\IALDES UNDERLYING FAMILY UTILIZATION OF HOME FDRI‘IISHIJGS Thesis for the Degme of {‘31 D I‘IIGI'EGAN STATE 'I‘1I’ERSIT‘: DCRTW " A. RAEWDAV 1357 au' . . __ ‘_ -.. w 624 LIBRARY ‘ Michigan State University THEStS ——.'—v This is to certify that the thesis entitled VALUES UNDERLYING FAMILY UTILIZATION OF HOME FURNISHINGS presented by Dorothy E. A. Ramsland has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M degree in M113 ge me nt ’ W Major professor Datew 7] /‘7é7 0-169 warmer VALUES UNDERLYING FAMILY UTILIZATION or HOME rum-nsnnzos by Dorothy E. A. Ramsland This study focused on the preferential behavior of families with respect to values underlying decision-making about utilization of home furnishings. Values were viewed// as motivating forces directing choices to obtain what is . desired among alternative courses of action. Explicit in the framework of this research was the believe that values are communicated by the choices each «7 individual and family makes regarding the physical environ-I ment of the home. The selection of home furnishings to be utilized is a personal expression of values communicated in a non-verbal message, but capable of verbal expression by their owners. Values were measured in two ways, by the standardized Allporthernon-Lindzey (AVL) test of values and by expressed reasgnsflLgfil, verbal responses explaining the utilization of homefurnishings. AVL values were categorized as theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political or religious. ER values were categorized in the same six value classifica- tion, but modified in definitional content specifically in Dorothy E. A. Ramsland the context of home furnishings. Comparisons were made be- tween dominant AVL and ER values for husbands, wives and couples. Fifty student couples, living in identical apart- ments in a Michigan State University married student housing area, were interviewed. The students ranged in age from 20-35, with 76 percent of the sample under 25 years of age. The couples had been married less than five years and had no children. 'The interviewer inventoried the furnishings visible in the apartment. Individually the *3 (’u spcndents were asked, WHY do you utilize these particular furnishings? An ex- pressed reason was recorded for each furnishings object. The respondents ranked their inventoried furnishings in terms of importance. Findings indicated that dominant AVL values for hus- bands and wives were widely distributed through the six AVL values. Husbands and wives did not hold the same dominant AVL value except for 13 of the 50 couples studied. Generally, dominant AVL and ER values were not the same for husbands and wives. Thirteen couples whose dominant AVL values agreed had economic as the dominant ER value in a majority of house- hold furnishings categories. The ER values of husbands and wives were economic value oriented, particularly in their view of University Dorothy E. A. Ramsland Furniture, Personal Furniture, Lamps and Miscellaneous Ac- cessories. Textile Furnishings expressed mainly aesthetic value; Books-Magazines-Newspapers held theoretical value; TV-Radio-Stereo expressed social value and Religious Ob- jects had religious value for husbands and wives. Art Objects were represented in theoretical, aesthetic, social and political values, although wives viewed Art Objects mainly as aesthetic value. For objects of high importance to husbands and wives, the reasons verbalized were overwhelmingly expressive of economic value. Coupled with the similarity of rank-order importance of objects by husbands and their wives, these findings suggest that the importance and meaning of home furnishings objects were being communicated to each Other and internalized. ‘ The investigation of values within the behavioral setting of the home and with respect to the value-laden meanings of home furnishings objects merits further study. Research to explore the value content of our everyday lives is essential to learning the relationships among values, decision-making and resources to further understanding of the family's management. VALUES UNDERLYING FAMILY UTILIZATION OF HOME FURNISHINGS by Ifidq Dorothy EE“KJ\Ramsland A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Home Management and Child DeveIOpment 1967 (EH-+8617 ss-aw-I$§ COpyright by Dorothy E. A. Ramsland '1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, the author wishes to express her appreciation to the chairman of her guidance committee, Dr. Jean D. Schlater, for her thoughtful direction of the research, her guidance and assistance throughout the study. Grateful acknowledg- ment goes to Dr. Jay Artis, Mdss Esther Everett, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci and Dr. Alice C. Thorpe, members of her guidance committee for their efforts and encouragement. . The author wishosto thank the student couples, whose friendly c00peration made possible the data collection, Miss Esther Martin and Mrs. Mary Lu Hough who assisted in the selection and interviewing of respondents and Mrs. Carolyn Jonson and Mr. Bruce Allen who gave invaluable assistance in coding and recording the data. The author also appreciates the insightful help and optimism of Dr. M. J. Griswold, the editorial help given by Mrs. Louise Robeck and the clerical help given by Mrs. Dorothy Wachter. Finally she is particularly grateful to her faculty colleagues at western Washington State College for their Optimistic support and encouragement throughout' the study. ii TABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . II. RELATED RESEARCH OF CONTENTS Research Utilizing the AVL as Instrument . Value Research in the Areas of Housing and Home Furnishings III. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IV. METHODOLOGY . . . . Definition of Terms Assumptions . . . Objectives HypOtheseS o s 0 Sample: Rationale the Research Relating to the Commonality of Values Of HUSbandS and Wives o o o o o 9 o o o o 0 Research Inferring Values from Verbal Re- Spouses o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Primary Value Research in Home Management . Criteria, Instruments Utilized in the Validity and Reliability of PPStGSt o o o o 0 Data Collection COding o o o 0 Analysis V. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE iii Instrume and Study o{no«so o o a so olotjo|do so 0 o o t (D so». 0(00‘00 else 0 fi' 00 0 so elm. so 0‘. o o so 04». 50 0‘s. 0 o Page ii ix 1 9 9 15 Chapter VI. FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of AVL and MSU Populations . . DOMinant AVL Values 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Comparison of Dominant AVL and ER Values . Analysis of Dominant AVL and ER Values by FllrniShingS Category 0 o o o o o o o o o o DominantERvalueSooooooooso... Value Profiles of Thirteen Selected Couples Scale Of Importance o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Rank Order Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . .' Summary.................. Limitations 0f the Stady o o o o o o o o o 0 Implications for Further Research . . . . . Implications for Home Management . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 66 66 69 73 79 116 121 121 126 126 131 132 135 138 lh2 Table 1. 2. 3. h. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Ages of husbands and wives . . . . . . . . . . . Number of years married by number of couples . . Length of residence by number of couples . . . . Formal education of husbands and wives . . . . . Religion of husbands and wives . . . . . . . . . Gainful occupations of husbands and wives . . . Gainful employment of husbands and wives . . . . Total annual family income by number of couples Sources of income for husbands and wives . . . . College majors of husbands and wives . . . . . . Comparison of rank order of AVL values from AVL p0pu1ation and MSU p0pu1ation . . . . . . . . Comparison of rank order of AVL values from AVL p0pu1ation and MSU p0pu1ation by sex differ- ences00000000000000.0000. Comparison of AVL values by mean scores and sex differences from AVL p0pu1ation and MSU popu- lationooo0.000000000000000 AVL values by rank order: norms for AVL p0pu1a— tion and MSU p0pu1ation for males and females Dominant AVL value of husbands and wives . . . Dominant AVL value by couples . . . . . . . . . Dominant AVL value by husbands and their wives . Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Total Household Furn- iShingScocoa-0000000000000 Page 59 59 6O 60 61 62 63 6h 65 67 68 7O 71 71 72 73 7A 76 Table 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33- Comparison value of Comparison value of of dominant AVL value and dominant ER wives: Total Household Furnishings . of dominant AVL value and dominant ER husbands: minus University Furniture . . . . . . . . . . Comparison value of of dominant AVL value and dominant ER wives: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of dominant AVL and dominant ER values for husbands and wives and couples . . . . . . Number of husbands and wives in agreement of AVL dominant value and ER dominant value by furnish- ingscategory................ Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of Comparison value of of dominant AVL value and dominant ER husbands: University Furniture . . . of dominant AVL value and dominant ER husbands: Personal Furniture . . . . of dominant AVL value and dominant ER husbands: Lamps . . . of dominant AVL value and dominant ER husbands: Miscellaneous Accessories of dominant AVL value and dominant ER wives: University Furniture of dominant AVL value and dominant ER wives: Personal Furniture of dominant AVL value and dominant ER W1V33:LampSoooooooooooo of dominant AVL value and dominant ER wives: Miscellaneous Accessories . . of dominant AVL value and dominant ER husbands: Textile Furnishings of dominant AVL value and dominant ER wives: Textile Furnishings . . . . . vi Total Household Furnishings Page 76 78 78 8O 81 82 82 83 83 8A 8A 85 85 87 87 Table Page 3L. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Books-Magazines-Newspapers 89 35. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Books-Magazines-Newspapers . . 89 36. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: TV-Radio-Stereo . . . . . . 91 37. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: TV-Radio-Stereo . . . . . . . 91 38. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Art Objects . . . . . . . . 93 39. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Art Objects . . . . . . . . . 93 40. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Religious Objects . . . . . 95 A1. Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Religious Objects . . . . . . 95 42. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Total HOUSShOld Furnishings o o o o o o o o o o o o o 99 A3. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: TOtal Household FUPHiShingS o o o o o o o o o o 99 Ah. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture 100 45. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 100 46. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Uni- verSity Furniture 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 101 #7. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: univerSity Furniture 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 101 L8. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Per- Sonal Furniture 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 102 #9. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Personal Furniture 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 102 50. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Lamps 103 vii Table Page 51. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Lamps 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 103 52. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Tex- tile FurniShingS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 104 53. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: TeXtile FurniShingS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 10“ 54. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Tele- ViSion’Radio-Sterec o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 105 55. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: TeleViSion-Radio-Stereo o o o o o o o o o o s o 105 56. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Books- Magazines-Newspapers o o o o o o o o o o o o o 106 57. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Books-Magazines-Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . 106 58. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Re- ligious ObjeCtS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 107 59. Dominant values of husbands and their wives: Re- ligious ObjeCtS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 107 60. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Art ObjeCtS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 108 61. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Art OijCtS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 108 62. Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Mis- cellaneous Accessories . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 63. Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Miscellaneous Accessories . . . . . . . . . . . 109 6A. Comparison of AVL value profile and ER value pro- file of thirteen selected couples . . . . . .'. 117 65. Dominant ER value profiles of thirteen selected couples by furnishings category . . . . . . . . 119 66. Comparison of furnishings items ranked 1 through 5 in rank order scale and the scale of importance ratings for the same items . . . . . . . . . . 123 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. BaSiC Data SChedUle o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1h3 B. Home Furnishings Inventory Schedule . . . . . lhh C. University-Supplied Home Furnishings Inventory SCthUle o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o lhs Do HypOthetical Situation 0 o o o o o o o o o o lhé E. Home Furnishings Categories by Coded ER Values 147 F. COding Of Expressed Reasons 0 o o o o o o o o 1h8 G. Total Number of Items in Each Apartment by couples 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 151 H. Furnishings Objects to be Saved by Wives in Fire Situation 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 152 I. Furnishings Objects to be Saved by Husbands in Fire Situation 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 155 J. Chart 1. Plot Plan, Spartan Village . . . . 158 K. Chart 2. Spartan Village, Apartment Plan . . 159 L. Allport-Vernon-Lindzey, Study of Values (Test Booklet) o o 6 o e o o o o o o o o o o o o 160 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Man's preferential behavior in a world environment of complexity and change has increasingly become the subject for investigation and analysis. The understanding of the many facets of man's behavior and the underlying and moti- vating forces for this behavior challenge today's researchers. Since value inquirers investigate behavior in the framework of finding evidences of preference among alternative choices available to individuals and groups, it becomes important to understand the criteria that influence these choices and the selection of one choice rather than another. In the discipline of home management the particular province of concern is the family and its primary behavioral setting, the home. As a rational being man has some con- trol over this home environment and the resources available to him. He makes the decisions within this setting based on the values and goals of the family, whether these values and goals be conscious or unconscious. These values are mediated and communicated in many ways, verbally and non-verbally. Home management is the process by which the family realizes the values and goals that are important to it through decisions and subsequent decision action regarding resource use. According to this definition an interrelationship be- tween the concepts of values, decision-making and resources exists. Values, decision-making and resources are concepts generally accepted as integral parts of the theoretical frame- work of home management. While the definitions may vary, the concepts remain. Gross and Crandall discuss the purposes of manage- ment: Families are constantly making managerial choices or decisions in dealing with current situations. Some- thing underlies and directs even simple choices, though the decision-maker may be unaware of the nature of these directing forces. They are spoken of as values, goals, and standards. Their realization is the purpose of management. . . . Values is the key term of the trilogy. From values stem the other two aspects, goals and standards, although they in turn exert an influence on values and on each other. . . . They [values] are gen- eralized concepts which are important to the individual. 11:20 Schlater in conceptualizing the management process says: Management is a dynamic, on-going process which en- com asses those human actions directed toward the rea ization of values and goals; the prime feature of such goal-directed activities is the systematic series of actions which constitute the making and implementing of interrelated decisions under conditions of uncertainty and limited resources. (36:95) _ 3 In her writings Paolucci speaks of the focal point of management: Home management centers its attention on the totality of living in the home: on the composite, plural and common goals of members; and the alternative ways in which home members and resources can be organized and utilized for the realization of home centered goals. . . . Through management, order and direction is given to family endeavors; isolated events and individual activities, factual information, and particular values, aspiration and needs are brought together and woven into meaningful, integrated relationships. (29:338) Deacon in discussing the purposes of management notes: Management is concerned with the values and goals of individuals in families, because the goals and values which underlie them represent not only the motivating force for effective management but also for the basis of evaluation. (7:762) Furthermore, Deacon states that professional home economists have to interpret for families the interrelatedness and alternative possibilities for the effective use of available human and material resources. But she takes issue with the idea of the contributions which can be made by home manage- ment on the basis of the study of values. Expanding on this divergent view she writes: Less definitely established is the extent to which the study of values of individuals and families and how they came to be held, falls within the field of home management. Because values and goals give focus to management and because the application of management procedures contributes to the reality of the goals held, home management has a bona fide interest and contribution to make. But beyond the point of investi- gating those values and goals which have pertinence, and of helping to determine their significance from a management point of view, management in and of itself has little to contribute. There are in home economics 4 people concerned with personal relationships and de- ve10pment of individuals in home and families who have more to contribute to an understanding of how the per- sonal value systems evolve and may change or be changed. . . . (7:762) Few professional workers in the field of home manage- ment would quarrel with the sense of Deacon's writing. The researcher believes that the concern with the evolvement of values can justifiably be left to philosOphy. But, home management can make a contribution to the furthering of knowledge of values and their mediation. Perhaps the ideal research contribution could be made in the interdisciplinary setting with the cooperation of home economists and others in social science disciplines. Although the present study recognized the interde- pendence of the concepts of values, decision-making and resources, the concept of primary importance here is values. Values are recognized as central factors in human (motivation and major determinants of behavior. "Basic values are not superficial phenomena . . . the value orientations of a peOple are deeply rooted . . . and are so pervasive that they markedly affect the patterns of behavior and thought of a peOple in all areas of activity." (2:304) If home manage- ment is to function effectively, values which have importance and meaning for the family, and their relationship to the choices and resources of the family must be known. The selected definition of values used in the present study has its basis in the Manual of the Allport-Vernon- Lindzey Study of Values. (1) Values are defined as the basic interests, evaluative attitudes or motives in personality which are major determinants of behavior. In this study values are reflected in the preferential behavior which selects among alternatives and which is verbally professed by the respondents for the utilization of one kind of material ‘resource, namely, home furnishings. ’ Values have been defined and classified in many ways. Very broadly, a value orientation was defined by Kluckhohn as "a generalized and organized conception, influencing be- havior, of nature, of man's place in it, of man's relation to man, and of the desirable and nondesirable as they may relate to man-environment and interhuman relations." (20:hll) Charles Morris classified values into three categories: Operative, conceived and object values. All of these three classifications of value refer to preferential behavior. Conceived values involve preference for a symbolically indicated object. But the object or situation need not be present and need not even exist. In short, conceived values are conceptions of the desirable. Jacob and Flink, Kluck- hohn and M. Brewster Smith have approached the definition of values in this framework. The recent home management re- search of Engebretson and Martin defined values in this manner, "Values are conceptions of the desirable which affect an individual's choice among possible courses of action. Ac- cordingly, values are abstractions, organizing principles or normative standards." (9:32) "Ought" and "should" statements were used to evoke value judgments in this framework. The second concept of values as set forth by Merrie is the Operative value concept. In this concept value refers to manifest preferential selection among available alterna- tives. Values are "a way of referring to the actual direc- tion of preferential behavior toward one kind of object rather than another." (26:10) The definition of an Object referred to whatever was preferred to sOmething else: artifacts, persons, colors, emotions, can all be objects in this in— stance. The operative values can be directly inferred from what is preferred by observable selection patterns. The third term, object value, has more relevance to philosophy than the applied discipline of home management be- cause emphasis is placed directly on the object and only in- directly on the individual. The concern in home management and in the present study was an analysis of individuals and groups, in relation to objects. Moreover, the meaning of the objects to the individuals is the particular concern of the present study. Nye categorized values in yet another way. His basic definition is that value "means a high-level abstrac- tion which encompasses a whole category of objects, feelings, and/or experiences." (28:241) These values have hierarchial characteristics and one class of objects or experiences is desired more than another. He proposed two sub-concepts N “s" which are conceptually different and referred to them as "instrumental" and "intrinsic." (28:2h2-3) Instrumental values have desirability which becomes attached to an ob- ject, experience or event because that prOperty has become identified as necessary or effective in producing an outcome desired by the individual or society. These values may change over time. On the other hand, intrinsic values are objects, events, experiences, valued for their own sake without reference to other consequences which flow from them. In summary, ideas about values which relate to this study are that values underlie decisions; they mOtivate actions and direct choices to obtain what is desired. Spe- cially designed items can elicit verbal responses contain- ing value-laden statements which can be interpreted and analyzed for value content. And, finally, objects can com- municate values as non-verbal responses. Dorothy .Lee (23) has challenged home economists to explore the value content Of Our everyday lives. Material resources, specifically home furnishings in the present study, are re- sources which are a part of the everyday life of families and possessed by every family to some degree. "Comparatively little attention has been paid by academic researchers to material resources . . . they are, however, parts of the whole organization to which human beings react and with which they are involved and they have a legitimate place among the parts of an organization affecting and affected by other parts." (12:hl) Paolucci has commented that "the house and its furnishings are but resources to be managed for the good of the family. Recognizing this obligates the home manager to so arrange the materials and space within the home that special values are mediated." (30:3) The effective use of furnishings and housing relates to the behavioral patterns and behavioral settings of the home. Koppe suggests that to manage these effectively, families must be faced immediately with the problem of per- sonal values and attitudes."Since family behavior depends on our value systems, any study of family life assumes that a relationship exists between behavior and value systems. The basic research question of the present study is: what is the relationship with respect to the behavior of families between values, decision-making and the utilization of resources, namely, home furnishings? The importance of this relationship may be as Hall has stated, "by broadening his conception of the forces that make and control his life, the average person can never again be caught in the grip of patterned behavior of which he has no awareness." (1h:212) CHAPTER II RELATED RESEARCH This review of literature chapter explores research pertinent to the present study. A study of these available researches is divided into five types. The first type in— volved research using the Allport-Vernon—Lindzey Study of values* as the primary instrument. The second type investi- gated the commonality of values of husbands and wives, while the third type of study inferred values from statements or re- sponses to verbal statements, referred to as expressed reasons in the present study. Values related to the areas of housing and home furnishings have been investigated as a fourth type of research reviewed. And, finally, several recent studies of values in the area of home management are reviewed as the fifth type. The five types of value research studies are not mutually exclusive, but these studies are representative of the focus of the types. As an example, the studies of Dyer(8) Ketchum (18) are discussed under the third type, inferring values from ver- bal responses, but these studies are important contributions to the area of home management research, the fifth type. Research Utilizing the AVL as the Primary Instrument The AVL has been widely used as an instrument for *Hereafter will be referred to as AVL. 9 10 research since its inception in 1931. A selected group of research studies have been reviewed with special relevance to the present study. Lapitsky (22) investigated clothing values and their relation to general values and to social security and inse- curity, employing the AVL to measure general values. The objectives of the study were to investigate the relative im- portance of selected values in clothing behavior patterns of women, to discover the relation between selected clothing values and to find the relation between feelings of social security-insecurity and clothing values. Data were collected_from two groups of women, 80 under- graduate students and 80 teachers at Pennsylvania State Uni- versity. The instruments used included a forced-choice cloth- ing value measure, the Allport-Vernon-Lindsey Study of Values, a measure of social insecurity, the Taylor Scale of manifest anxiety and a background information questionnaire. The cloth- ing value scale was comparable to the AVL but omitted the use Of the religious value as not being relevant to clothing. It also separated the social value into Social I and Social II. Social I was defined as an expression of regard for fellow beings through clothing behavior and Social II as the desire for social approval and conformity. The values-~aesthetic, economic and political--were a part of the study. A positive correlation was found between each of the clothing values and their parallel general values. 11 The hypothesis that aesthetic and economic clothing values would be more important to the women than any of the other clothing values was confirmed, since these two values scored the highest for both groups of women, teachers and students. Significant correlations between aesthetic and political clothing values and general values were found for the teacher group. Within the student group significant correlations were seen between aesthetic, political, Social' I and their counterparts in general values. Because clothing may be viewed in a manner similar to furnishings, value re- search in this area is pertinent. Croswell (5) tested the relationship of areas of value through an instrument designed to measure values in managing the home with value areas in the AVL. Secondly, she attempted to determine whether certain family background factors were akin to the home management student's values. This researcher constructed the Home Management Scale of Values which purported to measure intellectual, economic, self-expression, techniques and skills, and social values. It was administered along with the AVL. She discovered the following relationships between value areas in the two instruments. (1) Theoretical values in the AVL were inversely related to intellectual values in the HM scale; (2) Economic values in the AVL were directly related to economic values and inversely related to intellectual values in the HM scale; (3) Aesthetic values in the AVL were directly related to self-expression values and inverselyrelated to techniques and skills values in the HM scale; (A) Social values c...- H.-—p-a —--. 12 in the AVL were inversely related to economic values in the HM scale; (5) Political values in the AVL were inversely related to social values in the HM scale. The economic values as measured by each instrument were positively related. In their study of the relationship between expressed and measured values, Nickels and Renzaglia (27) administered the AVL test as their basic instrument for obtaining measured. values. For the expressed values two self-rating sheets (one using definitions of the six AVL values, the other using related occupational titles) were employed. The expressed value rating sheets involved a method of answering and scoring which was sim- ilar to that inherent in the AVL. The subjects were 54 males and 22 females, all college students. In the analysis, correlation coefficients for group consistency and intra-individual consistency were calculated by Stanley's Z transformation. 0n the basis of the findings, the subjects seemed to have a relatively significant awareness-of their measured values. While the study suggested a positive relationship be- tween expressed and measured values for most students, indi— viduals varied considerably from near perfect correspondence to complete reversal. The more students varied in their scores on the AVL, the more similar their expressed and measured values tended to be. One trend noted in the data was that if men scored high on theoretical, economic and political values (so- called masculine values) and women scored high on aesthetic and social values (so-called feminine values), the measured and ex- pressed values tended to be more similar. A high score on the 13 religious value for men suggested the least similarity in measured and expressed values. Because apparently significant differences do exist in the values of men and women, sex differ—I ences should be reviewed. Although the terminology of expressed and measured values are somewhat similar in the Nickels and Ren- zaglia study and in the present study, the definitional mean- ings are different. The definitional rating sheets which pro- vided explanation for each AVL value were clues for the present study in defining further each value category. Harris (16) in her experimental investigation of joint decision-making by husbands and wives used the AVL as a basic instrument because it was well-suited to the composition of questions used. She used the term, interest-value, which has the same meaning as AVL value in the present study. The pure pose of this study was to obtain a clearer understanding of the relationship between the rank-order of several values of husbands and wives and their actions in making decisions. Each question created a decision-making situation which involved only one-interest value and stimulated natural conversation. Four of the AVL values were used--aesthetic, economic, polit- ical and social. She discarded religious and theoretical be- cause of the difficulty in composing questions concerning only one value relating to everyday experiences. The 15 par— ticipating couples were student couples, the husband attending ‘ college while the wife worked. The scores of the AVL test were compared with general student norms and found to be similar to students elsewhere. 14 The husband's higher scores were in the economic and political values and for wives in aesthetic and social values. How- ever, the range from lowest to highest score was considerable in each of the value areas for both husbands and wives. Behavior in the decision-making situation was studied from three standpoints: (l) the initiator of the accepted decision, (2) the total number of conversational actions, and (3) the number of actions in the adaptive-instrumental func- tiOn. The effect of the value's hierarchy was studied from two aspects, comparing the individual's highest-ranking and lowest-ranking value and comparing spouses in their assump- tion of leadership when the rank-order ofan interest-value' differed for the two persons.“ The results revealed that husbands and wives tended to initiate about the same number of decisions and to make about the same number of conversational actions. But, hus- bands tended to initiate a greater proportion of the decisions when their highest-ranking values were involved than they did when decisions involved their lowest values. Wives tended to do the reverse. If either spouse had an outstandingly high or low value score, they initiated a greater proportion of decisions that involved their highest-ranking value than they did when the decisions involved their lowest value. The research supports the theory that there was a relationship between the values of husbands and wives and the assumption of leadership in making decisions. Values, therefore, may 15 influence power in decision-making. With respect to the total number of conversational actions, the husband's values tended to influence the be- havior of more couples than did the values of wives. By contrast, in decision-initiating leadership, wives who had greater value scores than their husbands were the decision— initiators about as often as were husbands who had greater value scores than their wives. The division of responsibil- ity in decision-making seemed to be at least partially due to a difference in the value hierarchies of the two peOple. The researcher has discovered little evidence in the literature that the AVL test has been utilized to measure actual behavioral situations. The present study however, has attempted to use the AVL in this way. Research Relating to the Commonality of Values of Husbands and Wives An early study in 1936 of the personality resemblances among 80 married couples by Schooley (37) used a battery of tests including the AVL to determine whether or not couples were similar in personality. Among the findings of the research she concluded that husbands and wives tended to marry persons similar to themselves in all of the character- istics measured by the study. Theoretical, economic, polit- ical and religious values were a part of this similarity, but the social value was omdtted from the study because of its low validity. With the later edition Of the AVL test, the l6 validity of the social value has increased. A second part of the study concluded that husbands and wives tended to grow more alike as they grew older together. Furthermore, the length of marriage increased the similarity particularly with regard to economic and religious values. The commonality of values between family members, particularly between husbands and wives, has not been studied to any great extent. Martin (2h) compared the composite value profiles of husbands and their own wives in her analysis of family members' values evident in managerial decision sit- uations. Only about one-fifth of the husband-wife profiles were alike. In the analysis of coded values only one-fourth of the husbands held over 60 percent of their coded values in common with their wives. Some researchers have equated long-range goals with values. For instance, Stevens (38) studied the aspirations or long-range goals of married student husbands and their wives. The college p0pu1ation chosen for the Stevens' study was from the same location as the present study. For her re- search the 50 husbands and their wives verbalized aspirations in an interview situation, conducted in separate but simul- taneous interviews. The hypothesis that husbands and wives did have the same kinds of aspirations for the family was partially supported. The self-anchoring Striving Scale was used to elicit information. Harris (16) included the AVL test as one instrument 69 Dorothy Elizabeth Ann Ramsland 1968 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 17 in her research. She was not primarily concerned with the sharing of common values of husbands and wives but rather in the highest and lowest value scores. She was interested in finding whether the behavior was different in decisions in- volving the highest value from that in decisions involving the lowest value in an individual's hierarchy of values. Reviewing the table of hierarchies of interest-values (AVL values), three out of 15 couples studied had the same interest- value (AVL). Two of these three couples listed economic as the dominant value, while one couple gave aesthetic as the dominant value. Research Inferring Values from Verbal Responses The study of values as mediated through family activ- ities and the utilization of the technique of analyzing verbal responses as a means of identifying these values was the purpose of two home management research studies. Ketchum (18) studied homemaker's values as reflected in time used for family and personal activities. Her ob- jective was to study homemakers' stated reasons for time use for particular activities and to compare the values reflected in these reasons with the homemaker's ranking of 12 selected values. Values were defined as the force which directs choice to obtain what is desired. The values test was based on the test develOped by Kimball, and it purported to measure 12 18 values-~security, influence, recognition, helpfulness, free- dom, new experience, friendship, family life, religion, orderliness, wealth and workmanship. These values were ordered in first, second and third rank by the respondents. As the second value test, a forced-choice was made of the most important value in each of 66 pairings of values. An instrument was develOped to Obtain information about homemaker's activities, the reasons for these activ- ities and satisfaction with activities. To elicit this information three Open-ended questions were developed. The two questions analyzed were: how did you spend your time yesterday and why did you use your time in this way? The 50 homemakers, members of the Ingham County Home Demonstration Program, who cooperated in the study were able to verbalize reasons for their activities. The reasons given for approximately 85 percent of the activities reflected five values: helpfulness, workmanship, freedom, family life and orderliness. Two techniques were used to rank values: rank-order and forced choice tests. The rank-order coeffic- ient was .9h, significant at the .001 level. Eighty-six percent of the homemakers ranked the family life value as a first, second or third choice, followed by helpfulness and security as the next choices. The Spearman rank-order correlation determined the relationship between values re- flected through reasons given for activities and values selected in the forced-choice test. This coefficient was 19 .h7, statistically significant at the .1 level. The findings supported all three hypotheses, namely, that the value which homemakers rank first, second and third in importance would be reflected in the reasons verbalized for the use of time and that the value of family life would be ranked as most important and that the value of wealth would be ranked as less important by the homemakers. A similar study about homemakers' awareness of values as mediated through family activities was done by Dyer (8) who interviewed 50 students' wives for the study. The wives resided in the same housing area as researched in the pres- ent study. She defined the homemakers' day-to-day activities as the behavioral situation, while values were defined as the criteria that determines goals and directs choices to achieve what is desired. Dyer utilized three techniques for identifying and ranking values. First, there was a rank order test in which each homemaker ordered the nine selected values, which were patterned somewhat after Beyer and they were: health, family centrism, aesthetics, economy, educa- tion, religion, freedom, friendship and prestige. Secondly, nine projective stories were developed depicting homemakers performing activities and reflecting a specific value which the respondents then ranked. Third, the homemaker drew up a listing of activities performed on the previous day giving a reason why each activity was performed. With the use of a mechanical device the homemakers could sort their reasons 20 into any of the nine value categories. Then the researcher employed the Spearman Rank—Order Correlation to determine the relationship between the three ranking devices. 0n the basis of the correlation coefficients the researcher indicated that the more projective the instrument, the more likely it was to reveal the values underlying the behavioral situations of these homemakers. Family centrism and health values appeared in the tOp three ranks of all these tests. Even though religion and education were high on the rank order test, this did not occur when the homemakers placed reasons into value categories. The findings significantly supported the reasons given by students' wives for day-to-day activ- ities. A The studies by Ketchum and by Dyer contribute to the knowledge of values and preferential behavior using the everyday life activities of respondents. The analysis Of verbal responses for value content was similar to the ex- pressed reasons as analyzed by the present study. Value Research in the Areas of Housing and Home Furnishings While the area of home furnishings is a basic and important consideration for the present study, home furnish- ings are only a part of a larger topic, housing. Research in housing contributes ideas which in turn may explain or develOp understandings about furnishings. Though the quantity 21 of research in these areas relating to values is small, several important studies have contributed ideas for the present study. Cutler (6) did an early study in the area Of values as related to housing. She aimed to develOp a self-teaching device for values that would enable individuals and families to think through their housing problems in terms of needs and preferences of family members. Ten basic values (beauty, comfort, convenience, location, health, personal interests, privacy, safety, friendship activities and economy) provided the core of the test. The values tested were selected after the literature had been reviewed and interviews had been conducted with authorities in the field and families. Fifty families who varied in composition, number of children and social class participated in the testing. These tests consisted of six parts. First, each individual ranked the ten descriptions of housing, representing different values, in order of their importance to him. Following this ranking, the individual was asked to choose three homes he would like best to live in and two homes which he would like least to live in. Cutler titled these two procedures the verbalized value scale. Third, the respondents completed a forced-choice test in which every value was compared with every other value. The respondent ranked the values in order of frequency of choice. This third test represented the functional value scale, and comparisons were made of verbalized 22 and functional value scales. In the fourth test values were ranked according to the responses to the comparisons. Fifth, the respondent rated each value on a three point scale indi- cating how he felt about his own home in relation to this value. Finally, he completed a sentence which made a state- ment about the meaning of each value to him. In the analysis of the data, verbalized values and functional values as defined by the study were compared using a technique developed by Woodruff. The verbalized and functional patterns were not alike: the range was from a rank-order correlation co- efficient of -.17 to +.96 for 186 cases. Participants indi- cated that functional values more nearly represented their true feelings than did the verbalized values, and case analyses supported the findings as stated by the respondents because families were living in homes and participating in activities at home that revealed their highest ranking functional values. This research pioneered the study of values as related to housing and supported the idea that personal and family values were revealed in the choice of the home and therefore can be a sound basis for home planning. The comprehensive housing and values study done by Beyer (3) and associates of the Cornell-Value-Study group has formed the basis for further study by other researchers. Beyer selected nine values for study: family centrism, equal- ity, physical health, economy, freedom, aesthetics, prestige, mental health and leisure. Homemakers from three field survey 23 areas (Buffalo, Upstate New York rural areas, and the tri- cities of Binghamton, Endicott and Johnson City) cOOperated 'in the study. Six hundred and ninety-four homemakers were from rural areas and 1066 homemakers were from urban areas. The researchers chose as their evaluation device the scale analysis technique developed by Guttman and others. State- ments for each value were developed to which respondents agreed or disagreed. Along with the scale-analysis, a forced— choice answer technique was develOped for comparative pur- poses. Each of the nine values was individually analyzed for all three groups. The values: family centrism, equality, physical health and economy ranked among the first four values in all three groups. Even though no difference was found in the ranking of these values when analyzed by scale- analysis or the forced-answer techniques, a highly significant finding of the study was that most values tended to fall into two clusters, each having its own characteristics. For example, one cluster was characterized by the terms realistic, insensitive, group and collective, observes basic physical needs. In contrast, the other cluster was characterized by the terms idealistic, sensitive, personal and individual, and may disregard basic physical needs. These value orienta- tions directly influenced individual and particular housing needs. Queeney (31) conducted a research study concerned with only one value, aesthetic, and its relationship to aesthetic 24 sensitivity. She wanted to determine whether or not a signif- icant relationship exists between the degree to which an indi- vidual values aesthetics in the home and his knowledge and understanding of aesthetics (aesthetic sensitivity) as mani- fested in the selection of home furnishings. One hundred and sixty students from Pennsylvania State University, both male and female, single and married, were subjects. A questionnaire which included a biographical in- ventory, a 35-Question Housing Values test, a Value Ranking Test and an Aesthetic Sensitivity Test, was utilized. The 35-question Housing Values test was based primarily on the test for housing values develOped by Beyer. Although this test measured seven values,only the scores for aesthetic were included for this study. The Values Ranking Test required respondents to rate the seven values from the one "most like" them to the one "least like" them. The definitions for the values were those formulated by Beyer. The sensitivity test offered illustrations of five home furnishings in 20 cate- gories which were ranked from best to poorest on the basis -of their appearance. In addition, aesthetic sensitivity was compared to art experience, sex and marital status. The researcher found that significant relationships existed between an individual's aesthetic sensitivity and his aesthetic value, art experience, sex and marital status. In summary, this study supported the use of the aesthetic value 25 as a measuring device for homemaker's ideas and choices re- garding home furnishings. The objective of the study by Fortenberry (10) was to estimate which of three values, physical convenience, family- centered living or social standing, was most important when related to kitchen design. Fortenberry defined values as tools used in the process of choosing and electing courses of action which influence kitchen design. The two techniques for the measurement of values were two disguised-direct tech- niques. On one test respondents were given a list of 100 statements describing values to which they indicated their intensity of agreement. The second test was a forced-choice test of pairs of items from which the respondent chose one which most nearly described her preference. Two hundred and thirty-nine Home Demonstration Club leaders in 15 Mississippi counties participated in the study. The age and education of the respondents, the number and ages of the children living at home were factors studied and hypothesized to be related to the dominant value. The results supported the hypothesis that physical convenience value was more important than social standing or family-centered living values. The findings were highly sig- nificant according to both measurement techniques. The age of the respondent was related to the dominant value: family— centered living values were dominant for the youngest, physical 26 convenience for the midd1e~aged, and social standing value for the Oldest respondents. 0n the other hand, education was not related significantly to the dominant value. Furthermore, the ages of children seemed to affect the dominant value. Physical convenience and social stand- ing were more important to those with children over 15 years of age, while those with young children chose family-centered living value. The respondents without children living at home listed social standing as the dominant value. The study had implications that other values, beauty, friendship and social activities are implied, but not specifically researched in this study. In a home furnishings study Johnson (17) undertook to identify the values associated with the choice of floor coverings in new farm homes. One hundred and forty-three Iowa farm women living in new farm homes were the subjects. The values studied were: appearance, comfort, durability, economy, maintenance, safety and style preference. There were three research techniques utilized. First, the respond- ents specified the features about floor coverings they con- sidered to be important and unimportant. The second was an attitude-belief inventory which measured intensity re- sponses for smooth and soft floor coverings. Third, 21 paired- combination statements of the seven values asked the subject which she considered to be the most important to her and her family. Analysis of the data was done by cluster analysis, 27 scale analysis, analysis of variance and chi-square tests. In the first test the findings revealed more concern with durability and appearance for the living room and mainten- ance in the kitchen. The third test ordered values for the living room with durability and comfort as highest ranking values and safety as lowest ranking. By contrast, hard floor coverings for the kitchen had durability and maintenance as the highest ranking values and comfort as the lowest rank- ing. The attitude-belief inventory test did not show sig- nificant relationships among responses since no cluster was wholly identified with a given value. Fortenberry and Johnson have researched specific types of housing and home furnishings, asking families about their decisions for floor coverings and kitchen design. These preference studies of values supported the findings that values influence decisions and can be identified. A study of the workingman's wife was based on research studies conducted over several years and in different areas for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the report is based on the study undertaken for MacFadden Publications, Inc. and pub- lished in Workingman's Wife. (32) The p0pu1ation for the study was #80 readers of Family Behavior Group Magazines, who were considered representative of the working class housewife, and 120 middle-class women. The total group was equally divided in sample number from four cities--Chicago, Louisville, Trenton and Tacoma, and included married women between the 28 ages of 20 and AL. The goals were to interview the respondents and compare respondents from different social levels. The measure used to locate the subjects in class level was the Coleman Index of Urban Status. The interviews were conducted in a conversational manner to probe the subjects' social behavior and personal attitudes. Three types of questions were used: projective- type questions, multiple choice objective questions and ob- jective questions with conversational questions. The second and third types included.projective-type questions, some TAT pictures and sentence completions. One projective question asked the subjects to imagine how they might spend $5000 in a year, if they had it, spread- ing it over twelve important budget items. Since this study asked questions about many aspects of behavior, the area of greatest interest for the present study is the questions asked about furnishings. Examples of the kinds of questions asked were: What ideas do you have about furnishing a house? What styles in furniture do you like best? What special qualities about a house are most important to you? ‘What should a house be like as far as your family is concerned? There was a series Of picture preference tests used in which the women were presented with line drawings of houses, lamps, sofas and dresses. They were to choose 29 alternatives from each category and give a reason for their choice. While there was agreement between the preference test results and the free expressions stated by the women, differ- ences were noted in social class responses. The preference in lamps was especially noteworthy and provided a hunch for a hypothesis about that furnishings category for the present study. According to this study, middle-class and working class women differ in their values and goals in furnishings choices. A housing and home furnishings study conducted by KOppe (19) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area questioned 60 families from widely varying-economic and educational back- ground. On a questionnaire the families gave information about the persons living in the home, the size and adequacy of their housing and the condition and adequacy of their furnishings. Also, the families Offered reasons for wishing to change their housing and furnishings. The families were able to express ideas in terms of what a family could do if space and furnishings were available. In the housing sec- tion only one respondent of the 60 gave an economic reason for wishing to change the structure of his housing, but more reasons related to social factors such as wanting to improve conditions for children or adults or to provide activity spaces. The reasons given for changes in furnishings were directly related to behavior, particularly to the atmosphere of the home. FOr'instance, the lower income group more often 30 mentioned utilitarian reasons for changes while the upper income group placed a higher value on appearance per se. The researcher found that in this sample, income, family size, profession or education did not influence the number of desires. KOppe suggests if we are to understand the problems of family life that center about housing and furnishings we must understand how families behave in their homes. Family behavior depends on value systems. What is the relationship between furnishings, family behavior and values? The answer to this question was probed by KOppe and the present re- searcher. Value Research in Home Management Two recent home management studies on values by Engebretson (9) and Martin (2h) investigated values from the standpoint of the concept of the desirable. This approach differs from the present study. Values were defined as "conceptions of the desirable which affect an individual's choice among possible courses of action and refer to an in- dividual's coded responsesto the incomplete stories by position and typology." (9:51). . In Phase I of the research Engebretson develOped the projective stories (”1 the typology. To elicit values she composed ten incomplete stories describ- ing managerial decision situations which most families en- counter. The stories represented a sequence of a family's 31 life experience, each followed by two questions, "What should be done?" and "Why?” The respondents were to answer in the "should" or "ought" mode to elicit concepts of the desirable. One story out of the ten dealt with a situation involving home furnishings in which the family was asked to decide about the living room furniture when it had become scratched and worn-looking. Four typologies embodied two general themes and ten specific themes based on ideas from literature and evidences in the trial responses. The four value types were traditional, social, autonomous and change-prone. The analysis consisted Of counts of codes by type and by story and theme. MOreover, story'and theme value profiles and a composite value profile were developed for each individual. The subjects were women from three groups: Women's Extension Group, Child Study Club and College Women's Vol- unteer Service. A total of 63 women, 21 in each group, par- ticipated. Generally, autonomous and traditional values were found in the study. There were some differences in values based on income and education, supporting the premise that values vary with socio-economic level. Of particular interest to this study were the responses to the projective story about furniture. -In fact, most of the social values and change-prone values were coded from the story on furniture. Older women tended to have more traditional profiles on the 32 furniture story. Generally, values relating to the house and its furnishings were somewhat more autonomous than those relating to the children and family members. Continuing the second phase of the study, Martin (2h) explored the values of the entire family using the same conceptual framework, projective device and analysis typology. Fifty-one families comprised of husband, wife and children between the ages of 12 and 18, participated in the study. Comparisons were possible between individual members by paired-comparison roles. The results were similar to the .Engebretson study. Traditional and autonomous values predominated in the family's composite value profiles. Although most of the change-prone values were coded for material possessions (furniture), autonomous values occurred in this category. In paired-comparisons, wives and daughters and parents had more autonomous values for furniture. These studies contribute to knowledge frOm the theo- retical framework of the concept of the desirable. The in- complete stories appeared to be meaningful to the respondents and elicited value-laden material from which values could be identified by means of the constructed typology. Future research could organize and compare values in this frame- work. CHAPTER III CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Values play a variety of roles in human behavior. The purpose of this research was to investigate the relation- ship between general values and the decisions made about a family's home furnishings choices. Home furnishings were considered to be one kind of resources for a family. The interrelatedness of the concepts of home management: values, decision-making and resources are considered vital to this research. Home furnishings utilization as one expression Of a person's value behavior has not been studied to any great extent. In the related research chapter (p. 9), studies mentioned reveal interest in the subject but the real world of the family's actual behavior has been virtually untouched. For this study the conceptual framework embodies values as one determinant of preferential behavior. Charles Merrie explained the concept of preferential as: An organism may be said to exhibit positive preferen- tial behavior to an object or situation if it acts so as to maintain the presence of this object or situa- tion, or to construct this object or situation if it is not present. It exhibits negative preferential behavior if it seeks to move away from this object or situation, or to destroy or prevent the occurrence of this Object or situation. Since life process depends on the selection or rejection of certain objects or 33 3h situations, preferential behavior (positive or nega- tive) is a basic phenomenon of life. (26:16) The relationship of values and decision-making theory was suggested from this viewpoint by Davidson, McKinsey and Supperes, "We take it as the general function of formal value theory to provide formal criteria for rational decision, choice and evaluation." (15:131) According to C. West Churchman, decision-making theory is "an attempt to find criteria for selecting 'optimal' de- cisions among a set of alternative actions--where Optimality is based . . . on some measure of the values of various out- comes that may result from selecting each of the actions." (15:126) The selected definition of values for this research study was that values are recognized as the central factors in human motivation and major determinants Of behavior. Values are reflected in the preferential behavior of husbands and wives who, in their decision—making, select among alternatives a choice which is verbally expressed for the utilization of home furnishings. In this research values were measured in three ways. First, they were inferred from a selection of alternatives on a forced-choice basis in the AVL test. Second, values were measured by verbal responses or expressed reasons for the respondent's choice for utilization of home furnishings. Third, actual preferences of home furnishings objects made under 35 conditions of a stress choice situation as prOpOsed in a hypo- thetical question. The respondent's reasons for these choices were given. The interrelationship of the three measurement methods are discussed. Values as defined in this research agree with Morris's "operative" value group which are preferred, desired values and are preferential selections among available alternatives. The writings of Dodd reflect the use of Operative values. His definition of value was "anything desired or . chosen by someone.” (40:3) Support for the expressed reason or verbal response methodology for inferring values was. offered by Dodd, "We take as its indicator what a respondent in a poll says he wants . . . thus a respondent's values are operationally defined by recording his asserted desires on choices among alternatives in a poll situation." (h0:3) In the writings of Raths, Hamin and Simon are expresssed criteria which result in a value. These ideas relate to the present study in their descriptive terminology of the process of valuing. "Values must be freely selected if they are to be really valued by the individual . .9. there can be no choice if there are no alternatives to choose from. . . . Values flow from choices that we are glad to make. . . . When we have chosen something freely, after consideration of the alternatives, and when we are proud of our choice, glad to 36 be associated with it, we are likely to affirm that choice when asked about it. We are willing to publicly affirm our values. . . . Where we have a value, it shows up in aspects of our living. . . . We may spend money on a choice we value. . . . We budget time or energy for our values. In short, for a value to be present, life itself must be affected. . . . Values show up in several different situations, at several different times. Values tend to have a persistency, tend to make a pattern in a life." (33:28-30) The subjects of this study were husbands and wives. And the challenge of research in the identification and awareness of values of husbands and wives contains implica- tions for home management and family life. Ivan Nye observes that "at the family level, if an adequate measure of the values relevant to the family could be constructed and spouses could be matched with respect to those values, conflict in marriage could be reduced, perhaps greatly." (28:241) CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY This chapter will explain the definition of terms, assumptions, objectives, hypotheses, the sample, the instru- ments, the pretest, the data collection, the coding, relia- bility and validity, and the method of analysis. Definition of Terms ' For the purposes of this study, the terms were 1 defined in this manner: I Values-are the basic interests, evaluative attitudes or motives in personality which are major determinants of ' behavior. Allport-Vernon-Lindzey values are values ascertained by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values test. The six value categories are theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political and religious. For brevity this test will frequently be referred to as the AVL test while the values measured by this test will be called AVL values. Dominant AVL value is the value which scores out- standingly high on the AVL test. If there is no outstandingly high score, the high score determines the dominant value. Outstandingly high and high scores are based on limits 37 38 determined by the AVL test results on a collegiate popula- tion. 9 Dominant expressed reason vglues are values deduced from expressed reasons and categorized in the same six value classifications as the AVL test but modified in definitional content specifically in the context of home furnishings. For brevity this value will be referred to as the dominant ER value. Egpregsed reasons are the verbal responses given by husbands and wives explaining the utilization of home furn- ishings. Utilization is the act of using for a purpose. To further define this term for the present study, utilization refers to furnishings in use and visible irrespective of being a purchase or a gift. Home fuggishings are all the furniture and objects in use and visible within the confines of the respondent's apartment. Objects which were visible were assumed to have some importance and meaning to the reSpondents. No attempt was made to investigate the contents of closets or storage areas. The classification system of the furnishings group- ings evolved after reviewing the pretest and noting the types of objects and the expressed reasons., For the purposes Of this study home furnishings were divided into nine groupings: University Furniture, Personal Furniture, Textile Furnishings, Lamps, TV-Radio-Stereo, 39 Books-Magazines-Newspapers, Religious Objects, Art Objects and Miscellaneous Accessories. For comparison purposes two additional groupings were used: Total Home Furnishings and Total Home Furnishings minus University Furniture. Univereity Furnituge is a group of eight objects provided by and owned by the University. These objects are: desk, sofa, dining table, four dining chairs, two lounge chairs, mirror, bed and chest of drawers. Personal Furniture are movable articles owned and provided by the occupants to supplement University furniture, such as chairs, tables, and tables, bookcases. Textile Furnishings are movable articles primarily composed of fabrics such as draperies, curtains, rugs, slip covers, blankets, afghans, pillows. ngpg are movable lighting fixtures. Religious Objects are movable articles related to or an expression of religion such as madonnas, candelabras, paintings of religious subjects, calendars, crucifixes. Art Objegts are movable Objects which respondents considered to have an aesthetic function. These include paint- ings, prints, sculpture. Miscellapeous Accesgories are movable objects which respondents considered to have a useful function. These include clocks, vases, collections. This is a residual category. #0 Assumptions 1. The six general values under consideration may be ascertained for each family member by the research methods utilized. 2. All families living in Spartan Village add home furnishings in the apartment for their own utilization. Objectives 1. To identify the profile of values, as measured by the AVL instrument, of the husband and the wife individually and to determine which of the values measured is held in highest priority by the husband and the wife individually. 2. To inventory the home furnishings and to query the husband and the wife individually regarding expressed reasons for the utilization of home furnishings. 3. To classify the expressed reasons into value categories for the husband and the wife individually. A. To analyze the relationship of the dominant AVL value and the dominant ER value for husbands and wives in- dividually and for husbands and their wives. Hypotheses 1. In the majority of cases, husbands and wives in the family will hold the same dominant AVL value. 2. The dominant AVL value held by the husband will be the dominant value reflected in his expressed reasons for the present use of home furnishings. 41 3. The dominant AVL value held by the wife will be the dominant value reflected in her expressed reasons for the present use of home furnishings. Married couples do share some values in common. Using the AVL test, the research of Schooley (37) supported this premise. If values are dominant in one area of behavior, con- sistencies should be seen in other areas. A. The dominant AVL value of the wife will be reflected to a greater extent in her expressed reasons for the present use of home furnishings than will the husband's dominant AVL value be reflected in his expressed reasons. Home furnishings decisions have been viewed as a pri- mary concern of the wife rather than the husband. 5. The ER value underlying use of lamps will have a higher measure of association with the dominant AVL value than will any other category of home furnishings. The lamp preference test used in the study, Workingman's Wife (32), revealed tastes and conflicting motivations of women. Therefore, lamps were chosen as a special furnishing object to be evaluated for value content. 6. The dominant ER value of the inventory items with a six or seven weighted rating on the Scale of Importance will be identical to the dominant AVL value. See explanation under hypothesis three. 7. The items in the Rank Order Scale will have a six or seven weighted rating in the Scale of Importance. This hypothesis served as a measure of reliability. 42 Sample: Rationale, Criteria, and Selection The sample consisted of 50 student couples living in Spartan Village, a married student housing area of Michigan State University. Rationale for Sample Spartan Village was considered to be a suitable loca- tion for conducting the study for several reasons. The com- munity had a p0pu1ation of 6A8 couples who might meet the criteria of the sample. In order to live in this area, at least one member of the family must be a student. And for- tunately research studies are not unfamiliar to these students. Since university students can be expected to possess a rela- tively high level of SOphistication in the verbalization of ideas, an important consideration in this study, this group was especially desired as subjects. The university provides all families in Spartan Village with the same quantity and type Of furniture all included in the rental price. The furnishings were located within iden- tical space allotments. Thus, the confined space contained a quantity of personal and University furnishings which could be inventoried by the researcher within a reasonable length of time. Three variables—~amount of space, arrangement of space and one group of University furnishings--were thus controlled. The Michigan State Housing Office approved using the area for research purposes and supplied a list of one-bedroom #3 apartments in the area. The Housing Office provided a draw- ing of Spartan Village Plot Plan, Chart 1, and a floor plan of the one-bredroom apartment units, Chart 2 (see Appendix pp. 158-9. Obviously, the convenience and availability of the area to the researcher were important considerations. Criteria for Sample The sample to be surveyed was selected by the follow- ing criteria: 1. Families must reside in identical one-bedroom apart— ments in Spartan Village. The variables Of amount of space, arrangement of space and one group of University furnishings were thus controlled. 2. Families must consist of husband and wife with no children. This study omitted families with children for several reasons. Verbalization of expressed reasons is an important aspect of this study and can probably best be done by the adults of the family who make the decisions about furnishings. Until they are teenagers, children would be ex- pected to make few decisions about the majority of furnishings items for the family. Since the area selected for the re- search study contained few families with teenagers, an ade- quate research sample of these families could not be Obtained. Then too, with small children in the family, the quantity of furniture directly related to the children's needs would be substantially increased and probably without comparable increase in value-laden material. Ah 3. Husbands and wives must be available at the same time for test-taking and interview. The interview situation was controlled to limit the discussion of the details of the research between husband and wife. Also, separate private interviews were conducted with each person to minimize the influence of one spouse upon the other. A. A collegiate p0pu1ation was used because the stand- ardized AVL instrument had established reliability and val- idity for this population. Selection of Sample The Housing Office at Michigan State University sup- plied a list of one-bedroom units in Spartan Village. There were a total of 6A8 one-bedroom apartments grouped together in units of 12, 6 on the ground level and 6 on the first floor. The apartment unit is numbered by a unit numeral, and each individual apartment is lettered alphabetically from A through L within the unit. For the selection of the simple random sample, the list of apartments was arranged in consecutive numerical order including the alphabetical listing as a consecutive sub-order. A consecutive number was assigned to each apart- ment liSted. Using a table of random numbers, the researcher drew an initial sample Of 50 apartment numbers from the p0pu1ation. It was necessary to increase the sample to 110 apartments before a sample of 50 families who met the criteria and were A5 willing to participate in the study became available. Families did not meet the criteria for various reasons. Sometimes there were children in the household. At other times either husband or wife was away for the summer or fam- .ilies were in the process of moving so that the furnishings were incomplete. A number of empty apartments were found in the sample. Also, several families did not respond to a telephone call although the researcher made three calls be- fore the family was disqualified. And, finally, conflicting schedules of either husband or wife or both and the researcher .caused problems in several cases. Only four families refused Ito OOOperate in the study. The total random sample drawn from the p0pu1ation was distributed as follows: ‘ Completed interviews 51 One interview rejected on the basis of incomplete information available . Children in the family 9 Empty apartments 27 Families in process of moving 5 NO responses to 3 telephone calls 3 Husband or wife away for the summer 6 Conflicting schedule problem 5 Refusals __5 Total 110 Using the unit numbers of the apartments drawn from the random sample, a house call was made to gain COOperation in the study. Even though a minimum of information regarding 46 the purpose of the study was disclosed, the researcher did tell the families that the study was being conducted for the purpose of doctoral research. They were informed that the study concerned values and home furnishings and that the interview would require both the husband and the wife to be present together for approximately one hour of interview time. Arrangements were made for an interview time which was scheduled at the convenience of the participants. Inter- views occurred from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and lasted from one to two and one-half hours. If no one was at home at the time of the first house call, the researcher secured the name of the occupants from the listing on the mail boxes. Using the student directory, a telephone call was made to gain cooperation in the study. The researcher made three telephone calls to locate the family before they were disqualified. Instruments Utilized in the Study The following instruments were utilized in the study: Basic Data Schedule, Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, Home Furnishings Inventory Schedule, Scale of Importance, and Rank Order Scale. Basic Data Schedule The basic data schedule recorded pertinent family and individual data. It listed the name of the interviewee, date of interview, duration of interview, length of time living in Spartan Village, number of years married, education, college 47 major, age, religion, family money income, source of current income, employment, occupation and occupational aspiration. Allport-Vergon-Lindzey Study_of Values . This research used the Allport-Vernon—Lindzey Study of Values, third edition, 1960 test booklet (Appendix, p. 160). This is a forced-choice paper and pencil test that poses a number of questions with alternative answers which may be weighted in various combinations dependent upon the accept- ability of the statement to the respondent. A high score on one value can be obtained only by reducing correspondingly the score on one or more of the other values. Then the total scores are plotted on a profile. An interpretation of the profile is based on ranges established by testing a large sample of the collegiate p0pu1ation, and the Study Of Values has been standardized with established reliability and validity for a college p0pu1ation. The test "aims to measure the relative prominence of six basic interests or motives in personality: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political and religious. The classification is based directly upon Eduard Spranger's Types of Men which defends the view that the personalities of men are best known through a study of their values or evaluative attitudes." (1:3) For the purpose of this study, the dominant value, either outstandingly high or high value, was selected for comparison purposes. Home Furnishings Inventory Schedule Through preliminary observation within several A8 one-bedroom apartments the interviewer developed an inventory form'for recording pertinent information. This form allowed recording of the list of furnishings found in each apart- ment, the expressed reason for each furnishings item, the coding of the value category and a scale of importance from 1 (low) to 7 (high) for each furnishings item. Furnishings were defined as furniture and objects in use and visible within the confines of the respondent's apartment. The inventory was used as the basis for asking the couples the WHY question-~WHY did the couples utilize these particular furnishings? The purpose of the WHY question was to dis- cover their expressed reason, the verbal responses explain- ing their actions with.respect to utilization of home furn- ishings. Each value category from the AVL test was Opera- tionalized in the context of home furnishings (Appendix p. 11.8 I. chlg of Impgrtance The respondents ranked their furnishings on a Scale of Importance, with ratings one through seven. Ratings of one and two were considered to have relatively low importance tO‘the person while six and seven ratings were considered to have relatively high importance. Rank Order Seals The researcher asked a hypothetical situation question in an attempt to determine what furnishings of all A9 those in use were the mostfiimportant to the respondents. The situation posed was: If there was a fire in your apart- ment, what home furnishings object would you choose to save first? Only one Object may be saved. Why would you save this Object? After the first choice was made, the subjects indicated the last choice. Then they named the next four most important home furnishings items in order of importance. The reason for saving each item accompanied the choice. Furthermore, only items which were on the preceding inventory list could be chosen. This particular hypothetical situation question was used for several reasons. Because a fire is a drastic situ- ation and moves peOple to immediate action, it compels them to make important choices very quickly. Also, this question served as a check to see'if items which were important in the hypothetical situation were consistently important when ranked on the Scale of Importance. Validity and Reliability of Instruments The AVL test has external validation, which has been established by examining norms representing various groups, for example, norms for men and women or for occupational groups. In nearly all cases the high and low scores corres- pond well with a prior expectation. For reliability data, the AVL was submitted to internal consistency tests by two methods: split-half reliability SO and item analysis. The mean reliability coefficient for split-half reliability using a z transformation was .90. The item analysis shows a positive cOrrelation for each item with the total score for its value, significant at the .01 level of confidence. A measure of repeat reliability was deter- mined for two populations. The mean repeat reliability co- efficient using the z transformation was .89 for a month interval and .88 for a two month interval. A reliability check for the self-constructed instru- ment was made by requesting the respondents to choose the five most important furnishings objects to save in a fire. All furnishings objects had previously been ranked on the Scale of Importance by the respondents during the Home Furn- ishings Inventory interview. Ratings of six or seven were the highest weighted ranking on the Scale of Importance. The five most important furnishings objects were hypothesized to have ratings of six or seven. Agreement between the rankings was 82.h percent for the total population, 97.1 percent for wives and 74.1 percent for husbands. Pretest A pretest of four couples meeting the criteria for the sample was conducted to ascertain the productivity of the instruments and the workability of the tentative cate- .gorization system. The responses were encouraging. Re- spondents, even though admitting they had thought little 51 about ggy they had utilized particular home furnishings, proved that they could easily verbalize expressed reasons for such utilization. Upon examination of the pretest data it was noted that several reasons were sometimes given by a respondent for one item of home furnishings. Psychological research procedures generally accept that the first reason which comes to mind is the most significant reason. But in succeeding interviews, when this situation occurred, the respondent was asked to indicate the most important reason, among various reasons expressed, for the utilization of an item. This most important reason was then underscored on the in- ventory and was the only expressed reason used per inventory item in the data analysis. A coding manual was develOped and contained the AVL definitions of the six value categories, interpretations of these definitions within a home furnishings context, and actual expressions of respondents illustrative of each value. Data Collection The data were collected by test taking and by personal interview in the respondent's home. The researcher inter— viewed 44 families of the total sample of 51 families. An assistant interviewer, trained by the researcher, completed the interviews of seven families. The researcher briefly explained to the respondents 52 the procedure which was to follow. First, personal and family data were obtained from each family with both the husband and wife present. These data were recorded on the interview schedule by the interviewer. The husband and wife each had a copy of the schedule before them to follow as the researcher asked for each item of information. The couples were asked whether either had taken the AVL test at any previous time. Only one husband in the total sample had previously taken the test. But since a long period of time had elapsed, it was not considered a significant detri- ment to his retaking the test. The husband and wife individ— ually and simultaneously completed the AVL test. The re- Spondents were told they might ask the researcher questions at any time during the test-taking if the questions were relevant to understanding the test. Several questions were directed to the researcher as to the meaning of specific words used in the test such as altruistic. While the AVL test was being taken, the researcher, after obtaining permission to see the whole apartment, in- ventoried the home furnishings in use and visible within the. confines of the respondent's apartment. The couples were told that the contents of clOsets or cupboards were of no interest to the researcher and would not be recorded. The inventory sheets-were prepared in duplicate by the interviewer, since the recording of expressed reasons and the weighting of the importance of objects was done individually by the 53 husband and wife. Because the time required for the in— ventory was usually shorter than that required for the com- pletion of the AVL test, the interview procedure was not continued until both participants had completed the test. After the completion of the AVL test, husbands and wives were interviewed separately and alone. It was desir- able to have the answers given individually so that the presence of the mate would not influence the answers. Even though it meant some inconvenience to leave the room or the apartment, the respondents cooperated. The researcher felt that subjects responded thoughtfully. During the individual interview the respondents were asked to give an expressed reason for the utilization of each item of home furnishings, to rate the furnishings in importance to them on the scale of one through seven and to answer the hypothetical situation question ranking the five most important furnishings items in order Of importance and identify the least important furnishings item. The total interview was completed in times varying from one hour to two and one-half hours. The time differences were related to the number of home furnishings items on the inventory, the complete understanding of directions and the verbosity of respondents. Before leaving the respondent's apartment, the researcher checked the AVL test for complete— ness. If the respondents had omitted anything, they com- pleted the items during this time. Coding The value categories,theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political and religious were taken from the AVL test. Using the expressed reasons from the pretest as a benchmark, the content Of the categories was expanded to relate directly to home furnishings. In the develOpment of the definitional content of the six categories, the expressed reasons were examined on a random sample basis for examples of actual expressions used by husband or wife. These ver- balizations were classified into the six AVL value categories and named Expressed Reason Values. A residual category, No Expressed Value, was also used because some respondents had answered that they "didn't know" or had given incomplete or ambiguous reasons which could not be classified. A Coding Manual incorporating value category definitions from the . AVL, value definitions in the context of home furnishings and actual expressed reasons given by respondents follows in Appendix F, p. 1A8. The inventory schedule for husbands and wives was prepared in duplicate and checked for agreement of total number of inventory items. When respondents offered more than one reason per item, a check was made of the expressed reasons to see that the most important reason was underscored. Only one expressed reason was coded per item. 55 In an attempt to reduce coding bias, both the re- searcher and an independent coder categorized the expressed reasons into value categories. This categorization was done before the AVL test results were known. After classifica- tion, the independent coder and the researcher compared their categorizations. A disagreement of less than ten percent was noted. After verbal discussion between the researcher and the coder all disagreements were resolved. A residual category was utilized for reasons which were incomplete or could not be classified, for example, "don't know." The AVL tests were scored according to procedures outlined by the AVL manual. This study sought outstandingly high or high values as the dominant value, for according to the AVL manual only larger peaks or depressions in the value pro file as measured by the test are significant. Outstand- ingly high value had precedence over high value. High scores exceed the range of 50 percent of all male or female scores on a particular value, while outstandingly high scores ex- ceed the range of 82 percent of all male or female scores for a particular value. If a person did not reveal outstand— ingly high or high value according to the AVL criteria, the highest numerical score designated the dominant value; this condition was unusual for the respondents of this study. Analysis Following the AVL test precedures, scores were determined 56 for the six values tested. A value profile was developed for each respondent, but for the purposes of this study only the value with the highest score (dominant value) was used. The dominant value was determined for the husband and the wife individually. The ER values were determined by the categorization or expressed reasons into the same AVL value categories. To minimize possible bias the researcher and an independent coder categorized the expressed reasons. A high level of agreement (90 percent) was reached between the independent coder and the researcher before the final coding. For each respondent, the dominant ER value was ascer- tained from the highest number of expressed reasons in a value category. If an equally high number of expressed rea- sons were found in more than one value category the dominant ER value was titled multimodal. The dominant ER value was tabulated for eight individual furnishings categories, one sub-total and one total category. A Scale of Importance was constructed for each home furnishings inventory item by the respondent's ranking the items from one to seven. A seven ranking was considered the most important and a one ranking least important. A Rank Order Scale was determined from verbalizations by the respondents of a rank ordering of the five most im- portant furnishings items that had been inventoried. These five items were checked for their Scale of Importance ratings 57 -of six or seven. The data were analyzed for comparisons of the dominant AVL and dominant ER values by the various furnishing cate- - gories. AVL values and ER values, Scale of Importance and Rank Order Scale were analyzed individually. Comparisons were made for husbands and wives as a group and for individual couples. An hypothesis was considered to be supported if a majority of respondents replied in accord with it. A ma- jority was defined as over half of the number of respondents. CHAPTER V DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE In this chapter the couples are described according to ages of husbands and wives, number of years married, length of residence, formal education, religion, gainful occupa- tion, employment, sources and amounts of family income. Since an objective was to study couples residing in identical hous- ing units, student couples living in Spartan Village, Michigan State University Married Housing, were selected as subjects. Review of Table 1 shows that 76 percent of the hus- bands and 86 percent of the wives were under 25 years of age. The husbands tended to be older than their wives by one to five years with the majority of husbands one or two years older than wives. Approximately 20 percent of the couples were the same age, while only two wives in the sample were older than their husbands. ‘ The sample represents couples in the beginning stage of the family life cycle. None of the couples had children, a pre-requisite for inclusion in the sample. Fifty percent Of the couples had been married lees than one year while. 96 percent had been married less than four years as shown in Table 2. 58 59 Table l.--Ages of husbands and wives Husbands , Wives Age Classes Number Percent Number Percent 18-21 10 20 21 42 22-25 28 56 22 44 26-35 12 24 7 14 Total 50 100 50 100 *fi—v Table 2.—-Number of years married by number of couples I ' Couples Number of Years Married Number Percent 1 year or less 25 50 2-4 years 23 46 5-6 years 2 A Total 50 100 Mainly, the place of residence for these subjects since marriage had been Spartan Village, their first and only place of residence. As indicated in Table 3, 72 percent of the couples lived in this place of residence less than two years. 3 As indicated in Table 4 all husbands were in college. For husbands the undergraduate enrollment was 62 percent, 60 Table 3.--Length of residence by number of couples m Couples Length of Time Number Percent Less than 1 year i 19 38 1 to 2 years 17 34 2 to 3 years 14 28 Total 50 100 Table 4.--Formal education of husbands and wives —'—v ;-:_ " ____ 1.. 1 w. ‘1- Highest Grade Husbands Wives Attended Number Percent Number Percent High school 9 18 College . lst year 3 6 2nd year 4 8 6 12 3rd year 15 30 6 12 4th year 12 24 19 38 Graduate 19 38 6 12 Other* 1 2 Total 50 100 50 100 F.— *5th year study—internship beginning at the sOphomore level, while 38 percent were gradu- ate students, master's or doctoral candidates. As a group husbands were better educated than wives whereas the range of educational background was greater for wives. For this 61 sample 18 percent had no college background, 68 percent were undergraduates from the freshmen to senior levels and only 12 percent were graduate students. One wife had an internship year beyond her baccalaureate degree. Of the wives in college, the largest proportion were at the senior level while the largest prOportion of husbands were at the graduate level. An equal number of husbands and wives were Catholics (22%), Protestants (68%) and Jewish (6%) (Table 5). One couple indicated no religious preference and one couple indicated Latter Day Saints as their religious preference. Further analysis by couples revealed three couples were Jewish, 21 couples were Protestant and ten couples were Catholics. Twelve couples stating Protestant preferences had one partner of a different Protestant religion. In two cases, each couple had one partner of a different religious’ faith, either Catholic or Protestant. Table 5.--Religion of husbands and wives Husbands Wives Religion NEEEEF7'-—PEFEEEE NEEBEFF-I‘PEFEERE Catholic 11 22 ll 22 Protestant 34 68 34 A 68 Jewish 3 6 3 6‘ Other* 2 4 2 4 Total 50 100 50 100 *Latter Day Saints or no stated preference. 62 Professional and managerial occupations show the highest percentages for both husbands and wives. As Table 6 indicates, 46 percent of the husbands and 40 percent of 1 their wives were in this category. Forty percent of the wives were employed in clerical and sales positions. .In fact, secretarial occupations are characteristic occupations for women in the age group of the sample. Service, skilled and unskilled occupations have fewer number of workers. Be- cause of the educational level of the sample, both husbands and wives tended to have training and preparation over and above that required for service and unskilled occupations. lore husbands than wives were not employed, 26 percent of the husbands and 12 percent of the wives. Furthermore, the wives tended to be the sole support in the families where the husband did not work. Table 6.-—Gainful Occupations of husbands and wives ====================--—-—-—--u_ —:-——-.-——.___._.._. Occupational Husbands Wiv s ' Category m m ProfeSsional and managerial 23 46 20 4O Clerical and sales 5 10 20 40 Service 6 12 3 6 Skilled l 2' 1 2 Unskilled 2 4 No employment 13 26 6 12 Total 50 100 50 100 63 Most important to note in Table 7 is that 74 percent of the wives were employed full time compared to only 24 percent of the husbands. A larger prOportion of the hus- bands work part-time (46 percent) while part-time work for wives was only 12 percent. Thirteen husbands did not have outside employment and were full-time students. Of the six wives who did not hold an outside job, three were full-time students and three were full-time homemakers. Table 7.--Gainful employment of husbands and wives Husbggds Wives Classification Number Percent Number Percent Full-time 12 24 37 74 Part-time 23 46 6 12 Occasiona11y* 2 4 1 2 No outside employment 13 26 6 12 Total 50 100 50 100 *Less than half-time employment About 86 percent of the couples reported incomes between 82000-7999. Only eight percent fell under $2000 . and six percent were over $7999. The largest group, 48 percent, were in the 35000-7999 income range (Table 8). "The median income of all families in 1963 was about $6200; but for families headed by college graduates, 64 the median was $9,700." (39:1—3) Approximately half of the families in this study received incomes equal to the median income for the United States, but a larger prOportion of families in the nation earned incomes over $7000 than was found in the study. The future prospect for families in this study is to increase incomes as the educational attain- ment of the head increases. Table 8.--Tota1 annual family income* by number of couples Couples Income Range Number Percent Under $2000 4 ' 8 $2000-4999 l9 38 $5000-7999 24 48 Over $7999 3 6 ‘ Total 50 100 *Before taxes Sources of income were categorized as follows: em- ployment, grants, fellowships and assistantships, savings and investments, ahd parents. Forty-eight percent of the husbands and 84 percent of the wives reported employment as the major source of income (Table 9). Since many husbands were graduate students, 30 percent of the husbands stated that grants, fellowships and assistantships were an income 65 source. A surprisingly small percentage of both husbands and wives revealed that their parents were an income source, three husbands and one wife. Even though six husbands and two wives reported several income sources, they listed em- ployment as the major income source. Table 9.--Sources of income for husbands and wives Husbands Wivesr_- Source Number Percent Number Percent Employment 24 48 42 84 Grants-Fellowships- Assistantships 15 3O 2 Savings-Investments 5 10 Parents 3 6 1 2 Employment of spouse only 9 18 4 8 Multi-sources 6 12 2 4 CHAPTER VI FINDINGS Discussion of the findings will be divided into: Comparison of AVL and MSU pOpulations; dominant AVL values; Comparison of dominant AVL and ER values; Analysis of AVL and ER values by furniture category; dominant ER values; Value Profiles of thirteen selected couples; Scale of Im- portance and Rank-Order Scale. Comparison of AVL and MSU POpulations The Allport-Vernon—Lindzey Study of Values is a test of values standardized on a college pOpulation. This AVL study pOpulation sampled students from liberal arts colleges. But Michigan State University (MSU), from which the popula- tion of this study was selected, is a land-grant institution and as such would be expected to have a broader representa- tion of specialized majors in technical and professional fields than would a liberal arts college. In the AVL study spe- cialized.norms for technically-trained groups were separated from the general norms. And Table 10 indicates that college students of the MSU study pOpulation had many majors in the areas referred to in the AVL study as technically-trained. In fact, 54 percent were classified in technically-trained groups. 66 67 Table lO.--College majors of husbands and wives #— ‘1 Husbands Wives College Major Number Percent Number Percent Liberal Arts (Trained)* Humanities Art, Basic 001., Span., Speech 1 2 5 10 Social Science Hist., Div. Soc. Sci., Econ., Pol. Sci., Psych., Soc. Sci., Socio. ll 22 A 8 Science Bio., Chem., Math., Phys., Physio., Zoo. 11 22 2 4 Pr i nal (Technically Trained)* Business Acc., Market., Advert., Retail., Bus. Adm. ll 22 h 8. Agriculture Animal Husb., Orn. Hort. 2 4 Education Art Ede, Bus. Ede, Ede, Ele. Ed., Home Econ. Eda, PhYSio Ed. 4 8 Technology Chem. Eng., Elec. Eng., Ind. Arts, Int. Design, Med. Sec., Med. Tech. Nursing, Pkging, Police Adm., Res. Bldg., Secre. Sci., Nutr., Food Sci. 10 20 8 16 Total 50 100 Al 82 *Terminology from AVL Manual, p. 11. 68 The differences reflected in the two college p0pu1a- tions become evident in the comparisons of rank order of values, means and sex differences. For example, a compari- son of the rank order of AVL values from the AVL study p0pu- lation and the MSU study population as found in Tables ll-lh reveals a different rank-ordering of values. While theoret- ical and economic were the highest ranking values for the MSU p0pu1ation, political and religious ranked as the highest values for the AVL population. Social and aesthetic were the lowest ranking values for the MSU study p0pu1ation while social and economic were the lowest ranking values for the AVL p0pu1ation. A likeness occurred in the rank-order of the social value which exhibited the lowest ranking for both groups. Table ll.--Comparison of rank order of AVL values from AVL population and MSU p0pu1ation W 8,369 Subjects 100 Subjects AVL Population MSU POpulation 1. Political . 1. Theoretical 2. Religious 2. Economic 3. Aesthetic 3. Religious 4. Theoretical h. Political 5. Economic S. aesthetic 6. Social 6. Social 69 Sex differences were evident in the comparison of the p0pu1ations (Table 12). Each group of males ranked the same two values one and two, but in reverse order. Also, the two lowest ranking values for males were reversed. Po- litical was the highest ranking value in the AVL study, but theoretical was the highest ranking value for the MSU study for males. For the MSU males the lowest ranking value was social and for the AVL group aesthetic. Females had the same values in the first and second positions, aesthetic and religious, but again in reverse order. In the AVL p0pu1ation aesthetic was the highest ranking value while religious ranked highest for the MSU population. The lowest ranking value was theoretical for females in both populations. Table 13 reviews the mean scores for value categories for the AVL population and the MSU p0pu1ation, including the mean scores for males and females. The mean scores showed .the same tendencies as reported in the discussion of rank- order. Dominant AVL Values The dominant AVL value category for husbands and wives showed a wide distribution throughout the six value categories according to Table 15. The largest number of husbands (13) placed in the theoretical category, followed by economic, aesthetic and religious (tie), political and social while the number of husbands in the social category, the lowest rank, was four. HmoApmnoona .0 Hwoapmuoone .0 amwoom .0 oapo:pmo¢ .0 w .Hmoflflom .m 3288a .m oflmfimma .m 1.38 .m oasocoom .s Hmoapwaom .s msofiwwaom .4 msofimwaom .s Hmaoom .m Hmaoom .m Hmowpaaom .m o“sonoum .m owuonpmo< .N mooamflaom .m owSOcoow .N Hmoapouoone .N msoawwamm .H ofipmSpmm< .H Hmoapopomse .H Hmofipfiaom .H :oapmH5dom am: :oflpmasdom q>¢ :oapmasmom mm: qoaumazdom A>< 3838 RF 3335 mafia uncommsmipm 383% Sex moamsmm monmz moosouowmau Non >0 uoapmHsQOQ am: one soapmasmoa q>< Bonn mosam> A>< mo nacho Mama Ho conflummaoonu.ma capes 71 Table l3.--Comparison of AVL values by mean scores and sex differences from AVL p0pu1ation and MSU population ,...| w o 0 r4 m «4 o "-4 CU :3 p .a +2 0 o a) E a) H -:-| "-1 a o .c m .2 rm 0 ‘3 +3 «4 0H -r-{ G) O .CO O H H ,C: 0 G) O O (D Subject Cat egory 6* (:3 <3 '0 a. 0: 8,369 subjects AVL population mean 39.80 39.45 40.29 39.34 40.61 40.51 100 subjects MSU population mean 41.77 41.10 39.08 37.69 40.14 40.20 Sex Differences 5,894 males AVL population mean 43.09 42.05 36.72 37.05 43.22 37.88 50 males MSU population mean 45.58 42.95 36.65 35.37 41.76 .37.61 2,475 females AVL population mean 36.50 36.85 43.86 41.62 38.00 43.13 50 females MSU ' population mean 37.95 39.25 441.50 40.00 38.51 42.79 Table l4l-—AVL values by rank order; norms for AVL population and MSU p0pu1ation for males and females a: W W“ - Colle e Males College Females AVL Values AVL Norms fiSU Norms AVL Norms MSU Norms TheoretiCal 2 1 6 6 Economic 3 2 5 4 Aesthetic 6 5 1 2 Social 5 6 3 3 Political l 3 4 5 Religious 4 4 2 1 The same pattern of distribution throughout the AVL value categories was characteristic for wives. The largest 72 number of wives (ll) fell in the aesthetic value category followed by religious and economic (tie), theoretical, social and poltica1(tie). 1&0 number of wives in the lowest ranking categories of social and political was four for each category. Table 15.--Dominant AVL value of husbands and wives Husbands Wives Dominant AVL Value (N=50) (N=50) Theoretical l3 9 Economic 10 10 Aesthetic 8 11 Social 4 5 Political 2 5 Religious 8 10 The hypothesis that in a majority of cases husbands and wives in the family will hold the same dominant AVL value was not supported by this study. Of the 50 couples, l3 dis- played the same dominant AVL value. The dominant value cate- gory was theoretical for four couples, economic for one couple and religious for four couples (Table 16). If the couples do not hold the same dominant AVL value, 30 combinations of value categories were possible. A diversification of dominant AVL value combinations was repre- sentative of the couples in this study. Thirty-seven couples not holding the same dominant AVL value were classified in 19 different dominant AVL value combinations (Table 17). 73 Table l6.-—Dominant AVL value by couples Dominant AVL Value Number of Couples Percent Theoretical 4 8 Economic l 2 Aesthetic 4 8 Social Political Religious 4 8 Total 13 26 The findings of this study seem to support the idea that "like" does not necessarilyrmnnfir"1ike" with respect to, ' value orientations. Comparison of Dominant AVL and ER Values A basic research problem which this study preposed questioned the relationship between the dominant AVL value and the dominant ER value for husbands and for wives, each as a group, and for husbands and their wives. Dominant ER values are values deduced from expressed reasons for the utilization of home furnishings and categorized in the same six value classification as the AVL test but modified in definitional content specifically in the context of home furnishings. In order to record the expressed reason 74 Table l7.--Dominant AVL value by husbands and their wives ' ___ Husbands H m O O H O) .a o .a m s .9 -a .p o o 0 E 0 r4 #4 *1 m h o .c: m +9 b0 ('1 0 C3 +3 H H 0H :5 Dominant g 8 g 8 '3 '3 ‘3 AVL Value F' _ [:3 <1 U3 3* 0‘— 5" Theoretical 4 2 2 1 9 Economic 2 1 3 3 1 10 Aesthetic 1 3 4 1 2 11 U) m > or! 3 Social 1 l 3 5 Political 3 l l 5 Religious 2 4 4 10 Total 13 10 ' 8 5 7 8 so 75 categories, a summary sheet for each couple was developed. The number of expressed reasons was the same as the number of furnishings items recorded in the inventory taken in each apartment (Appendix, p. 144). On the summary sheet was re- corded the information according to furnishings categories, of which there were nine groupings: University Furniture; Personal Furniture; Textile Furnishings; Lamps; TV—Radio—Stereo; Books-Magazines-Newspapers; Religious Objects; Art Objects and Miscellaneous Accessories. The additional categories as summary categories were added: Total Household Furnishings . and Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture The reader is reminded that the definitions for each furn- ishings category are stated on page 39. Hypotheses two and three stated that the dominant AVL value held by the husband or the wife would be the same as the dominant ER value. Two total furnishings categories and nine individual furnishings categories were analyzed for comparisons of dominant AVL values and ER values for husbands, for wives and for husbands and their wives. Inspecting the Total Household Furnishings category (Tables 18 and 19) agreement of AVL value and ER value for husbands occurred for seven respondents. For wives, there was agreement in eight cases. The findings did not support the hypotheses for a majority of respondents. FUrther analysis of the agreement revealed that all the husbands had listed economic value as the dominant value 76 Table l8.——Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Total Household Furnishings v—v Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Economic 10 7 8 3 6 8 42 Social 1 Political Multimodal 1 2 l l 5* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 *Multimodal sub-total: ES (2), EP (1), EA (1), AS (1) Table l9.-—Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Total Household Furnishings W Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total _ Economic 6 7 8 4 5 8 3877f Aesthetic .1 l 2 Social 2 l l 6 multimodal 3 l 4* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: EA (4) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, ‘ P - Political, R = Religious 77 for both AVL and ER values, while seven of the eight wives in agreement had economic as the dominant AVL and ER value. Given that a majority of husbands (42) and wives (38) viewed Total Household Furnishings in the economic value category, it was not surprising to find that the agreement of the dominant AVL and ER values fell in the economic value category. Regardless of the dominant AVL value for either husband or wife, they viewed Total Household Furnishings category as economic. Reviewing the comparisons of husbands and their wives the economic value category predominated. Little differ- ence was apparent if either Total Household Furnishings or Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture was considered. The decision to omit University Furniture from the total category was made because this category was viewed primarily as economic value by a majority of husbands and wives (Tables 20 and 31); with a large number of objects (eight) in the category, it was thought that perhaps this might make a difference in the value orientation of the Total Household Furnishings. _The respondents seem to be highly' economic oriented in the overall view of furnishings. Hypothesis four that the AVL dominant value of the wife will be reflected to a greater extent in her expressed reasons for the present use of home furnishings than will the husband's AVL dominant value be reflected in his expressed reasons was not supported by this study. In summarm,husbands 78 Table 20.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture ._.___—.-_-__.~_——~—.m o...— "‘. --. Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S‘ P R Total Theoretical . l 1 Economic , 8 5 6 l 6 7 .33 Aesthetic ' 2 l l 4 Social 1 2 3 Political 'l 1 2 Multimodal 3 l 1 2 7* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 *Multimodal sub-total: ES (1), EA (2), TA (1), SP (1), EAP (l), TESP (1) Table 21.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Economic 5 4 3 5 5 28 Aesthetic 2 1 2 1 6 Social 4 2 l 3 11 Political 1 1 Multimodal 3 1 4* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: as (3). SP (1) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, P Political, R = Religious 79 and wives showed few differences (Table 22 and 23). Three groupings showed some differences. TV—Radio-Stereo and Art Objects had more agreement on the part of husbands with the AVL dominant value and ER dominant value. The category of Books-Megazines-Newspapers had more agreement on the part of wives. Analysis follows for each separate category. Analysis Dominant AVL and ER Values by Furnishings Category Respondents' value-laden perception of four furnish- ings categories: University Furniture, Personal Furniture, Lamps and Miscellaneous Accessories-~showed the greatest agreement between dominant AVL and ER values in economic. Eight husbands were in agreement in the categories of Uni- versity Furniture, Lamps and Miscellaneous Accessories and nine in the category of Personal Furniture (Tables 24-27). Similarly, nine wives agreed in the categories of University Furniture and Personal Furniture, eight in Miscellaneous Accessories and six in Lamps (Tables 28-31). -All the husbands and wives, who agreed about dominant AVL and ER values,considered University Furniture and Lamps to be totally in the economic value category. While a major- ity of husbands and wives thought Personal Furniture to be in the economic value category, they placed Miscellaneous Accessories in the value categories of economic, aesthetic and social. Since Miscellaneous Accessories encompassed a large variety of objects, one would expect a greater variation R values G‘ Ll AVL and dominant "nd L1 80 Husbands L omoarison of dominant for husbands and ine‘ n 0““U 22 L3 v V Voupl Table . W? .l U“ «ll AVL No. 4 71 x \n P D. «(u «D 14.. .34 1L at. db E at. ‘ mas “Hi .-a 1‘s 4-a .44 all ,aa («a 4.4 1.“ ,«a E T 3 A T 5 .2. I P P T I Di 1. 94.01.0111?” 30an Pt. «LT p. m1 «Dml «DJQPMII in «A no AmlRfln ii. «A Pu Tu xwu ab JD 11. x44 .73. lulu “Au ml. “D mll .L A... AA T4 Pu Tu Tu 1.4 Tu Tu Tu ”nu Nu JJ 40 JD . .13 D1 Ta ‘3 IO 44b NJ Ta 43 Tu 33 3.4 ml Tu JO Tu Tu A an.“ an.“ a; A 1J .L ,‘D _‘D FD «D 35 $1. «D no A 1D wag Tu emu xuu 9D. 00 in 33 we“ H E «D A ,‘D Tu A A A 2.4 «L «L 7.. no ‘2 Tu 34 Pg ab .Tu Tu q...“ .«u «D db 13 Pp Tu «am «L at Tu Tu n0 OJ «L Tu )2 «nu. Wu Q0 A vb Eu Tu mm Tu Ru 8 Wu ab an... In Tu E A .5 TD AAP~LA¢uRRTTPRARqLTRR nTTuTu.AP P «D ”.11.. P An AD ml 3 Tu ab 3. Pa P 40 Pg 1b 1,3 Tu an... .44 A P 1H0 ‘5 n «b «an V... 2a 3.... «Q P wD TA 30 «D 3g Tu 1W“ «44 Tu Tu Tu in“ Eu an «A 3U avg \H may an \D «3 Tu qau «Mu «in E (luluphlmiabA4301rm,AHDLam‘Amququabnn TmlRRmiDnP‘dRTaniTPRA l 6 7,090 l 2 3456 7890 .12 3456 780/01 2 3456 7890 .1 ll 2 2 2 2 2 5,, 2 2 22 333333333344444444445 ic, t? lversi Aesthet o 5 Un A n = Total Home Furnish- conomlc, VH‘ AJ E R = Religious Total Home Furnishings minu Reason Value, THF Theoretical, P = Political, T = 1, Expressed THF-UF = ocia (1 O R ings, Furniture, E S: Key 81 Table 23.--Number of husbands and wives in agreement of AVL dominant value-and ER dominant value by furnish- ings category ' Husbands ( Wives Furnishings Category' Number “Percent Number Percent Total Household" Furnishings 7 14 8 16 Total Households Furnishings minus University Furniture 5 10 8 16 University Furniture 8 l6. 9 18 Personal Furniture 9 18 9 18 Textile Furnishings 4~ 8 4 8 Lamps 8 16 7 14 TV-Radio-Stereo 6 12 l 2 Books-Magazines- Newspapers 2 9 18 Religious Objects 3 6 _ 2 ‘4 Art Objects 5 10 1 2 Miscellaneous Accessories 8 16 8 16 82 Table 24.—-Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: University Furniture Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P #__R Total: Economic 11 8 7 3 7 8 44 Political l l 2 Multimodal , l l l l 4* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 *Multimodal sub-total: as (4) Table 25.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Personal Furniture Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Economic 9 7 4 3 5 6 34 Aesthetic ' 2 2 Social 1 1 Political l l 2 Multimodal 3 2 l l 2 2 11* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 *Multimodal sub-total: ‘ TE (2), T8 (1), Tee (1), as (2), EP (1), EA (2), EAS (1), AP (1) ‘Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, Key: T = Theoretical E,= = Religious P = Political, R Table 26.-—Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Lamps W Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Theoretical 1 1 Economic 8 8 6 2 5 7 36 Aesthetic 1 1 2 l 5 Social 1 1 Political l l Multimodal 3 1 1 l 6* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 . *Multimodal sub-total: TE (1), EA (1), ES (1), EP (1), TAS (l), EAP (1) Table 27.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Miscellaneous Accessories Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value ' T E A S P R Total Economic 4 4 2 l 2 l3 Aesthetic 2 2 3 1' 4 1 13 Social 3 1 1 l l 7 Political 3 1 1 5 Multimodal 1 2 1 2 2 4 12* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 *Multimodal sub-total: TE (3), TESP (1), ES (2), EA (3), EAS (1), AS (1), ASP (1) Key: T 8 Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, P = Political, R 8 Religious ' 84 Table 28.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: University Furniture I -' Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Economic 7 9 10 5 5 8 44 Aesthetic l 1 Political 2 2 Multimodal l l 1 3* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: ES (1), EA (1). EP (1) Table 29.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Personal Furniture Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Theoretical . l 1 Economic 7 7 7 3 5 6 35 Social 2 2 2 2 2 8 Multimodal 2 1 l 2 6* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-tOtal: ES (1), EA (2), SP (1), TP (1), TAS (1) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, P = Political, R = Religious Table 30.-—Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Lamps Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E AW 3 P R Total Economic 6 6 7 4 5 6 34 Aesthetic 2 l l 2 6' Social 1 l l 3 Multimodal 2 2 l 2 7* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: EA (2), AP (1), SP (1), TBA (1), TES (1), EAS (1) Table 31.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Miscellaneous Accessories Dominant AVL Value ‘ Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Economic 4 2 l 2 3 2 l4 Aesthetic l 3 3 . 4 11 Social 1 3 2 3 2 11 Political 1 l Multimodal 2 2 5 2 2 13* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: EA (5), ES (2), EP (1), AS (3). EAS (1), TES (1) Key: T 8 Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, Political, R = Religious 86 in the way objects were regarded. And the findings bear out this supposition. Examining the dominant ER value categories for hus- bands and wives, it was evident that whatever the dominant AVL value, a majority of husbands and a majority of wives felt that University Furniture, Personal Furniture and Lamps were predominantly in the economic category. But the Mis- cellaneous Accessories showed a greater dispersion of value- categories. Textile Furnishings The agreement of dominant AVL values and dominant ER values for husbands was five and for wives four in Textile Furnishings (Tables 32 and 33). Wives value Textile Furn- ishings as economic and aesthetic while husbands denoted them as theoretical, economic and aesthetic. The dominant ER values for husbands and wives showed that the largest number of husbands and wives viewed Textile Furnishings as aesthetic. Yet a large number of both hus- bands and wives viewed textile furnishings as multimodal of which aesthetic was one of the value categories in a majority of cases. Therefore, in spite of a spread within several value categories, the aesthetic value'seems to be important for both husbands and wives in the Textiles category. Books-Magazings-Newspapers Husbands and wives differed in their consideration of Books-Magazines-Newspapers (Tables 34 and 35). Of the 87 Table 32.--Comparison of Dominant AVLvalue and dominant ER value of husbands: Textile Furnishings ’ » Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S , P E Total ‘ Theoretical l l l l 4 Economic 2 l . l 2 ' 6 Aesthetic 4 5 2 l 2 4 18 Social 1 . 1 Political 3 l . - - 4 Mhltimodal 3 2 2 3 10* None 2 2 2 l 7 Total 13 1o 8 4 ‘7 a _ so *Multimodal—sub;total: ’ EP (1), EA (3). EAS (2), EAP (1), TBS (2), TEAS (1) Table 33.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Textile Furnishings - MW Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Theoretical 3 1 4 Economic l 1 i - - l 1 4 Aesthetic 5 3 . 2 3 2 j 16 Social 1 1 3 Political 1 1 Multimodal - 2 4 l 6 15* None 2 7 Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 5O *Multimodal sub-total: TE (1), T3 (1), EA (4), TAS (2), EAS (3). TEAS (2), EASP (2) KEY: T = Theoretical, E 9 Economic, A = Aesthetic, S - Social, P - Political, R 8 Religious 88 nine husbands whose dominant AVL and dominant ER values- were in agreement, eight placed Books-Magazines-Newspapers in the theoretical category. One husband specified this furnishings category as religious. Only two wives agreed on dominant AVL and ER values with respect to this category. One wife viewed this category as political and one wife viewed the category as religious. The husband and his wife with religious as their dominant AVL value also listed religious as their dOminant ER value. They had a large number of religious books in their collection, and if this collection had been listed separately, the religious books might have been categorized as religious objects. However, they chose the books mainly for their religious value, consistent with their dominant AVL value. Since all the husbands were students, there was con- sistency in their view of the Books-Magazines-Newspapers cate- gory. The husbands thought this category related to their educational aims. Analyzing the dominant ER values of husf bands, a majority of husbands viewed Books-Magazines-Newspapers in the theoretical value category. Because wives classified this furnishings category in every value category, their~ view is more widely diversified. TV-Radio-Stereg The furnishings category of TV-Radio-Stereo was repre- sented in every home. Some families had one object while 89 Table 34.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Books—Magazines-Newspapers Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Theoretical 8 6 5 2 5 3 28 Social 2 l 2 5, Political 1 1 1 Religious l 1 Multimodal ' 2 4 2 l l 2 13* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 5O *Multimodal sub-total: TE (2), TP(1), T3 (8), SP (1), TSP (1) Table 35.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Books-Magazines-Newspapers Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total_ Theoretical l 5 2 2 l 11 Economic l 1 Aesthetic l 1 Social 4 3 7 Political ‘ l l l 1 5 Religious l l Multimodal 7 4 3 2 l 7 24* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: TEPH) TA (1), TP (7), T3 (10), ES (1), EP (1), SP (1), Key:P T12 TEeoréTical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S - Social, P = Political, R = Religious 90 others had more than one or even each of the objects encom- passed in this category. Forty-one of the 50 families owned a TV set. If the family did not own a TV, they usually offered an unsolicited apologetic explanation to the researcher. One husband and six wives agreed on their dominant AVL value and ER value as indicated in Tables 36 and 37. Whereas the husband fell in the economic value category, the wives' scores were distributed as follows: one in theoretical value, two in economic value and three in social value. Four- teen wives and 25 husbands expressed multimodal reasons for this furnishings category. An analysis of the multimodal category revealed that more than two-thirds of the husbands and wives placed social value as one ER value in the multi- modal category. Furthermore, a majority of husbands and wives had ER values in the social category, no matter what their dominant AVL value was. Generally, most husbands and wives placed, the TV-Radio-Stereo furnishings in the social value category, but many viewed these furnishings in several ways. Art Objects The furnishings category of art objects was found in the homes of 38 of the 50 families in the study. This furn- ishings category with its inclusion of paintings, sculpture and other objects generally accepted as primarily decorative objects, would be probably seen as aesthetic by most peOple. 91 Table 36.—-ComparisOn of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: TV-Radio-Stereo :—: fi-T Dominant AVL Value ‘ Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total Theoretical l 2 2 l 6 ‘Economic l l 1 l 4 Social 4 h l 3 1 13 Political 1 1 Multimodal 8 4 4 3 2 5 26* Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 5O *Multimodal sub-total: TE (4) TS (6), TP (1), ES (6), EP (1), SP (3). TBS (2), TSP (13, ESP (1), TESP (1) Table 37.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: TV-Radio-Stereo Dominant AVL Value DominanthR Value T E A S P R Total Theoretical l l 2 Economic 2 1 3 Aesthetic l 1 Social 6 5 7 3 3 4 28 Political 1 l 2 Multimodal 2 3 3 l 2 3 14* Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 5O ‘;Eultimodal sub—total: TS (31, TP (1), EA (2), ES (4), TEA (1), TES (l), TEP (l), TSP Key: T - Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S - Social, P = Political, R - Religious 92 The data show, however, that art objects were classified in every value category except economic and religious. The AVL value and ER value categdries of five husbands and.of one wife coincided (Table338 and 39). Four husbands ‘were theoretical, one husband political while the one wife ‘was theoretical. The distribution of the totals throughout the value categories of theoretical, aesthetic, social, polit- ical and multimodal showed very little difference for hus- bands. A majority of ER values of wives were classed in the aesthetic category. When the multimodal category was analyzed for wives, aesthetic was included in one-half of the cases. The analysis of the furnishings category, art objects, showed differences between the way husbands and wives con- sidered these objects. Husbands tended to perceive these objects in every value category except economic and relig- ious, regardless of their dominant AVL value. Even though ‘wives perceived these objects more as aesthetic, they gave some preferences to theoretical, social and political. W Obiects Religious Objects were not found in every home.2 In fact, 31 families out of the sample of 50 had no Religious Objects. In the study, Catholic, Jewish and Protestant ‘ homes all displayed Religious Objects, revealing that re-. ligious preference did not limit possession of these items, even though particular denominations are usually thought to 93 Table 38.-—Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Art Objects Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P 15. Tota__ Theoretical 4 2 l 2 9 Aesthetic 3 1 1 3 8 Social 2 2 2 6 Political 2 l l l l l 7 Multimodal 2 l 4 1 8* None 3 l 2 2 3 l 12 Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 5O *Multimodal sub-total: TS (2), TA (1), TP (1), SP (1), TAS (1), ASP (1), TEAS (1) Table 39.-~Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Art Objects — M _:——— ‘-: -: I :-2 1 Dominant AVL Value *t‘ Dominant ER Valg§_ T E A S P R Tota1_ Theoretical l 1 3 Aesthetic 3 5 l 2 3 -14 Social 2 l 2 l 2 8 Political l l l l 4 Mult imodal l 5 l l l 9* None 1 3 3 l 1 3 12 Total 9 10 ll 5 5 10 50 *fimltimodal sub-total: TA (2). T3 (2). TP (2), AS (2), SP (1), Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, = Political, R = Religious 94 display religious objects in the home more than other denom— inations. The number of religious objects tended to be very small; most families had one object, while the largest number of objects found in a home was three. Since this category of furnishings eems to be the most specifically related to religious value, the expecta- tions would be that Religious Objects are viewed as religious. Findings showed that three husbands and two wives who were in agreement between dominant AVL and dominant ER values were in the religious value category (Tables 40 and 41). Regardless of the dominant AVL for husbands or wives, the majority classified Religious Objects in the religious value category. If the ER values were in the multimodal category, a majority of husbands and wives listed religious as one of the value categories. A small scattering of re- sponses of ER values were discovered in the categories of aesthetic, social, political and theoretical. No respondent put any Religious Object in the economic category. The data suggest that respondents who did possess Religious Objects considered them as having religious value. Related research studies suggested the idea that some furniture objects are more indicative of values than other'objects. In the research, Workingman's Wife (32), line drawing pictures of lamps and sofas were utilized as prefer- 'ence tests in which homemakers made choices of the alternatives 95 Table 40.--Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of husbands: Religious Objects Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E;, A S P R Total_ Aesthetic l 1 1 3 Social 1 1 2 Religious 2 . 4 l 2 3 12 Mu1timodal l 2* None 9 4 6 3 h 31 Total 13 10 8 4 7 8 50 *Multimodal sub—total: AR (1), SR (1) Table 4l.-—Comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value of wives: Religious Objects Dominant AVL Value Dominant ER Value T E A S P R Total_ Aesthetic 1 1 Social 1 4 5 Political l 1 Religious 2 2 1 1 2 8 Multimodal 2 l 1 4* None 5 5 9 h 5 3 31 Total 9 10 11 5 5 10 50 *Multimodal sub-total: TR (1), AR (1), SR (1), AS (1), Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A - Aesthetic, S = Social, P = Political, R = Religious 96 ' presented and gave a reason for each choice. According to the study, middle-class and working-class women differed in their values underlying these furnishings choices. .The re- searchers pointed out that perhaps other furnishings objects evoke difference in values. Since in the present study com- parisons were made of the various furnishings categories, hypothesis five stated that expressed reasons for the use of lamps will have a higher measure of association with the dominant AVL value than will any other category of home furn- ishings. 'On the basis of the largest number of agreements between dominant AVL and dominant ER values (Table 23, the hypothesis regarding lamps was not supported. The number of husbands whose dominant AVL and ER values agreed was approximately the same for every furniture cate- gory. Little evidence was found for differences in lamps as compared to other groups because Lamps, University Furn- iture, TV-Radio-Stereo, Art Objects and Miscellaneous Acces- sories were approximately equal in agreement. The same tendency existed in the number of wives whose dominant AVL and ER values agreed. Little evidence was found for differences in Lamps as compared to other groups. Again, Lamps, University Furniture, Personal Furniture, Books-Maga- zines-Newspapers and Miscellaneous Accessories were approxi- mately equal in agreement. In summary, no furniture category was more indicative of values than any other category when comparing the agreements 97 of dominant AVL and dominant ER values for husbands and wives in this study. Percentages of agreement were all relatively low and no furnishings group had a higher percentage agree- ment than 18. To conclude, some variations from the economic value predominance were seen in the furnishings categories of Textile Furnishings, Books—Magazines-Newspapers, Religious Objects, TV-Radio-Stereo and Art Objects. Generally, the value categories of theoretical, religious, aesthetic and social were predominant in these furnishings categories for . a majority of respondents, regardless of the respondent's dominant AVL value. Few respondents, whether husbands or wives, agreed with the dominant AVL and ER values in these furnish- ings categories. The total number of couples holding identical dominant AVL values numbered only 13. This group of 13 couples were characterized by four dominant AVL values:i theoretical, economic, aesthetic and religious. All 13 couples had the same dominant ER value, economic. Economic was the dominant ER value as expressed by a majority of all respondents. ‘ . Dominant ER Values The dominant ER values will be analyzed by reviewing both the comparisons of husbands and wives and those of hus- bands and their wives, or couples. In general, the dominant ER value, economic, was characteristic of a majority of hue- bands and wives. Each furnishings category was analyzed 98 separately fOr the ER dominant value as shown in Tables 42-63. In the Total Household Furnishings category, 42 husbands and 38 wives viewed their furnishings as economic, whereas 35 couples considered Total Household Furnishings economic (Tables 42 and 43). For University Furniture 44 husbands and 44 wives and 39 couples considered economic the dominant value as indicated in Tables 46 and 47. The effect of the University Furniture (a category comprised of eight objects) on the Total Household Furnishings category was to skew the total more strongly in the direction of economic value. An analysis was made of the sub-total category termed Total Household . Furnishings minus University Furniture as indicated in Tables 44 and 45. The University Furniture was subtracted from the total because this furnishings category represents a cate- gory over which the respondent had little choice. The re- searcher is aware that some couples in Spartan Village do make a choice; to use or not to use the furniture provided. If the respondents decide to remove the University Furniture from the apartment the couples do break University regula- tions and are liable to monetary penalty. All the couples in the present study decided to use the University Furniture, ' which further substantiates the economic orientation of these couples. In the Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture the economic orientation was reduced somewhat. Thirty-three husbands and 27 wives and 22 couples viewed the 99 Table 42.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Total Household Furnishings Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Economic 42 38 Aesthetic 2 2 Social 1 6 Multimodal 5* 4*# Total 50 5O *Husbands: EA (1), ES (2), EP (1), AS (1) **Wives: EA (4) Table 43.——Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Total Household Furnishings? Husbands Wives E S P— 7M (Total Economic 35 l 1 l 38 Aesthetic l l 2 Social 3 3 6 Multimodal 3 l 4** Total 42 2 l 5* 50 *Husbands: EA (1), ES (2), EP (1), AS (1) **Wives: EA (4) Key: E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, P a Political, M = Multimodal 100 Table 44.-—Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Theoretical ' l 1 Economic 33 27 Aestheti c 4 6 Social 2 . 11 Political 3 1 Multimodal 7* 4** Total 50 50 *Husbands: ES (1), EA (2), TA (1), SP (1), EA? (1), TESP (l) _ **Wives: ES (3), SP (1) Table 45.-—Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture Husbands Wives TT"‘TF‘ An S P TM? Total Theoretical l 1 ' Economic 22 l 4 27 Aesthetic 2 2 l l 6 Social . 5 l 1 1 3 11 Political l l multimodal l 3 4** Total 1 j 33 4 2 3 7* 50 'ifiusbands: TA (1), EA (2), ES (1), SP (1), EAS (l), TESP (1), **Wives: ES (3). SP (1) Key: T x Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S 8 Social, P a Political, M = Multimodal 101 Table 46.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Uni- versity Furniture ;_-.E}_ _.1 Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Economic 44 44 Aesthetic 1 Political 2 2 [Multimodal 4* 3** Total 50 50 *Husbands: ES (4) **Wives: EA (1), ES (1), EP (1) Table 47.-—Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: University Furniture Husb nds Wives E P M Total Economic 39 1 4 44 Aesthetic l 1 Political 2 2 Multimodal 3. 3** Total 44 2 4* 50 *Husbands: ES (4) **Wives EA (1), ES (1), EP (1) Key: E = Economic, A - Aesthetic, S = Social, P a Political, M = Multimodal 102 Table 48.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Per- sonal Furniture Dominant ER Value Husbands. Wives Theoretical 1 Economic 34 35 Aesthetic 2 Social' . l 8 Political 2 Multimodal 11* 6** Total 50 5O *Husbands: EP (1) ES (2), EA (2), ET (2), T8 (1), AP (1), TES (1), EAS (1) **Wives ES (1), EA (2), PS (1), PT (1), TAS (1) Table 49.—-Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Personal Furniture ‘fijHusbands M E A S P M Total Theoretical l 1 Economic 29 l 5 35 Social 3 l 1 1 2 8 Multimodal l 1 4 6** Total 34 2 l 2 11* 50 *Husbands: wf—ng TE (2) T3 (1), EA (2), EP (1), ES (2), AP (1), TBS (1), EAS (1) **Wive S : TP (1), EA (2), ES (1), SP (1), TAS (1) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S = Social, P = Political, M = Multimodal 103 Table 50.-—Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Lamps W Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Theoretical 5 1 Economic 36 34 Aesthetic 5 ‘ 6 Social 1 3 Political l Multimodal 6* 7** Total 50 50 *Husbands: EP (1), EA (1), ES (1), ET (1), EAP (1), TAS (1) **Wives: EA (2), SP (1), AP (1), TBS (1), EAS (l), TEA (1) Table 51.--Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Lamps Wives T E A ‘§_, P ‘M"’ Total_ Economic 27 3 1 3 34 Aesthetic l 3 l l 6 Social 2 l 3 Mnltimodal 4 1 2 7** Total 1 36 5 1 1 6* so, *Husband§?— TE (1). EA (1), ES (1). EP (1). TAS (1). EAP (1) **Wives: EA (2), AP (1), SP (1), TEA (1), TBS (1), EAS (1) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A 8 Aesthetic, S - Social, P ' Political, M = Multimodal 104 Table 52.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Tex- tile Furnishings fl Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Theoretical ' 4 4 Economic 6 4 Aesthetic 18 16 Social 1 3 Political 4 l Multimodal 10* 15*# No Furnishing Items Reported 7 7 Total 50 50 *Husbands: EP (1), EA (3), EAP (1), EAS (2), TES (2), TEAS (1) **Wives: EA (4), ET (1), TS (l), EAS (3). TAS (2), TEAS (2), EASP (2) Table 53.--Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Textile Furnishings " g_g HuSBand Wives T' E A 7 S 7% ‘N Total_ Theoretical l 3 4 Economic 2 1 l 4 Aesthetic 2 1 l 5 16 Social 1 2 3 Political l 1 Multimodal l l 6 -2 5 15*# No Furnishings Reported 7 7 Total 4 6 18 l 4 10* 7 5O *Husbands: EA (3), EP (1), EAP (1), EAS (2), TBS (2), TEAS (l) **Wiv 3‘ TE T1), T8 (1), EA (4). TAS (2), EAS (3). TEAS (2). EAS? (2) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S - Social, P = Political, M = Multimodal, N a No Furnishings Reported 105 Table 54.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Tele- vision-Radio-Stereo Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Theoretical 6 2 Economic Aesthetic 1 Social 13 28 Political 1 2 Multimodal 26* 14** Total 50 50 *Husbands: (4) TS (6)(1TP(1)' EP (1). ES (6). SP (3). TES (2) ESP 1), TESP( **Wives: EA (2) ES (4), T3 (3), TP (1), TEA (1), TEP (1), TBS (1), TSP (1) Table 55.--Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Television-Radio—Stereo Husbands _fliyes T E A _;S—__—P775M;_Totalfi Theoretical l l 2 Economic 1 2 3 Aesthetic l 1 Social 3 3 9 l 12 28 Political 2 2 Multimodal 2 3 9 14** Total ‘ 6 4 13 l 26* 50 *Husbands: (4) TS (6)1TP (1), Es (6), EP (1), SP (3), TES (2), TSP 1), ESP (1 TESP’( 1) **Wives: $1301)3 TP (1), EA (2), ES (4), TEA (l), TEP (l), TES (1), Key: T a Theoretical, E 8 Economic, A = Aesthetic, S 3 Social, P = Political, M = Multimodal 106 Table 56.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Books- Magazines-Newspapers Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Theoretical 28 11 Economic l Aesthetic 1 Social 7 Political 3 5 Religious 1 3 l Multimodal 13* 24** Total 50 50 *Husbands:' TE (2), TP (1), TS (8), SP (1), TSP (1) **Wives: EP (1) ES (1),)TS (10), TP (7), TE (1), TA (1), SP (1), EAS (13, TEP Table 57.--Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Books-Magazines-Newspapers W Husbands Wives Theoretical Economic Aesthetic Social Political Religious 1 1 Multimodal 14 l l 8 24** Total 28 5 3 1 13*‘ so *Huebands: TE (2), TP (1), TS (8), SP (1), TSP (l) **Wives: TE (1) TA (1), TP (7), TS (10), ES (1), EP (1), SP (1), TEP (1, EAS (1) Key: T = Theoretical, E - Economic, A = Aesthetic, S - Social, P a Political, R 8 Religious, M.»= Multimodal NWHHVH 107 Table 58.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Re- ligious Objects W Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Aesthetic . 3 1 Social 2 5 Political 1 Religious‘ 12 8 Multimodal 2* 4** No Furnishing Items Reported 31 31 Total 50 50 *“Aiblii?‘as <1) **Rivfi), RT (1). RS (1" AS (1) Table 59.--Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Religious Objects Husbands __Jflgg§g__ A S R M N Total Aesthetic l 1 Social 1 1 3 5 Political l 1 Religious l l 6 8 Multimodal . 2 2 4** No Furnishings Reported 31 31 Total 3 2 12 2* 31 50 iHquands: AR (1), SR (1) **Wives: TR (1), AR (1), AS (1), SR (1) Key: A = Aesthetic S = Social, R = Religious, M - Multimodal, N = No Furnishings Reported 108 Table 60.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Art Objects Dominant ER Value Husbands Wives Theoretical 9 3 Aesthetic 8 14 Social 6 8 Political 7 4 Multimodal 8* 9** No Furnishing Items Reported 12 12 Total 50 50 *Husbands;*— TS (2), TA (1), TP (1), SP (1), ASP (1), TAS (l), TEAS (1) **Wives: ' TP (2), TA (2), TS (2), AS (2), SP (1) Table 61.—«Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Art Objects L Vv — Husbands __Wives__ T""—A S ;T7'-'FF‘ 7N Total Theoretical 3 3 Aesthetic 2 4 4 2 2 14 Social 2 1 l 8 Political l l 1 l 4 Multimodal 1 2 l 1 4 9** No Furnishings Reported ' 12 12 Total 9 8 6 7 8* 12 50 *Husbands: TS (2), TA (1), TP (1), SP (1), TAS (1), ASP (1), TEAS (1) **Wives: TA (2), TS (2), TP (2), AS (2), SP (1) Key: T = Theoretical, E = Economic, A = Aesthetic, S 8 Social, P = Political, M.- Multimodal, N = No Furnishings Reported 109 Table 62.--Dominant ER values of husbands and wives: Mis- cellaneous Accessories ===: ——1_ Dominant ER Value . Husbands Wives Economic 13 13 Aesthetic 13 11 Social 7 12 Political 5 l Multimodal 12* 13** Total 50 50 *Husbands: *— ES (2), EA (3). TE (3), AS (1), ASP (1), EAS (1), TESP (1) **Wives: EA (5). ES (2). AS (3). SP (1), EAS (l). TES (1) Table 63.-~Dominant ER values of husbands and their wives: Miscellaneous Accessories ' ,1, Husbands Wives E A S P M T5t§l Economic 6 3 1 3 13 Aesthetic 1 9 l 11 Social 2 3 2 3 12 Political l l Multimodal 4 2 l 2 4 13** Total ' 13 13 7 5 12* 50 *Husbands: TE (3), ES (2), EA (3), AS (1), EAS (1), ASP (1), TESP (1) **Wives: EA (5), ES (2), EP (1), AS (3), EAS (l), TES (1) Key: T 8 Theoretical, E - Economic, A - Aesthetic, S a Social, P = Political, M =.Mu1timodal . 110 dominant ER value as economic. The Total Household Furn- ishings minus University Furniture category tended to be more scattered throughout the value categories than Total Household Furnishings. Discussing their reasons for University Furniture, the respondents offered the following reasons: "serves the purpose for studying, storage, sitting," "very functional," "very useful type of furnishings," "what the University provides is good because if we had to buy it, this would be expensive," "useful for several purposes like studying and eating," "convenient chest of drawers holds a lot." As indicated in Tables 48 and 49, in the Personal Furniture category there were 34 husbands and 35 wives who expressed economic as the dominant ER value, while 29 couples viewed Personal Furniture as economic. Analysis of the mul- timodal category for all groups further emphasized the economic value. Describing Personal Furniture the respond- ents said, e.g. "serves the purpose," "our furniture is a long term investment," "useful item," "we paid a good price and expect the furniture to last."5 Lamps are another furnishings category which re- spondents thought expressed economic value (Tables 50 and 51). Thirty-six husbands and 34 wives gave the ER value as economic, as did 27 couples. Analysis of the multimodal category showed an increase of economic emphaSis from the .1! III! II]. 13.!!! lll husband's point of view. For this category the respondents verbally emphasized the need for light and the function of lamps. For a majority of cases, within the furnishings groups of Total Household Furnishings, Total Household Furnishings minus University Furniture, University Furni— ture, Personal Furniture and Lamps, the dominant ER value of economic predominated, whether the comparison be for husbands and wives as groups or for husbands and their wives.. A majority of the respondents did not decisively place Textile Furnishings in one value category, as was true for other furnishings groups previously discussed. Here the expressed reasons were more scattered throughout the various value categories as indicated in Tables 52 and 53. Seven couples had no textile furnishings which met the criteria of the definition used in the study. The dominant ER value was aesthetic for 16 husbands and 16 wives. Out of 43 couples, 18 viewed Textile Furnishings as aesthetic. When the multimodal category was anlyzed, the aesthetic emphasis increased because seven husbands and 13 wives stated aesthetic as one of the values. Those who viewed this category as aesthetic said that textiles were primarily added for decoration, for appearance or for color and texture. 112 TV-Radio-Stereo was a furnishings group represented :in every home. As indicated in Tables 54 and 55, 28 wives and 13 husbands gave social as the ER value. A majority of husbands and wives, whose reasons were categorized in multi- modal, expressed social as one of the reasons, thereby, strengthening the social emphasis. Obviously, respondents saw TV-Radio-Stereo in a variety of ways because of the large number of multimodal categorizations. The reasons given for choice of this furnishings group largely related to recreation purposes for the respondents. There were Books-Magazines-Newspapers in every ' family. Theoretical was the largest category for the domi- nant ER value as shown in Tables 56 and 57. Twenty-seven husbands and 10 wives had theoretical value. An analysis of the multimodal category supported this value with 14 out of 15 husbands and 20 out of 25 wives having theoretical as one value contained in multimodal. .By couples, the largest count was six for theoretical value. Since a large proportion of couples (24 wives and 13 husbands) showed multimodal counts for theoretical value, the emphasis on theoretical value strengthened.‘ The respondents expressed reasons like: "interest in books for the information," or "books have professional and informative value fer me."« 'Religious furnishings were found in 19 families of the study. This category had the smallest number of items. 113 VVhile one article was usual, the maximum number was three. ,As indicated in Table 58, 12 husbands and eight wives saw these items as expressing the religious value, whereas eight couples had religious as the dominant ER value as shown in Table 59. Religious items were inventoried in the homes of two Jewish couples, nine Catholic couples and eight Protestant couples. Respondents specifically ex- pressed a religious meaning for utilization of these furn- ishings. Some expressed reasons were: "I read the Bible daily for religious help," "I have the Scriptures which reminds us about the Word of God," "So many peOple aren't Christian, this object gives me something to think about so I will consider my religion." Art objects were possessed by 38 families as shown in Table 60 and 61. While 14 wives and eight husbands had aesthetic as the dominant ER value, nine husbands gave theoretical as the dominant ER value. Reviewing the multi4 modal category, both aesthetic and theoretical were expressed values. The distribution of the number of value categories for husbands was comparable in the values of aesthetic, theoretical, social and political. Wives were more decisive in their view of art objects as expressing aesthetic value. By couples, four agreed on aesthetic as the dominant ER value, but a wide scattering of values existed. Agreement in this category was not as consistent or clear-cut as in 114 'the other furnishings categories. If the expressed reason categorized as aesthetic, the respondents commented that the object was being utilized for color, texture, design, decoration or because it was an original work of art. Every couple possessed Miscellaneous Accessories to some degree as indicated in Tables 62 and 63. Thirteen husbands gave economic asthe dominant ER value but an equal number of husbands listed aesthetic as the dominant ER value. Thirteen wives classified economic as the dominant ER value. Economic, aesthetic and social values revealed little difference for husbands or wives. An analysis of the multimodal category supports the economic value for both husbands and wives. Though a total of six couples listed economic as the dominant ER value, nine couples listed aesthetic as the dominant ER value. A wide scatter- ing of values on the profile occurred for the analysis by couples. Since many of the couples were newly married, the objects in this category were mainly gifts. The social value was given expression in reasons which related these objects to sentiment. The aesthetic value was expressed in reasons explaining the respondent's interest in the objects for color, shape, texture or decoration. Finally, the useful function and purpose or cost was categorized as economic value. In summary, the economic value dominated for three of the nine furnishings groups: University Furniture, 115 IRersonal Furniture and Lamps. But economic value was also important in Miscellaneous Accessories. Although aesthetic was the primary value category for Textile Furnishings and Art Objects, this was not the only value category represented. TV-Radio-Stereo occurred primarily in social value, Religious Objects in religious value and Books-Magazines-Newspapers in theoretical value. Although no furnishings group was predominantly viewed as political, this value was evident throughout all furnishings groups. The economic orientation of the respondents in this study may be further explained by reviewing several demo- graphic characteristics of the sample. Three factors seem noteworthy: age of respondents, number of years married and stage in the family life cycle. The respondents re- presented a particular age group (18-35), couples who have been married less than five years are in the beginning stage of the family life cycle (have no children). These husbands and wives are a product of a highly technical-oriented society emphasizing a money world. Their entire lives have been spent during a time of national affluency. It would be ex- pected that the couples would emphasize the economic value .in their view of their world and the objects within it. The importance of the monetary value of home furnishings objects was expressed repeatedly by the respondents. 116 Value Profiles of Thirteen Selected Couples Value profiles of thirteen selected couples were analyzed. A value profile is defined as a rank order of the six AVL values measured: theoretical, economic, aesthe- tic, social, political and religious. Two value profiles (were develOped: one for the AVL values measured by the AVL test and the other for the ER values measured by the ex- pressed reasons, as indicated in Table 64. The thirteen couples selected for comparison had two characteristics in common:. (1) the dominant AVL values agreed for each husband— wive pair, (2) the dominant ER value was economic for all couples of the selected sample. The AVL value profiles for the thirteen couples presented a variety of rank order combinations. Each couple had the highest ranked value in common, otherthan the highest ranked in common, but one couple had no value. Gen- erally, the majority of couples had one or more values in the same rank position in addition to the highest ranked value. The highest agreement in rank ordering was shown by two couples who agreed on the order of all values but two. The lowest ranked value in the AVL value profile was held in common by four couples. Wives ranked every value category in the lowest rank, but husbands did not rank theoretical or economic as the lowest ranked value. Theo- retical was the lowest value for a majority of wives (six 117 Table 64.—~Comparison of AVL value profile and ER value pro- file of thirteen selected couples . AVL Values ER Values AVL Values ER Values Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife' ( 1 1 i I Couple 13 Couple 35 l T E E l l E E E .3 S S P R ST* ST* P R A A1* R S P R P P E E 3 E A A ‘i A S P , __._E_Cou «le_3.é 9mm 1 T E E 1‘ , 1 E E R s 3 A E S AS 1* S P F 1A* A P RP* A E E P S A T J R P 3 A A R R Couple 32 QQEBli—i E E E E A A E A A AASR* 5 13* R I R P A 3 S P A R P E T R R P S S 1 Couple 20 COUElS 2} A A E 3 A A E E 13* R 1A* I SP* R IAS* ; S 3 s S 1 E P P E R P R P E S I 1‘ 1 I 92M , Won 19 2 A A 1'4 E; R u I S 13* SA* E E IASP* E E A I API* AS* 8 R P 1' 1‘ 3 r S P Couple 38 02221§_&9 R R E E R R E E l S 13* S I S iAS* ASP* S E R IA* S A E A E 1‘ p p P P A I A E Couple 4} R R E h S S SR* R . E 1 T l A - , -‘ I » " . 1 2 Theoretical, E = EfionOMiC, S B SOCial, P = P011 =1. A = Aesthetic, R = Religious *Multimodal 118 out of nine), excluding the group who had theoretical as the dominant value. The AVL study manual presented the idea that some values are so-called masculine and feminine values. Theoretical was a masculine dominant value and would be expected to have a low ranking among females. This selected sample supported this idea. Reviewing the ER value profiles of the selected couples, the findings indicated more agreement of the rank- ing of values between couples than was shown for the AVL value profiles. All couples had economic as the first ranked value. The profiles varied in the number of values in the profile, varying from two to six values. For a majority of couples, the number of values in the profile tended to be the same, and the identical values were ranked. Some couples ranked the values in the same rank order, but a majority of couples had a different ordering of the values for each partner. More multimodal combinations were evident in the ER value profiles. lheoretical was the lowest ranked value for wives, a similarity to the AVL value profile, but hus- bands showed an even distribution throughout the value cate- gories represented. Variations were shown in the ER value profiles of the selected sample, but the main emphasis was economic value (Tables 64 and 65). fhe ER value profile by furniture category as shown in Table 65 reveals similar findings as prOpOsed for the ca a: was a <2 22m as a ma . a . msa «a.mm ca as am oe mm 22m ma ma 22m . ca 4 he me was was oe a: 22m meg m: a a: a a: was mm mausoo om mmmzoo as g a a a ma ma om <2 mm mm 22m 22m 04 an em meg oa a: 22m oa om <2 as was om mma as a: om mma oa a: 22m 0/ w mamsoo mm mamsoo 1 1i <2 as a: mag o< 22m ca oe my ca «2 a om a mma 22m mm was A an 22m a:. as 22m _mma <2 mm 22m a he as as am a: was om 22m em as meg was an my a: wee ed mamzoo ©M.mamdoo «2 <2 22m as a ha a a 22m as 04 mm <2 mm 42m as new ma mm 22m met a: 22m ea oa a: mma 22m a: 22m oa oa oa a: mm maasoo ma mausoo m a m} a m, a m mr,m a a a m mr1m e a a m a m a m WQPHR mfifidQMSS mm>H3 Mummflwmmm '1‘! II! Ill mpommpwo mwcwnmwcnsm so mmadsoo umpomamm compnflzp Ho mmawmond msam> mm pcmaflsoann.mo manna 120 mmAnommmoo< mzoonwAAmomAE a <2 mpomnno msoAmAAom a om mpomnno one a oe mumdmmmsoznmmcwumwmznmxoom u 22m msowwflamm u m omnmpmnofiommu:0AmA>mAma u may oApmSpmo< a < magma u a AmoapAAom n a mweanmaecsm mAHuxmA a as Amuoom u m onsvficusm Accompmm u mm owsonoom u m mpzpwcusm hpwmpo>flcz u m: Hmofipmpooma u A mmapo mwmu m GAMmAnppML. mmzAw> mm «mom <2 A m« A om mm om <2 mm 22m mm mm« 22m m4 mm mm« NdIMAmmmo <5 mma A A mmA A <2 me he 22m ma <2 ma 22m <2 mm 22m o< mm o< mm mm4 m« mm A mm mm« m« m: mma om be m: 22m om 22m mm mm ca oAmsoo wwlmwmmmm mmq g A 42 mag mma . 22m m4 22m A <5 <2 as ea m4 o< mmq om mm mm« 04 <2 <2 mm 22m 04 A mm o< 22m <2 mm 22m he ha ha 4 cm mm« mm« m« mm mm« mam ma m: mzm mma ma as A wwmmwmmom MMIMAmmdu m m m a m A m a m a Amy A m a [mine m H mocmnmdm mm>A3 mocmnmsm emseaueoo--.mo mApn4 121 entire sample. As had been previously reported, the furnish- ings categories of University Furniture, Personal Furniture, Lamps and Miscellaneous Accessories were primarily economic value. Scale of Importance Each home furnishings item inventoried was ranked on a scale from one to seven by the respondents. The rank of one for a furnishings item meant this item received the lowest possible rank. The rank of seven for a furnishings item meant this item received the highest possible rank. Hypothesis six stated that for an individual the dominant SR value of the inventory items with a six or seven weighted rating will agree with the dominant AVL value in a majority of cases. Hypothesis six was not supported by the study. A comparison of dominant AVL value and dominant ER value for husbands found ten husbands in agreement while for wives nine were in agreement. In Agreement meant the dominant AVL value matched the dominant ER value. A majority of husbands or wives did not agree, although the six or seven weighted inventory items were found in all value cate- gories and in all furnishings groupings. Rank Order Scale A hypothetical question concerning the saving of the five most important furnishings items in a fire situation 122 resulted in a Rank Order Scale for these items. Only items which had been inventoried by the researcher could be in- cluded on the list. This ranking of objects served as a reliability check because the objects had been ranked pre- viously on the Scale of Importance. Hypothesis seven stated that for an individual the items in the Rank Order Scale will have a six or seven rating as in the Scale of Importance in a Majority of cases. As reported in Table 66, 38 husbands and #5 wives were in agreement.. Therefore, in a majority of cases the study is supportive of this hypothesis. The number of the gamg objects which would be saved by couples was surprisingly high. Thirty couples would save some identical objects, three or more from the choices of five objects, as indicated in Appendices H and I. Forty- nine couples would save at least one object or more in com- mon. Six couples would save all five objects in common. The identical objects which would be saved represented every furnishings category used in the study. The objects repeated most frequently by husbands and wives were: books, TV, stereo and radios. 'Husbands would save more of these objects in every case than would wives. The observation could be made that husbands and wives are communicating the meaning and importance of furnishings objects to one another. The list of objects was made in private without the other spouse e C C - C . C C .mem J 57N 777N6666N6777767756776 N6 7I+N677577576775C6653763 u a * N t .mw Ii 6 7mm 775I+6 76 4M6 776 76 77777766 56 557776 7557777607777665 t m e r N , 1.1 fJ 6 7777666 777756 77767676 7766 5767553776676676C7767776 l .l N _ , df W W e O , .M e h 2 7.7777767667714677711/5767776777777777747367777761757 mm m S m S 77776.6 57667675777776774776777777777677667777776767 m r 8 e a l, t h d i, it r adm O . C A . New 8 .M 5 7766 454776627572 747m 736 76N766 76 #7776675777m776667m t m .1 a I . e 7 SM 8 db. 73666555557765766676 757777776 72 377526 77776514414756“ , .1 , me a a l l 3 S _ u r $3 767776 76 56651.39757676675755777775667667477I+6557755C , f e I , it an r l. t . o r r 2 76 756 76 54675556 766 76 147676 77777757676.475766666777brm _. 0 ,, min _ 81m 1 777572677677146766576773777777777667777376665567667 _ .1 a s . r r g a n pni e mit C O a .1 A C5 r o O _ h m _ n C o O o 6 J 6 l .N e e l 1 23456 78901231+56789Ol231456789012365678901234567890 = .l W 1.11111111122222222223333333333L~L~L~h~f44h1+1+145 C t b ,‘a o N ,1. C .8. 12h being present; communication and comparison was not possible during the test-taking. Although the expressed reasons for saving the objects would not in all cases be the same, nor would the dominant ER value be the same, the fact that the same_9bjects would be saved is important to note. Reviewing the relationship of the dominant AVL value and the dominant ER value for the five objects considered to be most important, the dominant AVL and ER values do not agree. In most cases, the dominant AVL value is represented among the dominant ER values for at least one of the five objects. In a majority of cases, both husbands and wives expressed economic reasons for saving the objects in the fire. The reasons were stated: "most expensive object we own," or "irreplaceable," or "monetary value in replacement would be high," or "functional, used so much." Some of the reasons expressed sentiment or a relationship to persons such as: "first thing pg wanted and pg bought," "these are the only things that are really ours and that is what makes the difference." Wives tended to make more sentiment state- ments than did husbands. Perhaps many of the objects owned by these couples were gifts, therefore, in selecting the objects to save as being most important to them, the objects saved were those of their own choosing. While economic reasons predominated, aesthetic and religious reasons were also expressed. 125 At the other end of the scale, the objects prized least, were also related to economic value. The reasons stated for not wishing to save these objects were: "less money involved," or "can easily be replaced," or "furniture doesn't belong to us so let it burn." The furniture belong- ing to the University was named frequently as the least de- sired object. Not all respondents, however, would let the University furniture be destroyed. Many husbands and wives listed University Furniture among the five objects to be saved. One respondent strongly stated, "It isn't Christian to want to 'save' our belongings at the risk of letting MSU prOperty be destroyed. I like dSU furniture; it is attrac- tive and adequate for our use." In summary, a majority of husbands and wives placed strong emphasis on economic value as expressed by their reasons for saving objects in the hypothetical question. This finding further supports the economic orientation of young married couples as noted in the preceeding findings. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter summarizes this exploratory and descrip- tive study which focused on the preferential behavior of families with respect to values underlying decision—making about one resource, namely home furnishings; discusses find- ings; points out certain limitations; and suggests implica- tions for further research in the field of home management. Summary . Fifty student couples, residents of Spartan Village, a Michigan State University housing area, were interviewed. Ages of subjects ranged from 20-35, with 76 percent of the sample under 25 years of age. The couples had been married less than five years and had no children, therefore, were in the beginning stage of the family life cycle. Conceptually, values were viewed as motivating forces directing choices to obtain what is desired among alternative courses of action. Values were measured in two ways, by the standardized AVL value test and by expressed reasons, verbal responses explaining the utilization of home furnishings. AVL values were categorized as theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, politial or religious. ER values were deduced from 126 .——— w m...» . w...—:-— — 127 expressed reasons and categorized in the same six value classifications as the AVL test, but modified in definitional content specifically in the context of home furnishings. Com- parisons were made of the rank order of AVL values for the MSU population and AVL p0pu1ation. Dominant AVL value was the highest scoring value on the AVL test based on limits set forth in the AVL manual. The dominant ER value was the value based on the highests number of expressed reasons in a value category, but if more than one value category had equally high numbers of reasons, the values were titled multimodal. Comparisons were made between dominant AVL and ER values for husbands, wives and couples by furnishings categories. Instruments utilized in the study were the AVL test, Home Furnishings Inventory Schedule, Scale of Importance and Rank Order Scale. Husbands and wives completed the AVL test while the researcher inventoried the furnishings visible in the apartment. Individually the respondents were asked, Why do you utilize these particular furnishings? The re- searcher recorded the expressed reason for utilization of each furnishings object. The respondents ranked their furnishings on a Scale of Importance with ratings of one through seven. A rank of one or two was considered to have low importance rating while a rank of six or seven was con- sidered to have relatively high importance. A Rank Order Scale was utilized to obtain a list of the five most important 128 furnishings objects to be saved in a fire. The dominant ER value of the furnishings items with a rating of six or seven on the Scale of Importance was compared to the dominant AVL value for each respondent. The rank order for the five items and importance ratings for the same items were checked for agreement. A comparison of the ranking of values for the MSU population and AVL population was done. The highest ranked AVL value for the total AVL population was political and for the total MSU p0pu1ation was theoretical. A basically dif— ferent characteristic was evident in the population of MSU students; more technically-trained majors were represented in the MSU population as compared to the AVL population. Findings indicated that dominant AVL values for hus- bands and wives were widely distributed through the six AVL value categories. Husbands and wives did not hold the same dominant AVL value except for 13 couples of the 50 couples studied. Generally, the dominant AVL value held by the husband or the wife was not the same as the dominant ER value deduced from expressed reasons given by them. The thirteen couples whose dominant AVL values agreed all had economic as the dominant ER value in a majority of the individual furnishings categories and for the Total Household Furnishings category. Husbands and wives were economic value oriented particularly in their view of University Furniture, Personal 129 Furniture, Lamps and Miscellaneous Accessories. Miscellan- eous Accessories were also seen as possessing aesthetic and social value. Textile Furnishings were mainly in the aesthetic category although a wide scattering of value cate- gories was noted. Husbands and wives viewed Books-Magazines- Newspapers as expressing mainly theoretical value, while TV-Radio—Stereo expressed mainly social value. Art Objects were represented in theoretical, aesthetic, social and political, although wives viewed Art Objects mainly as aesthet- ic. Religious objects held primarily religious value for both husbands and wives. Many husbands and wives expressed reasons which were categorized in more than one value cate- gory for a particular furnishings group. A multimodal cate- gory was used when the total number of reasons was of equal number in more than one value category within a furnishings group. Many respondents had multimodal categories for the furnishings categories of Art Objects, Miscellaneous Objects, Textile Furnishings, Books-Magazines-Newspapers and TV-Radio- Stereo. The respondents rated their furnishings on a Scale of Importance. Objects with six or seven ratings were placed in every furnishings category and every value category. The dominant ER value of the six or seven weighted objects did not agree with the dominant AVL value of the respondents in a majority of cases. A majority of respondents ranked the five most im- portant furnishings objects saved in a fire on the Scale of Importance with the highest ratings, six or seven. The reasons expressed for saving these objects were overwhelmingly expressive of economic value, even though the dominant ER value was not always economic. This ranking in the economic value substantiated the conclusion that the couples of this study are predominantly economic value oriented. On the Rank Order Scale three-fifths of the couples would save at least three objects or more which were identi- cal. The findings suggest that the importance and meaning of home furnishings objects to husbands and wives were being communicated to each other and internalized. The selection of the objects and the ranking was done by each spouse without consultation with each other. In brief, the couples of this study were young couples, mainly under 25 years of age, who had been married less than five years and were in the beginning stage of the family life cycle. The respondents viewed their home furn- ishings mainly as holding economic value although some ob- jects were represented in the value categories of religious, social, aesthetic and theoretical. Objects were viewed in the political value category but not in sufficient numbers to be dominant. The dominant AVL values and ER values of husbands did not generally match the dominant values of wives, although there 13 husband-wife agreements on both dominant AVL and ER values. Limitations of the Study The value categories of the AVL are general value categories which encompass a broad definition and classifi- cation of values. The researcher was aware of this fact in the selection of the instrument; however, for comparison purposes with verbalized responses this classification system was useful and workable. The system was found to have limi- tations for particular values. The theoretical category was the most difficult to apply to home furnishings. In fact, a demarcation line was not clear-cut between theoretical and economic in the context of home furnishings. One probable explanation for inconsistency between the dominant AVL and ER values of subjects is posited. The choices presented in the AVL do not appear to be meaningful and relevant to the present day college p0pu1ation. Although the latest revision (1960) of the AVL test was utilized in this study, the world of the college p0pu1ation is changing with alarming rapidity. This researcher believes an instru- ment which elicits actual preferential behavior from the real world of the subject is potentially more fruitful than a forced-choice instrument such as the AVL. Since this study was exploratory and descriptive, the data were not submitted to statistical check to determine 132 to what extent the differences might be due to chance. The extent of generalizability is, of course, limited to the p0pu1ation represented by the sample. Implications for Further Research Few research studies have specifically investigated the behavioral setting of the home with respect to the value-laden meanings of home furnishings objects. Although the findings of the present study are not definitive, sup- port is given to the theoretical concept that value-content is implicit in verbalized responses for the utilization of home furnishings. Data analysis in the present study utilized one dominant AVL value and one dominant ER value for compara- tive purposes. An individual's system of values relating to home furnishings objects may not be related to only one value but may well be a number of interrelated values form- ing a web-like pattern of values. Methodology devised so that a profile could be identified and compared may yield meaningful results. Is the dominant ER value more expressive of the respondent's values in relation to home furnishings (or other resources) than the dominant AVL value as measured by the standardized test? The redefinition and refinement of value categories is suggested for further research. A category may be many 133 faceted; for example, economic value suggests furnishings may be viewed relating to utility, to money value or to efficiency. Although the study elicited a wide range of reasons why particular home furnishings objects were utilized, per- haps other resources may be better indicators of values. The study of resources such as time, money and material goods as well as activities contribute to value knowledge. But further research is indicated to know what context focus would be the most productive and predictive of values held. Resources as indicators of value have not been investigated in an.integrated fashion (multi-resource use within a family) and may yield important understanding of values. A longitudinal study of couples over time was sug- gested for future researches by the implication that couples at various stages in the family life cycle may view home furnishings with different meanings. If couples in the beginning stage of the family life cycle are primarily economic oriented as suggested by the present study, what happens to these couples over time? Various questions may be apprOpriately asked. Is there consistency in value ori- entation at each stage of the family life cycle? What are the characteristics of individuals and couples who change or those who maintain a consistency? What are the conditions that affect change or constancy? 134 A related research study, Workingman's Wife (32) suggested that values relating to home furnishings vary with socio-economic class. College students are assumed to be mainly middle-class and therefore, possess middle-class values. The researcher suggests that a greater variety of social classes exist in today's collegiate population than is nor- mally assumed. Perhaps the divergent views of the subjects toward Art Objects, Textile Furnishings, Miscellaneous Ac- cessories may be related to social class. The variable, social class, was not investigated as a part of the present study, but in future studies of home furnishings objects this variable might well be investigated. In the Opinion of the researcher, the idea that home furnishings are predominantly a woman's area of decision- making should be reviewed. From the thoughtful responses by husbands in the present study, the researcher believes they were as knowledgeable and interested in the furnishings of the home as their wives and had participated in making these decisions. Perhaps this is a characteristic of young married couples today. Few research studies in the areas of housing and furnishings have utilized men as subjects. The wife has been the person usually questioned. From recent literature in anthrOpology, psychology and communication, interdisciplinary study of values is indicated, particularly relating to housing and home furn- ishings. The researcher suggests that housing (space) and 135 home furnishings (objects) should be researched together. Hall (13) declares that when man structures his space he also structures his life in a very particular way. Space has an important bearing on the way man behaves. At the intuitive level the researcher feels that a study of home furnishings without incorporating a study of space leaves many questions unanswered. What is the meaning of the ar- rangement of objects within space? What is the relation- ship of peOple and objects within space? What is the mean- ing of space and objects to peOple? These questions merit investigation. Perhaps meaningful findings could be dis- cerned from an interdisciplinary approach. The disciplines mentioned previously have theory applicable to research at this level. The possibility of bringing the perception of space as well as the objects within our personal environments to the conscious level should enlarge our understanding of man.7 The concept of why and how man does what he does in his personal environment is essential to an understanding of the kind of person he is and becomes. The future focus for research may well be objects and space. Implications for Home Management Recent critics of value research in home management, namely Deason (7) and Magrabi (25) prOpose that researchers review not only the direction of values research but the theory and methodology utilized and the relationship to 136 decision concepts. Engebretson (9) and Martin (2h) caution the necessity for maintaining value as a conceptually dis- tinct entity from preference, interest and desire. The researcher agrees that many problems still exist for the values researcher in home management, but she maintains that values are an integral part of the theory of home man- agement. A critical need for continuing values research exists. Home management is in the primary stages of develOp- ment of research in this area. More research is needed to be able to predict the consequences of values and the con- sequences for the family when the couples hold different values. Wilson and Nye said that "value research combining conceived and operative values is the most definitive.because one may be able to determine the extent to which statements expressing underlying values are consistent with actual be- havior." (40zh) Could the research techniques evolved for the study of conceived values by Engebretson (9) and Martin (2a) be correlated and expanded in the context of housing and home furnishings to compare Operative values derived from verbal responses and observations of actual behavior and choices in the home? Morris has suggested that "a work of art can portray both operative and conceived values." (26:70) Certainly other objects of home furnishings could do likewise. 137 The implications for further research in the im- portant area of the behavioral setting of the home seem clear. "Every interior betrays the nonverbal skills of its inhabi- tants. The choice of materials, the distribution of space, the kind of objects that command attention or demand to be touched--as compared to those that intimidate or repe1-—have much to say about the preferred sensory modalities of their owners. Their sense of organization, the degree of freedom left to imagination, their coerciveness or aesthetic rigid- ity, their sensitivity and fields of awareness-~all are revealed in their houses. . . . Psychiatrists working with adults need only study the material environment with which individuals surround themselves to secure fresh insights into their relationships to objects, people, and ideas." (34:135) Values are communicated by the choices each indi- vidual and family makes for the physical environment of the home. The organization of the material environment is a personal expression of values, communicated in a non-verbal message. Research to explore the value content of our every day lives is essential to learning the relationships among values, decision-making and resources in an attempt to under- stand the family's management. The field of home management has a need as well as a responsibility to conduct further value research. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, Gordon W., Vernon, Phillip E., and Lindzey, Gardner. Stud of Values Manual. Third Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960. Bell, Norman W., and Vogel, Ezra F. (eds.). A Mbdern Introduction to the Famil . Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, l965. Beyer, Glenn H. Housin and Person 1 Values. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 364 (Ithaca, New York, July, 1959). Buhler, Charlotte. Values in P3 chothera . Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press 0 G encoe, 1962. Croswell, Sue. Unpublished Master's dissertation, De- partment of Home Managementé University of Mar land, 1966. Home Economics Res, A st.--1966, l (1967 , 10. Cutler, Virginia F. Personal d Famil Values in the Choice of a Homg. Cornell University Agricultural xperiment tation Bulletin 840 (Ithaca, New York, November, l9h7)o Deacon, Ruth E. "Home Management Focus and Function," Journal of figme Economics, 54, No. 9 (November, 1962), 755-752- Dyer, Doris M. "Students' Wives Values as Reflected in Personal and Family Activities." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Department of Home Management and Child Development, Michigan State University, 1962. Engebretson, Carol L. "Analysis by a Constructed Typology of Wives' Values Evident in Managerial Decision Sit- uations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart- ment of Home Management and Child Development, Michigan State University, 1965. Fortenberry, Frances Elizabeth. "Measurement of Values Relating to Kitchen Design." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Department of Family Economics, Kansas State University, 1963. 138 ll. 12. 13. 14. l5. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 139 Gross, Irma H. and Crandall, Elizabeth Walbert. Manage- ment for Mogggn Families. 2nd ed. New York: App e- ton-Century-Crofts, l963. . Haire, Mason (ed.). Modern Or anizational Theor . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959. Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimins%on. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, nc., . Hall, Edward T. The Silent Lan a e. Garden City: Doubleday & Company lnc., l559. Handy, Rollo and Kurtz, Paul. A Current A r isal of the Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral Research Council Bulletin (Great Barrin on, Massachusetts: Behavioral Research Council, 1963 , 126—136. Harris, Phoebe Todd. "An Experimental Investigation of Joint Decision-Making by Husbands and Wives." Un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Family Economics and Home Management, Pennsylvania State University, 1963. Johnson, Billie Reed. "Association of Seven Values with Choice of Floor Coverings in New Farm Houses." Un- published Master's dissertation, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, 1962. Ketchum, Frances Nettie. "A Study of HomemakerWsValues as Reflected in Time Used for Family and Personal Activities." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Department of Home Management and Child DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1961. Keppe, William A. "The Psychologica1.Meanings of Housing and Furnishings," Journal of Marria e and Famil Livin , 17, No 2 (May, l955), 129-132. Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification," in Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils (eds.), Toward a General Theor of Action. New York: Harper and Row, I962. Kluckhohn, Florence Rockwood and Strodtbeck, Fred L. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, . 1th 22. Lapitsky, Mary. "Clothing Values and Their Relation to General Values and to Social Security and Insecurity." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Cloth- ig 1and Textiles, Pennsylvania State University, 23. Lee, Dorothy. "The Individual in a Chan ing Society " Journal offlHome Economics, 52, No 2 February, 1960), 73-32- 24. Martin, Esther A. "Analysis by a Constructed Typology of Family Members' Values Evident in Managerial De- cision Situations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Home Management and Child Deve10pment, Michigan State University, 1965. 25. Magrabi, Frances M. "Investigating Values and Decisions: Some Questions of Methdology," Journal of Home Eco- nomics, 58, No. 10 (December, 1 , 7 5- . 26. Morris, Charles. Si nification d Si ificance. Cam- bridge: The M.l.T. Press, 1964. 27. Nickels, James B. and Renzaglia, Guy A. "Some Additional Data on the Relationships between Expressed and Measured Values." Journal of A lied Ps cholo , A2, No. 2 (February, 1958), 99-l8A. 28. Nye, F. Ivan. "Values, Family, and a Changing Society," Journal of Marriage and the Famil , 29, No 2 (May, 29. Paolucci, Beatrice. "Contributions of a Framework of Home Management to the Teaching of Family Relation- ships," Journal of Marria e and the Famil , XXVIII, No. 3 (August, I966), 338-3h2. 30. Paolucci, Beatrice. "Home Management: Yesterday-Today." Pennez's Home Fashions angTFabrics, 8 (1962), 3. 31. Queeney, Donna S. "A Study of the Relationship between the Aesthetic Housing Value and Aesthetic Sensitivity." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Department of Family Economics and Home Management, Pennsylvania State University, 1965. 32. Rainwater,'Lee, Coleman, Richard P. and Handel, Gerald. Workingmgn's Wife. New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 959. 1L1 33. Raths, Louis E. Harmin, Merrill and Simon, Sidney B. Values and Teachin . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. erri oo 3, nc., 1966. 34. Ruesch, Jurgen and Kees, Weldon. Nonverbal Communcation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University 0 a orn a Press, 196A. 35. Saperstein, Milton R. Paradoxes of Evegy Day Life. Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1955. 36. Schlater, Jean Davis. "The Man ement Process," Journ 1 gngome Economics, 59, No ZaIFebruary, 1967), 9h-99. 37. Schooley Mary. "Personality Resemblances Among Married Couples," Journal Abnormal Social Ps cholo , 31, No 3 (Octo er, 3 , 3A -347. 38. Stevens, Chandlee Lloyd. "Aspirations of Married Student Husbands and Their Wives." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Michigan State University, 196A. 39. U. S. De artment of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Current Po ati n Re orts. Consumer Income. In ome o FamIIies nd hersons in the United States. I96 . Series P-69. No. 43, Septehher 29, I96h. 1-50. LO. Wilson, William J. and Nye, F. Ivan. Some Metholo ical Probl ms in the Em irical Stud of V Iu s. Washlng- ton AgFIchIturaI Experiment StatIon Bhlletin 672 (Pullman, Washington, July, 1966). APPENDICES 11.2 1A3 Appendix A BASIC DATA SCHEDULE NUMBER OF QUARTERS LIVING IN SPARTAN VILLAGE NUMBER OF YEARS MARRIED __ EDUCATION Highest Grade Completed NO. NAME DATE OF INTERVIEW DURATION OF INTERVIEW SOURCE OF CURRENT INCOME , 1 us and; Wife iHusband ~ Wife Employment 1 Grade Schoolv _g; [ Hi h School A Grants, Fellowship ; College 2 ‘:’l -gfi Assistantships . _i 3— : T W Al ‘ Z . Grad. or 'r Loans 5 Other 5 Parents g COLLEGE MAJOR I Husband Wife Other ;_ 1 EMPLOYMENT Husband: Wife Full 1_ _1 3.9.5. Lartfi Husband Wife Occasionally _1 Under 18 _l _;72__ OCCUPATION ;Husband; Wife 22-25 _ r i gig-35 g g Prof. a Mgr. ' Over_A5 9' ; C erica & Sales (MM Service ‘ RELIGION . Skilled : ’h 1 Husband~ Wife Seméishilled I __ Cat O 19 ns ed a r, Other '4: ; Protestant Identify ,_ OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION ' ; dent y ‘ us and Wife Je sh g_, 1 Prof. 8c Mgt. Other e ore Clerical & Sales FAMILY'MONEY INCOME(Taxes) . Service Rams w -2 Other 1A4 Appendix B ) -fiFA.‘ .. A w 1 a Jr) L l 1 El 1 a m e )L) rll. a ,lu W l t! .11 a. a 3.141” )J J.I ) i») eat” m _f M H (l H . A It A, (I h "_ a . (A L, l A (J! L w. . a! AJAJ , a w W 1 l) a. l t a H a all L. “a r but L, (a If M »|)) ¥ 1 huowoumo .I=Mwmmmmmwmzmo pqu gecko osam> xcmm monopLOQEH Ho onom“ oasuonom muonsm>cH mwcanmficusm ego: 145 Appendix C . A! ‘ IN 1 1H1 M H ” _ m w mnezmua no peono L A _n L 4|: [4| m 1 _ , a _ 60m )) F. u I) _ h h gonna: . . m l J L J l. _ 1 W 1 Amy muwsno owcsog . rm 1W 1) _y 1 + ll A w W _ . “sentameo meaeaa magma weaean 1 _ l m. 1 .w Mir w fl,Naim ”n” 4A m1|m , T.g am» W CosmopoasH Ho masom ‘ wasvonom muonsm>qH mwcanmanusm mac: coaHQQSmumoamue>acs 11.6 Appendix D HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION Date If there were a fire in your apartment what home furnishings Object would you rescue as your first choice? You may save only ONEO This would presuppose that you had adequate assistance from firemen so that size, bulk and other character- ' istics were not a problem in getting the object out safe y. What would be the least important Object to save? lst CHOICE Last CHOICE Rank your next most important home furnishings items in order of importance. 2 for the more important and 5 for the less important item. 20' 3. h. 5.. 1A7 Appendix E _ l )4. l a -ouspaausm heamue>aca mesa: Hmuos mwsagmanusm 080: Hence LI) )l a . . 1+ _a . me am ”a am .< m as m .02 (r, , _ mmsam> mm Umuoo >9 vmwwgommpmo mmcwnmfimhsm osom comhom :omnom W a moahommeoo< msoosmaaoomaz m mpooneo pea .Iuwnnuu mpomheo macawaflom I» h unseedmzoz .mmsanwwmz_.mxoom my! mw ooempm .oaemm .>e (he enema d mmeaemaetsa oaaexoe m onspwcnsm assented N muspannsm hpwmne>asa H Al :.Om m3 pm>mtmg3 mm: mmmzam vasooe =.cmmao on Anew: =.xn03 no: mm>mm= a.mpwawnmnsme :.mmompsm mm>pmm use O>HmchXm poz: :.mm0dn5d mm>pmme :.%uwmmmomz: :.:owp nocsw mafipmmpm> mm: pa mesmumn pa exam: :.»Hm>wm:mdecfi pnmsomz :.mmmpm mcflxnoz new wcwxmamp Opcw momdm ecu muw>flv Op paw: m3: :.mo>wm an mcaamme me» use mmflo CLOUDS mxHH H: SOmCH nun5pm as new museum Immh GEN CoaumEhOHSH: =.pw pm xOOH H meu >Lm>m 3m: mafizposom: u—OUHQHH >5 CH msam> pmmno: ..aaapm pom pH wcfim: new OOOE he cogs uncommv pan OHmSE Ham mxwa H: 1A8 mpceUCOMmmm sp so>flo mcommmm vmmmmhdxm ammuod .Ummc mo :prommmwpmm mm: mmoehsaufipass zocmHOHmmm man> hence to meo spas nhmoaoo owed upsa HchHpossm,co mammzdsm oasocoom soap nmuwcmmno Manon co memmggsu muonscmadxm HmOHuwno Hmcofipmm mmocmpmu -eae use mmapapemea toe mecca . Hwompwnommb mwcwgmflcnsm wee: Op saucepan wcwpmamm Empmzm sowpmawnowmumo m>HpmucmB awoapomnm memos zaflnon mo soapommmfiuwm Hanan: ma pmnz mmoqmnmu swan new mmfleeecmnfi you mxooq mmnm nazonx mmswmemumzm use mpmuno Hmcowuwu .Hmowuwpo .Hmowuwesm common use m>ummno Op mxmmm messages m>apaemoo Susan mo >nm>oOmHQ Hesse: e>< II, ll ll A mcommmm vmmmmnnxm no mcflnoouu.m xwecmdd< 1L9 :.mEoo ox: madomd pom oxOm m mm mo>nmm use newsmcno: :.08 now an season 50:: =.wcacmoe Hmcomnmd .ms Op pa m>mw mummnma as: =.>Ow:m was mhmzm 03: :.mpmmdw pom woman m m>mn Op aswmmae =.cm>mHm haze megs pa mums gem: :.on5p uxmp use noaoo mvuHp nmnoomv new Hemmzms: =.emfimme mafia: :oofiumwphm mppH: =.maepm was mean: :.Eoon o» aoapaEOUme meea= =.mEm£om noaoo mpflm: mpcmccommmm he sm>flo mcommmm Ummmmpdxm Hm5po< macaw no conned cameo Imam Op wcwpmamp psoswunmm mamomd mo mnemamz madoma mo pnomsoo mcowpma amp seen: we usmEpmuumm OHQOOQ mo pcmEManm Op weapsnwnpaoo Hmfloom xusmmm xpflamsnfi>aUQH epaoaHEEAm mmmcpflm .makpm .Enom mafia .mnspxmp .LOHOQ nowpmtOomm oammnumma mewnmflnnsm mEom Op saucepan mcfiumamm Empmmm coapmaflnowmpmo m>wmeQmB Umscwuqooau.m Kwncmndm ounOtEpeaHaee new enemasppaa gmamammcs aflpmnpmds>m vsfim manomd mo m>oa macwfimcw HSHHpSMmQ mxwa wcHEpmSO mcflnp m mme mwfla mo monomwdm oapmfippm nfl pmmnmpzfi mmwzo mmmcpwm ApmeEMm .momno hecospmm .Epom Hmsamz A>< . :.:ow rwfiHOh he pmpwmcoo Haw: H Om pOOpm xcwnp Op wcwnmeOm OE mm>fiw pomhno mHSB: =.QH®S msOpmaamu pow mapmv mapfim mnp Omen H: :.msam> msowwwamu mo Honemmz .3600 M0 xpos esp psonm ms OGHEOL op mopsp septum map m>ms m3: :.mmasn .>pc: xmonp p.qvasos O: Om pH mums m3: :.>Haemm a“ modem domx op Oceans: 55 Op sowmmmo:Oo mesa: :oDH mUmE heaps“ no: .mnmmz =.mmms Oceans: 58 haso: =.pp Samson map: as: =.:30O mxmp p.:mO use mmvw>onm xpflmnm>wcaz :.OOOHQ :Oppmmnm> ICOU .m>HpoCHomHQ: Cowpmppvmz nape MO women now 5:05pm: use xppnm Honshm mOOHmHHOm wcwsmme no wcflammm msowwflamu mmpmpm mmmamwamm chHp umaswmp use mmasn muumwmm manomm no soap nmopc:EEOo mmms HO mensm :mmnd Hmpoom Op mOpOdmmm xnpzp mesmpnm no manomd pegs pampnOdsH mapSp pmmpma magnumwfipmmpm monosammm;wcm meson HmOpraom :owpmpwvms new amazon -ppmm sweeten spas: 9302mm OocOsHHcH meson mpcmwcogwmm up cm>po mcommmm Ummmmpdxm Hm5p0< mmqmnmpcnsm ego: Op mapomnpm mappmamm Empmhm :owpmupnowwpmo m>ppmpsoe Omssppcooun.m spucmdm< Hmsnmz A>< 151 Appendix G Total Number of Items in Each Apartment by Couples Ol 37 26 21 02 39 27 22 03 24 28 33 OA 26 29 39 05 31 30 46 06 22 31 A7 07 to 32 5h 08 42 33 40 09 37 3h 40 10 42 35 39 ll 35 36 31 12 35 37 38 13 Ah 38 33 14 27 39 32 15 38 40 lo 16 A6 - 41 29 17 Al 42 26 18 28 a3 22 19 38 AA 29 20 29 AS 39 21 25 26' 39 22 27 a7 37 23 A9 48 as 2A 39 A9 32 _ Appendix H Furnishings Objects to be Saved by Wives in Fire Situation Rank’ Sub- ject ‘ ,fi_ NO. 1 2 3 A 5 .Least Candle- ll ill 1 labra Books TV Radio Afghan UF Sewing 2 Sculpture Machine Lamps Lamps Dec.Obj. Pillow . Dec. 3 Radio Stereo Desk NO Choice Obj. A Books C.Chest Stereo TV E.Table Mirror 5 Stereo TV Madonna Chest Books Table Sewing Vacuum 6 Books Piano TV Machine Cleaner Lamps 7 Bird TV Books Chest NO Choice Fish 8 TV * Rocker E.Table gable Table Tank 1 t 9 Stereo Books ,Cat Col. Lamp Plates Mag. 10 Stereo Draperies Divider Lamps Chest Rack U. 11 Table Plaques Sculpture Clock Lamp Chair Gun . ' 12 Collection Stereo Records NO Choice Table Type- ' 13 writer TV C.Chest E.Table Lamp Vase Dec. 14 Toboggan Lamps Radio Books Clock Object Candle- 0 15 Stereo ‘ Lamps Painting labra Dish Sofa Dec. 16 Books Pictures Trophy Chest Stereo Fruit 17 Silver Lamp Crucifix Madonna Books TV 18 TV Pictures Lamp Lamp Lamp Chair 19 Pictures TV TeaCart Lamp StOol Pillow U. 20 TV C.Tab1e E.Table D.Tab1e Sofa Chair Appendix H.--Continued 1* E Sub- Rank ject ._ NO 0 1 i 3 L i LeaSt 21 C.Table Chest Desk Picture Scales P.Lamp 22 TV Books C.Radio ' Lamp g.Table Mirror 23 Picture Picture Books, Lamp Picture TV 2A Madonna C.Table Picture Radio TV Picture 25 Stereo Records Books Chest Lamps Ashtray Book- NO 26 Stereo Books G.Clubs cases Choice Mirror 27 C.Chest Pictures TV SR.Chair 7F.Stool Stand 28 Stereo Portrait TV Desk Lamp UF ’ , ~ Air- 29 Books F.Cabinet Pictures Pictures Figures plane R. Sofa NO U. 30 Cabinet (own) TV Stereo Choice Sofa C. O. _ P. 31 Service Vase TV Pillow Painting lamp 32 Bed TV Stereo D.Tab1e Planter P.1amp Di 3h Tea U. 33 Lamp Afghan Coll. Table Rug Sofa 3A Stereo TV Pictures E.Tables Stool Curtains Micro- ~ . 35‘ scope (Books G.Clubs Guitar Stereo §.Lamp - oot 36 Records Dog TV E.Table Lamp Stool Book- 37 Chest case Books Pictures TV Bottle Dec. Dish U. 38 Fruit Plant Madonna Coll. Dish Sofa 39 Bed 'Tv ' Chest D.Tab1e Sofa Ashtray 40 TV C.Chest Lamps Rug Afghan E.Table 15L Appendix H.--Continued w P __ 1.1 A __ __ tam Sub- Rank ject No. 1 2 3 4 5 Least Sewing '9‘ 41 TV Bench Glass set Machine Divider Lamp U. 42 Organ TV Stereo C.Chest Lamp Sofa U. 43 Pictures Books NO Choice Furniture Type- 44 Books Radio Rugs P.Lamp writer Mag. Invita- Sterling U. 45 tion Clock Dish Chair Chess Sofa 46 Stereo Doll Painting Books Lamps Painting 47 Books Radio P.Lamp Lamps Picture UF SGWing U. 48 Machine TV Chest Stereo D.Table Chair Sewing U. 49 Stereo Machine Chest P.Lamp TV Sofa Puzzle 50 Plaque Books TV Stereo Radio UF Appendix I jects to be Saved by Husbands in Fire Situation Furnishings Cb w. . Sub- Rank ject w __ No. l 2 3 4 5 Least Candle. 1 TV Books Radio labra Pictures UF Sewing 2 Sculpture Machine Carvings Lamps Magazines UF Paint- 3 Books Stereo Radio Cabinet E.Table ing 4 TV Chest Books Desk Sofa Mirror 5 Books Stereo TV Pictures Award Lamps . Sewing Vacuum 6 Piano Books TV Machine Cleaner UF 7 Bird Desk Books Chest Chest Rocker 8 Rocker TV Radio C.Tab1e Lamp UF . Type... 9 Books Stereo writer Radio Lamp Plates 10 Stereo TV Divider E.Table Lamps UF 11 Books Aquar. Clock E.Lamp Sculpture UF Gun Foot 12 Collect. Stereo Records Books TV Stool 13 Chest TV E.Tables Lamps Chest Bottle 14. Che st Toboggan Paintings Plants Books Plants Candle - 15 Books Stereo Picture C.Radio labra U.Sofa 16 Pictures Books Stereo TrOphy Chest Lagps As 17 Silver Lamps Desk Sofa Bed Trays 18 Books TV P.Lamp Lamp E.Table UF 19 Books TV Pictures Cart Rug Vase Tape No 20 Recorder Radio Records Stereo Choice I}? 156 Appendix I.-—Continued Sub- Rank ject ., '_ NO. 1 2 3 4 5 Least II Forkar 21 C.Table Stereo Painting Scales Spoon U.Sofa 22 TV C.Radio Books C.Table E.Table UF Letter 23 Holder TV Stereo Lamp Table Basket Silver Tape 24 Radio Set TV C.Table Recorder Table 25 Books Records Chest Stereo gadio UF O 26 M.Box G.Clubs Stereo Records Choice géLamps 27 TV C.Chest R.Chair Desk Stereo Trays Ash 28 Stereo C.Tools Lamps Desk Chess Trays 29 Books Radio Stereo Painting TV Bench Own Re 30 Sofa Cabinet TV Stereo Cart UP 31 TV Sofa Desk D.Tab1e Bed P.Lamp Wall 32 Books TV Stereo Desk E.Table paper TV 33 Chest S.Tab1es Lamps Sofa Bed Trays 34 TrOphies Stereo TV Books Pictures Plaque Micro- 35 SCOpe Books G.Clubs Guitar Cabinet UF Record 36 Books Stereo Cabinet TV Plaques UF Book- 37 case Chest TV Lamp Lamp Desk Relig. 38 TV Figures Radio Pictures Madonna Tables Tape Desk 39 Pictures Recorder TV Desk Access. UF Ash 40 TV Bed Sofa Table Desk Trays 157 Appendix I.e-Continued m Sub- Rank ject _J; NO. l 2 3 4 5 Least 9—9 Dec. Record 41 Books Objects Cabinet TV C.Table Rug 42 Books TV Organ Stereo Desk U.Sofa No 43 Pictures Books Statue Radio Choice UF Type- Record 44 Books Radio writer Rack P.Lamp Picture 45 Chest Chair TV Sterling P.Lamp UF 46 Stereo Books Desk Bed Table Picture Po ' Wall 47 Books Pictures Crucifix Bed Desk paper Sewing 48 TV Chest Machine Stereo Chairs Mirror Sewing Bed- 49 Stereo Machine TV P.Lamp spread Divider 50 Books NO Choice UF 15,8 Appendix J - Chart 1 over: Nosmuvu V00 (IV! Maw MYM/c (aw/3' 1772“ {m [N (WY/(ll Iii/156' IIV07CA ff f) 4 . t . I 1 o {I o a 1:) LOT T3 L A N SpMZTAN VILLAGE 159 Appendix K Chart 2 SPARTAN VILLAGE One Bedroom Apartment R‘;S£;“a.:f—’=r:-“—=; 2:17:21“ "‘12:, ':' 2W1 *5 III } A I “ BEDROOM CL I I I4'x 9 ' I; I I I I6'—4"x IO'-9" + m: m 531 It...“ WINDOW AREAS—Spartan Village No. I l-BR Apt. Z-BR Apt. LR 4' x 7’6“ LR 4' x 9' BR 3'4" x 6" BR 3'4" x 4' LIVING ROOM ! PLEASE NOTE: Page 160, Appendix L, "Study of Values",(:)1960 by Gordon W. Allport, Philip E. Vernon and Gardner Lindzey not micro- filmed at request Of author. Available for consultation at Michigan State University Li- brary. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. '____ i §.J I 1.. ‘3 .__. .\-.—1\ ‘J I v 9-62049 TEST BOOKLET ALLPORT - VERNON - LINDZEY Study of Values THIRD EDITION HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY - BOSTON NEW YORK - ATLANTA - GENEVA, ILL. - DALLAS - PAlO ALTO COPYRIGHT ©, 1960, BY GORDON W. ALlPORT, PHILIP E. VERNON, AND GARDNER lINDZEY COPYRIGHT, 1951. BY GORDON W. AllPORT, PHILIP E. VERNON, AND GARDNER LINDZEY COPYRIGHT, 1931, BY GORDON W. AlLPORT AND PHlllP E. VERNON PRINTED IN THE U.5.A. lMNOPQRST-H-732I0/6987 Page 2 f Part I DIRECTIONS: A number of controversial statements or questions with two alterna- tive answers are given below. Indicate your personal preferences by writing appropriate figures in the boxes to the right of each question. Some of the alternatives may appear equally attractive or unattractive to you. Nevertheless, please attempt to choose the alternative that is relatively more acceptable to you. For each question you have three points that you may distribute in any of the following combinations. 1. If you agree with alternative (3) and dis- agree with (b), write 3 in the first box and 0 in the second box, thus I ! b [0] 2. If you agree with (b); disagree with ( a), write 3. If you have a slight preference for (a) over (b), write Do not write any combination of numbers except one of these four. There is no time limit, but do not linger over any one question or statement, and do not leave out any of the questions unless you find it really impossible to make a decision. 4. If you have a slight preference for (b) over b (a ). write .-__-----_B .-______-_-__-_--- altema- writing of the theless, to you. of the L'_‘_’J " ”Ill “'"“““‘ “4E1 .-.__- “a ,_ is no eave sion. .____.._..._H c--_-__-_-__-—-—- . The main Object of scientific research should be the discovery of truth rather than its practical applications. (a) Yes; (b) No. . Taking the Bible as a whole, one should regard it from the point of view of its beautiful mythology and literary style rather than as a spiritual reve- lation. (a) Yes; (b) NO. . Which of the following men do you think should be judged as contributing more to the progress of mankind? (a) Aristotle; (b) Abraham Lincoln. . Assuming that you have sufficient ability, would you prefer to be: (a) a banker; (b) a politician? . Do you think it is justifiable for great artists, such as Beethoven, Wagner and Byron to be selfish and negligent of the feelings of others? (a) Yes; (b) No. . Which of the following branches Of study dO‘ you expect ultimately will prove more important for mankind? (a) mathematics; (b) theology. . Which would you consider the more important function of modern leaders? (3) to bring about the accomplishment of practical goals; (b) to en- courage followers tO take a greater interest in the rights of others. . When witnessing a gorgeous ceremony (ecclesi- astical or academic, induction into office, etc.), are you more impressed: (a) by the color and pageantry of the occasion itself; (b) by the in- fluence and strength of the group? Total -_-________..-_____-____-_______U . -__ 9 a ________-________-____|::| ,, ._.__..__________.___._.._._..[:l a..- __-.._-__-Dn -__-..____-___- 4:]. -----------------—[:‘a IO. 12. l3. I4. 15. 16. Which of these character traits do you consider the more desirable? (a) high ideals and rever- ence; (b) unselfishness and sympathy. If you were a university professor and had the necessary ability, would you prefer to teach: (a) poetry; (b) chemistry and physics? If you should see the following news items with headlines of equal size in your morning paper, which would you read more attentively? (a) PROTESTANT LEADERS To CONSULT ON RECONCILIA- TION; (b) GREAT IMPROVEMENTS IN MARKET CON- DITIONS. Under circumstances similar to those of Question 11? (a) SUPREME COURT RENDERs DECIsION; (b) NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY ANNOUNCED. When you visit a cathedral are you more im- pressed by a pervading sense of reverence and worship than by the architectural features and stained, glass? (a) Yes; (b) NO. Assuming that you have sufficient leisure time, would you prefer to use it: (a) developing your mastery of a favorite skill; (b) doing volunteer social or public service work? At an exposition, do you chiefly like to go to the buildings where you can see: (a) new manufac- tured products; (b) scientific (e.g., chemical) apparatus? If you had the Opportunity, and if nothing of the kind existed in the community where you live, would you prefer to found: (a) a debating society or forum; (b) a classical orchestra? Total _-______---—__-______——_——-———————-—D a -_————--—----{j a ----—-----——-—{:] a — «D a -——-————————-———-—-[:] a -——-——_____———————[:]n -—————————————-——— _____..____-______________[:] u.-_____-_______-_-___________.__________________________-D9-- "D a'—---——-—-—----—-—-----—-E] °'"“““""""““““““""“"D a -———————-——- 20. 21. 22. 23. . The aim of the churches at the present time should be: (a) to bring out altruistic and char- itable tendencies; (b) to encourage spiritual wor- ship and a sense of communion with the highest. . If you had some time to spend in a waiting room and there were only two magazines to choose from, would you prefer: (a) SCIENTIFIC ACE; (b) ARTS AND DECORATIONS? . Would you prefer to hear a series of lectures on: (a) the comparative merits of the forms of gov- ernment in Britain and in the United States; (b) the comparative development of the great religious faiths? Which of the following would you consider the more important function of education? (a) its preparation for practical achievement and finan- cial reward; (b) its preparation for participation in community activities and aiding less fortunate persons. Are you more interested in reading accounts of the lives and works of men such as: (8) Alex- ander, Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne; (b) Aristotle, Socrates, and Kant? Are our modern industrial and scientific develop- ments signs of a greater degree of civilization than those attained by any previous society, the Greeks, for example? (a) Yes; (b) No. If you were engaged in an industrial organization (and assuming salaries to be equal), would you prefer to work: (a) as a counselor for employees; (b) in an administrative position? Total C] n .___ {jam-nu---“— 24. 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. Given yOur choice between two books to read, are you more likely to select: (at) THE STORY OF RE- LICION IN AMERICA; (b) THE STORY OF INDUSTRY IN AMERICA? Would modern society benefit more from: (a) more concern for the rights and welfare of citi- zens; (b) greater knowledge of the fundamental laws of human behavior? Suppose you were in a position to help raise standards of living, or to mould public opinion. Would you prefer to influence: (a) standards of living; (b) public opinion? Would you prefer to hear a series of popular lec- tures on: (a) the progress of social service work in your part of the c0untry; (b) contemporary painters? All the evidence that has been impartially accu- mulated goes to show that the universe has evolved to its present state in accordance with natural principles, so that there is no necessity to assume a first cause, cosmic purpose, or God behind it. (a) I agree with this statement; (b) I disagree. In a paper, such as the New York Sunday Times, are you more likely to read: (a) the real estate sections and the account of the stock market; (b) the section on picture galleries and exhibi- tions? Would you consider it more important for your child to secure training in: (a) religion; (b) ath- letics? Total Du -__ DU.--" f— 1524., _ —7* _.._.___...-E_ » _ _ - - —~- - — - - ~-- , g... ..._..._.____ Partll DIRECTIONS: Each of the following situations or questions is followed by four possible attitudes or answers. Arrange these answers in the order of your personal preference by writing, in the appropriate box at the right, a score of 4, 3, 2, or 1. To the statement you prefer most give 4, to the statement that is second most attractive 3, and so an. Example: If this were a question and the following statements were alternative choices you would place: E43 4 in the box if this statement appeals to you most. 3 in the box if this statement appeals to you second best. 2 in the box if this statement appeals to you third best. gun"... I in the box if this statement represents your interest or preference least of all. I H I l I You may think of answers which would be preferable from your point of view to any of those listed. It is necessary, however, that you make your selection from the alternatives presented, and arrange all four in order of their desirability, guessing when your preferences are not distinct. If you find it really impossible to state your preference, you may omit the question. Be sure not to assign more than one 4, one 8, etc., for each question. . DO you think that a good government should aim chiefly at—( Remember to give your first choice 4, etc.) a. more aid for the poor, sick and old b. the development of manufacturin and trade 0. introducing highest ethiml princip es into its poli- cies and diplomacy d. establishing a position of prestige and respect among nations . In your opinion, can a man who works in business all the week best spend Sunday in — a. trying to educate himself by reading serious books b. trying to win at golf, or racing 0. going to an orchestral concert d. hearing a really good sermon . If you could influence the educational policies of the public schools of some city, would you under- take — a. to romote the study and participation in music an fine arts b. to stimulate the study of social problems 0. to provide additional laboratory facilities d. to increase the practical value of courses . Do you prefer a friend (of your own sex) who —- a. is efficient, industrious and of a practical turn of mind b. is seriously interested in thinking out his attitude toward life as a whole 6. possesses qualities of lwdership and organizing ability d. shows artistic and emotional sensitivity . If you lived in a small town and had more than enough income for your needs, would you pre- fer to — (I. apply it productively to assist commercial and in- dustrial development b. help to advance the activities of local religious groups 0. give it for the development of scientific research in your locality d. give it to The Family Welfare Society . When you go to the theater, do you, as a rule, enjoy most— a. pla s that treat the lives of great men b. al et or similar imaginative performances c. plays that have a theme of human suffering and ove (1. problem plays that argue consistently for some point of view Total -----l:’n ------------Dn---------------|j 5'«————EJ n.-—------ _______-D ,- ———[:] a -——-——-—.[j n ——-——-——-——--———--—- —-—--—--———--——--{:l a -—-—-——---D a D a.-—--——-——-————-—----—--—-D a'--- DDS - [j mun-“mum x --——-——-——-——--—--———-—mm .. .-------—-[:| a —--------- ______________________C|a.-- “D , ___. ___.lj c- ._..__.D ., _______{:' “______--___-____._ :0 . Assuming that you are a man with the necessary ability, and that the salary for each of the follow- ing occupations is the same, would you prefer to be a — a. mathematician b. sales manager 0. clergyman d. politician . If you had sufficient leisure and money, would you prefer to — a. make a collection of fine sculptures or paintings b. establish a center for the care and training of the feeble-minded c. aim at a senatorship, or a seat in the Cabinet d. establish a business or financial enterprise of your own At an evening discussion with intimate friends of your own sex, are you more interested when you talk about — a. the meaning of life b. developments in science 0. literature d. socialism and social amelioration . Which of the following would you prefer to do during part of your next summer vacation (if your ability and other conditions would permit) —— a. write and publish an original biological essay or article b. stay in some secluded part of the country where you can ap reciate fine scene 6. enter a loca tennis or other athletic tournament d. get experience in some new line of business . Do great exploits and adventures of discovery such as Columbus's, Magellan’s, Byrd's and Amundsen’s seem to you significant because — a. they represent conquests by man over the difficult forces of nature b. they add to our knowledge of geography, meteor- ology, oceanography, etc. c. they weld human interests and international feel- ings throughout the world d. they contri ute each in a small way to an ultimate understanding of the universe Total Do --___ _____':|,, 50.--“--- . Should one guide one’s conduct according to, or develop one’s chief loyalties toward — . one's reli 'ous faith . ideals of eauty . ones occu ational organization and associates . ideals of c arity $1.0 we . To what extent do the following famous persons interest you — (1 Florence Nightingale b. Napoleon 0. Henry Ford d. Galileo . In choosing a wife would you prefer a woman who — (Women answer the alternative form be- low) a. can achieve social prestige, commanding admira- tion from others b. likes to help people 0. is fundamentally spiritual in her attitudes toward life d. is gifted along artistic lines (For women) Would you prefer a husband who— a. is successful in his profession, commanding ad- miration from others b. likes to help peop pel c. is fundamentally spiritual in his attitudes toward life d. is gifted along artistic lines . Viewing Leonardo da Vinci’s picture, “The Last Supper, " would you tend to think of it— a. as expressing the highest spiritual aspirations and emotion ns . as one of the most priceless and irreplaceable pictures ever a c. in relation to ieonardo’s versatility and its place in histo d. the quintessence of harmony and design Total [,1 [‘1 i (L ’5 (x :. F" t J L/J SCORE SHEET FOR THE STUDY OF VALUES DIRECTIONS : 1. First make sure that every question has been answered. Note: If you have found it impossible to answer all the questions, you may give equal scores to the alternative answers under each question that has been omitted; thus, Part I. 1% for each alternative. The sum of the scores for (a) and (b) must always equal 3. Part II. 234 for each alternative. The sum of the scores for the four alternatives under each question must always equal 10. . Add the vertical columns of scores on each page and enter the total in the boxes at the bottom of the page. . Transcribe the totals from each of the foregoing pages to the columns below. For each page enter the total for each column (B, S, T, etc.) in the space that is labeled with the same letter. Note that the order in which the letters are inserted in the columns below differs for the various pages. Final Total 240 4. 5. 6. Add the totals for the six columns. Add or subtract the correction figures as indicated. Check your work by making sure that the total score for all six columns equals 240. (Use the margins for your additions, if you wish.) Plot the scores by marking points on the vertical lines in the graph on the next page. Draw lines to connect these six points. WI the 1951 Edition these figures were: Theoretical +3, Social —3. These new correction figures have been employed in determining the norms in the 1960 manual. "‘IIIIlIIlIIIIII“