.7 :1. “T... q : ,v ...-:~ . 5mm... 7. fr. 1 .3. .a: . . Z; 4 .. cw; T.» v . .c« J-PI—uvi I" :31? .5 Lab... .. . . w. .5 «73‘ i 7— .1. .n :y . . é . .2 U?) B ammmfi .. 1 :_ .1... a. Cuban" I .. r... 1 37:1,» 1 2.2? L pr... LT.” ifi ol.‘,v v 5.7.73? 4 r... .1 .5 111/. 5%... :. L . at . .n 11, 3h lVlna... ‘flz . o... s . .I a 2. 3.9,. v( I. ' A . H... Kafvrwn. 3:. I ' 4 — tn??? .1! 3 . .; . 74...») . a ..)a). r, r , ctrv.L\.r!. l ’ 4.2! 5.13: .2 . I... 5.11:]! . . . r: 57.: 1 Why... .. :fivvu .. 3.3.3, . Jana?:m........&....m:.2w. .. mkfixwdwwm...”armazfirr :.. 1.4. : . .(r:: r . “J. wm~.:“...vflmvh. , . .Fn:wwra..fnwn~r.mafdngflflx. Wx g. .Bfiflvmwwunufiwm. , THE-”97C This is to certify that the . Ef‘ thesis entitled RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY ECONOMIC HELP PATTERNS TO SPECIFIC FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS presented bg MARIAN RUTH EMERSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree inlamflwd Child Sciences / I, _.——-—-- f 9/, . - M’C *_- L/ 4 95/ 147/; Major professor Dat 0-169 ".01.... - __ ,rcuw-fla g' L I .. ii‘ A R Y Michigan State University Mg flea-H507 "QW'ZQK M w mama? 3W§% “\M «M: a .. W” 2'?‘ 5 ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY ECONOMIC HELP PATTERNS TO SPECIFIC FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS By Marian Ruth Emerson The purpose of this study was to determine the rela- tionship between-amdeseription~ofi=the kin network help patterns and family characteristics of those who received and gave help. Although researchers generally agree that help patterns exist in the kin family network, none has studied the variations in help patterns according to specific family characteristics of the participants. One randomly selected half of the interviews from the Survey Research Center Project 678 was selected as the sample for this study. The Project 678 study con— sisted of interviews with 2,997 families selected by area probability sampling to represent the population of the United States. The study contained questions relative to the receipt of and giving of $50 or more in gifts to family members, and the source and recipient of such gifts. Data relative to those questions plus additional demographic information of the families were obtained from If“ \_. the Survey Research Center. Marian Ruth Emerson Hesponses to the questions regarding $50 or more in gifts became the basis for differentiating help partici- pating families from non—participating families. The help participating families (N=u93) were compared to the non- participating families (N=995) according to nine demo— graphic features. High income, employment and an urban residence were associated with help participation. The help in the participating families was clas— sified as to type, source and recipient to establish help patterns. Chi square analysis (.05) was used to test for a relationship between patterns of help and family char— acieristics Of the participants: socio—economic level, are, marital status and presence of children under 18. No significant difference between low and high socio—economic participants according to type, source and recipient of help appeared. There was no significant difference between participants at varying age periods, different marital status or with or without children under l8 according to type of help received or given. There was a significant difference at .05 level between par— ticipants at different ages, marital status and with or without children under 18 according to source and recipient of help Young families were more dependent on parents and other relatives for help; middle age families were more dependent on parents, grown children and other relatives, Marian Ruth Emerson while Older families were more dependent on grown children and other relatives. The majority of help given by young families went to parents. This help gradually changed in frequency over time to include grown Children, and was given primarily to grown children by older families. Presence of a spouse produced dependency on parents for help, while laCk of a spouse created dependency on more members of the kin family network. Givers with spouses gave to close kin members, while givers without Spouses gave to both Close and more distant relatives. Families with children under 18 received help from more sources but relied heavily on parents. Families with no children under 18 received from fewer but evenly dis— tributed sources. Participants with growing children gave more help to parents, while participants without growing children gave more help to grown children. This study provided empirically based information about the type of resources available to kin family net— work members and the flow of those resources to and from Jived money, food, clothing, and care when ill. Parents iliteracting with children in rural farm households 26 received less from the children than parents who inter— acted with children in rural non—farm and urban house— liolxls. Since this study was done in the area of home management, its findings were important in indicating the widespread dependence of young families and their parents. As such, families at both generational levels emerge as providers of economic resources for each other. The implication for home management educators is that when stressing the importance of use of all resources in the family setting, the economic resources provided by the kin family members are significant in amount and can hardly be overlooked. Clark and Warren (35) reported an attempt to place a dollar value on frequency of giving contributions that families made to newly married children. The sample consisted of 107 wives of the parental families in and near Cortland, N. Y. The study revealed that families contributed 301 different items of which 2A6 were goods, A8 were services, and 7 were money. More giving was reported in the first year of the children's marriage than in the second and third years. In addition, the variety of kinds of goods exceeded the variety of kinds of services and money, and the dollar value of the goods was higher than that of services and money. Also, goods were given much more frequently. 27 The median value of the parental contributions during the first year of marriage was $A95 or 7 per cent of the median parental income. The value for goods was much higher than the value for services and money. During the second and third years the value for goods and money decreased, while the value for services increased due to babysitting. While this study only revealed descriptive infor— mation about the economic contributions from parents to children and did not include the exchange of goods, ser— vices and money between parents and children, it pointed out the feasibility of attaching dollar values to family contributions. Similar categorization of goods, services, and money as well as dollar valuations could be applied to future studies aimed at exact determination of amount of all types of help and the net balance of help exchange patterns between kin family members. This home management study revealed important im- plications for the subject of family finance. When researchers and educators study the resources available to families and how families make decisions regarding the use of such resources, placing a dollar valuation on the mutual aid flowing to and from kin family members would be of great advantage, as the total effect of the help might be understood as a part of income and ex— penditures in families. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE The procedures used in the study have been divided into four parts: selection of sample, selection and description of classification methods, data collection, and data analysis. Selection of Sample In selecting a sample for this study, the important criteria were evidence of receiving and giving help be- tween and among kin related families. Also, the help had to be differentiated as to type, source and recipient. The type, source and recipient of help were the descrip— tive features of help patterns. In addition, specific descriptive data regarding the characteristics of the sample families were necessary. Thus, it was possible to further clarify the relationship between help patterns and characteristics of the families. The data available from the Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Project 678 provided an opportunity to obtain empirical data. The sample design of Project 678 included a cross section of the non-institutional population in the United States and a supplementary sample of low income families. 28 Fl 1 . . all 29 The cross section sample was selected by the Survey Re— search Center's national sample of dwelling units. It is a multistage area probability sample that gives equal chance of selection to all non—institutional dwelling units in the contiguous United States. With area prob— ability sampling, the degree of accuracy desired can be specified in advance and then the sample size required to reduce sampling error to the desired level can be deter- mined. In complex surveys, response errors are likely to increase as the sample increases. The Survey Research Center has selected samples of around 3,000 as the best compromise providing acceptable sampling and response errors. The low income families were selected from the 1960 Survey of Consumer Finance, which also used a cross sec— tion from the Survey Research Center's national sample. The cross sectional sample (2,692 interviews) and the low income sample (305 interviews) resulted in interviews with the heads of 2,997 spending units. The purpose of Project 678 was to study distribu- tion and redistribution of family income throughout the United States—~analyzing family attitudes, histories, and motivations that determine income. Family income, as defined by the study, included more than individual earn— ings. Inclusion of compulsory or voluntary transfers, and irregular and non-money transfers obtained a more 3O comprehensive definition of family income. In order to obtain information about voluntary transfers, the ques- tionnaire contained specific questions pertaining to the receipt of more than $50 of food and clothing or large gifts in 1959, identification of the help item, source of help; giving of more than $50 of food and clothing or large gifts in 1959, identification of the help item, recipient of help; payment of money to help support any— one in 1959; and recipient of support. Because these and other data were collected, the researcher chose this study because the interviews were taken with 2,997 spend— ing units carefully selected to be representative of the United States population and skillfully interviewed by well—trained persons using valid and reliable question— naires. The researcher could not have selected such a large sample, and carried on the necessary interviewing independently. The raw material relevant to the variables of in— formation in this analysis was obtained on a magnetic tape from the Survey Research Center. The following °variables, which were originally selected for analysis in this study, were contained on the tape: Occupation Education Life cycle stage Sex of head Age of head Labor force status of head 31 Wife of head in labor force Gross disposable income Net real income Wage and salary income of spouse Marital status—sex—children of head Number of children of head in college Belt code Region Movement out of Deep South Race Receipt of more than $50 in food, clothing etc. Source of help Giving of more than $50 in food, clothing etc., and payment of money to help support anyone Recipient of help The variables used for final analysis in this study were as follows: Occupation Education Sex of head Age of head Marital status—sex—children of head Life cycle stage Net real income Labor force status Belt code Region Race Receipt of more than $50 in food, clothing, etc. Source of help Giving of more than $50 in food, clothing, etc., and payment of money to help support anyone. Recipient of help A computer program for the tape was written to select one random half of the total sample, which became the focus for this study. Next, the program was designed to identify those families in the random half that affirm— atively responded to the help questions, and whether the source or recipient of help was a kin family member or friend. These two identification processes, followed Ly 32 hand checking to insure accuracy, were used to identify A93 families as receivers and givers of help. Selection and Description of Classification Methods Three kinds of information were needed for this study. The first was information about the demographic features of the random half sample families. The second was determination of help received or not received and help given or not given in the families. The third was information about type of help, source and recipient of help, socio—economic level, age, marital status, and children—under-l8. The demographic variables coded on the tape were as follows: sex of head, age of head, marital status- sex-children of head, life cycle stage, net real income, labor force status, belt code (urban or non—urban resi- dence), region (geographic location), and race. The coding variations for the variables are found in the Appendix. The second classification was the kin family help received or not received and the kin family help given or not given. This classification was devised after the first computer program identified families who had participated in help and the interviews were double checked to insure that only parents, grown siblings, other kin family members, ex-family members, and friends 33 participated in help. Double checking by hand further eliminated some of the interviews from the help partici- pating group and placed them in the non—participating group. The third classification consisted of two parts. The first part identified the type of help received as either (1) direct income, (2) financial assistance, (3) services, or (A) other; it identified the source of help as either parents, grown children, grown siblings, or other relatives or friends. The type of help given was identified as either (1) direct income, (2) financial assistance, (3) multiple gifts, or (A) gave but not ascertained what; the recipient of help given was either parents, grown children, grown siblings, or )ther rela— tives or friends. The second part consisted of a socio- economic index, age, marital status, and children under 18 classifications. The socio—economic index was developed according to Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position (AA) with education and occupation as the two factors. The range of scores on this index was from 11 (high) to 77 (low). Since only the lower third and upper third positions were desired for this study, the range was broken into thirds and all interviews falling at 55 or above constituted low socio—economic interviews, and all interviews at 32 or below were high socio—economic interviews. The age represented a seven position age 3A classification——l8—2A, 25-3u, 35—AA, A5—52, 53—58, 59—6u, 65 and over, based on age of the female in with-spouse families and based on age of adult, either male or female, in without—spouse families. The marital status repre— sented a two position classification--with spouse or without spouse. The children—under—l8 classification identified those families with and without children under 18 years of age. Data Collection Following identification of the participating fami— lies, the researcher devised a data collection sheet that would be used to record by hand all necessary data from the individual interviews that was not available on the tape. This data included age of female in with—spouse families or age of adult, either male or female, in without—spouse families; presence or absence of spouse; and presence or absence of children under 18 in the fami— lies. Data Analysis The preliminary data identified the kin family help participants by indicating those who received, gave, or both received and gave help, and those who neither re— ceived nor gave help. The principle analysis identified and described participating and non—participating families by specific 35 demographic variables. In addition, the help in the par— ticipating families was identified by type, source and recipient, and the type, source and recipient of help was further classified by family characteristics of socio— economic level, age, marital status, and children-under- 18. Relationships were analyzed between the classified type, source and recipient of help in the families by each of the four family characteristics. Methods used in analysis of data are summarized in Table l. 36 Amzv Aoaowmoq .2 cmfi< .m.m.m.H.o .sa .2 phones .eetsv opwzvm ago mowwpsoosom pQSOo honosoosm mewmQCmosom pcsoo Sosodvosm pssoo Segosvosm «use co>flw poc so “masses assasse some: mo owe Qo>flw dam: pcm po>floo “omen mo xom op soapmaom nos no: so po>fimoom ca mpcwgfloflpmMquos ocm dawn pcs sumo oflcgsponmQ mpCMQHOAQLwQ mo soapgflhomoo bows AQOflpmooa sandmswoom "mocwpflmoh cwossncoc so sang: nmSpmpw oosom sopma noEoocfl Hews no; "swash cacao mafia nmSPmpm Hmpflsme .pmog mo owe "owes me xow mo meanwfism> memo eaggsmonoD mp oHQEwm mo compsOHmflpCopH mflmzascm oaaflocflhm mzofl> Imopcfl mam “poonOLm sopsoo Losmomom ho> imam Eosm moHQmHsm> co>fiw poc so Co>flw mestHofipmwg dams maflamm damn ocm po>fiooos sax zmapcoofl op m36fl>sopcfl poc so ©m>flooos anm oHQEMm assoc mo COHQSQHMpmflQ $‘Ill'l‘l‘l mamaawcm asscfiflflaohm Ewswosm sopSQEoo one sepmflpmpm wflmzamc< CH pew: mesa mflmzfimc< mo mmompsm .seee so mamsfisce as see: meoeeezll.H mamas 37 oLmSUm ago osmsww ago massam ego osmswm ago pzzoo hosesvosm pcsoo hocosvohm wflnpoocslcosofifigo sumo o>fipdfimomoo anm mzuwpw Hmpfihmz dump o>wpgflhomop Qfiom om< sump o>flpgflhomop QHom Ho>oa anocoooIOAoom sump o>flpdflsomop QHom mpwp moflpwflpmuomhmgo SHHEmm mpmp o>flpmflsowop anm sump Cowpgfipomop anm : mflmospOch mo whoa m mflwoLQOQSL mo pose m memogpoghg Mo pose H wwwonpogzz so some mangoes: Icosofiflso .mSpdpm Hmpfimwe some nfio>oa oflEocoooIOHoom he damn mo pcofidfloos ocm oomsom «oghp mo soapsOHmfimmeo .QHoQ we psofldfloom use mossom «dams do maze go moapwflpw> hp mfidsmm wcflpmgwoflpswg do COflpMoflmflpcooH moms ncowpmooa oflgdmmmoom “moses names cocksucoc so caps: assumpm oosom Lemma aoEoocfi Hams be: nomwpm macho owwa CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE The description chapter will be divided into two categories: (1) description of the help—participating and non—participating families, and (2) description of the instances of help received and given by only the partici— pating families. A description of the help participating families and the families who by definition neither received nor gave help include: number of families sex of head age of head marital status—sex—children of head life cycle stages net real income labor force status geographic location race Number of Participants and Non—Participants There were 129 spending units who received help and 36A spending units who gave help, or a total of A93 help participants. The total non—participants (neither gave nor received) was 995. 38 39 Thus, 33 per cent of the population participated in the kin family network. This help group is not as high as the help group identified by Sussman and Slater (10) in their 1961 Cleveland study. Those authors identified 75 per cent of their total population as participants in a kin family network. However, the Cleveland study included all forms of help as well as social contacts. This study is concerned with only the specific aspects of more than $50 worth of gifts. As such, anything not readily trans— lated into a $50 value and all social interactions were eliminated. In addition, poor memory may have eliminated some reporting of gifts by respondents as no prodding was done by the interviewers. This was highly possible as the random sample revealed almost three times as much giving as receiving. Morgan et_al. (A6) comment on this phenomenon in their income study (from which this sample was taken): It is possible that people exaggerated their giv— ing, and likely that some recipients forgot the gifts they had received. Unpublished studies at the Survey Research Center have shown that more people remember money owed to them than report that they owe money to someone (p. 259). Clague (A7) reported the same finding in his work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. People have a poor memory regarding what they receive from others, but vividly remember what they give to others. A0 Sex of Head The majority of families in both the participating and non—participating groups was headed by males. A higher percentage of male—headed families were non— participants, while a higher percentage of female—headed families were participants. TABLE 2.——Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to sex of head. Families Sex of Head Participants Non—Participants No. % No. % Male 391 79.3 818 82.2 Female 102 20.7 177 17.8 Total . A93 100.0 99; 100.0 Age of Head Table 3 revealed that the majority of heads of fami- lies in both groups was between 25 and 6A. A very small percentage of heads of families were in either the begin— ning age, under 25, or in the two ending age periods, 65—7A and 75 and over. There were more participants in the under 25 and A5—5A age periods, while more non— participants were in the 35—AA, 55—6A, and 75 and over age periods. The literature indicates that more help Al takes place between middle age parents and their grown children than between those at other age periods. The under 25 and A5—5A participants may represent this strong activity group (parents and children). TABLE 3.——Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to age of head. Families Age of Head Participants Non—Participants No. % No. % Under 25 56 11.A 78 7.8 25-3A 91 18.5 185 18.6 35—AA 108 21.9 237 23.8 A5—5A 107 21.7 185 18.6 55—6A 80 16.2 182 18.3 65—7A A1 8.3 86 8.6 75 and over 10 2.0 A2 A.2 Total 193 100.0 955 53?; Marital Status—Sex—Children of Head There were more single female—headed families than single male—headed families in both groups, but there were more families headed by females with children than families headed by single males with children in both groups. However, the majority of families in both groups A2 was married—~67.9 per cent of the participants and 79.6 per cent of the non—participants. Also, the majority of married families in both groups had children. Table A indicates only minor variations between the two groups. There were more participants than non—participants in the single female with no children and married male with no children categories. There were more non—participants in the single female with children and in all married with children categories. Being married with no children or female with no children revealed some increase in parti— cipation in the kin family help network, while being mar- ried with children revealed some decrease in participation. TABLE A.—-Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to marital status-sex-children of head. Families Marital Status—Sex— P ' ' t N -P t' ' Children of Head art1c1pan s on ar ic1pants No. % No. % Marital Status Single Male With Children 3 .6 7 .7 Without Children SA 11.0 110 11.0 Female With Children 19 3.9 52 5.2 Without Children 82 16.6 12A 12.5 Married Male 1 Child 58 11.8 122 12.3 2 children 68 13.7 153 l5.A 3 or more children 7A 15.0 180 18.1 no children 135 27.A 2A7 2A.8 Total A93 100.0 995 100.0 A3 Life Cycle Stages The majority of the without spouse families in both groups was childless. A very small percentage of the total population were families with children and no spouse. The largest number of families in both groups, almost one— fourth, was in the with—spouse, some children under 6 and wife under A5 category. The next largest number of fami— -lies in both groups, almost 20 per cent, was in the with— spouse, no children and wife over A5 category. Table 5 shows only minor variations in the participating and non— participating families. There were more participants in the without spouse—no children—wife under A5 category, and more non—participants in the with spouse—children over 6— wife under A5, and the without spouse—children categories. Having no spouse and no children and being under A5 re— vealed some increase in the kin family help network, while having older children for the with spouse and just having children for the without spouse group revealed some de— crease in participation. Net Real Income About 5 per cent of the families in both groups were in the $l—$999 net real income category, and approxi— mately 25 per cent of the total families were in the $1000—$2999 net real income category. Thus, about 30 per cent of all the families had access to less than $3000 in AA TABLE 5.——Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to life cycle stages. Families Life Cycle Stages Participants Non—Participants No. % No. % Without Spouse No children Head under A5 59 12.0 81 8.1 No children Head over A5 76 l5.A 1A9 15.0 Children 23 A.7 63 6.3 With Spouse No children Wife under A5 38 7.7 65 6.5 Some children under 6 Wife under A5 117 23.7 2A7 2A.8 Children over 6 Wife under A5 A6 9.3 131 13.2 No children Wife over A5 97 19.7 182 18.3 Some children under 6 Wife over A5 A .8 12 1.2 Children over 6 Wife over A5 33 6.7 65 6.5 Total A93 100.0 995 99.9 A5 1959. The largest numbers of both groups were in the $3000—$A999 and $5000—$7A99 net income categories. These two categories represented about A5 per cent of the total population. Approximately 28 per cent of the total fami- lies were in the $7500—$15,000 and over categories with the majority of these in the $7500—$9999 category. Sta— tistically significant differences between participating and non-participating families occurred in three income categories. There were more non-participants in the $lOOO—$l999 category, and more participants in the $10,000—$1A,999 and $15,000 and over categories. Pos- sibly, a larger net real income increased participation in the kin family help network. Why there was less par- ticipation in the $1000—$l999 category is unexplained. This is a low income category and lack of income for participation could be the reason. However, in the two lower income categories, a similar noticeable difference in participation did not occur. This particular differ— ence might bear further study in conjunction with life cycle stages (see Table 6). Labor Force Status The largest percentage of both groups were employed—— 83.8 per cent participants and 75.6 per cent non— participants. More of each group were unemployed than retired, and a very small percentage of each group were A6 TABLE 6.——Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to net real income. Families Net Real Income Participant Non—Participant No. % No. % $l—$A99 7 1.A 17 1.7 $500-$999 19 3.9 A5 4.5 $1000—$1999 56 11.A 161 16.2 $2000—$2999 59 12.0 123 12.A $3000—$A999 110 22.3 227 22.8 $5000-$7A99 11A 23.1 238 23.9 $7500—$9999 58 11.8 112 11.5 $10,000-$1A,999 A6 9.3 58 5.8 $15,000 and over 2A A.7 1A 1.A Total A93- 9979 995 100.2 *degrees of freedom — 8 x2 of 15.51 is significant at .05 level x2 for table — 27.257 students and disabled. However, there was statistical difference between the two groups according to labor force status. There were more participants in the em— ployed category and more non—participants in the unem- ployed and retired categories. Possibly, being employed increased kin family help participation and being unem— ployed or retired decreased kin family help participation (see Table 7). TABLE 7.—-Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to labor force status. A7 Families Labor Force Status Participant Non—participant No. % No. % Employed A13 83.8 752 75.6 Unemployed 36 7.3 128 12.9 Retired 35 7.1 96 9.6 Student 7 1.A 13 1.3 Disabled 2 .A 6 .6 Total A93 100.0 995 100.0 *degrees of freedom — A x2 of 9.A9 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 1A.38A Urban and Non—Urban Residence Table 8 reveals that the majority in both groups was non—urban in residence. Since urban constituted cities composed of 250,000 or over in population, and non—urban constituted all other residences, more people in the total population lived in residences other than central cities. However, while fewer in both groups lived in central cities, there was statistically signif— icant more participation in central cities than non— participation. The nature of a large city may have some relationship with participation in the kin family network. * A8 TABLE 8.——Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to urban and non—urban residence. Families Urban and Non—Urban . . . . Residence Part1c1pants Non—Participants No. % No. % Urban 172 3A.9 288 28.9 Non—Urban 321 65.1 707 71.1 Total A93 100.0 995 100.0 *degrees of freedom — 1 x2 of 3.8A is significant at .05 level x2 for table — A.A53 Geographic Location Table 9 reveals that the total sample did not repre— sent an equal number of families from each of the four geographic locations. The largest number of families in both groups was from the South and the smallest number of families was from the West. There were more participating families in the Northcentral, South and West, and more non—participating families in the Northeast. ELLCE Approximately 80 per cent of the families in both groups were white. There was less than 1 per cent more white participants than non—participants, and less than 1 per cent more Negro non—participants than participants. A9 Such small differences did not reveal any noticeable tendency (see Table 10). TABLE 9.——Number and percentage of help participating and non-participating families according to geographic location. Families GEographic Participants Non—Participants ocation No. % No. % Northeast 91 18.5 220 22.1 Northcentral 165 33.5 290 29.1 South 181 36.7 3A8 35.0 West 56 11.3 137 13.8 Total A93 100.0 995 100.0 TABLE lO.——Number and percentage of help participating and non—participating families according to race. Families Race Participants Non—Participants No. % No. % White A35 88.2 87A 87.8 Negro 58 11.8 121 12.2 Total A93. 100.0 995 100.0 50 The second section of description pertains to help- ing events associated with only the help participants. These helping events, called instances of help, are first identified as to either received or given, and then des— cribed as to type, source and recipient. Number of Times Instances of Help Were Received and Given There were 99 families who received help. A second response to the help question in some families brought the total instances of help received by the 99 families to 125. There were 281 families who gave help. Again, in— clusion of the second response brought the total instances of help given by the 281 givers to 323. The total sample of participants was 380 and the total number of instances of help was AA8. Help Patterns Type of Help Received and Given Type of help received, where help was defined as $50 or more of gifts, was classified into four categories: (1) direct income; (2) financial assistance; (3) services; and (A) other. Type of help given was classified into four categories: (1) direct income; (2) financial assist— ance; (3) multiple gifts (financial assistince and leeCL 51 income or services); and (A) gave, but not ascertained what. Table 11 indicates the instances of help received according to the four categories of type received. TABLE ll.——Number and percentage of instances of help re— ceived according to type of help. Instances of Help Received Type No. % Direct Income 63 50.A0 Financial Assistance 18 1A.A0 Services 25 20.00 Other 19 15.20 Total 125 100.00 Direct income, which included food, clothing and durable goods, was the major type of help received. Ser— vices, defined as housing and child care, ranked second. Financial assistance and other did not represent predomi— nant types of help received. As such, the sample families reported that help received by them usually took the form of food, clothing and durable goods. Table 12 indicates the instances of help given according to the four categories of type given. 52 TABLE l2.-—Number and percentage of instances of help given according to type of help. Instances of Type Help Given No. % Direct Income 109 33.7A Financial Assistance 1A2 A3.96 Multiple Gifts 60 18.57 Gave, Not Ascertained What 12 3.71 Total 3—28 99.98 Financial assistance was the major type of help given with direct income ranking second. Multiple gifts and gave but not ascertained what represented minor forms of help given. Comparison of Tables 11 and 12 revealed that the patterns of help for type received and given were not identical. Financial assistance was more frequently reported given than received. This may be due to a psy— chological phenomenon. A social norm may have existed whereby respondents felt giving financial assistance was legitimate, while receiving financial assistance was an admission of failure to provide the financial means for one's own livelihood. 53 Source and Recipient of Helereceived and Given Source and recipient of help was classified into four categories: (1) parents, (2) grown children, (3) grown siblings, and (A) other relatives and friends. Table 13 reveals the instances of help received and given according to the four categories. TABLE l3.——Number and percentage of instances of help re— ceived and given according to source and recipient of help. Instances of Help Source and Recipient Received Given No. % No. % Parents 66 52.80 107 33.12 Children 19 15.20 77 23 .83 ”7 Siblings 2 1.60 A5 13.93:, Other Relatives 38 30.140 94 29.10—1-7 Total 125 100.00 323 99.98 The previously reported strength of the parent—child kin relationship and the resulting frequency of help given to children by parents is not entirely supported by these findings. While over half of the help received by partici— pants came from parents, the accompanying help given to children did not appear, as 50 per cent of the help given was not given to children. Instead, parents were the most 5A frequent recipient of help given. According to the above data, parents were not only the major source of help re— ceived but they were also the major recipient of help given. However, the amount of help received from parents was greater in proportion to the amount of help given to parents. The data also revealed that other relatives con— stituted a major source of help received (30 per cent) and a major recipient of help given (29 per cent). In both receiving and giving, other relatives appeared more frequently than either children or siblings. Thus, other relatives represented weaker kin relation ties than children and siblings, but appeared to display greater frequency of help participation. However, other relatives is a very widespread category. It is more likely that a respondent would have more kin family members in the other relative category than in the children and siblings cate— gories. Thus, the likelihood of help for other relatives could be greater. The high frequency of help participa— tion in the other relatives category is further evidence of the existence of the widespread kin family help net— work. Again, the help patterns for source and recipient of help received and given were not similar. While parents were the major source and recipient of help, more help was received from parents than was given to parents. 55 More help was given to children than was received from ‘__f‘# children and a considerably larger amount of help was A” given to siblings than was received from siblings. An equal amount of help was received from and given to other relatives and friends. CHAPTER V FINDINGS The relationship between the three descriptive features of help patterns which are type, source and recipient, and the receivers and givers of help under the four conditions of various family characteristics——socio— economic level, age, marital status, and children—under- l8——will be presented in the following manner: a. comparison of help instances by variations in family characteristics according to description of help 1. relationship between type of help instances received and family characteristics of participants DJ relationship between type of help instances given and family characteristics of participants 3. relationship between source of help in— stances received and family characteristics of participants A. relationship between recipient of help in— stances given and family characteristics of participants. 57 Hypothesis 1. Socio—Economic Level H 1: There will be a statistically significant relation— ship between type, source and recipient of help received and given and socio—economic level of participants. Hypothesis la. There will be a statistically significant difference between low and high socio- economic receivers of help instances according to type of help instances received. Table 1A reveals the relationship between low and high socio—economic participants and type of help in— stances received. TABLE lA.—-Relationship between low and high sociO—economic participants and type of help instances received.* Type of Help Instances Received Socio—Economic . Direct Financial . Level of Receivers Income Assistance SerV1ces Other of Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % Low 35 50.00 9 12.85 18 25.71 8 11.A2 High 16 53.33 5 16.66 3 10.00 6 20.00 *degrees of freedom - 3 x? of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 1.965 Chi square analysis of Table 1A at the .05 level revealed no significant difference between the low and high socio—economic receivers and type of help instances received. Therefore, hypothesis la was not supported. 58 The help pattern for receiving by both groups re— vealed that about half of the help was food, clothing and durable goods, and the predominance of this form of help was not altered by socio—economic level. The largest dif— ference in type of help between the two groups occurred in financial assistance and other. The high group tended to receive more non—specified help and the low group tended to receive more free housing and free child care. Hypothesis lb. There will be a statistically significant difference between low and high socio— economic givers of help instances according to type of help instances given. The relationship between low and high socio-economic givers and type of help given is indicated in Table 15. TABLE l5.——Relationship between low and high socio—economic participants and type of help given.* Type of Help Instances Given Socio—Economic I l f G' a f Direct Financial Multiple Gave .eve O 1vers 0 Income Assistance Gifts NA What Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % Low A7 32.63 65 A5.13 27 18.75 5 3.A7 High 21 32.30 25 38.A6 15 23.07 A 6.15 *degrees of freedom — 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — .890 59 Chi square analysis of Table 15 at the .05 level revealed no significant difference between the low and high socio—economic givers and type of help given. There— fore, hypothesis lb was not supported. More multiple gifts were given by the high group and more financial assistance was given by the low group. Comparison of Tables 1A and 15 revealed that the help patterns for re- ceiving and giving were not similar. Families tended to receive a predominance of food, clothing and durable goods, but gave a smaller proportion of gifts in the form of food, clothing and durable goods. Financial assistance was more predominant as a form of giving than as a form of receiving. These patterns were not statistically altered by socio-economic level. However, Table 1A indi— cated that the high socio-economic receivers received more financial assistance than the low socio—economic receivers. Table 15 revealed that the opposite trend took place relative to giving help. The low socio— economic givers gave more financial assistance than the high socio—economic givers. Hypothesis 1c. There will be a statistically significant difference between low and high socio-economic receivers of help instances according to source of help instances received. Table 16 indicates that under chi square analysis at the .05 level no significant difference was revealed between the low and high socio—economic receivers 60 TABLE l6.——Relationship between low and high socio—economic participants and source of help received. Source of Help Instances Received Socio—Economic Level of Receivers Parents Children Siblings Reggi‘ire of Help Instances V s No. % No. % No. % No. % Low 31: 148.57 114 20.00 1 1.142 21 30.00 High 16 53.33 3 10.00 0 0.00 11 36.66 *degrees of freedom - 3 x2 of 7.82 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — .761 according to source of help instances received. Thus, hypothesis 10 was not accepted. The help pattern revealed that parents were the major source of help for each group, with other relatives constituting another important source of help. The greatest difference between the low and high socio-economic receivers occurred in help received from children and other relatives. The low group tended to receive more help from children than the high group, while the high group tended to receive more help from other relatives than the low group. Since the other relative category included all relatives and close friends other than parents, children and siblings, the closeness of the relationship between those relatives and the families receiving help could not be determined. However, the high group tended to reveal more activity with the wider 61 network of kin members. The low socio—economic receivers did not display such active participation in the wide kin family network. Hypothesis ld. There will be a statistically significant difference between low and high socio—economic givers of help instances according to recipient of help instances given. Chi square analysis of Table 17 at the .05 level indicates no significant difference between the low and high socio—economic givers and recipient of help given. Therefore, hypothesis ld was not accepted. The help pat— tern for giving revealed a fairly uniform distribution of help to all categories of recipients for both groups. The greatest difference between the low and high groups occurred in the parents and other relatives categories. The high group gave more help to their parents than the low group, while the low group gave more help to other relatives than the high group. Comparison of Tables 16 and 17 revealed that the high group tended to receive more help from the wide kin family network than the low group, while the low group tended to give more help to members of the wide kin family network than the high group. Since hypotheses la, b, c, and d were not accepted, hypothesis 1, stating that there will be a significant relationship between type and source and recipient of help received and given and socio—economic level of 62 TABLE l7.——Re1ationship between low and high socio-economic participants and recipient of help instances given. Recipient of Help Instances Given Socio—Economic Level of Givers of Parents Children Siblings Regggiv Help Instances es No. % No. % No. % No. % Low 40 27.77 43 29.86 15 10.41 46 31.94 High 26 40.00 15 23.07 10 15.38 14 21.53 96 degrees of freedom - 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level x2 for table — 5.475 participants, was not accepted. The existing help pat— terns for receiving, showing that about half of the help received by families was in the form of direct income and that parents were the major contributors of all help re— ceived, were not altered by socio—economic level. In addition, the help patterns for giving, revealing a more even distribution of help in all forms and a more even distribution going to all recipients, were not affected by socio—economic level. Thus, the help patterns for receiving and giving, indicating the types of help and the direction to and from various kin family members, could not be further refined by indicating a relationship with socio—economic level. 63 Hypothesis 2. Age H 2: There will be a statistically significant relation— ship between type, source and recipient of help received or given and age periods of participants. Hypgthesis 2a. There will be a statistically significant difference between receivers of help instances at varying age periods according to type of help instances received. Table 18 reveals the relationship between receivers of help instances at varying age periods and type of help instances received. TABLE 18.—-Relationship between participants at varying age periods and type of help instances received.* Types of Help Instances Received Age Periods Of Direct Financial H216e1XSEZn86s Income Assistance Services Other No. % No. % No. % No. % 18—24 16 50.00 10 31.25 6 18.75 25-34 18 47.36 9 23.68 7 18.42 4 10.52 35—44 13 46.42 5 17.85 6 21.42 4 14.28 45-52 4 66.66 1 16.66 1 16.66 53-58 2 66.66 1 33.33 59—64 4 66.66 1 16.66 1 16.66 65 and over 6 50.00 2 16.66 2 16.66 2 16.66 *degrees of freedom - 18 x2 of 28.87 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 5.116 64 Chi square analysis of Table 18 at the .05 level revealed no significant difference between receivers at varying age periods according to type of help instances received. Therefore, hypothesis 2a was not accepted. In the 18—24 age periods, 50 per cent of the help instances received were in the form of direct income and almost 30 per cent were services (Table 18). No financial assist— ance was received in this age period. The help to young families and individuals, 18—24, was in the form of food, clothing and durable goods, and free child care and hous— ing. Since many in this age period were single, the lack of financial assistance seemed to suggest some relation— ship between responsibilities of a family and financial help. In the 25—34 age period, almost 50 per cent of the help received was direct income and almost 25 per cent was financial assistance. This age definitely represented new marriages and families with young children and the increase of financial assistance in this period as opposed to the previous period was probably the result of the increasing financial demands caused by marriage and young children. There was little change in the percentage distribution of help received in the 35—44 age period. This age represented a continuance of growing families and the likelihood that the types of help were the same in the advanced stages of child rearing as they were in the begin— ning stage. The 45—52 age period revealed a noticeable 65 increase in direct income and complete absence of ser— vices. This age can be considered as a transition period from the children generation to the parent generation. Free housing and child care were no longer necessary and this loss was represented as an increase in food, clothing and durable goods. The 53—58 age period indicated a com- plete absence of financial assistance and services. This age period is characterized as the parent generation, and all research has indicated that this group tends to give more than receive. Table 18 revealed that when receiving did occur, it took such forms as food, clothing and dur— able goods, and various items categorized as other. The kin network system did not appear to favor this group with financial assistance in any form, probably because the need was not great. In addition, the lack of free child care and housing was probably due to little need for these items. Services was the only absent type of help in the 59—64 age period, while direct income comprised 60 per cent of the total types. The distribution of help in this age group was identical to the distribution in the 45—52 age period. Both periods were age transition per— iods (children to parent generation and parent to grand- parent generation) and appeared to be transition periods for types of help received. In the 65 and over age period, 50 per cent of the help received was direct income and the other three types were equally represented. 66 Although the percentage distribution of help in this group was not equal to those in the 25—34 age period, it was similar. As such, the help going to young families and old families tended to be similar in nature, with the ex— ception of free child care. Hypothesis 2b. There will be a statistically significant difference between givers of help instances at varying age periods according to type of help instances given. The relationship between givers at varying age periods and the type of help given is revealed in Table 19. TABLE l9.—-Relationship between participants at varying age periods and type of help instances given.* Types of Help Instances Given Spouse Age Periods of Direct Financial Multiple Gave Givers of Help Income Assistance Gifts NA What Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % 18—24 16 42.10 15 39.49 5 13.15 2 5.26 25—34 11 22.00 24 48.00 14 28.00 1 2.00 35—44 22 32.83 30 44.77 13 19.40 2 2.98 45-52 28 36.36 33 42.85 14 18.18 2 2.59 53-58 11 27.50 23 57.50 4 10.00 2 5.00 59-64 10 37.03 11 40.74 6 22.22 65 and over 11 45.83 6 25.00 4 16.66 3 12.50 *degrees of freedom — 18 x2 of 28.87 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 11.946 67 Table 19 indicated that under chi square analysis at the .05 level, no significant difference was revealed between givers at varying age periods according to type of help instances given. As such, hypothesis 2b was not accepted. About 40 per cent of both direct income and financial assistance was given in the 18—24 age period. Since this age group was probably less affluent than a middle age group, the high proportion of financial assist— ance given as gifts is an interesting finding. In the 25—34 age period, financial assistance increased to almost 50 per cent, multiple gifts increased, and direct income decreased. The increase in financial assistance as a type of gift does not seem in keeping with young families with heavy financial burdens. Financial demands of the growing family usually drain financial resources, but these families tended to give almost half of their gifts in the form of financial assistance. In the 35—44 age period, food, clothing and durable goods increased as a type of help given and financial assistance and multiple gifts decreased. Although financial assistance was still the most frequent type of help given, the increase in direct income seems more likely for families experiencing heavy financial burdens. In the 45—52 age period, the trend established in the previous age period was continued in spite of the fact that some of these families had moved to the parent group and would be expected to shift 68 more of their gifts to financial assistance. The 53—58 age period marked a noticeable shift from direct income and multiple gifts to financial assistance. For the most part these families had moved from the children genera— tion to the parent generation where financial assistance was the highest. In the 59-64 age period, direct income and multiple gifts increased over the previous age period and financial assistance decreased. Apparently, families in poorer financial position gave fewer financial gifts. Age 65 and over revealed direct income as the major type of help given. This age period and the first age period (18—24) were the only two age periods where food, cloth— ing and durable goods were more frequently given than financial assistance. Both age periods were associated with lack of financial stability and thus families were less able to give financial types of gifts. Hypothesis 2c. There will be a statistically significant difference between receivers of help instances at varying age periods according to source of help instances received. Chi square analysis of Table 20 at the .05 level reveals a significant difference between receivers of help instances at varying age periods according to source of help instances received. Therefore, hypothesis 2c was accepted. Almost two—thirds of the help instances received in the 18-24 age period was from parents, and about one—third was from other relatives. Although it 69 TABLE 20.——Relationship between participants at varyin age periods and source of help instances received. Source of Help Instances Received Spouse Age Periods of Receivers of Parents Children Siblings Re222ifies Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % 18—24 21 65.62 11 34.37 25—34 26 68.42 1 2.63 l 2.63 10 26.31 35—44 17 60.71 2 7.14 l 3.57 8 28.57 45—52 2 33.33 2 33.33 2 33-33 53—58 1 33.33 2 66.66 59—64 5 83.33 1 16.66 65 and over 8 66.66 4 33.33 *degrees of freedom - 18 x2 of 28.87 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 42.879 was not likely that these families would receive from grown children, it was likely that they could have re- ceived from siblings. However, parents were their most frequent source of help with an appreciable amount coming from more distant members of the kin family network. In the 25—34 age period, parents and other relatives were still the major contributors to this group, with children and siblings making small contributions. In the 35—44 age period, the help from parents was slightly reduced and replaced by help from children. These families were 70 moving from the children generation to the parent genera- tion and were beginning to participate as the middle gen- eration in the help exchange. The 45—52 age period re— vealed equal representations of help from parents, children and other relatives. Research has indicated that the middle generation tends to give and not receive help. Table 20 revealed very little receiving by this group, but the receiving that did take place tended to come equally from all sources except siblings. In the 53-58 age period, one—third of the help was from children and two—thirds was from other relatives. This group probably did not have living parents, but were very likely to have had living siblings. However, more distant members of the kin net— work were more important as sources of help. In the 59— 64 age period, the help from children increased to over 83 per cent and decreased from other relatives to about 16 per cent. This was the only age period where help from only one source was so predominant. Siblings and other relatives were poor sources of help for this group. The 65 and over age period did not follow the pattern set by the previous age period. The help from children de- creased and the help from other relatives increased. How— ever, this age period mirrors the first age period in source of help received. Almost two—thirds of the help to the young group came from parents and over one—third came from other relatives. The old age group received 7.. 71 two—thirds of their help from children and one—third from other relatives. Thus, young families were dependent on their parents for help and old families were dependent on their children for help. But in both cases, the more distant members of the kin family network played an active part in supplying help to the families. Hypothesis 2d. There will be a statistically significant difference between givers of help instances at varying age periods according to recipient of help instances given. Under chi square analysis at the .05 level, Table 21 reveals a significant difference between givers of help instances at varying age periods according to recipients of help. Therefore, hypothesis 2d was accepted. Individuals and families in the 18—24 age period gave over 50 per cent of their help to parents and almost 25 per cent to both other relatives and siblings. Thus, the closest members of the kin family network, parents and siblings, received the bulk of the help given by this young group. In the 25—34 age period, some of the pre— vious help given to parents was reduced and was now directed at other relatives. This revealed a branching out into the more distant members of the kin network for recipients of help. The 35-44 age period was the first to indicate that help went to all categories. The major change in this period over the previous was a shift in help from siblings to children. The 45—52 age period 72 TABLE 2l.——Relationship between participants at varying age periods and recipient of help instances given.* Recipient of Help Instances Given Spouse Age Periods 0th of Givers of Help Parents Children Siblings R l t8r Instances e a lves No. % No. % No. % No. % 18—24 21 55.26 8 21.05 9 23.68 25—34 21 42.00 10 20.00 19 38.00 35-44 30 44.77 12 17.91 4 5.97 21 31.34 45—52 22 28.57 28 36.36 15 19.48 12 15.58 53-58 10 25.00 18 45.00 3 7.50 9 22.50 59-64 2 7.40 9 33.33 2 7.40 14 51.85 65 and over 1 4.16 10 41.66 3 12.50 10 41.66 *degrees of freedom - 18 x2 of 28.87 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table - 47.658 revealed that help was fairly evenly distributed over all categories with children receiving the most followed by parents. This period was the transition period as parents, who had been the predominant receivers of help in all pre— vious periods, were now replaced in importance by grown children. The lessening of help to other relatives at this age period revealed that help was centered on the closest members of the kin family network. Families in the 53-58 age period tended to increase their help to children, reduce their help to siblings, and at the same 73 time increase help to other relatives. Thus, the wider kin family network was once again benefiting. In the 59—64 age period, help to children and parents was re- duced and was replaced by help to other relatives. While it was very likely that this age group had grown children that could have received help, over 50 per cent of the help went to other relatives instead. Probably, people in this age group had few living parents, their children were more firmly established, and families felt they could concentrate their help on more distant members of ' the kin network. In the 65 and over age period, help to children and siblings increased, while help to parents and other relatives decreased. Thus, there appeared to be a tendency for the oldest families to revert back to the closest available members of the kin network. Since hypotheses 2a and b were not accepted, hypo— thesis 2, stating that there will be a significant rela— tionship between type, source and recipient of help re— ceived and given and age periods of participants, was not completely accepted. The existing help pattern for re— ceiving, showing that about half of the help received by families was in the form of direct income, was not al— tered by age of the participants. However, the existing help pattern for receiving relative to the source of help received was altered by age of participants. The help pattern for giving, revealing a more even distrituiiob 74 help in all forms, was not affected by age of partici- pants, while the existing help pattern for giving relative to the recipient of help given was affected by age of participants. Thus, all families tended to receive and give the same types of help, but the source and recipient of such help did vary as the age of the participants varied. As such, that part of help patterns for receiving and giving, indicating the types of help, could not be further refined by indicating a relationship with age of participants, while that part of help patterns for re- ceiving and giving, indicating the direction to and from various kin family members, could be further refined by indicating a relationship with age of participants. Hypothesis 3. Marital Status H 3: There will be a statistically significant relation— "__ ship between type, source and recipient of help received or given and marital status of partici— pants. Hypothesis 3a. There will be a statistically significant difference between with—spouse and without—spouse receivers of help instances accord— ing to type of help instances received. Table 22 reveals the relationship between with— spouse and without—spouse receivers of help instances and type of help instances received. Chi square analysis of Table 22 at the .05 level revealed ha :ignificant difference between with—spouse and without-grouse receivers and type of help instances re— ceived. Therefore, hypothesis 3a was not suppc ted. 75 TABLE 22.——Relationship between with—spouse and without— spouse participants and type of help instances received.* Types of Help Instances Received Marital Status Direct Financial of Receivers of Income A . t Services Other Help Instances SSlS ance No. % No. % No. % No. % With Spouse 38 48.71 14 17.94 14 17.94 12 15.38 Without Spouse 25 53.19 4 8.51 11 23.40 7 14.89 *degrees of freedom — 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 2.372 More food, clothing and durable goods were received by without—spouse receivers than with—spouse receivers, while over twice as much financial assistance was received by with—spouse receivers than without—spouse receivers. Presence of a spouse seemed to produce more financial assistance, while lack of a spouse produced more food, clothing and durable goods. The without—spouse receivers received more free child care and housing than the with— spouse receivers, probably because lack of a spouse pro— duced a considerable need for such services. Hypothesis 3b. There will be a statistically significant difference between with— —spouse and without— —spouse givers of help instances accord- ing to type of help instances given. The relationship between with-spouse and without— spouse givers and the type of help given is revealed in Table 23. 76 TABLE 23.——Relationship between with-spouse and without— spouse participants and type of help instances given.* Types of Help Instances Given Marital Status of Givers of Direct F1nanc1al Multiple Gave Help Instances Income Assistance Gifts NA What No. % No. % No. % No. % With Spouse 73 32.58 103 45.98 38 16.96 10 4.46 Without Spouse 36 36.36 39 39.39 22 22.22 2 2.02 *degrees of freedom - 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table - 3.093 Table 23 indicated that under chi square analysis at the .05 level, no significant difference was revealed be- tween with—spouse and without—spouse givers according to type of help instances given. Thus, hypothesis 3b was not accepted. More food, clothing and durable goods were given by without—spouse givers than with—spouse givers, while more financial assistance was given by with—spouse givers than without—spouse givers. Comparison of Tables 22 and 23 revealed that the help patterns for receiving and giv— ing were not similar. Families tended to receive a pre— dominance of food, clothing and durable goods, but gave a predominance of financial assistance. Table 22 revealed that the with—spouse group received and gave more financial assistance than the without-spouse group, while the with— out—spouse group received and gave more direct income than 77 the with—spouse group. Apparently, presence or absence of a spouse seemed to have a similar relationship to both the receiving and giving help patterns related to type of help. Hypothesis 3c. There will be a statistically significant difference between with—spouse and without-spouse receivers of help instances accord— ing to source of help instances received. Chi square analysis of Table 24 at the .05 level re— veals a significant difference between with-spouse and without—spouse receivers according to source of help in— stances. Therefore, hypothesis 3c was accepted. The with—spouse group received almost twice as much help from parents as the Without-spouse group, while the without- spouse group received much more help from their children and other relatives than the with—spouse group. Presence of a spouse seemed to produce a strong dependency on parents as a source of help. At the same time, lack of a spouse revealed a dependency on more members of the wider kin family network. Hypothesis 3d. There will be a statistically significant difference between with—spouse and without—spouse givers of help instances accord- ing to recipient of help instances given. Under chi square analysis at the .05 level, Table 25 reveals a significant difference between the instances of help given by the with-spouse and without—spouse givers according to recipient of help given. Thus, hypothesis 4 3d was accepted. The with—spouse group gave more help to 78 TABLE 24.—-Re1ationship between with—spouse and without- spouse participants and source of help instances received.* Source of Help Instances Received Marital Status of Receivers Parents Children Siblings Regggiies of Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % With Spouse 50 64.10 8 10.25 2 2.56 18 23.07 Without Spouse 16 34.04 11 23.40 20 42.55 *degrees of freedom — 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table - 12.019 TABLE 25.—-Relationship between with-spouse and without— spouse participants and recipient of help instances given.* Recipient of Help Instances Given Marital Status of Givers of Parents Children Siblings Other Relatives Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % With Spouse 81 36.16 59 26.33 29 12.94 55 24.55 Without Spouse 26 26.26 18 18.18 16 16.16 39 39.39 *degrees of freedom - 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level x2 for table — 9.652 parents and children than the without-spouse group, while the without—spouse group gave more help to siblings and other relatives than the with-spouse group. Thus, those givers with spouses tended to concentrate their giving in 79 the small circle of close relatives. On the other hand, the without—spouse givers tended to give to close rela- tives while favoring those members of the wider kin family network much more than the with—spouse givers. Comparison of Tables 24 and 25 revealed that the with—spouse group tended to make less use of the wider kin family network in both receiving and giving help, while the without— spouse group tended to make more use of the wider kin family network in both receiving and giving help. Since hypotheses 3a and b were not accepted, hypo— thesis 3, stating that there will be a significant rela— tionship between type, source and recipient of help received and given and marital status of participants, was not completely accepted. The existing help patterns for receiving and giving relative to the type of help received were not altered by marital status. However, the existing help patterns for receiving and giving relative to the source and recipient of help was affected by marital status. Thus, all families tended to receive and give the same types of help, but the source and recipient of such help varied according to the marital status of the help participants. As such, that part of help pat— terns for receiving and giving relative to type of help could not be further refined by indicating a relationship with marital status. At the same time, that part of help patterns for receiving and giving, indicating the direction 80 to and from various kin family members, could be further refined by indicating a relationship with marital status. Hypothesis 4. Children-Under—l8 H 4: There will be a statistically significant relation— ship between type, source and recipient of help received or given and participants with children under 18. Hypothesis 4a. There will be a statistically significant difference between receivers of help instances with children-under—18 and receivers of help instances without children-under—18 according to type of help instances received. Table 26 reveals the relationship between receivers of help instances with children under 18 and without children under 18 and type of help instances received. TABLE 26.—-Relationship between with children-under—l8 and without children—under—18 participants and type of help instances received.* Type of Help Instances Received Children—Under—l8 Direct Financial of Receivers of . Services Other Income Ass1stance Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % With Children— Under—18 37 48.68 14 18.42 16 21.05 9 11.84 Without Children— Under—l8 26 53.06 4 8.16 9 18.36 10 20.40 *degrees of freedom - 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 2.516 81 Chi square analysis of Table 26 at the .05 level revealed no significant difference between the help in— stances received by with children—under—l8 and Without children—under—18 receivers according to type of help instances. Therefore, hypothesis 4a was not accepted. Participants without children under 18 received more direct income and other types of help than participants with children under 18, while those with children under 18 received almost twice as much financial assistance and more services than those with no children under 18. While direct income was the most frequent type of help received by both groups, families without growing children received more direct income and other types of help. At the same time, families burdened with growing children received more financial assistance and free child care and housing. Hypothesis 4b. There will be a statistically significant difference between givers of help instances with children—under—l8 and givers of help instances without children—under—l8 according to type of help instances given. The relationship between with children—under—18 and without children-under—l8 givers and the type of help given is revealed in Table 27. Table 27 indicated that under chi square analysis at the .05 level, no significant difference was revealed between with children—under—18 and without children—under— 18 givers according to type of help instances given. Therefore, hypothesis 4b was not accepted. Participants 82 TABLE 27.——Relationship between with children—under—18 and without children—under—l8 participants and type of help instances given.* Type of Help Instances Given Children—Under-l8 of Givers of Direct Flnan01al Multiple Gave Help Instances Income Assistance Gifts NA What No. % No. % No. % No. % With Children— Under—18 37 29.83 51 51.12 30 24.19 6 4.83 Without Children— Under—l8 72 36.18 91 45.72 30 15.07 6 3.01 *degrees of freedom — 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level X2 for table — 5.381 without children under 18 gave more financial assistance and multiple type gifts, while those without children under 18 gave more direct income. Comparison of Tables 26 and 27 revealed that those families with heavy respon— sibilities of growing children both received and gave more financial assistance than families without growing child— ren. Likewise, those families without young children tended to both receive and give more food, clothing and durable goods. Thus, presence of children under 18 or absence of children under 18 seemed to have a similar relationship on both the receiving and giving help pat— terns related to type of help. w»... 83 Hypothesis 40. There will be a statistically significant difference between receivers of help instances with children—under-18 and receivers of help instances without children— under—18 according to source of help instances received. Under chi square analysis at the .05 level, Table 28 reveals a significant difference between with children- under—18 and without children-under—l8 receivers according to source of help instances received. Thus, hypothesis 4c was accepted. Participants with children under 18 re— ceived more help from their parents than those without young children, while participants without children under 18 received a much larger amount of help from their grown children than did those with young families. This finding is probably explained by the fact that both groups of receivers represented entirely different stages in the life cycle. Those without children under 18 were prob— ably in the middle and later stages of the life cycle, had no young children, but did have grown children from whom they could and did receive help. Those participants with children under 18 were probably in the beginning or early middle stages of the life cycle, had few grown children available from whom to receive help, but did have available parents. These parents would more likely have been in the middle or early stages, actively giving to their grown children. Table 28 also indicates that these families With 20908 Children relied on more Sourcer cf 84 help and appeared to rely very heavily on their parents for help. On the other hand, families with no children under 18 relied on fewer sources of help, but those sources were more evenly distributed as to frequency over the sources. TABLE 28.——Re1ationship between with children—under—l8 and without children—under—l8 participants and source of help instances received.* Source of Help Instances Received Children—Under—18 of Receivers of Parents Children Siblings Other Relatives Help Instances No. % No. % No. % No. % With Children— Under—18 47 61.84 3 3.94 2 2.63 24 31.57 Without Children— Under—l8 19 38.77 16 32.65 14 28.57 *degrees of freedom — 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level adjusted x2 for table — 12.921 Hypothesis 4d. There will be a statistically significant difference between givers of help instances with children—under—l8 and givers of help instances without children-under-l8 according to recipient of help instances given. Chi square analysis of Table 29 at the .05 level reveals a significant difference between the with children— under—l8 and without children—under—18 givers according to recipients of help instances given. Therefore, hypothesis 85 TABLE 29.——Re1ationship between with children-under-l8 and without children—under—l8 and recipient of help instances given.* Recipient of Help Instances Given Children—under—l8 of Givers of Parents Children Siblings R gtfifr Help Instances e a lves No. % No. % No. % No. % With Children— Under—18 57 45.96 19 15.32 20 16.12 28 22.58 Without Children— Under—18 50 25.12 58 29.14 25 12.56 66 33.16 *degrees of freedom - 3 x2 of 7.81 is significant at .05 level x2 for table — 19.780 4d was accepted. Families with children under 18 gave almost twice as much help to their parents than did fami— lies without young children. However, families without young children gave almost twice as much help to their grown children than did families with young children. Again, these findings are probably best explained by differences in the life cycle. Also, families with young children gave more to their siblings, while families with— out young children gave more to other relatives. Compari— son of Tables 28 and 29 revealed that the help patterns indicated that families with children under 18 tended to confine their receiving and giving help more to parents, while families with no young children revealed help 86 activity directed to and from kin family members with fairly constant frequency. Since hypothesis 4a and b were not accepted, hypo— thesis 4, stating that there will be a significant rela- tionship between type, source and recipient of help re- ceived and given and children—under—18 of participants, was not completely accepted. The existing help patterns for receiving and giving relative to the type of help were not altered by presence or absence of children under 18. However, the existing help patterns for receiving and giving relative to the source and recipient of help were affected by the presence or absence of children under 18. Thus, all families tended to receive and give the same types of help, but the course and recipient of such help varied according to presence or absence of young children for the participants. AS such, that part of help patterns for receiving and giving relative to type of help could not be further refined by indicating a relationship with presence or absence of children under 18. At the same time, that part of help patterns for receiving and giving indicating the direction to and from various kin family members, could be further refined by indicating a relationship with presence or absence of children under 18. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions On the basis of the findings in the previous chapter, the researcher concluded that help patterns, consisting of type of help received and given, and source and recipient of help, were identifiable. Comparison of family char— acteristics to the existing help patterns revealed changes in the help patterns relative to only some of the char— acteristics. Socio—economic level as a family characteristic was not related to the existing help patterns. The type of help received and given, and the source and recipient of help did not differ in low and high socio-economic par— ticipants. Varying ages of participants altered the existing help patterns relative to source and recipient of help. Young families were more dependent on parents and other relatives as sources of help; middle age families were dependent on parents, children and other relatives, while older families were more dependent on children and other relatives. Help was given to siblings and other relatives at all age periods. However, the majority of help given 87 88 by young families went to parents. This help gradually changed in amount to include grown children as the fami- lies progressed in age. Families in old age then gave the majority of their help to grown children. That part of help patterns associated with type of help received or given was not affected by varying ages of the participants. Marital status was related to help patterns in only the source and recipient aspect of the patterns. Presence of a spouse was related to a strong dependency on parents as a source of help, while lack of a spouse was related to a dependency on more members of the wider kin family network. Givers with spouses tended to concentrate their giving on close kin family members, while givers without spouses tended to give to both close and more distant members of the kin family network. Presence or absence of a spouse made no difference in the help pat— terns relative to type of help received or given. Presence or absence of children under 18 made no appreciable change in the help patterns associated with type of help received and given. However, that part of the help patterns related to source and recipient of help was affected by presence or absence of children under 18. Families with young children received help from more sources but tended to rely very heavily on parents for help. Families with no children under 18 received gifts from fewer but evenly distributed sources. Participants 89 with Children under 18 gave more help to parents and par- ticipants without children under 18 gave more help to their grown children. Implications for Teaching Implications from this study have relevance for home economics educators in the classroom and cooperative extension who are concerned with the nature of decisions connected with family goals and the use of resources, and those who are concerned with family behavior that centers around interaction of family members. In addition, this study has implications for those individuals in social action fields whose activities provide services for families. Family Economics and Home Management All family economists are concerned with the produc— tion and consumption that affects families. Reid (48) defined household production as: those unpaid activities which are carried on, by and for the members, which activities might be replaced by goods, or paid services, if circum— stances such as income, market conditions, and personal inclinations permit the service being delegated to someone outside the household group (p. 11). Thus, by limiting activities to members of the household group, Reid's definition included only the immediate nuclear family. These activities had an additive function 90 so that total household production could be used as a measure of part of the total well-being of the family. The implications of this study pertain to broadening the definition of household production to include the type of activities and flow within the kin family network. This aggregate approach to household production might have more meaning for family economists, especially those who agree that the occurrence of help within a kin family network tends to support the nuclear family and thus help the family maintain a higher level of well-being. Implications from this study have special relevance to home management and family finance educators. The complexity of the help patterns as to what the items of help are, and to whom and from whom they flow, is justifi— cation that the kin family network challenges the special— ist in family resource use when dealing with the nature of family decisions about resources. Educators have support— ing data to predict the nature of both the receiving and giving help patterns and how these patterns are altered by specific family characteristics. Educators can teach that families at different ages, marital status, and children composition tend to rely on different kin family members as either sources or recipients of resources. Also, socio-economic level is not associated with type of resources received or given and the flow direction. Thus, prediction is possible as to probable use of help as 91 resources within the kin family network. In addition, this study revealed that a majority of the respondents were more aware of their giving help and appeared to for— get receipt of gifts. This phenomenon implies that home management and family finance educators may be the ones to teach that giving help has to be recognized as receipt of help by someone else. Therefore, receipt of help is a normal accepted part of the network activity. Thus, in teaching others about the functioning of help patterns in the kin network, a positive approach to the receipt of help may encourage awareness of all resources in families. The network concept implies more expanded teaching and explanation of family resources, and the decisions rela— tive to these resources also must take on a network con— notation. Food and Clothing Food and clothing educators are concerned with deci— sions about specific resources. Educators focus attention on consumer practices about food and clothing in two places in particular, the market place where decisions are made and in the home where production takes place. This study implies the addition of a third place where consumer practices can be obServed, the kin family network. The study sample respondents who indicated receipt of or giving of $50 or more in gifts cited food and clothing as the 92 most frequent type of gift. Inclusion of the activity of the kin family network by educators concerned with con— sumer decisions about food and clothing might imply a decision-making process that is different from the decision-making process used when food and clothing are bought or made. AS such, consumer practices concerning food and clothing given and received within the network are probably different from those practices employed when food and clothing are produced in the home or selected in the market place. The increased awareness of the social and cultural values of food and clothing will undoubtedly continue. Educators who are concerned with study of these aspects of food and clothing may wish to seek additional knowledge in any patterning of kin family sharing of food and cloth— ing and the social meaning for the network members based on the data presented in this study. Housing Housing educators are concerned with decisions about housing and its furnishings for the family. An implica— tion from this study is the need for educators to recognize that housing and furnishing decisions are made in the kin family network. Such decisions in the giving help pattern involve making provisions for sharing the home with other 4‘ 3| relatives, making accommodations for $1C112hfl w 93 and providing housing outside the household. Consumers seek particular housing that will accommodate additional kin family members. They tend to limit housing alterna— tives to only those that will correspond to such needs. Decisions in the receiving help pattern include ways housing and furnishings are used by receiving family mem— bers. Characteristics of furniture given by the kin family network may limit housing decisions by the receivers to few alternatives which accommodate the gifts. Family Relations and Child Development Implications from this study for educators in family relations relate to teaching students their probable presence in a kin family help network. This presence will necessitate receiving and giving roles in the network guided by the help pattern itself and the help pattern under varying family characteristics. Again, if educators accept the previously indicated theory that participation in a kin family network is usually associated with family goal achievement, this study implies that students be ex— posed to a positive approach to the network help knowledge and as such, learn that the nuclear family operates in an expanded kin family network. In the area of child development, increasing atten— tion is placed on outside influences in child association. This outside influence is usually viewed as some 94 institutional service, such as day care centers. An im— plication from this study is that there is an additional strong socializing agent for families with young children. The kin family network plays an important and probably meaningful part in the socialization process. In addi— tion, activity in the kin network also implies that the network is an added source of education for children. Thus, those concerned with the actual process of educa— tion of children may look to the network for probable educational activity. Family Service Agencies Professionals in family service agencies play an important part in acquainting families with community re- sources. The caseworker and the home economist working in the family service agency must be able to make some forecast as to individual family behavior. Expectations of behavior would include behavior in the total kin family network. The caseworker may find that activity in the networks has a positive or negative influence on the family. On the other hand, failure to participate in a kin family network with its supportive role may be the very reason why a particular family is in trouble. Recognition of the network and the forms and features of the help patterns are crucial to the caseworker. Both 95 Leichter (21) and MacDonald (9) have already described this important implication. In addition, implications for professionals in family service agencies are that families participating in a kin family help network do have goods and services available to them that may not have been previously recognized by the professionals. Thus, it is important that the professionals recognize these goods and services as meaningful resources that supplement the goods and services provided by the larger community. This may call for some re—allocation of community services to bring all resources into better balance for the well—being of families. Agencies planning programs for low income families may find that specific community resources need not be provided if families can obtain those resources from kin family members. Related Professions Professionals in the health fields promulgate health, nutrition and sanitation standards for helping families, and believe such standards can be maintained within the nuclear family. Anyone concerned with stand— ards for the nuclear family must learn to recognize the possible existence of the kin family network, the details of the help patterns, and how these patterns deviate under certain conditions. This research implies that the 96 implementation of these standards may have to be refined and conditioned to meet the needs of the entire kin family network in order to be effective in one nuclear family. In all professional areas, the service to families is being extended by the employment of para—professionals, or aides. The above implications exist for these indi— viduals. Because they have such close contact with fami— lies, they are the ones who undoubtedly will observe the functioning of the help patterns in the kin family network. Ability to interact with the nuclear family as it operates in the network is primary for the final success of service offered. Implications for Further Research This study has dealt with only economic aspects of help in kin family network, while other researchers have identified both economic and social forms of help operat— ing in the network. Using this researcher's framework, could the existing social forms of help be further iden— tified by type, source and recipient? Could the help patterns be further refined by study of the type, source and recipient of social help according to specific char— acteristics of participating families? Could a framework be devised to include both the economic and social aspects of help patterns? What is the relation of the economic and social forms of the kin family help patterns? Does 97 one fortify the other or do they tend to operate inde- pendently? Does the economic or the social aspect of the help pattern have greater strength in the network; or do families place more value on one form of help or the other? What motivates people to participate in the kin family help network? This study has indicated that a higher income, employment and an urban residence were associated with participation in the economic aspects of kin family help. Are there additional factors that may be associated with economic help? Further study should follow to identify the factors associated with the social aspects of kin family help. Finally, research should answer the important questions concerning whether motiva— tion for participation is more related to environmental, behavioral or familial factors in families. Then, does a relationship exist between these factors? MacDonald raised similar still unanswered questions in his 1964 study. Litwak has indicated that the help in kin family networks tends to take place on specific occasions such as birthdays, holidays, anniversaries, etc., and thus can be called ”institutionalized." However, short term re— search, or research seeking total kin family network activity in a limited time span, has not been attempted to indicate whether the occasion is as "institutionalized” 98 as has been suggested or is the result of unique family interaction that tends to be routine in nature. Total network study may be necessary to identify such features as cohesiveness, size, status and structural integration which in turn may have some relationship on the occasion of help in kin families. Also, decision—making research would add insight into the occasion of help. The decision— making process may be different for "institutionalized" than for sporadic occasions. What relationship exists between help in the kin family network and help taking place between families and the community? Does participation in community pro- grams tend to stimulate or reduce activity in the kin family network? Since help from community programs has increased for families and appears to increase further in the future, will the help in the kin family network continue to take place? Do the kin family members per— ceive the network help as more "token” in nature or of significant economic value for the total well—being of the family? Will it continue to take place when community programs assist in the function of economic support for family members? In addition, what is the effect on the help in kin families when some but not all members par- ticipate in community programs? LITERATURE CITED U7 LITERATURE CITED Linton, Ralph. ”The Natural History of the Family." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen. New York: Harpers, 1959- Wirth, Louis. "Urbanism As a Way of Life." American Journal of Sociology, XLIV, 1 (July, 1938) 1—24. Parsons, Talcott. "The Kinship System of the Con— temporary United States." American Anthropol— ogiSt, XLV, l (January—March, 1943) 22—38. Litwak, Eugene. ”The Use of Extended Family Groups in the Achievement of Social Goals: Some Policy Implication." Social Problems, VII, 3 (Winter, 1959—60), 177—1 7. Sussman, Marvin B., and Burchinal, Lee. ”Kin Family Network: Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Functioning." Marriage and Family Living, XXIV, 3 (August, 1962), 231—240. Sharp, Harry, and Axelrod, Morris. ”Mutual Aid Among Relatives in an Urban Population.” Principles of Sociology. Edited by Ronald Freedman and associates. New York: Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1956. Knoll, Marjorie. Economic Contributions and Receipts of Household Members. Ithaca: Cornell Uni— versity, Memoir 350, October, 1957. Sussman, Marvin B., and Burchinal, Lee. "Parental Aid to Married Children: Implications for Family Functioning." Marriage and Family Living, XXXIV, 4 (November, 1962), 320—332. MacDonald, Robert Wesley. "Intergenerational Family Helping Patterns.“ Unpublished Ph. D. disser— tation, Univeristy of Minnesota, 1964. 100 101 10. Sussman, Marvin B., and Slater, Sherwood B. "Re- Appraisal of Urban Kin Networks: Empirical Evidence." Paper given at American Sociologi— cal Association, Los Angeles, August, 1963. ll. Litwak, Eugene. "Occupational Mobility and Ex- tended Family Cohesion." American Sociological .Review, XXV, 1 (February, 1960), 9—21. l2. . "Geographic Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion." American Sociological Review, xxv, 3 (June, 1960), 385-394. e/l3. Sussman, Marvin B. "The Help Pattern in the Middle Class Family." American Sociological Review, XVIII, 1 (February, 1953), 22-28.‘ l4. . "Parental Participation in Mate Selection and Its Effect Upon Family Continuity." Social Forces, XXXII, 1 (October, 1953), 76—81. x 15. . "Family Continuity: Selective Factors Which Affect Relationships Between Families at Generational Level." Marriage and Family Living, XVI, 2 (May, 1954), 112-120. l6. . "Activity Patterns of Post-Parental Couples and Their Relationships to Family Continuity." Marriage and Family Living, XXVII, 4 (November, 1955), 3384381- Vl7. . "The Isolated Family: Fact or Fiction." Social Problems, VI, 4 (Spring, 1959), 333—340. 18. . ”Intergenerational Family Relationships and Social Role Changes in Middle Age." Journal of Gerontology, XV, l (1960, 71— 75. 19. Burchinal, Lee G. "How Successful Are School-Age Marriages?" Iowa Farm Science, XIII, 9 (March, 1959), 7-10. 20. . "Comparisons of Factors Related to Adjust— ment in Pregnancy-Provoked and Non-Pregnancy Provoked Marriages." Midwest Sociologist, XXI (July, 1959), 92—96. 21. Leichter, Hope J. ”Kinship Values and Casework Inter- vention." Casework Papers. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1961. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 102 Kosa, John; Rachiele, Leo D.; Schommer, S. J.; Cyril, ”Sharing the Home with Relatives." Marriage and Family Living, XXII, 2 (May, 1960), 129—131. Townsend, Peter. The Family Life of Old People: An Enquiry in East London. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1957. Young, Michael, and Willmott, Peter. Family and Kinship in East London. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1957. Bott, Elizabeth J. Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock Publications, Ldt., 1957. Streib, Gordon F. "Family Patterns in Retirement.” Journal of Social Issues, XIV, 2 (1958), 46—60. Shanas, Ethel. Family Relationships of Older People. Health Information Foundation, 1961. Kleemeier, Robert, ed. Aging and Leisure. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1961. Sussman, Marvin B., and White, Clyde B. Hough: A Study of Social Life and Change. Cleveland: Western Reserve University Press, 1959. Mills, C. Wright; Senior, Clarence; and Goldsen, Rose K. Puerto Rican Journey. New York: Harper Bros., 1950. Rossi, Peter H. Why Families Move. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1955. Koos, Earl L. Families in Trouble. New York: Columbia University Press, 1946. Bellin, Seymour S. Family and Kinship in Later Years. New York: New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, Mental Health Research Unit Publication, 1960. Wuarantelli, Enrico L. "A Note on the Protective Function of the Family in Disasters.” Marriage and Family Living, XXII, 3 (1960), 263—2 . 103 Clark, Alma Beth, and Warren, Jean. Economic Con— tributions Made to Newly Married Couples by Their Parents. Ithaca: Cornell University, Memoir 382, May, 1963. Hill, Reuben. "Decision Making and the Family Life Cycle." Social Structure and the Family: Generational Relations. Edited by Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall Inc., 1965. Shanas, Ethel; Townsend, Peter; Wedderburn, Dorothy; Friis, Henning; Milhsj, Poul; and Stehouwer, Jan. Old People in Three Industrial Societies. New York: Atherton Press, 1968. Leichter, Hope Jensen, and Mitchell, William E. Kinship and Casework. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Goodrich, Wells; Ryder, Robert G.; and Raush, Harold L. "Patterns of Newlywed Marriages." Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXX, 3 (August, 1968), 383—389. Drabek, Thomas E., and Boggs, Keith S. "Families in Disaster: Reactions and Relatives.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXX, 3 (August, 1968), 443-451. Sussman, Marvin B., and Slater, Sherwood B. ”The Family Life Cycle and the Kinship Network: An Empirical Test." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, August 24, 1962. Litwak, Eugene. "Extended Kin Relations in an Industrial Democratic Society.” Social Structure and the Family: Generational Rela— tions. Edited by Ethel Shanas and Gordon E. Streib. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1965. Sussman, Marvin B. "Relationships of Adult Children with Their Parents." Social Structure and the Family: Generational Relations. Edited by Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 104 Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. U.S.A.: August B. Hollingshead, 1957. Lesgold, Alan M. "Analysis of Contingency Tables." Computer Institute for Social Science. Technical Report No. 14. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968. Morgan, James N., et a1. Income and Welfare in the United States. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962. Clague, Ewan. Class lecture at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Spring term, 1966. Reid, Margaret G. Economics of Household Produc— tion. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1934. APPENDIX CODING VARIATIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 105 CODING VARIATIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES of Head Sex 1. 2. Male Female of Head Age Under 24 25—34 35-44 45—54 55—64 65—74 75 and over Married and Number of Dgpendents O. 1. Single male head of SU, no children Single male head of SU, l or more children Single female head of SU, no children Married head of SU, no children Married head of SU, 1 child Married head of SU, 2 children Married head of SU, 3 or more children 106 107 Life Cycle 1. No spouse present, no children, under 45 2. Married, spouse present, no children, wife under 45 3. Married, spouse present, children, some under 6, wife under 4. Married, spouse present, children, none under 6, wife under 45 5. Married, spouse present, children, some under 6, wife 45 or older 6. Married, spouse present, children, none under 6, wife 45 or older 7. Married, spouse present, no children, wife 45 or older 8. No spouse present, no children, wife 45 or older 9. No spouse present, but children Net Real Income 1. $1 - 499; negative 2. $500 — 999 3. $1000 — 1999 4. $2000 — 2999 5. $3000 - 4999 6. $5000 — 7499 7. $7500 — 9999 8. $10,000 — 14,999 9. $15,000 and over 0. None 108 Labor Force Status 1. Employed 2. Unemployed Retired Student Housewife C\U'l Never worked, rentier, etc. N Disabled and not working Status NA Belt Code 1. Central cities of 12 largest standard metropolitan areas. If a standard metropolitan area has two or more central cities, the largest and any others of 250,000 population in 1950 are designed as central cities. 2. Central cities of other standard metropolitan areas. 3. Suburban area of 12 largest metropolitan areas. 4. Suburban areas of other metropolitan areas. Adjacent areas. U71 6. Outlying areas. Region 1. Northeast 2. North central 3. South 4. West Race 1. White, Puerto Rican; NA 2. Negro; other (Mexicans, Filipinos, Orientals, etc.)