ABSTRACT A HUMAN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO QUALITY OF LIFE: THIRTEEN CASE STUDIES BY Sara Long Butler The goal of this investigation was to examine the quality of life of a select group of peOple. The human ecological focus on the individual, his environments and the interaction between them provided the framework. The four environments investigated included clothing, dwelling, family and community. Objective and subjective measures of the individual, environments and interaction were considered to be indicators of perceived well-being. A sample of seventeen subjects was selected from the respondents participating in the 1975 longitudinal "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" project conducted by College of Human Ecology researchers at Mighican State University. Two contrasting groups of respondents were chosen on the basis of their responses to a perceived over- all quality of life (POQL) measure on which they expressed their feelings about their lives as a whole. The high POQL group consisted of those who were delighted or pleased With their lives. The low POQL group was composed of individuals who had mixed feelings about their lives and represented the "least happy" group. Data were collected on each of the individuals at three points in time: 1956, 1975 and 1976. The 1956 data were used as a backdrop to the 1975 and 1976 information which formed the bulk of the data used for analysis. All respondents resided in Ontonagon County, a sparsely popu- lated farming and mining area in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The 1975 and 1976 interview schedules were designed to gather both objective and subjective information. The individual was measured objectively and subjectively. Per- ceptions of changes occurring since 1956 provided addi- tional data- The four environments were measured objec— tively. Interaction was defined primarily in terms of the individuals' perceptions of the importance of and satis- faction with each of the environments. Findings were reported in a descriptive fashion. Biographies of each individual were followed by analysis of the data for the two contrasting groups. Because of the case study nature of the investiga- tion, research questions rather than hypotheses were employed. Questions focused on the comparison of the members of the two groups on: (1) objective measures of the individual and the clothing, dwelling, family and community environments; (2) perceptions of changes occurring since 1956; (3) subjective measures (perceptions of importance and satisfaction) of the individual and the clothing, dwell- ing, family and community environments; and (4) the relationship between objective and subjective measures. Some objectively measured differences were dis- covered between the groups in the individual and family areas. No differences between the members of the groups were found on objective measures of the clothing, dwelling or community environments. The members of the low POQL group expressed more negative perceptions of change. Although the members of the groups indicated similar per- ceptions of the importance of life concerns, the members of the low POQL group expressed lower satisfactions with all life concerns. Lower satisfactions were also expressed by the members of the low POQL group with all four environ- ments, with the family and community environment satis- factions notabJ-Y lower. A general research question related to the useful- ness of the human ecological model in examining quality of life was also proposed. The findings tended to support the Viability of the framework, particularly the interactional element. The impetus to this research came from the recognized inadequacy of economic measures of well-being and from the necessity to plan for life in the limited resource environment of the future. The information presented here was viewed as an addition to the body of social indicator data that can aid policy-makers in designing public programs that affect quality of life. A HUMAN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO QUALITY OF LIFE: THIRTEEN CASE STUDIES BY Sara Long Butler A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance throughout the completion of this dissertation: Dr. Joanne Eicher, committee chairperson, for her encouragement and support during the entire degree process; Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci and Dr. Denton Morrison, committee members, for their helpful insights and suggestions; Dr. Mary Andrews for her valuable consultations; Dr. Sandra Evers, fellow graduate student, for her advice and encouragement; Dr. David Butler, the writer's husband, for his hours of technical assistance, unending encouragement and continual moral support which made the completion of this degree a reality; The thirteen residents of Ontonagon County who gave willingly of their time in order that such an in-depth study could be undertaken. The writer also wishes to express her appreciation to the Human Environment and Design Department for con- tinued financial support through various teaching appoint- ments and eSpecially to the College of Human Ecology Dissertation Fellowship Committee for granting the ii fellowship award which assisted immeasurably in the comple- tion of this dissertation. Affiliation with Agricultural Experiment Station Project #3151 "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" provided valuable research experience as well as financial support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List Of Tables 0 O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. 2. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 8. Social Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Models . . . . . . . . . . . The Human Ecological Approach . . . . . The Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Social Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Social Indicator Movement . . . . 1.1a Social Accounting and Reporting . . . . . . . . . 1.1b Societal Models . . . . . . 1.1c Quality of Life Measurement 1.2 Social Indicator Measures . . . . 1.2a Definitions . . . . . . . . 1.2b Objective Indicators . . . . 1.2c Subjective Indicators . . . 1.2d Objective and Subjective ' Indicators in Combination . iv Page ix xiv ll 16 17 17 20 20 20 21 24 27 31 31 34 36 38 Chapter 2. 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE (Cont'd) 5. 1.2e Change Measures . Quality of Life Research . . 2.1 General Research . . . . 2.2 Specialized Sample Research The Human Ecological Approach 3.1 Ecological Frameworks . 3.2 The Environments . . . . 3.2a Clothing . . . . . 3.2b Dwelling . . . . . 3.2c Family . . . . . . 3.2d Community . . . . The "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" Project . . . . 4.1 The Framework . . . . . 4.2 The Findings . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Research Development . . . . 1.1 1956 Sample and Measures 1.2 1975 Sample and Measures 1976 Sample Selection . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40 41 41 46 48 48 51 52 53 56 59 62 62 64 65 66 67 67 67 71 73 75 76 77 Chapter 4. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS: DESCRIPTION OF SETTING AND SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Setting . 1.1 General Description . . . . . . . . 1.2 Current Characterization . . . . . . Sample . 2.1 High POQL Biographies . . . . . . . 2.2 Low POQL Biographies . . . . . . . 2.3 Discussion of Biographies . . . . . 2.4 The High POQL Group and the Low Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . POQL 2.4a 2.4b 2.4c 2.4d 2.4e 2.4f 2.4g 2.4h 5. PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTS . 1. Clothing Perceived Overall Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . Changes - 1975 and 1976 SALI and SALS . . . . . . . . The High POQL Group and the Low POQL Group - SALI and SALS Objective Variables . . . . . Objective and Subjective Comparison . . . . . . . . . Perceptions of Change Literature Comparison Summary . . . . . . . FINDINGS: THE 1.1 Objective Indicators . . . . . . . . 1.2 Subjective Indicators . . . . . . . 1.3 Objective and Subjective Comparison 1.4 Literature Comparison . . . . . . . Dwelling vi Page 79 79 79 82 84 85 104 126 128 130 132 139 145 151 152 156 159 160 160 160 162 165 166 167 Chapter 5. 6. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS: THE ENVIRONMENTS (Cont ' d) 5. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Objective Indicators . . . . . Subjective Indicators . . . . . Objective and Subjective Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Comparison . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Objective Indicators . . . . . . Subjective Indicators . . . . . Objective and Subjective Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Comparison . . . . . Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Objective Indicators . . . . . . Subjective Indicators . . . . . Objective and Subjective Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Comparison . . . . . General Summary and Discussion . . . CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . 1. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . 1.1 1.2 Purpose, Conceptual Model and sample 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Research Question Conclusions . 1.2a Related Research Questions 1.2b General Research Question vii Page 167 168 170 171 171 171 177 180 180 182 182 187 191 191 192 196 196 196 197 198 202 Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS (Cont'd) 2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 General Limitations . . . 2.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . 3. Recommendations . . . . . . . . 4. Implications . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. 1956 Interview Schedule . . . . B. 1975 Interview Schedule . . . . C. 1976 Interview Schedule . . . . D. Clothing Inventory Measure . . E. Community and Interior Dwelling Instruments . . . . . . . . . . F. Objective Clothing Data . . . . G. Objective Dwelling Data . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 206 206 207 208 212 215 227 245 256 266 268 272 277 Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Mean POQL Scores . . Quality of Life Definitions . . . . Social Indicator Definitions . . . . Quality of Life/Happiness Research Findings Perceived Overall Quality of Life Scores SALI Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for the High POQL Group and the Low POQL Group - 1975 and 1976 . . . . . . . . SALS Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for the High POQL Group and the Low POQL Group - 1975 and 1976 . . . . . . . . Differences Between Mean Scores Between 1975 and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975 Mean Group and 1976 Mean Group and 1975 SALS Group and SALI Scores - The High POQL the Low POQL Group . . . . SALI Scores - The High POQL the Low POQL Group . . . . Mean Scores - The High POQL the Low POQL Group . . . . 1976 SALS Mean Scores - The High POQL Group and the Low POQL Group . . . . Mean Age of Respondents . . . . . . . Sex of Respondents . . . . . . . . . Family Income . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupation of Respondent . . . . . . ix Page 15 28 32 42 131 133 135 137 140 141 143 144 145 146 147 147 Table Page 17 Occupation of Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 18 Education of Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 19 Frequency of Visits to Doctor . . . . . . . . . 149 20 Any Hospital Stay Within Last Year . . . . . . 150 21 Number of Times Confined to Hospital Within Last Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 22 Rating of Own Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 23 Comparison of Life With 20 Years Ago . . . . . 153 24 Reasons for Better/Worse Perceptions of Life as Compared to 20 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . 153 25 Changes in Own Life in Last 20 Years . . . . . 155 26 Changes in Family Life in Last 20 Years . . . . 155 27 Life Concerns of "Pretty High" (Step 4) Importance or Greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 28 SALI Mean Scores - Clothing . . . . . . . . . . 162 29 SALS Mean Scores - Clothing . . . . . . . . . . 163 30 Perceptions of Enough Clothing . . . . . . . . 163 31 Clothing Categories in which a Need was Perceived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 32 Frequency of Feelings of Inability to go Somewhere Due to Clothing . . . . . . . . . . . 164 33 Events Unable to Attend Due to Clothing . . . . 164 34 Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Clothing . . . 165 35 Frequency of Satisfaction with Appearance . . . 165 36 SALI Mean Scores - Dwelling . . . . . . . . . . 168 37 SALS Mean Scores - Dwelling . . . . . . . . . . 169 38 Satisfaction with Interior . . . . . . . . . . 169 Table Page 39 Reasons for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction With Interior 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 170 40 Family Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 41 Household Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 42 Number of Living Children . . . . . . . . . . . 173 43 Residential Location of Children . . . . . . . 174 44 Residential Location of Extended Family . . . . 174 45 Family Communication Patterns: Frequency of Visitation - Parent -9 Child . . . . . . . . 175 46 Family Communication Patterns: Frequency of Visitation - Child —9 Parent . . . . . . . . 175 47 Family Communication Patterns: Frequency of Letter Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 48 Family Communication Patterns: Frequency of Telephone Conversation . . . . . . . . . . . 176 49 Mean SALI Scores - Family . . . . . . . . . . . 178 50 Mean SALS Scores - Family . . . . . . . . . . . 178 51 Satisfaction with Communication with Children I O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 179 52 Satisfaction with Residential Location Children Living in Same County . . . . . . . . 179 53 Satisfaction with Residential Location Children Living Outside of County . . . . . . . 179 54 Reasons for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Communication with Children . . . . . . . 181 SS Preference for Residential Location of Children Now Living Outside of County . . . . . 181 56 Satisfaction with Residential Location of Extended Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 57 Community Resources Available in Ewen, Mass and Greenland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 xi Table 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Page Community Resources Available in Ontonagon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Community Location of Respondents . . . . . . . 187 Community Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Community Likes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Community Dislikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Reasons for Staying in Community . . . . . . . 189 Satisfaction with Neighborhood . . . . . . . . 190 Neighborhood Likes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Perceptions of Community Compared to 20 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Summary of Findings - Related Research Questions a, b, and c . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Primary Source of Garments . . . . . . . . . . 268 Age of Garments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Number of Garments - Women . . . . . . . . . . 269 Number of Garments - Men . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Location of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Housing Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Number of Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 272 Bathroom Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Washing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Food Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Interviewer Observations of Living Rooms . . . 274 Interviewer Observations of Kitchens . . . . . 275 xii Table Page 81 Interviewer Observation of Interior . . . . . . 276 82 Interviewer Observation of Exterior . . . . . . 276 xiii Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page Perceived Overall Quality of Life (POQL) Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 SALI Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 SALS Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Location Map of Ontonagon County . . . . . . 80 xiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The primary goal of this investigation was to examine in depth perceptions of quality of life, using a human ecological framework. The framework was employed to explore life concerns that can be indicators of the individual's perceptions of his well-being. The research is seen as a preliminary attempt to combine the increasingly popular ecological framework with the growing social indicators/quality of life movement. This chapter will review the development of the conceptual framework and provide a detailed statement of the problem. 1. Social Indicators During the past decade a new social movement has evolved in which social indicators have been used to measure various aspects of the human situation, resulting in some conception of human well-being, happiness or quality of life. Special foci of the social indicators movement include attempts to measure progress or change, evaluation of government programs affecting human well-being and the development of measures to serve as guides in future planning. The evolution of the literature in the field can itself serve as an indicator of the development of the movement. Attempts at providing some measure of the social well-being of the nation's people developed in the 1930's, however the real thrust of the current movement came with the publication of Raymond Bauer's NASA study (1966a) in 1966. Soon after Bauer's publication, then President Lyndon Johnson directed a Health, Education and Welfare Department group to develop the necessary social indicators that would assist in measuring the distance the nation had come and to help in planning the way ahead. In 1967, Congress also entered the social indicators movement with the proposal of Senate Bill S. 843, the "Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act of 1967." The bill, sponsored by Walter Mondale, provided for a committee of social advisors and an annual social report. Also in 1967, the Annals 9f the American Academy 9: Political and Social Science published two journals edited by Bertram Gross focusing on social reporting through social indicators (Etzioni and Lehman, 1967; Gross and Springer, 1967a; Gross and springer, 1967b; Williams, 1967). In 1969 the HEW group commissioned by President Johnson published its first document, Toward a Social Report, which was intended to be a first step in the formulation of social indicators and reporting. Since 1968 both theoretical and empirical research relating to social indicators and the quality of life have been published. The Russell Sage Foundation has been at the forefront of the movement with its Indicators 9: Social Change (Sheldon and Moore, 1968) and The Human Meaning 9f Social Change (Campbell and Converse, 1972) volumes. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan has also been particularly involved in quality of life research, primarily through the use of perceptual measures (Andrews and Withey, 1974a; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976; Strumpel, 1976). Publication of social statistics to be employed as social indicators has been attempted at both the national (Executive Office of the President, 1973) and state (Social Reportingin Michigan, 1970) levels. While earlier publications reflect the initial conceptual problems of definition and measurement (The Quality 9: Life Concept, 1973), complex theoretical models (Land, 1975; Gitter and .Mostofsky, 1973) and national survey results (Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976) can be found in the more recent literature. One of the most significant deve10pments in the social indicators literature is the increasing number of publications. Despite the seemingly vast array of books and papers appearing thus far, the social indicator movement is just beginning. Although disagreement still abounds as to the measures, models and even ultimate use, consensus exists regarding the need for some type of social measures. The inspiration for the movement came during the mid and later 1960's, when social unrest appeared to be steadily increas- ing. Although the country was prospering economically, the public seemed to be indicating dissatisfaction. University campuses were restless, cities were plagued by riots, inter- national policies were increasingly criticized and crime was accelerating at an alarming rate. Although progress in this country had traditionally been determined by economic indicators, many began to question the validity of measuring national well-being by economic means alone. Social indi- cators appeared to provide a balance to economic informa- tion on social welfare. In more recent years an even stronger argument for the development of quality of life measures has become evident. With the growing recognition of raw material and food shortages, the limits to growth due to finite resources are beginning to be realized. Although "progress" and "quality of life" have traditionally been measured in this country by economic and material means, we may be reaching the time when such measures will not suffice. In reaction to the inadequacy of economic measures of well-being only and in response to the pressing need for limiting material growth, this research will attempt to examine in depth the quality of life, as measured by social indicators, of a select group of people. The quality of life of the future would seem inevitably to be measured by something other than accumulation of material wealth. Perhaps, however, economic wealth is not the measure of well-being even today. By adding to the growing body of indicators attempting to determine what constitutes quality of life now, we may be able to make predictions and plans for life in the even more limited resource environment of the future. 2. Conceptual Models In the field of social indicators research, two distinct modes of thought concerning the selection of areas critical to quality of life have emerged. One method suggests delineating indicators needed, or general areas to be pursued, by the "armchair method." In this case, researchers choose indicator areas according to what geems to be critical to well-being, or according to the avail- ability of statistics. Called the inductive approach by Duncan (1969b, p. 9), an attempt is made to measure various areas first; then as measures are standardized, a framework can be developed from findings. The “theory" method, on the other hand, begins with a model or framework and the data are collected with regard to the elements of the model. Proponents of the theory approach maintain that the mere accumulation of measurements will not assist in the formulation of a social report unless the measurements can be related to one another in a framework. The primary criticism of the use of a framework stems from the attempt to devise a complete model of society. Critics claim that too much time can be wasted in attempting to construct such a model. Despite criticism, model development has been pursued diligently by some. Gross (Bauer, 1966a, Chapter 3) and Land (1975) are two of the more vocal proponents of model development. While allowing for criticisms of the theory approach, DeNeufville (1975) also maintains that models can be useful. Taking into account the time problems, DeNeufville suggests that partial models using available data may help in reaching the fuller, or macro, models. In a similar vein, Sheldon and Freeman (1970) also state that conceptual needs, rather than technical problems, are the greatest current concern in the social indicators movement. A principal objective of this research is to develop a partial model at the micro, or individual, level to be used in the ordering of social indicator data. A partial model enables data to be related in a meaningful way, yet does not entail the complex and time-consuming problems of developing a complete social system model. The human ecological model has been selected for use in this investigation. DeNeufville defines a model as "any repre- sentation of reality which abstracts important elements from it and reassembles them for more convenient analysis and manipulation" (1975, p. 62). Consequently, elements considered to be important in the human ecological approach will be abstracted for manipulation and analysis of individual quality of life. 3. The Human Ecological Approach Home economics has adopted as its purpose the concern for the well-being of individuals and families. In expressing this concern, leaders in the field have under— taken the study of the individual in his closest environ- ments. The concept of the individual and his environments was selected in 1902 with the founding of home economics and with its definition as . . . the study of the laws, conditions, principles and ideals which are concerned on the one hand with man's immediate physical environment and on the other hand with his nature as a social being, and is the study specially of the relation between those two factors. (American Home Economics Association, 1902, p. 70) In more recent years a new emphasis has been placed on the original perspective. Two papers in particular have been important in the development of the model used for this investigation and in establishing the conceptual links between the framework and quality of life research. The first, by Creekmore, described the concepts basic to home economics by underscoring the importance of man as a total being, his near environment, and the interaction between them (Creekmore, 1968). She also contended that the inter- action element is the critical focus of home economics that makes it unique in relation to other disciplines. The thoughts expressed by Creekmore are closely allied with those that formed the foundation for a major reorganization of the College of Home Economics of Michigan State Univer- sity.* The purpose of home economics as assumed by the Committee on the Future of Home Economics at MSU related to the concern for the well-being of individuals or families ("The Report of the Committee on the Future of Home Economics,” 1968, p. 8). The Committee defined home economics as ". . . the study of (1) man as an integrated whole, (2) his near environment, and (3) the interaction between them" ("The Report of the Committee . . . ," 1968, p. 11). It included food, clothing and shelter as the special emphases of the near environment. In combining the purpose and definition above, it can be assumed that the discipline of home economics attempts to investigate and improve the well-being or quality of life of human beings by studying the interactions of man with the elements of his near environment. An extension of this basic concept will form the framework for the present investigation.** *Dr. Creekmore was a member of the Committee on the Future of Home Economics at Michigan State University. The committee brought together the theoretical bases for curriculum redesign at MSU. In 1970, the College of Home Economics at MSU changed its name to the College of Human Ecology in keeping with the ecological focus. **In emphasizing the new commitment to the founding concept of home economics, several universities (Michigan State among them) ad0pted the new title of Human Ecology. The research presented here has been conducted using a human ecological framework which focuses on the interaction of the individual with his near environments. Such concepts are seen as consistent with the original emphasis of the field of home economics. 4. The Conceptual Framework Sprout and Sprout (1965) defined three elements crucial to the ecological framework: the environed unit, the environment and their interaction. They described the environment (or milieu as they prefer to call it) as all empirical phenomena to which the individual may be respon- sive or otherwise significantly related (p. 27). For the purposes of this study, the individual will be the environed unit of attention. The environment will be defined in terms of what empirically exists external to the environed unit and furnishes the resources necessary to fulfill human needs. Interactions will focus on the individual's perceptions of the elements of his environment. Both objective and perceptual measures will be employed. Objective measures have been defined as those that are empirical and amenable to direct measurement (The Quality 9: Life Concept, 1973, pp. I-38). Subjective (or perceptual) measures are conceived of as internal to the individual; measures of feelings or attitudes (The Quality pf Life Concept, 1973, pp. I-38). The primary elements of the conceptual framework can be interpreted as follows: Environed Unit: The individual as a "total being" (Creek— more, 1968) is defined as the environed unit. In order to obtain a more complete picture of the total person, the individual will be examined both objectively (through 10 demographic data) and subjectively (through measures of feelings and attitudes). In-depth historical perspectives will provide a detailed portrait of each individual. Environment: The environment is defined as that which exists empirically and is external to the individual. In conjunction with the focus of human ecology, four primary environments can be specified. Clothing can be thought of as the nearest physical environment of the individual, with family, shelter and community forming increasingly more removed environments. All four environments will be measured objectively. Interactions: Although the interaction of the environed unit with his environment can include a vast number of activities, the elements of interest in this investigation will focus on the individual's perceptions of his environ- ments. Perceptions include primarily the importance of the environments to the individual and the degree to which the individual is satisfied with his environments. Perception here is not in terms of the process of perception (i.e. information processing), but the result of such perceptions in terms of importance and satisfaction. Measurement of interaction of the environment and the environed unit is by definition perceptual, or subjective. Creekmore (1968) focused on the critical nature of the interaction element to the concept of home economics. Subjective perceptions, therefore, are viewed as one of the primary elements of 11 this framework. This research, then, will attempt to study the quality of life of the total individual through the explora- tion of his environments and his interactions with them. The individual will be described using both objective and subjective data, the environments will be analyzed objec- tively, and interactions will be explored using subjective information. By delineating the four environments emphasized in home economics and observing the individual's interaction with them, this research will attempt to establish the human ecological approach as a viable model in investigating the quality of life. The individual, environmental and interactional data obtained are regarded as indicators of perceived life quality. The ultimate goal is to add further information, organized in some logical form, to the growing collection of data relating to indicators of quality of life. 5. Statement of the Problem The research presented here was conducted in con— junction with a larger Michigan State University Agricul- tural Experiment Station Project (#3151) entitled "Families in Evolving Rural Communities." The quality of life and change and stability in a rural Michigan county were the primary objectives of the larger study (Bubolz and Eicher, 1975). The research was longitudinal in nature, consisting of interviews with respondents previously studied in 1956. 12 All of the 168 original respondents in 1956 resided in Ontonagon county in the Upper Pennisula of Michigan. Data were obtained concerning community interaction, family life style and patterns, and demographic characteristics (Eicher, 1956). In 1975, 67 (40%) of the original respondents or their spouses were re-interviewed. Many of the 1956 ques- tions were repeated in addition to new questions relating to overall quality of life and the importance of and satis- faction with specified life concerns. The measure of perceived overall quality of life used in 1975 was particularly critical to the case study data collected in 1976 for this investigation (Figure l). Developed by Andrews and Withey (1974a), the measure con- sists of a scale from one to seven (one being the highest) on which respondents were asked to place themselves in response to the question, "What number best describes how a you feel about your life as a whole?" The resulting score was determined by computing the arithmetic mean of the scale which was used at two different times in the interview. After experimentation with approximately 30 measures, Andrews and Withey focused their attention on this measure. The measure was described by them as having moderate reliability and good correlations with other global measures <3f life quality. The overall quality of life measure is Stflfiective, or perceptual, in nature. Through analysis of the 1975 perceived quality of 13 mamom Aqoomv omen mo Muflamso Hamum>o om>flmoumm .H musmflm we ou magma uoc mmoo u U be usonm phonon» Hm>ms H u m Acmwwmflummmwc no: cmflmmflumm Hmsuwmov Hmuusmz u d cmfimmflummmfic o cwflmmflumm coflmmfiummmflo maamocm cmwmmwumm manfluuma mmmmnco maumoz noonm .cmxflz waumoz commmam cousmemo n o m v m m a mmaocS 8 mm mMflH woo» boonm Hmmm do» 30: mmbfluommc ammo Hones: unbz 14 life data obtained using the above measure, respondents were found to be distributed along the lower half of the continuum, indicating general satisfaction (Table 1). The results represented an imperfect bell-shaped curve, with the majority of the respondents placing themselves near the "mostly satisfied" position. The research to be reported here focused on the extremes of the quality of life curve. Two subsets of the 1975 population were selected for com- parison. The first group (13.8% of the 1975 population or 9 individuals) represented those delighted or pleased with their lives overall. The contrasting group (12.3% or 8 individuals) were those who had mixed feelings concerning their lives. (No individuals reported totally negative feelings.) Upon determination of the sample of 17, inter- views were designed to be conducted with them in 1976 using the ecological framework as described above. The respondents of both groups will be described in depth, using the data from 1975 and 1976 to present a modified case study approach. A biography of each respond- ent will provide a historical backdrop to the analysis of the data obtained through the use of objective and subjec- tive measures of the individuals comprising each group. Each of the four environments of the members of the groups will be described objectively. The individuals' subjective perceptions in relation to each of the environments will also be explored. Longitudinal data from 1956 will be used 15 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF MEANa POQL SCORES b Scores % N 1 (delighted) 3.1 2 1.5 1.5 1 2 (pleased) 9.2 6 2.5 24.6 16 3- (mostly satisfied) 32.3 21 3.5 16.9 11 4 (mixed) 9.2 6 4.5 3.1 2 99.9 65 Note: n = 65. aOverall mean = 2.923; 3.0. = .7193 b There were no mean scores below 4.5. 16 to provide further depth in many instances, however missing information precludes the use of 1956 longitudinal informa- tion within the model as developed. The abundance of data relating to each individual will allow for greater depth than was possible in the larger 1975 study. The 1976 data collected during this investigation provide additional objective and subjective information that was not obtained in 1975. Where this study sacrifices the generalizability of a larger sample, it gains the detailed insights possible with in-depth investigation of a more limited number of people. 6. Research Questions Due to the exploratory, case study nature of this research, the relationship between variables will be stated in the form of research questions rather than hypotheses. General Research Question: Is the human ecological conceptualization of the individual in interaction with his near environments Of clothing, shelter, family and community a useful tool for examining quality of life? Related Research Questions: When comparing those who were delighted or pleased with their lives (high POQL group) with those who had mixed feelings (low POQL group): a. are there differences in individual, clothing, family, shelter or community indicators as measured objectively? 17 b. Are there differences in the perceptions of changes that have occurred since 1956? c. do the members of the groups perceive themselves, their clothing, family, shelter or communities in different ways? Are there differences between the members of the groups concerning the importance of various life con- cerns? Are there differences in satisfactions with the same life concerns? d. what is the relationship between Objective and percep- tual indicators of the individual and his environments? 7. Assumptions 1. The groups selected vary enough in their perceptions of overall quality of life to constitute two distinct groups. 2. People are able to make assessments of their total life quality. 3. PeOple are able to assess specific aspects Of their lives and rank them in importance and satisfaction. The second and third assumptions were necessary because the reliability and validity of the scales used were not tested in this research. Andrews and Withey (1974a) have found moderate reliability for the overall quality of life measure (POQL) which was the basis for group selection. 8. Definitions All of the definitions which were used in the 1975 "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" study were retained. 18 Several concepts specific to this investigation were added, however. Those in common with the larger study are: Quality of Life: The degree of well-being or ill-being of the people and/or the environment in which they live (Bubolz and Eicher, 1975, p. 3). The numerous definitions existing for quality of life will be examined in the review of literature. This definition is consistent with the measure used in this study. Social Indicator: Measurements of the social condition of human existence (Land, 1975, p. 17). Again, definitions of social indicators abound and will be reviewed with the literature. Quality Of Life Indicators: Indices or measurements of aspects of human life and environmental conditions relating to human well-being and satisfaction (Garn and Flax, 1972, p. 37). Definitions selected for this investigation include: Objective Social Indicators: Indicators that are external to the individual (The Quality pf Life Concept, 1973, pp. I-38). Objective indicators are reproducible and empirical (Quality 9f Life Concept, pp. 11-14). Subjective Social Indicators: Indicators that are internal to the individual (Quality 9f Life Concept, pp. I-38). Subjective indicators are measures Of feelings or attitudes (Quality 9f Life Concept, pp. 11-14). 19 Environed Unit: The organism Of interest. In this investi- gation, the environed unit is defined as the individual. Environment: That which surrounds or encompasses the environed unit. In this study, four near environments are of interest: clothing, family, shelter and community. Interaction: The interrelationships between the environed unit and the environment. In this investigation, interaction between the individual and the four selected environments will be defined in terms of perceptions of importance and satisfaction. Home Economics: The study of man as a total being, his near environment, and the interaction between them (Creek- more, 1968, p. 95). Human Ecology: The study of man, environment and inter- action as found in the Creekmore definition of home economics. This perspective is a re-emphasis Of the original focus of home economics. Clothing: All of the garments owned and worn by the respondent for whatever purpose. Dwelling: The housing unit occupied by the respondent. Family: The respondent's nuclear family of procreation (including spouse and children) as well as his extended family (including parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins). Community: The respondent's immediate neighborhood as well as the community of which he considers himself a part. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The following chapter will be divided into four principal sections. The first will survey the literature in the area of social indicators. The second section will review research findings relating to quality of life. The literature in the area of human ecological frameworks will be reviewed in the third section. The fourth and final section will describe the framework and findings of the "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" research project, of which this investigation is an extension. 1. Social Indicators 1.1 Social Indicators Movement The need for some type of assessment of societal progress other than an economic one became increasingly evident during the mid-sixties. Commissioned by NASA, Raymond Bauer published a volume dealing with the social indicator field in 1966 (1966a). Intended to examine measures Of the impact of the space program on society, the book became instead the basis for the larger social indi- cators movement. In Chapter three Of the Bauer book, Bertram Gross first introduced his social system model and 20 21 the phrase that became the slogan of the social indicators movement: the "new Philistinism" of economic indicators. Adopted by many to follow, the phrase represented the feel- ings of many social scientists that the economic indicators collected and used by the government were becoming inade- quate and misinterpreted measures of social well-being. Although economic measures such as GNP had indicated steady progress, social unrest demonstrated symptoms Of something less than societal well-being. Many felt that social indicators could provide a new kind of information that would better gauge the well-being of the nation. As a result of growing social problems and the inadequacy Of available measures, an increasing number of scholars and researchers began to prOpose the development of social indicators. Wilcox, Brooks, Beal and Klonglan (1972a) suggested that four perspectives have developed within the movement. Their classification will serve as a basis for a review of the social indicators literature. One perspective, that of viewing social indicators as social statistics, will not be included because it is not a part of the focus Of this investigation. 1.1a Social Accounting and Reporting Wilcox, Brooks, Beal and Klonglan included in the first perspective researchers and theorists who regard social indicators as instruments to monitor progress toward societal goals. Closely related is the literature dealing 22 with social accounting and reporting. Although not of primary concern in this investigation, the social account- ing and reporting literature is closely linked with the social indicators movement and provides a necessary back- ground for the development Of social indicators research. Providing information in the form of a social report can also be considered the ultimate goal of much of the research conducted. Much of the early work in the movement focused on this area, as does the bulk of government research. Gross and Springer (1967a; 1967b) in the two issues of The Annals devoted to social indicators, encouraged the use of social measures to provide assistance in measuring the degree to which national goals have been realized. In both volumes, various scholars explored a wide variety of fields in relation to national goals and social indicators. In a later paper, Springer (1970) made an even stronger statement for the use of social indicators, suggesting that such data can be applied to the management of society. Springer maintained that information provided through social indicators can provide for the rational guidance of society by assessing the state and performance Of society, antici- pating the future, indicating control mechanisms and guiding social knowledge (pp. 5-6). Although not stated as strongly and directly as Springer, other papers speak to the benefits of a social 23 report in guiding decision-making and policy planning. written primarily by Mancur Olson, HEW's Toward 3 Social Report (1969) speculated that a national social report could give social problems more visibility and allow for the evaluation Of public programs (p. xii). Admittedly a first step, the HEW monograph suggested six areas to be included in a social report: health, social mobility, physical environment, income and poverty, public order and safety, and learning science and art. Although the HEW report received some criticism for its lack Of depth, Daniel Bell (another Of the pioneers of the social indicators movement) defended the report on the grounds that government data then available were not adequately organized for any in-depth analytical purposes (1969). Bell also suggested that the government assume the reSponsibility for the writing of an annual social report. Olson elsewhere also defended Toward 3 Social Report (1969). Emphasizing its "first step" nature, Olson maintained that the type of information described in the report would not only provide visibility to Often neglected social problems, but also make possible a better evaluation of the accomplishments Of public pro- grams. In a Russell Sage monograph, O. D. Duncan (1969b) also spoke to the need for a social report. Dismissing the necessity Of a social model, Duncan specified the measure- ment of change as the critical focus of a report. Duncan 24 underlined the need for replication studies that provide required information without the loss Of time involved in model construction. The "Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act Of 1967," introduced by Walter Mondale, was an attempt to operationalize the suggestions for a social report. The bill, which provided for an annual social report by the President and a Council of Social Advisers, was not passed after several introductions into Congress. Although the hope for an annual national social report seems to have faded with the progression of the social indicators movement, much of the current literature implies that the dissemination of information is still a critical goal. The emphasis appears to have shifted away from macro or large scale analyses of society to a focus on particular segments of the social system. The use of social indicators in policy decisions and program planning is still evident, however. 1.1b Societal Models Wilcox, Brooks, Beal and Klonglan (1972a) specified a second perspective of the social indicators movement that views social indicators as measures of variables that are components of a social system model. In this case, the concern is with the monitoring of system performance and change and the interrelationships between the variables of a system. 25 Perhaps the earliest and most well-known work on the development of a model in relation to social indicators is that published by Gross (Bauer, 1966a, Chapter 3). Gross proposed a structure-performance model of society in which both matter and energy are examined. Whereas examina- tion of structure provides information on what exists, the investigation of performance allows for evaluation of process and change. The structure of society as conceptu- alized by Gross, emphasized the interrelationships of people with the non-human environment. The performance of society, on the other hand, dealt with the utilization of inputs to provide needed outputs. The Gross model focused on society as a whole. In a similar model, Carlisle (1972) used general systems theory to describe society as a complex adaptive system. Structural statistics referred to system components that are related in a network and performance statistics described goal achievement. Also emphasizing the import- ance Of model development, Beal, Klonglan, Wilcox and Brooks (1971) proposed a community ecosystem model. Instead Of using the nation as the unit of analysis, the community was selected. The primary elements of their model included population, environment, culture and social organization. At a more micro level, Land (1975) focused on the individual. One of the more vocal proponents Of the model approach, Land developed his model in terms of the 26 relationships between institutions and individuals. He suggested measurement over the life cycle and included measure of three domains of the "life-space": Objective conditions, subjective value-context and subjective well- being. It should be noted that the Gross, Carlisle and Beal, Klonglan, Wilcox and Brooks models all assume a systems theory base, while Land also employed some systems concepts. Several other researchers have put forth conceptual frameworks for use in ordering social indicator data. While not as well-developed as the complex models proposed by Gross and Land, these frameworks nonetheless provide for the organization Of indicator information in some meaning— ful way. Knox (1974), for example, contended that the level of living concept could form the basis for the collection of social indicator data. Dismissing the quality Of life notion as too vague and the adaptive goal-seeking models Of society as too complex, Knox proposed organizing data using a needs satisfaction (as measured by possessions) approach. Several of the recent models focus on the use Of objective and subjective social indicators in combination (Bubolz and Eicher, 1975; Gitter and Mostofsky, 1973). Since the method of measurement is the primary concern of such frameworks, these models will be described in the review of objective and subjective measures. 27 1.1c Quality of Life Measurement The final perspective described by Wilcox, Brooks, Beal and Klonglan (1972a) is perhaps the most common. In this instance social indicators are regarded as instruments for detecting changes in the quality of life of individuals, groups or societies. "The strategy of research suggested by this perspective focuses upon the problems of defining 'quality of life' and the establishment of quantifiable categories to measure variations in crucial social com- ponents of human life conditions" (p. 41). The problems inherent in the definition Of quality of life were discussed at great length at the Quality of Life Symposium sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (The Quality gf Life Concept, 1973). Concerns voiced included the lack of consensus on what quality of life means to each individual, if it can be measured, and if so, how it can be measured. The EPA publication result- ing from the symposium described three types Of quality of life definitions: (1) precise definitions of what consti- tutes quality of life, (2) lists of components without weights and (3) indirect definitions through social indi- cators. Table 2 provides a review of precise quality Of life definitions obtained during the present review of literature. Such definitions are critical in terms of evaluation of models and/or measures used and the resulting 28 TABLE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE DEFINITIONS "A function of the objective conditions appropriate to a selected population and the subjective attitude toward those conditions held by persons in that population." (Hornback and Shaw, 1972, p. 103) "A person's sense Of well-being, his satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life, or his happiness or unhappi- ness." (Dalkey and Rourke, 1973, pp. 11-210) "An individual's overall perceived satisfaction of his needs over a period of time." (Mitchell, Logothetti and Kantor, 1973, pp. 11-37) "The condition of a person's day to day existence where the '1evel Of quality of life' may be represented on a scale devised to measure the relevant conditions.“ (Gitter and Mostofsky, 1973, p. 290) "Well-being is broadly conceived to mean the '1eve1' of life quality--i.e., the extent to which pleasure and satisfaction characterize human existence and the extent to which people can avoid the various miseries which are potentially the lot Of each of us." (Andrews, 1974, P- 2) "The subjective name for the 'well-being' of people and the environment in which they live. For any individual, QOL expresses that set of 'wants' which after being supplied, when taken together, make the individual happy or satisfied." (Liu, 1975b, p. l) "The obtaining of the necessary conditions for happi- ness in a given society or region.” (McCall, 1975, p. 234) "The degree of well-being or ill-being of the people and/or the environment in which they live." (Bubolz and Eicher, 1975, p. 3) 29 findings. Unfortunately, researchers have tended to con- struct new definitions with each investigation. Nonethe- less, some commonalities can be seen. Most of the defini- tions incorporate some idea of want or need satisfaction. Although "want“ or "need" are not always stated, satisfac- tion implies some degree Of fulfillment. Several definitions also include the idea of resource availability or environ- mental conditions. In addition, most definitions include some level Of subjectivity or perceptions. The definitions differ to some extent regarding the level of specificity. After an extensive review of quality of life defini- tions, the EPA symposium concluded that, . . . there is no way to reconcile the divergence Of Opinion on how to define quality of life, nor should any attempt be made to do so. The important thing, from the point of view of making scientific progress is that each research effort be based on a carefully conceived definition which is then rigidly adhered to. (The Qualitngf Life Concept, 1973) What appears to be critical, then, is consistency between the quality of life definition and the research approach. Much Of the quality of life research avoids the difficult problem Of definition by describing quality of life through factor lists or quantifiable categories. The list of six areas defined in Toward 3 Social Repgrt (1969) has become the starting point for many of the lists to follow. Gitter and Mostofsky (1973) developed their list of elements important to quality Of life directly from the HEW list. The areas critical to quality of life as 30 suggested during the EPA symposium included the economic, political, physical, social, health and natural environ- ments (The Quality g£_Life Concept, 1973, pp. 11-291). Liu's investigations Of quality of life in U.S. metropolitan areas employed a similar factor list (1975c). Although organized in a different manner, Social Indicators, 1973 published by the Office of Management and Budget investi- gated similar factors, tending to emphasize elements of the individual's day to day life more (e.g. education, housing, employment, leisure) and the elements of the natural environment less. Several of the proposed factor lists have focused on psychological variables as well. Sheldon and Land (1972) proposed a list including much the same factors as the EPA publication, but added the additional dimension of aspira- tions and satisfaction. Much of the work carried out at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan included factor lists, but focused on subjective or psycho- logical measures of these (Andrews and Withey, 1974b; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976). The scales developed by Bubolz and Eicher (1975) were adapted from the Andrews and Withey (1974b) factor lists. The list composed by Dalkey and Rourke (1972) contained primarily psychological factors. Regardless of the method of definition, operational- izing definitions of quality of life generally involves the 31 use Of social indicators. Because there is no direct, precise measure Of quality of life, measures that represent it must be used. For organizational purposes, the various methods proposed to measure quality of life, as well as the problems inherent in each, will be discussed in the appro- priate social indicator section. 1.2 Social Indicator Measures 1.2a Definitions The variety of definitions existing for the term "social indicator" is perhaps even more extensive than that attempted for quality of life. It is generally agreed that the term “indicator" means to represent or point to some- thing. "Social indicator" is more difficult to define, however. Table 3 lists the general definitions Of social indicators found in this review. Definitions pertaining to a specific sample (e.g. elderly) were excluded. A majority of the definitions include the idea that social indicators refer to some element or component or state Of society. It is also generally assumed that such a reference will be quantitative and capable of being manipu- lated. In addition, most assume that one indicator is not sufficient; that a variety of indicators is necessary. Similar to quality of life definitions, social indicator definitions are also dependent on the framework of the resulting research. Indicators employed in quality of life research are generally defined in terms of well-being 32 TABLE 3 SOCIAL INDICATOR DEFINITIONS ". . . a statistic of direct normative interest which facilitates concise, comprehensive and balanced judg- ments about the conditions or major aspects of a society. It is in all cases a direct measure Of welfare and is subject to the interpretation that, if it changes in the 'right' direction, while other things remain equal, things have gotten better, or people are 'better off.'" (U.S. Department of HEW, Toward 3 Social Report, 1969, p. 97) "The term social account or indicator is not yet clearly defined--conceptually or theoretically. It refers to some crude measure of overall well-being, or a 'good quality Of life.'" (Kamrany and Christakis, 1970, p. 208) ". . . social statistics that (l) are components in a social system model (including sociopsychological, economic, demographic, and ecological) or some par- ticular segment or process thereof, (2) can be collected and analyzed at various times and accumulated in a time-series, and (3) can be aggregated or disaggregated to levels appropriate to the specifications of the model." (Land, 1971, p. 323) ". . . the Operational definition or part of the Opera- tional definition Of anyone of the concepts central to the generation of an information system descriptive of the social system." (Carlisle, 1972, p. 25) ". . . an aggregate or representative welfare measure, that is, as a statistic that measures the extent to which some goal of interest has been achieved." (Wilson, _1973, pp. 11-262) ". . . measurements of aspects of life and social con- ditions related (or believed to be related) to human well-being and satisfaction." (Garn and Flax, 1972, p. 37) ". . . an indexing Of various aspects of social life and their interrelationships." (Sheldon and Land, 1972, p. 137) 33 TABLE 3 (cont'd) 8. ". . . a quantity Of such a kind that, all else being equal, a change in its numerical value is expected to reflect a change in some component of the quality of life." (Mitchell, Logothetti and Kantor, 1973, pp. 11-48) measurement. Land (1971), a proponent of model use in indicator research, defines social indicators in terms of their place in a social system model. The normative element found in some definitions has stirred much controversy because of both the transitory nature of norms and the ethical considerations of using a normative base in plan- ning policy and controlling society (Sheldon and Freeman, 1970, p. 100; Wilcox and Brooks, unpublished, p. 14). Beal, Klonglan, Wilcox and Brooks (1971) referred to the confusion existing in social indicator definitions in a review of the current state of the art. They dis- cussed the lack of any definition in some research, as well as the absence of a common denominator in those definitions that exist. After a review of several defini- tions, the Beal group accepted the Land definition as the most appropriate. Garn and Flax (1972) also referred to the difficulties inherent in social indicator definitions, focusing on the areas Of variable choice, method of aggre- gation and the formulation of appropriate reference points to measure "progress." 34 Although not in direct reference to definition, Etzioni and Lehman (1967) caution against the misuse Of social indicators. Focusing on the problems of internal validity they warned against three distinct types of problems: (1) fractional measurement or the tendency to operationalize a concept that is not consistent with its theoretical formulation, (2) indirect measurement, or the measurement of societal concepts using data originally collected for other purposes and (3) formalistic-aggregative measurement or the tendency to use aggregated data based I on individual rather than global measures. 1.2b Objective Indicators As the social indicator movement has progressed, two distinct types of indicators have evolved. The first type, Objective indicators, were the primary tools of early social indicator research. More recently, subjective, or perceptual, indicators have been recommended. Objective indicators have been defined in this investigation as measures that are external to the individ— ual (Chapter 1). Sheldon and Land included the conditions of the environment and the attributes of the individuals in defining Objective indicators (1972, p. 140). In perhaps the most precise definition, Gitter and Mostofsky referred to Objective indicators as markers of the state of reality (1973, p. 291). Objective indicators are seen as consisting of factual information. Using a quite different perspective, 35 McCall (1975) attempted to define the usually subjective nature of quality of life objectively. By measuring quality of life in terms of Objective needs and the resources available to meet them, McCall maintained that the subjec- tivity inherent in quality of life measurement is removed and it can thus be evaluated objectively. Examples of objective social indicators abound. Some of the factor lists described previously have been operationalized through the use Of Objective measures (Executive Office of the President, 1973; Liu, 1975c). Many Of the reports dealing with the quality of life of specific segments Of the larger population have employed Objective measures (Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1972; Lyndon B. Johnson School Of Public Affairs, 1974; Social Reporting ig Michigan, 1970). The Sheldon and Moore publication (1968), which can be included as one of the most influential works of the social indicators movement, emphasized Objective social indicators.* Objective measures have been used extensively in research because nmch Of the data already available, especially government information, exists in statistical form. In addition, reliability and validity are Often easier to establish on Objective data. Finally, data on large samples or *Much of the social indicators literature makes reference to the Sheldon and Moore publication, which was one of the first volumes dealing with measurement tech- HIQues. 36 populations, especially critical in macro system analysis, can easily be obtained from government sources. 1.2c Subjective Indicators Subjective indicators, measures of feelings or attitudes, have received increasing attention in recent years. Sheldon and Land described subjective indicators as those that refer to aspects of personal experience, such as frustrations, satisfactions, aspirations and preceptions (1972, p. 140). Gitter and Mostofsky expanded upon the notion of subjective measures by describing them as reflec- tions of subjective evaluations of phenomena derived from individuals'ratings Of their lives (1973, p. 291). They also described subjective indicators as perceptions of reality, or measures Of dissonance between ". . . a person's view of reality, the facts as he sees them, and his goals and values" (p. 291). Many investigators working in the area of social indicators have acknowledged the importance of subjective indicators, but the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan has been the center for research employing subjective measures. In the companion volume to the Sheldon and Moore publication, Campbell and Converse (1972) attempted to incorporate psychological dimensions into the measurement of social change. The two volumes follow similar formats, with the Sheldon and Moore book suggesting uses for "hard" data on change, and the Campbell 37 and Converse work emphasizing the "human meaning" of such changes. In conducting research on the quality of life, the Campbell, Converse and Rodgers group have continued to adopt the theory that ". . . for any measure to be con- sidered a true indicator of quality Of life there must be a clear linkage between that measure and the feelings of the people to whom it is relevant" (1976, p. 127). The Andrews and Withey group (1974a) also at the University of Michigan, employed primarily perceptual or subjective measures in their research. Assuming that indi- cators of well-being occur at several levels of Specificity, Andrews and Withey used global as well as more specific measures. Labeled "life concerns," the more specific measures were thought to be aspects of life about which people have feelings (e.g. dwelling, family, beauty Of the world). Andrews and Withey further divided the concerns into two types: domains and criteria. Domains were con- ceptualized as elements of life; places, things, activi- ties, peOple and roles. Criteria were defined as the means by which one judged domains; values, standards, aspirations and goals. All levels involved perceptions of well-being, either overall or in relation to specified concerns. In their most recent publication, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) explored the quality of American life, focusing on the experience of life rather than the conditions of it. Using the domain concept also 38 employed by Andrews and Withey, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers conceptualized domain satisfaction to be a function of objective, perceived and evaluated attributes. Filtered through the screen of personal characteristics and standards of comparisons, the satisfactions with the various domains of one's life combine to form overall life satisfaction. The limited amount of work relating to values as indicators must also be included in a review of subjective indicators. As described above, Andrews and Withey defined criteria as values and used them as indicators of quality of life. Terhune (1973) similarly suggested that values are criteria by which individuals experience satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Rokeach (1973) also used values as social indicators in his research on race relations. None of these clearly conceptualized the specific relationship between values and social indicators, however. While Rokeach and Terhune clearly defined values, neither pre- cisely described social indicators. Andrews and Withey, on the other hand, focused on perceptual indicators, and seemed to use the term "values" without precise definition or description. 1.2d Objective and Subjective Indicators in Combination Many social indicator researchers have emphasized the importance of using both Objective and subjective indicators. Andrews and Withey (1974a) suggested that a 39 fully developed set of social indicators would include both perceptual indicators and a complementary set of objective indicators. Rodgers and Converse (1975) also acknowledged that both Objective and subjective indicators are needed. While he employed objective measures only, Liu (1975b) also suggested that quality of life can be considered as an output of both physical and spiritual factors. Several models and measures have implied the import- ance Of using both Objective and subjective measures through the inclusion Of both. Dalkey (1973) proposed measuring quality of life through three sets Of scales: relatively Objective measures, subjective ratings and global subjective scales. Hornback and Shaw (1972), in developing a quantita— tive measure consistent with their definition of quality of life adopted a scheme involving both objective and subjec- tive measures. Similar tO the concepts and measures used in this investigation, the Hornback and Shaw formula included: (1) Objective measures adapted to a 1-10 scale, (2) subjective or satisfaction measures also on a 1-10 scale, (3) a correlation between the two and (4) an importance weighting rank ordered by each individual (pp. 108-109). Although not as precisely operationalized as the above examples, both the Land model (1975) and the Gitter and Mostofsky model (1973) included both objective and subjective indicators. Land defined the life-space of 40 the individual as ". . . consisting of three measurement domains: 1. objective conditions (the external physical and social conditions of the individual's existence); 2. subjective value-context (the individual's beliefs, expecta- tions and aspirations) and 3. subjective well-being (the individual's feelings, satisfactions and frustrations concerning components of the first two sets)" (p. 27). In a complex model, Gitter and Mostofsky proposed measuring elements of the individual's life by using direct objective measures of each individual and the corresponding subjective rating (p. 295). 1.2e Change Measures Several researchers in the social indicators field, especially those from the Russell Sage Foundation, have focused on the importance of measuring change. Duncan devoted much of his Toward Social Reporting monograph (1969a) to procedures for measuring change. Duncan suggested that replication studies may be the best method, given the current data base. Sheldon and Parke (1975) emphasized that the measurement of social change is a prerequisite to the advancement of social indicators: "To comprehend what the main features of the society are, how they interrelate, and how these features and their relationships change is, in our view, the chief purpose of work on social indicators" (p. 696). Both the Sheldon and Moore (1968) and the Campbell and Converse (1972) volumes focused on change. 41 After a review of theories of societal change, Sheldon and Moore suggested that societal progress and trends can be measured only through data on change. They cited the lack of longitudinal data as the most serious gap in the social indicators field (p. 22). Similarly, Campbell and Converse stated that, ". . . it has become more and more apparent that relationships assessed at a single point in time are only uncertain indicators Of more dynamic trends" (p. 2). As reviewed above, the social indicator movement has been a diverse and complex one. Intended end uses of data and methods of measurement have been the emphasis of this section. Because the movement is still relatively young, both theoretical and empirical work are needed in many of the areas surveyed. 2. Quality of Life Research 2.1 General Research The following section will review the more pertinent findings of quality of life research. For comparative purposes, the information has been organized into chart form (Table 4). Although McCall (1975) makes a strong argument regarding the distinction between happiness and quality of life, it seems likely that happiness and quality of life are at least closely related. As a result, the findings of "happiness" studies have been included in Table 4 also. In addition, the Liu (1975c) research on quality of life used objective measures only, but was 42 o.o "mason oana co usmswomam cmmz Season mamas .m cmucawno .v UHHO3 may ca mommm .m mca>fla mo oumcsmum .N spammm .H "mswmocoo wonmz Hmcowumz “mucous OMHH umuoz w Anemone Omwa ummm "coccmlcmmo mamom mcw>wuum mcwuonOcMImamm so mamm mo Homewomam munch can mmmom 0.0 “mason OHIH GO uswswomHm com: mcwmsom .v smucafino .m mcfi>wa mo photomum unmomo .m spammm .H "mcumocoo HOnmz Hmcowumz “whammy OMHH umuoz w Amwmonc owed umwm “coccmlcwmo mamom mcw>auum mnemonoc8Imawm so mama mo ucmswomam munch can mmmom .mmmcwmmms can mom cmmzumn GOHHMHOHHOO w>wumowz “mmmsfimmmn can mEOOcH .COfluMOoUm smmzumn coflumHmHHOO m>fiuwmom .mmcwammm m>wummmc can m>auamoa neon mo mnumcmuum m>flumamu mo uHcmOH m mmwcflmmmm human OOp no: aha mamas huumum mom woman mum> wvm mmfluficoafioo mwOCHHHH e mvumm mmmm .cmz ooo.~ u 2 «human 00» no: no mamas wuumum .wmmmn >Hm> "mmmo Ommsu mum so» how 50% chO3 30; Hmsuwoou muses» Ham maaxme oumum HmomeHozoamQIHMfiuom mmcaecam Hmmwocflum mamsmm cowummsc sonmmmwu \ucmsmnsmmms mo convex consumes ummocoo Hmmwocwum enemas Haom w kuucmu “memes Hauucmo “moods Nufl3OHmmo w sucnomum muwnoumwmmm Homeoswwm mozHosz momammmm mmmzHaao co ucmsmomam cam: now .m humMMm .0 000m .m guano muoamaamu .N mead seesaw .H "mcoauomwmflMMm ummnoflm wuflwcomm Hmwocmcfim .m ucmEuummm no mmcos .0 hummmm .m Spammn .N mafia aawsmw .H umcumocoo OMfiH ucmuuomsfi umoz 5.0 u z «mgou .a .a :mmaaoaz Hausa mammocoo mafia Hm suw3 mosmuwomsH 0cm cOfluommmHumm .mmaa mo suaamam Hamum>o muwa mo muwamsa 0.0 "mamom OHIH co ucmEmOMHm smmz Seesaw mama: .m cawo3 map as momma .v cmuoawbu .m spammm .N uGH>flH mo pumocmum .H "mcnmosoo Roma: Hmcowumz Owed ummn mo ummOcoo :30 EH mmwoonsm mmmoc 0cm mmsmw3 “mamom mcw>wuum mcwuosocmnmamm mmmom 0cm mmnmflz mmGOE .NH Hmscmsoo .HH mawsmm .OH womOflwmm .m usmscum>oo Hmcowumc .m ooh .h moses» on 0» mafia .0 com .0 Spamms .v measmu ape; mace moses» .m mmwua>fluom mafia mummm .m ucmsuummm HO mmson .H "Aomumouo xcmu pose mMHH MO wuwamsv Hamum>o msfluoacmum Ou ucmuuomsw mcfimsoo NH whoa 2 “mafia n 2 “home 2 m>m>udm Hchwumz m AmCHOOCOU OHHHV mwumuwuo cam mcflmfioc mma sues coauommmaumm .muaa mo suaamnv Hamum>o mmag mo huflamsa macaccam Hmmflocflum mamsmw cowummcv noummmmu \ucmsmusmmms mo bosom: cmusmmms ummOcOO Hmmaocwum Ambmav Hmnowm w Ndondm Aeemac mmum a muums Anvnmac amnuw3 can mzmwccm mumsoummmmm Hmmwocfium Av.ucoov v mqmwa Hams» cuw3 omwmmapam .mxoaam mam .mmuenz wm0 mmawuuas .m xuo3 .v mcw>fla mo cwaocaum .m mmea adasam .N mmaua>fiuoa mcfixHO3coc .H named mo auaaasv Haaum>0 mcquHcmum Op usauMOmEH mafiaaoo HaCOfluaz mmmswmmas csa mwwa mo suaeasa Haaumpo mmaa mo mucmsmam mcwcoaocfl muwascowummsv maaom amen mo suaflasa mucm8m>mwnoa pea mGOflu uauommxm cmmzumn mocaaan «ucmsmam ucauHOmEH mumswmman m.HmsuHam .0 mmaflHHaE .m mmmoocm .cOfluwcmOOmu .v m>OH ca mcwmn .m >ua>wuoa muasfium HO ooh .N mMfiH HawOOm cca mcsmflum .H "Romumcuo gnaw pose mmmcwmman Ou usauHomEH .mOE 0 umaa um>o woman ocean amuuoamu ca 06 e Iguana» mmmc ooo.~m u z omccommmu 0:3 mumoamm (Naooa moodosoamm mmmcwmman Op cmuaamu mn Op cmumowmcoo muonusa mamHa Haum>mm msflumboo muwacs0«ummsa mmmcwmmam umzoa >Hm>wuaamu mmuaum sumnuoom HouOfipmum 000m a non chHa ucmcomsoo owsosoom mHmEam oz MMQHM HMfiOOm UGO COfl UMUDUO w suaams .Haucmscouw>cm .HaOfluwHOm .Owsocoom MO amusmams m>wuommao mafia mo suaamso mmaaacam Hamwocwum mamsam coflummsv souamamu \usmsmuomamfi mo cosumz amusmame ummOcOO Hamwoceum A0hmac mummcom w mmum>coo .Hamnmsao A0hmae casammnm Una Hm>a£m Aomhmav dag mumbouammmm Hamwocaum Aa.ucooc v mamas 45 included as a major piece of quality of life research. Perhaps the most outstanding feature that emerges when reviewing the research is that most of the individuals studied were relatively happy with their lives. Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, while accounting for the "positive aura" that occurs in social science research, suggested that reports of general satisfaction may indeed be taken at face value (1976, p. 99). If so, Americans appear to have been generally satisfied or happy with their lives since the early Cantril study conducted in 1959. Secondly, the replications of the first Cantril study are amazingly consistent. Findings revealed the same mean placement on the self-anchoring scale* from 1959 to 1974. The major concerns of the Cantril-based studies remained focused about the areas Of standard of living and family life, with the exception Of the concern for world peace, which became more important during the Vietnam years. Thirdly, several Of the studies found similar areas of life concern to be important to overall quality of life. Like the Cantril-based studies, the University Of Michigan research and the Bubolz and Eicher findings indicated that family life, income and jobs were important predictors of *A self-anchoring scale is one on which the individ- ual defines for himself what the two anchoring points are. "Best" life at the top of the scale is as the individual defines it, as is "worst" life at the bottom of the scale. 46 total well-being. Most of the studies also reinforced the primary argument of social indicator researchers that economic measures are not the sole indicators of a high quality of life. While financial security or income were found to be important, social and family relationships were also critical. 2.2 Specialized Sample Research Several researchers have pointed to the importance of examining particular segments of the population as well. Both Morrison (1972, p. 201) and Kamrany and Christakis (1970, p. 209) suggested that while overall quality of life may be high for most Americans, study of localized situation may be valuable in determining dissatisfied pockets. In a similar vein, the Social Indicators for Small Areas (1972) monograph emphasized the need for more micro-oriented data. The Beal, Klonglan, Wilcox and Brooks model (1971) was an attempt to focus on the community as a unit of analysis, rather than the nation. The Beal group also focused on rural areas, which have been largely ignored in recent social indicators research. Examples of social indicator research dealing with particular samples can be found in two state reports. The Community Activity Indicators Project in Texas was designed to aid six selected cities in developing a community management information system (Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 1974). Social indicators measuring 47 thirteen areas critical to city functioning were employed. The State of Michigan has also reviewed the possibility of using social indicators for policy planning. In a prelimi- nary report exploring the possibilities of state social reporting, investigators found that although a great deal of information was available, most was collected for other needs, difficult to disaggregate and difficult to compare (Social Reporting ig_Michigan, 1970). The primary result Of the Michigan monograph was the recommendation for an annual social goals and indicators report. An additional segment of the population that has received some attention is the elderly. Work at the Insti- tute for Interdisciplinary Studies in Minneapolis (1972) has provided information using social indicators on the status Of the elderly. Working from a problem-solving base, the economic, health and social elements of the life of the elderly citizen were examined. Subjective areas such as values and perceptions were also included. Data was reported in relation to the specific life concerns reviewed. In summary, both macro and micro research has been conducted in order to assess the quality Of American life. Such information can be invaluable in both national and local program planning. In general, satisfaction of the American people with their lives appears to be quite high, however continued research on particular segments of the population can provide even more detailed information. 48 3. The Human Ecological Approach 3.1 Ecological Frameworks The ecological framework for viewing society and social problems has received increasing attention in the 1960's and 1970's. The primary advantage is a structure that enables the researcher to include a variety of inter- related elements at various levels, thereby allowing for the complexity of environments that can be overlooked with other frameworks. Duncan (1961) encouraged the use of the ecosystem approach for the analysis Of social problems, and developed the POET (Population, Qrganization, Environment, Technology) model for such analysis. Although he has also taken part in the social indicators movement, Duncan draws only indirect linkages between the ecosystem framework he prOposed and social indicator research. Auerswald (1968) suggested the use Of the ecological approach, but at a more practical, action-oriented level. Emphasizing communication advantages among researchers, Auerswald suggested that ecological approaches focus on interfaces between areas as opposed to applying concepts of various disciplines separately. He also emphasized the advantages of the ecological approach in relation to the needs of the local community. At a somewhat higher theoretical level, Sprout and Sprout (1965) have developed a conceptual scheme including the primary concepts used in this investigation. The 49 environed unit, or organism, is described by the Sprouts as surrounded by an environment which influences, condi- tions or affects human values, choices and decisions. In describing the environment (or milieu) the Sprouts referred to both empirical and perceived phenomena. The Sprouts described the psycho-milieu as consisting of images or ideas derived from a combination of selective perceptions and individual values, memories and experiences (p. 28). These perceptions are suggested as the real guides to action. The Sprouts go on to say that definition Of the environed unit is crucial and that the environed unit be dealt with in terms Of structure and properties as is the environment or milieu. Finally, the Sprouts defined the ultimate building blocks Of all theories of man-milieu relationships as concrete human individuals. Borrowing the organizing concepts devised by the Sprouts, B. Morrison (1974) developed a complex model Of man, environment and interaction. The environed unit was conceived of as man; as an individual, as a member of a group or as a part Of society. The environment is classi— fied as natural, built and behavioral, with several sub- elements within each. Only the environments Of particular interest to this research will be reviewed here. The socio—physical built environment was described by Morrison as including the physical or inorganic materials which are transformed to meet human needs (e.g. clothing 50 and housing). Morrison suggested that the man-built environments are the primary environments of man today. The socio-psychological behavioral environment was composed of the human behavior process which consisted of values, attitudes and customs, which make up information and decision- making patterns. Morrison stated that the processed infor- mation which reflects satisfaction with the built environ- ment comes from this environment. Also included in the socio-psychological behavioral environment are the levels of needs as postulated by Maslow. Interrelationships or interactions were the final element Of the Morrison scheme. The primary interaction of interest in this investigation was between man and built environments. At this interface the emphasis is on the effects Of man on the built environ- ment and the counter-effects of the built environment on man, both physically and psychologically. The ecological approach has also been suggested as a framework for home economics research by Compton and Hall (1972). In relating the basic framework, Compton and Hall stressed the importance of investigating the individ- ual's day-to-day environments in determining individual and family well-being. They also contended that the near environment, including housing, home furnishings, household equipment, clothing and textiles, food and family can be defined and measured in terms of both physical and psycho- logical components. 51 Although not specifically defined as an ecological approach, Hacklander's (1973) study of life style in rela- tion to five areas of life focused on environments important to the individual. Hacklander investigated the importance of housing, food, clothing, transportation and recreation in relation to present life styles and aspirational life styles. Life style was defined in terms of preferences and corresponding choices. Hacklander found that housing was Of prime concern and that respondents felt that their expenditures were not in the balance they would prefer. Hacklander's focus on choices in relatiOn to various aspects of life employed the ecological perspective of individual, environment and interaction. In summary, the ecological frameworks reviewed above have included the basic notions of organism, environ- ment and interaction. Both the Morrison and the Compton and Hall approaches contain elements similar to the framework devised for this investigation, particularly the concepts Of interaction and Objective and subjective measurement. 3.2 The Environments As described previously (Chapter 1) the present investigation will focus on four environments of the indi- vidual often studied in home economics and thought to be critical to quality of life or well-being. Since a compre- hensive review Of the literature in each area is beyond the scope of this research, brief surveys of the more important 52 publications in relation to the specific concepts Of interest will be conducted. Objective measures, importance and satisfaction perceptions and relation to quality of ylife will be the foci of each section. 3.2a Clothing No research relating to clothing as an element or indicator of quality of life has been found in published form. Indeed, the only social indicator or quality of life models which referred to clothing were the models proposed by Gitter and Mostofsky (1975) which included personal physical appearance in a list of 16 categories thought to be important in measuring quality of life and the Bubolz and Eicher research (1975) which included clothing as a life concern. The significance of clothing to individual well- being can be demonstrated through its impact on feelings about the self. Humphrey, Klassen and Creekmore (1971) found clothing to be important to self-concept and feelings of self-worth. In addition, Eicher (1971), Stone (1965) and Goffman (1959) have all pointed to clothing as an extension and representation of one's visible self. Hoffman (1970) emphasized the importance of clothing for the Older woman in developing social relationships, maintaining a positive self-image and in providing ego support. Creekmore (1963), using Maslow's needs hierarchy as a basis for study- ing behavior related to clothing found that belongingness 53 and self-esteem needs were both related to clothing as a status symbol. In addition, the need for self-esteem was also related to the use Of clothing as a tool. Data concerning satisfaction with clothing tends to be somewhat dated. Warden (1955) found an emphasis on quality when measuring satisfaction with wardrobes, while Hall (1955) found most respondents generally satisfied with their wardrobes. Ryan (1966) and others have measured satisfaction with specific articles of clothing on partic- ular characteristics. Stone and Form (1955) found no significant differences in attitudes towards wardrobes between urban and rural respondents. Clothing inventories can be used as objective indicators of the condition or status Of peOple in relation to their clothing. Recent reports on clothing inventories are limited, however. Stone and Form (1955) found that city dwellers owned larger numbers of garments and paid more for them than did rural dwellers. In summary, while the importance of clothing to the individual has been suggested by several researchers, data concerning satisfaction with clothing are less extensive. Objective measures of clothing and measures of clothing in relation to quality of life are virtually non—existent. 3.2b Dwellipg Housing has been found to be of importance in over- all feelings Of well-being in quality of life research 54 (Table 4). Several of the Cantril—based studies pointed to "standard of living" as a major concern, a concept which may include housing in the minds of respondents (Cantril, 1965; Cantril and Roll, 1973; Watts and Free, 1974). Housing specifically was included by Andrews and Withey (1974a) in the list of twelve domains important to predict- ing overall quality of life. Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) also found housing to be of some importance as reported directly by respondents. The importance Of dwelling place to the individual has been discussed by several housing theorists. In dis- cussing the relationship between man and his built environ- ment, Rapopport (1975) maintained that the currently held view is that the built environment has an impact on the individual both directly and also indirectly through its effect on social and psychological environments. Rapopport further suggested that the physical environment is seen as influencing behavior, life styles and values. Montgomery (1975), on the other hand, used a needs approach to examine the importance of housing. In addition to the basic pro- tection needs, Montgomery postulated that housing fills "rootedness" and self-concept needs. Elsewhere, Montgomery (1975b) suggested that housing can have an effect on marital interaction. In the Morrison model (1974) described previously, the built environment, including housing, was seen as the primary environment of man today. 55 Housing satisfaction was measured by Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976). The majority of respondents were found to be relatively satisfied with their housing (mean of 5.57 on a 7 point scale). A high level of agree- ment was found between satisfactions expressed with housing, neighborhood and the community. In evaluating four specific characteristics of the house they lived in (room size, how well-built the structure was, heating system and costs) the large majority of the re5pondents described their homes in positive terms. These assessments were found to be partic- ularly important in overall perceptions of housing satis- factions. In comparing Objective measures of housing characteristics (such as number of rooms) with housing satisfaction, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers found a rela- tively weak level of association and concluded that satis— faction feelings were mediated by respondents' assessments Of the four characteristics described above. Objective measures of housing can be Obtained at both the macro and micro levels. Both Liu's quality of life study (1975c) and the OMB Social Indicators, 1973 report included some Objective measures of housing in examining quality of life. The OMB report focused pri- marily on crowding conditions, while the Liu study used housing data on plumbing and other facilities to measure community living conditions. The brief literature survey above indicates that 56 housing is indeed an important element in examining quality Of life as well as individual beliefs and values. Satis- factions with housing were seen to be important. Objective measures of housing have also proven useful in quality of life research. 3.2c Famiiy The centrality of the family in determining quality Of life has been demonstrated in several research projects (Table 4). Family life has consistently been regarded as a major concern in determining well-being. Andrews and Withey (1974a) found feeling about family life to be among the important predictors of overall perceptions of well-being. Similarly, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) found that satisfaction scores on the family life domain accounted for 28% of the variance in the overall well-being index (p. 76). In addition, over one-third of the Campbell, Converse and Rodgers respondents named family life as one of the two most important domains (p. 76). At the theoretical level, Stolte-Heiskanen (1974) suggested using social indicators as measures of the linkages between the family and the larger social system. Employing a systems approach, Stolte-Heiskanen linked the family to society through a hierarchy of family needs. She viewed social indicators as the tools through which social policy can be designed to meet family needs. In this investigation, family interaction and 57 satisfaction will be measured primarily in terms of communi- cation patterns. The following review will thus focus on this concept. Some information will also be provided regarding the larger kin network, a concept which has caused some controversy among family researchers. Sussman and Burchinal (1962) have argued that the traditional isolated nuclear family is not empirically evident. In its place, they proposed the concept of the modified extended kin network. Although they focused pri- marily on financial exchanges, Sussman and Burchinal included visiting and communication as a type Of kin interaction important to family well-being. Sussman supported their theory with data from a 1961 study of 500 Cleveland families (1965). Measuring both propinquity and communication, Sussman determined that the majority of families in his sample were integrated in terms of location (propinquity) and communication. In a challenge to the Sussman theory, Gibson (1972) suggested that the isolated nuclear family does indeed exist. Gibson included among the criticisms of the Sussman research the idea that some types and amounts of communication cannot be considered good indicators of family integration. Gibson contended that availability, proximity, frequency of contact and functionality of kin should all be included as dimensions of family interactions. Bultena (1969) found that contrary to expectations, urban adult children saw their parents more frequently than 58 their rural counterparts. Bultena added, however, that the degree of contact was relatively high for both groups. Emerson (1970), in a study of the relationship between kin network help patterns and family characteristics, found nO differences between low and high socio-economic participants according to the type, source and recipient of help. Emerson defined help in terms of the receipt of and giving Of $50 or more in gifts to family members. Emerson also found that young families were more dependent on parents and other relatives for help; middle-age families were more dependent on parents, grown children and other rela- tives for help; and older families were more dependent on grown children and other relatives for help. In addition to measuring the extended family Objec- tively by using amount of communication, statistical data can also be used as an objective indicator. The majority of research summarized in Table 4 included some Objective family structure data. Ferris (1970) measured the family objectively using statistical data, while Goode (1968) also emphasized "hard" data in evaluating change in the family. In examining satisfactions with family life, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) found a large percentage of their respondents to be satisfied (p. 337). They also found marital status to be the most discriminating indicator of family life satisfaction. They concluded that the major contributors to satisfaction with family life were the 59 individual's relationship with his children and his spouse, with sibling and parent relations being relatively less important (p. 344). In conclusion, the importance of family life in measuring overall quality of life has been demonstrated by several researchers. Similarly, satisfaction with family life has also been shown to be critical. Objective measures Of family well-being include both measures of interaction through kin communication and statistical information relat- ing to family structure and change. 3.2d Community Although several researchers have encouraged further research at a more localized level, community measurements have not been of critical importance in analysis of overall feeling of happiness or well-being (Table 4). Because much of the early literature focused on national goals and reports, a great deal of work has emphasized measurements and models at the macro level. Beal, Klonglan, Wilcox and Brooks (1971) argued for additional disaggregation and recommended the community as the unit of analysis. In their model of the community ecosystem, the Beal group suggested disaggregating the population of the community even further to the individual level. Relatively less theory or research has selected the individual as the unit of analysis and measured the community in terms of its impact on individual well-being. Several of the more recent studies employing 60 primarily subjective measures have measured community importance and satisfaction, however. In the Campbell and Converse volume on subjective social indicators, Rossi (1972) spoke to the impact of the local community on the daily life of the individual. Rossi pointed out that public policies, employment, law enforce- ment, education, consumption and recreation all take place within the confines of the local community. Rossi suggested that one of the primary issues in community study should be to ascertain whether the local community serves merely as a backdrop for individual activities or whether it pro- vides significant input into individual levels of well-being. Community solidarity and integration, relationships to central local institutions and social-psychological aspects Of housing are suggested as the principle variables Of interest in measuring community importance and satisfac- tion. In a review of literature relating to community satisfaction, Marans and Rodgers (1975) concluded that most people tend to be fairly content with the community in which they live. They also determined that the social setting, the physical conditions of the environment and the convenience of having nearby facilities and services were important factors related to general community satis- faction. As members Of the Institute for Social Research team headed by Campbell and Converse, Marans and Rodgers 61 also developed a model for investigating community satis- faction. Satisfaction was seen tO be a function of the Objective attributes of the environment, the perceptions Of those attributes, and assessments of the perceived attributes as formulated through some standard of compari- son. Thus both the objective environment and the subjec- tive perceptions of it are taken into account. Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) found a high level of satisfaction with community. Over one-third of their respondents reported that they were "completely satisfied" with the communities in which they lived, with less than one out of ten reporting they were dissatisfied to some degree (p. 222). Community satisfaction was found to be of moderate importance in predicting global measures of life satisfaction. In addition, older respondents reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their communities than younger respondents. Although the University of Michigan group included Objective measures of the community in their model, none were taken. Several of the larger quality Of life studies, however, focused on objective measures Of community. In evaluating standard metrOpOlitan statistical areas, Liu (1975c) included objective measures for the purpose of analyzing "community" quality Of life. Similarly, the measures employed by the OMB in preparing the Social Indicators, 1973 report such as health, safety, and 62 education can easily be adapted to the community level. In addition, census data concerning such aspects of community life as number of doctors and schools can be utilized to describe the community objectively. Most objective measures can be seen as indicators of the community resources avail- able to residents. However, such measures do not include resident use of available resources. The importance of the community to individual well- being has been demonstrated both conceptually and empiri- cally. Levels of community satisfaction have been found to be quite high. Objective measures of community resources can provide the base for measuring perceptions of satisfac- tion with the community. 4. The "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" Project 4.1 The Framework The framework developed for the larger study of which this investigation is an extension can be viewed in relation to the literature surveyed above. The primary objective of the larger study was to investigate the quality of life through social indicators. An additional benefit was expected in the form Of data for use by policy planners. Rather than employing the inductive approach, a model was developed to order the elements of the system. The model developed by Bubolz and Eicher (1976) reflects some influence from the systems models described 63 previously. The model can be seen in relation to the Morrison model (1974), including the use Of the environed unit, environment, and interaction concepts. In the selection of measures, Bubolz and Eicher adapted the Andrews and Withey (1976a) concepts of global perceptual indicators Of well-being and the more specific life concerns. Like some of the literature surveyed, the framework for the larger study also implied the importance Of objective and subjective measures by incorporating both of them into the model. The basic framework for the larger study is described in Figure 2. Ecosystem components Indicators 1. environed unit objective perceptual 2. near environment objective perceptual 3. interaction Objective perceptual Figure 2. "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" framework (Bubolz and Eicher, 1976, Figure 5) The ecosystem investigated was described as consist— ing of individuals and families in their near environment, including clothing, dwelling place, adjacent surroundings, neighborhood and community. Perceptual measures included the global measure as developed by Andrews and Withey as well as measures of importance and satisfaction of 21 life concerns selected from the Andrews and Withey list of 123 concerns. The Cantril self-anchoring scale was adapted for 64 the importance and satisfaction measures. Similar to McCall (1975), Bubolz and Eicher assumed that need satis— faction was critical to quality Of life. 4.2 Relevant Findings The findings of the larger study have been included in Table 4 for comparative purposes. Several additional findings deserve to be emphasized, however. Higher life satisfactions were found among those who were younger, had higher incomes, were employed and had family members living with them (Bubolz and Eicher, 1975, p. 13). The majority Of the respondents were quite satisfied with their community. Community satisfaction scores and overall quality Of life scores were also highly correlated. The life concern of lowest importance was clothing. In general the areas of greatest importance reflected those related to basic needs such as family, health, financial security, home and safety (p. 16). Satisfaction with life concerns focused on family, food, religion, safety and work (p. 18). Dissatis- faction with financial security was notable in view of the high importance placed on it. Correlations between satis- factions with certain life concerns and perceptions of overall quality of life centered about feelings about oneself and self efficacy as well as basic need areas such as housing, safety, financial security, clothing and family life. The authors concluded that, 65 . . . the life concerns most predictive support our basic hypothesis that perceived overall quality Of life is very much related to specific areas represent- ing feelings about oneself, and interaction with human and material resources of the near environment which meet basic needs. (p. 20) 5. Summary This investigation will attempt to explore the impact of four specified environments on perceptions of life quality. The environments can be conceptualized as indicators of well-being and will be measured objectively. The environed unit, or individual, will be viewed as a total being and will thus be examined using both Objective and subjective indicators. The preceding review Of litera- ture was intended to serve as a backdrop for the following analysis. The social indicator movement including the social reporting, social modeling and quality of life perspectives, serves indirectly as the impetus for this research. It is hoped that through the use of a partial model, quality of life insights can be Obtained that will eventually add to the body Of data required for social reporting. Measurement methods are another critical aspect. Several quality of life projects reviewed have found the environments closest to the individual critical in deter- mining well-being. The human ecological approach which focuses on the interaction between the individual and his near environments may be a viable tool in investigating quality of life. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The research reported here is an outgrowth of the 1975 "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" Agricultural Experiment Station Project. The project was longitudinal in nature, using the sample and measures of a 1956 Michigan State University Sociology Department study. The research reported here makes use of 1956 data for background pur- poses and 1975 data for analysis within the model as developed. The case study sample used for this research was drawn from the 1975 sample. In addition, new data were collected in 1976 by this researcher from the case study sample for use in combination with the 1975 information. The sample and data collected in 1976, therefore, are unique to this study and constitute an addition to the existing body of information obtained in 1956 and 1975. Section 1 below (Research Development) will describe the 1956 and 1975 samples and measures. Sections 2 and 3 will review the deve10pment of the measures and the selection Of the sample used in this research. Section 4 will review the procedures for collecting the data used in the conceptual model developed by this researcher. Section 5 will describe 66 67 the data analysis unique to this study. 1. Research Development 1.1 1956 Sample and Measures In 1956 the Sociology Department at Michigan State University participated in a regional study to survey people who remained in economically depressed areas (i.e. the cut- over areas of the Great Lakes region). Data collected dealt with community satisfaction, social costs and aspira- tions and demographic characteristics (Eicher, 1956). A primary goal was to examine social mobility (or the lack Of it) in relation to age and ethnicity. The sample was a random selection Of one—fourth of the households in the McMillan and Greenland townships of Ontonagon county in Michigan's Upper Penninsula. At that time, Ontonagon county had experienced several decades of out-migration. The sample was proportionately drawn to include equally residents of three small villages (Greenland and Mass in Greenland township and Ewen in McMillan township) and the inhabitants of the surrounding open country. The sample consisted of 168 heads of households or their Spouses. The measuring instrument was an interview schedule con- sisting primarily Of Open-ended questions (Appendix A). 1.2 1975 Sample and Measures In 1975 researchers in the College Of Human Ecology conducted a study of the quality of life, change and stability using the 1956 sample in Ontonagon (Bubolz and 68 Eicher, 1975; Bubolz and Eicher, 1976; Eicher, Bubolz, and Evers, 1976; Evers, 1976). Sixty-seven (approximately 40%) of the households studied in 1956 were reinterviewed, including 54 of the original respondents and 13 spouses.* Both sexes were rather evenly represented (43% male, 57% female). Because of the longitudinal nature Of the study, the respondents were in the middle to upper years. The measuring instrument was again in interview schedule form (Appendix B). After the initial verification Of the identity Of the respondents, the marital dyad, residence and occupation were updated. Perceptions Of change since 1956 were measured through the use Of Open-ended questions. Community satisfaction and dwelling characteristic ques- tions were repeated as they existed in the 1956 question- naire. Information regarding the residential location of children as well as the amount of telephone, letter and visitation contact with children were also Obtained. Three measures relating to the quality of life were presented in addition to the longitudinal measures. The perceived overall quality of life (POQL) question, developed by Andrews and Withey (1974b), formed the basis *Fifty-two of the original 168 subjects were identified as deceased, six were known to have moved out Of the two townships and 35 were not traceable because names were inconsistently recorded on the original 1956 interviews. 69 for the selection of the sample of this investigation (Figure 1, Chapter 1). The measure consisted of a 1-7 point scale upon which subjects placed themselves in response to the question, "What number best describes how you feel about your life as a whole?" One represented the highest possible rating and seven the lowest. The question was asked twice in the interview, once near the beginning and as a final question. The arithmetic mean Of the two rankings was used as the measure of perceived overall quality of life. The self-anchoring ladder of importance (SALI) scale provided further in-depth information regarding the value or importance placed on selected life concerns (Figure 3). The scale, developed by Bubolz for the 1975 investigation, was based on Cantril's Self-Anchoring Striving Scale (1966). The respondent was asked to think Of what was important to him/her and then shown a card on which a five-step ladder was printed. The subject was informed that the top of the ladder represented things of very high importance and the bottom things of no importance. Respondents were initially asked to name the things they would put at the tOp of the ladder. They were then given a list of 21 life concerns and asked to place them on the steps of the ladder representing the importance they placed on each concern. The list of 21 concerns was selected by Bubolz from the Andrews and Withey (1974b) '70 .co_uaut0amcatu rogue to tau .me__ tao> mc.coua0tn pea e_mmt:0> mc_a0_o>mo mc_ou m. acoEcto>0m _ac0_»az .30 was: mm_u_>_uua mc_xt03 ucOc L30>aume_u mtaam 5:0» unmam 30> >a3 och mucm_te t30> ru_3 m>ar 30> was.“ of“ cam 00 30> mmc_ru och AEOcmmtev mucmccmampc_ me.— >a0u0u->au mc_ummtuuc_ ca mc_>a: 000; goo—m me__ >__Eau 0_t03 tao> e0 mmmcm>muuatuua pea >uaamm >u_t:umm _a_ucacmu ucmsutaaa to manor . m>__ 30> mum—a an» mc_;uo_u c0_m__m¢ acms>0Hcm 0cm can c0_u_acou .au_m>;a pea ru_amr :30 tao> 020; um :50: t0 cam a tmzumo n xtoz mc_50020m mc_rm__aeouu< ucmEc0t_>co .atauac 0;» e0 c0_u_a:Oo >uoeam untoucOQ mm_4 wo¢mhz_ m mucoflm '3' 44< h< muzhhw¢dv 3.25.25 :8: 53> “a m4 >a3 one oe_. t30> mc_cuvaota uca mc_a0_o>ou eta 30> £0.53 ou.uaouxo are mc_00 a. ucoscto>0m .ac0_uaz L30 “an: mo_u_>_uua mcmxtoz :00: L30> .os_u otaan t30> acman 30> >0: orb nvco_te t30> zu_3 «>0: 30> mos—u any 000 00 30> mmc_ru one 00 0» new: 30> war: 00 0» oucacu any a 50000;» to mucoucoaoacw t30> u_ oe_— >00n0uu>wv t30> mc_ummtmuc_ 30: 000: new new: 30> uc3osa 0cm uc_x ocu mc_>ac a 000m umm 30> emu—m or» cmtu__ru t30> .moa_ttas t30> .0canm3r\uw.3 t30>ouoe__ >__sae :30 030> 0_t03 L30> c_ mmoc0>_uuatuua 0:0 >unamn e0 uc3osa one >__a_ucac_e ota 30> mc3uum :0: acosutaaaxom30r t30> no»: new yea: 30> 0a.: ecu mc_>ac a mc_ru0_u numae m3o_mm_mt L30> m>ar 30> acuE>0aco uca c3e e0 uc3osa an» c0_u_0cou _au_n>ca 0cm no.0»; :30 t30> nos .30» 0e__ t30> c. mc_cm~_a60000 ota 30> gar: aura u_;u c_ roam; 0cm aca— .t_a on» .ucoEcot_>co _atauac on» to comu_0cou one >uouan t30> actoucOu 0e_4 _4ma4hmo: h44<2du haom< n aux—t ou.um_b4hmo: omm0uo0uuum 0 000000 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000 000000000 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000500000\0msom .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000006 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0002 .o 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 000000500 0000000050000 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 000acou0>0m 0000002 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000 .0 .c.m M .©.m M .U.m m .p.m M mammosou 0000.0 000000 00000 0000 0000 0000 300 00000 n00m whoa 02¢ mnma .moomw QOOm 30A HEB DZd abomw 000m mOHm mmB mom mmmOUm ZOHB¢H>MQ DMmo .9 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm.0 00.0 00.m mm.0 oo.m unmadum>ow 00s00umz .m mw.o oo.m mm.o mm.m «0.0 #oo.0 00.0 00.m mm0u0>0uo< mfiwulmummm .m om.o om.m mm.o 0m.m oo.o oo.m 00.0 00.0 mpcmflum .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm.m 0m.o wom.0 m~.0 00.0 mocmpsmmmocH .m om.o 00.0 mm.o mm.m 00.0 @00.m mo.0 mm.0 mwfla mmpnoulwmp oC0umewucH .o .©.m M .p.m M .p.m m .©.m M mammocou mm00 000000 0m000 00m0 mhma 0000 300 00000 0000 00.0coov 0 mqmae 135 mm.o nm.m mm.o mm.m Hq.o mm.m mm.o hm.m @000 .z mw.o mm.m mm.o mv.m mm.o mm.m no.0 oo.m mmmam .z ow.a mm.v Hm.H mv.v av.o na.o vm.o om.m waflawm .0 mm.o hm.v >N.H nm.m vm.o om.m mo.H om.m mmmcm>wuomuuu¢ w wusmmm .M H~.H va.v Hm.H nm.m mm.o ®ov.m av.o ha.m wufiusomm Hafiocmaflm .h mm.o oo.m om.o mm.v mh.o mm.m mn.o mm.m pcmEuum0¢\mmsom .H oo.a oo.m oo.H mm.v mw.o no.m mm.o hm.m @cwsuoHU .m mm.o *om.m mm.o «om.m hH.H mm.m mm.a mm.m coamwamm .w mh.o mm.v mm.o hm.v mm.o hm.m av.o mm.m can .0 mm.a HB.¢ om.a an.v om.a mm.v 5v.H mm.v Spammm .m mm.H ®o~.v mm.o «mm.v hm.H hm.m mm.o mm.m xuoz .0 mv.a vH.w Hm.H nm.v om.a wom.m mn.o na.m mcflnumeom ocanmflamfiooo< .0 mh.o «ha.m mH.H mv.m mm.o mm.m mm.o mm.m pcmecouw>cm amusumz .m mm.H va.m vm.a va.m mm.o no.m mm.o nm.m apmmmm .¢ .©.m M .@.m M .U.m M .U.m M mammocoo mafia whoa mnma mnma mnma 3.80m 33 Zoom 33m whoa 02¢ mhma ~mbom0 0000 300 HEB 02¢ msomw 0000 EOHE mmfi mom mmmOUm 20HB¢H>00 0m¢02¢9m 02¢ 2¢m2 mq¢m b mqm¢9 136 .v n 2* “m n 29 up u 2*. No u 2* mm.o oo.m oo.H oo.m mm.o nm.m mm.o om.m cowumuuommcmue .D mm.a om.q mn.o 5H.v ~m.o ¢oo.m mo.a mm.m MHmm mcfimoam>mo .a mm.a mm.m n>.H va.m H>.o woo.v mm.o oo.v unmecnm>oo anneaumz .m mm.o .oo.m no.a mm.v «m.o woo.m mo.H om.m mmflufl>fluoa mefleumummm .m mv.o mm.m mm.o va.m av.o mm.m mo.H om.m mccmwum .0 om.o «H.m mm.H mm.v mm.o mm.m mn.o 5H.m mocmucmmmucH .m mm.o mm.v no.a mm.m H>.o ®oo.m mo.H mm.m mMflH hwUIoulhmv mcflumwumacH .0 .U.m M .U.m M .U.m M .©.m M mammocou mmaq mnma mnma whma mnma «.qoom 30g *qoom swam Aw.»coov n mamas 137 TABLE 8 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SCORES BETWEEN 1975 AND 1976 Life Concerns SALI SALI SALS SALS High POQL Low POQL High POQL Low POQL Safety Natural Environment Accomplishing Something Work Health Fun Religion Clothing House/ Apartment Financial Security Beauty & Attractiveness Family Sleep Food Interesting day-day life Independence Friends Spare-time Activities National Government Developing Self Transportation +0.50 -0.23 —0.67 +0.17 +0.17 +0.17 +0.50 +0.17 +0.83 +0.37 +0.17 +0.73 +0.66 -0.73 +0.20 +1.00 +0.83 +0.17 -0.80 +0.67 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 +0.10 -0.07 +0.33 +0.46 -O.24 +0.38 +0.29 ‘+0.28 +0.81 +0.31 +0.19 +0.67 -0.83 +0.77 +1.00 +0.34 -0.97 -0.16 +0.23 -0.33 -0.67 +0.16 -0.33 +0.16 +0.33 +0.50 -0.33 +0.17 -0.26 -0.43 -0.28 +0.71 +0.14 +0.57 -l.00 -0.l4 -O.14 +0.43 +0.28 +0.15 +0.14 +0.15 +0.33 138 When comparing the SALI and SALS scales, more mean changes occurred for both groups on the SALI scale, pri- marily in the direction of increased importance. Although fewer changes occurred on the SALS scale, both groups reported both increasing and decreasing satisfactions with the various life concerns between 1975 and 1976. Respon- dents of the high and the low groups reported decreasing satisfaction with both work and accomplishing something between 1975 and 1976. Increasing satisfactions for both groups were found in the financial, independence, friends and spare—time areas, however. Because the amount of change on the SALS and SALI scales between 1975 and 1976 for the entire pOpulation was small, differences between the groups in the amount or direction of change were not great. On the SALI scale, the "interesting day-to-day life" and "developing self" life concerns showed the greatest discrepancy, with the members of the high POQL group placing less importance on each area between 1975 and 1976 and the members of the low POQL group more. Few large differences were found between the high group and the low group concerning changes in SALS scale responses between 1975 and 1976, although small differences can be seen in the concerns of natural environ- ment, clothing, beauty and attractiveness, interesting day- to-day life and developing self. 139 2.4c The High POQL Group and the Low Group - SALI and SALS Because the two groups were determined on the basis of 1975 responses, a comparison of them in relation to SALI and SALS responses will focus on 1975 data, including 1976 information when necessary. The selection of one particular year for comparison was done primarily to avoid unnecessary complexity in analysis, since there were few critical changes in responses between 1975 and 1976. The differences between the high group and the low group on the importance of the various life concerns were not major (Table 9). Both groups rated family and health very high in terms of importance in both years. Of low importance to both groups in both years was clothing. Many of the differences between the groups evident in 1975 were negligible by 1976 (Table 10). Only in the concerns of spare-time activities and national government were any noticeable differences maintained. On the concern of spare-time activities the high POQL group placed more importance, while the concern of national government was rated less important. Standard deviations tended to be somewhat large, however, particularly for the high POQL group, indicating that although mean differences may not have been critical, there could have been large discrepancies between individuals, both within one group and between groups. It appears that the differences between the members 140 TABLE 9 1975 MEAN SALI SCORES, THE HIGH POQL GROUP AND THE LOW POQL GROUP (+ indicates a higher ranking by the members of low POQL, - a lower ranking) High Low Life Concerns POQL* POQL* Difference A. Safety 3.67 4.33 +0.66 B. Natural Environment 3.83 4.17 +0.34 C. Accomplishing Something 4.00 4.17 +0.34 D. Work 4.50 4.200 -0.30 E. Health 4.83 5.00** +0.17 F. Fun 3.33 3.33 O G. Religion 3.83 3.50 -0.33 H. Clothing 2.67 2.67 0 I. House/Apartment 4.00 3.83 ~O.l7 J. Financial Security 3.67 4.50 +0.83 K. Beauty & Attractiveness 3.83 3.67 -0.16 L. Family 4.83 4.33 -0.50 M. Sleep 3.83 4.14** +0.31 N. Food 3.67 3.86** +0.19 0. Interesting day-day life 4.33 3.33 -l.00 P. Independence 4.00 3.83 -0.17 Q. Friends 4.00 3.67 -0.33 R. Spare-time Activities 3.17 2.33 -0.84 8. National Government 3.00 4.83 +1.83 T. Developing Self 4.00 2.83 -l.l7 U. Transportation 3.33 3.00 -0.33 *N = 6; **N = 7; @N II m 141 TABLE 10 1976 MEAN SALI SCORES, THE HIGH POQL GROUP AND THE LOW POQL GROUP (+ indicates a higher ranking by the members of low POQL, - a lower ranking) High Low Life Concerns POQL* POQL** Difference A. Safety 4.17 4.29 +0.12 B. Natural Environment 3.60@ 4.14 +0.54 C. Accomplishing Something 3.60@ 4.14 +0.54 D. Work 3.83 3.57 -0.26 E. Health 5.00 5.00 0 F. Fun 3.50 3.43 -0.07 G. Religion 4.00 3.43 -0.57 H. Clothing 3.17 3.00 -0.17 I. House/Apartment 4.17 4.29 +0.12 J. Financial Security 4.50 4.50 0 K. Beauty & Attractiveness 4.20@ 3.43 -0.77 L. Family 5.00 4.71 -0.29 M. Sleep 4.00 4.43 +0.43 N. Food 4.33 4.14 -0.19 0. Interesting day—day life 3.60@ 4.14 +0.54 P. Independence 4.20@ 4.14 -0.06 Q. Friends 5.00 3.86 -l.14 R. Spare-time Activities 4.00# 3.00 -l.00 S. National Government 3.17 4.00 +0.83 T. Developing Self 3.20@ 3.60 +0.40 U. Transportation 4.00 4.00 O *N = 6; **N = 7; @N = 5; #N = 4. 142 of the high group and the low group on overall quality of life perceptions cannot be explained by differing percep- tions of the importance of the 21 life concerns. Differences between the members of the two groups were much more pronounced on the SALS scale. Members of the low POQL group felt less satisfied with each of the 21 life concerns in both years, with the exception of slightly higher satisfactions with the concerns of natural environ- ment and beauty and attractiveness in 1975 (Tables 11 and 12). The greatest differences in the two groups occurred in the concern areas of accomplishing something, work, fun, financial security, family and independence. Although many of the 21 life concerns deal with elements of daily living, the above concerns are particularly important aspects of one's day to day life. In addition, when evaluating one's life in a historical perspective, such areas could assume increased importance over other life concerns. When asked to evaluate one's life "as a whole" accomplishing something, work, money and family are critical in that they influence a large share of one's life, both on a day-to-day basis and over a lifetime. Mixed feelings about such large segments of one's life inevitably lead to mixed feelings about life overall. Finally, it should be noted that all of the above concerns represent areas of particular importance to older individuals, as well as 143 TABLE 11 1975 SALS MEAN SCORES, THE HIGH POQL GROUP AND THE LOW POQL GROUP (+ indicates a higher ranking by the members of low POQL, - a lower ranking) High Low Life Concerns POQL* POQL** Difference A. Safety 5.67 5.14 -0.53 B. Natural Environment 5.33 5.43 -0.10 C. Accomplishing Something 6.17 4.57 -l.60 D. Work 6.33 4.83* -l.50 E. Health 4.83 4.71 -0.12 F. Fun 5.83 4.57 -l.26 G. Religion 5.83 5.50* -0.33 H. Clothing 5.67 4.29 -1.38 I. House/Apartment 5.83 4.86 -0.97 J. Financial Security 5.17 3.57 -1.60 K. Beauty & Attractiveness 5.50 5.57 -0.07 L. Family 6.50 4.43 -2.07 M. Sleep 6.00 5.43 -0.57 N. Food 5.67 5.57 -0.10 O. Interesting day-day life 5.33 3.86 -l.47 P. Independence 6.17 4.86 -l.31 Q. Friends 5.50 5.14 -0.36 R. Spare-time Activities 5.50 4.86 -0.64 S. National Government 4.00 3.14 -1.16 T. Developing Self 5.33 4.17 -l.l6 U. Transportation 5.50 5.00 -0.50 *N : 6; **N = 7. 144 TABLE 12 1976 SALS MEAN SCORES, THE HIGH POQL GROUP AND THE LOW POQL GROUP (+ indicates a higher ranking by the members of low POQL, - a lower ranking) High Low Life Concerns POQL* POQL** Difference A. Safety 5.67 5.14 -0.53 B. Natural Environment 5.67 5.17* -0.50 C. Accomplishing Something 5.200 4.14 -l.06 D. Work 5.67 4.200 -l.47 E. Health 4.83 4.71 -0.12 F. Fun 5.67 4.29 -l.38 G. Religion 5.83 5.50* -0.33 H. Clothing 5.67 5.00 -0.67 I. House/Apartment 5.83 5.00 -0.83 J. Financial Security 5.400 4.14 -1.26 K. Beauty & Attractiveness 5.50 4.57 -0.93 L. Family 6.17 4.29 -l.88 M. Sleep 5.33 5.29 -0.04 N. Food 5.83 5.57 -0.26 0. Interesting day-day life 5.000 4.29 -O.7l P. Independence 6.33 5.14 -l.l9 0. Friends 5.83 5.29 -0.54 R. Spare-time Activities 6.00# 5.00* -l.00 S. National Government 4.000 3.29 -O.7l T. Developing Self 5.00# 4.50 -0.50 U. Transportation 5.67 5.00 -0.67 *N = 6; **N = 7; 0N 145 areas in which increasing age can bring additional feelings of dissatisfaction. In summary, the members of the high POQL group and the low POQL group differed primarily in perceptions of satisfactions rather than in perceptions of importance. In response to the research question of differences in percep- tions of selves (Related Research Question c, Chapter 1), those individuals who had mixed feelings about their lives do indeed have different perceptions of satisfaction with life concerns, but not of the importance of the specified concerns. 2.4d Objective Variables Demographic characteristics of the individual can offer an objective view of the differences between the members of the two groups. A comparison of the mean age for each group (Table 13) shows that the members of the low POQL group were older than the members of the high POQL group. In addition, the larger standard deviation for the TABLE 13 MEAN AGE OF RESPONDENTS Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 60.83 14.12 Low POQL 64.86 6.39 146 high group indicates that ages varied to a greater extent. While two members of the high POQL group were still in their forties, the lowest age in the low POQL group was 58. The high POQL group also had a greater number of female members when compared with the low group (Table 14). The TABLE 14 SEX OF RESPONDENTS Females Males High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 3 4 family incomes of the two groups also varied to some extent (Table 15). The high POQL group had two individuals at the higher levels and fewer at the lower levels. The occupations of the respondents of the two groups can be viewed in relation to the age, sex and income variables (Table 16). The greater number of females in the high POQL group is seen in the number of homemakers. When examined in combination with the occupations of the heads of the households, the higher incomes of some of the members of the high POQL group can be seen as stemming from steady income jobs (e.g. White Pine, teaching). In contrast, the lower income levels of the members of the low POQL group 147 TABLE 15 FAMILY INCOME Under 2,000- 4,000— 6,000- 2,000 3,999 5,999 7,999 High POQL 1 Low POQL* 2 1 8,000- 10,000- 14 000- Over 9,999 11,999 15 999 16,000 High POQL 1 1 1 Low POQL* 1 1 *Two respondents failed to disclose income levels, however both lived primarily on social security and could be assumed to be at the middle to lower income levels. TABLE 16 OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENT White Pine Home— Woods Mine Farming maker Teacher Work Retired Group A l 4 1 Group B l l 2 l 2 148 TABLE 17 OCCUPATION OF HEAD White Pine Home- Woods Mine Farming maker Teacher Work Retired High POQL 2 1 1 1 1 Low POQL 1 l l l 3 are a result of retirement and homemaking activities which produce little in the way of income. Although several respondents in the high group had low educational levels, the presence of one respondent with a college degree served to raise the mean of the group in the income area as well as the education category (Table 18). The greater number of homemakers with employed spouses in the high POQL group also tends to make the educational level a less important characteristic in terms of income. For the retired members of the low POQL group, however, the TABLE 18 EDUCATION OF RESPONDENT Grades Over 1-4 5-6 7-9 10-11 12 12 8.5. M.A. High POQL 1 1 1 2 1 Low POQL 5 l l 149 lower educational level could influence previous employment and thus retirement benefits. At any rate, the low levels of education of both groups is reflected in both occupa- tion and income. Little difference between the members of the groups were seen in objective measures of health status. Visits to the doctor occurred with similar frequency, while the members of the high group experienced slightly more hospital stays (Tables 19 through 21). Thus, the higher age levels of the members of the low group did not seem to affect differences in objective health status to any extent. TABLE 19 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOCTOR Once Once Once 2-3X per per 2 per per week weeks month year High POQL l 1 Low POQL 2 3 Once Once per per 2 When Don't year years needed know High POQL 2 1 1 Low POQL 1 l 150 TABLE 20 ANY HOSPITAL STAY WITHIN LAST YEAR Yes No High POQL 3 3 Low POQL 2 5 TABLE 21 NUMBER OF TIMES CONFINED TO HOSPITAL WITHIN LAST YEAR Once Twice Three times High POQL 3 Low POQL 1 1 In summary, the members of the low POQL group were older, had less education and lower incomes than the members of the high POQL group. The presence of homemakers and a professional in the high group also distinguished the groups in terms of occupation. In response to the research question related to objective factors (Related Research Question a, Chapter 1), the individuals of the two groups do differ to some extent, with the members of the groups having less positive feelings lacking the elements that tend to create happiness in our society, including income, 151 occupation, education and youth. The members of the high group, however, are more widely distributed in the age, income and education categories, while the members of the low group are more homogenous. Such differences in vari- ation between the members of each group make analysis more difficult. 2.4e Objective and Subjective Comparisons Several relationships between the objective condi- tions of the respondents and their subjective perceptions can be seen. The age of the respondents and the very high importance placed on health are expected links. Similarly, the high importance placed on financial security on the SALI scale is a reflection of both the higher age and low income of members of both groups. Although the groups were similar in objective measures of health, they differed to some extent concerning their perceptions of their conditions, with the members of the low POQL group tending to rate the status of their health lower than the members of the high POQL group (Table 22). Thus, although the number of doctor and hospital visits was constant, the members of the low group felt that their health conditions were poorer. Analysis of objective conditions in relation to perceptions of satisfaction are a bit more complex. Several of the life concerns on which the groups differed markedly 152 TABLE 22 RATING OF OWN HEALTH Excellent Good Fair Poor High POQL 2 2 l 1 Low POQL 3 l 3 in level of satisfaction could be age related. The members of the low POQL group, who felt less satisfied with their accomplishments, work, fun and financial security were also older than the members of the high POQL group which could account for some of the differences. The lower incomes and educational levels of the low POQL group members could also affect feelings of satisfaction in relation to financial security and accomplishments. 2.4f Perceptions of Change Tables 23 through 26 summarize the differences between the members of the high POQL group and the low POQL group in their perceptions of changes that occurred since the 1956 interview. In reSponse to how they felt about their lives in 1975 as compared to 1956, the members of the low group expressed more distinctly negative feelings than the members of the high group. In keeping with the objective findings discussed above, although the members of the high group experienced some negative changes since 153 TABLE 23 COMPARISON OF LIFE WITH 20 YEARS AGO Better off Worse off Mixed Same High POQL 3 l l 1 Low POQL 4 3 TABLE 24 REASONS FOR BETTER/WORSE PERCEPTIONS OF LIFE AS COMPARED TO 20 YEARS AGO (All responses recorded) More Better More freedom financially mature now Retirement High POQL 4 l 1 Low POQL l l 2 Increasing age, Worse illnesses, No Happier financially deaths future then High POQL 2 Low POQL 1 1 2 l 154 1956 (e.g. illnesses and deaths) they thought of themselves as better off financially. The feelings of no future and a worsening financial condition, combined with retirement, which most often affects income, seem to indicate less positive feelings about the changes that occurred among the members of the low POQL group. In a further probe of changes, respondents were asked to Specify changes in their own lives as well as their family lives. The members of the low POQL group, perhaps because of their higher ages, reported more deaths, illness and feelings of increasing age (Table 25). A com— bination of these responses plus the perception of a deteriorated family life seems to indicate more negative perceptions of change by the members of the low POQL group than the members of the high POQL group. Changes in family life were not as differentiating, however. Both groups mentioned the growth and departure of children as well as deaths and illnesses. Only one respondent, a member of the low POQL group, indicated distinctly negative family life change other than deaths and illnesses. In answer to related research question b (Chapter 1% the groups did appear to have somewhat different per- ceptions of the changes in their lives since 1956. The members of the low POQL group seemed to view such changes in a more negative light, particularly in the financial and 155 25 TABLE IN LAST 20 YEARS (All responses recorded) CHANGES IN OWN LIFE maoz umnuo mwfla MHHEMM oopmuoaumumo m0>oz mnummc .mmmmmcHHH .mmm mcflmmmuocH #COEOHHfiOm mmmcmno macho mmga sagemm High POQL Low POQL TABLE 26 CHANGES IN FAMILY LIFE IN LAST 20 YEARS (All responses recorded) OCOZ coapwmomeoo UHonmmson cw mmocmno mgga sagemm Umumuoflnmumo mm>oz mhuhgm mmmmmcaafl .mnummo mmmcmno macho mufia sagewm 3 High POQL Low POQL 156 health related areas.* Such perceptions are consistent with the findings in the above section, indicating a higher age and lower income for the members of the low POQL group. 2.49 Literature Comparison The information presented above focused on both objective and subjective measures of well—being. In examining the data in relation to the two groups, both objective and subjective differences were found. However, the most distinctive differences between the members of the two groups occurred in the perceptions of satisfaction with the selected life concerns. Such findings support the argument for both objective and subjective measures of life quality (Andrews and Withey, 1974b; Gitter and Mostofsky, 1973; Hornback and Shaw, 1972; Land, 1975 and Rodgers and Converse, 1975). Although examination of objective data alone may have distinguished the two groups, knowledge of how objective conditions were perceived added valuable insight. The findings tend to support previous quality of life research. Family life and financial security, found to be critical by most researchers (Andrews and Withey, 1974b; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976; Cantril, 1965; *In reviewing the biographies, the researcher dis- covered that four of the six members of the high POQL group and five of the seven members of the low POQL group experienced deaths of family members or illnesses of them- selves or family members during the 20 year period. 157 Cantril and Roll, 1973; Watts and Free, 1974) were important to the members of both groups. Health, found to be important in the Cantril-based studies (Cantril, 1965; Cantril and Roll, 1973; Watts and Free, 1974) was of the highest importance to the members of both groups (Table 27). Peace in the world and children, found to be of major concern in the Cantril studies (Cantril, 1965; Cantril and Roll, 1973; Watts and Free, 1974), were not included in the SALI and SALS scales as life concerns. The absence of work as consistently important in 1975 and 1976 could be a reflection of the age of the respondents. Retirement could also influence the importance placed on areas found to be important by Andrews and Withey (1974b) such as spare-time activities, fun and time to do things. The element of satisfaction, incorporated in most definitions of quality of life (Table 3, Chapter 2) proved to be a key finding of this study. Bubolz and Eicher (1975) reported that correlations between satisfactions with life concerns and perceptions of overall quality of life centered about feelings about oneself as well as the basic needs. The SALS responses of both 1975 and 1976 indicate that areas relating to oneself, such as accomplishing something, work, fun and independence were concerns that distinguished the members of the two groups. Satisfaction with the basic needs, such as clothing, housing and safety, were relatively less important. 158 Aoo.vv coaumuuommcmua Aoo.gv usmEaum>ow HchHumz Ava.vv mocmpcmmmch Aqa.vv mafia mmplmmp mcflumwuwucH Awa.vv U000 24H.+v magnumeom mcflnmflameooo¢ Ava.¢v ucmEcoufl>cm amusumz Amm.vv mmsom Imm.vc summmm Amm.sv gmmam “om.ac suflusomm Hmflocmcflm Infl.sv sageHm loo.mc spammm Aoo.vv coaumuuommcmue Aoo.vv mmflufl>fluom mEHulmummm Loo.qv gmmam 100.42 aegmflamm Aha.vv mmsom Asa.qv summmm Aom.vv mosmpcmmmch Aom.vv mmmcm>fluomuuu¢ w wusmmm Amm.vv coon Aom.4v augusomm Hmwocmaflm loo.mc mgcmghm Loo.mc saflemm loo.mc nuammm 04H.sc gmmam Ana.vv msflguwsom mcflnmflameooom Aha.vv usmEcoufl>c0 amusumz Aom.vv x003 Amm.4c mummmm Amm.vc sagemm Iom.vv augusomm Hafiocmaflm Amm.4v hamsaum>ow Hmcoflumz Aoo.mv Spammm Aoo.vv mamm mcwmoH0>ma Aoo.vv mvcmflnm Aoo.vv mocmpcmmmch Aoo.vv mmsom 100.42 mcghhmeom mcflnmfiamaooo< Imm.vv mgga man lump mcflummumucH Aom.sv x003 Amm.vv AHHEHH Amm.vv nuammm mhmalldoom BOA wnmauuqoog roam mhmHIIQOom 300 mamauugoog hoax hm mqm¢8 .umem N882“ .— AmozgemomzH mo mmomo wzHozmommo zH omequv mmammmo mo moz¢emomzH Ag mmemv mo mzmMUZOU mMHA 159 The critical role that subjective measures played in this investigation tends to support the contention of University of Michigan researchers (Andrews and Withey, 1974b; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976) that feelings and attitudes are crucial in determining quality of life. 2.4h Summary I In general, the respondents in both groups main- tained consistent responses between 1975 and 1976, on both the perceived overall quality of life measure and on the SALI and SALS scales. Although differences between the groups in terms of the importance placed on the 21 life concerns were negligible, marked differences were found in the satisfactions with the life concerns. Some differences were also found between the members of the high POQL group and the members of the low POQL group when demographic Characteristics were analyzed. Perceptions of life changes since 1956 also varied between the groups to some extent. Findings generally tended to support other quality of life findings. CHAPTER 5 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS: THE ENVIRONMENTS The following chapter will focus on the clothing, shelter, family and community environments of the individual and his interaction with them. As such, the discussion of the data will proceed in relation to the research questions dealing with objective and subjective indicators and the relationship between the two. Objective comparisons of the contrasting groups will focus on indicators that are external to the individual (Related Research Question a). Subjective comparisons will center on the feeling and attitudes of the members of each group (Related Research Question c). Although perceptions of importance and satis- faction have been labeled as the principle subjective indicators for this study (Chapter 1), additional subjective data will be presented for each environment. In keeping with the in-depth nature of this study, frequency counts will be presented to describe the data fully. 1. Clothing l.l Objective Indicators In order to obtain an objective measure of the clothing environment of the individual, clothing inventory 160 161 forms were mailed to each respondent two weeks prior to the date of the interview. Respondents were requested to complete the forms on their own in the intervening weeks. The completed forms were to be picked up at the time of the interview. At the time of data collection, however, only four of the thirteen subjects had completed the inventory sheets. Abbreviated information was collected from those who were willing, but most inventory data gathered was limited. Age and indifference appeared to be the primary factors involved in not completing the forms. As a result, the following objective clothing data will be discussed in relation to the limitations encountered. Tables summarizing objective clothing data can be found in Appendix F. Purchases proved to be the primary source of gar- ments for the individuals of both the high POQL group and the low POQL group although one individual in each group received the majority of their clothing as hand-me-downs. Gifts were important secondary sources, as was home sewing in a few individual cases. The more elderly respondents in both groups owned older clothing, perhaps accounting for the fact that the members of the low POQL group, who were on the average older, appeared to have somewhat older clothing. Actual counts of the number of garments belonging to the individuals of each group are difficult to compare due to the lack of response by some and the need to 162 distinguish male and female categories. However, the groups did not differ notably in the number of garments owned by each individual according to the data available. In summary, no distinct differences could be found between the members of the high POQL group and the low POQL group in the source, age or number of garments owned. The limitations discussed above should be kept in mind, however. 1.2 Subjective Indicators Although the members of the groups generally agreed on the importance of clothing, some differences could be seen in the levels of satisfaction with clothing (Tables 28 and 29). Clothing was ranked the least important of the 21 life concerns by members of both the high POQL group and the low POQL group. In addition, responses within the groups were relatively consistent, as shown by the low standard deviations. Members of the low POQL group expressed more dissatisfaction with their clothing, however. Varia- tions in reSponses among members were also greater for each group on the SALS scale. TABLE 28 SALI MEAN SCORES - CLOTHING Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 3.17 .41 Low POQL 3.00 .63 163 TABLE 29 SALS MEAN SCORES - CLOTHING Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 5.67 .82 Low POQL 5.00 1.00 In additional subjective information regarding clothing, the members of the low POQL group expressed more reasons for dissatisfaction and more categories of clothing in which they felt they were lacking than the members of the high POQL group (Tables 30-35). They also felt satis- fied with their appearance less often. Two members of the low group indicated that they felt they didn't have enough clothing and that on occasion felt they couldn't go some- where because of their clothing. As a result, the members of the low POQL group expressed somewhat less satisfied feelings about their clothing than the members of the high POQL group in several areas. TABLE 30 PERCEPTIONS OF ENOUGH CLOTHING Yes No High POQL 6 Low POQL 5 2 164 TABLE 31 CLOTHING CATEGORIES IN WHICH A NEED WAS PERCEIVED Dress- Under- Sleep- Coats up Work Garments wear Shoes None High 6 POQL Low POQL 3 l l 4 TABLE 32 FREQUENCY OF FEELINGS OF INABILITY TO GO SOMEWHERE DUE TO CLOTHING Seldom Often Sometimes or Never High POQL 6 Low POQL l l 5 TABLE 33 EVENTS UNABLE TO ATTEND BECAUSE OF CLOTHING School Church, Work Meetings etc. Shopping Friends None High 6 POQL Low POQL l 6 165 TABLE 34 REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH CLOTHING m p m o 0 +4 or: re a -H m +»m 0 0w 0 tH +Jm u s c m m 0 0:4 m o aim -a bi E O m a 0+4 0 0+4 -H H 0:» a m to urn +)c m 0 44¢: m o 0 +10 +Jc 044 11m L4H ova <10 ()0 FPH o-a 3<3 zsm zua 215 L)U zc: High POQL l l 3 Low POQL l l 2 3 3 TABLE 35 FREQUENCY OF SATISFACTION WITH APPEARANCE Seldom No Often Sometimes or Never Answer High POQL 2 3 1 Low POQL 2 3 l 1 1.3 Objective and Subjective Comparison Although the members of the high POQL group and the low POQL group owned similar clothing in terms of source, age and number, they perceived their clothing in different ways. Neither group rated clothing high in importance, however the members of the low POQL group expressed less satisfaction with the clothing they had. Therefore, any 166 differences between the high POQL group and the low POQL group occurred in perceptions of satisfaction with clothing rather than in perceptions of importance or in differences in their wardrobes. 1.4 Literature Comparison The influence of clothing on self-concept suggested by several clothing researchers and theorists (Creekmore, 1963; Humphrey, Klassen and Creekmore, 1971; Hoffman, 1970) can be neither supported nor rejected by the findings of this investigation. Members of neither the high POQL group nor the low POQL group felt that clothing was of high importance to them, indicating no conscious link on the part of the respondents between clothing and self-concept. On the other hand, the slightly lower level of satisfaction of the members of Group B with their clothing indicates that those with less positive feelings about their lives overall are less satisfied with their clothing. Although the relationship between self-concept and feelings of well- being are not the focus of this investigation, the data may be explained through the relationships between clothing perceptions, self-concept and feelings of well-being (i.e. levels of clothing satisfaction may affect self-concept, which in turn may influence perceptions of well-being). It can hypothesized that both the age of the reSpondents and the rural setting influenced both objective and subjective measures of clothing. Many elderly 167 respondents indicated that they didn't "need much" in the way of clothing and utilized clothing to fulfill basic protection needs. In addition, the social atmosphere in which each respondent was acquainted with almost everyone in town may have eliminated the need for clothing as a communicator. Statuses were well-known. As a result, perhaps clothing served a utilitarian service rather than a communicative one. 2. Dwelling 2.1 Objective Indicators Objective indicators of the dwelling environment included descriptions of the living unit as it exists in reality. Appendix G provides descriptive information on the dwelling units of the members of each group. All respondents lived in single family dwellings, equipped with electric lights and indoor flush toilets. In addition, all respondents owned at least one radio, television and tele- phone. The data indicate very little differences between the groups in terms of housing characteristics, although two members of Group B did indicate a lack of central heating. Because interviewers were unable to determine the room location of the interviews (e.g. kitchen or living room), comparisons of interiors between the members of the groups were difficult to obtain. However, comparisons between the two groups holding location of the interview 168 constant revealed no major differences between the groups, despite the small number of respondents remaining in each category. In addition, interviewer ratings of the interior and exterior, which must be considered subjective, were similar for both groups. In summary, the data revealed no notable differences between the members of the high POQL group and the members of the low POQL group in terms of objectively measured housing characteristics. 2.2 Subjective Indicators The members of both groups perceived the importance of their dwellings in a similar manner (Table 36), however the members of the high POQL group indicated somewhat more positive feelings of satisfaction with their housing (Table 37). Housing was rated as one of the more important life concerns by members of both groups in 1976; the members of the high POQL group ranking it ninth and the members of the low POQL group ranking it sixth among the 21 life TABLE 36 SALI MEAN SCORES - DWELLING Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 4.17 .75 Low POQL 4.29 .95 169 TABLE 37 SALS MEAN SCORES - DWELLING Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 5.83 .75 Low POQL 5.00 .82 concerns. In analysis of specific reactions to interiors, it was found that the members of the low POQL group expressed more negative feelings and less positive feelings than the members of the high POQL group (Tables 38 and 39). TABLE 38 SATISFACTION WITH INTERIOR Yes No Mixed High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 5 1 l 170 TABLE 39 REASONS FOR SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION WITH INTERIOR "Negative" Responses Could be Need Too Can't better bath small afford other High POQL l l 1 Low POQL l l 3 "Positive" Responses Has been Good Enough Like remodeled furniture room everything High POQL 2 l 2 1 Low POQL 1 l 2 2.3 Objective and Subjective Comparison The members of the high group and the low group occupied dwellings with similar characteristics and similarly placed housing relatively high in importance in relation to the other life concerns. Perceptions of satisfaction varied somewhat, however, with the members of the low POQL group expressing lower satisfactions. As a result, objective measures of the dwelling environment showed no differences between the groups as did subjective measures of importance. Some difference was found between the members of the groups 171 when subjective measures of satisfaction were analyzed, however. 2.4 Literature Comparison The findings were similar to those of Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) who found housing to be of some importance as reported directly by respondents. The Campbell, Converse and Rodgers team also found respondents to be relatively satisfied with their housing (mean of 5.57 on a 7 point scale). Although the members of the low POQL group expressed less satisfaction than the members of the high POQL group, both groups as a whole expressed "mostly satisfied" feelings. In addition, the Campbell, Converse and Rodgers group finding of a weak level of association between objective measures of housing characteristics and housing satisfaction is supported by the above findings. 3. Family 3.1 Objective Indicators The family environment of the respondents was measured objectively in several ways. The structure of the family, including individuals living in the household and number of children, defined the family unit objectively (Tables 40 through 42). Secondly, the residential location of both children and extended family enabled spatial loca- tion (Tables 43 and 44). Finally, family communication patterns provided an additional means of examining family functioning in an objective manner (Tables 45 through 48). 172 TABLE 40 FAMILY STRUCTURE* c a 0 0 ~ H H ~£2 '0‘: ~82: “U ~"O I30 a)0 130 'Ur4 'Ur4 0+4 0+4 0+4 0+4 0+4 HT) H13 3'0 +Lc 3;: 0+4 0+4 0rd H!) or) H~4 >.4 Ira H 0 «LC: «4.3:: Hg “30 «40 210 C10 3 O 210 3:0 H1gh POQL 3 2 1 Low POQL 5 1 1 *Two members of the high POQL group cared for foster children, however only natural children were included as part of family structure. TABLE 41 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Husband, Two or more Husband wife and related Respondent and wife children adults only High POQL 3 l 2 Low POQL 3 2 2 173 TABLE 42 NUMBER OF LIVING CHILDREN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Total High POQL 1 1 1 2 1 17 Low POQL 1 2 2 1 1 22 Objective measures of family structure show little difference between the members of the high POQL group and the members of the low POQL group, with the exception of the two members of the low group who lived alone. The members of the high POQL group had fewer children living, however family size did not vary noticeably. Members of both the high group and the low group had experienced the deaths of children. The residential location of children provided some interesting variations between the members of the two groups. The members of the high POQL group had more children still living at home, while more of the children of the members of the low POQL group lived in the same town. Similarly, more children of the high group members lived in Michigan, while more children of the low group members lived out of the state. When comparing the groups in terms of children living inside or outside of the county, however, the groups are nearly identical in that half of the children of each group lived in the county and half outside. More members 174 TABLE 43 RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF CHILDREN (Responses recorded for each child of each respondent) In same In same In In Out of Home town county U.P. Michigan Michigan High POQL 5 2 2 8 Low POQL 2 6 3 2 3 6 TABLE 44 RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF EXTENDED FAMILY In same Out of county county High POQL 3 3 Low POQL l 6 of the low POQL group had extended family members outside of the county. In examining family communication patterns, members of the low POQL group had more contacts that were infre- quent, both in parental visits to children and in child visits to parents. In both cases, the members of the two groups experienced similar amounts of more frequent contact, but the members of the low group had more instances of contacts that were in the once per six months or longer 175 H H N v H H m m 0 0 H000 30H m m m H N H H000 anm H0>0z mH00> H00> 000005 H00> 000006 £0008 0x003 x003 x003 >00 >00 m H00 H00 0 H00 H00 0 H00 H00 0 H00 H00 H00 H0nuo >H0>m 0000 0000 0000 xwum 00:0 00:0 00:0 00:0 xmnm >H0>m H080: H0 Hoe 0HH£0 0000 How 000H000mv 020000 +1.0HH00 u 20H909H0H> 00 002000000 02009900 on9¢0H202200 >HH2<0 00 00009 H m H H m m m H H000 30H H N v m H H H000 :mHm H0>0z Eo0H0m mH00> H00> mnucoe 0:0:05 £0008 0x003 x003 x003 >00 >00 m H00 H00 0 H00 m H00 H00 N H00 H00 H00 H0000 >H0>m 00:0 0000 0000 0000 0000 00:0 0000 xmlm >H0>m 2080: H0 00: 0HH£0 £000 H00 000H000mv aHHmo 0| 920000 n 20H909H0H> 00 002000000 02009900 20He00H202200 HHH200 mv mqm¢9 176 H H H m H H m H H m 0000 3o0 H H v v m H H 0000 0000 00 H0>0z 00000 H00> 000008 H00> 00008 00003 00003 0003 0003 >00 >00 H00 0 H00 H00 H00 m H00 m H00 H00 H00 H0000 >H0>m 0000 0000 xvlm 0000 0000 0000 0000 xmum >H0>m A080: 00 000 0H000 0000 How 000H000mv 20090000>200 020000009 00 002000000 mzmmeemm 20H9<0H202200 >0Hz00 00 00008 HH 0 H H H 0000 300 0 H v H 0000 zmHm H0>0z 0H003 mH00> H00> 000008 H00> 000008 00008 00003 0003 0003 0 0H 0 H00 H00 0 H00 H00 0 H00 H00 N H00 H00 H00 0000 0000 0000 0000 xvum 0000 0000 0000 0000 xmnm A080: 00 000 0H000 0000 H00 000H0000v 0209003 009900 00 002000000 02009900 2009000200000 000200 NV mqmdB 177 categories. Letter writing did not appear to be a signifi- cant means of communication for the members of either group. Telephone conversations, however, fell into a pattern similar to visitations; that is, members of the low POQL group had a greater number of less frequent calls than the members of the high POQL group. In summary, the most notable difference in the objective measures of the family occurred in the area of communication patterns, with the members of the low POQL group experiencing a greater number of relatively infre- quent contacts with children. Although residential loca- tion of children varied somewhat between the groups, the more significant difference was in the residential location of extended family. 3.2 Subjective Indicators Both the members of the high POQL group and the members of the low POQL group rated family high in terms of importance, with little variations between the members of the groups (Table 49). A notable difference occurred between the groups, however, in perceptions of satisfac- tion with family life (Table 50). While the members of the high group as a whole expressed "pleased" feelings about their family, the members of the low group indicated only mixed feelings, with considerable variation among the members of the group. 178 TABLE 49 MEAN SALI SCORES - FAMILY Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 5.00 0.00 Low POQL 4.71 0.49 TABLE 50 MEAN SALS SCORES - FAMILY Standard Mean Deviation High POQL 6.17 0.41 Low POQL 4.29 1.60 In examining more specific subjective feelings, the members of the groups differed little. They expressed similar feelings about the amount of communication with their children as well as the residential locations of children (Tables 51-53). In even more in—depth probings of attitudes regarding family communication and location, the members of the groups again did not differ in express- ing either reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction with communication patterns or with preferences for loca- tions of children (Tables 54 and 55). Feelings regarding 179 TABLE 51 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION WITH CHILDREN Yes No High POQL 4 1 Low POQL 5 1 TABLE 52 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL LOCATION - CHILDREN LIVING IN SAME COUNTY Yes No Mixed High POQL 4 Low POQL 5 TABLE 53 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL LOCATION - CHILDREN LIVING OUTSIDE OF COUNTY Yes No High POQL 2 1 LOW POQL 4 180 the residential location of extended family members differed little, also (Table 56). 3.3 Objective and Subjective Comparison Although the members of the two groups differed in objective measures of family communication and in satis- faction with family life, the feelings of satisfaction with communication patterns did not differ. Apparently, then, the lower satisfaction level with family life expressed by the members of the low POQL group is not accounted for by the reactions to or feelings about relatively fewer con- tacts. Although members of both groups rated family extremely high in terms of importance, the significantly lower levels of satisfaction experienced by the members of the low POQL group provide a clear contrast between the groups. Family structure, residential location of children or perceptions of satisfaction with amount of communication do not appear to be the causes of differences, however. 3.4 Literature Comparison The high level of importance placed on family life by the members of both groups supports the findings of the Cantril-based studies (Cantril, 1965; Cantril and Roll, 1973; Watts and Free, 1974) as well as the University of Michigan research (Andrews and Withey, 1974b; Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976). -The members of the low group differed with the Campbell, Converse and Rodgers findings 181 TABLE 54 REASONS FOR SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION WITH CHILDREN See or talk Would like often enough to see more See considering We get No often often distance along answer High POQL l l 2 1 Low POQL l l l 2 1 TABLE 55 PREFERENCE FOR RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING OUTSIDE OF COUNTY Not enough Where communication jobs Up to No Closer now are them answer High POQL 1 2 Low POQL l l l l 1 TABLE 56 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF EXTENDED FAMILY Yes No Don't Know High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 5 l 182 of high satisfaction with family life, however. The Sussman (1962) argument concerning the import— ance of the extended kin network can neither be supported nor rejected in terms of the above findings. Although the members of the low POQL group did have fewer family members (other than children) in the county, the conclusion cannot be drawn that they lacked the support of family members which the members of the high POQL group had. As contended by Gibson (1972) additional measures are needed to measure adequately the role of the extended family. 4. Community 4.1 Objective Indicators Measures of objective conditions of the community provide information relating to resources available to resi- dents. Table 57 provides a comparison of the resources available in the three communities from which respondents were drawn. The town of Ewen provided the most facilities and Greenland the least. Greenland, in fact, was composed of many vacant buildings and provided only the most basic of necessities. Ewen, on the other hand, contained most of the resources required for day-to-day life. The closer proximity of Mass and Greenland to the larger town of Ontonagon, with many more resources, should be kept in mind, however (Table 58). The residential location of respondents (Table 59) indicates that the members of the groups did not differ significantly in terms of community xcmn mco coflumum mco .H mcofiumwm 03» ammo HHmEm cuo>mu mco .H mcum>mu 03u muoum mafinuoao HHmEm 183 mumooum Hmooa mumooum HmooH .H ammooum monoo umammo mpHHmEom mumzcumn wammsm mcHUHHSQ .H MCMQ 0C0 .H mc0fl#0#m 03”.. =CHI®>HHU= HMCommmm .N OMMU HHMEm .H mCHm>MU 03nd. uoH Hmo poms Huh: umammo ouch muoum GHDDHCHSM HHmEm OHOum .H magnuoao HHHEm m umxumEummnm .H HHmEm muoum mumflum> mumzbumg SHQQSm mafipafisfl r-JNM mxcmm mcoHumum oofi>umm mafiHOmmo mucmezmwanmumm mcfixcwup .mcflumm muoammp m>Hu0Eou5¢ monoum unmemflswm mEo: .wuduflcudm mmuowm Hoummmd monoum boom monoum omflpcmgonoe Hmnmcmw ucmemflsvm Eumw paw mum3 Ipumc .maMaumumE mcflwagsh .umnesq .H monoum .d panacmmuo mmmz cmSm mmousommm DZéAmemD 02¢ mmdz .Zmzm ZH m4m44H¢>¢ mmumbommm NBHZDEZOU hm mamdB I84 oz 02 OZ OZ mow m0? Emum>m momsmm SpamsEEou Empmhm umumz prCSEEOU monoudno o3u mmzousno o3u .m umom zm> QsHo muuomm .H Hmuoe monm musmmn monm Monumn coaumum mufiw coammeEou pmom commcouco mmsonmum3 ummuom HMCOHumz moflwmo “mom .a moammo umom wumunfla monousno 03¢ soapmum swamp mamfimu OHCOmmz Hmuon HmuoE uouomumouflzo mmfluommmoom m>HuOEou5m hocwmm wocmudmcfl cofibmum muflm umucmo wuHCUEEoo mflnmc3ou woflmwo «om: mofimmo pmom umnuo mmoflmmo HMCOHmmwwonm mommmcflmsn HHmEm mmcwoaflsn ucmficum>oo pcchmmuo mmmz CO3W mOUHDOmmm Aw.u:oov Hm mamas 185 TABLE 58 COMMUNITY RESOURCES AVAILABLE IN ONTONAGON Resources Number A. Stores 1. Lumber, building materials, hardware and farm equipment 4 2. General merchandise stores catalog stores 2 variety stores 1 3. Food stores small supermarkets 2 local groceries 4 4. Apparel stores 2 5. Furniture, home equipment stores 1 6. Drugstores 2 7. Other jewelry stores 1 gift, craft shops 2 tire sales 1 motorcycle sales 1 B. Automobile Dealers 6 C. Eating, drinking establishments taverns 6 restaurants/cafes 4 D. Gasoline service stations 7 E. Banks 2 F. Government buildings Secretary of state Ranger station Soil Conservation Service Fire department Library Extension office HrahaH+Ah4 186 TABLE 58 (Cont'd) Resources Number G. Small businesses tax service laundromats insurance agencies funeral homes cleaners beauty shops barber shops HruhaHrQRJH H. Professional offices dentists attorneys clinic/hospital/medical care hdbrd I. Other motels frozen food locker electric company power company telephone company museum paper mill oil company state liquor store bowling alley travel information newspaper office VFW Post Eagles club H+dh4H+dh4H+ak4H+ahaHro 187 TABLE 59 COMMUNITY LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS Mass Greenland Ewen High POQL 4 1 1 Low POQL 5 2 resources available because no notable differences were found in community location. 4.2 Subjective Indicators Although community was not included in the list of 21 life concerns, community satisfaction was measured using a separate scale. Members of the low POQL group expressed less satisfaction with their communities than the members of the high POQL group, also varying to a greater degree among each other (Table 60). In examining community likes and dislikes, members of the low POQL group expressed a comparable number of likes as the members of the high POQL group, but also expressed notably more dis- likes (Tables 61 and 62). Members of both groups indi- cated primarily positive reasons for remaining in the area (Table 63). In addition, feelings of satisfaction with neighborhoods was unanimous, with the members of the low POQL group listing a similar number of neighborhood assets (Tables 64 and 65). Members of both groups also perceived community change in a similar manner (Table 66). 188 TABLE 60 COMMUNITY SATISFACTION (l = delighted, 7 = terrible) Standard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Deviation High POQL 3 3 1.50 .55 Low POQL 3 1 2 l 3.14 1.21 TABLE 61 COMMUNITY LIKES Peace Small and Size Quiet Privacy Freedom Friendly High POQL l l l 1 Low POQL l l 3 Close to/ Natural A place has stores Environment Everything to live High POQL l l 1 Low POQL l 2 l 189 TABLE 62 COMMUNITY DISLIKES mcwnuoz aoflumuuommsmuu nmsocm uoz aocwsqcfiamo mumoo swam momom mmofl>umm nmsocm uoz Emummm momBmm oz High POQL Low POQL TABLE 63 REASONS FOR STAYING IN COMMUNITY x0 om ou mmam woman oz ucwecoufi>am amusumz 060: :30 saccmflum macs mufl \mnmn as 3wu0 >HHEmm paw mpcmflum uh mxflq High POQL 3 2 Low POQL 190 TABLE 64 SATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBORHOOD Yes No High POQL 6 Low POQL 7 TABLE 65 NEIGHBORHOOD LIKES 8 .1 a) u r: B a -H m c g Q o E Fig 0 0 33¢ a) s u 0 «so -H m 52H H 'U u “:4 u wtu Q 3 'U m m Una m 'U Q 8 8 Si 33 '3 #32 8 8 ‘86 04 (9 D £14 0 ZIIJ 14 (D 20 High POQL 4 1 1 1 1 Low POQL 3 3 1 2 l 2 1 TABLE 66 PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY COMPARED TO 20 YEARS AGO Better off Worse off Same Mixed High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 5 l l 191 4.3 Objective and Subjective Comparison Although the resources available in each of the three communities differed, the relatively even distribu- tion of respondents among communities provided for a basically constant objective measure of community for all respondents. Thus, objectively, no variations existed between the groups. Yet the members of the low POQL group expressed lower levels of satisfaction with their communi- ties and a greater number of "dislikes." Other probes of community satisfaction, including community "likes," neighborhood evaluations and perceptions of stability and change produced no further differences. Thus, the members of the low group, while expressing some positive feelings about their communities, felt more dissatisfaction than the members of the high group, although no objective differences existed. 4.4 Literature Comparison In discussing community social indicators, Rossi (1972) suggested that research should determine whether or not the local community provides input into feelings of well-being. The importance of perceptions of community to perceptions of well-being can be seen in the differing levels of satisfaction between the two groups. The find— ings also support the conclusions of Marans and Rodgers (1975) and Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) that 192 people tend to be fairly content with their communities. Some discrepancies can be seen, however, in the responses of some of the members of the low POQL group. 5. General Summary and Discussion In comparing the four environments examined, objec- tive differences between the groups were found to be rela- tively fewer in all environments than subjective differences. No differences were found between the members of the high POQL group and the members of the low POQL group in objec- tive measures of the clothing, dwelling and community environments. The sole differences between the objective environments of the groups occurred in the frequency of communication between parents and children. Similarly, the groups were comparable in terms of perceptions of the importance of the various environments, with clothing ranked the least important by both groups and family ranked high in importance. The most notable differences between the groups occurred in perceptions of satisfaction with the various environments. The members of the low POQL group expressed lower levels of satisfaction with each environment, with the family environment rated much lower. In view of similar objective conditions and similar perceptions of importance, perceptions of satisfaction appears to be the key in distinguishing the two groups. In examining the more in- depth probes, the members of the low POQL group expressed 193 specific feelings of dissatisfactions and dislikes more frequently than the members of the high POQL group. The lower levels of satisfaction indicated by the members of the low group in the four environments are in keeping with the lower levels of satisfaction expressed on all 21 life concerns (Chapter 4). The individual biographies also pointed to the lower levels of satisfaction felt by the members of the low POQL group. The similarities between the two groups in relation to objective conditions, in combination with the varying perceptions of satisfaction appears to point to the phenomenon of relative deprivation. Runciman (1968) discussed rela- tive deprivation in terms of the referent by which the level of a person's aspirations and standards are set (p. 70). Members of both groups appeared to experience lower levels of living than the general pOpulation in the clothing, dwelling and community environments. Yet the members of the high POQL group were satisfied, while the members of the low POQL group were not. Differences could stem from varying degrees of felt deprivation. Perhaps the members of the low POQL group perceived objective deprivations in a different light, or used a different referent than the members of the high POQL group. Or perhaps the members of the high group compensated for deprivation experienced in objective conditions by giving a greater amount of attention to social relationships, 194 such as family life. Regardless of the explanation, the members of both the high POQL group and the low POQL group were deprived relative to the general population, but the members of the low POQL group felt more deprived than the members of the high POQL group. The importance of satisfactions in distinguishing the members of the two groups also points to the critical role of the interactional element of the man/environment relationship. McCall's (1975) proposition that quality of life be measured in terms of environmental resources avail- able to meet measured needs does not appear viable. Rather, the Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) View of the importance of human feelings as well as objective condi- tions appears to be a more useful concept. Although the availability of resources is crucial in fulfilling human needs, it seems that it is the individual's perception of those resources that affect his feelings of satisfaction. The differing degrees of importance placed on each of the four environments seems to have some implications in terms of the framework as developed. The more material environments of clothing and housing were less important than the social environment of family. Although clothing and housing both involve the more social areas of communi- cation, attitudes and aspirations, the rural setting seemed to eliminate this function of both environments to some extent. The concept of community, described in this 195 investigation primarily in terms of resources available, was often conceptualized in more social terms by the respondents. Like the family environment, perceptions of community satisfactions differed between the members of the two groups. In terms of the environments themselves, therefore, the more subjective areas of feelings and atti- tudes in relation to family and community were more important in distinguishing the groups than the more objective resources of clothing and housing. In summary, the findings point toward the critical nature of feelings and attitudes when examined using several perspectives. Subjective rather than objective measures were the key. In addition, the environments of family and community which included more elements of feelings and attitudes than the clothing and dwelling environments were also more important in distinguishing the groups. CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 1. Summary and Conclusions The following chapter will summarize the findings of this investigation in terms of the stated research ques- tions and the literature surveyed. Implications, as well as limitations and recommendations will also be discussed. 1.1 Purpose, Conceptual Model and Sample As stated at the outset, the primary goal of this investigation was to examine in depth the quality of life of a select group of people. The human ecological focus on the individual, his environments, and the interaction between them provided the framework. The four environments of concern to home economics emphasized in this investigation included clothing, dwelling, family and community. Objec- tive social indicators were used to examine both the individual and the environments, while subjective social indicators measured additional individual characteristics and the interaction between the environments and the individual. To operationalize the above goals, a sample of 17 of the respondents participating in the 1975 "Families in 196 197 Evolving Rural Communities" project were selected. The subjects were chosen on the basis of their response to the perceived overall quality of life measure (POQL) on which they expressed their feelings about their lives as a whole. The nine individuals of the high POQL group represented those who were delighted or pleased with their lives. The low POQL group was composed of eight individuals who had mixed feelings about their lives and represented the "least happy" group. Refusals later reduced the sizes of the groups to six in the high POQL group and seven in the low POQL group. Data were collected on the thirteen individuals in 1956, 1975 and 1976. The individuals and each of the environments were measured objectively. Subjective meas- ures, including perceptions of importance and satisfaction, were also employed. The resulting information was thus composed of in—depth objective and subjective data on the individual and his own environments, as well as some longi- tudinal information. Detailed case studies of each individ- ual were presented in addition to the compiled data which provided for comparisons between the members of the two groups. 1.2 Research Question Conclusions Because the response to the general research ques- tion is predicated on the answers to the related research questions, the related questions will be discussed first. 198 1.2a Related Research Questions Question a: When comparing those who were delighted or pleased with their lives (high POQL group) with those who had mixed feelings (low POQL group) are there differences in individual, clothing, family, dwelling or community indicators as measured objectively? Objective differences between the individuals of the two groups did exist in some areas. The members of the low POQL group were somewhat older, had lower incomes and less education than the members of the high POQL group. There were more females in the high group, causing some variance in occupation. Objective measures of health status showed similarity between the groups. Differences between the members of the groups were found to be less pronounced when examining the environ- ments. No differences were found in objective measures of the clothing, dwelling and community environments. Differ- ences did occur, however, in the frequency of communication between parents and children. The members of the low POQL group experienced more parent-child contacts that were infrequent than the members of the high POQL group. Family structure, household composition and number of children were not notably different between the members of the groups. Although residential location varied, the members of the groups had the same number of children living inside of and outside of the county. More members of the low POQL 199 group had extended family living outside of the county. In response to related research question a, there- fore, some differences were found in objective measures of the individual as well as the family environment. Question b: When comparing those who were delighted with their lives (high POQL group) with those who had mixed feelings (low POQL group) are there differences in the perceptions of changes that have occurred since 1956? Similar to other subjective measures, the members of the low POQL group expressed more negative feelings regarding the changes that occurred since 1956 than the members of the high POQL group. Comparisons of life in 1975 and life in 1956 were more negative as were percep- tions in the changes in one's own life. Question c: When comparing those who were delighted or pleased with their lives (high POQL group) with those who had mixed feelings (low POQL group) do the members of the groups perceive themselves, their clothing, family, shelter or communities in different ways? Are there differences between the members of the groups concerning the importance of various life concerns? Are there differ- ences in satisfaction with the same life concerns? In analyzing responses to the SALI measure of the importance of various life concerns, the members of the two groups were found to be similar. Most differences between the members of the groups in 1975 were negligible 200 by 1976. In both years, however, the members of the low POQL group felt that spare-time activities were less important and the activities of the national government were more important than did the members of the high POQL group. Differences between the members of the groups were much more pronounced when analyzing SALS scale responses. Members of the low POQL group felt less satisfied with each of the 21 life concerns, particularly in the areas of accomplishing something, work, fun, financial security, family and independence. When examining the four environments in particular, a similar pattern was found. The members of the two groups expressed similar feelings of importance regarding each of the environments.* Family was rated very high in import- ance and clothing relatively low. As on the SALS scale, the members of the low POQL group expressed lower levels of satisfaction with each of the four environments. The most notable differences occurred in the family and community environments. In analyzing additional in-depth probes in each of the areas, the members of the low POQL group more often expressed dislikes and feelings of dissatisfactions. Thus, in answer to question b, the members of the low POQL group did have different perceptions than the members of *Measures of the importance of the community environment were not obtained. 201 the high POQL group. Members of the low POQL group expressed less satisfaction with several of the life con- cerns as well as the four environments. Perceptions of importance, however, did not vary significantly between the members of the two groups. Question d: When comparing those who were delighted or pleased with their lives (the high POQL group) with those who had mixed feelings (the low POQL group), what is the relationship between objective and perceptual indi— cators of the individual and his environments? The objective differences that were found between the members of the high POQL group and the members of the low POQL group could account for some of the subjective differences of satisfaction. The fact that the members of the low POQL group were older, had lower incomes and less education than the members of the high POQL group could have influenced their feelings of satisfaction, especially in the areas of accomplishing something, work, fun, finan- cial security, family and independence. Work and fun could be areas in which satisfaction is no longer found for older individuals because they are no longer key elements of life. Similarly, low educational and income levels can lead to less satisfied feeling about accomplishing something and work. Increased age can also bring about family disrup- tion through deaths and illnesses and a decrease in inde- pendence. 202 Comparisons of objective and subjective measures of the four environments are somewhat different. Although objective measures of the groups in relation to the envir- onments found them to be similar, the members of the low POQL group expressed lower levels of satisfaction in each case. In relation to the four environments, it appears that objective conditions are not as critical in determining quality of life as the perceptions of those conditions are. 1.2b General Research Question Question: Is the human ecological conceptualiza- tion of the individual in interaction with his near environ- ments of clothing, shelter, family and community a useful tool for examining quality of life? The original home economics concern for human well— being and its focus on the near environments of man bring together the quality of life movement and the ecological framework. Home economists, in attempting to enhance well- being, have focused on the study of the near environments. If the home economics assumptions hold true, measures of the near environments should be indicators of well-being. The emphasis on the interaction between man and his environ- ments is also unique to the home economics discipline. In adopting the human ecologica1* framework for *The original home economics concept of the inter- action of the individual with his near environments has received a new emphasis by some leaders in the field. Human ecology has been accepted as a new title for the re-emphasis of the original focus. 203 this investigation, the individual was defined as the environed unit; clothing, dwelling, family and community composed the environments of interest; and perceptions of importance and satisfaction were conceived of as the inter- action between the individual and his environments. Objectively, few differences were found between the environments of the members of the groups. Subjectively, differences were found in some of the perceptions of the members of the two groups. Perceptions of the importance of the four environments did not distinguish the two groups. The differences in perceptions of satisfaction, however, proved to be the key (Table 67). The implications in terms of the viability of the human ecological model used in this research are therefore varied. Because objective measurements of the near environ— ments selected for this investigation did not distinguish the groups, objective measures of the near environments only are not capable as serving as indicators of quality of life. In addition, the low importance placed on the clothing environment by this sample warrants further investigation using other samples. The principal finding of this investigation was the difference between the groups in terms of perceptions of satisfaction. Perceptions of importance did not distinguish the groups for the most part. Both importance and satis- faction were described in terms of interaction between 2(14 coucdfino Ho cofiumooH new uwnanz .m :OHHAnOQEOO QOOQ 30g caonomsom .N can qaom nos: musuoshum cumsuwm x aflwsum .H x x moosmuouuwo oz seesaw kusmuxm mo soaumooq .~ sewuuusuo Claus“ doom and HQBOH HozDH Macao can hocosvaum doom now: cowumuwssaeoo mousdwud> goon anon goon swu3u0m hafifidh .H 090m BOA 30A 30a .mmmmmmmmmmm xuwcsaaoo hawsdh mcwaaosn asasuoHo newunnsuoo cowumoavu oaoocu out mucoscouw>sm Hmsvw>wvsH mousmmmx m>fluownno o D2¢ .Q .6 mZOHBmmDO =0m¢mmmm Dmfidqmm I mUZHDZHh ho mmdxlbm no wand? ZCHS quom 3oq mus mcumocoo paw ummms Quad AOOQ sewn on Hqsm cmmsumm nu x x x umnuo Had mwocmuwmuflo oz usmuu0QEH whoa wocmpchmbcw :ucwfisum>om .>HHEmu HMGOMum: mo .wuwusowm mmufi>fluom: Hmwusmcflm AOOQ 30A .N mmmcmso .CSM .xuo: msflpummwu .mcwnquOm ucmuHOQsH doom 304 mmswammu um3oa Mosofl mswnmwaQsooom mmma van w>flummms >Hnduo: haamuos uwsoa uwaoa ”haamwoQOw :mwwufl>fluom AOOQ swam whoa QOOQ qoom AGOQ AOOQ mammosoo mafia mswuleMsz :mm3umm soon 30a son 304 30a 30a mqam Hag seem 30a .H mmocmumMMHo wqdm Hudm macaw Hadm mqmm Hflmm mqcm Hmspfi>wvsH wmsmco mo mmusmmmz w>fluomnnsm macauQmoqu Av.ucooe no mamas 206 the individual and his environments. Interaction has also been defined as the focus of a human ecological model. The critical role played by one measure of interaction implies that a focus on individual/environment interaction is important in quality of life study and that this element of the human ecological approach is indeed a useful tool. As a consequence of the entire research process, including data collection and analysis, this researcher has concluded that the partial model developed here requires expansion. It appears that the model abstracted to too great a degree. These findings do indicate to some extent, however, that near environments are important to the individual and that some aspects of his interaction with them are particularly critical in determining quality of life. The recommendations in this chapter present first attempts by this investigator to expand upon the partial model used in this research. 2. Limitations 2.1 General Limitations Some of the limitations occurring in this research are inherent in social science research as a whole and stem from the use of human subjects. Respondents often varied in their general reactions to the interviews. Some respondents thought out answers carefully, while others responded quickly, briefly or not at all. Because of the personal nature of the questions, some respondents may 207 have believed there was a "right" way to answer. The fact that the interviews were conducted by several different researchers at three points in time may also have intro- duced some degree of variation. The small sample size, while allowing for more data on each individual also provided some limitations. If missing data occurred, analysis became particularly diffi- cult. If the members of a group required further break- down (to males and females, for example), the resulting number of respondents in each division made analysis virtually impossible. Finally, the loss of generalizability stemming from the selection of a small, non-random, geo- graphically isolated sample cannot be overlooked. 2.2 Measures Although the measures appeared to he basically sound, several problem areas did exist. The SALI and SALS scales require further testing, particularly to determine reliability and validity. Several of the open-ended questions dealing with satisfaction on the 1976 interview schedule also seemed to be confusing to some respondents. The primary problems, however, seemed to lie in the objective measures, particularly with the clothing inventory instrument. The low response rate appeared to have been caused by a combination of the advanced age of some respondents and the indifference of others. The length and complexity of the inventory appeared to be the 208 key. A much simpler form may have obtained the needed information from more respondents. In addition, the objec- tive measures of family and community appeared to be some- what narrow. An objective measure of the family could include areas other than structure and reported communica- tion. Objective measures of family interaction in terms of quality as well as amount of communication could pro- vide further insights. Similarly, community services as well as resources could be included in measuring community. 3. Recommendations The recommendations for further research stem from both the limitations and the findings described above. Although the model as develOped proved to be useful in examining quality of life, it should be considered as only a preliminary step. The model was described at the outset as partial. New research should focus on collecting quality of life data using a more complex model. The following section is devoted to suggestions for developing a more detailed model based on the conclusions drawn from this research. These suggestions are seen as readily adaptable to measurement. Because they represent an extension of a model, the need for the abstraction of reality still holds true. As a result, suggestions are confined to concepts which can be operationalized and may omit aspects of the total complex of human life. The individual as the organism of interest should 209 be defined more completely. Objective measures should include not only demographic information, but data pertain- ing to his physiological and psychological states. Sub- jective measures should focus on the feelings of the individual about himself. Several life concerns on the SALI and SALS scales measure feelings about oneself, such as those referring to accomplishments and self— developments. Andrews and Withey (1974a) have found feel— ings about oneself to be critical in determining overall perceptions of quality of life. The interaction within the individual (his feelings about himself) should be included in a more complete model. The environments of the individual should also be expanded. The Morrison model (1974) which distinguishes the natural, built and behavioral environments could serve as a take-off point for delineation of the various environ- ments. The natural environment, influential in the lives of the individuals composing the sample used in this research, could be measured objectively and precisely in terms of climate, geography, pollutant levels, amounts of wildlife, energy availability and so on. The built environment would include the constructed environments of man in which resources from the natural environment have been transformed to meet human needs. Examples would include clothing, dwellings, dwelling interiors, transpor- tation systems, schools, stores, businesses, factories and 210 all other man-built environments in which the individual finds himself. The physical resources of the local community would be included here. Instead of the behavioral environment suggested by Morrison, a human environment is proposed which includes the peOple who create an additional type of environment. Included here are families, ethnic and racial groups, the residents of the community, the participants in the work and school environments and abstract human institutions. The unique complex of environ— ments of each individual including his own natural, built and human environments could be explored. Another approach could focus on the environments various individuals have in common, such as work or community. The bulk of environ- mental measures are seen as objective in nature. Interactions between the individual and his environments should be viewed as two-way and on—going. The individual's perceptions of his environments are one example of interaction only.* In a more complex model, the individ- ual should be seen as acting and reacting to the various environments which also act and react. Interactions can be measured both objectively and subjectively. Actual processes which take place (e.g. matter flows) can be *In a study of resources available for educability, Baker (1970) measured use of resources as well as avail- ability. Quantity and quality of both availability and use provided information on additional dimensions. Measures such as Baker's are examples of measurements of other types of individual/environment interaction. 211 measured as well as attitudes, feelings and values in relation to the various environments. The amount of tele- phone contact between an individual and the members of his family can be defined as an objective measure of individual/ human environment interaction in an expanded model. His feelings about such contact constitutes a subjective measure of the same interaction. The examination of con- tinuing interactions (including both individual and environ- mental actions) is necessary for analysis of the dynamic nature of interaction. The expanded model described above should be con- sidered tentative. Various elements could be extracted for a research focus on a particular area. The process by which the individual transforms reality into perception is an element of individual/environment interaction which requires further exploration. Such research could add to the body of information processing theory. The sociological hypothesis of relative deprivation could also be investi- gated. Social movements have been hypothesized to stem from feelings of deprivation rather than actual objective deprivation (Morrison, Hornback and Warner, 1972). Research examining the subjective perceptions of objective condi- tions can add to the knowledge available in social movement study. Such a model could be used with a large, random sample as well as with a small, purposive sample. An urban 212 sample is essential in quality of life analysis. Compari- sons of findings using young and old, rural and urban samples could provide further insights into varying per- ceptions of quality of life. 4. Implications The impetus for this research came from two sources: the recognition of the inadequacy of economic indicators of well-being and the need to develop new measures of quality of life in the limited environment of the future. The findings of this research provided information relating to both areas. The sample of thirteen was as a whole unique with respect to the general American populace. Incomes were low, material possessions were scarce and the sample was older. Community resources were limited by urban standards. Yet none of the respondents felt entirely dissatisfied with their lives and half of them felt very pleased. The overall impression, gained through in-depth examinations of each of the thirteen individuals, is that their happiness was certainly not based on economic well—being. Many individuals in this country, including the respondents in Ontonagon County, already exist in limited environments. The elements of life from which such individuals gain feel- ings of well-being could serve as the focus of future planning and research. The implications of these findings can be discussed 213 in relation to the social indicators/quality of life move- ment as a whole. One of the goals of the movement as defined by Wilcox, Beal, Brooks and Klonglan (1972) is to provide information in the form of a social report that can guide public policy formation. The data provided in this investigation, in combination with the findings of other quality of life research, can assist in the develop- ment of public policy. Government programs today focus on providing for the material necessities of life. Most assistance pro- grams, such as Aid to Dependent Children and food stamps, provide direct material aid. Proposals such as guaranteed annual income also focus on monetary assistance. Yet this research, which in general supported similar findings by other researchers, points to the critical role of feelings and attitudes as well. In addition, several areas found to be crucial in determining quality of life center on man's social and psychological needs. Such findings seem to point toward the need for public programs that provide new types of services. Expansion of family counseling and planning programs could be a new approach to increasing the quality of life in view of the critical role of family life in determining feelings of well-being. Additional funds for family life research could aid in the generation of new information relating to the impact of the family on the individual. Job enrichment prOgrams could have an 214 influence on the key areas of work and accomplishments. Programs for the older citizen could be developed in View of the importance of independence and accomplishing some- thing on feelings of well-being. The extremely high level of importance placed on health definitely speaks to the role of the government in the health care arena. Such programs focus on the social and psychological needs of the individual as well as his material needs. "Quality of life" became a stated goal for Americans in the 1976 Presidential election (Ford, 1976). Yet what quality of life really means had not yet been determined. The research reported here, in combination with other find- ings, can assist in providing the needed information. New data defining quality of life, as well as delineating the ways in which it can be improved, can aid in the develop- ment of social reports. Such reports, in turn, can guide policy-makers in designing public programs that work toward achieving the goal of a high quality of life. APPENDIX A 1956 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 21£5 Schedule No. Dept. See. a: Lnthrop. Mich. State University MIGRATION Q 1195 up mneuu How do you do? I am Mia/Hrs. of Hichigan State University. The Sociology Department and the Agricultural mutant Station are conducting a survey of why people move. We are interviewing farmers and others around here to find out how moving affects the people and their cemunitiee. We hope the results will be useful. (Your answers will be strictly confidential and will be used only for research purposes.) CONFIDENTIAL 216 RESIDENTIAL HISTORY gg HEADS (PRESENT 29 12uo) 2 .. T ._ (S) (6) (7) (8) Is this the only Job What is the loca- Now, considering you've had since tion of the store all your friends you've lived here? where you do nest 'Where do the in what general Yes___ No . If no, of your grocery children go to areas do they whet else7_-§0rder shoppigg? H.S.? live? 113’- (5) (a) ' m (a) (9) ' When you ‘ moved to When you . ___did novedto Has that the only ‘ you change did Job you had when the place the child- you lived there? Why did you Why did you where you ran go to Yes____No If no leave this move to shopped for a differ- vhat elee7_-(orders community? 7 groceries? ent fl.S.? 1. 2. 3. h. I S. 6. 5 i l About how many other moves have you made since you left home? 217 RESIDENTIIJ. HISTORY 5! HEADS (PRESENT 1'0 12140) 2 I man I (S) (6) (7) (8) Is this the only Job What is the loca- New, considering you've had since tion or the store all your friends you've lived here? where you do nest Where do the in what general Yes No . If no of your grocery children go to areas do they whafilseI—(Orgg- m? 11.8.? live? I L” (S) (6) 9 (7) (8) (9) ' When you ' moved to When you . ___.did loved to Use that the only i you change did Job you had when the place the child- you lived there? Why did you 1 did you where you ren go to Ies___ No If no leave this I move to shopped for a differ- whet elseT-(order) comeity? ? groceries? ent 8.8.? 1. 2. 3. h. I S. 6. k i About how many other moves have you made since you left home? 21i3 ASPIRATIONS (New we'd like your ideas about some of the places you've been and Jobs you've had. 1. Of all the places you have lived, which place did you like best? 2. Of all the places you know of, which place would you like to live? 3. Of all the places you know of, where would you like your children to live? b. Of all the Jobs you have held, which Job did you like the best? 5. Of all the Jobs in this community, which job would you like best? 6. Of all the jobs you can think of, which Job would you like best? 7. Of all the Jobs you can think of, which Job would you like a son of yours to have? 8. Of all the Jobs you can think of, which Job would you like a daughter of yours to have? 9. ‘What do you want most that you don't have enough money for new? socm. CWTS AND URBAN IMAGES (Now, we'd like to ask a few questions about where you have traveled and what you think of city life.) 1. What is the farthest West you have traveled? 2. What is the farthest South you have traveled? 3. What is the farthest East you have traveled? 7. 9. 10. 2139 Have you been to: Canada Yes No Detroit Chicago idiwaukee If no, any large city? What city? Would you please tell me what you think is typical of life in the city? What are the most important ways in which city life differs from life around here? Have you ever heard friends, neighbors, or members of your own family'who moved to the city talk about problems they had in getting started? Yes No . If yes, what sorts of things did they mention? Have you ever heard friends, neighbors, or members of your own family who moved to the city talk about what they liked in city life? Yes No If yes, what? If you were to move to the city, what do you think would be the hardest part of getting started? If you were to move to the city, what do you think the advantages would be? 22H) Se FAMILY & HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION (Now I'd like to know something about the people who are now living with you and your children who are not new at home. ' ‘IIT’ 12) (37 (H) (5) Highest Relation If married, grade to Year Marital where did spouse completed Informant Born? Where born? status grow up? and where?* Informant Spouse Children (oldest to youngest) 1. 2. 3. 1.. , 5. 6. “For informant and spouse, is this where you grew up? 2221 man! £9; HOUSEHOLD cameras: (6) (7a) (75) (Ba), (85) (8c) ASKONLYH'NWLIVINGORHADLIVED New ~ AWAY FRO! m Living Ever lived What Home? away from IF NO, age Children (IF NO, home? Main first (oldest to GO TO (IF YES, 00 occupation left Why decided gyogggest) 0.8) T0 Q. 8 .at presegt_ home? Where went? Ito go there? 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 222 63 FAMILY £49; mm common ASK GIL! 11" N04 LIVING 0R HAD LIVED AHA! mm was (ad) (50) 18?) (EU (9} (10) (II) IPNOT HEW ”II-‘NOTLIVIMATHQE ewe: LIVIm 3!, Incl 1.1“ me, anyone First How Main W de- in new Job? obtained? occupation? cided to piece .retum? sent address E111 moved there? 1. 2. 3. h. S. 223 6b FAMILY Afl W C(NPOSITICN T12) U3) (1” 115) (15} (I?) (IUT IF NOT LIVM AT HOME (Is there alumna else living with 7) cu How often often Employed visit be Relationship NOTE, I? Take Write her visit to Year YES, What Marital News? friends? him? you Informant I Born occuggtion?I Status 1. 2. 3.’ b. 5. 6. 22L4 COMMUNITY SATISFACTION (He would like to know some of your opinions about your community.) 1. What do you like about your community? fiw—w 2. What do you dislike about it? v 3. Do you think there are any improvements needed in your community? Yes No DK . If yes, what kinds? (If not mentioned, probe for Recreation) Xarkets Health Education h. Even if these changes are not made, will you stay around here? Yes No DK . If yes, why? w i v—w S. If you were to leave the community, where would you move? 6. What do you like about that place? 7. Have you ever been there? Yes No . 8. Would you move from this community for any of the following reasons? a. More pay? Yes___7No DK . Comment: f b. Health reasons? Yes No DK . Comment: c. To get ahead? Yes No DK . Comment: 9. What kinds of people leave this area? 10. 'tht kinds of people stay? v—' 11. ‘What kinds of people are moving in? 225 were you an officer in the 12. ‘Why'would you say you have stayed? 13. Can you remember any specific occasions when you seriously considered moving? Yes No DK . If yes, what were the occasions? 1h. 0! what organizations are you and your spouse members? Head What proportion or of all meetings Spouse would you say Organisation Head pause you attend? ggst 5 years? as o D (Probe for church and church related, extension, cooperative, farm organizations, school, service, fraternal, veterans, professional, and Sportsman‘s clubs.) INCOME Lug coumox. ASK em or RURAL NON-FARM (Not living on farm). 1. 2. 3. h. Do you own or rent your home? Own Rent DK . What would you estimate to be the family's gross income last year? What is the main source of your income? Of what nationality background do you consider yourself to be? Your spouse? INCOME A_N2 comm AS? OHLY OF RURAL-FARfl 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6e 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 22265 Do you own or rent your home? Own Rent DK . How much land do you own/rent in Ontonagon County? Own Rent . flew much of the land is tillable? (Acres). What would you estimate to be the family's gross income last year? What percentage of this is from farming? None . What is the main source of farm income? What is the source/sources of your nonfarm income? About how many days did you work at this/these Jobs in the last year? Of what nationality background do you consider yourself to be? Your spouse? LEVEL 95 1.1:va Construction of House Brick, stucco, painted frame. Unpainted frame or other. . . Lighting facilities Electric. . . . . . . . . . . Gas, mantle, or pressure. . . Oil lamp or other . . . . . . Water piped into house Yes No Power washer. . . . . . Yes No Refrigerator Mechanical (Electric or gas . Ice . C . O O C 0 O O O O O O Other or none . . . . . . . . Radio . . . . . . . . . Yes Ne w. 0 O O O O O 0 O O 0 Yes No 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. All 3/h W M: Telephone. . . . . . . Yes— Auto (other than truck)Yes_ No: Takes daily newspaper. Yes_ 6 :3 S 2 6 :3 Central heating. . . . Yes No Indoor flush toilet. . Yes No Bathtub or shower. . . Yes No Number of rooms in house Location of House Hard surfaced. e e e e e Gravel, shell, or shale. Dirt or unimproved . . . APPENDIX B 1975 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE "FAMILIES IN EVOLVING RURAL COMMUNITIES" PROJECT 2227 .cduuoa eozuo >cn Lo eased» so: .onsoam «mm. u_ozu so acovcoanoe .mc_m_uo on» ze_>uouc_ "xuzu_>¢uhz_ ow mzo_»u:¢»mz. m :o_>ueuc_ uoc on .nomonuan condone» ecu >_co new: on ___3 new _a_ucuo_ucou >_uo_uun on ___3 newsman use» .30: one omm_ coozuon >u_caeeoU n.2u c. >__Em~ use» one 30> ecu cum—d cexmu as; non: uaonm aco_uno:o seem 20> xna as ex.— u_:o: o: .050: o>__ ___un 0:3 cacao .ac_m_uo “as“ c. o_aoon oz“ mo >o>uan a on a» noun n.5u cu vacuumed o>os .co_umum “cos—eonxu ”menu—au_uo< on» 59.3 .moucw_um u_.:u van >_.Eou new :m_muo one ucu2c0u_>cu case: we nucoeauoqeo one .o>oe u_nooa >cz uaona >ucsoU couocOaco c. >o>uam e nanosecou co_ueum «cos—Loaxu .ousu—su_eu< one new acoeuuodoo xmo_o_uom ecu .omm. c. .>u.nu0>_c: eunum cea_cu_z uo Es _ .ucenouaou _ eon: use m_om>e mc_u=n0uuc_ >3 c_noa ca 03.. v.30: . mum. an: >o0_ouu cuss: mo emu—.0u om: ea. mum lo .msaoo noeaumcu_mu core—>uuuc_ «co—uuoupn uco co_umu04 est 3.: zu_>ueuc_ ecu uceeuc_0dd< as.» ”unsung sumo Lease: scone n.uuemnam "hu u. <2 xo 02 no» ~a_zmuo_uceunne uo _oo;un .uu_c:uou no scan mc_c_muu Lucuo >co o>~ouou oeuxog v.9 .s sage—deco unseen anemone uao> n_o mc__oo;um mo muoo> >cme 30: .o ~onson» “conned use» no :o_uedsuuo as» a. gag: .m <2 go oz.llwo> ~>ucaou on» we econ—nee 03.“ men. a unseen anemone use» a. .: .:.u cu on .mu> w. nu co_uuom no on .o: u. "who: poo—Leos»; 30> o>o= .n fluency .mc_>__ .ch. o: a. yoga accumuonc: _ .en .n.o On on .Oc &_ mu cO_uuum On On and) u_ "who: <2 :0 oz.llwo> panacea uao> __.ua n. enmxez .N <2 20 oz_llnu> ~uc.>.. ___um eon—a sue—a can ease suu_n any >n oo_m_ucov_ ou_3\oconman ecu a. .— .omm_ on uo_un veauuuuo an unseen a: To go and 3 9.20333 cameo once a. 0303 30c: >ooeu_o u: m. _.m co_umoaa xno go: o: "who: "magnum .ou_uee uso> xoozu on one: o: c<>a no uh__Eom Locuoce cu .oueouou so» uncun .uueueouc_ __o a. m_:u moueu_vc_ acevcodmou u. "who: <2 ca calm.» 28:8: 2 .n .mmm. see» e>mc o: co_uo6u0mc_ ecu a. n.5k n_u_o mace "couo__:u no Lease: ew_3 use we cum—a :uuwo or: .5 a. 8... 5.3 oceans: ecu do eon—d nuu_m causes; .5» a. «one gs..a ":e_>uouc_ cmm. 0:» seem vo_aou o>ec . co_ue6u0uc_ any we oEOn one; On one: _ <2 as (£33.25 oz a.» .~ 3mm. 5 .33» 35 Lo» v2.8; nee»:— euez unseen use» no 30> aucuecz Lenses»; 30> ca <2 :9 0: mu» .— 752. _ .3: Ann_: ..nu: ..u:v sue 30> mkumfimam no zo_h .o .< 229 .0 no on on O. 0" neuunum one: co_um_uumoo .u. vogueum ouno co_um_uumoo ._2 fleece» flee-c. unseen we «now v.0:ou302 me one: we macs .ucuueu umoe ecu cu.) uc_cc_uon Aucusou_uou cu aav omm_ euc_u on: e>ez owned» use» new 30> mach any 05 ..ee A..u co_uno:e e» on .oz 2. "mkozv <2 2o oz_llwo> ~omm. ooc_a.n20q oomcanu omaoaw uao> 50 30> u>m2 .o. «ucquu_uoL we once any no: gas: Amu> u.v .m oz.|IWo> ~uou_uou «macaw 230» m. .m ~ucoEou_ueu 20 came any an: ace: ham» 2.2 .h IIU2.IImo> puou_uou 30> ee< .o .e .U A .m "Oh uz.>oz mom mzomoz mo wh__ o>m2 30> moon—a ecu __o as __ou 30> o_aoz .m A.m co_umoaa 0» cm .02 u. "whozv <2 2o 02 Ilwo> ~omm. new so: ceozuen cum—d uocuo >cm c_ oo>2_ 30> o>m2 .~ A.m co_umoaa on on .oz 2. "mkozv <2 go 02 Ilwe> «A.uuo .ucoeuuodov «moo: «Eon one m22u m. ._ aod¢\>umcaeeouv c2 uo>__ 30> .mmm. c_ 30> uozo_>uouc_ oz :02: h_z= >4_z20hm_: 4<_h2uo_mm¢ Asu>ax sac: c. "mooxav p223 .IIwEom 02“ “son<.lluuo enuoz.lleeo League ~ome auao> o~ no: u_ so: zu23 so: .euecoo cm 02.. use» nacho .oeu 30> 2m: 02» ouadeou 30> v.30: 302 "co_umo:a .ouoceu once a 30> xnm cu ux__ open: _ 302 .o .u ~nemo> cu amen ecu :— 02.. :20 use» 2. gene e>e2 noncocu Lemme ecu >em 30> v.30: was: .m 230 sauce» o~ yum. ecu c_ >__emu 5:02 we 02—. one c_ coon «>02 meme-cu Lagos ecu >cm 30> v.30; ans: 2. 3 lane no: moon I B 3 Scan “2955 .33.: _ In Ave_2m_ummm_n no: vo_um2uMm eunu20cv .muunoz IHHHU .N uoleu_s..._e a 00m&m_u~m oe_2mmuomm_o >__m:ce oo_un_umn o.nmuuek >dao2c: >_umoz uaono .oex_2 >_umox comma—a oeucm__eo N o m e n N _ 2.302: N no new. Lao» unenm .002 sex :02 mon_uUmuo amen Lease: ems: .— A.mco_un2uunoo any one—m once Loxom> .022. usage .00» unm_e apnoea :02 mo aco_ud_u0moo new menu m_;u :0 A._\ name ucuocoamuu new: ”whozv 30> see On ox__ v.30: _ 302 ououc_ "whozv .mco_ua_u0moo ozu ue>o one: .auoo> oaozu anon- .oeu so» so: usage mco_umo:c .muoo2 cu “and ecu no» vexeox new 20>". e>.:o> sues: “none uc_x_mu coon o>mc o: zo.hmu=d mu_4 no >b_4 a.mm> >602» u.u_> .0020n 20 >o>_— >ocu c0_uoa:JNMI >o>__< 30> o~u~ 30> “IN >onurm1~ 30> Nun «ueo> mnn on 050;: mnw ucomeud. :u~ n-~ . .v. on couuo 302 A.3o_on uemcu 020 cc v_mcu some ecu 8:2:er 2: So :3 .m; : "who... .| 3mm. 85m 5:22”. 9.9.. >5 e... a; as: .N IIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIII .m .» IIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIII aIIIIIIIII. .o (It. .o I I so .2 .0 second ~mueuuo_ , c0 a.mu ou_53 ~ao> u_m_> «even u_m_> .oosum 20 ~o>22 >020 comuoaauuo ~e>__< 30> o.-. 30> w-— >02u ‘mna 00> Nu. memo> on. on 050;: m-_ sconce; an. -— . . on ceueo 30: A.o__2u some go» some «mecca mc02umeao xm< "upozv "one noun“. o>ac 03 cage—~20 02» .>._Emu Lao> we uneasee c0 eo_umeLouc2 on» oueuud: as ex__ 2.303 e: 302 uz_¢amuuo mo uh 04003 auhm 20.21 20 ~ m. >2<>2002. 302 Auxme .50“. 2000.0u «500 00> «0 “neou_ me_e_aeeu 50>0 00 cocky .2m.) 00> u. amen m20 20 m2u>. 4<¢u>um >02 > >m2u>_ m2» u0 >mu¢ m2> ham 04003 00> _ 02< m 2mu3>mm mauhm ><23 20 u: hawk 00> 0400: .302 a.mxcm_a omega 0. :_: m use .meom muse: aceocoameu u_v ~00> 0h wuz hz< mamzh u¢< .ou2muo 0n >020 0. menu_ omozu wooden 0» 6020 :0__m .meeu_ one we 050m ween: >0oee_o no: uconcodmou m. .meuu_ omega mc_oououa mxcm_n ecu :2 :m: o and .mEdu. uno muc_00 no mean: ucencodmou mm "neon co meou_ ue>0 00 cu 05.0 unencOQmeu 0>2uv ~u¢< >m2> ><23 u: gawk 00> 0400: >00> 0h uuz<>¢0a2. 20.: >¢m> no m¢< ><2> m02_2> «m auhm 20nuaoh mxh >< >00 04003 00> 20.23 >m_4 m_2> 20 m02_2> u>.m «0 «00¢ mxuzh u¢< A.u:0_m enemy .¢u>0 tux» 0m4 A.uconcoamuu ca 0.00 acuuucOu _4x mo >m_4 < m. may: mach uzh h< #30 04:03 30> muz_zh zuzho >z< ucmxh m¢< Auxno .vunaOum new mean teen: «on 0:m\oz Louu< .mEeu. emcee canoes» new. a lean .ncueocou no un2_ :0 can umgu neou_ «use: acovcoamOL u. .050: acoucoamuu mmc_cu 0:0 m 000m :0 c300 ou_uzv :.mhm:z: «mo—mzou 30> h ck wuz¢m> mo moz_:k mxhuuxuoo<4 uzh no nah uzh h< >30 04:03 30> xz_xh 30> moz_:h mzom u: 44mh 30> 04:03 “.000 020 na_: mc_uumum .000« some 00 use: any 00020 .mauhm u>_m m¢< umuxh A.eouuoa 0a 000 see; Lomc_m 0:20 .muz<>¢oaz_ 20 muucouo m00_¢<> hzumuxamx zumzkum 2. mauhm 02> A.eouuon cu uc_0mv .>202 u¢< ><2> m02_2> m00> 0h ¢u>><2 >02 00 ><2> m02_2>--44< >< >2<>¢002_ >02 mm< 22_2> 00> moz_:> mhzumuaama 20>>0m u2> >u4 “.00“ 00 002000 .m4<_>2mmmm 20 :mhmazz «m0_m200 00> m02.2> u:>--uu_4 xoo> 2..>2<>aoai. >2m> mm< 22.2» 30> m02_:> uxh mkzmmmmmma ¢m00<4 m_:h no 00h uzh >0_a < m. mam: A.0m L0 003025 0 Lou xc_2u aceucOQmeu 0040 .00> 0>.>2<>20a:_ m. ><23 >000< 22_2> 0F mhzwxox 3mm < u2<> .mu_4 2. >z<>¢0d:_ m. 22.2k u: ><23 do <2 m0 no 40< w.mg nca Na «0000 0m: .mumonucouma cm 000 mcomuusuumcm Lulu—>000c_v _4 00.0000000 000 0.0m000> 00.00.0000 00.00 n. 0000000000 .000.002 000 0003 «0.0.>.000 00.0003 -000 000>uoee.0 0000a 000> 0000a 00> >03 00> 0000.00 000> 00.3 0>00 00> 000.0 000 000 00 00> «00.00 00> “500000.. 00000000000. 00.. >00.00o>00 00.0000000. 00 00.>02 0000 000.0 00.. >..0.0 0.003 000> 00 00000>.0000000 000 >00000 >0.0000¢ .0.0000.0 000200000 00 00000 n 00.. 00> 000.0 00> 00.00.00 00.0...0 0006>0n00 000 000 00.0.0000 .00.u>00 000 00.000 030 000> 0600 00 0003.00 00a 0 0000.0 - x003 00.00060» 00.0»..00000< 0000000.>00 .000000 000 00 00.0.0000 >00~0m 00000000 00.. mu<0 u>.mo00o zo mac—hunchmz. mum .cu:u.>¢mh2. O .1 a] r: O C O I O O O O O O C O O O O O 44¢ h< uuzhhm¢0v 002<00000_ 00.: >00> AHHWWUMWHV m400 000 .0 000005000 <2 00 02 Ilw0> 0000000x0 00.>.. 000000 0h .0 000000000 <2 20 02.Ilwe> «0000.00 00 0000.0 00 0h .0 “00000000 <2 00 02.II00> 0000.00.00 00000 00 0000.0 00 o» .0 "00000500 <2 20 02.II00> >0000..00 000> 00 0000.0 00 0h .0 000005500 <2 20 02.II00> «0000000 00.00: .0 "00000800 <2 00 02.|I00> >05000. 0002 .0 00000000 00.30..00 000 00 >00 000 >0.000500 0.00 0000 0>oE 00> 0.003 .m <2_|I20 «000.0 0000 00000 00.. 00> 00 000: .n <2 Ilro .0006 00> 0.003 00003 .>0.002500 000 0>00. 00 0003 00> 0. .0 00:0 .00» 0.. II(2_|I£0 Ilez.llw0> 00000 000000 >000 00> ...3 .0002 000 000 0000000 00000 0. 00>u .m 2135 >00.000000 00000 0003 .0 000.0...000 00.000 00000 0003 .0 >00000m 00000 0003 .0 ~00.0000000 00000 0003 .0 .0000 00000 u>03.0 .0000.000e 000 0. ”upoz. ~000.0 0003 Amu> 0.. .0 al. I II II .00 00 00 .02 0. 5.00000 00 >.0000.0 00 .20 0.. <2 20 oz mu> >>0.00EEou 000> 0. 000000 000050>000e. >00 000 00000 00.00 00> 00 .n 00. 0aon. «00.0.0 :0» on 0.00 .0 ~>0.00EEou 0000000 000> 00000 00.. 00> 00 000: .. 000E . .>0.000000 >0 .>0.00eeou 000> 00000 000.0.00 000> 00 0000 3000 00 00.. 0.003 03 zo.hu<0m.>>.z:x:ou .2 236 «000 >03\>03 .Il 0>0.000000 0.00 0. 00000 000000 000 .00.0000 00. 00.000.0 000 00.3 00.00.000 00> 00< ~00.000.0 000> 00 0000 >00 00> 00 00003 A0600 >0.00eeouv 000.00000 >000000 000> 00 0000 00 00> 00003 00000 000 00 00.0000. 000 0. 0003 0.000.0 0.008000000 000 ..000.0000000 .0000000> ..00000000 .00.>000 ..00000 .000.00~.00000 E000 .0>.00000000 .00.0000x0.0000.00n000000 000 000000 000 00000 “whoz~ ~0000> 0>.0 0000 000 .00.00000 00 000000. 0. 000.000 00 00> 0003 «000.0006 000000 00> 00 00000 30: 0000mm 000: 0000mm 000: 000000 000: dadmmmwmmmum .m. .n. .0. .m. .0. .m. .w. 000.. >000 00 00003 .0000.00 000> 00 ..0 00.000.000u 0000.00000 000 0003 0003 .mu> 0.. <2 00 02 IIW0> 000.006 00000.0000 >.000.000 00> 0003 000.00000 0.0.0000500000.>00 00000600 00> 00o ~00>000 0>00 00> >00 00> 0.003 >03 ..~ .ou ... .o. 237 ~o>__ 0a ox__ 00> 0.00: 000.0 :0_cx .302; no» noun—n any __a to .N $8.. 9.: so» 2.. 8a... 62: is: 3:. so» .32.. 2: Zn 3 ._ .00» 0» cox—00 awn. 93 cue—u coon 05.00» «000.0 0:» mo «20» uaona amou— L=0> ox_. 0.03.302 mzo_h<¢_mm< .5 18.0... 05 0:02 Ito 0301 Ilto 03qu 3. m. u... 3 3000 ac: moon I B 3 2.000 29.05 00>»... . I: 2.03.030me .0: 0033.3... 5052.5 .0300: IS -m»az “as: c. "moogm. ~>gz sons nuns» cu 0a 00.00500 30: >u_c:eeou 000» can. :0» 0.003 30: .m vo_&meuomm_0 a unnummumm uo_mmmummm_o vommm_ummm_a 00_um_ummm_o >_.m:00 vomwmmuom 00_mm_umm vu_ummuam >Lu> >uuogm umczuEOm uaonm .0ox_z unczueom >uuoum >Lo> s m m a m N _ A.: ugmu om: "whozv .30: mon_gumon anon 0035:: “an: .>u_c:eeou g_onu 03000 ”no; unm_s 0.0000 30: mo mc0_ua_00m00 000 0000 m_;u co .0 ~>umcaseou L30» zu_3 ohm 00> 00mmm_umm .\ sauna» ow “an. on» c. >u_caesou 030» c. cuun o>az momcmzu Lanna as» >~n 30> 0,303 “as: .. mmuzh_zazzou .. 23E3 2:0 025 80» a; Is. I: lo: In.» 2:0 «8.: >2 3: .3 .o Is. «10.91.02 1.3» 833:. E .0 Is. I33 In: In; 8320 .u (2 go 02 ulna» 0.0.58 .0 <2 .8 3'3» 000:0“. .0 “3 :02. 30» «>0: poo—030:0 030: 30> «mom 000:0:00 0:0 m, 00:: ~00_0>0:u 030: 30> :030m unucug0u 0:0 mm 00:) ~0o_0>0:u 0:0: 30> an»: 000:0:0: 0:0 mm 30:) .00“. >u_u :0 x:_:u 30> “0:3 0:0 00.030:u «>0: 30> 0:053 03000 u:0_00030 30» 0 x00 00 0x“. 0.03 302 muuocoe :m30:o o>0z 0.:00 30> 00:0 0008 0:03 30> 00 00:) ~>000u c0503 mc30> 0 00 0:026000: 30» 0.303 00a Lung; .00 x:_:u :00 30> 000m 0:0 __0 :o «>000» :06 mc30> 0 00 0:055000: 30> 0.303,:0m :0~:3 .uo x:_:u :00 30> 000a 0:0 __0 mo ~o>__ 00 co:0__:0 :30» .vox__ 030: :0 .ox__ “mos 30> 0.30: 0:0:3 .30cx 30> «000:0 0:0 __0 :o 239 08. 8 0...: a: 8 0; I03 8 03 la“ 3 3 .m «m:.E:0m 20:» m. 0500:. :30» :0 0000:00:0a 00:3 “00>000 0:0.00030 :0: 0000.. 00; u:.e:0u u. .m«oz. «0000:. :30» 00 00:30: 0:00:005. 0005 0:000: 0:0 0. 00:: .0 A.m 0:0u on: «0500:. 00 00:300 :.0E :30» a. 00:3 .m 0 _ z a m m o 0 o < "ukoz. «:«m. :0» 0500:. 000:0 0.»..000 0:0 0003.0c. :0.:3 0:00 0:0 :0 :0000. 0:0 0. 00:: .~ <2 v... lace... '56 «3.0... :30» 0:0: :0 :20 30» 0o .. Jozhzou oz< wrouz. «0:0: 0:30:0 05.. 20:. 0:0...0 00.. »0.0 :0.:3 :. «»03 0:00:006. 0005 0:0 0:0 00:: .0 «»0.0 0:0 c. 00.. :0 .00.0»0 a. x:.:0 30» 00:: 0e ..00 0000.: 30» 0.303 .m .0 24K) ».0003 02 »..0o 00» :0000030: 00:05 ..N nIII. 0: «»:05 .30.. 00» 0..:0520:m .ou 0: «0» 30::h .m. 0: «»005 30: no» :09 .c. 02 no» 0:0:00.0h .«. 0 «»:05 30: 00> :0.u.>0.0h .0. .IIII oz «»:05 30: 00» 0.00: .m. 0.:3 :0000:: :0000::\:000:0m.::0m x0000. 000:000 000: .a. 5000»m 0..:3: oz 0: ..0: 00» 00» 0030: 00:. 000.0 :0003 .0 :0»:0 00:00.“. .n. :0:0o . oz 0.:000.u no» uo_0___u~: mc_0;m_0 .m :0:003 00:00.u .~. .500::00: 00o: ..o o: 0:0 cocu0_x oc.0=_uc.. 000 .009 00» 0500: :0 :00532 .: 0:.000: .0:0:00 ... :0:00 :0 050:: 000:.0aca 050:: 000:.0: .000300 .x0.:m 2: 00» :0.003:00:00 0:.030: .n 0:30m .0. 0A _ 00>0:05.:3 :0 0:.o 00» 0.0:: :0 ..0:0 ..0>0:u 00..00 :03.: :000:. .m 000: 0000::30 0:0: 00:00.00: :0 :0.00000 .N 0: muhllll 0&0: m:.m:3zllll :030:m .m eoomllll 0:050:0amllll x0.03QIIII ennui: «so: u__0o:|||| m0hllll 00:00.00: »..50: 0.0:.mllll. 030:009 .h 00»0 mc.maoz .. "050: :30» :0 00:3000: 0:0 :0 0500 030:0 30» x00 00 0x.. 0.. 302 uz.>.0 mo 0u>w0 .r 2411 ..500. 0:0 m:.0000:a :c0.: 0:0 c. <2 00.:3 .».qn0 0.:0000 500. 0:0 0»00 0:00:0000: :_ .mmmm. . .:0000. 0:0 :0 0000 000.:ao:an0 0:0 :0 500. 0:0 00.:3. «h. «30 30> 90:03 mmhm «(:3 20 « :k.) 30> w¢< ou.:m_«0: :0.:: m 0000 :0 0500. 0:0 0:0:0 :. 000 0:0 .0o 00. ..000 >¢0>0 zo oz.xhutom m>um «an z¢w> mm< no» u. .00» um» h< «. ham .5. :«.3 ou.:m.h¢u> mx< no» :. .m0azwm ux< mmmxh .zo.«u<:m_h «2mmmmamm zmmzkmm z. maukm ax» .ou.:m.«mu> um< no» :u_:: z. 0:.0 < uz.«zumm¢mm¢ m4 zo««0m “:5 :o xz.x» .ou.:m.»¢w> 0:: so» 000: no» mmuz)--:o xz.:« z:o0c.. m000 0:0 30» 50.x: 00.0:00x0 0:» 0:.00 0. 0:05::0>ou .0:0.00z :30 00:: 00.0.>.0u0 m:.x:0x u:0: :30» .05.0 0:000 :30» 0:000 30» »03 0:» 00:0.:: :30» £0.) 0>0: 30» 005.0 0:0 0:0 00 30» 00:.50 0:» 00 00 0:03 30» 00:3 00 00 00:0:0 0:0 u 50000:: :0 00:00:0000c. :30» 0. 0:.. »00u00u»00 :30» u:.000:00:. 30: 000: 0:0 0:0: 00» 0:3050 0:0 0:.x 0:0 o:.>0: a 000: 000 30» 000.0 0:» :0:0..:u :30» .000.::05 :30» .0c0n03c\0:.2 :ao»uu0:.. »..50: :30 :30» 0.:03 :30» :. 000:0>.000:000 0:0 »03000 :0 0:3050 0:» »..0.u:0:.: 0:0 30» 0:3000 30: 0:050:0:0\0030: :30» 000: 0:0 0:03 30» 0:.x 0:0 m:.>0; a 0:.n0o.u 20.0: 030.0..0: :30» 0>0£ 30» 0:05»Oa:0 0:0 :3: :0 0:3050 0:» :0.0.0:00 .0u.0»:a 0:0 50.00: :30 :30» no: :30» 0:.. :30» :. m:.:0..q50000 0:0 30» 00:3 00:0 0.:0 :. :0003 0:0 0:0. .:.0 0:0 .0:05:0:.>:0 .0:300: 030 :0 :0.0.0:00 0:» »00:00 :30» 0::0u:00 0:.0 .4.00.:0000 0:» ..0:00:0000: 00 an 0:00 0:0: ”whoz. .0:00 0 0. 0:0: .:0.00030 0:05 0:0 0>0: . 302 ..0: 0:00 003. 20.00030 0:.. :0 >:_0<3o 0:» 00...x0 0:0: :0 00.050x0 00 0:.5 :30» 00 0500 00:0 00:.50 :0 00:.: 0:0 00.. 00 30» 0:.. 0.303 . 302 .mm ~00: »53\»:3 .mm Ilfz Ilia IIWz .Il00» «»0.>.000 :0 0:.x :0..5.0 0 c.000 :o c.0m0 03 0. 0x00 00 0:.. 30» 0.303 .am 00000 00> 0.0 :03 .mm ..»0.>.000 0:0 00..030.> :00 30» ..0:3 0.0.:0005 0:0 00000:0 03000 0:0.00030 0:.00::00.0 »n »0.>.000 :0 :0.00.:0000 0 000 000000. 000 30» 0.0 00:.20 :0 00:.4 00:3 .00» 0.. .Nm .mm :0.00030 00 00 .oz :.. ..ll <2 l0... 02 '00.. ..00: 00 .000: . 00.. 0:0 00 0030 u 00.00< .whoz. «0:.4 0.50 :0 »0002 0 030: :0 00:.50 0x05 :030 30» 0.0 0000 0:0 :. ..m .0m 00.00030 00 0.00 .0002. .0. 00.:0000 :0 050: 30» 0.303 .00» 0.. .om Il(z lira _II02 .Ilwo» ~x:03 :0 0:.x 0.:0 0:.00 :0: 030:0 :0 03.0 0 00 0:0.00 30> 00 .m~ "00:05500 <2 go 02 II00» 00:0.0 x:03 0»03.0 30» 00 .mm 2414: "mpzutzou 0420.».oo< 000.30:: 0:0:000 0000000“ .0:03000 0000000 :0: 0 .000.00030 :0 00». .3:0003000 00.: 0:03000 .3: .0:0x000 .0:0x0=0 ..0 :03000 .3208”. 000320 0.003. 0:30:03 0:000 ..00: 02 28: .0 000.0 0.30000m .00.000.:.:0.0 -0030 ..0 :0: 30.3:003. :0 .0:0.0.000 .0:0.00030 .0 .000.00030 000000 30.000.: 00.00000:0200 03000.: 000000 .0:0.00030 -:0>00 :0 00.000 0005 00 00.000 -.:0.0 .00000 -0:0500 a..000¢ 000s 00000:00c: u.:.:0.0 000002 u.:.:0.u 000002 .:0003 000 0.0 .0 .30.»:000. :0 0:0 00 000 -:00c. 0030.0000 0.0.0 03000 00::00 00000300: ..000 .0005 £0000: 055.500 -0000: .a:~0000 .00000300: 0|.0 :0:0.3:00c. -0c.0000 .0..00 000:0000 as.» .0: :. 0.300000 :0 «0030.6 owum. 06.0 0006.0 .... .30.3 0: :0: 30.3 03.0 003000 0.300 0.0023 0.0.00.0 -0:000 0.00 0300 -:00c. 00.::3: -:000. 00.::3x .0 .00000.0.0:00 0.00....3 .03.00:00000 .30.>:000. :0 000 .0.0.0:0 :0.3000 .0.0.0:0 :0.3000 .000 00 000 00 00000:00:. 30.3:000. :0 3000 00002 :0 :000 00:01 -:000. 000:000: 00030500 .00:.: 0. 000:000. .00000:0 .3000 ac 00000:0 03000 .o:.cc.000 0. . 00 :030.>:00c. .0:030:0 000:030 «00.00030 0000< 030.0003: 0000< 00.0000: .0:03oz :0 030.0.003m .03.00:00000¢: .< 0:202:00 .n .0 .n .0 .. 7:53.00 mum‘s“. :0003 0:000:05 3.30000 0030.3:000. 000.:0000 0000 00.03 m. .5083: 000000 "5.6.38.0... 00.2000 0030:5002. mm 20.23050 "30.3:000. :0 000000 ‘4 0:0:0.3:00c. ”:00502 a..sw: "30.3:000. :0 000° "0030.3:000. .0.000:00 ”0020.3:003. A..F0: :0 0:02 APPENDIX C 1976 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 245 mm¢>wuopmg cows: “mm> an .m <2 xo oz mm> «zoceee mwzo cw mw yen» .mge; eceege m>w— me>wumpmg Lee» we owes Hana mum no» e_:e3 .w .x.:3 --;.;--;;.n, ~m>_z co Ems“ mx__ 3oz nose: moms: ”oz no .0 1.! 'll VII <2 xo oz mm» homgewwzu we xv «cewumeep ewes» now: emwwmwpem :ex mg< .zoceee on» we wowmoee m>wp :mgUche Lao» we .m ~m>__ o» ems“ oxw_ 3o» n.303 egos: uez no .c wamvmson wacu wmwgopwgu we kw we :ewomuep ecu cow: eowwmwumm no» mg< .zuceee commeeuco cw m>w_ cogewwce one» we .m woe: an: go x53 as _—ou so» emu .N il «2 II Va ..I.. oz II. we» Ncewumowcefigeo we 2:85 35 :33 emwwmwoem so». v.2 .cmLe—Ee flooeuoeo we uczesev each new: peeocee o>eg eu seem no» .zegez owe. me o>om so» :ewueELewcw Acmgowwge we wy hmeumum Feuwgeev ecu eo mcwegeee< . m>mz so» “ago ecu ego so» was» eceomgmoc: _ .. »__sme .< .x__5ew Lee» use wpmmgeox uzee -m mcewommee 2mw m omen mcwxmm ze “Loom eu mxww e.H .mmmeegee :egemmme Low xpce new: me ___3 use meuceeww -ceu xpuewgom we —_w3 mgmzmcm Lee» .ooewme m< ._:wepm; “wee we e—eez sex we FeLm>wm Eegw :ewerLewcw —ocewo -weem page eoeweme Emmy cogmmmmg ego .mswu pogo om omoemw_ee cowomELewcw on» mcwzww>me Lmuw< .mewo pogo on me omzmw>gmucw age; so» eceumemecs H .zegez umew omen mwzu emewmw> wen» Emmy cegemmme ecu we LmeEmE m Em H .xuwmgm>wcz mueom cemwco_z we E.H .ez_wx >hnmm ow\m~\m 2465 .3ec mcewumwee wEmm on» so» xmm op mxww m.z .mw__ Lsez cw mamow meepge> we mecmoLeme ego mcwcgmecee mcewummee osem no» emxme gmzew>ewucw esp seem: ome_ .wweeog xes so» m< mwoom Noam numm om\m_\m oz mm» ~m>w_ cu Emge mx__ 30» upaoz mgmcz “oz me wmm>womwmg Leez we :ewumeew Fmewzemgmeom ecu new: emwwmwomm :ex mg< .o_ .m CO 2437 wk. ham 30> mono: Lm>o om cushy .50». sumo mc_ouuoee Jon—a cu use ouuczoe Lo vase: noun we geese: can»: .ewu_ some Lew “meeoxv muhm :u_:3 20 s m. Hz ma unsoum mc_cmmeuu .xw.) 30> m. mmhm mzo zo mzwh_ 4<¢m>um ham > wmzmh. mzh mo hmmx mzh ham ooze) 30> _ az< m zwmzhum mmukm P ooze: .302 a.mxcm_n omozu :— :_: a use .MEOm muse: ucovcoamow w_v ~:o> op muz kz< uxmzh um< mauu_ umozu .ug_muo em >ozu w_ gauge» 0» song xo__m .meoum an» we ween ease: >emoe_m mm; ucoecoemoe w. .wEuu_ omega mc_ouuoee axon—n ozu on :m: m use .meou_ use mucmoe he muse: acoucoemuu mm muemu :0 «Eu». eo>o 0m ou ue_u ucuecoemuu o>_ov ~m¢< >mzh #4:: m: oomh 30> cone: weo> oh moz¢m> we mm< w :u_:3 hm_4 m.:h zo muz_:h m>_m me «new umuzk m¢< A.eeo_m umuxv .¢m>o zuzh e moz_:h xuzko >z< uzmxh u¢< Auxmm .uuae0um ecu ween team: mm; ucm\on Louw< .mEmu_ omen» cmeoLzu uc__ m ZmLe .mchucou wo um__ :0 new gene maouw even: ecuocoamoe w. .mtmc ucuvcoamug mmcmcu ecu m ovum co czcn mu_w3v :.mhm:z: amc.mzou 30> h<13nu=o> or wuz¢m> mo moz_xk wzhnnxuoo<4 mxh no mo» uxh h< Pam 94:03 30> xz_:h 30> muz.:h wzom w: 44mh 30> ooze) m>_w mm< ummxh A.Eouuon ou uc_0mv A.eou one so“: mc_uemum .emum zumu wo «Em: mzu emoxv .mmuhm A.Eouu02 0“ ecu seew Lomc_w cnmv .muz h2mmm¢mu¢ zmuzpmm z. mmmhm mxn .>m ow muww muz_xk mhzmmummum rehkom uxh > moz_:h wxhunuu_4 New» :_ Pz um< gz_xw 30> muz.zw mzw mwzwmmmamm mmoo 0h.bzeuec_v _e mc_cuu00gn one w_umgao> mc_eo.o>oo mc_ou m. ucoEcLo>0m .mco_umz 530 yen: mowu_>_uum mc_xgoz nee: Lno>auoe_u «Loam Lao> ocean 30> >m3 och muco_ew Lao» :u_3 u>mc 30> mue_u on“ vcm oo 30> mmc_zu ozh Aeoeooewv mucuocoemec. ow__ >melouu>mu mc_umoeouc_ cm mc_>mz teem goo—m ow__ >__Emu v.50: Leo> wo mmuco>_uumeuum new >uamom >u_eau0m .mmucm:_m ucoEuLmem Lo «mac: n o>__ 30> mum—e ugh manage—e co_m__0¢ ucoE>0wco eon can co.u_ecou .mu_m>ce ecu cu.muc :30 Lao> 060; on :50: no new m Lo;u_o u x503 m:_zuu20m mc_cm__eeouu< ecoEcoL_>co .meeumc use we co_u_ec0u >uowmm monoucOu ow_4 mu¢whz. 44< h< muzhhm¢mv 3,258.: :2: 55> ”a m4gmuoo ”mwozv mcowpowgomoe on» Lo>o comm .owwp oneoo Peow ozmwe m—oomo so; we mcowuowgomoo moo egoo own“ :0 NmEooow uoommgo one» op moooomoggoo own» egoo own» no Lopuow moo oumewecw no» ownou ”mu> uH ~30: "wm> w» <2 go oz .III mo> wcogoz poop meowm emmoose cowoonpwm new one» mm: o |I|.Looo Lo opow .III ooew .III ucmwwmexm "ow :pwom; ago one» »om no» ownez .Fogmomm :H wmmswu »:eE 2o: ”mm> oz <2 20 oz mm» mono» umow mop ow use; Homemmwm>oee Lo owow—e .Popwomo; o cw muzmw: woes Le moo “zoom no» m>oz wgouooo moo owmw> no» on omuwo 2e: »_mpoewxoooo< hwwm we .mg»v wuomggoo cowuoonoo we mooo» on; no» pogo oowuesoowow one mm .oon one» one .zupmm; one» .wwmmgno» onoom mcowumono 3mw o no» xmo op mxww o.H 3oz wonow>weoo 5mm ow\m_\m .u 25C) .omFe .oweme mcewommno mmocu peeooo op oxww e.H .oww_ one» cw meoow use -oowwwe cow: moo: no» emwwmwpom 3o; oneeo moowummno meow no» eoomo omwo m3 :oooz umew .wooemo »oe no» m< mweom m4__ mxoo no» on .m <2 xo Pnumm oo\m_\m woo: »;z oo »:3 we wwoo no» coo .N oz Ill.mo> wmmnec one» we oewoouow eom monowoonw on» new; eowwmweom no» oo< ._ .oEe; one» onoeo _oew no» 3e; mcwoooooeo moowomono wowoe Zow e o>eg H 3oz mow—ooze .m .o ZEil A.eou_ ecu mcooouooo sou—n ecu c_ u¢< ou_om_wmc no.5: m ovum co mama. mom moon“ wo mom eco _no oov .oowm »oo»o zo oz.n»ozoo onoz e» oooz woz oo no» oz< .oowm ozo zo moz.x» noounom wno z o¢< no» o. .onozom oo< moor» .zo.»o ozomooooo noonwoo z. mooom on» .oo.om.» oo< no» no.:n z. oo.n < oz.»2omooooo o< nowwom o:» oo oz.:» .oo_om.» oo< no» nooo no» mourn--oo xz.:» zouuc_v m4ou ooo no» zo_z3 eu.ucooxo och mcoeo m. ucoEcoo>om _oco_uoz one “on: mo_u_>_uuo ucoxooz see: one» .oe_u oooom one» noon» :0» »o3 on» mooo_ow oao» no.3 o>oc no» mos—u ocu ecu on no» mmcosu och oo cu yea: so» eon: 0o 0“ ouconu ocu a Eooooow oo ouooocooooc. one» m_ ow_. >ovnouu»ou one» monumooouco 30: oooc ocm ucoz no» ucnoeo oco vczx one mcm>oc a oOOu you no» coo—m och coou__zu one» .omo_oome one» .nconmac\ow.z oao»nuow__ »__Emw :30 one» ozoox one» cm mmoco>oouoouuo eco >unmoo wo “cacao och »_~ooucocow ooo no» oonuom :0: ocoeuooomxomno: one» nooc oco uco3 so» too; oco mc_>oc . mc_:uo.u zu_ow m:o_mz_oo one» o>oz no» ucoE»0mco vco caw wo ucnOEo on» coououcou .ou_m»zo eon cu_oo: :30 one» no» one» ow__ one» co moosmoooeouuo ooo no» eon: mooo mosu c_ oouoz woo woo. .ooo ocu .ucoEc0o_>co .ooouoc one we cooo_oc0u och >uowom one» mcooucOu ow_o _4mm4Hmoz _h444hmoz ommoz oo Eeepom .III moewuoeem .III couwo "»om no» epnoz wmozoowe one» ow xoo» no» »oz ozu no»; oowwmwoom no» ooo oopwe 3oz .N u»wweoom .oozuo .w |||.oz no» .o "omnoeoe H» W» mozoo_o one» cow; oowwowuom Namuflmmm woo woo no» w» .— homooomoo mnow ocwzoeoe one ouooosoo eo owoo no» oooz .mcwzuopu one» unoeo moowumono oEom no» zoo oo oow_ o.» »_woowo >mumm o~\mw\m oooooooo .o 254: <2 <2 »wwooom .oocpo o oooz oo ”zowoo oo mozooozom oo oo>oz oo oeeoom moewuoeom oopwo u»om no» ewnoz wmozuowo ozowo oco o>oo ooo owo no» omnoeoo ooozzoEom em o.canoe no» ww mo ooow oo>o no» o>oz >hnmm oo\mp\m L1) 2555 umwzwzon 4om co cewuou ones co cewuou -woopo .ocooo we »oou moco: "noonooo onooo «cowomono ooxm< we »oou mucos mo uuofiooo oneoo moowuoono ooxm< -oouow ooooooe: .mcwocwooo cw cowuoooo Foounoz gonzosem .umoww . uo ooxow>ooucw we mnowuwomnm .moozoco eoeoono .o>wuooeooouca -oooEeo »»wooo¢ ones voeuoooocz -wwwoo»u oooooz -wwwoopu oooooz -ooocn gee ooe .u .xow>ooucw we eoo go you Ioouow oonowucou mew» unooo ooooou .oouuonooo R.Uuo .ocoe .ceoooo ucoEooasou Ioouca .»oommoo .oouuonooo oow» oozowaoooc» -uowoooo .opwzu uooooooo oow» Io: w» opnoozum we mouncwe e~-m— oe—u ouoswx —p.v .3o»> ec oow tow» oewu oonnoo o»noo owguwz opewxopo -eoooo »_oe ooou -oouo» oowoon: noooc. eowoon: .o .eoooowuwoooo »_ocw»»wz .o»woooooeeu .xow>oooow we oco .o—uwuoo oopnooo .o_uwuoo oopnooo .ooo uo oow uo ooomooouow zow>oouo~ cw umooouoo .< mpzquOu .m .o .n .N .— ».oEn—ou mwzmzzou oooon ooouoo.oco oe»»ozoo oozow>ooucw moowouooo umoo gown; m-— oooEno omeezu u¢m3u~>zowz_~ moo»oouc~ we guocoo ‘ "oozowooouoo "oooEnz »»wsoo ":o_»oouco we ouoe "oozow»oooo~ ”eozow»ooo=_ onceoooo »_wsoo we oeoz APPENDIX D 1976 CLOTHING INVENTORY 2565 University of Minnesota--'7l Michigan State University--3/76 INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR CLOTHING INVENTORIES I. II. III. These sheets are arranged so that you can list all garments owned of a par- ticular type such as "dresses" under one category. For each item owned, we would like you to: l. 2. Put a check mark (v/) in the box which describes the season or seasons for which it is generally worn. Check all those that apply. a. summer b. winter c. spring or fall Put a check mark ( V6 in the box which describes the occasion or occa- sions for which it is generally worn. Check all those that apply. a. dress b. street, work c. home Put a check mark (l/3 in the box which describes how the garment was acguired. Check only one. a. purchased b. gift c. home sewn d. handed down Estimate as accurately as you can the original rice of the garment. If the garment was purchased used or on sale, p ease list, if you can remember, the actual price you paid for the garment. Estimate as accurately as you can the agg_of the garment. If the gar- ment was purchased used or was a gift, please give the age from the time you acquired it. Please be sure to list: I. 2. 3. 4. All fall, winter, spring or summer clothing which may be stored away now but will be worn again later this year. Clothes in the wash, at the laundry, at the cleaners, or put away for mending. Clothes at work, in a car, loaned, etc. Clothes worn when the inventory is taken. Please do not include: l. 2. Clothing that you have not worn in the last year and do not intend to wear in the coming year. Clothing that might have been borrowed from a relative or friend for temporary use or a particular occasion. "W's mm"- 257 Hhat is Garment Horn For? Full Length Coat How Has Garment Season Occasion Acquired? Spring Street Home/7 Pur- ‘ Home Han e Summer Hinter [Fall Dress IHork 5 art chased Gift Sewn Down Age of Garment Yrs Outdoor Jacket, Car or Short Coat Raincoat Snowmobile/ Ski Suit Indoor Jacket Suit with Skirt WOMEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page 2 258 a Esti- Nhat is Garment Horn For? mated How Has Garment Orig- Age of Season Occasion Acquired? inal Garmeni . Cost . Spring Street HomEY’ Pur- . Home Handed ‘ Summer winter [Fall Dress [Work Sport chased Gift Sewn Down Yrs Mo. Suit with Pants Slacks, Jeans WOMEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--PAGE 3 .— 259 —_= Esti- what is Garment Horn For? mated How was Garment Drig- Age of Season Occasion Acquired? inal Garment . Cost . Spring Street Home/ Pur- Home Handed Sumner Winter [Fall Dress [Work Sport chased Gift Sewn Down Yrs Mos Shorts, Culottes Work Uniform Dresses 265C) WOMEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page 4 I What is Garment Worn For? ESt“ noted How Was Garment Drig- Age of Season Occasion Acquired? inal Garment . Spring Street Home/ Pur- . Home Hande COSt Sumner winter [Fall Dress /work Sport chased Gift Sewn Down Yrs Mos Skirts. Jumpers Sweaters Sweatshirts .. WOMEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page 5 261 EI____ Esti- Nhat is Garment Horn For? mated How Has Garment Orig- Age of Season Occasion Acquired? inal Garment . Cost . Spring Street Home] Pur- Home Han ed Summer Winter /Fall Dress /Nork Sport chased Gift Sewn Down Yrs Mos Blouses, Shirts Outdoor Boots All Other I Shoes MEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page T 262 E— jm Esti- Hhat is Garment Horn For? mated How Has Garment Orig- Season Occasion Acquired? inal . Cost Spring Street Home] Pur- Home Handed Summer winter [Fall Dress [Work Sport chased Gift Sewn Down Full Length Coat Outdoor Jacket, Car or Short Coat Raincoat Snowmobile] Ski Suit Suits Indoor Jacket MEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page 2 2(523 Fa What is Garment Worn For? [Sti- mated How Was Garment Orig- Age of Season Occasion Acquired ? i nal Garment Spring Street Home/ Pur- ' Home Hande COSt Sunmer Winter Fall Dress /Work Sport chased Gift Sewn Down Yrs Mos Work Uniform Trousers. Jeans MEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page 3 2654: What is Garment Worn For? Esti- mated How Was Garment Orig- Age of Season Occasion Acquired? inal Garment . Cost . Spring Street Home/7 Pur- . Home Han e Summer Winter [Fall Dress /Work Sport chased G'ft Sewn Down Yrs M05 Shorts, Bermuda Shorts Shirts 265 MEN'S CLOTHING INVENTORY--Page 4 mm— .3— n What is Garment Worn For? EStl‘ mated How Was Garment Orig- Age of Season Occasion ACCluired? inal Garmen Spring Street Home], Pur- Home Han e COSt Sumner Winter [Fall Dress LWork Sport chased Gift Sewn. Down Yrs Mo Sweaters, Sweatshirts Outdoor Boots All Other Shoes APPENDIX E 1976 COMMUNITY RESOURCE CHECKLIST 1976 DWELLING OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION 2€H3 2/l9/76 SBzav TO BE COMPLETED BY INTERVIEWER Community Date Geographical Boundaties: A. Stores (record number of each) l. Lumber, building materials, hardware and farm equipment 2. General merchandise group stores: department discount _ variety 3. Food stores: large supermarket _____. small supermarket ______ local grocery Apparel; accessory store furniture, home furnishings, equipment stores Drugstores Other retail stores (specify): NONU'l-b Automotive Dealers Eating, drinking places: drinking primarily (bars, taverns) eating primarily D. Gasoline service stations Banks Government buildings Post Office ________ other (specify): Utility buildings Small businesses (specify): I. Professional buildings: doctor dentist attorney clinic other (specify): J. Other (specify): 2657 2/19/76 Sszv TO BE COMPLETED BY INTERVIEWER Dwelling Interviewer: Record below the appropriate responses. Do not ask for this in- formation unless you are unable to see the living room. ITTHo living room, get the same information for the kitchen. Check whether information is for: Living room ____ Kitchen ___ 1. Floor (circle most appropriate response) plain wood tile linoleum a b c d. large plain rug e wall to wall carpeting f other, specify 2. Walls (circle most appropriate response) unpainted plaster painted plaster plain wood painted wood wallpaper paneled D’LDQQOU'D) other, specify 3. Furnishings (record appropriate number) sofa upholstered chair "_ - straight or kitchen chair china cabinet desk bookcase ________ coffee table ____ :tD-hFDQnU'DJ floor lamps ___ table lamps table __ Co. _a. k. stove l. refrigerator 4. Interviewer observe condition of dwelling: INSIDE: excellent ___ good ____ fair ____ poor ____ dilapidated ____ OUTSIDE: excellent ____ good ____ fair ___ poor ___ dilapidated ___ 5. Comments: (use back if necessary) APPENDIX F OBJECTIVE CLOTHING DATA 268 TABLE 68 PRIMARY SOURCE OF GARMENTS Home Handed No Purchased Gift Sewn Down Answer High POQL 3 l l 1 Low POQL 4 l l 1 TABLE 69 AGE OF GARMENTS New to New to New to over No 5 years 10 years 10 years Answer High POQL 2 1 1 2 Low POQL 2 3 2 269 TABLE 70 NUMBER OF GARMENTS - WOMEN HIGH POQL GROUP - N = 5 LOW POQL GROUP - N = 3 No O-l 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Answer Coats - full length, jackets, raincoats, snowmobile suits, indoor jackets High POQL l 2 1 1 Low POQL l l l Pant Suits High POQL 2 l l 1 Low POQL 2 1 Slacks High POQL 2 2 1 Low POQL l l l Dresses High POQL 4 1 Low POQL 2 l Skirts High POQL 3 1 1 Low POQL l l Sweaters, Sweatshirts, Tops High POQL 2 l l 1 Low POQL 2 l 270 TABLE 70 (Cont'd) 0-1 2-5 6-10 ll-lS l6-20 Angger Blouses High POQL 2 l l 1 Low POQL l l 1 Shoes and Boots High POQL 2 l 2 Low POQL 2 l 271 TABLE 71 NUMBER OF GARMENTS - MEN HIGH POQL GROUP - N LOW POQL GROUP - N l 4 0—1 2-5 6-10 ll-lS 16-20 Angger Coats - full length, jackets, raincoats, snowmobile suits, indoor jackets High POQL 1 Low POQL l 2 1 Suits High POQL 1 Low POQL 3 1 Work Uniforms High POQL 1 Low POQL 2 l Trousers High POQL 1 Low POQL l l l 1 Shirts High POQL 1 Low POQL l 2 l Sweaters and Sweatshirts High POQL 1 Low POQL l l l 1 Shoes and Boots High POQL 1 Low POQL l 2 l APPENDIX G OBJECTIVE DWELLING DATA 272 TABLE 72 LOCATION OF RESIDENCE Hard Surface Gravel Dirt High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 5 2 TABLE 73 HOUSING CONSTRUCTION Brick, stucco, painted frame Unpainted Asbestos High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 6 1 TABLE 74 NUMBER OF ROOMS (INCLUDING BATHS) 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 High POQL 1 3 2 Low POQL l 4 2 273 TABLE 75 BATHROOM FACILITIES n .5 ~ .5 .5 ~ 5 u 5:4 H o :54 w) o o +Io org uco +Ioco n 3 a 1:3 2:: L:: List: +1 o 5 4J0 ()5 w): +Io:3 o a o ox: std «so ooze m m to aim min min aimcn High POQL 1 2 2 1 Low POQL 2 2 l 2 TABLE 76 HEATING Central No Oil Coal Gas Wood Central High POQL 5 1 Low POQL 4 l 2 TABLE 77 WASHING FACILITIES Clothes washer Clothes dryer Both High POQL 3 3 Low POQL l 6 274 TABLE 78 FOOD STORAGE Refrigerator/ Freezer Freezer Both High POQL 3 3 Low POQL 2 5 TABLE 79 INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION OF LIVING ROOMS FLOOR Wall-to-wall Wood Tile Linoleum Larger Rug Carpeting High POQL l l 2 Low POQL 2 l WALLS Unpainted Painted Plain Painted Wall- plaster plaster wood wood Paneled paper High POQL 4 FURNISHINGS - number of large pieces including sofa, upholstered chairs, straight chairs, china cabinet, desk, bookcase, tables, floor model T.V., floor model stereo 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 High POQL 2 1 1 Low POQL l l l 275 TABLE 80 INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION OF KITCHENS FLOOR Wall-to-wall Wood Tile Linoleum Larger rug carpeting High POQL 1 1 Low POQL 2 2 WALLS Unpainted Painted Plain Painted Wall- plaster plaster wood wood Paneled paper High POQL 2 FURNISHINGS - number of large pieces including tables, chairs, china cabinet, stove, refrigerator, benches 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 High POQL 1 1 Low POQL 1 1 1 l 276 TABLE 81 INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION OF INTERIOR Dilapi- No Excellent Good Fair Poor dated Observation High POQL 2 l 2 1 Low POQL l 5 1 TABLE 82 INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION OF EXTERIOR Dilapi No Excellent Good Fair Poor dated Observation High POQL 3 2 1 Low POQL 2 3 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allart, E. A welfare model for selecting indicators of national development. Policy Sciences, 1973, 3, 63-74. American Home Economics Association. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Lake Placid Conference. Washington, D.C., 1902. Andrews, F. M. Social indicators of perceived life quality. Paper presented to the Eighth World Congress of Sociology Roundtable #2, Toronto, August 1974. Andrews, F. M., and Withey, S. B. Developing measures of perceivedlife quality: Results from several national surveys. Social Indicators Research, 1974, 1, 1-26. (a) Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B. Assessing the Quality of life as people experience it. Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the American Sociological Associ- ation, Montreal, 1974. (b) Andrews, F. M., and Withey, S. B. Basic concepts and a conceptual model. Chapter 1, 1976, in preparation. (a) Andrews, F. M., and Withey, S. B. Exploring the dynamics of evaluation. Chapter 7, 1976, in preparation. (b) Auerswald, E. H. Interdisciplinary vs. ecological approach. Family Process, September 1968, 202-215. Baker, G. R. Patterning of family resources for educ- ability: conceptualization and measurement in Costa Rican families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Bauer, R. A. (Ed.). Social indicators. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1966. (a) Bauer, R. A. Social indicators and sample surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966, 29, 339-352. (b) 277 278 Beal, G. and Klonglan, G. Needed research themes in rural sociology - social indicators. Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society Meetings, Washington, D.C., August 1970. Beal, G., Klonglan, G., Wilcox, L., and Brooks, R. Social indicators and public policy: Toward an alternative approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Denver, September 1971. Bell, D. The idea of a social report. The Public Interest, 1969, IS, 72-84. Bradburn, N. M. and Caplovitz, D. Reports on happiness: A pilot study of behavior related to mental health. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1965. Brooks, R. M. Toward the measurement of social indicators: Conceptual and methodological implications. Proceed- ings of the American Statistical Association, 1971. Brooks, R. M., Wilcox, L., Beal, G., and Klonglan, G. Toward the measurement of social indicators: Concept- ual and methodological implications. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, 1971. Brown, T. P. As most of the nation rallies, the recession arrives in White Pine. Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1976, p. l. Bubolz, M. J. Families in evolving rural communities. Unpublished working papers, 1974. Bubolz, M. M. and Eicher, J. B. A human ecological approach to the quality of life: Results of a study in a rural Michigan county. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Home Economics Association, San Antonio, June 1975. Bubolz, M. J. and Eicher, J. B. Quality of life indicators: a human ecological systems approach. Unpublished manuscript, 1976. Bultena, G. Rural-urban differences in the familial inter- action. Rural Sociology, 1969, 23, 5-15. Bunge, M. What is a quality of life indicator. Social Indicators Research, 1975, 2, 65-79. 279 Campbell, A. Aspiration, satisfaction and fulfillment. In A. Campbell and P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. Campbell, A. and Converse, P. E. (Eds.). The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. (a) Campbell, A. and Converse, P. E. Social change and human change. In A. Campbell and P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. (b) Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. and Rodgers, W. The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satis- faction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. Cantril, H. The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutger's UniVersity Press, 1965. Cantril, A. H. and Roll, C. W. Hopes and fears of the American people. In The quality of life concept: A potential tool for decision-makers. The Environ- mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. Carlisle, E. The conceptual structure of social indicators. In A. Shonfield and S. Shaw (Eds.), Social indicators and social poligy. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1972. Clark, R. Ellen Swallow: the woman who founded ecology. Chicago: Follett, 1973. Compton, N. and Hall, 0. Foundations of home economics research: A human ecological approach. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing, 1972. Creekmore, A. M. Clothing behaviors and their relation to general values and to the striving for basic needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1963. Creekmore, A. M. The concept basic to home economics. Journal of Home Economics, 1968, 62, 93-99. Dalkey, N. C. Quality of life. In The quality of life concept: A potential tool for decision-makers. The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. 280 Dalkey, N. C. and Rourke, D. L. The delphi procedure and rating quality of life factors. In The quality of life concept: A potential tool for decision-makers. The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. DeNeufville, J. I. Social indicators and public policy: Interactive processes of design and application. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing, 1975. Duncan, 0. D. From social system to ecosystem. Sociological Inquiry, 1961, 140-149. Duncan, 0. D. Toward social reporting: Next stepg. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969. (a) Duncan, 0. D. Social forecasting: The state of the art. The Public Interest, 1969, ll, 88-118. (b) Eicher, J. B. Social factors and social psychological explanations of non-migration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. Eicher, J. B., Bubolz, M. J. and Evers, S. J. Ontonagon then as now: living the good life. Unpublished manu- script, 1976. Eicher, J. B. Clothing: A family resource indicator of social change in rural communities. Unpublished manuscript, 1971. Emerson, M. R. Relationship of family economic help patterns to specific family characteristics. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1970. Etzioni, A. and Lehman E. W. Some dangers in 'valid' social measurements. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1967, 3 3, 1-15. Evers, S. J. Amateur artist—craftsman: a description of hand-work activities and quality of life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget. Social Indicators, 1973. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Ferriss, A. L. Indicators of change in the American family. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970. 281 Ford, G. R. The presidential debates, CBS News, October 22, 1976. The full opportunity and social accounting act of 1967. American Psychologist, 1967, 22, 974-976. Garn, H. A. and Flax, M. J. Indicators and statistics: Issues in the generation and the use of indicators. In U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Tract Papers Series GE-40, #9. Social indicators for small areas. Papers presented at the Conference on Small Area Statistics, American Statistical Association, Montreal, August 1972. Gibson, G. Kin family network: Overheralded structure in past conceptualization of family functioning. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1972, 13-23. Gitter, G. A. and Mostofsky, D. L. The social indicator: An index of the quality of life. Social Biology: 1973, 22, 289-297. Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1959. Goode, W. J. The theory and measurement of family change. In E. Sheldon and W. Moore (Eds.), Indicators of social change: concepts and measurement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968. Gross, B. and Springer, M. New goals for social informa- tion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Soience, 1967, 373, 208-218. (a) Gross, B. and Springer, M. A new orientation in American government. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1967, 371, 1-19. (b) Gustafson, N. C. Recent trends/future prospects - a look at upper midwest population changes. Minneapolis: Upper Midwest Council, 1973. Hacklander, E. An exploratory study of life style in suburban families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Hall, K. A study of some factors that contribute to satis- factions and dissatisfactions in the clothing of 92 urban low-income families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1955. 282 Hennessey, T. U.P.‘s courtship of industry on wane. Detroit Free Press, January 12, 1976, pp. 1A; 12A. Hoffman, A. Clothing. In A. M. Hoffman (Ed.), Daily needs and interests of older people. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1970. Hook, N. C. and Paolucci, B. The family as an ecosystem. Journal of Home Economics, 1970, Q2. Hornback, K. E. and Shaw, R. Toward a quantitative measure of the quality of life. Paper presented at the Quality of Life Symposium, Environmental Protection Agency, August 1972. Humphrey, C., Klassen, M. and Creekmore, A. M. Clothing and self—concept of adolescents. Journal of Home Economics, 1971, Q3, 246-250. The Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies. Indicators of the status of the elderly in the United States. Minneapolis: Administration on Aging, 1972. Kamrany, N. M. and Christakis, A. N. Social indicators in perspective. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 1970, 3, 207-216. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Knox, P. L. Social indicators and the concept of level of living. The Sociological Review, 1974, pg, 249-257. Land, K. C. Social indicator models: An overview. In K. C. Land and S. Spilerman (Eds.), Social Indicator Models. New York: Russell Sage FoundatiSn, 1975. Land, K. C. On the definition of social indicators. American Sociologist, 1971, 1, 322-325. Lapitsky, M. Clothing values and their relation to general values and to social security and insecurity. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1963. Liu, B. C. Quality of life indicators: A preliminary investigation. Social Indicators Research, 1974, l, 187-208. 283 Liu, B. C. Quality of life in the U.S. metropolitan areas, 1970. Kansas City, Missouri: Midwest Research Institute, 1975. (a) B. C. Quality of life: Concept, measure and results. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1975, Liu, Lin, B. C. Differential net migration rates and the quality of life. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1975, g1, 329-337. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Community indicators: Improving community management: A report. Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1974. Maslow, A. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1954. Marans, R. and Rodgers, W. Toward and understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley and V. Rock (Eds.), Metrgpolitan America in contemporaryiperspec- tive. New York: Sage Publications, 1975. McCall, S. Quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 1975, g, 229-248. Mitchell, A., Logothetti, T. J. and Kantor, R. E. An approach to measuring the quality of life. In 233 ggality of life concept: A potential tool for decision- makers. The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. Montgomery, J. Human needs in housing. In K. Nattrass and B. M. Morrison (Eds.), Human needs in housing: An ecological approach. Milburn, New Jersey: R. F. Publishing, 1975. (a) Montgomery, J. Impact of housing patterns on marital interaction. In K. Nattrass and B. M. Morrison (Eds.), Human needs in housing: An ecolggical approach. Milburn, New Jersey: R. F. Publishing, 1975. (b) Morrison, B. M. The importance of a balanced perspective: The environments of man. Man-Environmenthystems, 1974, 3, 171-178. Morrison, D. B. Social science and the quality of life. Paper presented at the Quality of Life symposium, Environmental Protection Agency, August 1972. 284 Morrison, D. B., Hornback, K. E. and Warner, W. K. The environmental movement: Some preliminary observations and predictions. In W. Burch, N. Cheek and L. Taylor (Eds.), Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the Environment. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Neugarten, B., Havinghurst, R. J. and Tobin, S. The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Geren- tology, 1961, lg, 134-143. Olson, M. The plan and purpose of a social report. The Public Interest, 1969, l5, 85-97. The quality of life concept: A potential new tool for deciSion-makers. The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. Rapopport, A. The ecology of housing. In K. Nattrass and B. M. Morrison (Eds.), Human needs in housing: An ecological gpproach. Milburn,.New Jersey: R. F. Publishing, 1975. Reed, R. Rural population gains now outstrip urban areas. New York Times, May 18, 1975, pp. 1; 44. Reinhold, R. More elderly are retiring north. New York Times, February 11, 1976, pp. 1; 32. The report of the committee on the future of home economics. E. Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Home Economics, 1968. Rodgers, W. and Converse, P. E. Measures of the perceived overall quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 1975, 2, 127-152. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press, 1973. Rokeach, M. and Parker 8. Values as social indicators of poverty and race relations in America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1970, ggg, 97-111. Rossi, P. H. Community social indicators. In A. Campbell and P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. 285 Runciman, W. G. Problems of research in relative depriva- tion. In H. H. Hyman and E. Singer (Eds.), Readings in reference group theory and research. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Ryan, M. S. Clothing: A study in human behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Shaver, P. and Freedman, J. Your pursuit of happiness. Psychology Today, August 1976, pp. 26-32; 75. Sheldon, E. and Freeman, H. E. Notes on social indicators: Promises and potential. Policy Sciences, 1970, l, 97-111. Sheldon, E. and Land, K. Social reporting for the 1970's: A review and pragmatic statement. Policy Sciences, 1972, 2, 137-151. Sheldon, E. and Moore, W. Indicators of social change: Concepts and measurement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968. Sheldon, E. and Parke, R. Social indicators. Science, 1975, 188, 693-699. Social indicators for the aged. Quantitative Social Planning Division, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, American Rehabilitation Foundation, Minnea- polis, Minnesota, 1970. Social reporting in Michigan: Problems and issues. Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Policies and Programs, 1970. Springer, M. Social indicators, reports and accounts: Toward the management of a society. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1970, Egg, 1-13. Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. The ecological perspective on human affairs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Stolte-Heiskanen, V. Social indicators for the analysis of family needs related to the life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Famil , 1974, 3g, 592-600. Stone, G. P. Appearance and the self. In M. E. Roach and J. B. Eicher (Eds.), Dress, adornment and the social order. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. 286 Stone, G. P. and Form, W. H. Clothing inventories and preferences among rural and urban families. E. Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin #246, 1955. Strumpel, B. (Ed.). Economic means for human needs: Social indicators of well—being and discontent. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1976. Sussman, M. B. Relationships of adult children with their parents in the United States. In E. Shanas and G. Streib (Eds.), Social structure of the family: genera- tional relations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Sussman, M. B. and Burchinal, L. Kin family network: unheralded structure in current conceptualizations of family functioning. Marriage and Family Living, 1962, 23, 231-240. Terhune, K. Probing policy - relevant questions on the quality of life. In The quality of life concept: Appotential new tool for decision-makers. The Environ- mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census Tract Papers Series GE-40, #9. Social indicators for small areas. Papers presented at the Conference on Small Area Statistics, American Statistical Association, Montreal, August 1972. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970). U.S. census of population: 1970. Vol. I, Characteristics of the population, 824, Michigan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Toward a social report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. Warden, J. Some factors affecting the satisfaction and dissatisfaction with clothing of women students in the college of education and the college of liberal arts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1955. Wasson, K., DeMarzo, R. S. and Green, S. W. Social indicators: Product or process? A methodological perspective for policy decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, College Park, August 1973. 287 Wasson, K., and O'Connell, H. J. Social indicators: The bibliographic review as a first step toward scientific inquiry. Unpublished manuscript, Ames, Iowa: Depart- ment of Sociology and Anthropology, Iowa State Univer- sity, April 1971. Watts, W. and Free, L. A. The state of the nation, 1974. Washington, D.C. Potomac Associates, 1974. Wilcox, L. D., Brooks, R. M., Beal, G. M. and Klonglan, G. Social indicators: Recent trends and select biblio- graphy. Sociological Inquiry, 1972, 12, 37-50. (a) Wilcox, L. D., Brooks, R. M., Beal, G. M., and Klonglan, G. Social indicators and societal monitoring: An anno- tated bibliograpgy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. (b) Wilcox, L. D., Brooks, R. M., Klonglan, G. and Beal, G. M. Social indicators: An alternative approach for future research. Paper presented at the Association of Southern Agricultural Workers Conference, Richmond, Virginia, February 1972. Wilcox, L. D. and Klonglan, G. Measures of social change: Social indicators. Paper presented at The Seminar On Rural Community Development: Focus on Iowa. Iowa State University. Wilson, J. 0. Quality of life in the United States. In The quality of life concept: A potential new tool for decision-makers. The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environ- mental Studies Division, 1973. Williams, R. M. Individual and group values. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1967, 371, 20-37.