matter over with , , etc." (Refer back to Question 7.) a. "Which ones did you go to for the facts?" (Check below.) b. "Which ones did you depend on to help you clear up your ideas about 'what ought to be'?" (Check below.) ##f :fifofifihfig’ The Facts What Ought to Be Chllgreg __ e v ECheck if following mentioned) d r Ne h r W W List §22£i§li§L;_ Qounty Agent Home Dem. Agt. Voo, Ag, Ieeeher Other; Othere I'll il“. .IIJI'.] ‘Ivl 9. 10. 11. (If 12. 29 "Who gave you the best facts?" "Did you use this information?" Yes___ No___ "Where do you think you got the best ideas as to what ‘ought to be' for a family such as yours, from yourselves or from others?" Yourselves___ Others___ (Check) "others") a. "Who do you think gave you the best ideas as to what 'ought to be'?" b. "Did you use their ideas about 'what ought to be'?" Yes No "Was your decision unsatisfactory because your facts were poor or because you didn't see clearly what 'ought to be'?" Check either or both: a. Facts were poor b. Didn't see clearly 'what ought to be' Comments: 3O 13. "I'd like to get a clearer picture of the sources from which you got information other than the people we have Just talked about. During the time you were reaching your decision, did you consult any other sources than people?" Yes No (If "yes") "Which ones?" (Check sources below. For each one mentioned, ask whether through advertisements or general reading, listening, view- ing, etc.) Ads General Reading Check if H W Newe O§her Comments: 1%. "From which of these did you get your best information?" 15. "Of all the peOple you talked to besides yourselves and the places or people from which you got information or advice, which did you feel influenced you the most?" 16. 31 "We have reviewed your decision to quite carefully. I would like to go back and go over what you did between the time the problem arose and the time you made the decision and fill in anything that may have been left out the first time." (Return to 2b, p. 25 and write down steps in making decision. Read back to family to check accuracy.) 17. 18. 19. (If 20. 21. "How long was it between the time you first really began considering doing this and your final decision?" 1 month or less Over a month to 3 months Over 3 months to 6 months Over 6 months to 1 year Over 1 year to 2 years Over 2 years "What do you feel was the thing that really decided you?" Husband: Wife: "Was there any pressure on you to make the decision in the way you did?" Yes No "yes") "What-was it?" "Who made the final decision?" "When you made the decision did you consider the risks you might be taking in doing what you did?" Yes No (If "yes") "What were they?" (List below.) 22. (If 32 "Did you seriously consider doing anything else than what you did?" Yes___ No___ "yes", ask following for each alternative.) a. "What?" (List below.) b. "What were the risks you would have taken?" c. "If you had done this, what might have happened?" ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative: H W (Circle which person men- tioned it.) Risk: Possible Consequences: 2. 33 Alternative: H W (Circle which person men- tioned it.) Risk: Possible Consequences: Alternative: H W (Circle which person men- tioned it.) Risk: Possible Consequences: Alternative: H W (Circle which person men- tioned it.) Risk: Possible Consequences: 3# Awareness of the Decision-making Process (For interviewer's use) Hueoegd W e Sat. Unsat. Sat. Unsat. Slightly aware Aware Very aware (Complete later giving reasons for evaluation.) 35 Part VII FINANCIAL SITUATION (Present) W: "You told me what you had when you started out. Now I'm interested in knowing where you are now?" Direotions: Unless headings are self-explanatory, further directions are given herein. The idea is to provide information that will portray a meaningful picture of the present family situation. Aggie 1-2. Land and Buildings: Try to describe as to type, condition, adequacy or inadequacy and any other facts that provide a better picture of the farm set-up. Do not try to value individually. 3. Machinery: Do not try to list kinds of machinery owned. Describe in general noting adequacy or inadequacy. (Do they have enough machinery to carry on farming operations?) h. Livestock and Poultry: Describe livestock as, i.e., 6 purebred Holstein cows. Do not try to value individually. 5, 6 and 7. Describe briefly and estimate value as a whole. 8. Indicate person on whom the policy has been taken. LléhlllLIES The idea is to get a general estimate of amount family owes. Checking items helps remind them of things they may owe for. 36 Part VII FINANCIAL SITUATION (Present) Estimated 2. Buildings Farm: Central Chicken Value of Land and Buildings as a whole 3. h. Livestock and Poultry 37 Estimated V #. 5. Feed Seed and 6. 7. 8. Insurance Farm and Home: (check those carried) Fire and Persona . Health and e: Est. of Life Insurance aue 38 peeorlotion 9. Savings: (check those indicated) Savlnge Aoele. Postal Saving Gov, Bonds Other Bonds Stooke Contracts or Mortgages Otheg: Total Savings 10. e rv 11. Accts. Receiv- able We) Est. Total Assets Linguine; Mortgages & Notes (check items mentioned) Lend & Blege. Ma hinerY Livestock & 13.91.11.221 Feed, Seed & §uoolies H u eho d Augomoblle t l w Est. Total Liabilities Est. Net Worth (Assets minus Liabilities)8 (This figure may be + or -. Be sure to show if figure is negative, i.e., -$SO0.00.) Additional Comments: (Use back of preceding page if necessary.) 39 Part VIII FAMILY GOALS "You mentioned earlier some things you still want to do before you'll feel pretty well fixed financially. Has anything interfered with or delayed your doing these up to this point?" H w 1. H w 2. H W 3. H w 11. H w 5. H w 6. #0 "What are some of the things you have sacrificed in order to reach the place financially where you are now?" H W 1. H W 2. H W 3. H W N. H W S. H W 6. we ‘ Masses? 5f ' . I ‘ £42». . ASE)“ F 4-1! ivy? ii in p ., w W 1,.._‘ ..., v v IUU b A-.-. . x "' My» ~ - d ‘l. i - v.7 .i 1 ‘ 1 m-enr _- 'r l ' ’ .l"r ‘M " r - A'A V "v“ L “’3 n. ’3. fl . 71$? :7"? IE'U‘w'rgi b ': ’ 5 ‘76 f 4293‘" “is? Hm E .115“ ’ a.” JHA: C .. W‘Uu‘] ' ”...—pm ‘_ A “Ov— -§.-