REMOTE STORAGE Q‘s F PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE D“ E DUE 1915?);le 2/17 20:: Blue FORI‘ S/DateDueForms_2017.indd - 99.5 ‘r-,o\.3 I 1I‘T-p’i 1114.“...AII ,‘rbfi‘ .lel...‘ N. I . 151', if?! 5.; I: I r‘ III‘, . 111.1111}; FAMILY LIFE SATISFACTION AND JOB SATISFACTION AS PREDICTORS OF PERCEIVED WELL-BEING BY Carrie Baptiste Jackson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1979 ABSTRACT FAMILY LIFE SATISFACTION AND JOB SATISFACTION AS PREDICTORS OF PERCEIVED WELL-BEING BY Carrie Baptiste Jackson The purpose of this research was to examine the linkages between work and family satisfactions and to dis- cover the combined effects of satisfactions in both spheres on perceived overall well-being. Data were obtained through a survey conducted in the fall and winter 1977-1978. A self-administered question- naire was given to husbands and wives residing together with their school aged children (5-18 years) in Oakland County,Michigan. The sample consisted of 233 husband-wife couples, well-educated, from relatively small, and middle- income households and employed in a variety of occupations. There were 193 white and 40 black males, 194 white and 39 black females. Through multiple regression analysis, Pearson corre- lation and multivariate analysis of variance, the study sought to answer the following research questions: Carrie Baptiste Jackson To what extent do affective evaluations of the domains family life and job predict perceived over- all well-being for women and men when added to other variables? To what extent are affective evaluations of job and family life related? What are the values held by women and men which best predict their affective evaluation of family life and job? To what extent are selected contextual variables (locus of control, self-esteem, race, educational level, occupational prestige, dual worker family, personal income and family life cycle stage) pre- dictors of family life, job and perceived overall well-being? Do women employed full time for pay differ from un- employed women on self-esteem, locus of control, family life satisfaction and perceived overall well- being? Conclusions gleaned through the statistically signi- ficant research findings were: 1. Family life is a central life concern for both women and men. It is the domain which yields the greatest amount of satisfaction and is the strongest predictor of perceived overall well-being for both men and women. Carrie Baptiste Jackson 2. Family life satisfaction is a stronger predictor of perceived overall well-being for women, regardless of their employment status, than it is for men. 3. The job is a stronger predictor of perceived overall well-being for employed men than it is for employed women. 4. Women who work for pay do not differ from women who are employed for pay on self-attitudes, family life and perceived overall well-being evaluations. Thus having a job as Opposed to not having a job does not distinguish women, particularly those in this sample who have on the average a high school edu- cation. 5. Leisure time activities are important to individuals' perceptions of well-being. This study provided support for and highlighted the need for organizational and public policy which integrates work and family life. Organizational and public policy must be evaluated and reevaluated in the light of the structural and psychological barriers they impose between individuals and their families. Such policies as full employment, flex time, shared jobs, and part-time employment could be ex— pected to enhance both work and family life satisfactions and hence perceived overall well-being. The study also suggested hypotheses for further study. DEDICATION TO Daddy and Mamma for the provision of a loving, nurturing environment. ii ACKNOLWEDGMENTS Completion of this doctoral dissertation was made possible through the cooperation and contributions of a number of individuals to whom I am grateful. Sincere thanks are due to my dissertation committee: Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, professor, academic program advisor and dissertation director for giving freely of her time, for expert guidance, and for unrelenting encouragement and expressions of faith in me throughout my entire program; Dr. Margaret J. Bubolz, professor and internship supervisor, for permitting me to become a part of the Quality of Life Research Project, for granting financial support and for her valuable comments and suggestions; Dr. Larry Lezotte, whose expertise was invaluable in getting me started in the statistical analyses; and to Dr. Richard Hill who guided my doctoral program in the cognate area. Sincere thanks are also due to all members of the Quality of Life Project (too numerous to name) with whom I worked closely for the past nine months and without whose hard work and cooperative spirit the project would not have been the success it was. iii Leonard Bianchi, statistican, was an indispensable contributor to this dissertation. His contribution of numerous hours of consultation is greatly appreciated. Suzanne Gyeszli, a librarian's librarian, gave generous assistance during the initial search process. To her I am grateful. To my husband, Dr. Maxie Jackson, for continued support, encouragement and understanding; and to my children, Maxie III, Lori, and Danielle whose understanding and patience presisted despite a considerable lowering of their objective quality of life during the dissertation process, I am grateful. Without their c00peration and faith this research could not have been brought to fruitition. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Model for Measuring Indicators of Well-Being. . . . . . . . . . Research Objectives . . . . . . . . ,Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Definitions . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Perceived Overall Well-being Defined. . . Relationship of Job Satisfaction and Family Life Satisfaction to Perceived Overall Well- -being. . . . . Relationship of Family Life Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction . . . . . Relationship of Contextual Variables to Job Satisfaction, Family Life Satisfaction and Overall Well-being. . . . . . . III C METHODOLOGY 0 C O O O O O O O O 0 Sampling Design. . . . . Data Collection Procedures . Instrument . . . . . Data Processing Procedures . Description of the Sample . . . Deve10pment of Variables. . . . Data Analysis Procedures. . . . . Statistical Tests and Assumptions. . Page vii 16 l7 18 21 21 22 30 34 42 42 43 44 45 46 54 58 Chapter Page IV. FINDINGS O O O O O O I O O O O O O 64 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. . . 95 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Implications for Research. . . . . 104 Implications for Employment and Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 APPENDICES Appendix A. Portions of Quality of Life Questionnaire Used in This Study. . . . . . . . . . . 107 B. Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . 125 C. Interviewers' Instructions . . . . . . . 128 D. Correlation Matrices . . . . . . . . . 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 138 vi Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Page Disposition of Households Contacted in the Sample Selection Process . . . . . . . 47 Composition of Total Sample by Sex and Race . 47 Age Distribution of Total Sample . . . . . 49 Educational Level of Sample. . . . . . . 50 Family Income Distribution . . . . . . . 51 Types of Occupations Held by Men and Women. . 52 Distribution of Occupational Prestige of Men and Women . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Questionnaire Items Used to Measure Variables Under Study . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Means and Standard Deviations of Women's and Men's Affective Evaluation of Six Domains and Overall Well-being. . . . . . . . 65 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Perceived Overall Well-being by Six Domains--Employed Women--Emp10yed Women. 67 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Perceived Overall Well-being by Six Domains--Employed Men. . . . . . 68 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Perceived Overall Well-being by Six Domains--Unemployed Women . . . . 59 Means of Women's and Men's Affective Evaluations of Job and Family Life by Eight Criteria. . 72 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Affective Evaluation of Family Life by Eight Criteria--Employed Women . . 74 vii Table Page 15. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Affective Evaluation of Family Life by Eight Criteria--Unemployed Women . . 75 16. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Affective Evaluation of Family Life by Eight Criteria--Employed Men . . . 76 17. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Affective Evaluation of Job by Eight Criteria--Employed Women . . . . . 77 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Affective Evaluation of Job by Eight Criteria--Employed Men . . . . . . 78 19. Descriptive Statistics on Affective Evaluation of Family Life, Job and Perceived Overall Well-being for Selected Aggregates of Employed Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 20. Descriptive Statistics on Affective Evaluation of Family Life, Job and Perceived Overall Well-being for Selected Aggregates of Employed Men 0 O 0 Q C O O O O O O O O O 82 21. Descriptive Statistics on Affective Evaluation of Family Life, and Perceived Overall Well- being for Selected Aggregates of Unemployed Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 22. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Contextual Variables to Job-- Employed Women. . . . . . . . . . . 84 23. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Contextual Variables to Job Evaluation--Employed Men . . . . . . . 85 24. Summary of Multple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Contextual Variables to Family Life--Employed Women. . . . . . . . . 86 25. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Contextual Variables to Family Life--Employed Men . . . . . . . . . 87 26. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Selected Contextual Variables to the Prediction of Family Life Evaluation-- Unemployed Women. . . . . . . . . . 88 viii Table 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. D-l. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Contextual Variables to Perceived Overall Well-being—-Employed Women . Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Contextual Variables to Perceived Overall Well-being-—Employed Men. . Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Contribution of Selected Contextual Variables to the Preduction of Overall Well-being-- Unemployed Women . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Employed Women and Unemployed Women on Selected variables. 0 O O O O O I O O O O 0 Summary of Findings--Questions 1, 3, and 4 . . Correlation Matrices--Domains and Perceived Overall Well-being--Women and Men. . . . . Correlation Matrices--Family Life and Job by Eight Criteria--Employed Women. . . . . . Correlation Matrices--Family Life and Job by Eight Criteria--Employed Men . . . . . . Correlation Matrix--Family Life by Eight Criteria--Unemployed Women . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix--Contextual Variables Job, Family Life and Perceived Overall Well—being-- Employed Women . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix--Contextual Variables, Job, Family Life and Perceived Overall Well-being-- Employed Men. . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix--Contextual Variables, Job, Family Life and Perceived Overall Well-being-- Unemployed Women . . . . . . . . . . Key to Variable Names in Correlation Matrices . ix Page 89 9O 91 94 97 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Andrews' and Withey's Two-dimensional Conceptual Model with Examples of Possible Domains and Criteria and with Evaluations of Well-being at Three Levels of Specificity . . . . . . . ll 2. Causal Model to Explain Evaluations of Well Being O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 13 3. Reduced Causal Model to Explain Evaluations of well-being. o o o o o o o o o o o o 14 4. The Delighted-Terrible Scale Developed by Andrews and Withey Used for the Assessment of Affective Evaluations . . . . . . . . . 15 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The primary goal of domestic public policy is pre- sumably to secure, increase, enhance and maintain individual well-being among the nation's citizens. The extent to which this goal is being realized has historically been measured by such proxy economic, social and environmental indicators as years of schooling attained, job prestige, money income, health status, area of residence and the level of possession of material goods. The implication was that such objective states were inherent to the definition of the good life and that the direction of change in these conditions could be normatively evaluated (Schneider, 1974). Conceptually then, individual well-being became a function of the objective environment in which one lived. The focus was primarily on measuring the extent to which one was well off rather than on measuring one's sense of well—being. Growing recognition of certain limitations associ- ated with objective indicators has given rise to the per— ceptual indicators movement in social indicators research. Objective indicators have limited explanatory power in accounting for the overall well-being and/or satisfaction 1 of persons. Principally because they are objective and quantitative, they do not capture the qualitative or sub- jective nature of the human condition. Objective conditions and perceptions of these conditions are often incongruent and one cannot a priori assume a one-to-one relationship between them. Commenting on this phenomenon, Andrews and Withey (1976) wrote: [It is] quite possible for the external conditions of life to "improve" while peOple's sense of well-being decline . . . . We know of cases where people who live in areas with relatively low recorded crime rates feel less safe than those in areas with high crime rates . . . . The perceptual indicators complement the externally based ones because they provide different but no less important information about individual well-being . . . . People's evaluations are important . . . . It is their perceptions of their own well- being or lack of well—being that ultimately define the quality of their lives (pp. 7-10). One of the early preponents of perceptual indicators, Cantril (1965) focused his research on discovering the nature of human concerns or those aspects of life which are important to peOple. He stated: Everyone--whether of high or low status . . . has sub- jective standards which guide behavior and define satisfactions . . . . The problem is to learn what these standards are in a person's own terms and not judge them by our own standards (p. 21). Much of the perceptual indicators research has as the underlying theoretical perspective theories related to values, emotions, aspirations, motives, goals and roles. (Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) undertook a study, The Quality of American Life, in which they identified a variety of life concerns which accounted for much of the variance in their measure of overall life satisfaction. They concluded that when assessing their well-being, people mentally partition aspects or concerns of their lives and evaluate them according to aspiration levels, expectation levels, equity levels, reference group levels, personal needs and personal values (Campbell 35 31., 1976, p. 14)} Because all concerns of life are not of equal importance, people's perception of their life quality becomes a weighted sum of feelings and evaluations of various life concerns. Building on the work of Cantril (1965), Campbell gt El- (1976) and others, Andrews and Withey (1976) under-' took research to further identify and examine structures of life concerns and people's evaluations of these concerns. Employing a number of statistical procedures, they were able to generate broad categories of common concerns and spatially map these concerns in relation to the self. They subsequently dichotomized these concerns into domains‘E of life and criteria by which domains are evaluated. It is their work which provided the perspective for this research which focused on the domains of work and family g life as they relate to each other and predict overall well- being. Few studies have focused on the domains of work and family life from the perceptual perspective--a central con- cern of family ecologists who deal with the family and those environments which directly impinge on family functioning. Since in an industrial society the world of work (the job) provides a source of identity for many, because it provides the money resources basic to acquiring many of the neces— sities of life and because considerable time is spent in 1 paid employment activities, it seems reasonable to believe that feelings, emotions and perceptions derived from the i work environment can affect family functioning. Conversely, since the family is the locus of nurturance and affective and expressive relationships for most individuals, it is reasonable to believe that feelings, emotions and percep- \ .. _4.n. ”hag-”g“ tions derived from this domain can impact on the world of work. Satisfactions derived from both of these domains could be expected to contribute to overall life satis— faction or well-being. Rationale Quality of life research has only recently begun to document the importance of work and family life satis- faction as indicators of well-being (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et_al., 1976; Bubolz, 1977; Trafton, 1977; Anderson, 1977). Family life research is a severely under— researched area. Family life researchers have generally focused more narrowly on the marital dyad and the conse- quences of satisfaction or dissatisfaction for the sta- bility of the marriage rather than on the consequences for the individual or for life outside the marriage. By comparison, while job satisfaction research is extensive, industrial and organizational psychologists have focused primarily on its antecedents and its consequences for the world of work, e.g., absenteeism, turnover, pro- ductivity. Relatively little has been done to explore the: consequences of job satisfaction for individual Well- being or the possible interactions between employees' reactions to the job and their attitudes toward life out- side the work situation. Few attempts have been made to link feelings and perceptions of the spheres of work and family empirically,§ to document their relationships and to discover the com- bined effects of satisfaction in each sphere to overall life satisfaction or well-being. These are the central concerns of this study. Commenting on this problem, Rap0port (1965) stated: The interrelationships between work and family have seldom been studied explicitly, for specialists in family sociology, kinship, industrial sociology and occupational sociology have tended to treat each of these areas as a relatively closed subsystem. It is as though family structure, organization and function- ing depended entirely on factors associated with the family and the individual personalities within it, while work groups could be explained exclusively in terms of the work situation (p. 382). Psychologists have also treated work and family as I independent domains: To date psychology has treated the dimensions as if they were independent. The labels employed to identify certain of the helping professions (e.g., vocational psychology, family therapist) attest to this. If these dimensions do not Operate independently, a more holistic view of peOple is in order (Trafton, 1977, p. 6). This research direction has been influenced by the ideology or myth that the job and the family comprise two separate worlds-~a myth which deve10ped parallel to and has been sustained and perpetuated by the growth of industrial- ization (Kanter, 1977, p. 8) and capitalism (Zaretsky, 1976). Work and family are, nevertheless, inextricably tied to each other in many subtle and not so subtle ways. According to Kanter (1977, p. 25) work may influence family relationships and family life satisfaction by its relative absorptiveness, its time and timing of events, its rewards and resources, its socialization and teaching of values and its emotional climate. Conversely, family life may simi- larly impact on the attitudes toward the job. Although the myth of separateness prevails, several cross trends or forces have develOped which questioned the ideology of separateness. Kanter (1977, p. 2) cited and discussed several social and intellectual trends which have developed to highlight the importance of studying work and family life in relationship to each other. These trends can be summarized thusly: 1. National policy makers, in their concern for the increased well-being of citizens, have recently focused attention on the impact of the structure and availability of work on the life chances of individuals, especially children. Requests for family impact statements to accompany governmental legislation and corporate organizational decisions are on the increase. The increase in women in the paid labor force coupled with the rise in the number of single parent households has directed attention to the need for bridging the worlds of work and family. The patterns of middle class work and family life which emphasized career strivings and acquisition of material goods as a dominant measure of success were challenged by the social movements of the 1960s which place greater emphasis on personal growth and private family life. A revival of interest in the disciplines of soci- ology and economics in Marxist theory and research took as a first premise that no part of modern life goes uninfluenced by the structure of capitalist institutions. Thus, families have been shaped by the demands of capitalism on workers and consumers. Interest in adult develOpment has led to questions about the ways in which peOple are shaped by and manage their multiple involvements in private as well as in organizational lives, especially in regard to the timing and impact of events in both work and family worlds. 7. Open systems theory and a family ecological per- spective provide a useful way for the examination of work-family linkages. Quality of life researchers Gitter and Mostofsky (1973) highlighted a number of problems which have scarcely been considered in relation to life satisfaction. Among the problems articulated and for which continuing gaps exist are 3 ’f' d How are various aspects of a person's life related to each other? . . . What is the relative importance of the respective components which constitute the entries for a single estimate of quality of life (as perceived by respondents)? . . . How do ratings of the level of importance of various aspects of life vary from one group to another? . . . How are a person's ratings of the level of quality and importance of various aspects of his life related to his personality and demographic characteristics? (p. 289) The usefulness and importance of measuring people's perceptions of well-being has been elaborated by Andrews and Withey (1976). They proposed six products of value to social scientist, policy makers and implementers of policy, and to peOple who want to influence the course of society: There is value in getting some baseline measures against which we can compare subsequent measures and trends of change . . . . There is value in knowing how satis- factions and dissatisfactions are distributed in society . . . . There is value in getting to under- stand the structure and independence of various satis- factions, e.g., Does marital satisfaction contribute to or relate to job satisfaction? . . . There is value in understanding how peOple evaluate and feel about them if the judgments are made about domains of life such as their families, their houses, their jobs . . . . And comparing such a picture with how they judge their lives if they consider the degree to which their values or criteria for evaluations are met . . . . There is value in understanding how peOple combine their feeling into some overall evaluation of the value of life. What aspects of life are more important than others in determining one's global evaluations? How do different domains and value cri- teria relate to feelings about life as a whole? How do parts of life add together, or are they isolated and compartmentalized? There is value in understand- ing the whole process of human evaluating (p. 9). The awareness of the need for and value of quality of life research coupled with the growing recognition of the importance of the domains of work and family life satisfactions as important indicators of individual well— being, provided the impetus for and suggested the apprOpri— ateness of a study which focuses upon the relationships of family life satisfaction, work satisfaction and overall life satisfaction. Conceptual Model for Measuring Indicators of Well-Being The conceptual model which provided the framework for this research is herein described. Andrews and Withey (1976) of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research conducted a series of studies on well-being. Their ultimate goal was to learn what the components of well-being are, to learn how they relate to one another, combine, change over time and vary across social, cultural and geographic groupings. Their research culminated in the develOpment of a conceptual model which proposed that a person's overall sense of life quality is understandable as a combination of "affective" responses to life concerns which are of two types--domains 10 and criteria. Domains consist of "places, things, activ- ities, peOple and roles," while criteria consist of "values standards, aspirations, goals and in general, ways of judg- ing what the domains of life afford" (Andrews & Withey, 1976, pp. 11-12). (Figure 1 demonstrates the conceptual relationship between the two types of concerns--domains and criteria. The two dimensional matrix model is defined on one dimen- sion (the rows) by the domains and on the other dimension (columns) by the criteria. Jointly these dimensions pro- vide a framework in which a person's actual evaluations of well-being are hypothesized to occur (Andrews & Withey, 1976, p. 13); The model shows evaluations at three levels of specificity. At the global level evaluations of how a person feels about his overall well-being may be the result of combining either the domain evaluations or the criterion values. At the concern level how a person evalu- ates a particular domain may be the result of how that domain is perceived to meet a range of relevant criteria. At the most specific level a particular domain may be evaluated by a specific criterion. Through smallest space analysis the researchers were able to isolate fourteen concerns of importance to people and which were well spread in the perceptual struc- ture (non-redundant). These fourteen concern level 11 Criteria A I N a? U) (0 o m o o m o c o E s *0 o c o m'o c > o'o m 0-H Io m a) Q) JJ c Q) o o o o >.c >Io >. o u o m u m u OHM -a s H o w .n u m u Iu : 'o'o o o o u m a c c 4 UI m m In 04 o F s . I I I I I Job , : I I ' - I I g | . . g I ' m Family l1fe, ' 3 i c L I I I ‘3 i ' E I . - I i 8 Neighborhooc E : I , I I I | I I I o ' . I I . ‘ I I I I I . I I I I L I . v v E . ..................................... > E I J O 0 Bi' = Affective evaluative response to a particular domain with J respect to a particular criterion 81 = General affective evaluative response to a domain (across ° criteria) E j = General affective evaluative response to a criterion (across ° domains) E = General affective evaluative response to life-as-a-whole-- i.e., perceived quality of life SOURCE: Frank M. Andrews and Stephen B. Withey, Social Indicators of Well-Being (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 13. Figure 1. Andrews' and Withey's Two-dimensional Conceptual Model with Examples of Possible Domains and Criteria and with Evaluations of Well-being at Three Levels of Specificity. 12 measures consist of six domains and eight criteria measures. The domains include housing, job, family life, neighbor— hood, sparetime activities and the national government. The eight criteria are standard of living, fun, independence and freedom, beauty, freedom from bother, safety, self- accomplishment and acceptance by other peOple. Figure 2 represents the model which is expanded to show causal linkages. Figure 3 is a contracted form of the causal model focusing only on the domains and criteria of particular relevance to this study. The domains by criteria (e.g., feelings about family life with respect to how much fun one is having or feelings about the job with respect to the standard of living it affords) should predict general evalu- ations of the family life and job domains respectively. Additionally, the general concern level measures (e.g., global feeling of the job or family life) should predict the overall perception of well-being. Evaluations of the domains and perceived overall well-being were expressed in terms of the categories on the Delighted-Terrible (D.T.) scale (see Figure 4). This scale was deve10ped by Andrews and Withey (1976) in an attempt to design a measuring device that would yield more valid and discriminating information about peOple's evalua- tions of different aspects of life than had been produced by previously used scales (Andrews & Withey, 1976, p. 20). 13 48 meme dummy-aim More: '4 ”'0'” measures 1 wool meme (6 «meme criteria) Job Family life Neighborhood ocI. loop. 8 free. Self accomo. BeouIy Free homer $09er Acceptance "MM NoII. Job Foam, life Neighborhood so. time ocI. NOII. QOVI. SeII oooomp. Free from bother F Standard 0' Figure 2. Causal Model to Explain Evaluations of Well Being. Source: Frank M. Andrews and Stephen B. Withey, Social Indicators of Well-being (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 234. .amm .a .Amaaa .mmoum Encode "goes 3oz. mcoonIHHoz mo muoumowocH Hoaoom .wmnuwz .m cmnmwum poo m3muoc¢ xcoum Eoum owummofi .mcwmmIHHoB mo mCOHDMSHm>m cflmamxm ou Hmooz Homsoo owosomm Iv DOW m“ moons a n\\\\\\\\\_/ I mm moan M///////// . mmaq haafiom R\\\\\\\\\\ .+ QHSWMQE Hanoflo H mmhgmmwa H®>THICH®UCOU V S S J % M J E o a e I 3 I J a e D. m u a 3 a e n .d P d . .4 3. . 3 v. .A 8 .A 8 e a o 1 u D 1. .d I O O U. 1 5 a m a a . d I e wousmmoE cofluwuHHonnIchEoo vamaoomm ”wouoom .m musmflm nos >HH5mm 15 .mm .m .muoa hash .xoonmoou .Amhma .m>a:ou¢ mocmflom HMHOOm noummmmm HMflOOw How ousufiuwcH u.H2 .HonH¢ and. mHOuoOHOGH Hmfloom mo unmEousmmmz new ucwEmOHo>oo .muoummflumw>CH wamflocwum .amnuflz .m :mnmmum can mzmuocm .2 xcmum "mousom .mcofluosao>m O>Huommw< mo ucoEmmmmm< on» MOM pom: amnuflz vow m3muocd wn OOQOHO>OQ mamom manfluuwalomunoflaoo one .v wusmflm OE Ou >Hmmm uOc moon U on boonm uzmsozb oo>oz m .oowuwflummmflc MO: poflumfiuom umcbflwcv Hmuusmz < incacmauommdo tzc Tcmumfiucm >Haozro ooecmflbcm uncoov ooflmmwuommflp bouzoflaoo commmaa Sdbmoz cox“: xaumoz >Qmmzc: manauuoa "MOON H 16 The D.T. scale includes seven on scale categories and three Off scale categories. On scale categories ranged from "Delighted" to "Terrible." The three Off scale cate- gories allows expression of concerns that are irrelevant. These include "Neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied," "Does not apply to me," and "I never thought about it."1 The seven on scale categories were designed to reduce skewed distributions resulting from the use Of scales Of fewer categories. Evaluations generated by the D.T. scale are termed "affective evaluations." This phrase is based on the hypothesis that "a person's assessment Of life quality involves both cognitive evaluation and some degree Of positive and/or negative feelings, i.e., "affect" (Andrews & Withey, 1976, p. 18). This concept is broader than the concept satisfaction and is the term used in this research to describe subjective evaluations Of work, family life and overall well-being. Research Objectives This research is exploratory in nature and as such the Objective is not to test hypotheses but rather to formulate hypotheses while seeking answers to the following research questions: lOff scale categories could not be used in statis- tical analysis and were treated as missing data for this research. 2. 17 TO what extent do affective evaluations Of the domains family life and job predict perceived overall well-being for men and women when added to other variables? What is the relationship between affective evalu- ation of family life and affective evaluation of g?" . ni.|.~\, job? To what extent do eight value criteria predict women's and men's affective evaluations Of family life and job? To what extent do selected contextual variables predict affective evaluations Of family life, job and perceived overall well-being for women and men? DO women employed for pay differ from women who are not employed for pay on self-esteem, locus Of con- trol, family life satisfaction and perceived over- all well-being? Assumptions The assumptions underlying this research are: Individuals can accurately report their cognitions and feeling states. There is variation among individuals and groups as to the aspects Of life which are important and the extent to which satisfactions are derived from them. 18 3. Survey research is an adequate and appropriate method for gaining insights into people's subjec- tive perceptions and feelings. 4. The delighted-terrible scale yields interval level data. Theoretical Definitions The following definitions are intended to conceptu- ally clarify the variables and important terms used in this study. Perceived Overall Well—being - A global sense of well-being based on both cognitive and affective assess- ments of significant life concerns, guided by values, aspirations, goals and roles. Family Life - Interrelationships, interdependencies and interactions of spouses, children and all other members Of a family system. J92 - As distinguished from the broader concept work, job refers to paid work. Affective Evaluations - Assessments involving both cognitive evaluation and feelings (both positive and nega- tive) i.e., affect. (Consistency with the Andrews and Withey model require that the term affective evaluation be used instead Of the more narrow term satisfaction.) Domains - "Places, things, activities, peOple and roles" (Andrews & Withey, 1976, p. 12). 19 Criteria - "Values, standards, aspirations, goals, and . . . in general . . . ways of judging what the domains of life afford" (Andrews & Withey, 1976, p. 11). Self Esteem - Relatively enduring evaluative and affective attitudes toward oneself (Rosenberg, 1965). Involves: (l) judgmental process--self examination, self evaluation relative to performance, capacities, attributes, etc. and (2) an affective attitude, i.e., self-rejection/ contempt, self acceptance/respect. Locus of Control - The extent to which persons per- ceive contingency relationships between their actions and their outcomes. Internal control is the belief that rewards and reinforcements are contingent upon one's own actions. External control is the belief that rewards and reinforcements occur independently Of one's actions. The extent to which peOple feel in control of their lives rather than subject to control by external forces like society, the government, superiors or even sheer fate or luck (Rotter, 1966). Occupational Prestige - "The phenomenon of differ- ential societal evaluations of occupations according tO their social standing" (Otto, 1975, p. 326). "The prestige position of an occupation is apparently a characteristic of that occupation, generated by the way in which it is articulated into the division Of labor, the amount Of power and influence implied in the activities Of the occupation, 20 by the characteristics Of the incumbents" (Hodge, Siegal, & Rossi, 1966, p. 332 quoted in Sontag, 1978, p. 30). Family Life Cycle Stage - A way Of viewing family development as a sequence Of stages. The family passes from one stage or another before it breaks up from fission and the death Of its Older members. Dual Worker Family - A family unit in which both heads have jobs. As distinguished from dual career fami- lies, dual worker families are far more numerous and lack some Of the key elements Of the dual career pattern. The distinction hinges upon the differences between career and work at a job in terms of the degree of personal commit- ment (jobs are taken for more purely economic reasons) and continuity Of employment (jobs are more subject to inter- ruptions and lack Of clear develOpmental stages and accumu- lation of expertise (RapOport, 1971, p. 8)). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter presents a review Of relevant litera- ture and research and provides a theoretical point of departure for the questions under study. The chapter is divided into four sections: perceived overall well-being defined; the relationship Of job and family life satis- factions tO overall well-being; the relationship Of job satisfaction and family life satisfaction; the relationship of contextual variables to job satisfaction, family life satisfaction and perceived overall well-being.1 Perceived Overall Well-being Defined The concept perceived overall well-being is used interchangeably with such concepts as perceived overall quality Of life, subjective well-being and overall life satisfaction. Although it is a unitary concept, it is multidimensional in that it is viewed as a weighted average of the satisfactions in all those domains that are important to people (Andrews & Withey, 1976). lResearch related to satisfaction and happiness is included in this literature review as there is a paucity Of research related to the broader concept affective evalua- tion as proposed by Andrews and Withey. 21 22 Perceived overall well-being is derived through the interaction of the individual with the objective environ- ments. PeOple live in objectively defined environments, but they perceive subjectively defined environments. It is this psychological space to which they respond (French, Rodgers & Cobb, 1974). The individual's affective reac- tions to the various domains or environments are dependent upon the extent to which the environments are perceived as fulfilling needs, aspirations or values. These aspira- tions, needs and values become the standards by which domains of life are evaluated. They arise out of existen- tial states and cultures of man, are hierarchically ordered and are therefore differentially held by individuals in society (Graves, 1970; Maslow, 1954; Rescher, 1969: Kluckhorn, 1959: Inglehart, 1977). Relationship of Job Satisfaction and Family Life Satisfaction to Perceived Overall Well-being Industrial and organizational psychologists have been preoccupied with the twin variables job satisfaction and job performance. The relationship between job satis- faction and overall life satisfaction or well-being has received relatively little attention. Based on limited research, job satisfaction however, consistently appears to be a major component of overall well-being. In a recent &/ review article, Locke (1976, p. 1334) suggested that job //\ 23 \ satisfaction can affect a worker's attitude toward life, \ toward his family and toward himself. He further suggested X 7/, that job satisfaction may be related to mental health and L ' adjustment--concepts often used interchangeably with well- being. Some research lends support to Locke's assertions. Kornhauser (1965), in a large scale investigation of auto- mobile workers in Detroit, found positive correlations between interview measures of job satisfaction and life satisfaction. These relationships were found to be con- sistent among three levels of blue collar automobile workers. Iris and Barrett (1972), compared two samples, one of satisfied and one of dissatisfied foremen in a chemical plant. They found that the more satisfied workers were also more satisfied with their lives. Andrews and Withey (1974) found in a study involv- ing a national sample that job satisfaction was highly related to overall satisfaction even after removal of vari- ance redundancy with other predictors. Anderson (1977) employed a number of predictors of life satisfaction. She found in research involving a sample of college students that the strongest role related issue was the relationship between life satisfaction and work satisfaction. Quinn and Mongione (1973) and Trafton (1977) both reported job satisfaction or dissatisfaction to be 24 significantly though weakly correlated with life satis- faction. Despite the fact that the family literature is replete with folklore and intuitively reasonable asser- tions postulating the relationship between family life satisfaction and life in general, few studies were found which empirically tested the relationship. Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1961), reported that their respondents who said that they "were very happy" mentioned marriage and family as the source of their happiness much more often than did people who said that they were "not too happy," and the "not too happy" were more likely to say marriage and family were the source of their unhappiness. The researchers concluded that when people are happy in family relationships they tend to be happy generally, when they are unhappy in family relationships they tend to be unhappy. Bubolz (1977) studied the quality of life of rural persons in a Michigan county. The research yielded several important findings relative to the family: peOple living alone were least satisfied, while those whose family included children under 20 living at home were the most satisfied and family life ranked highest in importance and satisfaction. She stated: Our study did not probe for reasons why family life loomed as such an important factor for our respondents and why it was so significantly related to quality of life. However we assume that family members help meet 25 essential needs for love, belonging and communication. The family also provides the environment in which physical and other needs are often met (p. 9). Bubolz's findings are supported by those of Andrews and Withey (1976) whose study found that the family life (including marriage and children) was the strongest source of delight and pleasure of any of the domains of life studied. Family life also contributed significantly more to the prediction of perceived overall quality of life. Campbell gt 31. (1976), also found the relationship between marital satisfaction (one component of family life satisfaction) and life satisfaction to be stronger than that for most other domains. He further found that unmarried people, especially the divorced and separated, were con— siderably less satisfied with their lives than were married respondents on the average. The degree to which satisfaction in a particular domain predicts one's perceptions of well-being appears to be dependent upon the relative salience of that particu- lar domain for overall life. A study on happiness under- taken by Bradburn (1965) for the National Opinion Research I Center found statistically significant correlations between .~ y I job satisfaction and life satisfaction. He found that family life was statistically more significant than job satisfaction. London, Crandall and Seals (1977) and Haavio- Mannila (1971) in separate studies on the relationships of 26 job satisfaction, family life satisfaction and leisure satisfaction to overall life satisfaction each found family life to have the highest correlation with overall life satisfaction. Studies on aspirations and central life interest seem to explain this phenomenon. The Protestant Ethic views on the importance of work for overall well-being are perhaps best summed up by Rainwater (1974): Having a job provides validation and increases an individual's sense of well-being in several ways: First, it provides the economic resources that allows one to pursue validating activities in his non-work life. Second, it provides contact with others to whom one can be someone. Third, a job gives a sense of security about future income. Finally, the experi- ence of work provides a sense of mastery, of personal effectiveness which increases one's sense of well- being. Jobs allow an individual to have a sense of structured mastery over external reality that most people cannot have without a job (p. 362). This view of the centrality of the job for overall well-being is differentially held by various segments of \ the pOpulation. degers (1977) studied the relationshipg\y~ msm Ha I between work status and overall life satisfaction among 1 women. He found little difference in average levels of life satisfaction expressed by housewives and by women working outside the home. Substantial differences did emerge however, when women were distinguished by their motivation for paid work. Among women who wanted jobs, working women were found to be more satisfied with their lives than were housewives; while among those who preferred not to work, housewives were more satisfied. WM 27 W3 F? Nye (1963) studied differences in personal satis- factions between employed and unemployed women. His data suggested some slight tendency for greater overall satis- faction among women with jobs outside the home. Ferree (1976) through structured interviews with 135 married predominately working class women in Boston found that despite the strains of carrying a double role, the woman with a full time outside job is happier and feels herself to be better off than the full time housewife. Thel I‘, differences between working and non-working women were also 1;. linked to generally higher levels of competence and self 1 esteem among working women. A replication of Ferree's study by Wright (1978) found no significant differences between working and non- working women in the degree to which they felt their lives were interesting, enjoyable, worthwhile, full, hopeful, rewarding or self-enriching. Going beyond the simple dichotomy of having and not having a job, some research supports the view that work assumes its maximal personal meaning for individuals only when the occupational role is highly individualized, “AURU&J especially among the professions (Rapaport, 1965).£fLow status occupations often characterized by the absence of gratifying incentives, have less ialience. Haavio-Mannila (1971) found that for persons in upper status occupations, the job was the source of central 28 life interest while for persons in low status occupations, the family was the source of central life interest. This was found to be true for both men and women, married and unmarried. This finding is consistent with results reported by Dubin (1963) and Orzak (1963). Both studied central life interests of workers. Dubin found that for almost three out Of every four industrial workers studied, work and the work place were not central life interests. In con- trast, for four out of every five professional nurses studied by Orzak, work and the work place were central life interests. It is not clear from these studies what the marital status of the respondents were. This variable might have affected results. On the contrary, occupational prestige was not an important determinant of central life interest in a study Of professional engineers. Salvo (1968) found in a study of professional engineers that both occupational and familial orientations were very important to overall life satisfac- tion. They were unable to establish a clear dominance of the occupational orientation over the familial orientation. Most respondents indicated that there was a weak normative pressure (a value held by engineering colleagues) to give priority to occupational relations and activities but in their own personal preferences family relations were more important for the majority. 29 Family life cycle stage is an important variable which has been linked to central life interest and satis- factions derived from them. Harry (1976) studied evolving sources of happiness for men over the life cycle. His results led him to conclude that during the stage of being a parent of young and school age children, men tend to define happiness in terms of family life. During earlier and later stages men look beyond the family for sources of happiness. These results were derived from research using a national probability sample; items reflecting satisfaction with a variety of institutional areas were correlated with a measure of overall happiness. Sex appears to affect the prediction of central ”J life interest. Rogers (1977) found evidence that work. GIl‘jL’ § tends to be less central to the overall quality of women's lives than is true for men. Steven's (1964) study of married college students found support for the hypothesis that husbands' aspirations were more related to careers while wives' aspirations were related to the home. In sum, the literature reveals that job and family are major components of well-being. The extent to which each predicts or is related to overall life appears to be determined by its relative salience for the individual. This salience may be in turn determined by job prestige, family life cycle stage and sex. 30 Relationship of Family Life Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction There are three competing arguments or theories which attempt to explain, predict or provide the model for investigating the relationships between job satisfaction and family life satisfaction (Orphen, 1978; Quinn, 1973: Locke, 1976). The segmentation argument contends that all life is divided into several parts, each one representing a different area of activity and interest. The prOponents of this view believe that each segment is lived out more or less inde- pendently of others. In their view, the workplace is separated from home and attitudes developed in one setting have no effect on attitudes in other settings. This theory therefore predicts no relationship between family life satisfaction and job satisfaction. London 33 El- (1977) found negligible correlations between measures of job and leisure satisfaction. From this finding, they generalized that peOple segment their experiences so that feelings derived from work and other roles are basically unrelated. The compensatory argument holds that unable to achieve psychological gratification from their jobs, dis— satisfied workers put their psychological investment into other life roles and Obtain compensatory gratification from activities associated with these roles. This argument pre- dicts a negative correlation between job satisfaction and $2wa 8.0mm (9Cyl... satisfaction with family life. 31 Dubin (1956) reported responses of working class subjects. His findings led him to suggest that the lesser satisfactions of working class occupations provoke retreat from boredom of work into more satisfying expressive attain- ment of family life. He argued that when workers did not have a sense of ego involvement in their jobs they tended to develOp an interest in domestic life. The spillover argument contends that workers' feelings about their jobs will generalize to other life roles. This spillover theory suggests that satisfactions derived from work will be positively related to non-work satisfaction, e.g., family life. Blood and Wolfe (1960) interpreted findings from their data to suggest that satisfaction with work implies that there is little residual discontent that is brought home to interfere with the performance and enjoyment of domestic roles or for the availability of husband for "therapeutic" utilization by wife. Dyer (1956) suggested that not only is husband unencumbered in his accessibility for family interaction when he is satisfied with his work, there is also evidence that wife and children of satisfied workers are also pleased with his work and the implications of it for family life. 32 Renshaw (1964) in explaining the results of her study argued that there appears to be a reciprocal facili- tation of harmony in family relations when husbands are satisfied with their occupational situations. Industrial psychologists concur in these findings (Kornhauser, 1965; Messinger, 1971; Iris and Barret, 1972: Mansfield, 1972; Quinn and Staines, 1979). Empirical studies generally concerned themselves with working husbands. With the recent increase of women ’7 in the labor force it is reasonable to believe that these I findings could also apply to women. Implicit in the research supporting both a spill- over and a compensatory view is the assumption that the job exerts the strongest influence in the relationship--that compensation is from job dissatisfaction to family life satisfaction or that spillover is from job satisfaction or dissatisfaction to family life satisfaction or dissatis- faction. Kanter (1977) casts doubt on this "long arm" view of the job by providing a cogent discussion to empha- size that if the emotional climate at work can affect the family, so can the family's emotional climate and demands affect members as workers. Family situations, she contends, can define work orientations, motivations, abilities, emotional energy and the demands people bring to the work place. 33 Kornhauser (1965) and Iris and Barret (1972) reportedly found in their respective research that differ- ences in job satisfaction cause variation in non-work satisfaction. Their studies were not designed to allow such causal inferences. Orphen (1978) did attempt to empirically test causal direction in his study of work and non-work. He used a cross-legged correlational technique which enables a researcher to test the relative adequacy of two Opposing theories providing they predict different patterns of Observed correlations. He was unable to con- vincingly support causality from either direction. Although he found support for the strong arm view of the job, the relationship was rather weak and could have conceivably been due to error. Two theoretical formulations which can be useful in supporting a view that life or non-work satisfaction (including family life) can cause differences in job satis- faction are valency expectancy theory and cognitive- dissonance theory. Applying valence expectancy theory one could postulate that a higher degree of fulfillment with family is usually associated with feelings of esteem and internal control, both factors tend to produce strong expectancy and instrumentality beliefs which are the main determinants of high levels of work motivation and hence 34 performance and satisfaction. Applying cognitive- dissonance theory one could postulate that because high levels of fulfillment outside the work situation are incon- gruent with feelings of job satisfaction, individuals who are satisfied with family and leisure will as a result, tend to feel satisfied with their jobs, a consequence of their effort to reduce dissonance and achieve congruence (Orphen, 1978). In sum, of the three competing arguments, the spill— over argument is more strongly supported in the research than are the segmentation or compensatory arguments. There is some indication that a compensatory view may apply to workers with low job prestige. The segmentation argument does not appear plausible. Whether the spillover or com- pensation is from job to family life or vice versa is not clear. Based on limited research, the relationship between job and family life appears to be reciprocal. Relationship of Contextual Variables to Job Satisfaction, Family Life Satisfaction and Overall Well-being It has become almost a sociological truism that various socioeconomic and racial groups generally hold different attitudes toward life and their levels of satis- faction with different domains of experience differ. Research on job satisfaction and family life satisfaction overwhelmingly support this view. 35 Renee (1970) found that peOple of higher status, better educated, in higher prestige occupations or with higher incomes were less likely than others to express dis- satisfaction with their marriage. She also found that blacks have much higher rates of marital dissatisfaction than do whites. This difference, she suggested, is due pri- marily to socioeconomic status. PeOple who are less well educated, in lower-prestige occupations or with lower income are more likely than others to express dissatis- faction. Since blacks generally tend to be less well educated, in lower prestige occupations and earning less money than whites, their rates of dissatisfaction is conse- quently higher than that of whites. Andrews and Withey (1976) found small significant differences between blacks and whites particularly in the area of economic concerns. Blacks however generally rated family life higher than whites did. Race and sex have been linked to job and family satisfaction even when controlled for education and occu- pational prestige. Hulin and Smith (1974) analyzed data based on a sample of 295 male workers and 163 female workers drawn from different industrial plants representing three different companies. Their findings showed that female workers tend to be somewhat less satisfied with their jobs than their male counterparts. By ways of expla- nation the authors stated: 36 We do not maintain that sex per se is the crucial factor which leads to either high or low satisfaction. It is rather the entire constellation of variables which consistently covary with sex. For example, pay, job level, promotion Opportunities, societal norms, etc. that is likely causing the difference in job satisfaction (p. 90). These comments are relevant to an understanding of race and its affect on satisfaction. Slocum and Strawser (1972) studied a sample of white and black certified pub- lic accountants. Their data showed that black accountants were less satisfied than their white counterparts with almost all job factors. They stated that bOth blacks and whites considered the same job characteristics as sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, but that blacks received less satisfaction (presumably due to fewer rewards in these categories). Hoppock (1935), Armstrong (1971) and Locke (1974) all concurred that general satisfaction increases as occupa- tional level increases. Most recent investigations on per- ceived overall well-being have however found remarkably little variation in overall satisfaction from one group to another in society. Andrews and Withey (1976) found that the combined effects of age, sex, race, income, education and occupation accounted for only 8 percent of the variance in their index of perceived overall quality of life. Based on data from four Nordic countries Allardt (1976) reported that when satisfaction measures were related 37 to common background variables such as occupation, educa- tion, sex and age, within each country, the overall satis- faction level tended to be constant across categories defined by social characteristics. Englehart (1977) used a battery of social back- ground variables while studying subjects in eight European countries and America and found that they explained rela- tively little variance in objective satisfaction. Campbell gt El- (1976) found weak relationships between social background variables and overall life satis- faction. Seashore (1975) offered some plausible explanations for this seemingly unlikely phenomenon. He suggested that individuals employ defense mechanisms to COpe with an unsatisfactory situation. The following summarizes the coping mechanisms he proposes: Repression The blocking of certain thoughts, ideas, emotions, or conclusions from entry into conscious awareness. Repres- sion can block out emotions (though not without negative consequences for the individual). Accommodation This proposition assumes that in "normal" individ- uals, there is a persistent force toward the experience of satisfaction and the avoidance of the experience of dissatis- faction, and that experiencing dissatisfaction, the individ- ual will seek and find accommodation in some fashion. Thus 38 dissatisfaction is generally an unstable and transitional state, one that is changed. Evidence for this proposition lies in the fact that many persons feel and report satisfaction with life concerns that on the face of it do not merit that kind of attitude being grossly deficient in qualities that are commonly valued. The dissatisfied individual will, in the normal case, find ways to change his/her environment or rationalize a change in his/her evaluation of it. The accommodative processes and strategies undertaken by an individual to assure satisfaction may include one or several of the following: a. Changing the environment b. Goal reduction — modifying expectations and aspira- tions, reducing goals to bring them into consonance with what he/she perceives to be the realities of the situation and of feasible alternatives. c. Cognitive distortion - altering perceptions of the situation and of oneself to attain consonance between values and experiences in the domain. d. Resignation - simply accepting the situation, thus preserving self esteem Often by allocating blame to others in the system or to past chance events not now in one's control. e. Withdrawal - gaining a partial psychological escape from the dissatisfying situation usually by altering 39 either values, or by seeking primary value reali- zation in other activities, or by leaving the situ— ation. While all of the strategies serve the immediate and compelling function of dissatisfaction reduction some accomplish this end with a by-product of personal organi- zational and societal enhancement, others at a heavy cost. The psychological importance of self—evaluative variables has been recognized by personality theorists for many years, and concern with it is evident in the literature. Such variables as self esteem and locus of control have particular relevance for affective evaluations in that they structure individuals' perceptions. Self-esteem is an enduring global personality orien- tation shaped in childhood, tied to native propensities and early formative experiences. It is not necessarily class linked and is analytically distinct from situationally specific accruements of self worth which might reinforce but does little to alter the more global self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965; COOpersmith, 1967; Scanzoni, 1970). Global self esteem in so far as it is a basic personality characteristic tends to influence perceptions and evaluations. Low self esteem has been found to hamper interpersonal relationships, interactions and communication. It has also been found to distort perceptions of social 40 reality. High self—esteem appears to have just the opposite consequences (Rosenberg, 1965). Self-esteem can thus be expected to have an impact on family relations, on job evaluation and on overall life evaluation. Scanzoni (1970) related self-esteem to family life satisfaction, particularly marital satisfaction: The significance of global self esteem for conjugal cohesion lies in its impact on processes of reciprocity and exchange. We would expect that high self-esteem would increase evaluations Of husband and wife primary interaction and that low self-esteem would decrease it. This expectation is based on Rosenberg's con- clusion that one with low self-esteem is "more vulner- able to interpersonal relations (deeply hurt by criti- cism, blame, or scolding). He is relatively awkward with others; he assumes others think poorly of him or do not particularly like him (p. 99). Scanzoni's research supported this view. Anderson (1977) found that the self—esteem measure \ employed for her study was the variable most highly related to job, family life and overall life satisfactions. When a number of predictor variables were entered into regression analyses, self-esteem best predicted life satisfaction. Locus of control is another self evaluative con- struct which has implications for satisfactions in job, family life and overall life evaluations. General locus of control according to Rotter (1954) is the belief that the consequences of an event are dependent upon one's own actions and thereby under personal control, or that the consequences are unrelated to one's own behaviors and 41 thereby beyond personal control. These expectancies generalize from the pattern of past experience. Locus of control is considered a rather stable personality charac- teristic formed early in childhood but susceptible to some change (Andrisani, 1975). It is significant to satisfaction research in that it, like self-esteem, structures one's perceptions and outlook. Anderson studied locus of control in relation to overall life satisfaction. She found it to be related to life satisfaction although not so strongly as self-esteem. No studies were found relating locus of control to job and family life satisfactions. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Data used in this investigation were gathered as a part of a larger study commonly referred to as "The Quality of Life Research Project" which was funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.1 Survey data were obtained through self-administered questionnaires given to husbands and wives living together in Oakland County, Michigan who had school age children (5-18 years old) living at home at the time of the survey. Sampling Design The Quality of Life Research Project directors contracted with a major marketing research firm to draw the sample and collect the data. Multistage cluster sampling employing probability prOportionate to households procedures were designed and executed. Geographical areas 1"The Quality of Life Research Project" is a joint undertaking by an interdepartmental team of Human Ecologists at Michigan State University. Project number 1249, "Cloth— ing Use and Quality of Life in Rural and Urban Communities" is directed by Dr. Ann Slocum, Department of Human Environ- ment and Design. Project number 3151, "Families in Evolv- ing Rural Communities" is directed by Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Department of Family and Child Sciences. Both projects have a common data base. 42 43 were categorized by type: rural, urban and suburban and by racial composition: black and white. In each sampling point cluster, a randomly designated household was chosen as the sight of the first interview and each household from it (using a prescribed walk pattern) was designated household for interview until four were selected. The original call plus three callbacks were made to designated households as was necessary to establish contact. If no contact was made after four attempts or household did not meet eligibility requirements, substitution of house to right then house to left was made.1 Data Collection Procedures Before field procedures began, briefing sessions for interviewers were conducted by the field supervisor of the research agency and by members of the Quality of Life Research Project Team. Trained interviewers, hired by the research agency, were briefed in these sessions on sampling procedures, acquainted with questionnaire items and given placement, pickup and editing instructions (see Appendix C). Due to difficulties in placing questionnaires, some modifications were made (see Appendix B). These modifi- cations placed some limits on the generalizability of the results. Caution must be taken when interpreting beyond 1See Appendix B for more details of the sampling design and later modifications. 44 the sample. Since the major purpose of this study is focused on looking at relationships between variables rather than generalizing to the pOpulation the modifica- tions were deemed not critical. This researcher served as an intern with the pro- ject. Specific duties included placing questionnaires and interviewing for pretesting, analyzing field procedures used during pretesting, developing codes for Open-ended questions related to family life, developing family vari- ables, editing completed questionnaires, coding responses for data processing and participating in team meetings and discussions related to the research project. i1: * Instrument -~ A questionnaire was develOped to incorporate common Objectives as well as those Objectives specific to the dis- ciplines represented by team members. Questionnaire items were develOped by the Quality Of Life Project staff. Others were drawn from secondary sources. Drs. Frank Andrews and Stephen Withey of the University of Michigan granted permission for the use of items which implemented the quality of life matrix model described in Chapter I. These items were made available through the Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research of which Michigan State University is a member. Written permission was granted by Princeton University Press for use of Morris Rosenberg's Self Esteem 45 Scale and Campbell gt gl. (1976) granted permission for the use of the Index of Personal Competence. Demographic variables were develOped by the project staff. Pretesting of the questionnaire was conducted by graduate students working with the Quality of Life Project. One rural area and two suburban areas in Ingham County, Michigan and one suburban area in Oakland County, Michigan served as the pretest areas. Minor modifications to the questionnaire resulted. The questionnaire was submitted to and approved by the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. Written informed consent for use of the data was obtained from all respondents. Respondents were assured of and received anonymity. A check for ten dollars was given to each household that submitted a com- pleted set (husband and wife) of questionnaires. Data Processing Procedures Data processing was conducted by Quality of Life Project staff including directors, graduate students, under- graduate work study students and a programmer. Before coding began questionnaires were edited by graduate students. Checks were made for completion, eligi- bility and possible collusion. Codes were assigned for missing data, occupational classification and prestige. Coded responses were then transferred to Opscan sheets from which they were keypunched and later placed on a 46 master computer tape. Computer printouts were examined for errors. Description of the Sample Interviewers were required to keep a call record which would indicate contacts and attempted contacts made. Table 1 presents a summary of the contacts made and dis- positions of households during field procedures for the 237 households selected for this study. The number of unsuccessful attempts at placement suggests some difficulty in drawing the sample. The final sample of the Quality of Life Research Project consisted of 244 cases. Modifications made in the sampling design due to difficulty in obtaining willing respondents who met the original criteria, resulted in the inclusion of 7 single parents. For the sake of simplicity in data analysis these seven cases were drOpped from this study's sample. Additionally, because race as a demo- graphic variable was of interest to this study, cases where husbands and wives indicated race to be other than black or white were also dropped. There were only four such cases (too small to be included in data analysis). The final sample for this investigation was comprised of 466 men and women or 233 husband-wife couples. As shown in Table 2, 193 were white men, 40 were black men, 194 were white women and 39 were black women. 47 Table l.--Disposition of Households Contacted in the Sample Selection Process. _. —— — Disposition Frequency Eligible and placement 237 Eligible but refusal before placement 59 Not eligible 112 Refusal before eligibility determined 18 No answer 156 Vacant residence 7 Interviewer terminated 5 (e.g., language barrier) Other (e.g., parents not at home) 6 Missing information for a contact 20 or attempted contact Table 2.--Composition of Total Sample by Sex and Race. Women Men Total Race N % N % N % Black 39 16.7 40 17.2 79 17.0 White 194 83.3 193 82.8 387 83.0 Total 233 100.0 233 100.0 446 100.0 48 As indicated in Table 3, the average age for women was 37.6 while the average age for men was 40. Racial differences in age were negligible. For men the educational level attained (see Table 4) ranged from less than eighth grade to the Ph.D. or another professional degree. Black men however, were less well educated than white men with an average of a high school diploma while white men averaged one to two years of col- lege. For women the range was less than eight years to some schooling beyond the master's degree. The mean was a high school diploma for both black and white women. Thus, white men were better educated than white women or all blacks. Family income ranged from under $5,000 to $75,000+ with the median family income falling in the category $20,000 to $29,000. For blacks, the median income fell within the $20,000 to $24,000 category while for whites the median income was higher falling in the $25,000 to $29,000 category (see Table 5). Men and women who were employed full time worked in a variety of occupations as indicated in Table 6. Women were mainly employed in the professional, technical, clerical, and laborers' classifications. The bulk of the men were concentrated in the professional, technical, managerial and craftsmen classifications. Table 7 suggests that occu- pational prestige is higher for white males than for white 49 II X II N OOH OOH OOH OO OOH OOH OOH Om Hmuoe O O m.~ H m. H m N mono OOHmmHz O a m.mH m m. H m H mO I Om mm OO OH O OH mm OH O mm I OO HO OO Om Om mO OO Hm NH me I mm Om mm mm OH OH OH OO OH OH I HO O 2 O 2 O z w 2 oanz HomHm manz xOOHm Hmomosc OO< so: mcoeoz .mamamm Houoe Mo coflusnfluumflo omoq HOCOOOMUOOMII.O OHQOB 51 Table 5.--Family Income Distribution. . a Blacks Whites Total Family Income N % N % Under 5,000 0 0.0 l .5 5,000 - 9,999 5 12 5 11 5.6 10,000 - 14,999 4 10.0 9 4.6 15,000 - 19,999 5 12.5 31 16.1 20,000 - 24,999 7 17.5 42 21.8 25,000 - 29,999 8 20.0 36 18.7 30,000 - 34,999 4 10.0 26 13.5 35,000 - 49,999 6 15.0 26 13.5 50,000 - 74,999 0 0.0 9 4.7 75,000+ 0 0.0 l .5 Missing data 1 2.5 l .5 Total 40 100.0 193 100.0 a1977 Note: Median income: income before taxes Blacks - $20,000-$24,000 Whites - $25,000-$29,000 Table 6.--Types of Occupations Held by Men and Women. a b Occupational Women Men Class1f1cat1on N % N % Professional, Technical and kindred workers 19 22'4 45 20.5 Managers and administrators 5 6 0 52 23 7 except farm ' ‘ Sales workers 8 9.4 16 7.0 Clerical and kindred 20 24.0 17 7.8 workers Craftsmen and kindred l 1.2 54 25.0 workers Operatives except transport 7 5.0 18 8.2 Transport equipment 4 l 2 2 9 operatives ' ° Laborers, except farm 1 14.1 8 3.7 Service workers except private household 12 8'2 7 3'2 Private household workers 4 5.0 0 0 Missing data 3 3.5 0 0 Total 85 100 219 100 aN bN = 219 85 (5 had non-working husbands) Note: Twelve non-working men were also drOpped from sample. comparisons. This was too small an N to make meaningful 53 OOH mOH OOH Om OOH Om OOH OH Hmuoa O O.O O O O.O O OOOO OOHOOHE O.m OH m.m N O.H H 0.0 O OO OO O.HH Hm O.HH O m.OH HH 0.0H m mm OO 0.0m mm O.m H m.m O 0.0 O mm on N.m~ mm m.mm O N.N~ OH 0.0N m mO OO m.OH mm O.HH O O.mm OH N.Nm O mm on m.O NH N.Om mH «.mm OH m.mm O ON ON O.H m O.m N O.H H H.HH N OH OH w 2 w 2 w 2 w z mmuoom omHummHm oanz xOMHm OOHSB HOOHm HOOOHOOQOOOO so: coEoz mo omcom .OOEOB wow no: mo omHummHm HmcoHquDOOO Mo coHusnOHumHaII.h OHQOB 54 women and for blacks; however, as previously noted, educa- tional level was higher for white men. Based on sex the imbalance of men in managerial and women in clerical posi- tions is obvious; again as previously noted, women were less educated than were white males. Eighty couples were dual worker families. The average size of the households was 4.97 with white households slightly smaller than that of blacks. Whites averaged 4.7 family members while blacks averaged 5.9. The overall mean number of children was 2.7. Whites had slightly fewer children than blacks with a mean of 2.6 while blacks had a mean of 3.4 children. In summary, these demographic data indicate that the families consisted of middle aged men and women, rela- tively well educated with above average family incomes and fairly small families. For individual respondents, small differences existed along sex and racial lines. The major discrepancy was in the areas of education and job prestige. Generally, the families were fairly homogenous with respect to other variables. Development of Variables Perceived Overall Well-being: This main dependent variable was measured by the Perceived Overall Quality of Life (POQL) measure referred to as the Life 3 Index by Andrews and Withey (1976). This index was derived by computing the simple mean of the two coded re5pones on the delighted-terrible 55 scale given by respondents to the question "How do you feel about your life as a whole?" This question was asked twice in the interview, once near the beginning and later after the respondent had answered intervening questions relative to quality of life concerns. Through empirical testing and replication Andrews and Withey found that this measure pro- vided a more reliable and valid indicator of the respondent's true feelings about life as a whole than did either of its constituent parts. The authors regarded this measure as one of their best measures of well-being having an estimated reliability of .70 (Andrews & Withey, 1976) (see Appendix A, item 1.1 and 9.2). For this study's sample reliability of this measure was .67 to women and .58 for men. Domains-by-Criteria: Specific evaluations of the six domains with respect to the eight criteria in the matrix model (see Appendix A, items 2.1a-2.7h). These evaluations are predictor variables for the general domain evaluations. General Affective Evaluation of Domains: Global evaluations of domains of life as determined by responses to the ques- tions ?How do you feel about your [domain]?" Responses were measured on the D.T. scale. Self Esteem: Respondents' evaluation of and attitude toward self is measured by a score on Rosenberg's Self Esteem scale (see Appendix A, item 3.1-3.10) scores ranged from zero to six. The scoring procedure differed from that of 56 Rosenberg in that low numerical scores corresponds to low self-esteem and a high numerical score corresponds to low self-esteem. Locus of Control: Respondents score on the Index of Per- sonal Competence (develOped by Campbell gt gl., 1976) scores ranged from 0 - 4 representing a continuum of the degree of external-internal control. The higher the score the more internal a person is (see Appendix A, items 4.1- 4.4). Race: Black or white as indicated by response to question "What is your race?" (see Appendix A, item 13.4). Occupational Prestige: Two-digit occupational prestige score assigned to respondent on the basis of responses to questions dealing with job title, duties, type and loca- tion of industry, hours per work week and type of pay received (see Appendix A, items l3.9b-13.9e and 13.99). Occupations were classified according to the three digit code assigned by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1971). Associated with each occupational classification is a two digit occupational prestige score generated in a study by Hodge, Siegal and Rossi and reported by the Social Science Research Council (1975). Prestige rankings have integer values ranging from nine to seventy-eight. 57 Family Life Cycle Stage: Stage of family development as indicated by age of youngest child. Andrews and Withey (1976, p. 290) justify the use of the age of the youngest child as the determinant of family life cycle stage. They state: "We suspect this exerts particular influence over family life" (see Appendix A, item 15.1a). Total Family Income: Coded category computed on the basis of both spouses' separate responses to the question "What was the total income for you and family members who live with you during the last year, 1977?" (see Appendix A, item 13.lla) (see Sontag, 1978 for explanation of how this variable was computed). Personal Income: Categorical estimate of total family income earned by respondent. Derived from respondents' answer to the question "About how much of this total family yearly income do you estimate that you will earn in 1977?" (see Appendix A, item 13.11b). Dual Worker Family: This computed variable was based on both spouses responses to the job screen question "Do you have a job for which you are paid and at which you usually work at least 20 hours per week?" (see Appendix A, p- 112). Education: Respondents answer to question, "What is the highest level of formal schooling that you have completed?" 58 Levels ranged from less than eight grades to Ph.D./other professional degree, i.e., M.D., O.D., DDS (see Appendix A, item 13.7a). Table 8 represents a summary of the questionnaire items used to measure these variables. Data Analysis Procedures All analyses were conducted separately for husbands and wives in order to meet the assumption of independence required by the statistical tests employed. The unit of analysis was the individual. All statistical procedures were programmed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975) and were carried out on the Control Data Corporation 6500 model computer at Michigan State University. Signifi- cance for all tests was set at the .05 level. Statistical Tests and Assumptions The following questions were investigated by multiple regression analysis with a forward stepwise solution: Question 1. To what extent do affective evaluations of the domains family life and job predict perceived overall well-being for women and men when added to other variables? 59 Table 8.--Questionnaire Items Used to Measure Variables Under Study. Variable Questionnaire Itema Perceived Overall Quality of Life 1.1, 9.2 General Affective Evaluations of Six Domains Housing 1.12 Job 1.7 Family Life 1.3a Neighborhood 1.14 Spare Time Activities 1.16 National Government 1.10 Specific Affective Evaluations of Domains by Eight Criteria Job 2.3a — 2.3b Family Life 2.4a - 2.4h Self Esteem (Rosenberg's Self 3 1 _ 3 10 Esteem Scale) ' ' Locus of Control (Index of 4.1 - 4.4 Personal Competence) Race 13.4 Occupational Prestige l3.9a - l3.9d, 13.9g Family Life Cycle Stage 15.1a Dual Worker Family Job screen top of page 112, Appendix A Education 13.7a Personal Income 13.1lb aAppendix A. 60 Question 3. What are the values held by women and men which best predict their affective evaluation of family life and job? Question 4. To what extent are selected contextual variables (locus of control, self esteem, race, education, occupational prestige, dual worker family, personal income and family life cycle stage) predictors of family life, job and per- ceived overall well-being? The forward stepwise inclusion procedure for multiple regression is an appropriate technique when the f researcher's primary interest is often not in hypotheses é testing, or in assessing the relative importance of inde- { pendent variables, but rather in making as good a predic- tion to a criterion as possible on the basis of several predictor variables. The aim is the selection of the minimum number of variables necessary to account for much of the variance accounted for by the total set (Kerlinger, 1973). In the forward stepwise solution tests are per— formed at each step to determine the contribution of each variable already in the equation if it were to enter last. F ratios are calculated for each variable when it is -~-O~ entered last. The F to remove statistic at each step is a test of the loss caused to R by removing a given vari- able, i.e., the proportion of variance with which R is 61 decreased by removing the variable. The F to enter is a test of the increment in the proportion of variance accounted for by a given variable entered last in the equation. The variable which has the highest zero-order correlation with the criterion variable enters the regres- sion equation first. The next variable having the highest partial correlation with the criterion variable enters. It equivalently has the highest F to enter. This process continues until all variables are entered providing their F to enter is significant at the pre-specified level of significance. The overall F specifies the test of the 2 due to the variable over and above those increment in R already entered in the equation. Multiple regression procedures are based on the following assumptions: 1. Random sampling 2. Normal distribution 3. Equality of variance 4. Additivity 5. Linearity of relationships 6. Independence The F test statistics which are associated with multiple regression are considered to be "robust" with regard to violation of these assumptions (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 77). Despite this, serious violations may be critical. 62 Pearson product-moment correlation was the statis- tical procedure employed to investigate Question 2. Question 2. To what extent are affective evaluations of job and family life related? The Pearson correlation coefficient r is the test statistic associated with Pearson correlation. It pro- vides a measure of the degree to which variation or change in one variable is related to variation or change in another. The test statistic r is the measure of associ— ation most commonly used for two continuous variables. It is a test of the strength and direction of the relation- ship. If the measure approaches +1 a strong positive linear relationship is indicated. If the value approaches -l.0 a strong negative linear relationship is indicated. If it approaches zero the indication is an absence of a linear relationship. Pearson product moment correlation assumes linear- ity, random sampling, and bivariate normal distribution (Nie gt gl., 1975). Multivariate analysis of variance was employed to investigate Question 5. Question 5. Do women employed full time for pay differ from unemplOyed women on self-esteem, locus of control, family life satisfaction and perceived overall well-being? 63 Multivariate analysis of variance is analysis of variance with any number of independent variables and any number of dependent variables. The F test of statistical significance is used to determine whether the means of the dependent variables, considered simultaneously are equal. The multivariate F test, tests the significance of mean differences k dimensionally. Multivariate analysis assumes randomness, additiv- ity, homoscedasticy, independence and multivariate normal distribution (Babbie, 1973). Listwise deletion of data was used for all statis- tical procedures. This provides assurance that all com- putations are carried out on the same universe of data. Whenever there is a possibility of a large amount of missing data (as a cursory review of frequency data indi- cated) Listwise is the recommended procedure. Serious problems in the interpretation of results can arise if listwise deletion is not used. This is especially true for regression analysis procedures (Nie gt gl., p. 353). CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The statistical procedures and test statistics are detailed in Chapter III. This chapter contains descriptive data and test results for questions under study. Each section contains a statement of the research question, frequency data_for variables under study and summary results of statistical test employed. Question I To what extent do affective evaluations of the domains family life and job predict perceived overall well- being for women and men when added to other variables? Table 9 summarizes the frequency data on the inde- pendent and dependent variables giving, by employment status, means and standard deviations of women and men's responses on each measure. Generally, this study's sample tended to evaluate their overall lives positively. The mean POQL scores by employment status showed no difference in mean ratings by women (x = 5.4) on this measure. Men showed slightly less satisfaction with a mean score of 5.3. All means ratings 64 65 .oumo mo coHuoHoo omH3pmHH co oommm "ouoz OOO O.H O.O OOH H.H O.O OO O.H O.O OOHOOOO OOO O.H O.O OOH O. O.O OO O.H O.O Ocoeaoo>oo HOOoHqu OOO H.H O.O OOH H.H H.O OO H.H O.O OOHOH>HOOO osHa oummm OOO O.H O.O OOH O.H O.O OO O.H H.m coonuonnOHoz OOO O.H O.O I I I OO O.H O.O OOO OOO O.H O.O OOH O.H O.O OO O. 0.0 OOHH OHHEOO OOO O. O.O OOH O. O.O OO O. O.O onwcH OO OHHHO Hoom ..OOOO gg ..OOOO 5g ..OOOO 5g so: ooonmEm oo>onEm uoz coEoz coEOS OO>OHmEm mchEOQ me mo coHumsHm>m O>Huoomm¢ m.coz poo .coeoz ooonmEmIIOCHOQIHHoz HHmum>O 0cm m.cosoz mo mcoHUOO>oo oumocmum Ono mamozll.m OHQOB 66 on the POQL measure fell on the D.T. scale between the categories of mostly satisfied and pleased. Both men and women rated family life as more satis- fying than any other domain of life. Men were slightly more satisfied (I = 5.8) than were women. Employed women showed slightly less satisfaction (x = 5.6) with family life than did employed men. Women who were not employed fell between the two (x = 5.7). Employed women were slightly more satisfied with their jobs (x = 5.0) than were employed men (x = 4.9). For all women and men the ordering of satisfactions was downward from family life to housing, neighborhood, job, spare time activities and national government. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Question I Multiple regressions were run for employed women, employed men and women who were not employed. Table D1, Appendix D, presents the correlation matrices for the independent and dependent variables for the respective subsamples. Tables 10, 11 and 12 present the summary of results for the multiple regression analyses. For employed women the F to Enter and the Overall F tests were statistically significant (p < .05) for the domains family life, job and spare time activities. Com- bined, these three domains contributed 58% to the total variance accounted for. Family life was the best predictor 67 .mO. v m mmmhm.®H OOHoo. th00. ©0555. OMOOH. ooozuonsmfloz .o OmmOH.ON mhmoo. OOmoo. OOOOO. mmmmm. omsom .m mnmom.Om HOMHO. mmhmm. ONMOO. mommm.m ucoficuo>ow HmcoHumz .O mmmmm.Hm thvo. mvvmm. Hmvoh. «mmmmH.b mOHUH>HuO¢ OEHB mummm .m Ommmo.OO OONOO. OOOOm. ommmb. «hmomm.mH non .m Ohmmm.mm HmmmO. HmmmO. mambo. «mnmmm.mm OMHH >HOEmm .H m HHMHO>O omcmnu mm mm m OHmHuHsz Houcm o» m Oououcm OHQOOHO> moum )4..ng HHMHQS ©®>HOOHTQ MO GOHUUHUMHQ mfinw MOM .:0803 oomonEmIImchEoo xOm >3 OGOOQ mHm>HOG< OOHmmouoom OHQHOHDE mo mumsfismII.OH OHQOB 68 .mo. v m MOOOO.HO mHmOO. mOOHm. mHOHO. ONMHH.N ucoscno>ow HonoOumz .m mommm.Hm Omwoo. OmOom. OmOHO. mOOOm.m Omso: .O OOOM0.00 mOmOO. mommO. NOOOO. OOOOmm.Om mOHuH>Huod oEHB mummm .m mmmnm.OO NOOOH. OmmmO. omOmO. «Ommmo.mm OOO .m mmom0.00 HOmOm. HOmON. mommm. Ommomo.OO OMHH >HOEmm .H m HHOHO>O omconu x mm m OHQHOHSZ Houcm ou m oououcm OHQMHHO> moum IHHoz HHOHO>O OO>HOOMOO wo OOHOOHUOOO on» How .cmz OomonEmIImchEOQ me xn OCHOQ mHm>Hmc¢ conmoumOm OHmHuHoz mo mumEEsmII.HH OHnme 69 .mo. v m i. OOOHO.OO OOOOO. HOOHO. OOOOO. OOOO0.0 ooonuonnOHoz .m OOOOO.OO OOOHO. OHOOO. OOOOO. HOOO0.0 Ocoacuo>oo HmcoHumz .O OOOHO.HO OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOOO.OH omsom .O HOOOO.OO OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOOO.OH OOHOH>HOOO osHe mummm .O HOOHO.OOH OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OHOOHO.OOH OOHH OHHEOO .H Om HHOuo>o OOOOOO Om OO O OHmHuHsz uoucm on O Omuoucm OHOOHHO> moum IHHoz HHouo>O OO>OOOHom mo COOOOHomHm map How .coEoz oomonEocDIImcHOEoo me an mcwon mHmemcm conmmHmmm OHmOuHsz wo unmEEsmII.NH OHQOB 70 contributing alone 46% to R2. Job added 8% while spare time added a weak 4% to R2. For employed men, family life, job and spare time activities combined contributed approximately 50% to the total variance accounted for. Family life contributed 28% to R2, job added 15% and spare time activities added 7%. The overall F and the F to enter tests were statistically significant (p < .05) for each of the three variables. For women who were not employed for pay, family, spare time and house accounted for 60% of the variance. Family life accounted for 50% of the variance. Spare time affected an incremental change in R2 of 7% while house added a weak 3% to R2. Question 2 What is the relationship between affective evalu- ation of family life and affective evaluation of job? Results of Pearson Product Moment Correlation The Pearson's r for the relationship of job and family life evaluation for all working women was .355 (p < .05) indicating a positive linear but somewhat weak relationship. For men the Pearson's r .0699 was not significant (p < .05) indicating no linear relationship. 71 Question 3 To what extent do eight value criteria predict women's and men's affective evaluations of family life and job? Table 13 presents the frequencies of women's and men's affective evaluations of the family life and job domains by eight value criteria. Employed women were mostly satisfied with their jobs with respect to the extent to which they were being accepted and included by others (x = 5.1). They were least satisfied with their jobs with respect to the freedom from bother it allowed them to have (x = 4.3). Ratings of the job according to standard of living, fun, independence and freedom, beauty, safety and accomplishing something all fell between the categories of mixed and mostly satisfied. Employed men were satisfied with their job with respect to how well they enabled them to accomplish what they want (x = 5.2). They were least satisfied with the job with respect to the amount of beauty it enabled them to enjoy. All other mean ratings of the job by standard of living, fun, independence and safety fell at the lower end between the categories mixed and mostly satisfied. Family life was most satisfying for employed women with respect to how much it enabled them to be accepted and included by others. They were least satisfied with their families with respect to the amount of freedom from bother 72 Table 13.--Means of Women's and Men's Affective Evaluations of Job and Family Life by Eight Criteria. Criteria Family Life Job Standard of Living Employed Women 5.4 4 8 Employed Men 5.2 4.9 Unemployed Women 5.3 - Fun Employed Women 5.3 4.7 Employed Men 5.4 4.7 Unemployed Women 5.3 - Independence and Freedom Employed Women 5.0 4.9 Employed Men 5.1 4 9 Unemployed Women 5.0 - Beauty Employed Women 5.4 4.7 Employed Men 5.6 4.4 Unemployed Women 5.5 - Freedom from Bother Employed Women 5.0 4.3 Employed Men 5.0 4.5 Unemployed Women 4.9 - Safety Employed Women 5.4 4.8 Employed Men 5.4 4.8 Unemployed Women 5.3 - Accomplishing Things Employed Women 5.1 4 9 Employed Men 5.4 5.2 Unemployed Women 5.1 - Acceptance and Inclusion Employed Women 5.5 5.1 Employed Men 5.6 4.9 Unemployed Women 5.4 - 73 (x = 5.0) and the independence and freedom they were allowed to have (x = 5.0). Ratings of the family with respect to other value criteria fell between the mostly satisfied to pleased categories. Employed men were most satisfied with their families with respect to the amount of beauty they were enjoying (x = 5.6) and the acceptance and inclusion by others it allowed (x = 5.6). They were least satisfied with their families with respect to the freedom from bother they enjoyed (x = 5.0) as were the employed women. Women who were not employed were most satisfied with their family lives by the beauty they were enjoying (x = 5.5) as were employed men (employed women were least satisfied with families with respect to this value). As were the employed men and women, women who were not employed were least satisfied with their families with respect to the freedom from bother they were enjoying. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Family Life and Job by Eight Criteria Tables D2 through D5, Appendix D, present corre- lation matrices for the independent and dependent vari- ables. Tables 14 through 18 present the summary of the multiple regression analyses. For employed women, accomplishing something was the only statistically significant value to predict family life 74 .mO. v o OHOOO.O OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. HOOOO. OOO .O HOOOO.O OOHOO. OHOOO. OOOOO. OOOHH. uonuom scum sovooum .O OOOOH.O OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOH. Omoco>Huomuuu< OOO Ousmom .O OOOOH.O OHOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OHOOO. sonmmnm OOO oucmocomoccH .O OOOOO.O OOHOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO.H Ououmm .O HOOOO.O OOOOO. OHOOO. OHOOO. OOOOO.O :oHOOHocH OOO mocmummoog .O OOOOH.OH OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO.O OOH>HH mo OHOOOOOO .O OOHO0.0H OOOHO. OOOHO. OOOOO. «OOHOO.OH Ocquosom OOHOOHHmsoooO .H m HHmHo>O omcoso mm mm m onHuHOZ Houcm on m Conoucm OHQOHHO> moum .coeoz OO%OHQEMIIMHHOOHHO usmHm wn OMHH >HHEmm mo coHuosHm>m o>Huoomm< mo OOHOOHOOHO onu How mHm>Hoc< conmOHmom OHmOuHsz mo >HOEEsmII.OH OHQOB 75 .mO. v m mwOOh.m OHOOO. mmmOm. ommmm. mmmHO. >uommm .m omHOO.© HOHOO. OHmOm. mnmmm. momHm. mcH>HH mo Unmocmum .n OOOO0.0 OOHOO. mmHOm. OOOmm. Ombmm. mmoco>HuomHuu< pom wusmom .O OOOOM.O Omwoo. mOmOm. Hmmmm. OOOMN.H Eooooum cam oozwocomoocH .m OOOOm.HH NOOOO. Hmomm. OHmOm. OHhmm. nonuom Bonn Eoooouh .O OHNHm.OH mmHHo. omOmm. HmmOm. OHmNm.H consHocH OOO oocmumooo< .m OOOHO.HN Omooo. mmmHm. OOOmm. OOHOOH.O com .N mmmOO.Hm HOOON. HOOON. OOOOO. «mmmoo.Hm ucoeanHmEOood .H m HHOHO>O omcmnu mm mm m mHmHuHsz Houcm Ou m oououcm OHanum> moum .coEoz OO>OHQEOCDIIOHHOUHHO unmwm an OMHH mHHEmm mo OOHOOOHO>M O>Ouoommd mo OOHOOHUOOO ozu MOM mHmeOC¢ :onmoumom onHuHsz mo >HOEEdmII.mH oHnt 76 .mO. v m mmomm.mH mHooo. mommO. ONOOO. Hmmmo. consHOCH pom oocmumooofl .m mmOmm.mH mamoo. mwmmO. mHOOh. ONOOO. com .5 mmHho.mH OOHHO. OOHOO. mMHOO. mOHmm.m Honuom Eoum Eooooum .O OHmhm.Om mOOOO. OHOOO. NONOO. Nonmo.m Eooooum OOO oocoocmmmocH .m Ommmm.mm HOOMO. OOOOO. mammo. «OOOmO.m ucosanHmeoooa .O Oommm.mm OmOHO. OOMMO. mommm. hOmmm.m wuommm .m OHmO>.HO OOOOO. HmmHO. mOOOO. Ommmmh.MH mmoco>Huomuuu< Ono wusmom .N mOmOm.NO mmmOm. mmmOm. mmHmm. «MOmOm.NO OOH>HH mo onwocoum .H m HHOHO>O omcmnu Nm mm m onHuHsz Houcm Ou m owuoucm OHQOHHO> mouw .coz OOOonemIIOHOOHHOO usmHm On OOHH OHHEOO mo coHumsHm>m O>Huoomm¢ mo :OHuOHOOHm Ocu How mHmemcm GOHmmoumom OHQHDHOZ mo >HMEE=mII.OH OHQMB 77 .mO. v o .<. wmhhm.m OOOOO. OOOOO. OONOO. MOONO. ocH>HH wo oumocmum .m OOOH~.O OOOOO. OOOOO. mmmmm. meOO. Hmnuom BOOM Boomoum .O mmOmO.m OMNOO. OOOOO. OONOO. OmOOH. com .o OONOH.O mmmOO. OOOOO. mmomo. OOOOH. ucoeanHmEooom .m OOOO0.0 OOOOO. HOOOO. Ohmmo. OOOOm. mmoco>Huoouuua OOO muswom .O OOOO0.0H OOONO. HOmOO. HNNOO. HwOmO.H muommm .m mHOOm.OH mOOmO. mOOMO. OOOOO. mmomm.m cOHmOHOcH ocw oocmumooo< .m Omomm.mm mewm. mommm. HOOHO. «hmomm.mm sooooum Ono oocoocomoocH .H m HHmuo>o omcmnu mm mm m OHmHuHsz Houcm on m oououcm OHQOHHO> moum .coEoz ooonmEmIIoOHouHuo uanm ha non mo coHuosHo>m o>Huoowm< mo coHuOHOoum may “Om mHm>Hmc¢ conmoumom OHmHuHsz mo muoEEsmII.OH OHOOB 78 .mo. v m NOOON.OH ONNOO. HOOOm. OOmmn. mmnmm. consHocH cam oocmumooofi .w OmmHm.mH OmOOO. hmmmm. OOmMO. mmmmO.H Honuom Eoum Eooooum .h HOOOO.HN HOOOO. OHOmm. OOOMO. NNNOO.H Eooooum HO mocoocomoocH .O mOOOH.mm mmmoo. mmOmm. MOmmO. OOONN.N OCH>HH mo oumocmum .m OOOO0.0m mmmHO. mOOHm. mOmHO. OOmmm.m NAummmm .O mmHmm.wm OOOHO. OOHOm. ONOOO. «OOOO0.0 mmoco>Hwomuuu¢ pom wusoom .m NmmH0.0m OOOMH. NNNOO. NOOOO. «owmom.Hm ash .m OOOOO.OO OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOOO.OO OOchosom OOHHOHHmsooo< .H m HHmHo>O omconu mm mm m OHmOuHsz Houcm ou m oououcm OHQOOHO> moum ‘1 .Ooz OOOonsmIIOHOOOHOO OOOHm On non mo coHumsHm>m O>Huoomm¢ mo :OHOOHOOHO onu Mom mOm>HOC¢ conmmumom OHmHuHsz mo whosfismll.mH OHQOB 79 evaluation contributing 32% to the variance accounted for. For this variable overall F was 17.55 (p < .05). For unemployed women, family life was predicted best by the criteria accomplishing something and fun. Combined, these two variables contributed 31% to R2. Accomplishing something (F 31.06, F to enter 31.06, p < .05) contributed 25% alone to R2 while fun (F 21.41, F to enter 9.10, p < .05) added 6% to R2. For employed men, standard of living, beauty and accomplishing something were significant values for the prediction of family life evaluation. Standard of living (F 62.88, p < .05) accounted for 35% of the variance while beauty (F 41.74, F to enter 13.76, p < .05) added 7% to R2. Accomplishing something (F 25.32, F to enter 8.05, p < .05) contributed another 3% to R2. For employed women, independence and freedom was the only statistically significant value predicting job evaluation. This value contributed 38% to the variance accounted for having an overall F of 23.56 (p < .05). For employed men, accomplishing something, fun, and beauty and attractiveness are significant predictors of job evaluation contributing in combination, 50% to the total variance accounted for. Accomplishing something (F 60.94, p < .05) contributed 34% to R2, fun (F 54.01, F to enter 31.30, p < .05) added 14% to R2 while beauty and attrac- tiveness added a weak 2%. 80 Question 4 To what extent do selected contextual variables (locus of control, self-esteem, race, education, occupa— tional prestige, dual worker family, personal income and family life cycle stage) predict affective evaluations of family life, job and perceived overall well-being for women and men? Tables 19 through 21 present descriptive statistics by selected aggregates on affective evaluations of family life, job and perceived overall quality of life. When the sample was divided into racial groups, black women in general had the lowest mean ratings on each variable. Those black women who were employed full time had even lower mean ratings indicating more dissatisfaction than any other group. White men and white women were more satisfied with family life than were their black counterparts. For women employed full time mean ratings for family life became progressively more positive with each incremental rise in education. White men were less satisfied with their job than were either women employed full time or black men. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis for Question 4 Tables D-S, DOG, and D-7 Appendix D, present the correlation matrices for the variables entered into the regression employed to answer question 4 for women and men. Tables 22 through 29 present the summaries of the stepwise 81 Table l9.--Descriptive Statistics on Affective Evaluation of Family Life, Job and Perceived Overall Well-being for Selected Aggregates of Employed Women. Family Life POQL Standard Deviation Race Black 5.2 1.0 17 4.4 l l 18 .7 17 White 5.8 1.0 65 5 2 l l 65 .9 67 Education Less than 8.5. Diploma 12 12 1.2 13 Completed H.S. but not 53 54 .8 54 college Completed College but not Masters 13 13 '7 13 Completed Masters Degree but not 3 3 1.0 3 Ph.D. Completed Ph.D. or other professional - - - - degree Ocquational Prestigg 10-19 4.3 3 3 5.3 .6 3 20-29 5.5 l7 17 5.2 .9 17 30-39 5.5 19 19 5.2 .0 20 40-49 5.4 19 19 5.1 .7 19 50-59 6 S 6 6 6.0 .3 6 60-69 5 9 14 14 5.7 .7 14 70-79 6.0 l l 4.5 - 1 Dual Worker Familya Yes 5 7 78 79 .7 79 No 5 5 4 4 .7 5 Personal Income Under 10,000 5.7 .0 55 0 55 .7 56 10,000-14,999 5.7 9 17 6 18 .9 l7 15,000-19,999 4.8 .5 5 8 5 .4 5 20,000-24,999 6.5 .7_ 2 2 .4 2 25,000-29,999 7 0 - l l - l 30,000-34,999 O O - l 35,000-49,999 1 l - 1 Family Life Cycle Stageb (1-5 yrs.) Preschool 5 5 l7 l7 .2 18 (6-11 yrs.) Elementary 5.5 35 35 .8 35 (12-14 yrs.) Junior High 6.1 11 12 .6 12 (15-18 yrs.) High School 6 7 l9 l9 .7 l9 Locus of Control Score (External) 1 5.2 17 18 .7 18 2 5 9 21 20 .6 21 3 5.3 l9 l9 .8 19 (Internal) 4 6 4 19 19 .6 l9 Self-Esteem Score (Low) 1 6.0 l 1 - 2 2 4.0 l l - l 3 4 8 5 5 .7 5 4 5.5 12 12 .8 12 5 5 4 23 24 .6 24 (High) 6 5 9 ‘ 37 37 .7 37 aFour families where only wife was employed. bDetermined by age of youngest child. 82 Table 20.--Descriptive Statistics on Affective Evaluation of Family Life, Job and Perceived Overall Well-being for Selected Aggregates of Employed Hen. Family Life Race Black White mm to") Education Less than H.S. Diploma 5.5 Completed H.s. but not College Completed College but not Masters Completed Masters Degree but not 5.9 Ph.D. Completed Ph.D. or other professional 6.2 degree Occgpational Prestige 10-19 6.0 20-29 5.6 30-39 5.8 40-49 5.8 50-59 5.9 60-69 5.7 70-79 6.2 Dual Worker Family Yes No U‘U‘ 030 Personal Income Under 10,000 10,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-29,999 30,000-34,999 35,000-49,999 50,000-74,999 ODwOI-‘O‘Ob O‘U‘U‘U‘O‘UIO‘U‘ Family Life Cycle Stage (1-5 yrs.) Preschool 5 6 (6-11 yrs.) Elementary 6.0 (12-14 yrs.) Junior High 6 2 (15-18 hrs.) High School 5 8 Locus of Control (mu) 1 5.5 2 5.9 3 6.0 (High) 4 6.0 Self-Esteem Score (LOW) 1 3 0 2 4 6 3 5 1 4 6.0 5 5 9 6 6 0 (High) F‘P‘F‘ O O O O H O O‘WWIDQOOO‘ 34 184 37 114 40 20 25 35 60 54 25 12 79 139 am \Dw U'U‘UIU'fiUIU HHI—‘OWNO‘ Ulh HID UIUIUIUIUIéIUIé OIOhdhaO-OIo-O F'F'P‘F'F‘F'F‘k) b.unk>c>uIa.h.N 34 183 36 115 39 20 24 36 6O 54 24 12 79 138 12 22 50 51 35 20 16 78 82 28 29 39 41 67 56 13 35 59 97 5.1 5.4 5.4 UIU‘U'UIUIU'Ib G‘bwaIbU-J U10) WU MUIUIU‘U‘UIUIh O I bNfiUU‘INwW U‘U‘U‘U‘l 00de \DtDCDO‘IDCDCDb-I 34 184 36 115 40 20 25 60 54 25 12 80 138 11 24 50 51 35 20 16 77 84 28 29 39 42 68 56 13 61 97 83 Table 21.--Descriptive Statistics on Affective Evaluation of Family Life, and Perceived Overall Well-being for Selected Aggregates of Unemployed Women. Family Life Standard Deviation N M Deviation N Race Black 1.3 21 5.3 21 White .9 124 5.4 125 Education Less than H.S. Diploma 1.1 24 5.5 24 Completed H.S. but not ‘ College 1.0 99 5.3 100 Completed College but not Masters .8 18 5.6 18 Completed Masters Degree but not Ph.D. 1.3 4 5.6 4 Completed Ph.D. or other professional - 0 - 0 degree Family Life Cycle Stage (1-5 yrs.) Preschool 4.5 1.1 63 5.3 63 (6-11 yrs.) Elementary 5.8 .9 49 5.5 50 (12-14 yrs.) Junior High 5 9 .9 19 5.4 19 (15-18 yrs.) High School 5.4 .8 14 5.4 14 Locus of Control (External) 1 5 l 1.1 19 4.6 19 2 5 7 .9 31 5.3 32 3 5.9 .9 41 5.5 41 (Internal) 4 5.9 1.0 38 5.8 38 Self-Esteem (Low) 1 4.0 - l 4.0 l 2 5.2 1.0 9 4.5 9 3 5.0 1.1 13 4.7 13 4 5 7 1.0 20 5.4 21 5 5.7 .8 31 5.6 31 (High) 6 5 9 .9 61 5.7 61 84 .mO. v m HOOO0.0 OOOOO. OOHOH. OOOOO. OOOOO. oomum OHOOO OOHH .O OHOOO.O OOHOO. OHHOH. OHOOO. OHOOH. doHuOosom .O OOOO0.0 OOOOO. OOOOH. HOOOO. OOHOO. OOHOOOHO HmcoHumosooo .O OOOOH.O OOOOO. OOOOH. OOOOO. OOOOO. osoocH .O HOHO0.0 OOOHO. OOOOH. OOOOO. OOOOO.H Houucoo mo msooq .O OOOOO.O HOOOO. OOOOH. OOOHO. OOOOOO.O smoummImHom .O OOOO0.0 OOOOH. OOOOH. OOHOO. OOOOOO.O oomm .H O HHOHo>O omcmno Om Om m deHanz Moucm ou O oououcm oHnOHHO> doom .coEoz coonmEMIIQOO ou mOHanHO> Hmsuxoucou mo coHuanuucOO opp “Om mmeHmcm conmOHOOm mHmHUHsz mo >HOEEsmII.NN OHQMB 85 .mO. v m mmmoo.m mmooo. OOOMH. OOOOM. MOHOO. ommum OHOHU OMHH .m ONOOH.O mmOOO. OOONH. NNOOm. mHmOO. oEOOcH HOOOmuom .O oHozomsom umxuo3 mmmom.O Ommoo. OmOmH. Oommm. mmomm. Hose OH mHnmuonEmz .O mnnon.m NNOOO. mOmNH. mHOmm. OOmHO.H omHumoum HOQOHHOQOOOO .m OOOO0.0 monoo. OmmHH. ommOm. mmmoo.H :OHuoosom .O mmomO.m OmmOO. NHNHH. OOOmm. NOOOH.N EooummIMHom .m mommm.HH mmOOO. mmmOH. HNONm. MOOmH.N oomm .m mHmom.ON mmmmo. mONOO. mmOOm. «MHmom.Om Houucou mo msooq .H m HHOHO>O omcmso mm mm m OHQHOHOZ Houcm ou m monousm OHQOHHO> mouw .coz owmonEMIIOOOumsHo>m non o» mOHQOHHo> Hmsuxousou mo :oHusQHHucou osu How mflmem2< conmoumom onHuHDZ mo >HMEEsmII.mm oHnt .mO. v m 86 OOOO0.0 HOOOO. HOOOH. OOOOO. OOOHO. :oHuOOOOO .O HOOO0.0 OOOOO. OOOOH. OOOOO. OHOOO. osoocH .O .OOOOO.O OOOOO. OOOOH. OOHOO. OOOHO. OOHHOOOO HmcoHumdsooo .O HHOO0.0 OOOOO. OOOOH. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO OHOOO OOHH .O OOOHH.O OOOOO. OOOOH. OOOHO. OOOOO.O smouOOIOHom .O .OOOOO.O OOOOO. OOHOH. OOOOO. OOOOO.O «OOO .O OOOO0.0 OOOOH. OOOOH. OOOOO. OOOOOO.O HoOucoo Oo msooq .H O HHOOo>o mmcmso OO OO O OHOHuHsz Ooucm on O OOOOOOO mHanHO> Ooum .soEO3 oomonEMIIOMHH mHHEom Op mOHanuo> Hmsuxoucoo mo OOHOOQHHOOOO may Mom mHm>Hmc< :OHmmonmom OHmHuHsz mo wumEEsmII.Om OHQOB 87 .mO. v m .1 o omsom um M03 OOOOO.O OHOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OH O x Hmso GO mfinmuonfioz .m OHOHO.N OHOOO. mmhwo. mmomm. Omomo. mEoocH HOCOmHom .O mehH.m OmOOO. OOOOO. mmomm. OOOOO. coHumosom .0 OOMHm.m HONOO. mOOmO. Hummm. OOOmO. OmHumoum HocoHummsooo .m mOHO0.0 OONOO. OOmmO. Ommmm. mmOOm. doom .O mmHO0.0 mmOHO. Ommwo. Oowwm. wome.m Ommum OHO>U OMHH .m OomH0.0 MOmHo. NOOOO. OmHON. OOONHN.O EOOUOMIMHOO .N mmmm0.0H OOOOO. OOOOO. mMHNN. memm0.0H Houucou mo mDOOH .H O HHmHo>O omcmzu mm mm m OHmHuHsz noucm on O monoucm OHQOHHO> moum .coz OmmonEmIIOMHH >HHEOO ou mOHQmHHm> Hmsuxoucou mo coHusQHuucou onu How mHmmecm COOmmoumom OHmOuHsz mo >HmEEsmII.mN OHnt 88 .mo. v m OOOOO.O OOHOO. OOOOH. OOOOO. HOOOO. OOOOO OHOOO OOHH OHHEOO .O OOOOO.O OOOOO. OOOOH. OOOOO. OOOOO. coOumosOO .O OOHOO.O OOOOO. OOOOH. OHOOO. OOOOO.O Houucoo Oo OsooH .O OOHOO.OH OHOOO. OHOOO. OOOHO. OOHOO.OH smouOOIOHmm .H O HHOOO>O OOOOOO OO OO O OHOHHHsz OoucO op O OOOOHOO OHOOHOO> moum .coeoz ooonmEocDIIcoHuosHm>m OMHH MHHEOO mo OOHOOHOOMO ms» 0» mOHQmHum> Hmsuxoucoo OOOOOHom mo coHusnOuucoo onu How mOm%Hmsd conmoumom OHmHuHsz mo mumEEsmII.Om OHQmB 89 .mO. v m OOOOO.O OHOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOHO. OOOO .O . . . . . UHonomsom uoxnoz OOHOO O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OHOOO Hana OH OHOOOOOEOz .O OOOHO.O OOOHO. OOOOO. HOOOO. OOOOO.H OOHOOOOO HmcoHOOOsooo .O OOOOO.O HOOOO. OOOOO. HOOHO. OOOOO. :oHuOOOOO .O OOOOO.OH OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOHO. OOOOO. OOOOO OHOOO OOHH .O OOOOO.OH OOOOO. OOOOO. HHHHO. OOOOO. osooaH .O OOOOO.HO HOHOH. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOOO.HH Houucoo Oo msooH .O OOOHO.OO HOOOO. HOOOO. OOOHO. OOOOHO.OO sooumOIOHmm .H O HHmoo>o wmcmno O OO O OHOHuHsz OOHOO 0» O OOOOOOO oHnOHHO> Ooum .coEOB oomonEmIIocHonIHHoz HHOHO>O oo>Hoouom Ou moHQOHum> Hmsuxoucoo mo COHOOQHOOGOU on» How mHmmHMC< cOHmmOHmOm onHuHsz mo ammEEOmII.ON OHQOB 90 .mO. v m HOOOO.OH HHHOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOHHO. oeoocH .O . . . . . oHonomsom noxuoz OOOOH OH OOHOO OHOOO OOOOO OOOOO Hana OH OHsmuoneOz .O NOOHOO.OH OOOOO. OHHOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. coHOOOOOO .O OOOOO.OH OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOOO. OOOHO.H OOHOOOOO HmcoHuOOOooo .O OOOOO.OO OOOOO. OHOOO. OOHOO. HOOO0.0 mmmum OHOOO OOHH .O OOOOO.OO OOHOO. OOOOO. HOOOO. OHOOOO.O oomm .O OOOOO.OO OOOOO. OOHOO. OOHHO. OOOOOO.OH EOOOOOIOHOO .O OOOOO.OO OOOOH. OOOOH. OOOOO. OOOOOO.OO Houudoo Oo OzooH .H m HHMHO>O omcmnu mm mm m onOuHsz Hmucm O» m omnoucm OHQMHHO> moum .coz oo>onEmIImcHonIHHO3 HHmuo>O OO>Ooouom Op OOHQOHOO> Hmsuxoucou mo coHuanHucou on» How mmeHmcm :OHmmOHmom OHmHuHsz mo >HOEEsmII.mm OHQOB 91 .mO. v m ¥ 2.3341” mmmoo. mmva. ONHom. OOmmm. wmmum OHOOHU MONTH HHHOEHOOH .O mOoom.mH m0mOO. OomHm. Hommm. OMOOO. cOHumosom .m OQOM0.0N Omhmo. ovmom. Ommmm. «momvm.h HOHUCOU m0 9.604 .N ONmOm.mv vahN. mvonm. moomm. evmmom.mv EwwummIMHmm .H O HHmuO>O omcmzu mm mm m OHmHuHOS Houcm O» m monoucm OHQOHHO> moum 11in! ll." .coEOB pomonEOCDIImcHOQIHHOS HHOHO>O mo coHuosooum on» on mOHanum> Hosuxoucou OOOOOHmm mo coHusnOuucoo onu MOO mHmaHmcd coflmmoumom OHmHuHsz mo wumEEsmII.mm OHQOB 92 regression analyses for employed men and women and unem- ployed women. For employed women, race and self-esteem were sig- nificant predictors of the job domain. These two variables accounted for 17% of the variance in job evaluation. Race alone accounted for 10% of the variance having an overall F of 8.65 (p < .05). Self-esteem (F to enter 5.97, overall F 7.60, p < .05) added 7% to R2. For employed men, locus of control was the only significant predictor of job evaluation. The overall F for this variable was 20.8 (p < .05) accounting for 9% of the variance. For women employed full time, locus of control was the only significant predictor of family life evaluation, accounting for 11% of the variance. The F test was 8.95 (p < .05). For employed men, locus of control and self-esteem were significant though weak predictors of family life evaluation. The two variables together accounted for 7% of the variance. For locus of control R2 was 5% with self- esteem a low 2%. For unemployed women self-esteem was the signifi- cant predictor of family life evaluation contributing 10% of the variance accounted for. For employed men, locus of control, self-esteem, and race were significant predictors of perceived overall 93 well-being. Together the three variables contributed 28% of the variance accounted for. Locus of control alone accounted for 20% of the variance with an overall F of 50.26 (p < .05). Self-esteem added a rather weak 6% (F 35.84, F to enter 17.38, p < .05). Race added only 2% (F 26.49, F to enter 5.99, p < .05). For unemployed women, self-esteem and locus of control were the significant predictors of perceived over- all well-being. Together they contributed 31% of the vari- ance accounted for. Self-esteem was the strongest variable contributing 27% to the total variance accounted for while locus of control added a weak 4%. For employed women, self-esteem and locus of con- trol were the significant (p < .05) predictors of perceived well-being. Together they contributed approximately 37% of the variance accounted for. Self-esteem alone accounted for approximately 27% of the variance with an overall F of 27.01 (p < .05). Locus of control added another 10% to R2 with an F to enter 11.79 (p < .05) and an overall F of 21.34 (p < .05). Question 5 Do women employed for pay differ from women who are not employed on self-esteem, locus of control, family life satisfaction and perceived overall well-being? Table 30 presents the frequency data for employed women and women not employed for pay on the variables under 94 Table 30.--Means and Standard Deviations for Employed Women and Unemployed Women on Selected Vari- ables. Employed Women Unemployed Women Standard Standard Mean Deviation N Mean Deviation Self-Esteem 5.0 1.2 80 4.8 1.4 135 Locus of Control 2.3 1.3 80 2.5 1.2 135 Family Life 5.6 .9 80 5.7 .9 135 Perceived Overall 5.4 .8 80 5.4 .8 135 Well-being study. Employed women had higher ratings on self-esteem while women who were not employed for pay had slightly higher mean score for locus of control and family life. These differences cannot be interpreted as meaningful due to the large difference in numbers of respondents in each group (working women 80 and non-working women 135). The overall F test of significance yielded by multivariate analysis of variance was 1 which was not significant at the .05 level. There was, therefore, no significant difference between working and non-working women on self-esteem, locus of control, family life satis- faction and perceived overall well-being. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Based on a conceptual model of perceived overall well-being developed by Andrews and Withey (1976) this research sought to answer the following questions concerning job, family life and perceived overall well-being: 1. TO what extent are affective evaluations of family life and job predictors of perceived overall well- being when added to other domains of life for women and men? To what extent are affective evaluations of family life and job related? To what extent are selected values predictive of affective evaluations of family life and job? To what extent are selected conceptual variables (personality and demographic) predictors of job, family life and overall well-being evaluations? DO women employed for pay differ from those who are not employed? 95 96 Discussion A number of significant findings resulted which are generalized only to this study's sample. Table 31 was con- structed to present an overview of the results for questions 1, 3, and 4. This researcher's primary interest was in making as good a predictor to the criterion variables over- all well-being, job and family life satisfactions as possi- ble on the basis of several predictor variables with an aim toward the selection of the minimum number of variables necessary to account for much of the variance accounted for by the total set. Although statistically significant re- sults were found for some predictors which affected only small incremental changes in R2, these results must be viewed with caution and judged on the basis Of one's own standards of practical significance. As is indicated by Table 31, for men and women who are employed, the domains to predict perceived overall well- I I I 'I being are the same. The difference lies not in what domains I predict perceived well-being but in the degree to which each is a predictor. Family life and job combined contri- buted 43 percent to the total variance accounted for for men while the two contributed 54 percent to the total vari- ance accounted for for employed women. For employed women, family life is a much stronger predictor of perceived well- being than it is for employed men. For men, job evaluation is more strongly predictive of overall well-being than is true for women. 97 HOO O soouOOIOHom mHOOOOOOHm HOOHO doom me O HOHucOO mo msooq "Hosuxousou HON O mmoso>HuOmHuum can Husmom HOOHO OOO HOOOO sowoouO O HOOOO ocHnuosoO oocoocmmoocH OCHanHmEOooc “OHuouHHO non HON O EooumOIMHom HOOHO EooumOIMHom HOHHOHOHucOU mo mOOOH me O Houucou mo msOOH ”Hmsuxoucou HOO O OdOnuosom manmHHmEOooc HOOOO mcHnuoeom HOOOO mcHnuoeom HOO O Ousmom mafianHmEoooc manmOHmEOOOC HmmmvmsH>HH mo pumosmum “OHOOOHMU OMHH OHHEOO HOO O oomm HOO OHOHOCOO mo msooq HOOHOHOHOOOU mo msooq Ham O EooumOIMHow Hwbwv EwmumOIMHom Hwnmv EdoumOImHom Hwomv Houucoo mo msOOH “Hmsuxousoo me O oEHa mummm HwO v OEHB madam wa v mafia ouomm HOOOO Omsom Ham O OOO meHO non HOOOO OOHH OHHsOO HOOOO OOHH OHHsOO HOOOO OOHH OHHsOO "Ochson OdHonIHHoz HHmuO>O Hoocmnommvcosoz OoonmEocs Homsmsommvcoeoz OoaonEm Homsmno mvcoz OomonEm m OOHHOOHHO .O mom .m .H mcoHumosaIImmsHoch mo humEEBmII.Hm OHnt 98 Family life is the strongest predictor of perceived overall well-being for unemployed women also. The differ- ence between employed and unemployed women on the strength of this predictor is very small. House contributed signi- ficantly but somewhat weakly to overall well-being for un- employed women. One domain, leisure time activities, which was not the focus of this research surfaced as a significant pre- dictor of perceived overall well-being for all women and men. These findings accord with those of Trafton (1977) whose study found that people basically partition their lives into three domains--family life, job, and leisure. ; They also support other research findings which indicate that family life is a more central life concern for indi- viduals than is the job. This past research further sug- gests that the centrality of family as Opposed to that of the job holds true more for women than for men and that it holds true more for persons in low status than high status positions (Haevio-Manilla, 1971; Dubin; 1963; Orzak, 1963; Rodgers, 1977). For women regardless of employment status, family life was the over-riding life concern. One plausible explanation for this finding is that women in this sample may regard their employment as supplementary and therefore secondary to that of their spouses in providing for family needs. Examination of frequency data on occupational 99 classification (Table 6) and educational level (Table 4) indicates that these women had on the average a high school education and worked primarily in sales, clerical, and other low status occupations. This indicates that these women were in the main, not career women and therefore possibly had less commitment and interest in the job. Results on career oriented vs. non-career oriented women employees might yield quite different results. The values which one holds are the standards by which one evaluates what the environments or domains of life afford or potentially afford in terms of allowing for the achievement of these important values. Question 3 (see Table 31) sought to ascertain the extent to which selected values or criteria, as postulated by Andrews and Withey (1976), were predictors of the evaluation of job and family life. Findings of this research show that the best pre- dictor of overall well being for women regardless of employment status was accomplishing something. For men accomplishing something only weakly predicted family life. Standard of living was the best predictor of family life for men, an indication perhaps that men in this sample place higher value on standard of living, feeling primarily responsible for providing through their employment the level of living their families enjoy. Accomplishing something was the best predictor of job evaluation for men. Fun was also significantly 100 predictive of job for men. Independence and freedom was the value most significant to job evaluation for women. These results can best be regarded as tenuous due to the small size of the sample resulting from the appli- cation of list wise deletion of data. The amount of missing data substantially reduced the size of the sample especially for employed women. The test statistic for multiple regression for this group was based on an N of less than fifty cases. Responses which employed off scale categories on the delighted-terrible scale suggested irrelevance of values, difficulty or unfamiliarity with the phrasing of the questions. The values suggested by Andrews and Withey may not be the important values held by respondents with regard to the particular domains. This is an area in need of further testing. Question 4 sought to ascertain the best contextual variables as predictors of family life, job and perceived overall well-being. The personality variables which were self-attitudinal in nature were the strongest predictors of these domains and overall well-being. Self-esteem was found to significantly predict job attitudes for women. On the other hand, locus of control was the most significant predictor of job attitude for men (see Table 31). For family life locus of control best predicted all women's evaluations of family while for-men locus of control 101 and self-esteem predicted family life evaluations. These self-attitudinal variables were also significant to the prediction of overall-well being (self-esteem for men, locus of cOntrol for all women). Since self-esteem and locus of control are highly intercorrelated (see Tables D5-7) this finding can only be viewed as tentative. This situation is known as multi- collinearity which poses problems for interpretation of multiple regression results. "The greater the correlations of the independent variables the less the reliability of the relative importance indicated by partial regression coeffi- cients" (Nie et a1., 1974). Race emerged as a significant though weak predictor for job evaluation for women. Frequency data show that black women were more dissatisfied with their jobs than were their white counterparts. An examination into the motiva- tions for work might shed some light on the reasons for this phenomenon. Additionally, the extent to which these women experienced discrimination and other associated problems in their work might help to explain their dissatisfaction. Race was also a significant predictor of perceived overall well-being for men in the study. The frequency data indicate that black males in the sample were more satisfied than were white males (see Table 20). Frequency data also indicate that these men were more satisfied with their leisure, and jobs than were their counterparts. In that these men were in lower status positions than were their 102 male counterparts this finding is rather surprising. Two explanations seem plausible: (1) These men had substantial incomes as skilled tradesmen and industrial workers. Com- pared to others in their reference groups (blacks) they may have considered themselves well off. Their job values may be more extrinsic than intrinsic. (2) The black men have possibly brought their satisfactions expectations and values in line with reality with what seems possible for them to achieve. In an attempt to reduce dissonance, they may have made the adjustment necessary to perserve their self-esteem. This type of psychological adjustment may be made with great personal costs to the individual and eventually to society. White males were more dissatisfied with their jobs than were white women or black men. This may suggest that they have more possibilities for the achievement of important values and the achievement of basic values give rise to more and higher levels of expectations and aspirations. White women on the other hand, were more satisfied than were white men and black women. White women may also have made the type of adjustments suggested above for black men. Question 2 sought to discover the relationship between job and family life evaluation. For women a weak correlation .37 was found providing some support for a spill- over hypothesis. No relationship was found for men. This can only be interpreted to mean that there was no linear relationship between job and family life for men. Exactly 103 what type of relationship did exist was not persued by this research. Trend analysis would probably have been a more efficient procedure to analyze this relationship. Question 5 was concerned with discovering differ- ences between employed and unemployed women on satisfactions with family life, self-esteem, locus of control and per- ceived overall well-being. No significant differences were found. This finding is at variance with pOpular beliefs. Having a job vs. not having a job for the women in this sample did not distinguish them in these variables. The implication is that for these women, paid work was not a central life interest, that having it did not enhance their self-esteem or mastery as suggested by Rainwater (1971). Conclusions The conclusions which can be inferred from this research are: 1. Family life is a central life concern for both women and men. Family life is the domain which yields the greatest amount of satisfaction and is the strongest predictor of perceived overall well- being for men and women. 2. Family life satisfaction is a stronger predictor of perceived overall well-being for women regardless of their employment status, than it is for men. 3. The job is a stronger predictor of perceived overall well-being for employed men than it is for employed 104 women. It adds a significant increment to family life satisfaction in predicting overall well-being for men while it adds very little for women. 4. Women who work for pay do not differ from women who are not employed on self-attitudes, family life and perceived overall well-being evaluations. Thus having a job vs. not having one does not distinguish women particularly those in this sample who have on the average a high school education. 5. Leisure time activities are important to women and men regardless of employment status. Implications for Research As has been previously indicated, the intent of this research was not that of hypotheses testing but rather the intent was to explore and seek answers to certain questions relative to work, family life and well-being evaluations. The research mainly provided support for existing research. It has also provided the basis for the formulation of certain hypotheses which could be tested by further research: 1. The extent to which work satisfaction penetrates family life satisfaction and vice versa is related to the relative salience of each domain for the individual. 2. The relative salience of work and family life for overall well-being of women is related to the occupational prestige and career orientations of women . 105 3. Work values and family life values differ among subgroups according to states of existence: occupa- tional level, family life cycle stage, educational attainment and sex: and self-attitudes. 4. Feeling toward work, housework and family life activities of women is related to educational level, job prestige and life cycle stage. Implications fortgmployment and Public Policy This study provides support for and highlights the need for organizational and public policy which integrates work and family life. Society has historically placed a high value on labor market activities especially for men while at the same time devaluing work at home primarily by women for the family. The result has been a devaluing of family life in general and a denial that family life impinges on paid work and vice versa and that this can have important consequences for both jobs and families. Through work men in particular, have received valida- tion and definition. This research suggests, however, that men and women do strongly value family life and that family life is very important to their perceptions of overall well— being. They also value leisure activities. Organizational and public policy must be evaluated and reevaluated in light of the structural and psychological barriers they impose between individuals and their families. Such policies as full employment, flextime, shared jobs, and part-time 106 employment could be expected to enhance both work and family life satisfactions and hence perceived overall well-being for individuals. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PORTIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THIS STUDY QUALITY OF LIFE Department of Family and Child Scbnces Department of Human Envirorment and Design College of Human Ecology Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station Project numbers. 3151 and 1249 Fall 1977 107 1(38 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY oouaceoruummocr ' immune-macaw.“ Fall 1977 Dear Friend: Most of us are aware of the rapid changes taking place in our society today. As we face energy shortages and resulting changes in the material products we use. changes in the patterns of family activities and in the roles of men and women. it becomes essential to plan for change that will contribute to one‘s sense of well being and satisfaction with life. The College of Human Ecology at Michigan State University is concerned with the quality of life of families in the state of Michigan. Two departments within the college, Family and Child Sciences and Human Environment and Design, have under- taken the task of determining what components of life are important to the quality of life of Michigan families and to what degree they are satisfied with those aspects of their lives. You will find questions about various aspects of your life such as your spare time activities and your neighborhood, and many questions which focus on your family life, your clothing and your Job. Your participation in this study is very important. You will provide us with information necessary to understand the feelings people now have about their quality of life, and this will suggest possible ways to improve satisfaction with life in our changing society. This is a questionnaire on how you feel about your life. It is rather long, and it will take some time to fill it out. Most of the questions should be interest- ing, some may be dull and tiring, many will be easy because it is about your life. but some questions will require more thought. Answer them all as well as you can. There are no ”right" or “wrong" answers. It is your experiences and opinions that are most important. By signing the consent form you agree to complete the entire questionnaire to the best of your ability. Our signatures guarantee you anonymity. Hhen both of you complete separate questionnaires, we will send your family a check for SlD shortly after the interviewer picks up the two questionnaires. He sincerely appreciate your participation in this study and thank you in advance for your time, effort and interest. A summary of research findings will be sent to you when the study has been completed. If you have any questions about the study. please call 5l7-353-5389 or 5l7-355-l895. Sincerely. 9W 7!- Dr. Margaret M. Bubolz, Professor Family and Child Sciences lggto1/WCSZ‘A‘ZL¢24-I Dr. Ann C. Slocum, Assistant Professor Human Environment and Design 1()9 GENERAL DIRECTIONS Please read the directions at the beginning of each section before answering the questions. It is very important that you answer each question as care- fully and as accurately as you can. Be sure to respond to all the questions on both front and back of each page. Both you and your spouse are asked to complete separate questionnaires. Please do not discuss your answers before both of you have finished the entire questionnaire. when you have completed the questionnaire, return it to the manila envelope provided and seal the enve ope. YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT LIFE CONCERNS In this section of the questionnaire, we want to find out how you feel about various parts of your life, and life in this country as you see it. Please include the feelings you have now--taking into account what has happened in the last year and what you expect in the near future. All of the items can be answered by simply writing on the line to the left of each question one of the following numbers OR letters to indicate how you feel. For example write in "l" for terrible, "I“ if you have mixed feelings about some question (that is, you are about equally satisfied and dissatisfied with some part of your life), and so forth on to "7" if you feel delighted about it. If you have no feelings at all on the question, write in "A." If you have never thought about something, write in "B.“ If some question doesn't apply to you, write in "C." For two of the questions we also ask you to write in some important reasons for why you feel as you do. Please finish this section before going on to the next section. I feel: r"1 r“1 1_I“l 1"1 IJ“T Lu 1:. a; i_r4 L51 6 Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [:1 Neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it Does not apply to me l.l How do you feel about your life as a whole? 1.2 How do you feel about the freedom you have from being bothered and annoyed? 11L0 I feel: F'W. F'1. F‘1 F'W. F'1_ —E} L24 LL 1:. cu an L7}— Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally 1.10 1.1] 1.12 1.13 1.14 satisfied and dissatisfied) E] Meutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it [Z] Does not apply to me How do you feel about your own family life--your husband or wife, your marriage, and. your children, if any? Hhat are some of the most important reasons for ghy_you feel as you do about your family? How do you feel about the amount of beauty and attractiveness in your day to day life? How do you feel about your independence or freedom--the chance you have to do what you want? How do you feel by others? How do you feel How do you feel about how'much you are accepted and included about your job? about your standard of living--the things you have like housing, car, furniture, recreation. and the like? How do you feel How do you feel How do you feel How do you feel How do you feel How do you feel place to live? about your safety? about what our national government is doing? about how much fun you are having? about your house or apartment? about what you are accomplishing in your life? about your particular neighborhood as a 1141 I feel: m FL fl [—1 —E} 1; ‘2L a: 14. 151 L2; {2}— Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [:1 Neutra1--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it Does not apply to me 1.15a How do you feel about your clothing? 1.15b (What are some of the most important reasons ghy_you feel as you do about your clothing? 1.16 How do you feel about the way you spend your spare time. your non—working activities? 1.17 How do you feel about yourself? 1.18 How do you feel about changes in your family's lifestyle you have made or may need to make in order to conserve energy? 1.19 How do you feel about how secure you are financially? 1.20 How do you feel about how interesting your day to day life is? 1.21 How do you feel about the extent to which your hysical needs (for example, food, sleep, shelter and clothing) are met? 1.22 How do you feel about the extent to which your social and emotional needs (for example, friends, acceptance by others. belonging and affection) are met? 1.23 How do you feel about your own health? 1.24 How do you feel about your total family income, the way it enables you and your family to live as comfortably as you would like? 1.25 How do you feel about how creative and expressive you can be? 1.26 How do you feel about the chance you have to learn new things or be exposed to new ideas? 1J12 The questions on this page ask you to give your reactions to how you would feel about your 129. Do you have work or a job from which you receive income and at which you usually work at least 20 hours per week? CHECK ONE [cl]. [ ] N0 ——> so To QUESTION 2.4a ON THE NEXT PAGE. [ ] YES —4——> GO TO QUESTION 2.3a BELOH. About my JOB I would feel: [—1 m 1"! H rm —l3 .1, a; all fiir at. {Z}— Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally ' satisfied and dissatisfied) [:3 Neutra1--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it E Does not apply to me 2.3a How would you feel about your ob if you considered only the standard of living it enab es you to have? 2.3b How would you feel about your 19g_if'you considered only the jgg_you have? 2.3c How would you feel about your jgb_if you considered only its effect on your independence or freedom--the chance you have to do what you want? 2.3d How would you feel about your jgb_if you considered only the beauty and attractiveness you get to enjoy? 2.3e How would you feel about your 19b if you considered only the freedom from bother and anngyance that you have? 2.3f How would you feel about your jgb_if you considered only your safety? 2.39 How would you feel about your 122 if you considered only how much it enables you to accomplish things? 2.3h How would you feel about your 1%§_if you considered only its effect on your acceptance a inclusion by other people? 1JI3 The questions on this page ask you to give your reactions to how you would feel about your family life. About my FAMILY LIFE I would feel: ——m a} Terrible Unhappy 2.4b 2.4c 2.4d 2.4e 2.4f 2.4g r'1, r‘1 r-1. r'1 L31 ii; 1.51 16.. E1— Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [:3 Meutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it Does not apply to me How would you feel about your own family 1ife--your marriage, husband or wife, and children--if you considered only its effect on your standard of living? How would you feel about your own famil life if you considered only the fug_it enables you Io fiave? How would you feel about your own family life if you considered only its effect on your independence or freedom-- the chance you have to do what you want? How would you feel about your own family life if you considered only the attractjyeness and beauty it enables you to enjoy? How would you feel about your own family life if you considered only the freedom from bother and annoyance that it enables you to have? How would you feel about your own famil life if you considered only the safety it enables you to have? How would you feel about your own family life if you considered only how it enables you to accomplish what you want? . How would you feel about your own family life if you considered only its effect on your acceptance and inclusion by other people? YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT YOURSELF Below are ten statements about how one feels about oneself. in knowing how ygg_fee1 about each statement. 1J14 He are interested which best indicates the extent of your agreement or disagreement. circle "1” if you strongly disagree with the statement, and "4" if you strongly For each item, CIRCLE THE NUMBER For example, agree. Strongly . Strongly disagree Disagree Agree agree 3.1 I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 1 . 2 3 4 3.2 I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4 3.3 All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4 3.4 I am able to do things as well as most other people. 1 2 3 4 3.5‘ I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4 3.6 I take a positive attitude toward myself. ‘ 1 2 3 4 3.7 On the whole, I-am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4 3.8 I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4 3.9 I certainly feel useless at times. ‘I 2 3 4 3.10 At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4 ILLS Now we have some questions of a different kind. For each of the following four questions check one of the two responses that best describes how you feel.‘ 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Have you usuall felt pretty sure your life would work out the way you want it to, or gave there been times when you haven't been sure about it? CHECK ONE: [ ] I have felt pretty sure life would work out the way I want it to. [ J There have been times when I haven't been sure about it. Do you think it's better to plan your life a good way ahead, or would ,you say life is too_much_a matter of luck to plan ahead very far? .CHECK ONE: ' [ ] I think it's better to plan my life a good way ahead. [ ] I think life is too much a matterof luck to plan ahead very far. Hhen you do make plans ahead, do you usually get to carry things out the way you expected, or do things usually come up to make you change your plans? CHECK ONE: [ ] I usually get to carry things out the way I expected. [ ] Things usually cane up to make me change my plans. Some people feel they can run their lives pretty much the way they want to; others feel the problems of life are sometimes too big for them. which one are you most like? CHECK‘ONE: [ ] I feel I can run my life pretty much the way I want to. [ ] I feel the problems of life are sometimes too big for me. IJI6 Now that you have done some thinking about your family life and your life in general, we would like to ask you how you feel about them. Please write on the line to the left of each question one of the following numbers 0R letters to indicate how you feel. For example, if you feel terrible about If write in "1," if you have mixed feelings about it (that is, you are about equally satisfied and dissatisfied) write in "4," and if you feel delighted about it write in "7.“ If you feel neutral about it (that is, you are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), write in "A." If you have never thought about it, write in "B." If it does not apply to you, write in “C." I feel: F'l fl [‘1 l—l ['1 —[E Tar er Li: 1.15 U6 4.1}- Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [ID Neutral-~neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it Does not apply to me 9.1 How do you feel about your own family life--your husband or wife, your marriage, and your children, if any? 9.2 How do you feel about your life as a whole? 9.3 This study has asked you to tell us how you feel about various parts of life. Are there things which affect your quality of life which have not been included? If so, please write them below. NON NOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE GOING ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 11I7 YOUR FAMILY SITUATION This study is about the quality of life of family members. Therefore, we are interested in knowing some things about yourself and your family. As you answer the questions, please consider only yourself and the family members ggg_living in your household. FOR EACH QUESTION, PLACE A CHECK MARK IN THE BRACKETS [v’] 0R HRITE THE ANSHER ON THE LINE PROVIDED. 13.1 What is your sex? [ ] Male [ ] Female 13.2a How old were you on your last birthday? _____ Age at last birthday 13.2b What is the month, day, and year of your birth? Month Day Year of Birth 13.3 What is your religion, if any? [ ] Protestant: (please specify) ] Catholic [ [ J Jewish [ ] None [ ] Other: (please specify) 13.4 What is your race? [ ] Hhite [ ] Black/Negro/Afro-American [ ] Other: (please specify) 13.5 Do you (or does a member of your family who lives with you) own your home, do you rent, or what? (CHECK ONE) [ ] Own or buying [ ] Renting [ ] Other: *(please specify) 13.6a 13.7a l3.7b ILIB Is this your first marriage? [ ] YES -—————{5> In what year were you married? [ 1 "0 ; 13.6b In what year did your present marriage begin? 13.6c How did your last marriage end? CHECK ONE. [ ] Death ————>Year of death: [ ] Divorce ——9Year of divorce: [ ] Annulment -————{E>Year of annulment: Hhat is the highest level of formal schooling that you have completed? CHECK ONE. [ ] Less than 8 grades of elementary school [ ] 8 grades of elementary school [ ] 1-3 years of high school [ ] Completed high school and received diploma or passed high school equivalency exam ] 1-3 years of college ] College graduate, bachelor's degree ] Post bachelor's course work ] Post master's course work [ [ [ [ ] Master's degree [ [ ] PhD, EdD [ ] Other professional degree (such as NO, DO, JD, DDS): (please specify) Are you Ngfl_attending or enrolled in one of the programs listed above? [ ] YES -—-———€;> 13.7c If YES, is that full-time or part-time? [ ] NO [ ] Full-time student [ ] Part-time student 13.7d Please specify in which one of the above programs you are now enrolled (such as high school, college, master's program). Type of school or program 1519 13.8a IN THE PAST, have you been enrolled in any type of educational program other than high school or college, such as vocational school? l3.8d 13.9a [ ] YES -—-—€;> I ] N0 l3.8b If YES, please specify your field of training (such as business. office work, practical nursing, beautician, mechanic. electrician). Field of training 13.8c Did you complete the training program? [ ] YES [ 1 ND [ J DOES NOT APPLY Are you NOH enrolled in any type of educational program other than high school, EETlege or graduate school, such as vocational training program, arts and crafts classes, or religion classes? [JYES——> [1m 13.8e If YES, what type of educational program is it? Field of training or type of program CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY TO YOU. Are you presently employed, unemployed, retired, or what? [ J Housewife or househusband [ ] Student GO TO QUESTION l3.lOa ON PAGE 38. [ ] Permanently disabled (unless you also check one of the categories below in which [ J Retired case go to 13.9b on the next page). [ ] Unenployed (that is, previously employed for pay and/OR presently looking for a job) r—I ] Tenporarily laid off OR on strike OR on sick leave [ ] Horking now GO TO QUESTION l3.9b ON THE NEXT PAGE. l3.9b 13.9c l3.9d l3.9e l3.9f 13.99 JJZO If you are working now OR are temporarily laid off OR on strike OR on sick leave, what kind of work do you do? Hhat is your main occupation called? (If you have two Jobs, your main occupation is the Job on which you spend the most time. If you spend an equal amount of time on two jobs, it is the one which provides the most income.) Main occupation Hhat do you actually do in that job? Hhat are some of your main duties? Duties Hhat kind of business, industry or organization is your job in? Hhat do they do or make at the place where you work? Kind of business, industry or organization Hhat they make or do About how many hours a week do you do this work? CHECK ONE. ] Less than 20 hours per week ] 20 hours per week ] 21-39 hours per week ] 41-50 hours per week I I I [ ] 40 hours per week I [ ] 51-60 hours per week I ] More than 60 hours per week 00 you do this work inside your home, outside your home but on your own property, or away from your home and property? CHECK THE ONE PLACE IN HHICH YOU'DO MOST OF THIS HORK. ‘ i 3 Inside my home [ ] Outside my home but on my property [ ] Away from my home and property Are you an hourly wage worker, salaried, on conmission, self-employed, or what? CHECK ONE. ] Hourly wage worker ] Salaried I I [ ] Hork on commission, tips [ ] Self-employed in own business, professional practice, or farm I ] Hork without pay in family business or farm 121. 13.11a Hhat do you estimate will be your total family income before taxes in 1977? Please include income from all sources before taxes, including income from wages, property, stocks, interest, welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, child support from a previous marriage, and any other money income received by you and all family members who live with you. ESTIMATED TOTAL FAMILY YEARLY INCOME, 1977 [ '] Under $3,000 [ ] $12,000 - $14,999 [‘1] $3,000 - $3,999 [ 1 315.000 - $19,999 [t 1 $4,000 - $4,999 [ 1 $20,000 - $24,999 [ 1 $5,000 - $5,999 [ 1 $25,000 - $29,999 I 1 $6,000 - $6,999 [ 1 $30,000 - $34,999 [ 1 $7,000 - $7,999 [ ] $35,000 - $49,999 [ ] $8.000 - $9,999 [ 1 $50,000 - $74,999 [ 1 $10,000 - $11,999 [ ] $75,000 and over 13.11b About how much of this total family yearly income do you estimate that YOU will earn in 1977? ESTIMATED PORTION OF TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, 1977, EARNED BY YOURSELF [ ] Does not apply, not employed in 1977 [ ] Under $3,000 [ ] $12,000 - $14,999 [ 1 $3,000 - $3,999 [ 1 $15,000 - $19,999 [ ] $4,000 - $4.999 [ ] $20,000 - $24,999 [ 1 $5,000 - $5,999 [ ] $25,000 - $29,999 [ 1 $6,000 - $6,999 [ 1 $30,000 - $34,999 I 1 $7,000 l $7,999 [ ] $35,000 - $49,999 [ 1$8,000-$9,999 [ ]$50,000-$74.999 [ 1 $10,000 - $11,999 [ ] $75,000 and over 13.12 In the coming year, would you say your financial situation will get worse, stay about the same, or get better? CHECK ONE. [ ] Get worse [ ] Stay about the same [ ] Get better IJZZ IMPORTANCE OF LIFE CONCERNS All of us have an idea of what we think is important in life. Now that you have done a lot of thinking about various parts of your life, we would like to ask you how important you think various life concerns are. Take a few moments to think about what is important to you. CIRCLE THE NUMBER in the column that best represents the degree of importance of eaEh life concern to you. For example, circle “1" if it is Of no importance, circle "3" if it is of some importance, and circle "5" if it is of Very high importance. 14.1 Having freedom from bother and annoyance 1 2 14.2 My family life . 1 2 3 4 5 14.3 Beauty and attractiveness in my day to day life I 2 3 4 5 14.4 My independence or freedan l 2 3 4 5 14.5 Being accepted and included by others 1 2 3 j 4 5 l4.6 My job I 2 3 4 5 14.7 My standard of living-~the things I have like housing, car, furniture, recreation, and the like ' 1 2 3 4 5 14.8 My safety 1 2 3 4 5 14.9 Hhat our national government is doing 1 2 3 4 5 14.10 Having fun. 1 2 3 4 5 14.11 My house or apartment 1 2 3 4 5 14.12 Accomplishing something 1 2 3 4 5 1123 15.13 He would like to know something about the people who live in your household. In the chart below, please list for WW: their birth date, age at last birthday, sex an marita status. pp§_ st any person more than once. Please use the following numbers to indicate marital status: [1] Never married [2] Married [4] Separated [5] Divorced, not remarried [3] Hidowed, not remarried [6] Don‘t know I Date Of(’ Age at sex birth last (circle g:::::] mo. d r. birthday M or F) SPOUSE (husband or wife) F CHILDREN BORN TO THIS MARRIAGE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from oldest to youngest CHILDREN BORN T0 HIFE PRIOR TO THIS MARRIAGE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from oldest to youngest CHILDREN BORN TO HUSBAND PRIOR TO THIS MARRIAGE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from oldest to youngest ADOPTED CHILDREN NOT BORN TO EITHER SPOUSE, LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from oldest to youngest 3333333333333333333333333 mflmmmmm-nm-Hfi'n-nm-n-nm-n-nm-n-n-nm CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE. NOTE: If there are not enough spaces, please finish the list on the last page. 1J24 0:}:tgf A?:s:t Sex Marital Relation mo./day[yr. birthday status to ’0“ OTHER RELATIVES 1. H F LIVING IN THIS 2 J M F HOUSEHOLD ' (such as niece, 3. H F nephew, grandchild, 4 M F parent, sister, . ’ uncle, brother, 5. N F brother-in-law, 6 M F mother-in-law, ' husband's uncle) 7. M F 3, M F OTHER PERSONS 1. H F LIVING IN THIS 2 M F HOUSEHOLD ' (such as foster 3. H F child, friend, 4 M F household help. ' boarders) 5. H F a. N r 7. H F i NOTE: If there are not enough spaces, please finish the list on the last page. 15.1b Counting yourself, how many people now live in your household? People 15.2a Are there any other children born to you and/or your_spouse (including children from previous marriages) who were not listed in the preceding chart? [ J YES ——> 15.2b If YES, how many? [ 1N0 "BIBS Females 15.2c Please list their ages at last birthday from oldest to youngest by sex. Males Females APPENDIX B SAMPLING PROCEDURES APPENDIX B SAMPLING PROCEDURES Basic Sampling Desigp Area: Oakland County Number of Sampling Points: 75 Area divided into categories by type of area and racial composition: I. Rural, defined by named townships, using only areas with 1970 median income of $12,000. One-fourth of sampling points chosen as probability-proportionate- to-household count sample of these townships. II. Urban/Suburban--Balance of County: a. Sampling points where black residents in high proportion using only tracts with 1970 median income of $6,000 or above. These are in Pontiac City and Royal Oak Township. One-fourth of sampling points chosen as probability-propor- tionate-to-household count sample of these two places. b. Balance of one-half of sampling points chosen as probability-proportionate-to-household count of this remaining area of county not in I or IIa using only tracts with 1970 median income of $12,000. Eligibility Requirement for Household to be Selected for Interview Must have child/children age 5-18 Must have husband and wife living together 125 126 Original Sampling Design for Selection of Household In each sampling point cluster, a randomly designated house- hold was chosen as the site of the first interview and each fourth household from it (using a prescribed walk pattern) was to be designated household for interview until four were selected. Original call plus three callbacks on designated households. If no contact, or household did not meet eligibility re- quirements, substitution of house to right, then house to left. MODIFICATION There are no modifications in selection of sampling point cluster areas. Modifications in screening and selection of households need to be made because of the imposition of filters to house- holds with child age 5-18 plus husband and wife living together. This makes a skip interval of four households and heavy callbacks on designated households impractical. At first designated household, if contact is made with an adult, interviewer may ask which houses in the group of 19-20 included in the originally defined sampling cluster (allowing for designated and sub- stitute households) have both children 5-18 and husband/wife living together. This includes, of course, asking about this first designated house- hold. If only four households of the 20 qualify, then these four become the designated households. If eight qualify, every-other-one becomes the designated household. If 12 qualify, then every third one (OBJECTIVE: Chose a random sample of households in the originally chosen area which fit the eligibility requirements). If the first designated household at which inquiry is made is eligible, an interview is to be completed there. If no contact is made on the first call at the first designated household, the interviewer may proceed immediately to the right substitute household to try to reach someone who can answer whether the originally designated household meets the eligibi- lity requirement. If it does, three callbacks will be required on it. However, if it does not, 127 interviewers can proceed immediately at the substi- tute household, using the respondent there as source of information on other households. If in any sampling point cluster block there are not four eligible households, the interviewer adds additional households beyond the first 20, including proceeding to another block according to the ori- ginal sampling instructions. If information on households in the block cannot be obtained at the first contacted household, proceed with the skip interval as originally planned and ask for such information at second designated household. THIS MODIFICATION IN SCREENING HAS BEEN MADE TO: Preserve the original choice of geographic sampling point-by-probability methods. Preserve the random selection of households, but change that random selection to randomness of those which meet eligibility requirements, rather than of all households. THIS MODIFICATION IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF FILTER REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY GREATLY REDUCES THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WHICH CAN FALL INTO THIS SAMPLE. The most extreme example is in Pontiac where: Households with school age children 40% 40% Black households Sixty percent (60%) of black households with school-age children have a father present. This means that the probability of a household being eligible within the selected areas in Pontiac are: p=.4x.4x.6=.096 Therefore slightly under one in 10 households can be used. Sticking with a skip interval of four means one would cover an area of nearly 200 homes, (including those skipped) to obtain four interviews. This is clearly impractical. Soure: Written communication from senior statistician of research agency hired to conduct survey. APPENDDIX C INTERVIEWERS' INSTRUCTIONS -. O I APPENDIX C L. .. " JD... - A -‘ November, 29 . INTERVIEWERS' INSTRUCTIONS OAKLAND COUNTY LIFESTYLE Interviewer Instructions TYPE OF INTERVIEHING TECHNIQUE For this study you will not be doing any actual interviewing with a respondent. You will, however, screen households within each area to determine eligibility for placement of questionnaires, and you will be required to return to those households to pick up and verify completion of those questionnaires. ELIGIBLE RESPONDENT/HOUSEHOLD In order for a household to be eligible for placement of questionnaires, the folloning criteria must be met: 1.; The household must be occupied by a married couple. 2. The couple must have one or more children from five years of age through 18 years of age. 3.) The husband and wife must both consent to filling out a questionnaire. In order for a household to be considered complete, BOTH questionnaires are to be completely filled out and must be accompanied by a signed consent form. RESPONDENT INCENTIVE In order to show their appreciation for respondent's co-operation, Michigan State University will issue a $10.00 check to each family who participates in this study. These checks will be mailed directly to the household approximately four to six weeks after they have completed the questionnaires. Additionally, a summary report of the findings of this research project will be mailed to the participating households upon completion (this will be a couple of months after receipt of the Check.) QUOTA Each area has a quota of four completed households. This means that four husband/wife sets and consent forms will be completed for a total of eight questionnaires per area. AMPLING PROCEDURE Standard sampling procedure is to be used for this study. Proceed to the corner indicated by a red X on your area mapsheet. Begin at the household indicated in the bottom right-hand corner of your mapsheet, this becomes your first designated household and should be written in on your first call record. If you are unable IJZB .1229 Oakland County Lifestyle Interviewer Instructions to place the questionnaires at the designated household, you will substitute by going to the residence to the right, then to the left, then by skipping four households from your designated one, and continuing this pattern until you have placed them with an eligible household. Please look at the following example: - Hammett This is the pattern that you will fellow in covering your blocks to determine eligibility fOr placement. 9125952 There are three callbacks required on the first household attempted for each set of questionnaires to be completed. Let's examine some possible field situations, Since you can only place your questionnaires in households meeting certain criteria it would be futile to make three callbacks on a household containing a widow over 65. Hhen you begin work in an area and run into a no answer at one of your designated households, check with the residence to the right, explain the purpose of your visit and ask if their neighbor meets the eligibility requirements. If they do, you should continue to call on that household: if not, ask the person you are speaking to if they meet the requirements and attempt placement. In other words, screen your neighborhood efficiently for eligible households before attempting callbacks and you will minimize the number of trips made to an area considerably. INTERVIEHING HINTS * Make sure that at least one (either husband or wife) has signed the consent form and is certain that the other spouse will do so befbre leaving the questionnaires. * Stress confidentiality. * Remind respondents that the $10.00 and the suinnary report will only be sent _to households who successfully complete both questionnaires and sign the consent fonn. * State a specific date and time for pick-up of questionnaires and arrange for both spouses to be present if possible. * Call your respondents before you return to your area to pick-up the questionnaires. . APPENDIX D CORRELATION MATRICES Correlation Matrices-Domains and Perceived Overall Well-Being- Women and Men. Table D-l. ’015722 UDOM? ficc Nah Mirth OLDO‘ GHN o e e NLD'OU‘ 5.4.30 OO‘IDNC HO\DI~ Nth—«D e a e o @0000 O‘NCCIDQ O‘N€‘¢\D 3““le "Mme-1c O C O C . mNanO‘v-i 000111003 deceived-s Loreen-"MN Potomac: O 0 O O O 0 VJ FOG-“NON"; 2.23.2! ELL CDCDOa—n CD DC‘D )§§§‘€i ROOMS UDOH4 UDOMS UDOM6 UDOMI 130 .21916 HDOMT mks NONE smooch «no-4 HHN a e o mmhco \mnNo moor~1n incisor HNOID a o o a OOHOO.-t , OOH-HON HIDFNo-a 13‘4")an CNN—4“ o e a o o ocoooomo ommoaxu-t IDNFFONO WHOM-now NHG’NHN e e o o o o n “€1.00th IIIZSLLL 09000—- 90000.: IIIIII HDOM3 HDOH4 HDOMS HDOMG HDOMI 1(1va FIFO DO‘LD rev-no NOV) 0 o e Hinvbvc comma: v-uDNrO fiche flinch O O O O ooNIr-N «Ohmc name-HO \cwacfl NCI’WD? o a o o e of; QLDCF‘HJ 17.2.}‘LL (3130:;— . 1 3"¢’-?- HDOMA UDOMS UDOM6 UDOMT UDOMI Table D-2.-Correlation Matrices-Family Life and Job by Eight Criteria-Employed "Omen. 131 \LJFT'T. - 1"“ L, ., ”If F. ‘, fionCf‘uv-Yd: NUINNP 7‘3““ \JN\’.'~S~F\\7 a e o e o a a PQOP-(Jfi-3N ~OC‘QQ' tNCs‘ Fist qe-v cu» fet’i‘Yé'JDI‘.‘ :5 KCNuufiqhwu a a o a o 0 e o -‘.T.>‘o~7<'\ve-N FOwQCJ'UL‘Q NUlf-ufia‘sfl‘i 4‘ UrO-NNNN‘)L‘ Q€;‘~0\IL‘\\.~\P 0 0 0 O 0 0 I O O O'AVW—Fbvxlkfu 0V.D—'\v-(NP~IP QU‘F‘A‘NGN-‘Uw? Jdlfl-U‘FuNNU'Q-N NFC-00.1149030- 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O I Pinkie-GIN ‘fu'zl‘auw- (‘4’ have Pct-41“, PIQOI€\'JOU.P ‘9‘} Mo~km.~mmmrm 1‘ rJv-q-rcqvvxmr. 0 0 0 O C O 0 0 C 0 0 our». UVINLVJ shun: Mc‘.‘e-~:tnctutl\~fir.q safe; JP‘CP".\’.' .6. hr; .r.uxm q -r.‘.‘ «vice-crumnrcmm 000000000000 (”Oi-AN.- VLaJPNP ~39 b‘flauth wNprLs‘ a" (dqmrmcm A?“ ‘CN 0"»GflNJNoP09F“? f' 0". .m~ .VvQN Mr I‘TIMUFU 0 O . C I C . I I C I O C 3 dPCrfWPPf-Nafil' '- CUN'QN ONPPJCU’NQD’. 00 MO C tacNPfiNC-JNS. ‘u—F‘F N.’Pt' (veep-3w. gNto OPJQJ‘W‘MPNe—W‘lrumh. O Nahv .‘L"Orl\ fig-'P ..r~i‘,c Nulcerstrctu v-r my PfifuL-i's-ru-AP’I‘CIVNN‘PU u‘m“NmN~;-IF‘D‘ Lhkw'fi gor- u‘u‘e an “Vinn- :51- ,4 er" 00000000000000. Ne‘.~:ot\mc- Nos-war ‘e- \2 J Law-no- our“; .~.-r~ cams-v.1 4. I . .PJ1JNL‘1.¢)N‘C.M Alf» . ;, u' ov-r-flmv- N: fire—v-rers '-\: €Cqm~iqrrv~ v-PI- ~ w-N 0000000000000000 Nb:- Dl’san-Q‘rs 0." 4P(~V\~\ (' ’ P? ."_~:L:~' NPM.’\\U§ . “‘1" emu C(n! QNQPCMJLU INF» (v ”\m- JW-WJ\",DOL‘Q.»J.I\‘ .-‘.-. Lerarerrnw‘v-Naeqct’osu' r- . \. 00000000.00.00¢.0 £"\: .‘QVNJ" ‘0 ”N tuner: fuJuHa rue-ch“- NM- l~ tho-e- .i.~'_\u‘\N¢r-fiuv\uq€. ~19 k. . (N‘Ov-sawvr. "VAIN . ‘ N Ivddvuu “-1-va! NRPFJUPQ- 4‘14 00.000000000000000 firm." Q'.‘€N's Pfiewlnlshcm . a. kuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu DMF‘P‘I'O‘ .n MP‘isro ~t~z~z v ~l -- cocaaacoccoccaacseg 3.3 ‘0 :30? «3.51133? 1: r «J RPF’A LI‘LI HD’CZ 303(3 LPICA PD3C’ HO‘C6 FD3C7 HOSE? RDLCI vPAC? L--.~ S 512 (b v- F’n’sm L“ Jun QaaWI— . . . Nflokuf~w a.’|\~ ONU'N .'\ PslP'.‘ 4 s1 )Nr N NKMQNN oansmu uuuuu- ~3\'~3\1 wit-1 564000.! I» 3.0 .4 s '3 thaf4 LPACS erbto kPLC7 uptce .TLCS Table D-3.-Correlation Matricee-Family Life and Job by Eight Criteria-Employed Men. 132 ‘tPP’QN‘Hfi \e 7°P~‘-U- mNF1\‘Qfi-q U‘)Nb‘(d~~ N» .:L"|.".-"0Q 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 ('FCNI‘NaCNI xv‘\-"d\<0 01" 'wgs' 45; \ 3‘; qplytc “N 'P VUQU‘vL' dd (JO-es cc unmet u‘PN/‘LPN'IV’H'J C'PnquC-DP-efl ’ quf-wmmc .1 i".- 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 QQPOsh-NQV'Q 0-~:V~l\?-J -‘oVCCO 3.‘-.‘J§.P~' " ~Cw-Ln23 NMNWL‘F P‘s.) we»: 6 " v-r-I- C’C‘NFOV . I I I I I I I I I ‘0)YC-‘49'?°s Nae-0- rohqmur j . Name- Nlnmgfifi'w-P'C-D 4.9 NJPQs’C-CJPNO-N dWNu-v-u-e-leqw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F.0’m‘JZ'I' 0r“\:."-~1~3 (' .7 FW‘IA’OO €N¢N~7~tx $Nv-0-' 'JVQQO ‘30- ~7~3~7ufi~1° q '4‘ lot-N -ftb'\~le-w-NPN‘.MNNN IIII'IIIIIII O- 'F‘Nfi‘d CNV~IN¢UWUH ~1NMCIUU“U,s'v-V‘P.Flf\; LfiNOWéNQNONV’C-‘V ruNOP‘Odvt-QNNCC \7 4 JQPPKNw-l‘uv-i'cv- 0000000000000 (“~an fa “OWL “SF-011.0. v' \\ ‘7‘”0‘ D -4 01-QPU. r-.~/mth‘.mq-w1c~c mum's“: ..‘ 0.‘ (\P ru - \sl sham. *‘iu' U‘UINIWQ NVIF‘F recourse? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NPPPUvr0~‘u.0-\~L'\JLMN'J qmrgu txrdc-q-J‘.\ ciao-FA U-{zfe'CNu g-Q-nafiwyx'- .\ so 4— QV-.\Iun\r"uw-~‘.O l\ Lhwmh.c.~ o-I\.'.I‘~lv- NFC-P IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Faun.“ NQNVONJ.; «\NQI’Y‘I T~Ds'\u‘-ufi"shr\- L‘AF’.ON‘-¢N VlNr-c. 4 «News... 1.3.! me- .7. ~ (~ch ~‘.- .C\Qruc-P\c-fum.~: {NMN ’uNf‘.fuc-Nr40-Prv-1- .IIOOIIICIIOIOII Mb"(7NJs hunt-w U-J-C '. N PC X20 ~‘. I. n). ("J L‘ 5“,“ ”‘14 h V'q N 90.4. ONE/'4" r-L’IuV-TFCOC‘TP JV» {-C '- {.0-0— it Q Puc r'quq-u‘t (Du/VON»- 7. f\'J‘.'J‘u'\0.‘~l’".\J\tL\ CNN-‘QQVL ¢~:\Uv-v-xrr.¢r\w\ Namra’rU-IN3J5(.A\I:M\Pfip NLAOVC.‘ unnd res-f. 0.; (VD-(v.0. ONNI-VJ-r 1". racy v... ‘.:I.'J\Mc '3 UF'AI‘V‘QJ‘Q ”‘0“ ~;\»\ "Pr.~"3 00.000000000000000 ’. GPNF‘IQ arch-ocv-N'I‘cn'CP-a JJ IUUUu—uuuuuuuuuuub Grimm-n primer»: gqngq sic- OCGGG: 20656064033604 :zzzzrzzzzzxzzrzr a: Hp?(5 Huggg upzc7 HBKCA thC' HbLf? 'f'1’(l. HLYCS 0'\.‘ rh’C liliificl HCI'M’. '47 .‘6 I’I.l.(';. 07‘124‘. .4'55 .\90- u" r.'.\ 1“ 0 EA 0“ fi‘ F1 ~29“; N ‘5 '..I barbs-Ohio)»- ‘1 <9 ~24.“ GG-JLO—J 2:1:::: 3 “ILC' LI617 i'i‘AL HZ‘ '.( ’0 NPQCS 133 s .0 \ c . 4v .4. . 0 Luge. via. an I. 1.1 . _ .c\ . I'D ae, t. ..e :. eema.. .1..mu ate.d” exert” u.ww. “menu. edge“ 0.... 4.: \0 t..$.....0 .1...)—<.r\ .r..».. .V\L.C.e0 .x. \0 -..a .u0 N944. s A s ~\ .NHJV..N o u..f...\.\o r ..u7\...150 ..h.. s a. so r».~.\ v e \ .i..~ \v\ m\.\. V ”‘9. .a—a) . . 51‘ ow,r\-\o _0v\v..\...\0 .rJovo N.\..v..sdo \. .Nv... \HM-m4floN0 AU‘V—n ._ ...L.. e.. t. we. e...e. am.deu «been .... . can. . e..a . Ate e. asses as.a. e».e. eu¢.e. aoee. 11L... Ian... Cece. ..qeu a. caveat .coEoz coondEwcsiimauouHuu unmflm >3 owed maflEmmiixHuumz coflumHOHHOUII.vIQ wanna ived Overall Well-Being-Employed Women. Table D-5.-Corre1ation Matrix-Contextual Variables Job, Family Life and Perce 134 .5199? YKGSTAGE ? O hSELFESG- NNG Qt-N «‘0 MO“? ’1““ I I I HIFCS 1 O ( O 0RPCE unmet-Tu ‘vo: ‘TIJ \‘V‘NIQN ‘O’JF‘FV FT“ PM I 0 0 0 0 hPfHIVLM 5 Nv-mggyc mN‘uJ moo "PU‘QOQ' I.‘ 3.‘ ‘0 J. .1I’NF'V‘ 0 I I 0 . I HNCTCUF -‘ "-‘CNVLV: ‘ {4401:}er {*OMF‘TI-M by»; N-L Qr-O- y. ‘F (“‘11:“- Qn-e- U.‘ K‘ . I: l Nq—(‘ij & ~1v-»..u.-~1u\'-o ,_. . I 0 0 0 I g Q d xys'xvtx'rg‘DC; ' “;‘\ cg-..“ (3(ng L Q‘f‘O ¢ r\h-q 0 .K’ lkfuflp 0 \f-‘o\( ._“e‘.‘_ “P" "PV‘WJMN iv. '- \0“\~30\0i a“.f\0-‘? PFIZ-I. . fi‘l‘gfyg g“, -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 a N». 0m As: we 3' 001(0- UHLJL‘Obo-U' Table D-6.-Correlation Matrix-Contextual Variables, Job, Family Life and Perceived Overall Well-Being-Employed Men. 135 YKGSTAGF qu mam L's}; his '- 0 0 0 IV(‘IMQ hg‘hwp ix -. - \q \’ ‘\-. ? 0 0 0 0 0.“) q.\,t\- r\ ' K ‘& ,‘~r"-.‘J'P~ Nq~:.4L-\ Hr? Q‘C’Cd 0 0 0 o 0 ~\(\0 \JF~r-P yLT-N. ‘55 PUFQh‘c- 7.. P.-_ _‘ ryNNIJr i.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:r¢e~; ‘I"-.'.I‘0 IF- -“ N0- ¢F\ I I§.'-"- 3 fl krg~§“:-\\. ~. §‘~-~Q0 A, . '0- .‘ PC fi‘iLflgg- {:ng ”‘UQ v-efyv-du‘ U“ \ - 'L u‘\'.I>-s'_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 C) \_ (\J CINQ '0 .'- 2-1“) (‘ €P.;‘,q 0.0-I‘- hafl.N".q:~.(‘q ~.; .7 " q“ 05".) .‘\ ‘ Q; -Ik0l59r- C 0000000000 I 1 “1“. k5.“ LU J11; I" 2:” 0.40.? stay u-«un-r-u 0 M-‘IUGUUAUSD HNQQL~£.Lt~‘Qo GJDVOJn-wonm zzozzxxrs-z ISFLFLSG HIPCS IFFFIKC“ IQAC D lHICCUP; IIAL ‘LIII’ I. Ty“ Table D-7.-Correlation Matrix-Contextua1 Variables, Job, Family Life and Perceived Overall Well—Being-Unemployed Women. LOU‘HN Nee-IMF via-05- nNdO :mflo o o 0 ° .7an ?O‘ 0":ch tannin: coho-INN FNMUD 0 o o 0 . 136 YNGSTAGE SG HIPCS HSELF HLIFEB HOOMH 137 —-Key to Variable Names in Correlation Matrices. Life 3 Dom 3 Dom 4 D3C1 D3C2 D3C4 D3C5 D3C6 D3C7 D3C8 D4C1 D4C2 D4C3 D4C5 D4C6 D4C7 D4C8 lPC5 SELFESG EDUCl MOCCUP2 Race PERINCM Dual Perceived Overall Quality of Life (POQL) Job Family life Job by standard of living Job by fun Job by beauty Job by freedom from bother Job by safety Job by accomplishment Job by acceptance and inclusion Family life by stanard of living Family life by fun Family life by beauty Family life by freedom from bother Family life by safety Family life by accomplishment Family life by acceptance and inclusion Index of personal competence Self-esteem Education Job prestige Race Personal income Dual worker family BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allardt, Erik. About Dimensions of Welfare: An Exploratory Analysis of a Comparative Scandinavian Survey. Helsinki: Research Group for Comparative Sociology, 1973. Anderson, Martha Rae. A Study of the Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Self Concept, Locus of’Con- trol Satisfaction with Primary Relationships and Work Satisfaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, 1977. Andrews, Frank M. Social Indicators of Perceived Life Quality. Social Indicators Research, 1974, 1, 279-99. Andrews, F., and Crandall, R. The Validity of Measures of Self-Reported Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 1976, 3, l-l9. Andrews, Frank M., and Withey, Stephen B. DevelOping Measures of Perceived Life Quality: Results from Several National Surveys. Social Indicators Research, 1974, 1, 1-26. Andrews, Frank M., and Withey, Stephen B. Social Indicators of Well-Being. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. Andrisani, Paul J. Internal-External Control as a Con- tributor of Work Experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 156-165. Andrisani, P. J. Internal-External Attitudes Personal Initiative and the Labor Market Experience of Black and White Men. Journal of Human Resources, Summer 1977, 12, 308-28. Armstrong, T. B. Job Content and Context Factors Related to Satisfaction for Different Occupational Levels. Journal of Applied PsycholOQYr 1971, SS, 57-65. Babbie, Earl R. Survpy Research Methods. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1973. 138 139 Blood, Robert O., and Wolfe, Donald. Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press, 1960. Booth, Alan. Wife's Employment and Husband's Stress: A Replication and Refutation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, November 1977, 645-650. Bradburn, Norman M. The Structure of Psychological Well- being. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Bradburn, N. M., and Caplovitz, D. Reports on Happiness. Chicago: Aldine, 1965. Bubolz, Margaret J. The Family, Values, and Quality of Life. Preliminary Paper, 1977. Campbell, Angus. Aspiration, Satisfaction, and Fulfill- ment. In Angus Campbell and Phillip E. Converse (eds.), The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972, pp. 441-66. Campbell, Angus; Converse, Phillip; and Rodgers, Willard L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evalu- ations and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage, 1976. Cantril, Hadley. The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1965. Coopersmith, Stanley. The Antecedents of Self Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1967. Dubin, R. Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of Central Life Interests of Industrial Workers. Social Problems, 1955, 3, 131-142. Dyer, W. G. The Interlocking of Work and Family Social Systems among Lower Occupational Families. Social Forces, March 1956, 33, 230-233. Environmental Protection Agency. 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. Ferree, M. Working Class Jobs: Housework and Paid Work as Sources of Satisfaction. Social Problems, April 140 Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cogpitive Dissonance. Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1957} French, John; Rodgers, Willard L.; and Cobb, Sidney. Adjustment as a Person Environment Fit. In Caelho, G.; Hamburg, D.; and Adams, J. (eds.), COping and Adaptation. New York: Basic Books, 1974, pp. 316-333. Gitter, A. G., and Mastofsky, D. I. The Social Indicator: An Index of the Quality of Life. Social Biology, 1973, 39, 289-97. Graves, Clare W. Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, 39, 131-55. Gruin, Gerald; Veroff, Joseph; and Feld, Sheila. Americans View Their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Haavio-Mannila, E. Satisfaction with Family, Work, Leisure, and Life Among Men and Women. Human Relations, 1971, 33, 585-601. Harry, Joseph. Evolving Sources of Happiness for Men Over the Life Cycle: A Structural Analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, May 1976, 289-296. Hodge, Robert W.; Siegel, Paul M.; and Rossi, Peter M. Occupational Prestige in the United States: 1925- 1963. In Bendix, Reinhard, and Seymour, Martin L., Class Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective. New York, 1966, pp. 322- 334. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Row, 1935. Hulin, Charles L., and Smith, Patricia Cain. Sex Differ- ences in Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. February 1964, £3,08-92. Inglehart, Ronald. The Silent Revolution: Chapging Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977. Iris, B., and Barrett, G. V. Some Relations Between Job and Life Satisfaction and Job Importance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 33, 301-304. 141 Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1977. Kavanagh, M. J., and Halpern, M. The Impact of Job Level and Sex Differences on the Relationship Between Life and Job Satisfaction. Academy_of Management Journal, March 1977, 33, 66-73. Kerlinger, Fred M., and Pedhazur, Elazer J. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Korman, A. K. Relevance of Personal Need Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction as a Function of Self-Esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 33, 533-538. Kornhauser, A. Mental Health of the Industrial Worker: A Detroit Study. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1965. Kluckhohn, Clyde. Values and Value-Orientation in the Theory of Action. In The Theory of Action in F. Parsons and E. Shills (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 388-433. Lefcourt, H. M., and Ladwig, G. W. The American Negro: A Problem in Expectancies. Journal of Personalipy and Social Psychology, 1965, 3, 377-380. Locke, E. A. The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Or anizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. London, M.; Crandall, R.: and Seals, G. The Contribution of Jobs and Leisure Satisfaction to Quality of Life. Journal of Applied Psychology: 1977, pp. 328- 334. Mansfield, R. Need Satisfaction and Need Importance In and Out of Work. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 1972, 3, 21-27. Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper, 1954. Maslow, Abraham H. (ed.). New Knowledge in Human Values. New York: Harper, 1959. 142 Messiner, M. The Long Arm of the Job: A Study of Work and Leisure. Industrial Relations, 1971, 33, 239-260. Nie, N.; Hull, C. A.; Jenkins, J. G.: Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, D. H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Nye, F. I. The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Orphen, Christopher. Work and Nonwork Satisfaction: A Causal-Correlational Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, August 1978, pp, 513-517. Orzck, L. H. Work as a Central Life Interest of Profes- sionals. Social Problems, F11 1959, 3, 125-132. Otto, Luther B. Class and Status in Family Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, May 1975, 33, 315-32. Phares, E. J. Locus of Control in Persopality. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976. Quinn, R. B., and Mangione, T. W. The 1969-1970 Survey of Working Conditions: Chronicles of an Unfinished Enterprise. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan, 1972. Quinn, Robert P., and Staines, Graham L. The 1977Quality ngmployment Survey. Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan, 1979. Rainwater, Lee. Work, Well-being, and Family Life. In James O'Toole (ed.), Wprk and the Quality of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1974. RapOport, Robert, and RapOport, Rhona. Dual-Career Families. London: Penguin, 1971. Work and Family in Contemporary Society. American Sociological Review, June 1965, 39, 381-394. . Working Couples. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Renne, Karen S. Correlates of Dissatisfaction in Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, February 1970, 54. Renshaw, J. R. An Exploration of the Dynamics of the Over— lapping Worlds of Work and Family. Family Process, in press. Rescher, Nicholas. Introduction to Value Theory. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 143 Ridley, C. A. Exploring the Impact of Work Satisfaction and Involvement on Marital Interaction When Both Partners Are Employed.‘ gournal of Marriage and Family, 1973, 33, 229-237. Rodgers, Willard L. Work Status and Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 1977, 3, 267-287. Rodgers, Willard L., and Converse, Phillip E. Measures of the Perceived Overall Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 1975, 3, 127-152. Rogers, Carl R. The Significance of the Self-Regarding Attitudes and Perceptions. In Martin L. Reymert (ed.), Feelin s and Emotions. New York: McGraw— Hill, 1950, 334-82. Rosenberg, Morris. Sociepy and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. Rotter, Julian B. Social Learping andrglinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1954. Rousseau, D. M. Relationship of Work to Non-Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, August 1978, 33, 513-I7. Safilios-Rothchild, C. Dual Linkages Between the Occupa- tional and Family Systems. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, l976,3, 51-60. Salvo, Vincent J. Conflict Between Familial and Occupa- tional Orientations Among Professionals." Paper presented at the Research and Theory Section of the National Council on Family Relations Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 1968. Scanzoni, J. H. Opportunity and the Family. New York: Free Press, 1970. Schneider, Mark. The Quality of American Life in Large American Cities: Objective and Subjective Social Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 1975, 3, 495-509. Seashore, S. E., and Taber, T. D. Job Satisfaction Indi- cators and Their Correlates. American Behavioral Scientist, January/February l9 5, __, 3 - 6 . Slocum, John W., and Strawser, Robert A. Racial Differences in Job Attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 33, 28-32. 144 Snyder, C. D., and Ferguson, L. W. Self Concept and Job Satisfaction. Psychological Reports, April 1976, 33, 603-10. Sontag, M. Suzanne. Affective Evaluation of Clothing and Perceived Quality of Life of Middle Insppe Parents with School-Age Childpsp. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation. Michigan State University, 1978. Stevens, Chandler Lloyd. Aspirations of Married Student Husbands and Their Wives. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Michigan State University, 1964. Strumpel, Burkhard (ed.). Economic Means for Human Needs. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, 1976. Trafton, Richard S. Measuring Life Satisfaction in Relation to Work, Family and Leisure. Unpublished disserta- tion. Southern Illinois University, 1977. Wright, James D. Are Working Women Really More Satisfied? Evidence from Several National Surveys. Journal of Marriage and Family, May 1978, 301-313. Willmott, Peter. Family, Work and Leisure Conflicts Among Male Employees: Some Preliminary Findings. Human Relations, December 1971, 33, 575-84. Zaretsky, Eli. Capitalism, the Family and Personal Life. New York: Harper and Row, 1976. l1 Irv IATYIIEIIII. V a .5 5’0 ....Ir.. a 2" II"! II "IIIIIIIIIIIIII