3 I I III In“ ‘I‘In ”WW II I WWI”)? IIJI’ II‘i iI ‘ ’f I IIIII‘II III‘IIIIIII ‘5” ‘IIII 1' I. II M." I‘wI' 1“ I... ‘II: IIIIIII IIIIIIFIP . ‘ WWIIWIHIIII.J. IIIIIIIIITII IIII‘II‘III’IIIII‘ 53 }. H . 'II'I‘ ' .III I ' "I .III'III‘III .III- l'II‘I-I IIII’III' "III "II”. IIIIII'I III II III .. IHII'H'II II;I’I iIIIiIIIiHIIII‘ WWII I'I IIIIIIII‘II III I “I I" II II III I. MI W IIII " ' . s —- W * I: n... ——. ' " 3;, -.v~‘ ..o- .z- . “2333‘ . - _-.- — " "' ' iga". y, I.) ’ -' ,_;.C‘(fi' ' 1;..- ~3fl1nn Main.“ Ty .‘ -3: v” 7.9—- :52- :21 ...-.J1 :' ,_~ ,- fi.:' 3 ).:.31£3I' ‘ "“' ‘ " ":.-': .~ .~ :Ivfi‘: ~ . '. ‘ V' I4. ...3- ;. . _ A,-‘ , _. _ - . . . .I r..- . ... --;.-»-- I ”- ‘~‘.a.. .a .. I‘II III IIIIII ii III Iii id.” .. IIIIIIIIIIIII II I IIIII I: III .. I: ' LWMIII IW WWI’II WII. WIIW II ‘7‘ 15" I. IIII.‘ IIIIIII'III' IIEIII IIIII'II‘I WW I. III: IIIIIII IIIII , IIIIIIIII; '-‘-II ..."II .’ 'IHIIIIIIIIIIIII "I‘III‘I I‘ I III: I I“”I~I“ " "III“ "I: , .jI I" III III II II. II ... III] I IIIIIIII‘. WW II ‘ -. III ' —-- «.w gfi'rgzqflajr'w -~. .- —:E_ ’.III:II’?-"I ‘.“:. it -{I 2 . Ii"III-LII? ,I‘E’II‘IIIHII III‘IIIIL‘III‘II'f .. . 'I- ééfi; '5 “In Pic?“ 5;:- him? (EN) III III IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII HIIMHIIIWII ' IIII GIIIIIII III III.‘ I'III II "I III-“II? ,Ii "I'III': III III ‘ III" K‘EJIIIIII IIIIII‘ II'IIII II I' II I IiIII 1% if “3;. 1. III [III]? IIII' “II: IIIIII IIIII' i'IE‘II‘ I III III; ”II III 'IIIII” I'IIIIII' ‘III IIII' IIIILIII H "III-I; Ewart?“ ' {1% w I I‘jfitII-J i'IIIII I:IIII II. iII'I I.I III". III II‘ I III "I'I. 3‘ ".1'f'I; ‘. r. 23¢. 7 ’15 'IIII If], ‘. . III III I I IIIII I II' III'I III III; II 1111 1 1,. 3 fafilp'. l[I “l'i I“I Ill" i I:I I W III lI‘IIIi I'll. Mi ’ l. I H II Wid'i' JV“ 'IIIWI If i .IIIIII‘III‘ I 'ifI‘I' IIIIII I .r ‘34. 1th 9" 21:13.: ‘10:]? 11:: §$ E I.‘ II . . III: I'I‘III III III III 'I'I' "III III IIII1 IIIIIM {ii In“ “if? {”4 III' III I I I I III i'III .I IIIIH' ii} "I HilIfIijII q ii i” ‘1. III:' .III I III. “WWI I I I!“ 1 3' ' ‘ 1‘ . I I . I III, w III. ‘ I” III I1 III... III-IIIIIIIIII :I I III“ 2: I.” IIIII’IJ 'II II. III‘ 7th It?" Ii . ‘ I'I‘I'. It! Ii I MI II. i I II ": "WWII-WWI II'I -.-I . III IIIII.‘ II I I: II III. I' I I “.II“ I I III .2; IIII'IIIIII.‘H I I I III'III.‘ IIIII III’I i‘ IIII.'I’.IIIII'. 'ti'iiIIIIIiWII'I‘II In}. .I “1:4 .. ... III-ii I. III; I"i ”II I“ III: iII I iI'II‘Ii 'II ‘I..” "‘i: I .II“: : ‘r I'tIII I ”I‘IiIfIIIIIVIII.‘iIIII 1' 1:;WI.“{Hufiffikfifiaylfiphtiil“a. i“ I. ‘57." . I‘ . II' I ‘III ._ I' . II II," I III II III II. III . "III 1.1: I I"I‘ii“"III“I'II‘z‘“7III I' ' ' . I‘I fr IIIIII 'Il I "II I. ‘IMI III II ‘IIIII ‘i'I'III IIIII: 'I'IIIII'TII WW I. i'III IIII1 IIIIIIIt .II'III‘I. ”I I I “I1 I. ”II." III’IIII I :‘I III i If“ Ii' iliI III“ HI "ii“ I?” i [MIMI III .II II” .4 'I.... iI-“I ' ‘I III ' "I'I' II II 'I.“ “I I ‘IIjIII‘ “NI‘I IIIIIH HII 'II IIIJ‘i III; i I Iii IIIII i I I“ "V" iIIIIIHI’iiI” IIIII IIIIII‘I IIIIIJI' II‘ III‘III’IrIii I. I". W I” I. I i" . I'III I III [I'i'l‘l'jIr IIIHI' ".' WI III ‘II V I' 1 III: III I . I i " ”iii II’ I" i II W I. WIII .I "MIMI ii U 1 ”WWW III IlII' W III IIIIIG'II a?" W IIII'I III. M I M 'I.. It III III, I I III .III. . I. III .II I. IIIIH'I'II. III I III I 1‘.I IIIIII “IIIII _ III III IIIIIII ;;;;;;; IILI. .II..IIIIIIIIIIIWIILII'IIiII IW. WIW‘I WH AIII'IIII \‘ '1 LIBRARY Michigan Sm < University” This is to certify that the thesis entitled Patterns of Resource Exchange in Mexican American Parent-Child Interaction presented by Erlinda Nacino Salcedo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Family Ecology get/Maj?) a; Major professor DateJZ/f/7f / / 0-7 639 NOV 2 1 2003 “1.121003 1 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to Book drop to remove this checkout from your record. Copyright by ERLINDA NACINO SALCEDO 1979 ii PATTERNS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN MEXICAN AMERICAN PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION By Erlinda Nacino Salcedo A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1979 ABSTRACT PATTERNS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN MEXICAN AMERICAN PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION By Erlinda Nacino Salcedo The purposes of this study in intrafamily resource exchange patternings were: to determine if resource exchange patternings will differ if instruments used to gather data were general or situation- specific in nature; to describe the resource exchange patternings of family subgroups; to determine the degrees of concordance on resource exchange patternings of specific family subgroups; to determine the relationship of family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, quality of life, to degree of particularism; and to determine the relationship of family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status, to degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. This study also attempted to test Foa and Foa's (1974) theory of resource exchange. Resources, namely: love, status, services, informa- tion, goods, and money are considered to be exchanged through inter- personal communication and are important to human development and satisfaction with quality of life. Erlinda Nacino Salcedo Data were gathered by the survey method among non-migrant Mexican American families in Saginaw, a metrOpolitan area in Michigan. Data were part of the regional research project NC-128 "Quality of Life According to Area of Residence." Sixty-six intact Mexican American families (162 individual respondents), consisting of fathers, mothers, and at least a child, 12 to 18 years of age, if any, living at home, were the final respondents for this study. The forced-choice, ranking technique self-report instruments used to gather data for resource exchange patternings were of two types: Instrument A, which had items general in nature; and Instrument B, situation-specific. These were administered alternately at random to each family. Family respondents were either fathers and mothers of preteens, or fathers, mothers, and teens, for those with teenagers. Fathers, mothers, teenage sons, and teenage daughters generally were agreed on their intra-resource patternings. However, Group B families (who used Instrument B) more than Group A (who used Instrument A), were found to have a greater number of positive and significant correlations in their intra-resource patternings. Generally, the total resource patterning of the two groups was as follows: love, status, information, services, goods, and money. This patterning is supported by Foa and Foa's theory of resource exchange. Further, family members generally have from moderate to perfect degrees of concordance on their resource exchange patternings. Degree of satisfaction with quality of life among Group A families was significantly but negatively related to degree of particularism. Erlinda Nacino Salcedo Family deve10pmental stage, family structural complexity, family socio- economic status, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relation— ship and family life, were not significantly related to degree of parti- cularism. As family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status increased, degree of satisfaction with family life in both groups increased at significant levels. Family structural complexity was also positively and significantly related to degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship in both groups. Degree of satisfaction with quality of life for Group A families was significantly but negatively related to family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status. Mexican American families indicated preference for love and status regardless of specific resource exchanged between parents and children. However, there appeared to be a generally negative relationship between degree of particularism (preference for love and status) and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. It was speculated that these findings suggest need states for both the particularistic and universal resources (goods and money). The conclusions drawn from the results of this study substantiate the assumption that Mexican American families have intra- and total resource patternings in parent—child interaction. The hypothesis that resource exchange patternings would be significantly related to certain variables included in this study was not generally supported. The results suggest the need for further research in resource exchange and its role in human development and quality of life. DEDICATION To Dad and Mama- this dissertation is most lovingly dedicated. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study could not have been carried out nor completed without the help of the following persons and groups who shared with me their resources. Sincere thanks are due to my dissertation committee: Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Professor, academic program adviser and dissertation director, for her unselfish guidance, encouragement and patience throughout my graduate study, for initiating me on the research topic, and for the numerous consultation hours; Dr. Linda J. Nelson, Professor and former Chairman, Department of Family Ecology, for sharing with me her exper- tise on research methodology and for valuable comments and suggestions on the dissertation draft; Dr. Margaret J. Bubolz, Professor, Family and Child Sciences, for her very notable comments and suggestions on the theory of resource exchange which was used as the conceptual framework for the present study; Dr. Dennis Keefe, Assistant Professor, Family Ecology, and project leader for Michigan, NC—128 "Quality of Life According to Area of Residence," offered valuable suggestions during the research proposal preparation stage; and Dr. J. Allan Beegle, Professor, Sociology, gave notable comments. Mbchas'gracias to the Mexican Americans in Saginaw, Michigan, particularly the 106 families for their cooperation; Mr. Jose Garcia, Director, Latin American Affairs Department (LAAD) in Saginaw, and iv Mr. Francisco Rodriquez, former Field Coordinator, LAAD, Gratiot County, and their staff, for their interest in the study and for facilitating the survey activities. For participating in the pretests of the research instruments, heartfelt thanks are due to Sr. Jean O'Connor, IHM, Director, and her staff, of Cristo Rey Community Center, Lansing; the LAAD staff members and the Mexican American interviewers both in Saginaw and Gratiot County; and to the Mexican Americans in the University who shared with me their valuable time. I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation, comments and suggestions of the members of the research instrument panel: Dr. Diana Marinez, Graciela Dominguez-Benner, Herminia Ortega, Dr. Mary Andrews, Kathy Rettig, and Nancy Hungerford. Dr. Patricia Busk and Ms. Suwatana Sookpokakit shared with me their statistical expertise. The programming of the data for the com- puter was ably handled by Bill Brown and Sue Gossman of the Computer Center Laboratory. For the assistance of these teams, I express my sincere appreciation. Many thanks are extended to Eleanor Graham who initially coded the data on resource exchange, and to Sharon Danes for the preliminary write-ups on the regional study sampling and data collection. The financial assistance provided by the dissertation fellowship committee of the College of Human Ecology, and the research assistant- ship in NC-128 by the Department of Family Ecology, are gratefully acknowledged. To members of my family, both in the Philippines and here in the United States-—particularly to Dad, Mama, and my brother, Rodolfo, and his family, whose unconditional and sustained interest, encouragement, patience, financial and moral support, helped me through my graduate study—~I owe the greatest debt of gratitude. A very special note of debt of gratitude and appreciation are due to my student colleague and dear friend, Sr. Ann Gabriel Kilsdonk, IHM, Professor, Human Ecology, at Marygrove College, Detroit, who in countless ways, helped make my 3 graduate life experiences at Michigan State University a whole lot easier and truly more meaningful. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER LIST OFTABLESOOOOOOO0.0.0..........OOOOOOOOOOOO ........ 0 LIST OF FIGURES ................... .... ................... I. INTRODUCTION...0.0.0.0... ....... ... ...... O 0000000000000 0. Statement of the Problem ...................... . ....... Objectives of the Study.................... ........... Significance Of the StudYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000......O... Scope and Limitations of the Study.................... Definition of Terms.................. ............ ..... II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK..... ......... ....................... Exchange in Social Life............................... Foa and Foa Interpersonal Resource Theory....... ...... Advantages and Disadvantages of the Foa and Foa Resource Model.................................. Rationale for the Use of the Foa and Foa Resource Model on the Mexican American Family............ Relationship Between the Resource Model and Investment in Human Resources................... Hypotheses O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ....... 0 O O Assumptions. ..................... ....... ......... .... Model of Relationships Studied ........................ III. REVIEWOF RELATED LITERATUREOOOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Interfamily Resource Exchange.. ...... ... ........ . ..... Intrafamily Resource Exchange..... ........... ......... Mexican American Family................ ...... ......... IV. METHODOLOGY................. .................... . ........ Sample Design and Selection........................... Regional Research Project Sample.............. ..... Research Subsample.................. ............... vii ...—I CDNMU'I-L‘ ll 14 19 22 22 25 27 28 30 3O 34 37 44 45 45 47 CHAPTER The Development of the Measuring Instruments..... ..... Instrument A. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O Instrument B O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O The Final Measuring Instruments: A and B.. ........ Pretest of the Final Instruments: A and B ......... Differences Between Instruments A and B.... ........... Data Collection....................................... Regional Research Project Data Collection... ...... . Resource Exchange Data Collection...... ........... . Treatment of Data... ...... . .............. . ........... . Independent Variables .............................. Dependent Variables .............. .... .............. Degree of Particularism... ....... ................ ..... Statistical Tests Used... ..... ............... ......... Presentation of Findings .............................. V. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS ............................... Age of Respondents........ ....... . ....... ..... ..... ... Family Developmental Stage ............................ Family Structural Complexity .......................... Individual Socioeconomic Status ..... ..... ........ ..... Fmily SOCioeconomic Status 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life....... ..... . ...... VI. PATTERNS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE.. .......................... Individual Level Patternings........... ............. .. Intra-Resource Patternings.. ..... . ......... . ....... Total Resource Patternings......................... Degree of Particularism............................ Intrafamily Level Patternings and Degrees of Concord- ance............ ....... . ........ ................... Intra—Resource Patternings.. ........ . ........ . ..... Total Resource Patternings. ................ ...... Relationships of Independent and Dependent Variables. Relationships of Family Developmental Stage, Family Structural Complexity, Family Socioeconomic Status, Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life, to Degree of Particularism.................... . Relationships of Family Developmental Stage, Family Structural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status, to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent- Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of LifeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...00.000.000.000 viii Page 49 49 50 54 55 60 64 64 67 68 69 72 74 76 78 81 81 81 84 86 89 91 94 95 95 109 109 111 111 120 123 123 126 CHAPTER VII. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS.. ........... ... Differences Between Data Obtained from Instruments Aand BOOOOOIOCOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOCOO0.0 Relationship of the Findings to the Theory of Resource EXChangeoooooooooooooooossoone... Relationship of the Findings to Mexican American Families........ .......... .......... ...... ......... VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH ....... Summary and Conclusions.......... ....... . ....... ...... Implications for Research...... ....... ... ..... ........ IITERATURE CITED ................................................ APPENDICES A. Detailed Findings of Intrafamily Intra-Resource Pattern- ings (IRPs) and Degrees of Concordance (DOCS) for Each Family Subgroup ....................... . ............... B. Family Particularistic Typology ....... ....... ........... . C. Detailed Findings of Relationships of Independent and Dependent Variables ................................... D. Panel and Pretest Results ......... ... ..... . ..... . ..... ... E. The Instruments .......................................... F. Formulas of Statistical Tests Used ......... ....... ....... G. Reasons for Incomplete Schedules .................... ..... H. Communications ........................................... ix Page 130 130 132 138 142 142 148 153 157 174 177 180 188 235 238 240 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Total Number of Families ........ . ......................... The Final Instrument Items for A and B.. ..... ...... ....... Intra-Resource Patternings and Degree of Agreement Between Data Obtained from Groups A and B as Revealed by Kappa (K) Total Resource Patternings for Groups A and B..... ..... ... Age Of RespondentSOOOOOIOO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... Family Developmental Stage.......................... ...... Family Structural Complexity.. ..... ............... ..... ... . Individual Socioeconomic Status ............ . ............ .. Family Socioeconomic Status......... ..... ... .............. Degree of Satisfacton with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life.............. ..... . ...... Intra-Resource Patternings of Fathers... .................. Intra-Resource Patternings of Mothers..................... Intra-Resource Patternings of Teen Children............... Spearman's Rank Correlation Between Intra-Resource Pattern- ings Of Fathers andMotherSOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0000...O... Spearman's Rank Correlation Between Intra-Resource Pattern— ings of Fathers and Teen Children......................... Spearman's Rank Correlation Between Intra-Resource Pattern- ings of Mothers and Teen Children......................... Total Resource Patternings of Fathers, Mothers, and Teen ChfldrenIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO.......OOOOOOCO......OIOOOOOO0.... V Page 48 56 62 63 82 83 85 87 90 92 96 99 101 103 105 107 110 TABLE Page 18. Degree of Particularism of Individual Respondents... ...... 112 19. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Pattern- ings and Family Developmental Stage....................... 114 20. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra—Resource Pattern- ings and Family Structural Complexity..................... 115 21. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Pattern- ings and Family Socioeconomic Status...................... 117 22. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Pattern- ings and Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relation- ShiPOOOOOOO...0..............OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO00.0.0.0...OO 118 23. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Pattern- ings and Degree of Satisfaction with Family Life.......... 119 24. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Pattern- ings and Degree of Satisfaction with Quality of Life...... 121 25. Summary of Intrafamily Intra-Resource Patternings for Each Specific Resource Exchanged, Total Resource Patternings and Degrees of Concordance.... ..... ....................... 122 26. Relationships of Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, Family Socioeconomic Status, Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life, to Degree of Particularism........... 125 27. Relationships of Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status, to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Q‘u‘ality 0f Lifeosoooo0.000000000000000coo 128 A-l. Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status when Love is Exchanged ........... ................... ........... 161 A-2. Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status when Status is Exchanged....................................... 162 A-3. Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status when Information is Exchanged.................................. 163 xi TABLE A-4. ArlO. A911. A-lzo A-13 c A-14 o Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status when Services are Exchanged.................................... Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status when Goods are Exchanged....................................... Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Family Developmental Stage, Family Struc- tural Complexity, and Family Socioeconomic Status when Money is Exchanged........................................ Concordance of Intra—Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life when Love is Exchanged... ........... ..... ....... ..... .......... ..... Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life when Status is Exchanged.............................................. Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life when Information is Exchanged.................................. Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life when Services are Exchanged.................................... Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life when Goods are Exchanged............................................. Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B According to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent- Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life when Money is Exchanged.. ............................... ......... Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B for Each Specific Resource Exchanged (SRE).............. Concordance of Total Resource Patternings for Groups A and B for All Resources Exchanged.................. ....... .... xii Page 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 173 TABLE Page B-l. Family Particularistic Typology Based on Degree of Particu- larism Obtained by Specific Family Members................ 176 C-1. Relationships of Specific Subgroups' Family Developmental Stage, Family Structural Complexity, Family Socioeconomic Status, Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relation- ship, Family Life, and Quality of Life, to Degree of Particularism............................................ 178 C-2. Relationships of Specific Subgroups' Family Developmental Stage, Family Structural Complexity, and Family Socio- economic Status, to Degree of Satisfaction with Parent- Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life..... 179 D-l. Results from the Panelists (N=6). ................ ........ 181 0-2. Reasons for Deletion of 15 Pretest Items from Instrument B.....O. ........... O ........ O 0000000000000 O 000000000000 O. 184 D-3. Intra-Resource Patternings of Fathers for Specific Resources Exchanged: Paired-Comparisons Technique....... 185 D-4. Intra—Resource Patternings of Mothers for Specific Resources Exchanged: Paired-Comparisons Technique ....... 185 D-S. Intra-Resource Patternings of Teenagers for Specific Resources Exchanged: Paired-Comparisons Technique. ..... . 186 D-6. Total Resource Patternings of Fathers, Mothers, and Teen- agers for All Resources Exchanged: Paired-Comparisons TeChniqUEOoosoooooases-00000000000000.o ..... 0.0.0.0. 00000 186 D-7. Intra-Resource Patternings Obtained from the Final Pretest Instruments: Forced-choice Ranking Technique.... 187 D-8. Total Resource Patternings Obtained from the Final Pretest Instruments: Forced-choice Ranking Technique.... 187 G-l. An Accounting of All Names Selected from Original List... 239 xiii FIGURE The Differentiation of Resource C1asses................... LIST OF FIGURES The Cognitive Structure of Resource C1asses............... Schema Specifying the Hypothesized Interrelationship Between the Independent Variables and the Dependent variableSOOOO0.00.0000... Summary and Comparison of Intrafamily Intra-Resource Patternings..... xiv Page 16 17 29 134 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The identification of the particular resources which lead to achieving "quality of life" has recently been the object of inquiry by researchers and social planners. This is partly due to the realization that a high level of living or modernization does not necessarily lead to happiness and satisfaction with one's quality of life (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 384). This is an indication that satisfaction with quality of life goes beyond the possession of material goods. Level of living has tended to be viewed as contingent on economic factors while satisfaction with quality of life may be more dependent upon noneconomic resources (Ackerman, 1977; Strumpel, 1975). The findings of Andrews and Withey (1974), Bubolz and Eicher(1976), and Campbell et a1. (1976) indicate that satisfaction with the quality of life is closely linked to feelings about family life. They found that family life was a highly satisfying part of most people's lives and a major predictor of overall quality of life. People were also found to reserve their greatest satisfaction for those areas of living that are most intimate and personal, e.g., marriage and family (Andrews and Withey, 1974; Campbell et a1. (1976). Little is known about the use of resources and quality of life of ethnic groups and minorities. Social planners of minority programs will therefore need to have information on the needs and concerns of their target groups. Factors which contribute to quality of life among minor- ity groups need to be studied (Bubolz and Eicher, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). The present study focuses on Mexican Americans, the United States' second largest minority group (U. 8. Bureau of the Census, 1971). A brief description of the Mexican Americans could provide insight on their situation, and what may constitute important factors which may impinge on their quality of life follows. Mexican Americans place a high value on their children (Moore, 1976) and family (Dworkin, 1965; Gecas, 1973; Johnson and Sikes, 1965). With regard to this emphasis on familism among Mexican Americans, Moore (1976) states: "Mexican Americans are reputed to be clannish ... an important defense for a poor and unskilled population in a demanding, indifferent, or hostile environment" (p. 135). A key to understanding the Mexican American family and the re- sources which lead to their satisfaction with their quality of life may lie in a thorough examination of the dynamic relationships that occur in the Mexican American home situation (Padilla, 1976). The theoretical tool which appears appropriate in understanding the Mexican American family is Foa and Foa's (1973) theory of resource exchange. The theory postulates that resources, namely: love, status, services, information, goods, and money, are exchanged in interpersonal communications and are considered to be most important during the forma— tive years of the children. "Resources," the Foas assert, are "the components of quality of life" (p. 21). They argue: A detailed list of all the events and conditions which make life pleasant and worthy would be unmanageably long; on the other hand the global notion of "quality of life," being so vague and general, is not amenable to measurement (p. 21).... An answer to the question of which items contribute to the quality of life has been provided by the identification of resource classes and by the discovery of their relationship. All six classes of resources contribute to the quality of life, so that when any of them falls below a minimum level, quality of life is impaired (p. 23).... Indices of the quality of life constitute an instrument for investigating the relationship between need states and social pathology (p. 25). The Foas (1974) define need "as a state of deficiency in a given resource; it occurs when the individual possesses an amount below the lower bound of the optimal range" (p. 130). They propose that "resource deficiency results in inadequate social performance" (p. 387). This could also lead to mental disturbances, poor task performance, and ultimately, to dissatisfaction with quality of life. The effects of the lack of these resources in human development (and consequently to qual- ity of life) are most felt when individuals and families, such as the Mexican Americans, find themselves in a cultural setting in which they are a minority. There is therefore a need to understand the patterns of resource exchange between Mexican American parents and children, i.e., intra- family resource exchange preferences. Resource exchange between parents and children, the theory suggests, appears to have potential for better understanding human development and satisfaction with quality of life. Statement of the Problem This study explores intrafamily resource exchange in nondmigrant Mexican American families in their parent-child interaction through the application of the theory of resource exchange postulated by Foa and Foa (1974). In the process of examining resource exchange preferences, this study tests the theory of resource exchange in a different context, i.e., in the Mexican American culture and in parent—child relationship. Specifically, this study attempts to find answers for the following questions: 1. Are there significant differences in data yielded by instru- ments that are general or situation-specific in nature? 2. Are there differences in resource exchange patternings of family subgroups, i.e., fathers of preteens, mothers of preteens, fathers of teen sons, mothers of teen sons, fathers of teen daughters, mothers of teen daughters, teen sons, and teen daughters? 3. To what degree do fathers, mothers, and teenage children, if any, agree on their resource exchange patternings? 4. What is the relationship of the families' family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life to degree of particularism? 5. What is the relationship of family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status, to degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life? Objectives of the Study The following are the objectives of the study: 1. To determine if resource exchange patternings will differ if the instrument used to gather data is general or situation—specific in nature. 2. To describe the resource exchange patternings of family sub- groups, i.e., fathers of preteens, mothers of preteens, fathers of teen sons, mothers of teen sons, fathers of teen daughters, mothers of teen daughters, teen sons, and teen daughters. 3. To determine the degrees of concordance on resource exchange patternings of specific family subgroups. 4. To determine the relationship of family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, to degree of particularism. 5. To determine the relationship of family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status, to degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Significance of the Study This study will help us better understand what resources Mexican American families prefer as investments in human resource development. It will also give insights on how parents and children interact. Resources preferred by parents and children in parent-child interaction may also come to be seen as a "human resource index" for determining satisfaction with "quality of life." The findings of this study could have important implications for family support systems (e.g., educational programs for families and children) which help minority families adapt to and/or change the en- vironments in which they live. This study could help pinpoint key variables underlying resource exchange in parent-child interaction, and therefore contribute to experimental research designs for future research on relationships between variables. Another significant outcome of this study could be the development of a technique for use in testing and exploring resource exchange pref- erence in social communications. Whereas Foa and Foa (1974) made use of a paired-comparisons technique in their questionnaires of exchanges of love and status, as well as social interaction inventory for exchanges involving the six resources (love, status, services, information, goods, and money) among Anglo American college freshmen, the present study will test the theory of resource exchange in parent-child relationships among Mexican American families using a forced-choice ranking technique. The researcher adapted the Foa and Foa (1974) instrument, gearing it to Mexican American parent-child interaction. Data to be yielded by this instrument could help validate the theory of resource exchange in different contexts. Finally, while interfamily resource exchange has been the subject of inquiry of some studies (Baerwaldt and Morgan, 1973; Danes, 1978; Emerson, 1970; Hill et al., 1970; Sussman, 1974), the dynamics of intrafamily interpersonal resource exchange, specifically, between parents and children, has yet to be explored. No study has been done on parent-child interpersonal exchanges using Foa and Foa's (1974) resource model as a conceptual framework.1 Data on intrafamily resource exchange could provide valuable information to close some gaps in our understanding of some dynamics of family social structure and parent- child social communications. The present study hopes to contribute toward this goal. Scope and Limitations of the Study This study is limited to the six interpersonal resources, namely: love, status, services, information, goods, and money, as reflected in parent-child interaction among non—migrant Mexican American families with children under 18 years of age, in Saginaw, a metropolitan area in Michigan. Further, the study is limited to the exchanges of "giving." Exchanges of "taking" (aggression), restitution, "turning the other cheek," and "ingratitude," which the Foas (1974, p. 179) identified as other types of paradigms of interaction, are excluded. Given the random sampling, the findings and implications may be logically extended, other relevant variables equal, to other groups of Mexican American families. 1Letter to the researcher from Dr. Edna B. Foa, dated 5 October, 1977 (Appendix H). Definition of Terms Resource "is any commodity--material or symbolic which is trans- mitted through interpersonal behavior" (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 36). There are six classes of resources identified by Foa and Foa, namely: (1) L933 is affect expressed through verbal and/or overt behavior; (2) Status refers to esteem or high regard for someone, expressed verbally and/or in non-verbal forms; (3) Services are behaviors which increase a recipient's physical comfort; (4) Information means ideas, facts, or opinions; (5) Goods refer to material things or commodities of any sort; and (6) Money refers to the currency for legal exchange. Resource Exchange refers to behavior (verbal and/or non-verbal) characterized by giving and receiving of resources in social relation- ships. Specific Resource Exchanged (SRE) refers to one of the six classes of resources assumed to be given by one person to another. In the questionnaire used in the present study, the SRE appears as a general hypothetical stem situation. Resource Alternative (RA) means the six classes of resources which could be received by the actor (parent or child) in return for an SRE. Resource Exchange Patterning refers to the rank-order preference for the different resource alternatives. There are two patterns formu- lated for the present study: (1) Intra-Resource Patterning (IRP) means the rank-order of preferred resource alternatives (RAs) in return for a specific resource exchanged (SRE); and (2) Total Resource Patterning (TRP) refers to the rank-order of preferred resource alternatives (RAs) in all specific resources exchanged (SREs). Family Developmental Stage is based on age of youngest child, age of oldest child living at home, and length of marriage. Family Structural Complexity is based on the number of total children alive, number of children living at home, and type of family (nuclear or extended). Individual Socioeconomic Status is based on the respondent's per- ception of his/her health status, educational attainment, paid employ- ment, and nature of occupation for each parent. Family Socioeconomic Status is based on annual income, home ownership, type of residence, parents' health status, and parents' paid employment status. Iggggee of Particularism refers to the combination of the converted scores for love and status. "Family Rank" and "Family Score" are used in this study to mean the "average rank for the family" for an RA, and the "average score for the family" for degree of particularism and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Degree of Satisfaction (D08) is a ranking on a 7-point scale from extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7) for three aspects of life concerns: parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. .Qggree of Concordance (DOC) on resource exchange patternings, refers to the "average rank correlation" (r8) of agreement among sub- groups of families. DOC ranges from vegy high (.89 to 1.00); 10 high (.76 to .88); moderately high (.63 to .75); moderate (.50 to .62); low (.25 to .49); to very low (less than .25). CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This section is organized in the following topical order: a brief discussion of exchange in social life; Foa and Foa interpersonal resource theory; advantages and disadvantages of the Foa and Foa resource model; rationale for the use of the Foa and Foa resource model on the Mexican American family; relationship between the resource model and investment in human resources; hypotheses; assumptions; and model of relationships studied. Exchange in Social Life Homans (1958) conceptualized social behavior as a form of exchange. He asserted that exchange underlies all of human behavior, that "social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as symbols of approval or prestige" (p. 606). Following Homans, Blau (1964) made a significant contribution on the nature of exchange and its relation to social life. He also viewed exchange "as a social process of central significance in social life" (p. 4). Individuals are assumed to possess basic needs, motives, inter- ests, and goals, which can be fulfilled through social interaction. An individual who gives services to another obligates the latter to give in return. Blau emphasized that the concern here is not so much for the 11 12 intrinsic benefits as it is for extrinsic benefits, although exchange is never independent of the relationship between the exchange partners. Blau (1964) further differentiated social exchange from strictly economic exchange. While economic exchange is contractual in nature, "only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude, and trust, purely economic exchange as such does not" (p.94). Boulding's (1972) theory of the grants economy, or the economy of one-way transfers as distinct from pure exchange brought greater focus on the many ramifications of social exchange since the work of Homans (1958). An exchange, according to Boulding, occurs when A gives some- thing to B and B gives something to A in return. On the other hand, a transfer occurs when A gives something exchangeable to B and B gives nothing exchangeable to A at least at that point in time. Exchange usually involves two-party relationships while the grant system may be multi-party. Reciprocity, according to Boulding (1973), involves two-way trans- fers and may be separated by time, commodities or exchangeables. Exchange is conditional while reciprocity is formally unconditional, although "exchange almost always developed originally out of reciprocity, and may be regarded historically as the formalization of reciprocity" (p. 26). He also identified intertemporal grants which are present sacrifices for a distant posterity, and serial reciprocity between generations. Both intertemporal grants and serial reciprocity may extend over long periods of time. Two types of motivations, Boulding (1973) asserts, underlie grants: first, as a result of integrative relationships and the integrative 13 system ("love"); second, as a result of threat and the threat system ("fear"). Feelings of goodwill, trust, and affection are fostered by acts of benevolence. The integrative role of grants is stated by Boulding (1973): One of the most important aspects of the grants economy is the role it plays in the building up of integrative struc- tures and communities--that is, groups of people who have some feelings of identification and benevolence toward each other (p. 27).... The very existence of the society, therefore, implies the existence of a redistributive grants economy, with grants going from productive adults to unpro- ductive children (p. 40). Bivens (1976), who adapted Boulding's (1973) grants economy con- ceptual framework and proposed it as a possible transdisciplinary approach for the study of the American family, views the familial func— tion of culture transmission of attitudes and value formation as embodied in the grants system. Nye (1978) examined some sociological theories that can be used to explain and predict social organization and human behavior. Further, he proposed a single general theory--choice and exchange. While both con- cepts are frequently intertwined, Nye views choice in terms of costs and rewards, while exchange "may enter as an anticipated reward or cost" (p. 220). He argues for a theory of choice and exchange as "the key to addressing the theoretical issues of social behavior and social struc- ture" (p. 231). Perhaps the most comprehensive treatise on exchange (and one which appears to embody Nye's theory of choice and exchange) is that of Foa and Foa's (1974) theory of resource exchange as explicated in their book Societal Structures of the Mind (1974). Although the Foas recognize the l4 role of resource exchange in power and decision making and its integra- tive functions, the Foas' stance on resource exchange is basically developmental (social and cognitive). The Foa and Foa theory of re- source exchange was used as the conceptual framework for the present study and will be presented in the next section. Foa and Foa Interpersonal Resource Theory The Foa and Foa (1974) resource theory is: A description of the psychological mechanisms required for these (interpersonal) exchanges, specifies their course of development, their parts and dimensions and the functions they play in interpersonal encounters. It relates individual structure to the structure of society and provides a basis for classifying differences among individuals and cultures. In examining shared and dissimilar properties of economic and non-economic resources, it establishes a link between economics and other social sciences. Within this theory seemingly dis- parate notions, such as cognitive dissonance, interpersonal communication, social roles, cross cultural training, leader- ship, need, power, alienation and psychotherapy are integrated into a coherent whole (p. 4). The theory is based on the proposition that "interpersonal be- havior is a channel for resource transmission" (p. 36). The Foas main— tain that a person will tend to enter into exchange behavior for resources which will reduce personal need for a particular resource. They contend that all the messages that are exchanged through the giving and taking behaviors via social communications can be classified into six broad resources: love, status, services, information, goods, and money. These resources are considered necessary for maintaining the quality of life; a deficiency in one will therefore diminish one's quality of life (p. 386). 15 Understanding the cognitive development of these resources in interpersonal relationships is basic to the understanding of resource exchange. Foa and Foa (1974) state: The resources received by an infant at the beginning of his life constitute an undifferentiated bundle of love and services: the flowing milk, the warmth and softness of the mother's body and her care for him are all presented simul- taneously. The differentiation between love and services becomes possible after the child has acquired some psycho- motoric skills sufficient for serving himself, like feeding himself, washing hands, etc. At this time mother can give him love without services, by requesting him to serve hime self and at the same time encouraging him to do so (p. 36). Figure 1 illustrates the differentiation of resource classes. The initial stage consists of an undifferentiated reservoir of resources on the part of the mother or mother surrogate. The Foas contend that this undifferentiated bundle of resources partly explains the profound attachment infants have to their mothers. As the child grows older, these undifferentiated resources give rise to the first stage when serv- ices and love become differentiated. As development continues, the child will need other resources. In the second stage, goods spring from services, while love gives rise to status. In the final stage, six resource classes are identified when money arises from goods, while information springs from status. Newly differentiated resource classes are shown by double frames. Only services and love do not change with time. Differentiation of the six resource classes also takes place with differentiation between giving and taking, between the self and others, between actual and ideal behavior, one's view versus the universal view, and acceptance versus rejection (PP. 32—45). Initial stage First stage Second stage 16 Warmth, soft- ness, food, care /\ Services Love Goods Services Love Status Final stage Money Goods Services Love Status Informr' . ation ’ Figure l. The Differentiation of Resource Classes (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 38). Resources are characterized in terms of particularism and con- creteness (pp. 80—83). Particularism is defined as the degree to which the value or meaning of a given resource is influenced by the relation— ship of particular persons involved in the transaction. Hence, love is considered to be the most particularistic resource; money, the least. Concreteness ranges from concrete to symbolic and suggests the type of expression characteristic of the various resources. Services and goods are the most concrete resources; status and information are the most symbolic; and love and money, intermediate. Figure 2 shows the classes of resources and how each is located on a particularism-concreteness continua. Resources which are closer 17 together in the cognitive structure will tend to be perceived as more similar than remote ones. Resources can therefore be substituted for others depending on their proximity to each other in the development sequence, and the degree of permeability between their boundaries. Particularistic resources tend to be exchanged with the same resources, while non-particularistic resources, with different ones (p. 265). More Love 0 Status . 0 Services Particu- larism Inform- ation . . Goods O~ Money Less Less Concreteness More Figure 2. The Cognitive Structure of Resource Classes (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 82). Foa and Foa (1974) identified five paradigms of interaction, namely: giving (A gives to B; B gives to A); taking (A takes from B; B takes from A); restitution (A takes from B; A gives to B); "turning the other cheek" (A takes from B; B gives to A); and "ingratitude" (A gives to B; B takes from A) (p. 179). A resource therefore can 18 either be given and/or taken away. Giving means increasing the amount of resources available to the object. On the other hand, taking away refers to decreasing the amount of resources available to the object. Giving nonparticularistic resources decreases the giver's supply while giving particularistic ones increases his possession. Taking away nonparticularistic resources increases the taker's resources while tak- ing away particularistic resources reduces the taker's supply (p. 164). Foa and Foa further state'szis the power to give that differentiates between the child and the adult" (p. 99). They also maintain that both adults and children can take away resources because taking away does not require previous possession of specific resources. As stated earlier (p. 7), this study is concerned with exchange of giving. Any exchange behavior involves a combination of any of the follow- ing: an actor (the person who performs the act); an object (or a recipient of the behavior, who may or may not be the same person as the actor); a mode of behavior (either giving or taking away); and a re- source class (which the actor gives to, or takes away from, the object) (p. 179). The lesser the cognitive distance between the resource given by the actor and the resource he later receives, the greater the satis- faction with the exchange (p. 218). Whether or not a particular exchange will take place depends on the motivational state of persons involved, the properties of the resources to be exchanged, and the appropriateness of the environment. The family is most conducive to exchange of particularistic resources. Theoretically, love and status are the critical resources in intrafamily resource exchange. Families may find that urbanization impinges on 19 intrafamily exchanges of particularistic resources. This may increas- ingly move them towards exchanges of resources that are nonparticular— istic. This could also move them to expect nonparticularistic resources in exchange for particularistic ones as they interact with the larger environment. The environmental properties of resources have important implica- tions for the Mexican American family. The combined effect of the time involved in the processing of resource inputs, delay of rewards, and optimum group size limit the exchanges of some resources from urban society (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 170). Specifically "an environment in which there is strong competition among inputs, encounters are brief and non-repetitive, and where every person engages in numerous contacts, constitutes an obstacle to the exchange of particularistic resources, while facilitating non-particularistic transactions" (p. 170). Foa and Foa contend that when these conditions operate simultaneously, their effects will be cumulative. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Foa and Foa Resource Model The present study made use of the Foa and Foa interpersonal resource model as a conceptual framework for the analysis of parent- child interaction in the Mexican American family. One of the advantages of the resource model is that it considers both economic and noneconomic resources as being indispensable in deter- mining the quality of life. It ties needs to resources, and looks at the interactions between the material and the human systems. 20 The resource model also has the advantage of treating the family both as an economic and as a noneconomic unit, and allocates family and community resources toward the development of members. The family is viewed as a source as well as a mediator of both human and nonhuman resources. The theory does not recognize time and space as resource classes in the same way it considers love, status, services, information, goods, and money pg: s2, but rather as factors influencing resource exchange. Hence, the model is flexible. The symbolic-concrete contin- uum characteristic of the resource model also allows for varying degrees of awareness in interpersonal communication considered important in child rearing. On the other hand, the researcher believes that there are some limitations connected with the Foa and Foa model. The use of the model as a tool for understanding parent-child intrafamily resource exchange requires a careful examination of the application of the resource model. There are some important points that need to be emphasized particularly when dealing with minorities. The "static" model (Figure 1) may not reflect what is going on in the "real world." For example, the time involved for each resource to differentiate itself is not clarified. When does it move from one stage to the next? The present model suggests that stages take place at the same rate and time and with the same dura- tion for all resources. For some individuals or cultures, the cognitive development for some resources, i.e., the particularistic, may occur earlier than for universal resources. Also, there is great emphasis on the mother, the initial source of undifferentiated love-services resource (PP. 32—33). The roles of other family members, individuals 21 and institutions are not clearly stipulated. These sources of resources (individuals, formal and nonformal groups) may not be equally preferred though they may be equally accessible. In addition, the hierarchy or patterning of resources is not well recognized. Resources in reality are not equally exchanged through time. Just like source of resources, they are differentially preferred even within a culture. Further, cultural differences may not have been sufficiently allowed for. Every culture has its own set of resources considered particularly appropriate for child rearing. The lack of supply in any of these resources may not necessarily mean a deficiency. Rather, it may reflect differing cultural values of what is desirable. There is much emphasis by the Foas (1974) on the indispensability of all six resources and the importance of having them in sufficient amounts, if not above the "minimum level," for maintaining a satisfying quality of life (p. 125). "Quality of life" is a relative concept, and so is the importance of classes of resources. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the economic and noneconomic resources, which could be the two sides of the resource model, differentiate independently of each other. That is, it is likely that the different resource classes do not cognitively differentiate simultaneously at the same rate and degree. Therefore, individuals and cultures could be fully differenti- ated in one class of resource, i.e., noneconomic, and be "rudimentary" in stage in the differentiation of the economic resources, or vice versa. As such, one culture should not be judged as being inferior to another. This is not to say, however, that individuals and cultures could not be differentiated in both types of resources. 22 Some of the above issues raised by this researcher were recog- nized in the conduct of the present study. Rationale for the Use of the Foa and Foa Resource Model on the Mexican American Family Interpersonal resources are obtained only through social communi- cations. When communication is impaired, the opportunity to receive the needed resources is lessened. In the case of the Mexican Americans, a limited ability to communicate in English (either in symbolic or con- crete terms) could predispose them to lesser access to universal resources. The interaction effects of poor socioeconomic conditions, shortage of particularistic resources in the larger environment, and poor communication ability, could lead to deprivation of the economic resources. The resource model, therefore, is appropriate for looking at the Mexican American ethnic group for it views the family as a unit, and as a set of individual members. It relates the amount of available resour- ces in one culture, with the resource demands of another culture- environment. Availability of resources influences the development of human resources particularly through child rearing. Relationship Between the Resource Model and Investment in Human Resources Investment in human resources is defined as "all activities that increase human resources" (Nickell et al., 1976, p. 184). Interpersonal communications in child rearing is an important medium for making an investment in human development. 23 The need for resources necessary for human development is seldom satisfied in isolation. Individuals depend on one another for these resources and, therefore, seek social situations in which to exchange them. "Interpersonal behavior is resource seeking" (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 381) and resource building. Foa and Foa's (1974) description of family-child interaction pro- vides insights into the role of interpersonal resources in child- rearing. It also provides a rationale for relating the resources to human development. They state: Interpersonal communication contains not only specific resources but structured information as well: the structure of the message reflects the cognitive structure of its sender and may or may not fit the structure of the receiver. This structural aspect of communication acquires special sig- nificance when its recipient is an infant. While communica- tion among adults serves mainly as a channel for provision of resources, for a child it has the dual purpose of supplying resources as well as the structural information necessary for his cognitive growth.... While ... adults utilize mainly the content of the message, infants process both the struc— tural and the substantive aspects of it. The content supplies the resources he needs while the structure provides informa- tion for his cognitive development (p. 298). The resource model therefore is best applied to situations where all six resources can be empirically tested. Since one's ability to enter into an exchange relationship is rooted, to a large extent, in childhood socialization, it is appropriate to apply the resource model in the family setting. "The family is probably the institution where the widest range of exchange is found, but ... not every exchange is permissible or customary" (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 151). The present study considers child rearing, including parent-child interaction, to be a "mix" of objects, events, activities, and 24 persons--as children interact with their many environments. All inter- actions of persons with children, particularly on the household level, are a combination and a series of "giving" and "receiving" behaviors. It also consists of "taking" behaviors; that is, behavior toward chil- dren, either symbolic or concrete, may increase or decrease investments in human resources. Every individual participates in both giving and taking behaviors. The difference lies in the degree to which either the giving or taking behavior is emphasized. The "emphasis" occurs with varying degrees of awareness on the part of the actors. Both types of behaviors, according to the Foas, are critical for cognitive and social development of children. Child rearing thus takes place with varying degrees of awareness of resources exchanged on the part of individuals interacting with children. This is because homemakers, for instance (who probably spend more time with young children than anyone else in the family), are generally present-oriented in their management decisions (Bustrillos, 1963; Hogan, 1965). Homemakers can also be non-rational in their choices, and this could lead to taking away of resources. Finally, the varying degrees of awareness are attributed to the fact that child rear- ing is deeply embedded in the private culture of the home. A proper study of child rearing, therefore, should recognize this social phenomena. Leichter (1974) may have referred to this social phenomenon when she spoke of contextual rigor. She states: Research on educational encounters within the family, even when it focuses on those moments of education in which inten— tionality is readily apparent must also include experiences on a fleeting, moment-to-moment basis. In fact the insist- ence upon a framework that embraces multiple levels of awareness constitutes one important element of contextual rigor (p. 209). 25 The Foa and Foa (1974) resource model therefore appears to be an appropriate tool for understanding parent-child interaction among Mexican American families for it relates resource classes to human resource development and, consequently, to quality of life. ,Hypotheses The hypotheses formulated for this study are stated below in the form of expected findings: Hypothesis 1. There will be significant differences in resource exchange patternings with respect to data gathered by instruments that are general or situation-specific in nature. Hypothesis 2. Fathers, mothers, teenage sons, and teenage daughters will not differ significantly in their resource patternings. 2.1 The intra—resource patternings of fathers, mothers, teen- age sons, and teenage daughters will be in the following order: love, status, services, goods, information, and money. 2.2 The total resource patternings of fathers, mothers, teen- age sons, and teenage daughters will be in the following order: love, status, services, goods, information, and money. 1If data reveal significant differences between the two instru— ments, hypotheses 2-5 will be addressed separately to each instrument used. If findings reveal no significant differences, data obtained from both instruments will be combined for further analyses. 26 Hypothesis 3. Family members of different family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, will exhibit similar degrees of con- cordance on their resource exchange patternings. 3.1 The intra-resource patternings of families will be from moderate to perfect degrees of concordance for each specific resource exchanged. 3.2 The total resource patternings of families will be from moderate to perfect degrees of concordance on all resources exchanged. Hypothesis 4. There will be significant relationships between family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socio- economic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child rela- tionship, family life, and quality of life, and degree of particularism. 4.1 The earlier the family developmental stage, the higher will be the degree of particularism. 4.2 The lower the family structural complexity, the higher will be the degree of particularism. 4.3 The lower the family socioeconomic status, the higher will be the degree of particularism. 4.4 The higher the degree of particularism, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with parent-child relation- ship. 27 4.5 The higher the degree of particularism, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with family life. 4.6 The higher the degree of particularism, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with quality of life. Hypothesis 5. There will be significant relationships between family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socio- economic status, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. 5.1 The later the family developmental stage, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with parent-child relation- ship, family life, and quality of life. 5.2 The lower the family structural complexity, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with parent—child relationship, family life, and quality of life. 5.3 The lower the family socioeconomic status, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Assumptions The preceding hypotheses were based on the following assumptions: 1. Resources, both economic and noneconomic, are measurable and quantifiable. 2. The adaptation of the Foa and Foa (1974) instrument used in the present study is reliable and valid for measuring resource exchange preference in parent-child interaction. 28 3. Mexican American families have intra- and total resource patternings in their parent-child interaction. 4. Forced-choice ranking technique can reveal resource exchange preferences. 5. Responses are reflective of family members' actual resource exchange preferences. Model of Relationships Studied The model of the relationships studied is shown in Figure 3 on the following page. 29 Individual Resource Intrafamily Resource Patterning Patterning Intra- Total Intra- sp—Total Resource Resource Resource Resource Degree of Degree of Concord- ...—y Concord- anced ance (_) Degree of Particular- (-) isme / -) Family Develop- a mental Stagea (+) Family Structur- al Complexityb +) Degree of Family Socioeco- - W Satisfaction nomic Statusc (-) Figure 3. Schema Specifying the Hypothesized Interrelationship Between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variables. aFamily Developmental Stage Variables: age of youngest child in the family; age of oldest child living at home; and length of marriage. bFamily Structural Complexity Variables: number of total children alive; number of children living at home; and type of family. cFamily Socioeconomic Status Variables: annual income; home ownership; type of residence; parents' health status; and parents' paid employment status. dDegree of Concordance Variables: love; status; information; services; goods; and money. eDegree of Particularism Variables: love and status. fDegree of Satisfaction Variables: parent-child relationship; family life; and quality of life. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter is divided into three sections. The first two are interfamily resource exchange and intrafamily resource exchange which deal with economic and noneconomic exchanges involving the family unit. The third section describes the Mexican American family. Interfamily Resource Exchange Of the many environments of which family members are a part and with which they interact the family environment is considered to be the most critical to human development. Friends and kin network as family support systems play important roles in family life and, consequently, in the development of children and quality of life. The frequency and degree of interaction between the family and other social systems speak of the family's openness (or closedness) to the environment. They also reflect the amount of material flows and information exchanges taking place between families. This interaction with others serves as the vehicle for interfamily resource exchange. Sussman's (1974) study of patterns of interaction among the middle and working class households in Cleveland revealed that parental help was usually given to families with young children. He found that nearly 30 31 all (93.3%) families interacted with related kin for "any form of help," nearly half (46.8%) received and gave baby sitting services. The middle class, more than the working class, gave "more" in terms of money, services, information, and goods, compared to what they received. Emerson (1970) analyzed national survey data of 2,997 families interviewed by the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan in 1970. She studied the relationship of family economic help patterns to specific family characteristics. Findings showed that young families were more dependent on parents and other relatives for help than on other sources. Middle age families depended mostly on parents, grown children and other relatives, while older families depended on grown children and other relatives. Families with preteens (under 13) re- ceived help from more sources, and relied heavily on parents. The majority of help given by young families went to parents. Families with children 18 and older received from fewer but evenly distributed sources, and gave more help to grown children. Emerson further found no significant differences between low and high socioeconomic participants according to type, source, and to whom help is given. When grouped according to type of help received or given, participants of varying age groups, marital status, or with or without children under 18, did not significantly differ. However, when grouped according to source of help and to whom help is given, participants significantly differed (.05) with age group, marital status, and pres- ence or absence of children under 18. Hill (1970), who studied 360 three-generation nuclear families in Minneapolis and St. Paul, found that the three generations are linked 32 together in a symbiotic network of multiple services and transfers of mutual aid. The grandparent generation was the most active in giving help and the married child generation the most frequent recipient of help. In terms of help items of all kinds, the grandparent generation both gave the most and received the least of the three generations. The married child generation gave more than it received--especially to grandparents, in three areas: emotional gratification, household management, and help in illness-but received more than it gave in child care (78%) and economic assistance (49%) in which the parent generation gave heavily. Danes' (1978) study of 106 non-migrant Mexican Americans in Michigan (and of which the subsample of the present study was a part), found that a greater frequency of non-market transfers was made by the family for others than transfers received by the family. Non-economic transfers that were most frequently made were care of family members and transportation; the least, housework. Baerwaldt and Morgan's (1973) research on trends in interfamily transfers found that two-thirds of heads of families in 1960 objected to having their relatives live with them, yet two—thirds also felt that relatives should be responsible for the aged in need. Ten years later, in 1971, when asked "Would you feel you had to help your parents or other relatives (more) if you had more money?" fewer than 40% of heads of families answered "Yes." Baerwaldt and Morgan also found that more help was received by young families and those headed by someone with an aged head than by families with a middle-aged head. They hypothesized that households headed by middle-aged individuals were more likely to 33 give help to relatives compared to their counterparts. Almost two- thirds of the family heads at low-income levels reported helping friends or relatives in the preceding year. About 60% of the young heads reported having helped relatives, while only 20% of oldest heads of families did so. They further found that in 1960, 17% of families were reported to have housed their relatives, while in 1970, 20 percent. The authors speculate that need is the main factor which prompts depend- ents (other than children) to seek help from relatives. Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973) further suggest that the pattern of resource exchange, specifically of "time and money between families is a small and probably irregular form of transfer income" (p. 208) in the American society. They assert that the current interfamily transfer is important. However, they also contend that the public and private non- family systems do the most in alleviating inequalities in the distribu- tion of income as evidenced by a large increase in government transfers owing to the various types of social insurance. As a social organization the nuclear family cannot exist alone. Interaction.with others, at least with relatives and friends in order to obtain the needed resources, is inevitable. Increased available help from others, specifically the private and government sectors, however, could seriously undermine not only interfamily resource exchange but also intrafamily resource exchange. "Changes in family composition," as Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973) have pointed out, "can have substantial effects on the well-being of individuals in the family, and on the ... distribution of family income and family well-being" (p. 218). 34 Intrafamily Resource Exchangg There is a dearth of literature on intrafamily resource exchange. It is for this reason that materials relevant to the topic though not directly related to intrafamily resource exchange are reviewed here. Morgan et a1. (1962) have assigned monetary values to family activities that they believed could be monetized. They estimated that intrafamily transfers in the United States in 1970 alone amounted to 313.3 billion dollars, an amount more than three times that of all transfers combined. The very high monetary cost of all intrafamily transfers taking place in the family unit led Morgan et al. to conclude that "the family is by far the largest component of the grants economy" (p. 20). Sharing the view of Morgan et al., Boulding (1972) asserts that "the households are by far the most important agent in the 'grants economy'" (p. 110). While Morgan et al. speak in terms of economic transfers, Boulding addresses himself to both economic and noneconomic transfers. He focused attention to the integrative role of intrafamily resource exchange. He states: It is perhaps the grants economy rather than the household as such that is the real Achilles' heel of our society, mainly because it does not have good feedback (p. 119). The differences observed by Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973) between the relatively little interfamily resource exchange (see p. 33), and the large amount of intrafamily resource exchange, led them to speculate that changes in the family composition can have "a substantial impact on intrafamily transfers, and on the distribution of well-being" (p. 218). 35 The amount and quality of intrafamily resource transfers particularly with young children can influence family investment in human resource. Creating human resources is one of the most important family functions and the most valuable of all capital is that invested in man (Marshall, 1959, p. 469). It is recognized that of all influences of the home on the development of children, the investment by parents in child rearing is perhaps the most important (Hurlock, 1974). The criti- cal role of the home training and environment, particularly in the development of 'invisible human resources,’ is summed up by Paolucci (1977): It is in the home that the template for humanness is forged as individuals learn to love, trust, care for physical needs, develop skills of communication and decision making, and test out a set of attributes and values (p. 1).... The family organizes and uses a complex of resources--a mix of materials, "things," time, talents, skills and space-~to achieve its particularistic set of goals (p. 2). Waring's (1952) classic bulletin, published in the early 19505, identified four key principles of child guidance, namely: affection that gives security; respect that encourages self—respect; help that stimulates abilities; and approval that fosters values. These princi- ples, which can be expressed in terms of Foa and Foa's resource classes (i.e., affection for love, respect and approval for status, and help can be in the areas of services, information, goods and money) are relevant today. The resources exchanged between parents and children are evidenced by studies made on intrafamily interactions. From their review of stud- ies, Foa and Foa declared that mothers use a high frequency of love ex- change with boys and status exchange with girls. The reverse is true of 36 fathers. Instrumentality, the Foas (1974) contend, is more prominent within "same-sex" relationships, whereas love is used more in "opposite— sex" relations (p. 97). Boulding's (1977) study of 10 white middle—class families over a seven-day period revealed a larger than expected amount of creative activity and nurturant interaction taking place within the household. However, mothers, and much less fathers, were rarely involved in chil- dren's school-related activities. She declares: The traditional 'helping children with homework' role seems to be absent.... Since much is made of the educational role of parents in modern American families, this school-related arena should be reexamined (p. 22). The preference for the specific resources exchanged differs in quality and quantity depending on individual needs and environmental setting. The Foas maintain that the more particularistic-abstract resources are best exchanged in the family; the less particularistic, e.g., goods and money, are best exchanged in more differentiated set- tings as in highly industrialized societies. Although this may be true, preferences for resources are not the same for all individuals and families and cultures at all times and in all places (see pages 20-22). Cultures will differ, for instance, in their concept of "the good child," the concept being dependent on time and place and who is saying it. Child rearing, therefore, and consequently child "quality," is culture, resource, and process-bound. The specificity of culture, resources, and processes in child rearing is succinctly stated by Paolucci (1963): Home management today deals with husbanding resources so that the more intangible as well as the tangible goals of the family are reached. Recognition that child rearing practices result in different personality types and that the possibilities 37 for growth are enhanced if one acquires skills, knowledge and attitudes valued by a particular culture, obligates adults to so arrange the home environment for children so that it offers the best chances for optimum growth (PP. 5-6). Families who are undergoing the process of acculturation like the Mexican Americans present a worthwhile and meaningful subject for the study of resource exchange in parent-child interaction. The resource exchange theory can be a useful tool for relating intrafamily resource exchange and environmental demands impinging on the Mexican American family. The next section briefly characterizes the Mexican American family. Mexican American Family Mexican Americans, the United States' second largest minority group, have the highest fertility rate in the country (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1971). The United States Census of November 1969 showed that the average number of children ever born per 1,000 Mexican-origin women aged 35-44 was 4.4, about 47% higher than for the number of all women of this age, and 41% and 21% higher, respectively, than for all White and Black women (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1971). Fertility rate was also greater than that of any of the national origin groups. The higher fertility characteristic of Mexican American women is true of all age groups. Mexican Americans value their children (Moore, 1976). Grebler (1970) contends that the "bearing and rearing of children continue to be seen as perhaps the most important function of a woman, symbolizing 38 her maturity" (p. 366). Grebler added that other cultural values of the Mexican Americans include: familism, i.e., the family unit con- sidered much more important than the individual; internal qualities rather than external symbols; and personal, spiritual, and ethical qual- ities. As a person-oriented rather than goal-oriented society, Mexican Americans, according to Grebler, place great emphasis on interpersonal relationships. Coupled with present-time orientation, Mexican Americans view material goods not as an end in themselves but only as means to an end. The norm of non-materialistic achievement, Grebler stressed, is primary, and the norms of cooperation of effort and the sharing of resources toward mutual achievement are important to the understanding of the Mexican American family. The traditional Mexican American family is characterized by domin- ance and authority by sex and age. Males are dominant over females in all age groups. Knowlton's (1973) description of the roles of fathers and mothers among Spanish Americans, who share the same historical and cultural background as the Mexican Americans may provide insights on possible resource exchange in the traditional Mexican American family: Fathers are expected to be somewhat aloof and formal to their children. The mothers on the other hand, knew the hopes, the desires, and the daily behavior of their children. In many Spanish American families, the mother and children are united in a tacit conspiracy to conceal from the father who was not expected to be overly inquisitive about doings within the home. All members of the family are expected to work closely to- gether.... Family discipline based upon scolding and shaming rather than physical punishment was in the hands of the mother.... Each child was taught to be obedient, courteous, and respectful to all adults in the village.... Relationships between family members were close and based on reciprocal courtesy and respect to all adults in the village (p. 30). 39 Heller's (1966) observation and comment in the mid 1960's give some insights on what may still be happening in today's Mexican American homes. She states: Parents, as a whole, neither impose standards of excellence for tasks performed by their children nor do they communicate to them that they expect evidence of high achievement.... The home also fails to provide the kind of independence train- ing that ... is highly functional for achievement.... It is not surprising, therefore, that these children seldom show initiative or freely express their own ideas (pp. 37-39). The Mexican American child is rarely left alone. During the course of development, the child is often surrounded by adults. Aside from members of the immediate family, the child can count on the support of godparents (padrinos). These are surrogate parents, whom the child must treat with honor and respect, and who shower the child with gifts and affection producing the bond of love. Mutual financial assistance, exchange of work and other skills, advice and support in solving per- sonal problems are ideally available with extended kin group members. The contemporary Mexican American family is different from its counterparts years back. A number of studies attest to the fact that the nuclear family is now the predominant type, with husband and wife and unmarried children living together (Choldin and Trout, 1969; Hawkes et al., 1973; Miller, 1975). The extended family type, along with the compadrazgo system (relations between parents and godparents of a child), has gradually become unpopular in the large metropolitan areas. There is now an increased tendency to rechannel the compadrazgg system towards strengthening the extended family structure rather than in creating cooperative relationships with other neighborhood families (Knowlton, 1973). 40 Although the influence of a kinship network has somewhat waned, Mexican Americans still maintain ties with their relatives. Choldin and Trout's (1969) study of Mexican Americans in Michigan showed that settlers maintain kinship ties in Texas by making visits and sending dollars back to relatives. Friends and relatives were cited as reasons for migration, and as people who helped the migrant families find jobs and housing. Haney's (1972) analysis of the literature on Mexican Americans in rural Mexico, the Southwest, and the Midwest, revealed that greatest changes in familial authority were in the rural area and the Southwest, where there is greatest change in the environment. Haney contends that the finding of a greater tendency towards egalitarian relationship between husband and wife could be an adaptive response to both the processes of urbanization and assimilation into the dominant Anglo American culture. In comparing the Mexican American and Anglo American family sys- tems in northern Mexico, Knowlton (1973) noted the following among the former: greater masculine dominance at all ages; a wife who is just emerging uncertainly from her home; a more rigid control over the behav- ior of children and teenagers; a more unified and formal ordering of relationships between husband and wife and children; and a greater tendency toward an extended family. Haney further suggests that the trend toward egalitarianism between husband and wife could strengthen conjugal ties and familial roles in age and sex. This may apply to interpersonal relationships between all members of the Mexican American nuclear family. Moore (1976) 41 also contends that urbanization and migration have influenced the inter- action between husband and wife such that it has become more signifi- cant as interactions with relatives of their own sex become less signifi- cant. In his review of variations in Mexican American family life, Miller (1975) states role changes have also been dramatic, the most significant change being between father and children. Miller further asserts that thg_Mexican American family" does not exist. Factors found to be related to the variations include: generation removed from immigration, age, occupational status, educational attainment, employ- ment status of wife, community of residence, specific place of residence within the community, region, and specific historical conditions. He concluded that the greatest variation from the "traditional" model seems to be found in the midwest cities. Of all the states in the region, Michigan ranks second to Illinois in terms of population of Mexican Americans. Today's Mexican Americans are getting a better education than their parents' generation (Choldin and Trout, 1969). The children, being better acculturated and proficient in English, serve as the link between the home and the outside world (Miller, 1975). The children's exposure to the larger environment, exerts considerable influence on their self-concept, their relationships with others and consequently, on human development. For the Mexican American, regardless of residence status (Gecas, 1973) and place of birth (Dworkin, 1965), the family is the most important social institution and reference group. Johnson and Sikes' 42 (1965) study of Black, Mexican American and Anglo psychiatric patients found that the family occupies a much more influential role in the Mexican American's cognitive structure than is true of Anglos or Blacks. The Mexican Americans' seeming failure in school is partly rooted in the fact that they are more field sensitive1 than their Anglo counterparts who are field independent (Ramirez, 1973). Gecas' (1973) study of the self—concept of migrant (who followed the crops and are transients to the area) and settled (who had lived in the area for at least one year) Mexican American parents of grade school and high school age children in the state of Washington revealed that relationships between parents and children are considered more important sources of individual ident- ity than are bonds between siblings. Samora and Lamanna (1967) are in agreement with Padilla (1976) when they state that the family is the best starting point for the study of the social life among Mexican Americans. Gecas' study further revealed that migrant Mexican Americans appear to be more firmly rooted in structural sources of identity (i.e., family, religion, work, ethnicity) stemming from their cultural heritage than are the settled Mexican Americans. He interpreted this difference to be a reflection of the psychological consequences of acculturation 1Ramirez (1973) used the word "field sensitive" cognitive style to describe the Mexican Americans' greater sensitivity to the social and physical environment. Field sensitive individuals are considered to be more influenced by or more sensitive to social cues and to the human element in the environment in general. In contrast, the field independ- ent individuals are less influenced by the human element in the environ- ment. ‘ ’ 43 which is probably greater for settled populations of Mexican Americans than it is for the relatively more isolated migrants. He also disclosed that the biggest difference in the self-concepts of migrants and settled Mexican Americans was in their self-evaluations. Migrants had a more positive and favorable view of themselves than did the settled Mexican Americans. Gecas suggested that the process of acculturation may be hard on the self-concept of the settled Mexican American as new expecta- tions and frames of reference become adopted and at the same time one's socioeconomic conditions do not appreciably change. The researcher speculates that due to the internal demands brought about by the changes in the Mexican American family, and that of the demands of the larger environment, interactions between parents and children could be more frequent and intense as a coping behavior. Families may be forced to adjust and adopt new living patterns in order to attain and maintain an acceptable level of resource exchange. Conversely, strong family ties may be weakened as members compete with the outside world for more economic resources which could undermine intrafamily resource exchange and functions. What influences do the changes impinging on the Mexican American family have on parent-child relationships? Basically, what resource exchanges take place in today's Mexican American homes as members cope in order to meet conflicting individual/familial needs and environmental demands? CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The present study focused on the dynamics of intrafamily inter- actions, specifically the resource exchange between parents and children, as well as the relationship between resource exchange patternings and family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socio- economic status, degree of particularism, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life vari— ables. Data collected for the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project NC-128, "Quality of Life According to Area of Residence," were used to answer research questions about intrafamily resource exchange. The Michigan study was part of a regional study which included the following fourteen states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas. Data were collected on totally Mexican American samples in Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, and Texas. Each of the states in the project used a common (primary) instru- ment and compiled a unique (secondary) package. The quality of life questions and the demographic characteristics for this study were taken from questions in the primary interview schedule. This schedule was developed by a regional committee with members from the participating states. The resource exchange instruments were part of the Michigan 44 45 secondary package. The data for this particular study were collected from families in the metropolitan area of Saginaw, Michigan, from November, 1977 to February, 1978. Sample Design and Selection Regional Research Project Sample Michigan had 10 standard metropolitan statistical areas which met the sampling criterion of the NC-128 Project which was that the large metropolitan areas have a population between 50,000 and 250,000. Of those 10, four communities had over 1,000 Spanish-speaking families with children under 18, sufficient to obtain the 100 families needed in the sample. The four communities were Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing-East Lansing, and Saginaw. Saginaw was randomly selected from those four communities. The original sample design was to be a systematic random sampling that assured the probability of proportionate representation of city blocks where the highest concentration of Mexican Americans was found. However, after receiving information from the interviewers during the training session, an alternative sampling procedure was selected in order to maximize the project's resources. Since the sample families had to have both parents and at least one child, 18 years of age or younger, the cost in both time and money would have been too great to do a systematic random sampling of city blocks. As an alternative, sample families were selected from a list of Spanish surnames taken from the Polk City Directory for Saginaw. The Latin American Affairs Department 46 of the Catholic Diocese of Saginaw compiled the list of names and addresses. Based upon the fact that 43 percent of the Mexican American families in Saginaw had children under 18 and using 80 percent as a beginning cooperating figure, at least 135 names were decided as the number needed to obtain the 100 eligible families. A four percent sampling ratio was determined by dividing the total number of names on the list by the number that needed to be selected, 135. The selec- tion began with a random number. Every twenty-fifth name from then on was selected to obtain the original 101 names that were distributed to the interviewers. To be eligible, the household had to have a family with both parents present, at least one being Mexican American. It also had to have at least one child, 18 years old or younger, living in the home. One parent was interviewed in each family. The other parent and the oldest child between 12 and 18, if there was one, completed a self- administered questionnaire. Four similar, additional selections were made from the original list to obtain sufficient names due to loss from ineligibility, refusals, sample list errors such as no house or address, moves, vacant dwellings, not at home after three visits, or interviewer dropout. The second selection included 99 additional names; third selection, 99; fourth selection, 100; and the fifth selection, 202 names for a total of 600 selected names. Using this sampling procedure, data were secured from 106 families in Saginaw. A table which accounts for all names collected from the original list is located in Appendix G. 47 The interviewers participated in sampling the potential respond- ents. They determined whether or not a household was eligible to participate in the study based on the eligibility criteria set for families. Interviewers were given eligibility sheets without names for them to fill out and to state reasons for a household's non-participa- tion in the survey. Data gathering was terminated after the 106th household. The project leader believed that six extra households were sufficient as possible substitutes for incomplete schedules among the 100 already collected. All 106, however, were found to have complete data, and constituted the final sample for the regional study. Research Subsample The sample for the present study consists of 66 intact families, a subsample of the 106 that participated in the regional research pro- ject. The 66 families selected from the 106 who participated in the regional research project met the criteria set for the resource exchange study, namely: a) both father and mother had completed either Instru- ments A or B; b) if present, a child 12-18 completed the same question- naire as parents'; and c) complete data were obtained on the resource exchange questionnaire.1 1Forty of the families from the 106 regional sample were dropped for the following reasons: 18 families (11 father and mother teams participated; the rest, only one parent cooperated) used an early version of the instrument. However, this was found to be unwieldy as a result of experience during the beginning stages of the data gathering process (see Development of the Measuring Instruments section). In one family only a teenager participated by answering the old instrument. Eight families were asked to omit the old version of the resource exchange in 48 Fathers and mothers (and a teenager, 12-18, if there was one in the family), were the final respondents for this study. Since two measuring instruments, A and B, were randomly administered to the 66 families, respondents were grouped as A and B. Table 1 shows the total number of respondents from whom final data for this study were analyzed. Table 1. Total Number of Families Group A B Individual Family Members Fathers 34 32 Mothers 34 32 Teenage sons 7 7 Teenage daughters 9 7 Total 84 78 Individual Families Father + mother of preteensa 18 18 Father + mother + teen son teams 7 7 Father + mother + teen daughter teams 9 7 Total 34 32 aPreteens did not complete any instrument. the instrument while a revised version was being prepared. In 13 famil- ies data were not useful because four father and mother teams used dif- ferent instruments. Only one spouse in five families participated in the study. Parents and teens in three families used different instru- ments. In one family, only a teen daughter cooperated. 49 The Develgpment of the Measuring Instruments The present study used the survey method with interview and self— report techniques of data gathering. Part I of the interview schedule dealt unlit the respondents' socioeconomic and demographic characteris- tics. This section of the instrument was part of the NC-128 research project's primary instrument. Part II, the resource exchange instrument proper, was of two types: first, an adaptation of Foa and Foa's (1974, pp. 398—405) Social Interaction for Exchanges of Giving, to be referred to as Instrument A; second, an instrument developed by the researcher for this study, referred to as Instrument B. Instruments A and B con- sisted of questions about the six resources considered in this study, namely: love, status, services, information, goods, and money. The following paragraphs briefly describe Instrument A, an adaptation of Foa and Foa's Social Interaction Inventory. Instrument A The items in Instrument A were adapted from those designed by Foa and Foa to record preferences in general hypothetical situations, for receiving a certain resource in return for the resource given by one person to another. Each of the six resources (love, status, services, information, goods, and money) assumed to be given by the actor is described. For purposes of the present study, the resource given will be termed as "specific resource exchanged (SRE)." Following each SRE are six statements, each describing a resource (love, status, services, information, goods, and money), which can be received in return. 50 These resources which can be received in return are termed as "resource alternatives (RAs)" in the present study. A.copy of Instrument A appears in Appendix E. Each RA appeared five times throughout the instrument, but was described by a different statement. Foa and Foa used the paired-compar— isons technique for gathering their data. Since there were six resource classes, each with five RAs, 30 RAs followed each SRE. These were paired randomly resulting in 15 pairs. The 30 RAs were randomly paired each time they appeared after each SRE. The respondent was asked to choose a preference from the paired RAs. This procedure of choosing one RA in each pair was followed for all 15 pairs. The highest number of times a resource could be chosen over others was five; the lowest, one. The resource class with the highest frequency was considered to be the most preferred in return for an SRE. Since the present study is concerned with parent-child interaction, both actor and object of the action in Instrument A.were adapted to parent-child relationship. Hence, the giver or recipient of the act was either the parent or the child, as the case may be. Instrument B Because the researcher wanted to examine parent-child exchanges in the Mexican American culture, and since it was believed that an instru- ment developed for Anglo American college students would not adequately tap exchanges in Mexican American families, the researcher formulated another instrument patterned after that of the Foas. 51 Instrument B was geared specifically to the Mexican American parent-child situation. The researcher first started out by making a list of statements, each describing a specific resource class based on the Foas', which she believed would be descriptive of the Mexican American parent-child interaction.1 In order to explore more situa- tions involved in parent-child interactions, 10 statements were listed for each of the resource classes. Since child rearing is culture, process, and resource bound, a panel of three Mexican American homemakers was used in pretesting.2 Each was given a checklist of 60 statements, each statement describing a resource alternative (RA). The panelists were asked to assess each statement by identifying which resource each best described, for which age group (either below 6 years, or 6-12 years of age) each statement was most appropriate, and to evaluate each in the context of the Mexican American culture's parent-child interaction. Another panel of three Anglo American women was given a copy of the checklist given to the Mexican American panel.3 They were also asked to assess each 1The similarities in historical and cultural background between Mexico and the Philippines, the researcher's home country, helped facili- tate this initial step in formulating the Mexican American instrument. 2Two members of the Mexican American panel were mothers of young children; one mother was also a professor. The third Mexican American had no children, was married and a master's degree candidate. 3Two members of the Anglo American panelists were Ph.D. candidates who were familiar with the Foa and Foa (1974) theory of resource exchange. One also had young children. The third, also the mother of a preteen son, worked in the Family Living Program of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. 52 statement as to the resource it best described, and the age group for which the behavior described was most appropriate. Comments and sugges- tions were encouraged from the panelists. Data obtained from the panelists were tabulated (Appendix D). Statements that were considered vague and/or that described more than one resource, were revised to reflect a specific resource. Comments and suggestions from the panelists were also used in developing the subsequent versions of the instruments. The pretest instrument initially developed was a checklist con— sisting of the same 60 statements found in the checklist given to the panelists. This instrument asked for the frequency with which respond- ents did each activity for their children. It also asked for the fre- quency with which their children did each of these activities for them in return. The possible responses were: Always/Almost always, Frequently, Sometimes, Rarely/Seldom, Never/Almost never. This initial instrument was pretested among eight Mexican American staff members at Michigan State University who had at least one child, 18 years or younger, living at home. Initial contact with the pretest respondents was made over the telephone. Those who agreed to participate in the study were mailed a copy of the questionnaire. Out of the eight mailed questionnaires, only three completed ones were returned. The second pretest instrument consisting of 60 statements, was developed and revised based on the findings obtained from the panelists and the first pretest. This was administered by the researcher to four mothers who were staff members of the Cristo Rey Community Center in Lansing, Michigan, who agreed to be interviewed. The respondents were 53 encouraged to react and comment on the different statements. Results were tabulated and are reported in Appendix D. The third pretest instrument consisted of 42 statements. Of this number, 39 were obtained from the results of the second pretest, while three new statements were added based on reactions obtained in the second pretest. The other remaining 21 statements out of the original 60, were dropped for various reasons such as, similarity of statements or inappropriateness of the behavior in the context of the Mexican American culture (Appendix D). The third pretest instrument was also administered to staff members of Cristo Rey Community Center who did not participate in the second pretest. Four mothers were also interviewed by the researcher. Comments and suggestions were also elicited. The instrument that evolved after the third pretest used the paired— comparisons format developed by the Foas. This was also pretested with three Mexican American individual parents at Michigan State University who had not participated in previous pretests. It was first planned that this instrument would be used to gather data for the study. However, it was necessary to make a change. Three weeks after the start of the fieldwork, interviewers and respondents felt that the paired-comparisons format of both instruments on resource exchange was too long, confusing, and repetitious. Inter- viewers were therefore asked to omit the section on resource exchange in their interviews while a new version was prepared. Data obtained from the 29 parents and 12 teens who used the old format were nonethe- less analyzed and are reported in Appendix D, although not used in the dissertation. All data reported in the dissertation were obtained from 54 the self—report of the respondents who used the final measuring instru- ments A and B. The Final Measuring Instruments: A and B The instruments underwent a major revision in format. A forced- choice ranking technique was adopted, consisting of the same specific resources exchanged (SREs) and resource alternatives (RAs) used in the instruments during the start of the fieldwork. The forced-choice method had a number of advantages over the paired-comparisons technique. In addition to obtaining the same answers on resource exchange patternings, the forced—choice version was much shorter (pretest took between 12-14 ‘minutes, while the paired-comparisons interview version, 30-35 minutes), was less repetitious and boring, and lent itself to easier data process— ing. Although the same SREs and RAs were used, Instrument A, at first, presented a problem. The final number of RAs in the original Foa instru- ment was only 30, and 36 such RAs were needed for the final forced—choice version. In order to obtain the needed additional six RAs, each of the five RAs describing a resource, was numbered. Since there were six resources, six groups were formed, each with five RAs. One RA from each group was selected at random. These comprised the six RAs for the sixth SRE in Instrument A. As in Instrument A, 36 RAs were needed in order to revise Instru- ment B. These six RAs were retrieved from the 21 RAs dropped after the second pretest. The choice of the six RAs was based on the degree to which each discriminated between respondents, i.e., those who answered 55 always/almost always and never/rarely. These six RAs were used for the sixth SRE for Instrument B. Instruments A and B for the teenagers were also revised in the same manner as that of the adults. The SRE and the different RAs were presented at random (Table 2). There was no definite pattern in which they were presented in the questionnaire. All SREs and RAs in the different instruments followed the same sequence for ease in coding the data. Pretest of the Final Instruments: A and B These forced-choice instruments were pretested by being self- administered.1 Results of the final pretest on these instruments are incorporated in Appendix D. After revisions of the instruments based on comments received from the pretest respondents, the final forced-choice version on resource exchange was incorporated with the instruments being used in the regional study. Copies of the final forced-choice instru- ments appear in Appendix E. 1The final pretest respondents included four Mexican American mothers of young children, who were staff members of the Latin American Affairs Department in Saginaw, Michigan. The other four were female Mexican American interviewers (three had young children; the fourth did not) for the regional project in Saginaw. Instruments A and B were alternately administered to each respondent. Four adolescents, equally chosen between the sexes and who were children of the interviewers, filled out the questionnaires left with their mothers. The completed questionnaires were received three days later. 56 Table 2. The Final Instrument Items for A and B Item Sequence Series of RA in the Number Questionnaire Resource Alternative (RA) Love 1 4 A--Your child says he/she is very fond of you. B--Your son/daughter walks with you in public and enjoys being with you. 2 4 A—-Your child gives you the feeling that you are very likeable. B--Your son/daughter seeks you out when he/she arrives home. 3 3 A--You are made to feel that your child enjoys your company. B--Your son/daughter embraces and hugs you. 4 3 A--You receive affection from your child. B-He/she spends some time with you to make you feel loved. 5 5 A—-Your child indicates that he wants to be your friend. B--Your son/daughter takes care of you when you are sick. 6 l A--Your child says that he/she is very fond of you. B-He/she makes you feel loved by giving you something special. Status 1 5 A--Your child tells you that he/she respects you. B--Your son/daughter speaks well of you before his/her friends. 2 l A-Your child praises you. B--Your son/daughter flatters you to make you feel good. 3 l A--Your child tells you he/she has confidence in your abilities. B--He/she asks your opinion on something you know. 4 6 A--Your child expresses his/her esteem for you. B--He/she cheers you up when your spirits are low. 5 4 A—-Your child gives you prestige. B-Your son/daughter gives you approval to show appreciation for you. Table 2—-continued S7 Item Sequence Series of RA in the Number Questionnaire Resource Alternative (RA) Status (continued) 6 3 _S_e~rvic es 3 2 3 3 6 4 2 5 l 6 2 Information I 6 2 6 3 2 4 4 A-Your child expresses his/her esteem for you. B-—Your son/daughter makes you feel that he/ she respects what you can do. A--Your child does something for you. B--He/she puts away things after using them. A--Your child runs an errand for you. B--He/she runs errands for you. Ar-Your child repairs something for you. B-Your son/daughter helps you clean up his/ her mess. A--Your child makes himself/herself available to do some work for you. B—-Your son/daughter helps you with work at home. A--Your child provides you with some service. B--Your son/daughter helps you repair some of his/her things. Ae-Your child makes himself/herself available to do some work for you. B--Your son/daughter helps you fix yourself, e.g., straightening your suit. Ae-Your child provides you with the opportun- ity to acquire some new information. B--Your son/daughter informs you about activi- ties in the neighborhood. A--You are given new information. B--Your son/daughter explains to you things you need to understand. Ae-Your child tells you something that you didn't know beforehand. B--Your son/daughter informs you about activi- ties in school. A--Your child makes you familiar with new facts. B--He/she shows you how to do things correctly. Table 2--continued 58 Item Sequence Series of RA in the Number Questionnaire Resource Alternative (RA) Information (continued) 5 2 6 a Goods 1 2 2 2 3 5 4 S 5 6 6 5 Money 1 l 2 5 3 4 4 1 Ar-Your child gives you the benefit of his/her familiarity with a certain subject. B--Your son/daughter gives you information you request. A--Your child gives you the benefit of his/her familiarity with a certain subject. B--He/she shares ideas with you. Ae—Your child provides you with some desirable wares. B--Your son/daughter shares with you his/her school materials. A--You receive some object from your child. B--He/she shares with you some favorite things. A-Your child gives you a certain product. B--Your son/daughter shares with you his/her things. A—-Your child gives you some merchandise. B--Your son/daughter gives you gift items on Christmas. A--You receive some goods from your child. B--Your son/daughter gives you gift items on your birthday. A--Your child gives you a certain product. B--He/she buys you a piece of jewelry. A--A money order is made out to you by your child. B--He/she gives you money as gift on Christmas. A-—You receive a check from your child. B--Your son/daughter gives you money on your birthday. Ar4Your child gives you money. B--He/she gives you money for personal use. Ar-You receive cash from your child. B—-He/she gives you money to use for enter— tainment, e.g., movies. Table 2--continued S9 Item Sequence Series of RA in the Number Questionnaire Resource Alternative (RA) Money (continued) 5 3 A—-You receive payment from your child. B-éYour son/daughter gives you money for your savings. A—-You receive a check from your child. B--Your son/daughter gives you money on Mother's/Father's Day. Differences Between Instruments A and B A basic question that the study needs to answer is: are there significant differences in data yielded by instruments that are general or situation-specific in nature? This question tries to find out whether respondents consistently make a hierarchy in the ranking of the RAs presented in Instruments A and B for each SRE. The first hypothesis is: Hypothesis 1. There will be significant differences in resource exchangeypatternings with respect to data gathered by instruments that areiggneral or situation- specific in nature. This hypothesis was formulated for the following reason: Instrument A has RAs that are general in nature; Instrument B's are situation-specific. In order to answer this question, 16 Mexican American respondents in Alma, Gratiot County, Michigan, 12 of whom were adults (8 were females; 4 males), and four teenagers (3 were males, the other, a female), were asked to rank the different RAs in the two instruments. The self-administered instruments were alternately given to each respondent.1 Responses obtained from the two instruments completed by each respondent were analyzed using the Kappa (K) statistic (Light, 1973) in order to determine the degree of agreenent between the two 1For example, the first respondent answered Instrument A first, and then immediately went on to answer Instrument B. The second respondent had Instrument B as first, followed by Instrument A. This alternate pattern was used for all respondents. In the end, an equal number of respondents answering Instruments A or B first was obtained. 61 instruments.1 Kappa was used instead of the usual Spearman's rank correlation for two reasons: first, the respondents were the same persons who answered the two instruments; and second, Kappa is more sensitive than the Spearman rank correlation since the former makes provisions for disagreements, i.e., it tends to penalize the respondent for making disagreements. Table 3 reveals an item by item analysis of the degree of agree- ment between the rankings of the RAs obtained from the two instruments. The results support the hypothesis of significant differences between Instruments A and B. Although the intra—resource patternings generally reveal similarities in the ranking of the different RAs in both instru- ments, Kappa values show differences that are very highly significant (.001) for the following: status, services, goods, and money. Information as an SRE shows patternings that are significantly different at a high (.01) level. Love reveals the least level of significant difference at .05 among the six SREs. This implies that in both instru- ments, RAs for love were ranked more similarly than respondents ranked the RAs in the other five SREs. The differences in which the RAs in all SREs were ranked in the two instruments are shown in Table 4. Although Instrument A's total resource patternings fit the overall patterning for the two groups very 1Kappa statistic is not part of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al., 1975). The researcher, who was trained to do the computations by the statistical consultant for the present study and by one of the Office of Research Consultants (ORC), did the analyses manually. Computations were checked and levels of significance of differences between the rankings of RAs were determined by the ORC consultant. 62 .oocouowoum mnu Ho3OH onu .xcmu mo Sam on» umnwan mnu .maumaaeam .ams . . ss aa ss as sm ss s Hos mssa s as as as ss as am < asauzs magmas . . as as as ea ms sm s so ssao a cs ss . as as am sa s asauzs mpon .m .mwmou homo: mmooo Goaums mmoa>umm mnumum o>oq Anamv wowcmaoxm mmmwx luomcH mouaomom mAfiumcuoufi< mousommm wo xcmm mo 85m oamwoonm AMV mnamx an cmamm>om mm m mam ¢ mqsouu Eouw wmaamuno mumn :mw3uom unmewouw< mo mmuwmm mam mwcacumuumm wouaomoMImuuaH .m manna 63 Table 4. Total Resource Patternings for Groups A and B Resource Group Alternative A B Grand Overall (RA) Suma Rank Suma Rank Total Rank Love 173 1 228 2 401 1 Status 213 2 223 l 436 2 Services 314 3 329 4 643 3 Information 383 4 320 3 703 4 Goods 423 5 435 5 858 5 Money 510 6 481 6 991 6 8The lower the sum, the higher the preference for the resource alterna- tive; while the higher the sum, the lower the preference. 64 well, Instrument B shows a patterning different from that of Instrument A. The ranking of the first four resources, i.e., love, status, serv- ices, and information, in the two instruments differed. Respondents ranked status and information in Instrument B higher than in Instrument A. On the other hand, love and services were ranked higher in Instru- ment A than in Instrument B. In both instruments, however, goods and money were ranked as fifth and sixth, respectively. Since Instruments A and B were significantly different in all six RAs, data obtained from each instrument were separately analyzed. Hence, tests of hypotheses were made separately. Discussion of findings on the differences between the two instruments appear in Chapter VII. Data Collection Regional Research Project Data Collection Personal interviews with one parent in the family and self- administered questionnaires of the other parent and if there was a teen- ager in the family, the oldest teenager between 12 and 18, were used to elicit and collect information for the project. The interview schedules and the self-administered questionnaires were available in both Spanish and English. The contacts established in the first visit to the community were with the County Extension Office and the Latin American Affairs Office. The County Extension Office has a Mexican American staff member who provided the project with good leads for potential interviewers. More leads were obtained from the Latin American Affairs Office. 65 The initial set of Mexican American interviewers selected were over 18 years old and could both read and write Spanish and English. Five women and one man were in the initial set of interviewers. A11 interviewers were trained prior to data collection. Inter— viewer training was held for two full days. It included background information on the project, sampling procedures and screening, explana- tion of the use of the primary and secondary interview schedules, distribution and collection of the self-administered parent and teenager questionnaires, and role-playing of the initial contact and the inter- view itself. Names of the interviewers and a letter of explanation about the study, its purpose, and contact person for the study were shared with organizations and governmental bodies within the city. Offices of the city chief of police, city mayor, city manager, Chamber of Commerce, County Clerk, County Extension, and City Clerk were given the informa- tion. In addition, the information was shared with the Latin American Affairs Office and the churches in the area not only because they co- operated in suggesting potential interviewer names but also because they had frequent contact with the Mexican American population in Saginaw. In addition to the community contacts, each interviewer was given a Spanish and English letter and an identification badge. These identi- fied the interviewers with the project. If there were further questions by potential respondents, they could call any of the agencies that had already been contacted. Two of the six initial interviewers never went out into the field. One interviewer completed only two families. Another took four weeks 66 before completing two families. As a result, a second wave of inter- viewer screening was held. Additional criteria used in securing more interviewers were that they be middle—aged, that they have as much education as possible, and that they do not have a full-time job. The original criteria of being Mexican American and being able to read and write Spanish and English remained. Interviewers who were Mexican American, bilingual, and not already employed in the labor force were very hard to find. The inclusion of more specific criteria for the second wave of interviewer screening was a result of difficulties encountered with the first group. Interviewers who were younger, taking college classes, or who had full-time jobs put other priorities before the interviewing. Those interviewers who were middle-aged and had no other full-time job in the labor market were most successful. Those with more education were able to graSp the interview process much more quickly. The second group of six interviewers were trained in one day. This time span provided less time for role-playing. As a result, more time was spent in supervising these interviewers until they fully under- stood the process and the questionnaire. Supervision of the interviewers was accomplished through a weekly appointment with each interviewer. At that time, completed schedules and questionnaires were examined. Telephone calls were utilized to follow-up on small amounts of missing data or to clarify confusing data. Major omissions were followed up with another visit to the respondent's residence. At times questions arose that needed immediate attention. 67 Interviewers then called the project director. A debriefing session was held with the interviewers after complete questionnaires were col- lected for the families. Resource Exchange Data Collection Instruments A and B were randomly and alternately administered to each family who agreed to participate in the study.1 The intrafamily resource exchange part of the instrument was self-administered. This strategy for collecting the data on resource exchange was used for the following reasons: due to the "sensitive" nature of the study and the RAs in the instruments; the researcher believed that respondents would likely rank the RAs more truthfully in a self-report technique than when in an interview situation; to break the monotony of the interview process; the need for the respondent constantly to relate the different RAs to the SRE; and the importance of having the respondent read and understand all the RAs before making a ranking. Finally, it was felt that the assurance to the respondent that there were no time pressures would help elicit much better rankings of RAs. The interviewer first explained to the respondent how to go about filling out the questionnaire on resource exchange. The respondent was first asked to read the SRE, then all the six RAs before making the 1This was determined by tossing a coin to ascertain which instru- ment would be given to the first household who agreed to participate. If the first household used Instrument B, then the second household automatically used Instrument A. Members of a household received either all A or B instruments. This alternate pattern of administering the two instruments was followed by each interviewer. 68 rankings. In most instances, respondents were able to relate to the hypothetical nature of the items in the questionnaire. It was also made clear to the respondent that each RA must be ranked differently. The most preferred RA was ranked one; the least preferred, ranked six. When the interviewer felt that the respondent understood what was to be done, the interviewer assured the respondent that there could be no wrong answers and that there was no time pressure. Respondents were also encouraged to express their opinions and to comment on the instru- ments. After the self-report on resource exchange, the interview process resumed for the rest of the instruments for the regional research project. Before leaving, the interviewer emphasized to the respondent the need to explain to her spouse and teenage child, if any, the instructions on the resource exchange part of the questionnaire. The questionnaires left with the household respondent were picked up on a mutually agreed date. The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respond— ents for the present study are described in Chapter V. Treatment of Data Codes on respondents' sociodemographic characteristics followed the codes formulated for the regional study. Coding instructions for the resource exchange questionnaires were formulated by the researcher for the data obtained from adults and teenagers. 69 Since the researcher was also interested in the relationship be- tween resource exchange patternings and the different variables con- sidered in this study, a system was devised for simultaneously handling several related variables. For example, age of youngest child in the family, age of oldest child living at home, and length of marriage were isolated from other variables, assigned scores for each category, and given a general name termed as family develOpmental stage. Two other general variables were treated in this manner. Independent Variables The independent variables selected in relation to the analysis for this study are family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status. The dependent variables include intra- resource and total resource patternings, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Scores were developed for individual families on all independent and dependent variables. Following is an outline of how the independent variables were categorized and scored: 70 a. FamilyiDevelopmental Stage Scores: Age of youngest child in the family: Age of oldest child living at home: Length of present marriage: Stage I (3-4) Stage II (5-7) Stage 111 (8-9) . Family Structural Complexity Scores: Number of total children alive: Number of children living at home: Type of family: Low (3-5) Medium (6-7) High (8-9) Category Less than 2 years 2-11 years 12-18 years Less than 6 years 6-11 years 12-18 years Less than 10 years 10-19 years 20 years or over l-2 3-4 5 or over 1-2 3-4 5 or over Nuclear (parents + children only) Extended: with one non-family member Extended: with two or more non-family members Score WNH WNH WNH It is necessary at this point to show how each father and mother was scored on the different variables for individual socioeconomic status . Although these data were used mainly to describe parents, part of the individual socioeconomic status variables were used to obtain family socioeconomic status scores. 71 Individual Socioeconomic Status Health status: Educational attainment: Paid employment status and hours of work/week: Nature of occupation: Scores: Low (3-7) Medium (8-10) High (11-12) Totally disabled Partially disabled No disability Less than 7 years 7-11 years 12 years or over Not in labor force; retired; disabled; student; full-time homemaker Part-time: 34 hours or less Full-time: 35 hours or over; self- employed Laborers and service workers; farmers and farm managers; not applicable (not in labor force; retired; disabled; student; full-time homemaker) Clerical and sales workers; craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers; operatives and kindred workers Professional/technical; managers, officials and proprietors; self- employed businessmen wNH WNH 72 c. Family Socioeconomic Status Annual income: Home ownership: Type of residence: Parents' health status: Parents' paid employment status: Scores: Low (5-11) Medium (12-13) High (14—15) Dependent Variables There are four dependent variables in this study, namely: resource patterning, total resource patterning, degree of concordance, Less than $12,000 $12,000-$14,999 $15,000 or over Live here free Rent Own A mobile home; an apart- ment building with S or more units; large house with several families Duplex house with two apartments Single family-detached house Both parents, partially/ totally disabled One parent, partially/ totally disabled Both parents, no dis- abilities Both parents unemployed One-parent earner family Two-parent earner family MNH MNH WNH intra- and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Each of these will be described briefly. 73 a. Intra-Resource Patterning Intra-resource patterning (IRP) means the rankrorder of preferred resource alternatives (RAs) in exchange for a specific resource exchanged (SRE). Each of the six RAs presented was ranked by the respondent from the most preferred (rank 1) to the least preferred (rank 6). No two alternatives were ranked in the same manner. Since aggregate data were analyzed rather than that of an individual respond- ent the rankings made by each group (e.g., fathers of preteens, A) on each SRE were summed. Hence, the lower the sum of an RA, the higher the preference for that RA. The intra-resource patterning is the hierarchy of the sums of the six RAs under each SRE. b. Total Resource Patterning Total resource patterning (TRP) refers to the rank order of pre- ferred resource alternatives (RAs) in all specific resources exchanged (SREs). Ranks of each RA in all six SREs were also summed. The lower the sum obtained for an RA, the higher the preference. The TRP indi- cates the overall hierarchy of resource exchange preferences by respondents. c. Degree of Concordance Degree of concordance (DOC) on resource exchange patternings re- fers to the "average rank correlation" (rs) of agreement within sub- groups of families using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W). d. Degree of Satisfaction Three indicators of degree of satisfaction (DOS) are used in this study: parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Indication of satisfaction or dissatisfaction by the respondent with 74 each of these indicators was according to the following scale: l 2 3 4 5 6 7 l l J l l l J T—' r I T7 T I I Extremely Dissatis- Somewhat Mixed Somewhat Satis- Extremely dissatis- fied dissatis- satisfied fied satisfied fied fied Category of response: Low (less than 6); medium (6); and high (7). Degree of Particularism Degree of particularism was treated both as an independent and a dependent variable. Degree of particularism scores were obtained for all individuals and families. These were based on ranks made on love and status after an initial analysis of the final data showed that the total resource patterning for each group using Instruments A or B was as follows, arranged according to degree of preference: love, status, information, services, goods, and money. Among the 132 parent- respondents who answered the two different instruments, large differ- ences were found between love and status (472), status and information (808), services and goods (259), and between goods and money (910). However, the difference in sums between information and services was only 36 points out of the possible 132 if one RA was consistently ranked higher over the other by 132 parents. The same total resource patterning was obtained among teenage respondents combined. The 30 teens ranked information ahead of services by 39 points relative to the other RAs. This indicated that services and information for the majority of the respondents were ranked alternately higher over the other. For some respondents, information ranked higher than services. For others, serv- ices were preferred to information. Hence, the small difference in the 75 sums between information and services in the total resource pattern- ings. In order to determine the degree of particularism, love and status were used for the final variables because the theory indicated they were the two most particularistic-abstract resources, and were oftentimes ranked either first or second. A possible third resource, information (if all six resource classes were to be conceptually and equally divided into particularistic and universal), was not included with love and status due to the large difference (808) in sum of ranks between status and information and the slight lead (36) of information over services. In order for love and status to be subjected to the Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient (r), scores for each were formulated. The converted scores for each of the rankings on love and status made by respondents are as follows: Respondent's rank Converted score Score: Low (12-54) Medium (55-59) High (60-72) O‘U‘J-‘WNH l—‘Nw-L‘WO‘ The converted scores made on love and status in the six SREs were summed to determine the degree of particularism. Hence, the higher the sum, the higher the degree of particularism. The lowest and highest possible scores for love and status combined were 12 and 72, respectively. Degree of particularism was also cross-tabulated with family development- al stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. 76 "Family ranks" and "family scores" were also obtained for RAs in order to obtain intra-resource and total resource patternings, degree of particularism, and degree of satisfaction. They were obtained by summing all the scores made by the individual members in a family divided by the number of family members who participated in the study. The resulting quotient, if .5 or more, was rounded up to the next digit in order to make a whole number. Total raw scores for each family were recoded into three cate- gories, e.g., low, medium, and high, based on actual totals. The bases for recoding the raw scores were the following: the assumption that there will be an equal distribution of respondents in each of the three categories, and the assurance of several raw scores being represented under each category. These recoded data were used in the intrafamily level analysis of the present study, since it was not possible to determine the degree of concordance (DOC) on resource exchange patternings for each participat- ing family. By grouping families based on some common characteristics, e.g., family developmental Stage I, the DOC thus obtained would hold true only for Stage I. Statistical Tests Used Data obtained from Instruments A and B for this study were separately analyzed due to the significant differences between data obtained from them as revealed by the Kappa test (see pp. 60-64). The descriptive analysis of the study is on the characteristics of the 77 respondents and their resource exchange patternings. The explanatory part looks at the relationships between the different independent an; dependent variables. The following statistical tests were used: Kappa (K) (Light, 1973). This was used to test agreement between responses made by the same respondents on Instruments A and B. These responses are not part of the final data reported in this study. Kappa (K) was believed to be most appropriate for this situation since it tends to penalize the respondents for disagreements. T-test and Chi-square (X2) (Hays, 1973). Both statistical tests were used to test for differences in sociodemographic characteristics between Groups A and B. T-test was used since it is more appropriate for ordinal data, e.g., age of respondents and educational attainment. A non-parametric test, the chi-square was used to test for differences in nominal data such as paid employment status and nature of occupation. Spearman's Rank Correlation (rs)_(Hays, 1973). This was used to test the hypothesis of no significant differences in the intra-resource patternings by groups of respondents. This was done only for the indi- vidual level analysis. Spearman's rs is appropriate when making compari- sons between ranks made by different individuals on the same items. If rank orders agree, the ranks assigned should correlate positively. Disagreement is reflected by a negative correlation. A zero correlation means no particular relationship between ranks made by two individuals. Pearson's Product4Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) (Hays, 1973). Pearson's r was used to test the hypothesis of significant relationships between degree of particularism, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, and the different 78 contextual variables such as family developmental stage, family struc- tural complexity, and family socioeconomic status. The coefficient of correlation ranges from zero, which indicates no correlation, to one, which means perfect correlation between two variables. Pearson's r also indicates the direction (either positive or negative) of relation- ships between the variables. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) (Hays, 1973). This statistic was used to test the hypothesis of moderate (.50) to perfect (l.00)udegrees of concordance (DOC) among family members having specific family characteristics, in their rankings of the different RAs, in both intra- and total resource patternings. Kendall's W ranges from zero (0) to one (1), and is always positive. For clarity in the interpretation of data obtained from the percentage of concordance, the "average rank correlation" (rs) of each DOC was also determined. Presentation of Findings The findings for the present study are presented in tabular form. Chapter V is on the description of the respondents. Respondents were grouped according to the type of instrument used: Group A, for Instru- ‘ment A which is general in nature; and Group B, for Instrument B, which is situation-specific. Results on the patterns of resource exchange are in Chapter VI. Resources assumed to be given (SREs) and resource alternatives (RAs) expected in return, appear simultaneously in each table. The higher the preference for an RA, the smaller the sum. Similarly, the lower the preference for an RA, the larger the sum. 79 Analysis of data for Groups A and B was made parallel since the differ- ent hypotheses were addressed to the two instruments following the finding of significant differences between the two (see pp. 60-64). There are two levels of analysis of respondents. The first is an individual level patternings, in which respondents were subgrouped according to characteristics regardless of relationships between them. The second is intrafamily level patternings and degree of concordance, in which respondents were analyzed according to some common character- istics. Data on resource exchange patternings for each level of analysis (respondents) were further subdivided into two. The first is on intra- resource patternings, that is, the rank—order preference of RAs by respondents in exchange for an SRE. Results of the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient immediately follow the results on intra-resource patternings. The second is on total resource patternings, that is, respondents' rank—order preference of RAs in all SREs. On the intra— family level, Kendall's degree of concordance (DOC) results are included in both the intra- and total resource patternings. Degree of concord- ance was determined according to family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and degree of satis- faction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Section three of Chapter VI presents the results of the Pearson's r analyses of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The above format for the presentation of findings on patterns of resource exchange (Chapter V1) is shown below. 80 Level of Analysis Level of Analysis Statistical (Respondents) (Patterns of Resource Exchange) Test Used Descriptive Individual Intra-Resource Patternipgs Spearman's rS Total Resource Patternings Descriptive Descriptive Intrafamily Intra-Resource Patternings Kendall's W, rS Descriptive Total Resource Patternings Kendall's W, rS Relationships Between Variables: Degree of Particularism x Contextual Variables Pearson's r Degree of Particularism x Degree of Satisfaction Pearson's r Contextual Variables x Degree of Satisfaction Pearson's r CHAPTER V DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS Sixty-six families (composed of 162 individuals), all of whom belong to teams of either fathers and mothers of preteens or fathers, mothers and teen child constituted the final sample for this study. Of this number, 132 were parents, while 30 were teenaged children. Sixteen of the teenagers were females; 14 were males. All respondents were living in Saginaw, Michigan, at the time of the study. Age of Respondents Table 5 indicates that parents are almost equally distributed among the three age groups. Fathers are generally older than the mothers. Between Groups A and B, the latter tended to be older than their A counterparts. Their ages, however, do not differ significantly. The youngest parent was a 19 year old mother, while the oldest at 73, were two retired fathers. The ages of the teenagers in both groups are similar. Family Developmental Stage Table 6 shows that the majority of the families in both Groups A (73.5%) and B (81.2%) have children younger than 12 years of age. The 12-18 age group comprises over a fourth of Group A, and in Group B, nearly a fifth. Nine out of 66 families have children less than two 81 82 .so. um aaas.s ucsoaaaawas soc mucmamasaa .sa.sa n a mnmssoz a HN.mm < mumsuoz mo own new: uumoula a .mo. um AONm.v ufimofiwwfiwfiw HOG mucmhwmmwa .wm.o¢ u m mhmfiumh “HN.wm u < mumfiumm mo mwm Gwmz ”ammulfim o.ooa sa o.ooa sa asses a.ss a s.sa s sausa s.ss a s.ss a sassa s.sa s s.sa a magma aauaa a z a z muuwmdmma muommcmoH o.ooa am o.ooa aa s.ssa sa o.ooa sa asses s.sa s s.aa as s.aa oa a.sa aa am>o no mamas as s.as sa s.aa aa s.sa ca s.aa aa asuoa a.aa oa s.sa s a.as sa s.aa aa muses on mass mama a z a z a z a z mumnuoz museumm mumnuoz mamaumm macaw mw< # hm : m m maouu 4 m= ”sassoaaaam soz acowummaooo wo maaumz .v o.ooa aa o.ooa aa o.ooa sa o.ooa sa asses a.sa sa o o mama aa o o sasxsemEOs oaassaasa o o a.s a o o a.s a suaasma a.s a o o o o o o soaoaaamusaos s.sa s a.sa sa s.aa s s.aa sa sacs no my: sa “soaoasss oaasuaasa o o a.a a a.a a a.a a .mas saIsa ”asauusuma o o s.aa s o o a.sa s smassmas ”coasmaauuo o: ascoz nxmo3\xu03 mo wuaom Imsumum acoshoHaEm pump .0 o.ooa aa o.ooa aa o.ooa sa o.ooa sa asses a.s a a.a a o o a.a a coasmsuoaca weassaz s.aa aa a.aa oa a.as sa a.sa aa am>o no aa s.sa aa s.ss sa a.as sa s.ss aa aaxa a.sa s s.sa s a.aa s a.s a mums» a away mama mucwficamuu< HmaoHumosvm .n o.ooa an o.ooa aa o.ooa sa o.ooa sa asses a.s a o o a.s a o o coaumsnoasa mcamma: a.a a a.s a a.a a s.aa s smasmsas aasama s.ss oa s.aa oa a.aa an a.ss oa auaaasssas oz maumum suamo: .m a z a z a z a z massaas> saaaouas mumnuoz museumm wamzuoz wawnumm mimwouu .II. < macaw msumum oasocoooofioom Hmavw>wvcH .s sassa 88 .so. as aoss.s samuaaacwam so: mucmusssaa .saaa.aus samssoz aaass.au< saunas: .mo. um Aoom.v unmoawwawwm no: mocmummwwn .moom.mum museumm usmww.mu< muozumm HOW muoom new: uummuteo .so. as aasoa.s sausasacwas so: uucmasaaaa .suas .saoas.sus saw < sasssoz .so. as asOOa.s sasuasacwam so: sucmamaaao .suss .asaas.aua saw < museums ”coaumaaouo so massmz .so. as assss.s unmeasacwas so: mucmamssao .auas .aasao.aua sum < mamssoz .so. as Aowom.v uamoauacwam uoc mofimuowmaa .muwv .snomm.um mam < museumm "magnum ucmshoamfim mama amumaumlficun .mo. um Aac¢.v unmoamaawam uo: moawuwmmwn .mH.oum muosuo: “Hm.¢u < mumzuoz .mo. um Amem.v uamofiuficwwm uo: oucopwuwwa .om.mum muoaumm meo.oau< mumzumm "unwE:HMuum Hmcoaumoavm cum: Hummulem o.ooH Nm o.ooH mm o.ooH cm o.ooH em Hmuoh s.sa s s.ss aa s.aa s s.ss aa swam H.m~ a H.w~ a N.wm ma «.mm HH snaps: H.mm NH w.wH c o.om NH 0.5H e 3oa omsumum oaaocouo Ioaoom Hmsva>avcH amumaasm 0.00H mm c.00H Nm o.ooH sm o.ooa sm Hmuoe H.m H s.ss ma w.HH s N.ss mH mumxuoa mafia mHnfiomwm .muoxnoz moa>amm cam muoponmq o o H.m~ m o o e.o~ a wuoxaoz vmamcax was wo>aumaono o o s.¢ m o o m.m N muoxaos canvass was :oEwuom .cmEmuumuo ¢.m m o o a.w m o o mpmxuo3 woamm was Hmoauofio a.s a o o o o a.a a cmsmmmcasss smaoaasmnsaos o o H.m H o o o o maouowuaoun mam mamwoawmo .muowmcmz a z a z a z a z massaam> uasaumam mascuoz museumm mascuoz muonumm m macho < adoao mmscwucoollw mHan 89 (nearly 80%) among the fathers. Similarly, the majority of the mothers (nearly 80%) reported being full-time homemakers. Only a few of the mothers reported they had some kind of work with pay. The difference between Groups A and B is not significant. Full-time homemakers account for the highest percentage of non- employed parents. Laborers and service workers, farm laborers and assembly line workers, characterize nearly half of all fathers. Table 8 indicates that in terms of overall individual socio- economic status, the trend for all fathers and all mothers differed. Half of the fathers in each group are in the high status level, while the lowest percentage of fathers have low status. On the other hand, low status mothers account for the highest percentage, while the lowest percentage have high status. Paid employment status and nature of occu- pation accounted for the differences between all fathers and all mothers. No significant difference is found between the two groups, although again, Group B more than A, tended to have a higher individual socio- economic status. Family Socioeconomic Status Annual income reported by all families ranged from $5,000-49,999 (Table 9). The highest percentage of families in both groups reported earnings of $12,000-19,999, followed by those who earn between $9,000- 11,999. Although Group B shows earnings slightly more than Group A, the difference is not significant. Nearly nine out of 10 families in both groups live in single- detached family houses. Very few live in other types of houses such as duplex or houses with two apartments. 90 Table 9. Family Socioeconomic Status Families GroupgA GrouppB Specific Variable N % N % a. Annual Income8 $5,000-6,999 0 O l 3.1 $7,000-8,999 2 5.9 2 6.3 $9,000-ll,999 5 14.7 5 15.6 $12,000-14,999 17 50.0 9 28.1 $15,000-19,999 6 17.7 11 34.4 $20,000-29,999 2 5.9 l 3.1 $30,000-49,999 l 2.9 1 3.1 Missing information 1 2.9 2 6.3 Total 34 100.0 32 100.0 b._Type of Residence Single family-detached house 28 82.5 28 87.5 Duplex or house with two apartments 3 8.8 4 12.5 Mobile home 1 2.9 0 0 Large house with several families 1 2.9 0 0 Missing information 1 2.9 0 0 Total 34 100.0 32 100.0 c. Home Ownership Owned 30 88.2 26 81.3 Rented 4 11.8 6 18.7 Total 34 100.0 32 100.0 d. Parents' Health Status Both parents, no disabilities 30 88.3 29 90.6 One parent, partially/totally disabled 3 8.8 3 9 4 Both parents, partially/totally disabled 1 2.9 0 0 Total 34 100.0 32 100.0 e. Parents' Paid Emplgyment Status Two-parent earner families 4 11.7 7 21.9 One-parent earner families 25 73.6 19 59.4 Both parents unemployed 5 14.7 6 18.7 Total 34 100.0 32 100.0 Summar : Family Socioeconomic Status Low 9 26.5 7 21.9 Medium 16 47.0 10 31.2 High 9 26.5 15 46.9 Total 34 100.0 32 100.0 aT—test: Assumed mean income: Group A!8.1212; Group B-8.1333 ($12,000- 14,999). Difference not significant (.967) at .05. bT-test: Mean score for Group A families-12.5588; Group B-12.8438. Difference not significant (.471) at .05. 91 Home ownership is prevalent among all the families. Nearly nine out of 10 own their houses, with slightly more of Groups A and B owning and renting their houses, respectively. The majority of the parents in both groups claimed no disabilities. Very few husband and wife teams declared having one of them as either partially or totally disabled. Only one couple reported that both were partially handicapped. One-parent earner families (generally, the father), is the most predominant characteristic of Groups A (73.6%) and B (59.4%). Although two-parent earners are found more often in Group B (21.9%) than in A (11.7%), the former, more than the latter, also reveals slightly more of both couples being unemployed. The 11 no-parent earner families general- ly volunteered the information of being on welfare support in order to make both ends meet. Table 9 further shows that more Group B families (46.9%) compared to Group A (26.5%) scored high in the overall family socioeconomic status. Nearly half (47.0%) of A families have medium socioeconomic status, while only nearly a third (31.2%) of families in Group B are in the same category. The difference between the two groups, however, is not significant. Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life,_and Quality of Life The majority of the fathers in both groups reported a high degree of satisfaction with relationships with children and family life (Table 10). Nearly sixty percent (55.9%) of all fathers in Group A, compared 92 .so. as asss.s uamuaasawas soc muamnmasaa .saas.s u a sponge: massas n < sussuoz .mo. um AHmH.v unmonHame uo: mocmummen .mcom.m u m muozumm mmNmm.o u < mumnumm How maoom can: "umoulau .so. as aasa.s ucmoaaacwam soc muamnmasaa .asoa.s u a mnmsuoz mamass u < mnmsuoz .mo. um Ame.v uumonchHm uoa mocmuomea .MHmN.o u m muwnumm ”wam.o n < muosumm How muoom can: "umouIHn .so. as assa.s unmeasacwas so: mucsamaaaa .aasa.s n a saunas: assaa.s a < samssoz .mo. um Anew.v unmonchHm uo: mommHmMMHn .wwoq.o u m mumsumm “econ.o u < mumnumm you ouoom can: uummule o.ooH N c.00H N o.o0H m o.QOH N o.OOH Nm c.00H Nm o.OOH em o.o9H qm Hmuoa ¢.HN m q.HN m N.oo o <.HN m e.mH m a.ss mH m.w m m.mm mH anm m.¢H H o.mN N N.NN N m.¢H H w.wo NN «.qm HH o.mn mN m.oN a amem: m. m macho < maoau m macho < macaw onHoogm was; so auaamao saw .msaa aaaamm .aasmaoaumamm saasonuamama sass coasomasaums so mousse .oa sassy 93 to those in Group B (46.9%), rated high in satisfaction with quality of life. Mothers in both groups generally scored only medium in all three indicators of degree of satisfaction. Table 10 also shows that the majority of the sons and daughters in both groups scored high in all criteria. As with their parents, more sons than daughters, and more teens in Group A compared to teens in Group B, reported high satisfaction in all three aspects of life. In summary, parents are generally in their middle ages (30-54), have 12 years of schooling, have been married for some 16 years, and have 3-4 children. Fathers are generally older than mothers, and have full-time employment. Full-time homemaking is the occupation of the majority of the mothers. Groups A and B differed slightly in some characteristics. Group B generally tended to have a more advanced family developmental stage, more complex family structures, and higher individual and family socioeconomic status. Overall, fathers and mothers in Group A, more than B, scored higher in degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. None of these differences in the characteristics of Groups A and B, however, is statistically significant. CHAPTER VI PATTERNS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE Results of the analysis on patterns of resource exchange of respondents are presented under three categories. First, individual level patternings. Analyses done here are on subgroups of individuals: fathers of preteens, mothers of preteens, fathers of teen sons, fathers of teen daughters, mothers of teen sons, mothers of teen daughters, teen sons, and teen daughters. The second category, intrafamily level patternings and degrees of concordance (DOCS) were based on some charac- teristics of subgroups of families. Two resource exchange patternings were analyzed and are presented in the present chapter. Intra-Resource Patterning (IRP) means the rank- order of preferred resource alternatives (RAs) in exchange for a specific resource exchanged (SRE); and Total Resource Patterning (TRP) refers to the rank-order of preferred resource alternatives (RAs) in all specific resources exchanged (SREs). The rankrorder in which the different RAs are stated in the different hypotheses and sub-hypotheses indicates the expected hierarchy of preferences among the six RAs. The third section of the present chapter is on the relationships of variables included in this study, namely: family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of 94 95 particularism, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. Individual Level Patternings The second question that the study attempts to answer is: are there differences in resource exchange patternings of family subgroups? Intra-Resource Patterning§--The second hypothesis for the study is: Hypothesis 2. Fathers, mothers, teenege sons, and teenage daeghters will not differ significantly in their resource patternings. The first sub-hypothesis for hypothesis 2 is: 2.1 The intra-resource patternings of fathers, mothers, teenage sons, and teenage daughters will be in the followipg order: love, status, services, goods, information, and money. This sub-hypothesis is partially supported among fathers on both groups (Table 11).1 None of the IRPs fully support this sub-hypothesis. Generally, only three (love, status, and money) out of six RAs were ranked as hypothesized. The different IRPs for both groups tended to show that the three most preferred RAs for each SRE appeared to be in the following order: love, status, and information (for love and serv- ices as SREs); love, status, and services (for status and information as SREs); and love, information, and status (for goods and money as SREs). 1A hypothesis or sub-hypothesis is partially supported if at least three out of six hypothesized rankings or preferences of resource alternatives (RAs) hold true. 96 wmscHuaoo sa sa aa sa aa aa aauzs a mm mm «N as Hm OH Amuzv < announwsmw zoom mo muonumm oa os sa aa aa aa aauzs a aa aa aa as sa aa aauzs < "snow oooo so anoooaa aa aa aa aa aa as aaauzs a as as as aoa as ea aaauzs a "aaooooaa so oaosoaa aOHumahomaH as aa aa aa aa aa aauzs a as aa sa aa aa aa aauzs < "aaoonaaas zoos so aboaoaa as aa aa aa aa sa aanzs a aa aa aa aa sa sa aauzs < "woos oooo so aaoaoma aoa aa aa ss as aa aaauzs a sa as as ss ss aa aaanzs < "soooooaa ao opossum asumua os aa aa aa sa sa aauzs a as aa aa aa aa oa aauzs < ”aaooaaoao oooo so oaoaooa aa oa aa sa aa aa aauzs a ma oa aa aa aa aa aauzs < "woos :aoo so saoaoaa aoa as sa sa as ss aaauzs a sa ss as as aa aa aaauzs a "soooooaa so soonoaa m>OH hocoz mmooo mmoH>uom GOHu msumum o>0H AMva vowamnoxm mousowmm oHuHoonw ImshowcH mnHumcaouH< mousomom mo xcmm mo 85m waonumm mo mwaaauouumm wousommMImuucH .HH oHnma 97 .mucowaoemou an oocmuowoua muH um30H may .uom homo: mvooo mmoH>hom :OHu maumum o>0H Amva vomcmsoxm mousommm UHMHomnm Imaaomaa mAHumcuouH< mousommm mo xamm mo asm vosaHucooIIHH oHan 98 Among all Group A fathers, love ranked first in 15 out of 18 IRPs. Status and services ranked first in two and one subgroup, respectively. Among the B fathers, 11 out of 18 subgroups had love as most preferred, while in six, status ranked first. One subgroup ranked love and status as most equally preferred RA. Among mothers of both groups, the sub-hypothesis is also partially supported (Table 12). Only mothers of preteens in both groups fully support the sub-hypothesis when services are exchanged. Love and money generally ranked first and sixth, respectively, in most IRPs. The dif- ferent IRPs in both groups indicated that the three most preferred RAs seemed to be in the following order: love, status, and services (for status, information, and services as SREs); love, status, and goods (for love as SRE); love, information and status (for goods as SRE); and love, status, and information (for money as SRE). Group B mothers ranked each of love and status highest in eight IRPs. Group A mothers, on the other hand, ranked love highest in 14 IRPs, and status, in three. The sub-hypothesis is also only partially supported by teenagers' IRPs (Table 13). Love, status, goods, and money were generally ranked as first, second, fifth, and sixth, respectively. The different IRPs for both groups indicated that love and status were the two most pre— ferred RAs. The third-ranked RA differed according to SRE. Out of 12 IRPs, Group A teenagers ranked love highest in nine, while status was first in three. Among Group B teenagers, love and status ranked first in seven and five IRPs, respectively. Goods and money generally ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, among fathers, mothers, and teenagers. 99 moscHucoo aa sa aa aa sa aa aauzs a sa sa sa as aa aa aauzs a "spousaoaa oooo so samsooz oa os aa aa a aa aauzs a aa sa oa aa sa oa aauzs < "woos oooo so whosooz ss aa ca aa aa as aaauzs a sa aa as sea as sa aaauzs < “moooooaa so aaosooz aoHumaaomcH os sa aa sa sa aa aauzs a as aa aa oa sa sa aauzs < "spousasaa oooo so aaoaooz aa aa sa aa aa aa aanzs a as sa aa aa aa aa aauzs < "woos soon so oaoaooz aoa aa as as sa as aaauzs a aoa as as ss as as aaauzs a "moooooaa so auosooz unusum aa aa oa aa aa aa aauzs a aa aa os oa aa sa aauzv < "aaoanwsmo soon so mamnaoz as ea aa aa sa aa aanzs a aa aa oa aa aa aa aanzs < "snow zoos so oaoaooz aa ss as aa as as aaanzs a oa ss aa ss ss aa aaanzs < “soooooaa so aaosooz m>OA hwcoz w—uOOU wmofitmm COHU mnumum flared Amva vwwGMSUNm wuufiommm Ufiwfiummm IGEOMCH mAHumcaouH< moaaowom mo scam mo 52m muonuoz mo mmcaaaouumm ooaaomoMImausH .NH oHan 100 .mucomcommoa an mocoaomoam wuH aosoH osu .aom homo: mvooo mooa>amw coHu msuwum m>oH AMMmV vowcmnoxm ooaaomom oHMHommm ImEHONGH mAHumaaouH< ooaaomom mo scum mo Sam soooaoooosnaa oasaa 101 Table 13. Intra-Resource Patternings of Teen Children Sum of Rank of. Resource Alternative (RA)a Informa- Serv- Specific Resource Exchanged (SRE) Love Status tion ices Goods Money . A (N=7) 1o 17 31 29 27 33 £933 S°ns' B (N=7) 16 12 21 31 28 39 , A (N=9) 21 15 33 37 30 53 Daughters' B (N=7) 18 16 26 29 24 34 , A (N=7) 24 16 20 23 31 31 -§E§EE§- S°ns' B (N=7) 11 10 28 35 26 37 , A (N=9) 18 22 25 32 4o 52 Daughters' B (N=7) 9 14 26 33 31 34 _ , A (N=7) 10 26 38 18 31 24 Inf°rma 5°“S' B (N=7) 15 14 32 27 39 20 tion Dan hters. A (N=9) 12 25 46 27 45 34 g ° B (N=7) 22 14 31 29 32 19 Services Sons, A (N=7) 15 18 24 22 28 4o -—————-—- ' B (N=7) 16 20 32 22 21 36 , A (N=9) 13 22 36 3o 39 49 Daughters' B (N=7) 11 17 23 3o 30 36 Goods Sons. A (N=7) 17 22 22 23 3o 33 -————- ' B (N=7) 1o 33 14 28 29 33 , A (N=9) 19 26 26 33 33 52 Daughters' B (N=7) 11 24 18 27 31 36 Home Sons, A (N=7) 13 17 21 28 32 36 -———41 ° B (N=7) 10 13 20 29 35 35 , A (N=9) 24 16 22 36 43 48 Daughters' B (N=7) 9 19 25 21 34 39 8The lower the sum of an RA, the higher its preference by respondents in return for an SRE. Similarly, the higher the sum of an RA, the lower its preference by respondents. 102 It is necessary to determine if the different IRPs made by fathers, mothers, teenage sons, and teenage daughters differed significantly. Spearman's rank correlation was used in the analysis. Table 14 indicates that when different resources are exchanged, fathers and mothers reveal more positive than negative correlations in the rankings of the different RAs. Out of 144 correlations, Group B fathers and mothers agreed significantly in 23 pairings, while Group A, in 16 correlations. Sixty negative correlations resulted from the analy- sis. Thirty-four are in Group A, two of which are significant. Twenty- six negative correlations, none of which is significant, are attributed to Group B. Money (11), information and goods (7 each), services (6), status (5), and love (3), in that order of frequency, received the highest number of positive and significant correlations. Table 15 shows that there are more pairings in which both fathers and teenage children agree. Out of 144 correlations, positive and sig- nificant relationships are observed in nine pairings for Group A, and for Group B, eight. Significant but negative correlations are revealed in four Group B pairings, and in Group A, three. Fifty-four correla- tions are negative, 27 for each of Groups A and B. The highest number of positive and significant correlations are on status (6), money and information (each with 5). Love, services, and goods (each with 3), were significantly and positively ranked by both fathers and teenage children. Table 16 presents the correlations between mothers and teenage children's rankings of the different RAs. Positive and significant correlations are Observed in Group A in two pairings, while in Group B, 3 0 1 voaaHucoo aaoo. saaa. ssa. aaaa. oos. oooo. asa. saaa. ssa. aass. soo. ssaa. aanzsa "oaoosaaas omoo so oaoo. aaaa. soo. aaaa. oao. oosa. saa. osaa. aoo. asaa. asa. sssa.. aaazs< aaasooa x oaoaoaa sas. aaao. aoo. oooo.a asa. aasa.- asa. aaas. oos. oooo. soa. ssss. aanzsa "woos omoo so aaa. aoos. oos. oooo. aaa. saas. asa. assa.- asa. ssaa. aao. aasa. aanzsa aaosooa a sooaoaa oso. asaa.- aaa. aaaa.- sao. aasa. ass. aaao. aas. aaao. sao. asaa.- aaauzsa ”acmoooua so osa. sasa. aaa. aaoa. uaoo. aass. saa. aaoa.-faoo. aaas. sss. aaas. aaanzs< aaosooa x aaosoas gHUWEOHGH asa. assa. sao. sasa. uaao. aaaa. soo. saaa. aaa. aasa.- aaa. aaaa. aanzsa "aaoosaoaa ammo so moao. oosa. aaa. oaaa.1 oaa. aaoa. asa. sasa. asa. aoos.n aaa. saaa. aauzs< oaoaooa a ouosooa aaa. assa.; ssa. aaoa.L asa. soaa. asss. asaa. asa. aaaa.- aso. oass. aauzsa "oaoo oooo so asa. assa.1 ass. asss.- aaa. aasa.- oss. sasa.- saa. aasa.- aaa. ssaa.- aauzs< aaosoos x oaosooa aaao. aaas. aaa. aasa. raao. asss. saa. aaao. aaa. aaaa. aaa. ssaa.; aaauzsa "moooooaa so ooso. asas. saa. asaa. sas. asao. ssa. sasa. aao. assa. aoa. aaaa. aaanzs< aaosooa a oamaooa mauwum aaa. sssa. aas. aaaa. soa. asaa. aao. aaas.- aao. aaas. aaa. aaas. aauzsa "mooosaoao oooo so asa. aasa.; aaa. asaa.1 saa. saaa. oao. aasa. oos. oooo. aaa. ssoa. aanzsa oposooa x auosoaa oao. saas.- aoa. sasa. oos. oooo. flsao. asoa. a..aso. asas. aas. soao. aauzsa "woos oooo so saa. aaaa. asa. aaaa. aso. oaas. aas. aaas.: asa. aaaa. asa. aaaa. aauzsa aaosooa x opossum soa. asaa.- sas. aaso.1 oaa. ssaa. aaa. saaa. aoo. assa. sas. aaso. aaanzsa "soooomaa so aaa. saaa.- asa. aasa. asa. sasa. aaa. ssso. aaa. saaa. ssa. saaa. aaauzsa aaosooa a auosoaa o>OH a on a on a so a on a mu a so amass soaoaaoxa 1‘ mono: ovooo wooH>aom coHu msumum o>oH monsomom UHHHooam ImahowcH A<¢v m>HumaaouH< moasomom muonuoz can muonumm mo mwchaouumm moasomoMImauaH umoauom soHumHouaoo xnmm a.smaamoam .qH oHan 104 .Ho>oH mo. um soHuoHoaaoo usoonstHmm oHoo. mmNo. mHo. oon. NNN. HsNN. Hmo. Hus. omH. moss. Nos. owoo. NNuzvm announwsmo some mo omH. onm. moo. mmsm. NNH. Hoos. oHN. «NoN.n HNm. HmNH.1 NNH. momm. Holzv< mamnuoa x muonumm omo. ooso. Hos. mNHH. mmN. Nmom. HHo. mon. cos. NoHH. NmN. ooom. HNuzvm "moon some mo oHoo. mwoo. moH. moom.1 NNo. Nqu.amHmN. mNom. Nmo. ono. oHN. Noom.- NNqu< muonuoa x muonumm mom. omoo.L wms. Hooo. oso. ooos. Hso. ooNs. ooN. oooN. son. omNH.- AwHazvm “mnoououm No mmH. moHN.m NoH. mNsN. moN. momH. on. NNom. Hos. ono. moo. Nmmo. AoHuzv< muonuos x muonuom fl Nose: Nos. HHHH. cos. quH. oNN. mNmm. Hom. NooH. NHN. wmom. NNH. ooom. aNuzvm “waounwsmo noon «0 oHoo. mooo. «HN. Nmom. NNH. Nomm. HoN. ooNN. soo. News. mHH. owes. Houzv< muosuoa x muonumm mmNo. wmoN. soN. momN. moN. osoN. omm. oooH. mmH. omoo. one. Nooo.: NNuzvm “moon soon mo mHoo. Nooo. Nmm. «NNH. NHH. oon. moH. sons. Noo. mQNo. oHH. onm. Nanv< mumsuoa x muonumm moo. qum. NNH. owNN. mNH. NomN. com. mmoo.1 oos. oemo. ooH. oooN. AoHuzvm “msoouoao mo mmm. mNoH.1foNo. woos. Nooo. NmHs. oom. HmmH. HoN. oHoH. HmN. wooH. AwHuzv< muosuoa x muonumm mooou mmo. Hsoo.4 mmH. ons. Noo. NoNo. Noo. NHNo.| Hmo. onN. «we. Nooo. aanvm announwamo coo» no «mo. oNNm. NNN. oNNH.I HNH. oqu.1 soH. Hmos.nmooo. NoHo.1 moo. Nmom.| Houzv< muonuoa x muozumm oHoo. oooo.HFsmo. NHNN. mHs. HHoH.1 HoN. mmmN. me. oNos. mmm. soNH. NNuzvm "meow doom mo Hon. NooH.| NNN. HomN. mcH. oHoq. omm. moNH. Nmo. NmNo.I mom. owwH. aNuzv< muonuoa x waonumm NNN. NoHH. mos. HsNo.1 Hom. onH.1 oNN. omsH.1 NNN. oHoH.: ooN. ommH. AwHuzvm amnoououo «0 qu. ome.I mom. omoH. mmo. mHom.| oNs. oNso.1 mHm. omNH. ooN. HooH. AmHuzQ< muoSuoa x muonumm mooH>aom a my a on a my a on a mu a ma Ammmv oowamnoxm : Noaoz moooo mooH>aom mmau msumww, o>oH oousomom oHMHooom ImauomaH . AHumcaouH< moaaomom soooaoooouusa oasoa 105 vonaHuaoo moo. Nmoo. moo. «Noo. oom. mmNH. ooN. Non.4momo. quN.1 oos. ooNo.4 HNuzv m "maounwsmo mNoo. «NNN. oom. oooo. own. NHHH. woo. momm. oNN. momN. NmH. mNom.: Amnzv < soon x macsumm Noo. mono. Noo. omoo. HoN. mmmN. Hoo. HoNo.1 soc. omoo. mmm. woNH.| ANuzv m "meow owN. Nme.JmoHo. owwN. oom. omNH. one. mmwo. Noe. omoo. NmN. soon. Nanv < coma x maosumm mooa>uom NNN. HNNm.1 mNm. oooH.4 msN. oHHm.JmoNo. «NmN.: ooN. momN.L oNN. Hmsm. AanV m announwsmo ommo. omoo. Non. HNoH.1 «co. mon. Noo. Home. mNN. mHmN. mNm. omNH.I Aouzv ¢ coma x muonumm «NH. oooo. HoN. oomN.#MNNo. oONN. on. HoQH. NsH. oooe. mmmo. ooHN. NNuzv m “meow mmoo. «Noo.: oom. oooo. Hoo. NNNo. omo. mmoo. Hon. NooH. HoN. osmN.1 NNuzv < soon x mascumm :OHuwaaomaH NqN. won. NNN. mmNN. «No. Nomo. NoH. oqoo. oom. oooo. NoN. won. ANuzv m announwsmo .mNm. omNH.1 ooN. onN. .HsN. ooNN.|moNo. wmoo.JmNHo. NNmN. NOH. omoo.: Honzv < soon x muoSumm NNH. Noom. mmH. meo. NNN. Noam.; NoH. moNq. NNH. NoHo.1 «Nm. NHmH. fianv m "moon NNN. oon. moN. onN. owN. mmoN. moN. NNmN.1 mom. «NmH.1 moo. Hmom. Aanv < coma x muonumm asuaum ooN. onN.L ooH. ooom.n mNN. mNom. Nom. sooN. oHo. Nomo. oNN. NNNN.I aNuzv m announwamo wmo. mNom. moo. «oom. mHN. mNom.] NNH. moon. NHN. mowH.1 mNH. «mNo. Aonzv 4 com» x muonumm NNH. Noom. Noo. HNoo.1 oom. oooo. moN. oowN. NNH. Nmom. ooH. Hoom. NNuzv m "meow NNN. mmNN. moH. NNoq. oHH. mon. mms. oomo.1 mmm. mon. mmo. oqNN.I ANuzv < coo» x maonumm o>0H a mu a mu a on a mu a mu a ma Amva vowamnoxm mono: mooou mooH>aom soau maumum o>0H moaaomom onHuomm ImaaowcH AHumaamuH< mouaomom soaoHHno coma was muonumm mo mwsHaamuumm ouasomoMImaunH noosuom :oHumHoaaou scum m.smaawoom .mH oHan 106 .Ho>oH mo. mo aoHumHoaaoo ucmonHamem AHumaaouH< opunomom mmNo. mmoN. Hmo. Nooo.1 oos. soso. sso. Nooo. mNHo. NHoN. NoN. mon. Hanv m announwswo on. NmNH. mmH. Nmos.1 mNm. HoNH. mHH. «Hos. mNHo. oHsN. Nos. HNmo. Hmnzv < coma x maosumm oom. oooo. HNH. ooNo. Noo. «Nmm. NHo. NmoN. mmH. moms. omm. NNoH. HNuzv m "meow oms. mmoo.L NoN. NNNm.L «mo. Homm. WsHN. HHom. HoH. mmNs.1 mNm. oqu. HanV < coma x mamnumm Nosoz mHH. oon.1 NNm. omHN.|mHNo. NmNN.I mmN. Non. mmo. Nooo.1 HmH. comm. HanV m announwomo mNm. omNH. Hoo. mooo. moH. Nooo. oms. mmoo. Noo. mmNN. mNN. sooN. Hmuzv < :wou N maonuwm oom. oooo. moN. osmN. Nos. mOHo.I moN. oomN.1 oNo. oNHo.I oHo. Nmmo.l HNuzv m "meow oHoo. oNHm. moo. Nmmm. omN. mooN. HNH. ooNs. mmN. ost. mNm. mHmH.L Aanv 4 coma x muosumm moooo a on a mu a mu a on a ma a ma AmMmV oomamnoxm mono: mooou moua>amm coHu maumum o>oH moaaomom oHMHooom ImaaomcH soooaoooo--sa oasoa 107 moaaHuaoo Hmo. ono.1 moo. Non. ooN. mmmN.nremo. NHNN.L oom. oooo. oom. oooo. HNuzv m announwamo mmH. Nooo. oHH. oqme. Hoo. Nooo. mmH. HHmm.1 Nmm. mNHH. mHm. momH. Aonzv < :oou x muosuox Noo. ommo. Noo. momo. mNo. NmsN. Nmm. mHNH.| moo. omom. NmN. NmNN. ANuzv m swoon mmo. mmoo. mHN. comm. oom. omNH.: Nmm. HomH. HHH. son. mNH. ooNo. HNuzv < soon x muonuoz mooH>uom mHoo. momo.4mooo. HNom. HNH. oHHm.| oNN. mHmm.1 oos. oNqo. omH. oNoo. ANuzv m announwamo «oH. omoo. on. oomH.|ToHo. quN. ooN. oqu.1 Nom. ommH. moN. mmsN. Aolzv < soon x muonuoz oom. mon.1 HmN. oomN.1 oom. oooo. Noo. mNmm. flHHo. mHmm. coo. Hmom. HNuzv m "moon mmo. Homo. oom. oooo. ooH. Hoom.| mmo. mmoo. ooN. oooN. Hom. NooH. HNuzv < soon x muonuoz :oHumaaomnH mNm. mmHN.| ooo. Hmco. coo. NmHo. oms. mmco.1 oom. oooo. NmH. some. HNuzv m announwsmo ooN. oooN.| oNN. «NmN. osH. moom.| mmN. oomN.4 soc. mmoo. moo. NmHo. Amnzv < coma x maosuoz mmH. ommm.1 moH. smm<.1 HNN. Homm.| NmN. mNoN. oom. oooo. msH. NNoq. ANuzv m "meow oNH. mNN¢.1 omN. mooN. HNm. moHN.I Nmm. oqu.1 moo. ONNo. Hoo. mooo. ANuzv < soon x muonuoz maumum NNH. «oom. HmN. NNom.1 Noo. mmmo. mNH. NmNs. Nooo. oNoN. mom. ommH. Hanv m announwsmo mom. HmmH. oNH. mNNc. mmo. oHom. ooN. oNoN. oms. Nsoo. mos. mmoo.| Hmnzv < soon x muonuoz omo. mmHo.1 ems. NmHo.1 ooN. NmmN. NmH. moms. NNm. oNoH. oom. oooo. Hanv m "moon mHH. NHNm.1 on. ommH.1 NNN. HomN.I NoN. qum. oHo. mmom. NNm. mNmH.I Aanv < soon x oposuoz T o>oH m on a on a my a mu a mm a ma Ammmv wowsmnoxm mono: moooo mooHpuom GOHu maumum o>oa ooaaooom OHNHooom ImaaowaH AHumcawuH< ooaaomom :mHoHHno coma mam muonuoz mo mwchaouumm moasomoMImaucH cooauom :OHumHoaaou xemm m.omaummom .oH mHQMH 108 .Ho>oH mo. um :oHuoHouaoo uaMUHwH:MHmm ooN. NHoN. oNN. ommN.|mooo. HHom. HmN. mmoN. Hmo. Nooo. moH. oHoq. HNuzv m "maounwsmo omN. mmwN.| mNN. mHmN.| oom. oooo. moo. Nomm. HNH. ooom.l omH. mNom.L Amnzv < coou x muonuoz moH. oHNs.1 omo. ommm.| mmH. Hmwm. omH. onq. oHo. oNoH.1 omm. NNmH. HNuzv m "meow mmq. mmHo.1 oom. oooo. Nos. moHH.1 OHm. momN.1 NmN. mNsN. mNH. oNNo.1 Hanv < coma x maonuoz Nose: NNN. oHom.: ooN. NmNm. mma. NmmN. moo. «HNo. ooN. mooN.umNoo. NNmm. Aauzv m "muounwomo mHm. mNmH.1 oom. mHoH. Nsm. momH.n Nom. HHoN.1 Noo. mNHo.1 oHN. sHom. Amuzv < soou x muonuoz oom. oooo. NHm. NNNN. Hom. NooH.: mmq. moqo. oom. mNmH.1 HmH. «oom. ANuzv m "meow NNN. oHom.] mNm. HooH.| omH. oNos. HoN. smmN.| moN. mmNm.: moH. ammo. Hanv < coou x muonuoz moooo a on a mu a on a ma a my a on Amva vowsmnoxm Mono: moooo wooH>amm cOHu woumum o>0H ooaoomom onHooam losaowcH «xv m>Humaaou H< ooasomom oosaHu:OUIloH oHomH 109 in eight. Sixty-eight out of 144 correlations are negative. Of this number, 39 are by Group A, while Group B, 29. When classified as to RAs expected in return, the greatest number of significant and positive correlations are on services (4), status (3), love and goods (2 each), and information and money (1 each). Total Resource Patterninge Are family members similar in their total resource patternings (TRPs)? Do family members agree on their TRPs regardless of specific resource exchanged (SRE)? The second sub-hypothesis is: 2.2 The total resource patternings of fathers, mothers, teen- age sons, and teenage daughters will be in the following order: love, status, services, goods, information, and money . This sub-hypothesis is partially supported (Table 17). Only Group B mothers of teenage daughters fully supports this sub-hypothesis. Fathers, mothers, and teenagers generally ranked love, status, and money, as hypothesized. In summary, fathers, mothers, and teenage children generally have similar intra-resource and total resource patternings. The most domi- nant patterning is as follows: love, status, information, services, goods, and money. Of the 16 TRPs, only Group B's fathers of teen daughters ranked status slightly higher than love as first choice (Table 17). In 15 remaining TRPs, love ranked highest. Degree of Particularism Degree of particularism was measured by adding the converted scores of each respondent on each of love and status in all specific 110 Table 17. Total Resource Patternings of Fathers, Mothers, and Teen Children Sum of Rank of Resource Alternative (RA)a Specific Resource Informa- Serv- Exchanged (SRE) Love Status tion ices Goods Money . A (N=34) 388 520 702 705 808 1,033 All Fathers' B (N=32) 400 495 710 762 777 996 Fathers of A (N=18) 194 257 378 381 405 527 preteens: B (N=18) 231 301 410 433 434 567 Fathers of A (N=7) 85 127 146 138 160 226 teen sons: B (N=7) 79 106 155 164 166 212 Fathers of A (N=9) 109 136 178 186 243 280 teen daughters: B (N=7) 90 88 145 165 177 217 . A (N=34) 373 556 717 747 810 1,079 All M°thers' B (N=32) 419 481 731 682 760 957 Mothers of A (N=18) 190 292 401 392 412 579 preteens: B (N=18) 235 261 411 377 440 544 Mothers of A (N=7) 75 119 139 149 172 228 teen sons: B (N=7) 92 111 156 149 162 213 Mothers of A (N=9) 108 145 177 206 226 272 teen daughters: B (N=7) 92 109 164 156 158 200 . A (N=16) 196 244 344 338 409 485 All Teen Children' B (N=14) 158 211 296 341 360 398 S n . A (N=7) 89 118 156 143 179 197 ° 8' B (N=7) 78 107 147 172 178 200 Da hte s' A (N89) 107 126 188 195 230 288 “3 r ' B (N=7) 80 104 149 169 182 198 8The lower the sum of an RA, the higher its preference by respondents in return for an SRE. Similarly, the higher the sum of an RA, the lower its preference by respondents. 111 resources exchanged (SREs). The higher the sum on love and status, the higher the degree of particularism. Fathers in Group B more than those in Group A scored high in degree of particularism (Table 18). On the other hand, more mothers in Group A than those in Group B tended to show higher preference for the particularistic resources. In general, all fathers, more than all mothers, showed higher percentage of those who scored from medium to high. The difference between Groups A and B parents, however, is not significant. Table 18 further shows that all daughters more than all sons scored high in love and status. Furthermore, more teenagers in Group A, compared to Group B, scored low in degree of particularism. Intrafamily Level Patternings and Degrees of Concordance The third question that this study attempts to answer is: to what degree do fathers, mothers, and teenage children, if any, agree on their resource exchange patternings? Intra-Resource Patternipge The third hypothesis attempts to determine the degrees of concord- ance (DOCs) with which different family subgroups ranked each resource alternative (RA). Degree of concordance was defined in terms of the "average rank correlation" (r8) of agreement among subgroups of families: very high (.89 to 1.00); high (.76 to .88); moderately high (.63 to.75); moderate (.50 to.62); low (.25 to .49); and very low (less than .25). 112 NoNo.v uamonchHm uoa oucmaoono .Ome.mm u m maocuoz noon.om Ono. “Q < maocuoz you oaoom coo: .mo. um AmHm.v unmoHuchHm uo: oocoaoono .mmHN.om u m muonuom mommm.om u < maozumm you ouoom coo: "umoulam o.ooH N o.ooH N o.ooH o o.oOH N o.ooH Nm o.ooH Nm o.ooH om o.ooH om Hmuoa m.No m m.oH H m.oo o o.mN N H.mN o m.mo oH o.mm NH o.Nm HH swam m.No m o.HN m m.mm m o.mN N m.Nm NH o.om HH m.Nm HH o.om NH aaHooz N.oH H m.oH H N.NN N m.No m o.om HH m.HN N m.Nm HH o.NH o 364 mwmmassm o.ooH N o.ooH N o.ooH o o.ooH N o.ooH Nm o.ooH Nm o.ooH om o.00H om Hmuoa m.No m m.oH H o.mm m o H.mN m N.oo mH m.oN o o.mN m :NH: o.mN N H.Nm o N.NN N H.Nm o m.mo oH m.om HH m.oN m m.mm mH EaHooz o.mN N o.mN N N.NN N o.No m H.mN m o.mN m o.No oH m.mm mH 304 msumum .o o.ooH N o.ooH N o.oOH m o.ooH N o.ooH Nm o.ooH Nm o.ooH om o.ooH om kuOH m.oH H o.mN N m.mm m m.oH H m.mH m o.HN N m.mm NH m.mm NH :sz H.Nm o H.Nm o o.mm m H.Nm o m.mo «H H.mm NH m.mm NH o.mN oH EaHooz o.mN N m.oH H m.mm m o.mN N N.oo mH o.mN m o.mN oH m.mm NH 30H o>oH .w N z N z N z N z N z N z N z N z oaoom maounwamo mcom muounwamo mcom muonuoz muonumm maozuoz muonuli m qsouu < macaw m macaw < Nmoau macooooommm HmsvH>HocH mo EwHamHDUHuumm mo moamom .mH oprH 113 Hypothesis 3. Family members of different family develop- mental stage, family_etructural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and degpee of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, will exhibit similar degrees of concordance on their resource_patternings. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) (Hays, 1973) was used to analyze the D005 on the patternings of families belonging to different subgroups.1 The first sub-hypothesis is: 3.1 The intra-resource patternings of families will be from moderate toeperfect degrees of concord- ance for each specific resource exchapged. This sub-hypothesis is partially supported,2 among families belonging to different family developmental stages (Table 19). The DOCs ranged from very low (.22) to perfect (1.00). The pattern of DOCs for both groups in all specific resources exchanged (SREs) decreased with advanced family developmental stage. The sub—hypothesis of moderate to perfect DOCs is also partially supported among families of different family structural complexity. Table 20 shows that DOCs ranged from low (.39) to perfect (1.00) in agreement in the ranking of the six resource alternatives. Although highest DOCs are found in the low complexity families, the pattern for information, services, money, and goods (Group B only) decreased with 1For detailed listings of intra-resource patternings (IRPs) and DOCs for each family subgroup (parents of preteens, parents and teen sons, and parents and teen daughters), see Appendix A. 2A hypothesis or sub-hypothesis is partially supported if not all of the hypothesized DOCs hold true. 114 Table 19. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Patternings and Family Deve10pmental Stage Specific Family Developmental Stage Resource Stage I Stage 11 Stage III Exchanged A (N=ll) A (N=11) A (N=12) (SRE) Group B (N=6) B (N=15) B (N=11) W r W r W r s s 8 Love 5_ 1.00 1.00 .74 .71 .49 .44 B_ 1.00 1.00 .74 .72 .46 .41 St t s A_ .87 .86 .86 .85 .34 .28 a u g 1.00 1.00 .90 .89 .54 .49 Information .é .97 .97 .81 .79 .61 .57 B_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .52 .47 Services ‘A 1.00 1.00 .69 .66 .67 .64 B_ 1.00 1.00 .88 .87 .29 .22 G d §_ 1.00 1.00 .71 .68 .46 .41 °° S e 1.00 1.00 .68 .66 .41 .35 Mone 'A 1.00 1.00 .71 .69 .56 .52 y e .92 .90 .71 .69 .67 .64 115 Table 20. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Patternings and Family Structural Complexity Specific Family Structural Complexity Resource Low Medium High Exchanged A (N=l3) A (N=18) A (N=3) (SRE) Group B (N=10) B (N=16) B (N=6) W r W r W r 8 S 8 L V8 A .88 .87 .65 .63 .77 .66 ° A .84 .82 .61 .58 .75 .70 s: t S A .82 .81 .57 .54 .77 .66 a u 13. .90 .89 .73 .71 .76 .71 1 f ti A 1.00 1.00 .67 .65 .61 .42 n ”ma °n A 1.00 1.00 .91 .90 .51 .41 S . A 1.00 1.00 .66 .64 .66 .49 ”Vices A .88 .87 .68 .66 .53 .44 G d A .95 .95 .55 .52 .81 .72 °° S A .81 .79 .57 .54 .49 .39 M e A .86 .85 .76 .75 .82 .73 °“ y A .94 .93 .67 .65 .55 .46 116 increased family structural complexity. Lowest DOCS are in the medium complexity group when love, status, and goods (Group A only) are the SREs. As for different levels of family socioeconomic status, the sub- hypothesis of moderate to perfect DOCS is partially supported. Table 21 shows DOCs ranging from low (.41) to perfect (1.00). There appears to be no definite pattern of DOCS for Group A. Services and goods increased in DOCs with increased family socioeconomic status, for Group A. On the other hand, Group B shows decreased DOCS with increased family socioeconomic status when love, status, goods, and money are the SREs. The above sub-hypothesis is only partially supported among families of different degrees of satisfaction (DOSS) with parent-child relationship. The DOCS ranged from low (.34) to perfect (1.00) (Table 22). Groups A and B show increased DOCS with increased DOSS when information, services, and money were the Specific resources exchanged (SREs). Group A exhibit decreased DOCs, while Group B, increased DOCS when status and goods were the SREs. Further, Group B Showed increased DOC when love is exchanged. The sub-hypothesis of moderate to perfect DOCS for families of different DOSS with family life is partially supported. Table 23 shows DOCS which ranged from low (.34) to perfect (1.00), in all SREs. The pattern for love is increased DOCS for both groups. Increased DOCS is also observed in Group B for status and information with increased DOSS with family life. Generally, the medium DOS group in Group A show the lowest DOCS. 117 Table 21. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Patternings and Family Socioeconomic Status Specific Family Socioeconomic Status Resource Low Medium High Exchanged A (N=9) A (N=16) A (N=9) (SRE) Group B (N=7) B (N=10) B (N=15) W r W r W r 8 S 8 Love A .51 .45 .85 .84 .81 .79 A 1.00 1.00 .72 .69 .56 .53 s: t S A .72 .69 .62 .59 .81 .79 a u A .97 .97 .75 .72 .73 .71 Info :1 A .86 .84 .82 .81 .73 .70 ma °n A 1.00 1.00 .84 .82 .88 .87 S . A .77 .74 .85 .84 .90 .89 enlces A 1.00 1.00 .47 .41 .78 .76 G d A .64 .60 .70 .68 .85 .83 °° S A .90 .88 .57 .52 .54 .51 M ne A .59 .54 .89 .88 .77 .74 ° y A 1.00 1.00 .74 .71 .59 .56 118 Table 22. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Patternings and Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship Specific DegAee of Satisfaction Resource Low Medium Hi h Exchanged A (N=2) A (N=7) A (N=25) (SRE) Group B (N=l) B (N=9) B (N=22) W r W r W r S S S L e A 1.00 1.0061 .76 .72 .73 .72 °" A .77 .77 .53 .47 .81 .80 St t A 1.00 1.00a .80 .77 .62 .60 a “S A .71 .71 .54 .48 .90 .90 1 f an A .51 .51é1 .79 .76 .81 .80 n "m °n A .77 .77 .87 .85 1.00 1.00 S . e A 1.00 1.0061 .72 .67 .87 .86 8”“ s A 1.00 1.00 .59 .54 .74 .73 G d A 1.00 1.00a .69 .64 .63 .61 °° S A .77 .77 .41 .34 .72 .71 M A 1.00 1.00a .66 .60 .80 .79 me” A .66 .66 .66 .62 .78 .77 aAverage rank correlation could not be determined due to sample size. 119 Table 23. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Patternings and Degree of Satisfaction with Family Life Specific Deggee of Satisfaction Resource Low Medium High Exchanged A (N=3) A (N=8) A (N=23) (SRE) Group B (N=5) B (N=6) B (N=21) W r W r W r s s 8 Love A: .59 .39 .60 .54 .81 .80 .B .59 .49 .59 .51 .86 .85 St t s A; .90 .85 .63 .58 .67 .66 a u A .71 .64 .80 .76 .81 .80 Information .A 1.00 1.00 .68 .63 .78 .77 B_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .91 .91 S 'ces .A .82 .73 .66 .61 .93 .93 “"1 A .96 .95 .77 .72 .64 .62 Goods 'A .75 .63 .42 .34 .83 .82 .§_ .63 .54 .73 .68 .61 .59 M.ne .A 1.00 1.00 .60 .54 .81 .80 ° 3’ A .78 .73 .80 .76 .71 .70 120 This sub-hypothesis is partially supported among families of dif— ferent DOSs with quality of life. The DOCS for all SREs ranged from low (.48) to perfect (1.00) (Table 24). There appears to be no definite pattern of DOCs for both groups. Generally, in most SREs, the highest degrees of concordance are in the highest DOSs group, while the lowest DOCS, in the medium DOSs group. In summary, the sub-hypothesis of moderate to perfect degrees of concordance among family subgroups is only partially supported by their intrafamily intra-resource patternings. Table 25 is a summary of the DOCS for each specific resource exchanged, regardless of family charac— teristic. Group A families have the following DOCS for each specific resource exchanged, arranged from highest to lowest: services (.84), money and information (each with .76), love (.72), goods (.70), and status (.65). On the other hand, Group B families have the following hierarchy of DOCS based on the SREs: information (.96), status (.77), money (.71), services (.70), love (.67), and goods (.61). Total Resource Patternings 3.2 The total resource patternings of families will be from moderate to,perfect degrees of concord- ance on all resources exchanged. This sub-hypothesis is supported. Table 25 also shows that the DOC for Group B families was moderate (.60), and for Group A, slightly higher (.63). 121 Table 24. Summary of Concordance of Family Intra-Resource Patternings and Degree of Satisfaction with Quality of Life Specific Degree of Satisfaction Resource Low Medium High Exchanged A (N=5) A (N=9) A (N=20) (SRE) Group B (N=8) B (N=5) B (N=l9) W r W r W r S S S L A .69 .61 .60 .55 .84 .83 °Ve A .75 .71 .61 .51 .81 .80 St t A .75 .69 .72 .69 .69 .67 a “S A .71 .67 .64 .55 .88 .87 1 f t. A .84 .80 .68 .64 .84 .83 n ”ma 1°“ A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .86 .85 s . e A .65 .56 .78 .75 .92 .92 em“: 8 A .76 .73 .64 .55 .73 .72 G d A .73 .66 .60 .55 .82 .81 °° S A .65 .60 .78 .73 .62 .60 M e A .58 .48 .76 .73 .84 .83 °“ 3’ A .79 .76 .84 .80 .70 .68 122 Table 25. Summary of Intrafamily Intra-Resource Patternings for Each Specific Resource Exchanged, Total Resource Patternings and Degrees of Concordance Specific Resource Exchanged (SRE) W r Intra-Resource Patterning (IRP) L . A (N=34) -73 ~72 ove. B (N=32) .68 .67 . A (N=34) .66 .65 Status. B (N=32) .78 .77 . A (N=34) .77 ~76 Information. B (N=32) .95 .96 Ser 'ce ' A (N=34) .84 .84 v1 5. B (N=32) .71 .70 . A (N=34) .71 ~70 GOOdS o B (N=32) .62 . 61 M ne . A (N=34) ~77 '76 0 yo B (N=32) .72 .71 Total Resource Patterning (TRP) Group A (N=34) .64 .63 Group B (N=32) .61 .60 123 Relationships of Independent and Dependent Variables Relationships of Famiiy_Developmental Stage, FamilyiStructural Compiexity, Family Socio- economic Status, Degree of Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Qhality of Life, 1x) Degree of Particularism The fourth question that this study attempts to answer is: what is the relationship of the families' developmental stage, family struc- tural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, to degree of particularism? _hypethesis 4. There will be significant relationships between family developmental Stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and ghality of life, and degree of Aparticularism. The specific sub-hypotheses are: 4.1 The earlier the family deveiepmental stage, the higher will be the degree of particularism. This sub-hypothesis is not supported.1 Table 26 shows that only Group A supports it, although not at a significant level. Advanced family developmental stage for Group B Show increased preference for the particularistic resources. However, the relationship is not significant. 4.2 The lower the family structural complexiEy, the higher will be the degree of particularism. 1Detailed analysis of relationships between variables for each family subgroup (parents of preteens, parents and teen sons, and parents and teen daughters) appears in Appendix C. 124 I This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Table 26 shows that although Groups A and B support it, none of the relationships are Significant. 4.3 The lower the family socioeconomic Status, the higher will be the degree of particularism. This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Only Group B supports the sub—hypothesis, but this is not significant (Table 26). Group A shows increased preference for love and status with increased family socio- economic status, but not at a significant level. 4.4 The higher the degree of particularism, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship. This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Group A families Show a negative relationship between the variables, whereas Group B exhibits increased degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship with increased degree of particularism (Table 26). However, none reached the significant level. 4.5 The higher the degree of particularism, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with family life. This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Only Group B supports this sub-hypothesis, while Group A shows a negative relationship between the two variables (Table 26). However, none are significant. 4.6 The higher the degree of_particu1arism, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with Aguality_of life. This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Table 26 shows that satis- faction with quality of life among Group A families decreased signifi- cantly with increased degree of particularism. Group B, on the other 125 Table 26. Relationship of Family Developmental Stage, Family Structural Complexity, Family Socioeconomic Status, Degree of Satisfac- tion with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Quality of Life, to Degree of Particularism Group A Group B Specific Variable (N=34) (N=32) r p r P Family Developmental Stage -.0156 .465 .0091 .480 Family Structural Complexity -.2026 .125 -.0559 .381 Family Socioeconomic Status .1888 .142 -.1271 .244 Degree of Satisfaction with: Parent-Child Relationship -.0874 .311 .1142 .267 Family Life -.O369 .418 .0962 .300 Quality of Life -.3031 .041a .1607 .190 aSignificant relationship at .05 level. 126 hand, reveals increased degree of satisfaction with quality of life as degree of particularism increased. However, the relationship is not significant. In summary, none of the sub-hypotheses was supported. The overall hypothesis of significant relationships between family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent—child relationship, family life, and quality of life, and degree of particularism, was not supported. Relationship_of Famiiy Develepmental Stage, Famiiy_Structural Complexity, and Family Socio- economic Status, tx) Degree of Satisfaction ‘with Parent-Child Relationship, Family Life, and Qhality of Life The fifth question that the study attempts to answer is: what is the relationship of family developmental stage, family structural com- plexity, and family socioeconomic status, to degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life? Hypothesis 5. There will be significant relationships between family developmental stege, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child rela- tionship, family,life, and guality of life. The following are the sub-hypotheses: 5.1 The later the family developmental stage, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. This sub-hypothesis is not supported.1 Table 27 shows that both groups significantly have increased degrees of satisfaction (DOSs) with 1Detailed analysis of the relationships between variables for each family subgroup (parents of preteens, parents and teen sons, and parents and teen daughters) appears in Appendix C. 110th gr tionshi life de signif : truct niiica life. with j the tr liflc highs rEves incre {slat Clea: thes: ”Vet; 127 family life with increased family developmental stage. Similarly, both groups significantly exhibit increased DOSS with parent-child rela- tionship. AS family developmental stage increased, DOSs with quality of life decreased for both groups, with Group A reaching the level of significance. 5.2 The lower the family structural complexity, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with _parent-child relationship, family life, and _ghality of life. This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Table 27 shows that family structural complexity in both groups appears to be positively and sig- nificantly related to DOSs with parent-child relationship and family life. The DOS with quality of life for both groups, however, decreased with increased family structural complexity, the relationship between the two variables for Group A being significant. 5.3 The lower the family socioeconomic status, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction with _perent-child relationship, family life, and _ghali5y of life. This sub-hypothesis is not supported. Both groups show at Sig- nificant levels that the higher the family socioeconomic status, the higher the DOS with family life (Table 27). On the other hand, Group A reveals decreased DOS with quality of life at a significant level, with increased family socioeconomic status. Satisfaction with parent—child relationship for both groups, and quality of life (Group B only) in- creased with increased family socioeconomic status. However, none of these is significant. In summary, the sub-hypotheses were not supported. Hence, the overall hypothesis of significant relationships between family > a 3:5: «Hg: 1 > .C - U'G‘ FFhECC Pauli-Ixtviuul.‘ ‘9 II F U Ill-n...“ I‘lill‘ u .14.! {ll 128 .Ho>oH mo. um oHanOHumHoa unmonchHmm sos. aaso. aaoo. ssas. aaa. aaaa. aaauzs a oooaos oasooooooaoos aaaEas mooo. Nooo.: mHoo. ooqm. ooo. NmmN. Aomuzv < saa. assa.: aaoo. asas. aaoo. asas. aaauzs a aoaxoaaaoo aassooasos aaasas oaoo. aasa.- oaoo. ssss. aoao. ssaa. asauzs < aao. saaa.- aoo. asas. aaa. saao. aaauzs a m owns muaofioo o>o % Em oaoo. aass.- oaoo. asas. aao. sssa. asauzs a a a a a as a o a a a a a osaa so aoaaoao osaa aaaeas ‘aaooooaooaoa oooss oaooaso> oasaoooa saaao-ooosaa GOHuommmHumm mo moawoo osaa so aoaaoso sow .osaa aaasos .oHnmsoHumHom oHHnuuuSoamm :uH3 coHuommeumm mo moawon ax. .wSumum oHEosouooHoom mHHamm new .huonHmaoo Hmasuosaum NHHEmm .ommum HousmaooHo>oa NHHEmm mo oHnmsoHumHmm .NN oHamH 129 developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, was not supported. ents Sigr to ( rec; gene 5P6: and 011 and E086 the tang CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The discussion of findings focuses around three themes, namely: (1) differences between data obtained from Instruments A and B; (2) relationship of the findings to the theory of resource exchange; and (3) relationship of the findings to Mexican American families. Differences Between Data Obtained from Instruments A and B This section focuses on Instruments A and B used by the 16 respond- ents (see pp. 60-64). Hypothesis 1, postulating that there would be a significant difference in the resource exchange patternings with respect to data gathered by Instruments A and B, was supported. It should be recalled that the resource alternatives (RAs) in Instrument A were general in nature, whereas those of Instrument B were more situation- specific. The intra-resource patternings (IRPs) for each of Groups A and B differed significantly for each specific resource exchanged (SRE). While love and services ranked higher in Instrument A than in B, status and information ranked higher in Instrument B than in A. Goods and money ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, in both instruments. Differences in data obtained by the two instruments may be due to the very nature of the different RAs; i.e., Instrument A, with its wider range of generality, and Instrument B's narrower range of Specificity. 130 131 In Short, Instrument A may be more appropriate for measuring general behavior and Instrument B, specific behavior. Hence, the significant differences between data yielded by the two instruments. Another possible explanation for the differences is that Instru- ment B might be a more sensitive instrument in terms of measuring status and information. On the other hand, Instrument A may have more easily tapped love and services. Goods and money, the study suggests, are stable in their rank in the groups, i.e., fifth and sixth, respectively, whether or not the behavior being measured was general or specific. There is a third possible explanation for the difference. While Instrument A was a modified version of the Foa and Foa (1974) instrument and is, perhaps, more culture-free, Instrument B, which evolved from the panel and several pretests of Mexican American respondents, may reveal a cultural resource exchange patterning. Instrument B, in short, may be more culture-specific. Hence, results yielded by Instrument B could be more descriptive of the Mexican American family. If these conjectures are true, then Foa and Foa's Instrument A is, to some extent, culture-bound. It may be more applicable to the Anglo Americans. Hence, using the Foa instrument on other minorities and culture groups may not yield true resource exchange patternings. The very encompassing and general characteristic of the RAs in the Foa instrument, the present study indicates, may not measure the many rami- fications of social communications in other cultural groups. Instrument B appears to have ferreted out what might be close to the Mexican American resource exchange preferences at a point in time and space. 132 Another finding worth looking into are the very highly Significant (.001) differences between Instruments A and B in terms of status, services, goods, and money. It is possible that the situation-specific characteristic of the different RAs in Instrument B appealed more to the respondents compared to the general nature of Instrument A. The findings suggest that love and information (resource classes in the two instruments with significant and highly significant differences at both .05 and .01, respectively) have RAs that are more similar than different. The rankings made on them therefore tended to be Similar. One could conclude that the differences may be due to the instru- ments themselves, and may not be true differences found in the popula- tion. However, when findings are viewed in the light of the different pretests (see Appendix D) and those of the final responses for the present study (see pp. 95-122 and Appendix A), Instruments A and B appear to have tapped resource exchange patternings in the samples that differ. Relationship of the Findings to the Theory of Resource Exchange This section discusses the findings from the 66 families reported on the intra-resource patternings (IRPs) on the individual level (see pp. 95-109) and intrafamily level (see pp. 111-122 and Appendix A) patternings, in relation to the theory of resource exchange. The total resource patternings (TRPS) for each group in the pres- ent study are generally supported by Foa and Foa's theory of resource exchange. Whereas the Foas postulated the following to be the rank- order of resources according to degree of particularism: love, status, 133 services, information, goods, and money, the present study showed that Mexican American families ranked information slightly ahead of services. It therefore seems that as far as the Mexican American families are concerned, information is considered slightly more particularistic than services. This study also disclosed that love ranked first in most IRPS. In only two instances, in Group B when love and information were the specific resources exchanged (SRES), status ranked ahead of love as the most preferred RA. This suggests that love and status dominate resource exchange preferences regardless of SRE and type of behavior when the situation involves parents and children. This has important implica- tions for the particularistic function of the home, and reinforces Foa and Foa's (1974) contention that "in the family, love and status are the crucial resources" (p. 151). Figure 4 summarizes the intrafamily level resource patternings (see Appendix A) and compares the IRPs of Groups A and B. It Shows the dominance of love as an RA in most of the SREs. Foa and Foa's rankrorder of resources: love, status, services, informa— tion, goods, and money, tallies with only one IRPt Group A'S services as the SRE. The findings appear to indicate that in these families, all inter- personal resource exchanges evoke particularistic type of expectations. Love and status ranked first irrespective of SRE. It could be that interaction between parents and children may be favorable for the exchange of particularistic resources, i.e., that the family specializes in particularistic resources. If this is the case, the findings on the Mexican American family do not entirely support Foa and Foa's contention Speci £2500 hcha' (SRE) .I—I- hve Statu Info' Coed. Home Specific Resource Exchanged LSRE) Love Status Services Information Goods Money Figure 4. Rank of Resource Alterna- tive (RA) First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth 134 Intrafamily Intra-Resource Patternings Grogp A Love Status Information Goods Services Money Love Status Information Services Goods Money Love Status Services Information Goods Money Love Services Status Money Goods Information Love Information Status Services Goods Money Love Status Information Services Goods Money Group B Status Love Goods Remarks Totally dif- ferent Information-Services Money Love Status Information Services Goods Money Love Status Services Goods Information Money Status Love Money Services Information Goods Love Information Status Services Goods Money Love Status Information Services Goods Money Same Almost same Totally dif- ferent Same Same Summary and Comparison of Intrafamily Intra- Resource Patternings. 135 that "the family is probably the institution where the widest range of exchange is found" (p. 151). Preference for resource alternatives in intrafamily level appears to be limited to the particularistic resources. Further, the present study does not support the Foas' contention that the more particularistic a resource, the greater the probability it will be exchanged with a particularistic resource (Foa and Foa, 1974, p. 164). Mexican American families still preferred the particularistic in.- to universal resources even as information, services, goods, and money were exchanged. Perhaps the very nature of the setting and the relationships ve’ between exchange partners make the universal-concrete resources some- what irrelevant in the family setting. In short, in parent-child inter- action, love and status appear to be built into the Situation and there- fore could limit the exchange of resources only to the particularistic ones. In this context, this study is supported by Foas' Stance regard- ing resource specialization of institutions, i.e., the family is the seat of particularistic resources. The findings of the present study also support the Foas' conten- tion of a high degree of concordance among family members for the particularistic resources. The following comments made by fathers and mothers, teenage chil- dren, and interviewers appear to support the contention that the family specializes in particularistic resources. Fathers and Mothers It's difficult making a choice. Firstly, I don't expect anything from my children. I just want to give them the best of what we 136 can afford. I really don't expect anything in return. But with these questions, they (the questions) make me think seriously of how I'm raising my children. Perhaps there's a need for me to look.back. Bribery. No choice! Buying love? Let's have a third alternative. (On the paired-comparisons technique.) My expectations of my children are the following: that they love me; do well in their studies; and behave well. Expect "much", yes, but for their own sake. I don't think children have to return something in return. [sic] Questions are not appropriate to my family situation (son and daughter, aged 10 and 12, respectively). I am not and I do not expect to be paid for being a mother. I would rather receive love and respect than money or gossip. Not as payment for situation, but because that's what he Should do. Expectations have bad connotations. For everything you do, you expect something in return. I have negative reactions (toward the instrument) because it appears that for all things you do, you expect something in return. Not in payment for the situation but because that's what my son should do, e.g., put away his things in order. I expect him to do things because he has to do them, and not because it's a payment for some favor I did. I don't expect anything in return. I just want him to enjoy himself, for instance, in the ballgame. Difficult to choose when you're making a choice based on situation. I expect him to give me care when I'm sick--not because he says he respects or gives me esteem. We don't, as parents, expect things in return. Money? I don't expect my child to give me money. There's too much reference on money. 137 All these eventually boil down to love. Self—esteem? Too much reference to it. Are you trying to find out if I am liked by my family or how I think my family gets along? These questions made me stop to think about these situations, instead of doing these to my children without evaluating. I don't understand the purpose of all of these. Are you trying to find out how good a parent I am? If between husband and wife exchange, I'll find it easier and more realistic. None of the possibilities fit. I don't like the possibilities. Your examples are poorly done. I can't begin to rank when I wouldn't do them at all. Poor examples. I just want to take care of him. On all situations: Don't care to answer. Respondent wrote "no" to all items except on love and status. Don't expect anything; expect a 'thank you'. On goods: Respondent wrote "no". All others, "Don't know". On money: Pays the money back. Period! On services: I don't expect any in return. Respondent just ranked respect as 1 in all SREs. On love: That my child gives me love in return. All others: Just love and respect in return. Teenagers I don't feel I should expect something from my parents for things I do for them. I could never pay off my debt to them for giving me life. A» 5 bars 9. n is ti 138 On money order in return for services: Very nice. On a check in return for love: This might work. Interviewers They felt they can't put dollar value for love. Respondents feel that love and respect are most important, more important than money and services. My respondent had a tiny baby so she had no expectations. Not applicable to infants especially with younger families. I had to do extra coaxing to get each situation numbered. I don't think respondents can relate to these situations. They're just turned—off. The younger the ages of children in a family, the more turned- off families are. One of my respondents said they had a little family discussion on the different items that night. Respondents felt this was the most interesting part of the whole data gathering. Relationship of the Findings to Mexican American Families The study sample was comprised of 66 non~migrant Mexican American families. As groups of individuals and families they indicated prefer- ence for the particularistic resources regardless of SRE. They placed higher emphasis on status and information in Instrument B compared to Instrument A (see pp. 60-64; 95-109; and Appendix A). The intrafamily intra-resource patternings (see Appendix A) showed that status, among the B families, ranked first regardless of family developmental stage when love is exchanged. Group A showed increased preference for status as family developmental stage advanced when money 139 was the SRE. Further, Group A families and those in Group B, were found to exhibit increased preference for status when services and goods, respectively, were the SRES, as family socioeconomic status increased. With regard to information, the preference increased with increased family developmental stage when love, services (Group A only), and goods (Group B only) were exchanged (see Appendix A). It also increased in rank in both groups with increased family structural com- plexity and family socioeconomic status with love and status as the SREs. "Status", the Foas (1974) assert, "has Stronger interpersonal connotations than love. Some degree of acceptance is necessary for the interpersonal relationship to continue" (p. 75). Status, expressed in attitudinal and behavioral aspects appeared to be crucial to these families. Self-concept and self-worth, by and large, depend on one's status in the group to which one belongs or professes to belong. It would also appear that satisfaction with quality of life among Mexican American families could be closely linked to their status: their posi- tion in the community at large. Because of the high value placed on status (which has its roots in childhood socialization and the Mexican American's "field sensitive" cognitive style (Ramirez, 1973), they may be sensitive to the human behavioral environment. Mexican Americans are speculated to be affected by environmental cues and stimuli--those that convey, among others, acceptance, rejection, respect, racial discrimina— tion, status deprivation, withholding information, recognition, encour- agement, being consulted for one's opinions, being listened to, given opportunities, promotions, and the human behavioral environment helping 140 them "make things happen". These environmental cues could become more pronounced as Mexican American children grow older and interact with the larger human behavioral environment. Another resource class which appeared important for Mexican American families is information. This could reflect, among others, a desire to know more about and be more fully integrated in the outside environment. It could also imply that information, among the families studied, may be viewed as a medium for greater access to more resources. Hence, a vehicle for upward social and economic mobility. As such, it could mean a striving towards being integrated with the dominant culture. Information, the second resource preferred more highly by Group B than Group A, is closely linked to Status. Resources can be obtained only in interpersonal situations, and interpersonal interaction is highly contingent on verbal and/or symbolic communication. A deficiency in ability to communicate makes it difficult for the Mexican American to relate satisfactorily to the members of the dominant culture. Information is as crucial to interpersonal interaction as status. Status is basic before one could interact with the dominant culture, and one's status is enhanced by the ability to communicate. On the other hand, ability to interact and communicate is primary before one gains acceptance and recognition, let alone, access to other resources offered by the economic resource—rich environment. To admit that either one, status or information, is much more important than the other, is to reject their mutual interdependence, their roles in interpersonal rela- tionships, human development, and consequently, to satisfaction with 141 quality of life. Both status and ability to communicate therefore appear to be critical for the Mexican American quality of life and well- being. Generally, there appears to be a negative relationship between degree of particularism (preference for love and status) and satisfac- tion with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life (see Tables 26 and C—l). Among the respondents (Group A in particular), satisfaction with all three aspects of life seems to be related to preference for the more universal resources such as goods and money. Further, the results of the negative relationship between satisfaction with quality of life and family socioeconomic status (see Tables 27 and C-2), suggest preference for the universal-concrete resources. Finally, the findings on love and status being the most preferred resources regardless of specific resource exchanged (SRE) and characteristics of families (see Appendix A), and the results of the generally negative relationship of degree of particularism and satisfaction with parent- child relationship, family life, and quality of life, at first, appear to contradict each other. However, a closer examination of the many implications of these seemingly contradictory findings could be the key to the understanding of the Mexican American family and their satisfac- tion with quality of life. The findings could imply, among others, a need for both the particularistic and universal resources which the Foas (1973) have argued to be "the components of quality of life" (p. 21). CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Summary and Conclusions This study examined the intrafamily resource exchange patternings of 66 (162 individual respondents) non-migrant Mexican American families (father and mother and a child, if a teenager, also responded) in Saginaw, a metropolitan area in Michigan, as revealed in their parent- child interaction. The objectives of the study were: (1) to determine if resource exchange patternings will differ if the instrument used to gather data is general or situation-specific in nature; (2) to describe the resource exchange patternings of family subgroups, i.e., fathers of preteens, mothers of preteens, fathers of teen sons, mothers of teen sons, fathers of teen daughters, mothers of teen daughters, teen sons, and teen daughters; (3) to determine the degrees of concordance on resource exchange patternings of specific family subgroups; (4) to determine the relationship of family developmental stage, family struc— tural complexity, family socioeconomic Status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, to degree of particularism; and (5) to determine the relationship of family developmental stage, family Structural complexity, and family socio- economic status, to degree of satisfaction with parent—child relation- ship, family life, and quality of life. 142 143 The present study used the survey method, with interview and self- report techniques of data gathering. Part I of the interview schedule was on family background characteristics of respondents. Part II, the self-report resource exchange instrument proper, was of two types: first, Instrument A, which was Foa and Foa's (1974) Social Interaction for Exchanges of Giving, adapted for this study to parent-child inter- action; second, Instrument B, an adaptation of the Foa and Foa instru- ment, was developed by the researcher for the present Study. Six resource classes (love, status, services, information, goods, and money) postulated by the Foas were explored in the Mexican American parent-child interaction. For Instrument B, a panel of Mexican Americans and Anglo American women was created. Each member of the panel was given a checklist of statements, each describing a resource alternative (RA). Panelists were asked to choose which resource an RA best described. The instrument which evolved from the panel was pre- tested five times. The first two pretest instruments consisted of 60 RAs, 10 for each of the resource classes. Each RA inquired about the degree to which parents did for their children each behavior described. The third pretest instrument consisted of 42 out of the original 60 RAs. The fourth pretest instrument, with 30 RAs, followed the paired-compari- sons format developed by the Foas. This became the final instrument used in the beginning of the fieldwork. A major revision in the format of the two instruments was made owing to a number of problems encountered in the field. A forced-choice ranking technique was adopted consisting of 36 RAs. This version was 1 WV _-- —v‘~ .4.- v. . 1 i r l . L} t 144 pretested among Mexican American mothers and teenagers before it was used in gathering the data reported in this dissertation. A basic question which the study attempted to answer was if there were significant differences between the two types of instruments in the present study. Sixteen Mexican Americans, 12 adults and four teen- agers, living in Gratiot County, a non-metropolitan area in Michigan, were each given Instruments A and B. Respondents were asked to rank each RA in the two instruments. Kappa (K) statistic showed significant differences in the rankings in both instruments of all six resource alternatives. While the rankings made on goods and money tended to be the same for both instruments, love and services ranked higher in Instrument A or more often than in B. On the other hand, status and information tended to be ranked higher in Instrument B than in A. Two levels of analysis were used. The first is an individual level pattern- ings; and second, on intrafamily level patternings and degree of con- cordance. Rankings made by respondents on the different RAs on each SRE, were analyzed to determine their intra- and total resource patternings. Significance of differences on the rankings of RAs by subgroups were determined using Spearman's rank correlation (rs). Kendall's coeffi- cient of concordance (W) was used to determine the degree of concordance among family members. Furthermore, the relationships of the different variables included in this study (family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfac- tion with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, and degree of particularism) were determined using Pearson's r. 145 The findings and conclusions in relation to the different hypothe- ses of the study include: Hypothesis 1. There will be significant differences in resource exchange patterningsiwith respect to data gathered by instruments that are general or situation- Specific. This hypothesis was supported. Instrument A, which was general in nature, and Instrument B, situation-Specific, differed significantly in intra-resource and total resource patternings. Hypothesis 2. Fathers, mothers, teenage sons, and teenage daughters will not differ sigpificantly in their resourceepatternings. This hypothesis was partially supported. Fathers, mothers, teen- ills age sons, and teenage daughters are generally agreed on their intra- resource patternings. Love was generally ranked first, status second, with goods and money as fifth and sixth, respectively. Differences in ranking were found between information and services. Group B, using a more situation-specific instrument more than Group A, revealed more number of positive and significant correlations in the ranking of each RA for each SRE. Generally, the total resource patterning for all sub- groups was as follows: love, status, information, services, goods, and money. Hypothesis 3. Family members of different family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socio- economic status, and degree of satisfaction with perent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, will exhibit similar degrees of concord- ance on their resource patternihgs. This hypothesis was partially supported. Degree of concordance (DOG) for most subgroup's intra-resource patterning ranged from moderate (.50) to perfect (1.00). In both groups, the DOCS generally decreased 146 with increased family developmental stage in all SRES, and increased family structural complexity when information and services were the SRES. The DOCS generally decreased with increased family socioeconomic status when love, status, goods, and money were the SRES for Group B. For Group A, DOCS decreased with increased family socioeconomic status when information was exchanged, and increased DOCS for services and goods. Group A showed decreased DOCS with increased degree of satisfac- tion (DOS) with parent-child relationship when love, status, and goods were exchanged; butincreased DOC when information was the SRE. Group B, on the other hand, generally Showed increased DOCS with increased DOS for information and money. The DOCS for Group A increased when love was exchanged with increased DOS with family life. DOCS were highest in the low DOSS level when the specific resources exchanged were status, information, and money, and in the high DOS group for services and goods. Group B's DOCs increased with increased DOS with family life when love and Status were the SRES, but decreased for information and services. Group A showed increased DOCS with increased DOSS with qual- ity of life when services and money were exchanged. The DOCs were highest in the high DOSS group for love, information, and goods. Group B's DOCS were highest in the highest DOSS with quality of life when love and status were exchanged. Highest DOCS were observed in the low- est DOSs groups when information and services were exchanged, and highest in the medium.DOSs with goods and services. 147 ,hypothesis 4. There will be significant relationships between family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life,_and degree of particularism. This hypothesis was not supported. Group A generally showed decreased but not significant levels of degree of particularism with increased family developmental stage, family structural complexity, degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life (quality of life decreased at a significant level). Group B, on the other hand, generally exhibited increased degree of particularism with increased family developmental stage, and degree of satisfaction with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life. However, none of these were significant. Hypothesis 5. There will be significant relationships between family developmental stage, family structural complexity, family socioeconomic status, and .QESESE of satisfaction with_parent-child relation- ship, family life, and_qualiEy of life. This hypothesis was not supported. Groups A and B generally tended to show increased DOSS with parent-child relationship with increased family developmental stage, family structural complexity (both groups at significant levels) and family socioeconomic status. Increased satisfaction with family life is positively and significantly related to increased family developmental stage, family structural com- PleXity, and family socioeconomic status for both groups. Degree of satisfaction with quality of life for Group A decreased significantly with increased family developmental stage, family structural complexity, and family socioeconomic status. Although Group B showed decreased DOS 148 with quality of life with increased family developmental stage and family structural complexity, the DOS with quality of life tended to increase with increased family socioeconomic status. However, none of these were significant. Implications for Research An approach to the study of resource exchange patternings, particularly between parents and children, requires that various inter— faces between these subsystems be reflected in the processing of data. The present study attempted to capture the interfaces between parents and children by combining related variables which have been traditional- :Ly treated singly. As with resources, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of reSpondents operate simultaneously. To treat these characteristics individually would be to reject the reality that several Wariables operate simultaneously to influence an individual's resource exchange patternings. Hence, the greater the number of related variables that can be identified and placed under the term "interface" between subsystems and given a label, e.g., family structural complexity, the greater may be the likelihood of accuracy with which subsystems may be described. Another area worth looking into is the problem of individual and family variables. Under what conditions is a variable more accurately the property of an individual or of a group such as the family? The present study treated variables such as individual health status and ‘paid employment status, variables that seemingly belong to an individual 149 as "family" variables. Some cultures stress individualism. Others put greater emphasis on the family, i.e., the family unit being much more important than the individual (Grebler, 1970). In the latter case, the interface between the family and the individual would appear greater. In the light of this reasoning, individual characteristics may need to be viewed, to some extent, as being culture-bound. The present Study also considered the average rank of RAs and average scores obtained for degree of particularism and degree of satis- faction (DOS) with parent-child relationship, family life, and quality of life, as the "family rank". True "family rank" and "family score" cannot be obtained with the data on hand. All that was obtained was an average rank or score of family members' opinions, here treated as "family data". Although this is acceptable, to obtain true family rank and score, the family should be asked as a unit to rank the six RAs in the six SRES. Another possibility would be to ask family members to rank the RAs separately and then as a unit to reconcile the differences. Researchers of resource exchange may need to take a closer look at the patterns or variations of resource exchange preferences, i.e., both "dominant" and "variant" resource classes occur Simultaneously in any exchange behavior. Rarely, if ever, is a resource class exchanged singly. Resources, either given or taken away, in reality, operate in concert. The very qualities of simultaneousness of resources, and the varying degrees of awareness with which resources are given or taken away make research on resource exchange an area with numerous open possibilities. For instance, for purposes of research, how does one ferret out the dominant from the variant resources with minimum 150 deviation from "reality"? Further, is the study of resource exchange preferences, which is hypothetical, a better way of coming closer to "reality" more than the study of resource exchange based on actual behavior? It will be important to determine if the rank-order preferences made by the families on the six resource classes differ significantly. For example, do all families Significantly prefer love over status, status over information, information over services, services over goods, and goods over money? Data for the present study were not analyzed as outlined above. Perhaps a system can be devised for determining the significance of preference of each resource class over the others in order to obtain a more reliable picture of resource exchange preferences. All that the present study did was to establish a hierarchy of prefer- ences. The level of significance of the "dominance" of love, for instance, over all the rest of the resources was not ascertained. Another area worth studying is the degree of disagreement among family members in their resource exchange patternings. The chi-square test should be used for a hypothesis of no actual agreement among members. The present study hypothesized from moderate (.50) to perfect (1.00) degrees of concordance and therefore merely used Kendall's W (1973) and the average rank correlation (rs). Levels of significance on degrees of disagreements can be determined by using the chi-square Statistic. A basic question which the present study has not tapped is: will a pattern of preferences result if family members have no choices among the different resource alternatives, or choose just one or two 1118mm pattem the ch resou pres ml (10‘ 151 alternatives? This question attempts to test for the presence of patternings. It tries to find out whether families make a hierarchy in the choices of resource alternatives presented for each specific resource exchanged. By using the forced-choice ranking technique, the present study has assumed that family members have a hierarchy of resource alternatives. Indeed, pretest results (see Appendix D) and comments and suggestions from interviewers and respondents (see pp. 135- 138) suggest the need for a closer look at intrafamily resource exchange. More studies on resource exchange among Mexican American families need to be undertaken before one can declare with greater validity that indeed the two instruments used in this study differ significantly, i.e., Instrument A may be more sensitive to the Anglo American culture, and Instrument B, to the Mexican American culture. How may the data yielded by Instrument B be truly more descriptive of the Mexican American parent- child interaction and how more geared to the Anglo American was Instru- ment A, are questions that can be answered only by replicating the present study using as respondents Anglo American families. Only then can the findings of the present study be made more useful and meaningful in the light of the Mexican American situation, when viewed in the con- text of what is happening in parent-child socialization in the dominant culture. A more sophisticated instrument may need to be developed in order to explore more fully the resource exchange patternings of a group of people. Items in the measuring instrument could include more aspects of parent-child interaction. It should be remembered, however, that 152 Situations used should be realistic and within the experiences of the prospective respondents. Perhaps another approach to the study of resource exchange patternings needs to be followed. Although an unobtrusive technique may be used, this provides a very limited range of behavior aspects to be measured. Perhaps a card-sorting technique of preferred resource alternatives would prove useful. Further, an observation technique of social interaction may yield meaningful data. A Specific type of behavior, occurring in time and space, such as interaction during meal- time, using the observation technique, may yet yield valuable data on whom in the family invests (or takes away) a specific resource in (or from) a specific family member. Families in different stages of the family life cycle need to be studied in order to determine the "dominant" resource exchange pattern- ings of individual family members and the family as a group at different points in time and space. This cross-section approach could be used in lieu of a longitudinal study of families. Further, a time-series study of a panel of families may be followed over a period of time. In this way, a better understanding of the human development role of the theory of resource exchange can be attained. This study has raised more questions than it has answered. Nevertheless, it has provided some new insights for a better understand- ing of the Mexican American family, and of the applicability of the resource exchange theory in the Mexican American context. LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED .Ackerman, Norleen M. "The Relationship of Objective and Subjective Family Income Adequacy to Selected Measures of Perceived Life Quality." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Andrews, Frank M., and Withey, Stephen B. Assessing the Qpelity of Life as People Experience It. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meet- ing of the American Sociological Association, August 26-29, 1974. Baerwaldt, Nancy A., and Morgan, James M. "Trends in Inter-family Transfers." In Mandell, Lewis et al. (eds.) Surveys of Consumers 1971-72. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973, pp. 205—232. Bivens, Gordon B. "The Grants Economy and Study of the American Family: A Possible Framework for Transdisciplinary Approaches." Home Economics Research Journal 5 (December 1976): 70-78. Blau, Peter. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Boulding, Elise. "The Human Services Component of Nonmarket Productiv- ity of Ten Colorado Households." Paper for Roundtable on the Ecology and Sociology of the Family: The Productive Function of Nonmarket Goods and Services in the Family, Royaumont, France, January 3-6, 1977. IBoulding, Kenneth E. "The Household as Achilles Heel." Journal of Consumer Affairs 6 (Winter 1972): 110-116. IBoulding, Kenneth E. The Economy of Love and Fear. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. IBubolz, Margaret M.; Eicher, Joanne B.; and Evers, Sandra. A.Human Ecological Approach to the Quality of Life: Results of a Study in a Rural Michigan County. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Home Economics Association, San Antonio, Texas, June 23-26, 1975. IBubolz, Margaret M., and Eicher, Joanne B. "Quality of Life Indicators: A Human Ecological Systems Approach." Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, 1976. 153 154 Bustrillos, Nena R. "Decision Making Styles of Selected Mexican Home- makers." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. (Sampbell, Angus; Converse, Philip; and Rodgers, Willard. The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. (Choldin, Harvey, and Trout, Grafton T. "Mexican Americans in Transi- tion: Migration and Employment in.Michigan City." Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, September 1969. IDanes, Sharon M. "Relationship of Non-market Resource Transfers and Quality of Life for Non-Migrant Michigan Mexican Americans." Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Michigan State University,l978. lDworkin, Anthony G. "Stereotypes and Self-Images Held by Native-Born and Foreign-Born Mexican Americans." Sociology and Social Research 49 (1965): 214-224. Emerson, Marianne R. "Relationships of the Family Economic Help Patterns to Specific Family Characteristics." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Foa, Uriel and Foa, Edna. "Measuring Quality of Life: Can It Help Solve the Ecological Crisis?" International Journal of Environ— mental Studies 5 (1973): 21-26. Foa, Uriel and Foa, Edna. Societal Structures of the Mind. Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas Press, 1974. Gecas, Viktor. "Self-Conceptions of Migrant and Settled Mexican Americans." Social Science Quarterly 53 (December 1973): 579-595. Grebler, Leo; Moore, Joan; and Guzman, Ralph. The Mexican American People. New York: The Free Press, 1970. Haney, Jane B. "Authority in the Mexican American Family: A Comparative Study." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1972. Hawkes, Glenn L. et a1. "Patterns of Living in California's Migrant Labor Families." Dept. of Applied Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Research Monograph, No. 12 (August 1973). Hays, William. Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. Heller, Celia S. Mexican American Youth: Forgotten Youth at the Crossroads. New York: Random House, 1966. 155 Hill, Reuben et a1. Famgy Development in Three Generations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1970 O Iicaggan, M. Janice. "Decision-Making Styles of Two Socioeconomic Groups of Homemakers." Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University, 1965. Homans, George C. "Social Behavior as Exchange." American Journal of Sociology 63 (1958): 597-606. Hurlock, Elizabeth. Child Development. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. .;I<311nson, Dallas L. and Sikes, M. P. "Rorschach and TAT Responses of Negro, Mexican American, and Anglo Psychiatric Patients." Journal of Projective Techniqpe 29 (June 1965): 183-188. lglrmcnilton, Clark. "Changing Spanish-American Villages of Northern Mexico." In Duran, Livie et a1. Introduction to Chicano Studies: A Reader. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973, pp. 294-309. JLaeeichter, Hope J. "Some Perspectives on the Family as an Educator." Teachers College Record 76: 2 (December 1974). Light, Richard. "Issues in the Analysis of Quantitative Data." In Travers, Robert (ed.) Second Handbook of Research on Teachihg. Chicago, 1973, pp. 328-347. 1"Iarshall, Alfred. Princip,les of Economics. (8th ed.) London: Macmillan and Company, 1959. 1P'IZ‘Lller, Michael. "Variations in Mexican American Family Life: A Review Synthesis." Paper read at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meetings, San Francisco, California, August 1975. 1bon mHHEmm as. as. aaa aa oaa aaa aa sa aaauzs a goose aoooa aa. aa. aaa aaa osa saa sa as asauzs < oooso aoooa («a 3 mocoz moooo mooH>uow :oHu msumum o>oH oHomHum> NHHsmm ImanmsH hwHumcaouH< moasomom mo mama mo Esm omwcmsoxm mH o>oH co£3 msumum oHEocooooHoom NHHEmm was .muaonoEoo Hmasuo=pum NHHEmm .owmum HmucoEQOHo>oo NHHsmm ou wsHouooo< m was < mosoao sow madacaouumm mousommmlmaucH mo ouamoaoosou .HI< oHomH 162 .mucoocoomoa No mocoaoooao muH aocwas one .on NHHEMM aa. aa. aaa asa aaa aaa ca ss aaauzs a oooso aoooa ss. ss. aaa aaa saa aaa asa aa asauzs < oooss aoooa mw 3 mucoz mooou mooH>aow coHu woumum m>0H mHanam> mHHamm umsaoscH maHumcaouH< moasomom mo xcmm so Sam oowcmzoxm mH maumum cog: woumum oHEocooooHoom NHHEmm ocm .muonHoEou Hmaauosuum NHHemm .mwmum Housosoon>oo NHHEmm cu wsaoaooo< m was < mosoau pom mwchaouumm moasomoxnmsucH mo oosmouoocoo .a-< oasoa 163 .musoosoomoa an mosoaowoao muH Honwas ozu .oo NHHsmm sa. sa. aa saa aaa asa as aa aaauzs a aooso aaooa sa. aa. saa asa soa aaa aoa as asanzs < noose aoooa mu 3 mono: moooo mooH>hom aoHu monoum o>oH oHanam> MHHfimm ImsaomsH mAHumsaouH< ooaoomom mo xsmm mo 85m .oowsmnoxm mH :oHumsaoosH sona msumum oHsosooooHoom NHHsmm one .NuonHosou Honouosaum NHHsmm .owmum HousmanoHo>oo NHHsom ou wsaouooo< m one < mosouo sow mwsHsaouumm ouasomomlmausH mo oosmoaoosoo .m|< oHomH .mucoosoomoa No mocoaoooao wuH aoan: was .on mHHsmm aa. aa. saa saa aaa saa sa ss aaauzs a ososo aoooa sa. sa. aaa asa aaa aaa oa os asauzs < oaosu aoooa .«a 3 mocoz mooou mooH>aom soau woumum o>oH oHanamwleHsmm InshowaH mAHumcaouH< moasommm mo xsmm mo sum oomsmnoxm was wooH>aom Sosa measum oHsosooooHoom NHHSNm osm .huonHasoo Honouosuum NHHsmm .owoum HousesooHo>oo NHHsmm cu wsHouooo< m was < mosoao Hos mwsHsuouumm ooasomomamausH mo oosoouoosou .sn< oHooH 165 .euseocooeea No eooeawweua muH aenwan one .oa MHHfiem as. as. saa aaa saa sa oaa os aaauzs a oooss aoooa aa. aa. aaa saa aaa as aaa aa asauzs < asoso aoooa lea 3 mecca moooo meoH>uem soHu museum e>oH eHneHae> mHHaem leaaoocH eAHuesaeuH< eoasomem «0 seem mo Sam oewsenoxm one moooo mesa msueum oHEocoueoHoom NHHsem one .Nuaeresoo Hea=uoouum NHHsem .eweum HeuseaeoHe>em mHHsem ou wsaoaooo< m one < mosoao sou mwsHaaouuem wousoeemseausH mo moseouooaoo .ml4 eHneH H5050639H9>0C >4~E3h CL 0:~11<(!{ 5 166 .eueeocoomea No easeaemeao muH Hecan ecu .on MHHEem aa. aa. aaa aaa aaa aa aa as aaauzs a aooso aoooa sa. aa. aaa ssa aaa aa aa sa asauzs < aooss aoooa 1mm, 3 mono: eooow eeoH>aem e0Hu woueum e>oH « oHoeHae> NHHsem nesaomsH eAHueaaeuH< eoaooeem mo seem mo sew oewsenoxm eH meson coo: woueum oHsosooeoHoom NHHsem one .NuerHoeou Hea=uo=uum mHHsem .eweum Heusoso0H0>eo NHHsem ou msHouooo< m one < mosoao sow eweasueuuem eoasomeMceaueH mo eoseoaoueoo .o|< oHoee .eaae oHoEee ou eno oeanaeueo on non oHnoo noHueHeaaoo xnea eweae>aem noHu enueum o>0H eHoeHae> awasem leaaomnH eflHuenaeuH< moanoeem mo xnem mo Enm soaooooxa ma o>oa cons osaa so aoaaooo ssa .osaa aaasos .aasaooaoaaoa oaaooaooosaa ssa: nOHuoemmHuem mo eeuwen ou mnHoaooo< m one < ennoau you mwanaeuuem eoanomemleuunH mo eoneouoonoo .NI< eHneH 168 .eaHm eHnEee ou eno oeanueueo on uon oHnoo noHueHeauoo xnea eweue>nem noHu enueum e>0H oHoeHue> MHHsem IeEMOMnH eAHuenneuH< moanomem mo xnem no new ooazoooxa as oznana zoos osaa so aoaaoze azo .osaa aaasoo .oaoozoaooaoa oaaseunzonao ooas nOHuoemeHuem mo eeumen cu wnHonooo< m one < mnnoao .aom emanneuuem moanomeMIeaunH mo eoneouoonoo .mnsaeHneH .oaHe eHnsem ou ono oeanaeueo on uon oHnoo nOHueHeaaoo xneu emeae>HuenaeuH< moanoeem mo xnem «0 saw sa. sa. ss aoa aa aa sa as aaanzs oaaa oo.a oo.a sa oa aa sa aa oa asuzs azaooz oo.a oo.a oa as sa ss sa oa aauzs zoa "a ozone aa. sa. sa aa as aaa as aa aoauzs oaaa ss. as. sa aa aa as sa aa aauzs azaooz oa. sa. sa sa sa ea aa a asuzs zoa "a ozone osaa so aeaaozmlooas zoanoosoanoa aa. aa. as saa sa aoa as ss aaauzs aaa: oo.a oo.a sa sa aa aa aa sa asuzs azaooz oo.a oo.a aa sa sa aa aa sa asuzs soa ”a ozone aa. aa. aa aa aa aaa aa sa aaauzs ease as. as. ea sa sa ss aa aa aauzs azasoz oo.a oo.a aa sa a aa a s aauzs soa as ozone osaa aHasoo onao.zoanoasoanas oo.a oo.a as aaa aa aoa as as aaauzs oaaa sa. aa. sa as as ss aa aa aauzs azaoos saa. aa. a s s s a a aauzv 36a "a ozone aa. aa. aoa aoa aa asa aa aa asauzs saa: sa. aa. aa aa aa os aa aa aauzs szaooz as. as. s a s aa a s aauzs aoa n< ozone masenoHueHem oHHnoluneuem suHa noHuoemeHuem sa. sa. aa saa aaa asa as aa aaaazs a ozone aonoa sa. aa. saa asa soa aaa aoa as asauzs a ozone aonoa ma 3 mono: mooou eeeH>aem noHu mnueum e>oH eHoeHae> MHHsem IeanwnH oownenoxm eH nOHueshomnH nena emHH mo NoHHeno one .eMHH mHHsem .anenoaueHem oHHSUIuneaem :uHR noHuoemeHuem mo seamen on mnHouooe< m one < mnnoau now ewanneuuem moanoeeMIeaunH mo eoneouoonoo .a-< mason .oaHe oHosee ou ono oonashouoo on son oHnoe noHueHoaaoo xnea oweao>nom noHu enueum o>oH oHneHae> NHHEem nesnomnH eAHuenaouH< ooanomom mo xnem mo sum oownenoxm one mooH>nom nons omaa mo NoHHeno one .omHH NHHsem .anenoHueHom oHanqunoaem cuss noHuoemoHuem mo oonwon ou wnsoaoeo< m one < onnoao now ewanaouuem oonnooomlenunH mo ooneoaoonoo .oHI< oHoeH .ouHe oHnBee on ono ooanhouoo on uon oHnoo noHueHoaaoo xnea oweno>nom noHu museum .1o>oH 4 oHoeHme>1Nfiwm3M lesuownH eAHuenaouH< ooanomom mo xnem mo Enw oownesoxm one moooo nona ooHH wo huHHeno one .oMHH NHHEem .nanmnoaueHom oHHnqunoaem nuHS noauoemeHuem mo oouwoo ou wnHonooo< m one < mnnoao Mom owanaouuem ooanoeomlenunH mo ouneoaoonoo .HHI< oHoee .oNHe oHnnee Ou ono oonHEhouoo on son oHnoo noHueHoaaoo xnea oweno>nom noau enueum o>0H oHneHae>7NHHEeh lesnomnH eAHuenaouH< ooanoeom wo xnem no new soazazoxe oa aozos zoo: osaa so aoaaoze oza .osaa aaaszo .oaoozoanoaoo aaaoeunzonzo ssa: nOHuoemoHuem mo oouwon ou wnHoaooo< m one < ennoau now ewanaouuem oonnoeofineaunH mo ouneoaoonoo .NHI< oHoeH Tab 1e A-l3 . 173 Concordance of Intra-Resource Patternings for Groups A and B for Each Specific Resource Exchanged (SRE) Sp 2 cific Resource Sum of Rank of Resource Alternative (RA)a Informa- Serv— Ex Changed (SRE) Love Status tion ices Goods Money W rs_ , A (N=34) 63 86 124 150 133 181 .73 .72 Lo " e' B (N=32) 84 77 130 130 98 177 .68 .67 , A (N=34) 79 101 119 120 133 189 .66 .65 SC atUS- B (N=32) 65 70 117 123 141 177 .78 .77 [:1 f crma- A (N=34) 53 107 193 105 141 135 .77 .76 tion B (N=32) 87 63 158 132 175 89 .96 .96 Sem- A (N=34) 6O 70 129 128 152 193 .84 .84 1e. es B (N=32) 65 84 135 118 125 170 .71 .70 coeds A (N=34) 73 133 93 132 135 192 .71 .70 B (N=32) 60 110 94 116 132 176 .62 .61 Me» A (N=34) 75 88 91 137 156 189 .77 .76 hey B (N=32) 6o 97 99 122 132 182 .72 .71 4/ f T ab 1e A-14 . the sum of an RA, the higher its preference by respondents. Concordance of Total Resource Patternings for Groups A and B for All Resources Exchanged \ \ Sum of Rank of Resource Alternative (RA)" (3;, Informa- Serv- “-43!EZ:E§up Love Status tion ices Goods Money W rs_ .A (N=34) 403 565 749 772 850 1,079 .64 .63 B (N=32) 422 501 733 741 803 971 .61 .60 a._____~“_‘ a ‘tlrlne lower the sum of an RA, the higher its preference by respondents. APPENDIX B Family Particularistic Typology 174 175 Family Part icularistic lypo logy As a descriptive summary, the family typology attempts to charac- t: e rize each member of the family in relation to other family members and describe families as a whole with regard to their degree of particu- IL arism. Table B-1 shows that among Group A fathers and mothers of preteens, f at hers who scored medium and mothers, high, accounted for the highest 1) ercentage. Group B families, on the other hand, have the highest per- c entage where both fathers and mothers scored high. Group A parents of t— e ens also have highest percentage where both parents have high degrees 0 f particularism. Parents and teens combined in Group A exhibit the h i ghest percentage of those with low scores. Group B, on the other 11 and, has the highest percentage where both parents scored medium. Slightly more of Group A parents of preteens (77.8%), than D arents in Group B (72.2%) , scored from medium to high degree of par- : icularism. However, the B parents of teens scored higher (71.4%) than t heir A counterparts (62.5%) . The data on parents and teens combined Q howed that while 50 percent in Group A scored low, nearly 80 percent ( 78.6%) of B parents and teens scored from medium to high in degree of b articularism. 176 .oonHoEoo enoou one eunoaen one mmnoou mo mnonuon one wnonueo ”mnoouoan mo oaonuofi one wnonuem soon on whomoa Naowoueo eHan .aonuoa one nonuew How oonHeuoo oea oaooe oweao>< o.ooH oH o.ooH oH o.ooH sH o.oOH oH o.ooH mH o.ooH mH HeuoH m.oH N «.NH N H.N H o.mN s N.NN m o.m H onwan nuom H.N H «.NH N I I I I I I I I anaoos noou .nwan eunonem I I I I m.oH N o o o.m H o.oH m EnHooE nonuos .nwan nonuem a.a a o o I I I I I I I I soa soon .oaaz anzonoo I I I I m.oH N m.o H H.HH N H.HH N 30H season .stn aonuem a.sa a a.s a I I I I I I I I sass zoos .azaoos anzmnoo I I I I m.oH N m.o H o.m H N.NN m Swan Honuoa .anHooE nonuem N.mN e m.mH m m.oH N N.mH m o.m H o.m H oanoos nuom o o o.NH N I I I I I I I I 30H noon .anoos eunoaem I I I I q.HN m m.o H H.HH N o.oH m 30H nonuos .anoos Honuem o o m.o H I I I I I I I I anz noon .3oH mononem I I I I o o m.o H o.m H o.m H ann nonuoa .3oH nosuem o.HN m o o I I I I I I I I anHooE noou .3oH monouem I I I I o 0 «.NH N H.NN s o.m H anoos nonuoa .30H Honuem N.H H o.Hm m m.QH N N.mH m o.m H o.m H osoH :uom onossoz aaasoo aazoa>asza N z N z N z m. z N z N z a < a a . a < onooso=,aaasoo eoonHoaoo mnooH wo mnoouoam mo mnooe + eunonem muonuoz one mnonuem ononuoz one eaonoem wHwJfim: assess: a; a a g H :E g gm E ies APPENDIX C Detailed Findings of Relationships of Independent and Dependent Variables 177 178 .Ho>oH mo. ue nanmnoaueHoa uneeHmHanme ssa. aaaa.I aaa. asas. ssa. aasa. ”w o 6 an o aoa. aaas.I sas. aaas.I sso. aasa.I s saa s aa ze ssa” aaaaHI asa” aasaHI asa” oaoan m osaa aaasoo asa aaaa I ssa aosa sas aaso I a ssa. aaaa.I aos. saaa. saa. osoa. _w o ozo o o Inzono asa. aaaa. sos. saaa. aaas. aaas.I a as an a a aaaoe o anuas noHuoemeHuem mo oouwoa aso. sass. saa. saaa.I oaa. asaa.I Mm oz o o sozoooo oo a so sas. asoo. aas. aoao. sao. aaaa. < o as a a a as o aaa. aaas. saa. aasa. aaa. saaa.I “w a no ozo onznozn a so oaao. aaas.I aaa. asas. oas. aaas. a on a e a us as o saa. aaas.I saa. osos. ssa. saaa.I “W as oao a so saa. asaa. aas. saao. asa. aasa. a o no aooz oao>oo as o a a n n n a aauzs a aauzs a aaauzs a ozone oasaanz> ossaooos aanzs a aaIzs < aaauzs a enounwneo enom nooH mnoououm COOL—p + muGUHmP + mufimhmm HO mufiwhwm Bands—am NHH.—sen onHoomm EmHneHnoHuaem mo oonwoa ou .owHH mo muHHeno one .omHH NHHsem .nanenoaueHom oHanoIenonem seas noauoemmauem mo ooawoo .mnueum eHsonooooHoom NHHsem .NuonHnsoo Hennuenuum NHHsem .oweum HeunoEQOHo>oo NHHsem .ennoawonm ofiwqoonm mo manmcomymNoq .HID oHoeN 179 .Ho>oH mo. ue nanonoaueHon oneoHoHanme 00m. o NmH. mHoo.I mOH. Hoom.I HNuzv m eNoo. omNN. NoH. NNNm.I NoH. omNm.I Honzv 4 nenounwneo noon + monouem omo. mmqo. oNH. NoHo. omN. HHmm. HNuzv m emoo. Nooo. NoN. ommN. NmH. oNoo. Hanv < amnom noon + munonem eNoo. mHoo. Nmo. ommm.I NNH. ommN.I AmHqu m eHoo. mmoN. mmm. omoo.I ooH. oONN. AmHuzv < nenoouoan «0 eunonem museum oHEonooooHuom NHHaem moN. NmmN.I Nom. osmo.I NoH. Nqu. HNuzv m ooo. momo.I moN. NNoaINHHfiem n a m, a n a anono oHoeHae> oHoHoomm osaa so anaaoae osaa aaasao omooooasoaoa oaaoeIozonoo noHuueomHuem mo ooawo: In. "‘ .Il‘l II"‘| ‘ osaa so asaaoze ozo .ossa aaasao .anmnOHueHom oHHsqunoaen nqu noHuueomHuem mo ooawon Os .mnueum oHEonooooHuom mHHEem one -31....1...§..:3 1.1333113 as 1 1 a so a so .2 3.. APPENDIX D Panel and Pretest Results 180 “if!" - . . 181 OH whm3mflm 0C HO wmmCOwaH UHOE HO .ammonu asouw mwm uo\c:w mmmao mousommu we whamCDo N m>mw Hmnuwm mumwamcma 3mm < .mfimuw meow .0 cu m: wwm mamaam uo: mmoc z Hmuoa n .mummumua cum tam .vam .umH mnu aw wwvsaucfi mamuHm I FiwflL NMWMN Nmmmm {QNMM MMQQQ lr-iv-il H \TNr-INI-i HHIHH HMHI—ll Qu—lr—iv-i r-lv-lv-l MNM v—IH HQQNN \TMHNN N MN llnv-i v-iN \DMQ’ I N N Ix? v-llHI-fiN Fir-1 M IHNI H @061 N |\D\Ov-1 lv-in-DN m H .ON .ma .wH .BH “Ocfl M m m m m Q m oqvhcnn nah-aaax N m ,4 :uom Nano 9 soflmm 0 Mo mmwmmau who: go N muaoz mvoou mmuw I>umm ImauowaH cowu maumum m>0A mmumwumoummd mdouu uw¢ DMWNHU UUHSOWMM umnasz am”: Aouzv mumwamcmm osu scum mufismmm .H-a «Hams 182 N r-Ir-Iv-Iv-IN I MNr-Iv-Im I I r-IINN III Iv-Il I Ln I I I r-Iv-Iv—I Hr-l I H I Ir-Im NHNH I I I \D N I I N \O I ...; mmm «Hmmq \TxTNmN NNr—Itfix‘l’ I I NN N m I I I m m I I I r-I ...; MQ‘NQ' v-I FIVII F) Papa MN WWI-I I \O\‘I' INQ' I‘F'IF'I me ImsuowaH m>oA mquHumoumm< muons mw< pmmmao mousommm umnazz awuH fiwflfifi UGOU .Ta 3an 183 H n H .oo m0¢n I m.mm .Nm “Dom .mm .qm .mm «.3 m.Hm m.on .mq .mq m.N¢ a 3 u - .mq “:3 m N .m¢ H o m.~¢ H u H m c H a .. N .. .3 (fir-I I I m I \De—IO I I I I MNHv—IN II II I r-I r-Iv-I H I I I I \D I I I I \O I N 0") \D m I IMNNQ' Int-fix'fI-II-I I Iv-II-I v-Ir-IN Iv-I I Iv-I ml r-II INT \DII III I-IF'II (fir-IN v-I I INr-I INM 'HNN I cNNq-x-r r-INr-I I I I v-I\D Nv-IIv-Ir-I II I Iv—Iv-Ir-Ir—INM I—IN I I I H I I Her-4 I I <7 I r-I I I I H I I I I I-IMQM I H I H I axe :uom Nalo o Boamm Ma mmmmmau muse: mvooo mmoa aowu maumum m>oq umnasz who: no N I>uwm umauomcH awuH ovumfiumoumm W - m2 N(N2-l) N - l where: m = number of judges N = number of choices to be made m W - l average rS = APPENDIX G Reasons for Incomplete Schedules 238 239 Table G-l. An Accounting of All Names Selected from Original List Number Refusals l6 Ineligible: Only one parent Spouse dead 15 Divorced 6 One parent--no reason given 13 Ineligible: Not Mexican American 18 Ineligible: Not a family No children 22 No children 18 years old or less living at home 19 Single No family-—no reason given 8 Ineligible: Family already interviewed 2 Ineligible: Reason unknown 8 Errors in sample list: No house 12 Errors in sample list: Business 1 Errors in sample list: Could not find, not on map, no such address 7 Vacant house 6 Moved 16 Not home after three contacts 14 Total contacts attempted without obtaining data 189 Total remaining selected names not used 140 Total selected names given to interviewers and not returned 165 Total completed households 106 Total selected names 600 Source: S. M. Danes (1978, p. 114). APPENDIX H Communications 240 241 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY ' DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ECOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 ' July 12, l977 Dr. Edna B. Foa . Temple Medical School Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dear Dr. Foa: We read with interest your book, Societal Structures of the Mind, which you co-authored with Dr. Uriel G. Foa. We note the many empirical studies you cited to support your discussions and arguments particularly in the area of resource exchange between adults. These citations will be helpful in our work. Your discussions on parent-child resource exchange were interesting and enlightening. . ‘ I come from the Philippines and I have a Master of Arts degree in family life. I have had some research experience using as respondents parents and children. Prior to my coming to Michigan State University to pursue a Ph.D. in Family Ecology and a minor in Sociology, I was connected with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Manila, and was involved in the National Food and Nutrition Programme and the Women in Development Project. My Ph.D. dissertation research interest happens to be in the interactions between parents and children, and we would like to look at family-child inter- personal relationships with special emphasis on resource exchange. We are currently exploring the literature for studies done in the area. So far we are not aware of any study done anywhere using your six resources as a con- ceptual framework for the study of parent-child social communication. We wonder if you might know a similar study already done, ongoing, or to be conducted on resource eXchange in child rearing using this model. Would you also know if there has been a study of the family's interactions with relatives, friends and the community at large, using your resource model? Please let us know, if there are any, where we could get in touch with the researchers. We would appreciate very much your earliest possible reply to our inquiries. Yours sincerely, $2158.36. 5.2.31 Erlinda N. Salcedo cb r. “76 242 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER SCHOOL or MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY - Clo Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute. Henry Avenue. PhIIsdeIphIs. Pu. I9IZ9 -TcI. ZIS- CE 88546 October 5, I977 Erlinda N. Salcedo Michigan State University College of Human Ecology Department of Family Ecology East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Dear Ms. Salcedo: I deeply apologize for the delay In my writing; but summer Is always busy for everyone In academia. Thank you for your interest In my work. I do not know of any work that has been done on resource exchange In family-child interaction. A student of my husband - is now working on resource theory and family therapy, but has not yet compiled the data. Your idea seem very interesting, and I will be looking forward to hearing from you. Please let me know of your progress. I promise to be more prompt in future correspondence. Sincerely, CfiTZé£fl%£’.J¥L&T1z;' Edna B. Foa, Ph. D. Assistant Professor Of Psychiatry (Psychology) EBF:ma 243 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY ' DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ECOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 November 2, 1977 Edna B. Foa Assistant Professor of Psychiatry Temple University Department Of Psychiatry c/o Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute Henry Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19129 Dear Dr. Foa: Thank you for your letter of October S. I can appreciate the volume of work that must have kept you busy all summer long. I am pleased that you are interested in the work I am doing in resource exchange. I trust it will add to the dearth Of knowledge in the area Of parent-child inter- action. I will look forward to reading the work of your husband's student on resource theory and family therapy. My research attempts to test the theory of resource exchange as well as to determine its applicability on parent-child interaction. Our respondents are Mexican American husband-wife teams and a teenager in each family. We are using two different sets of instruments. The first, is a modified version of your Social Interaction Inventory (Giving) instrument geared to parent-child relationship. The second, which is patterned after your instrument, has items that are particularistic rather than universal. These items were obtained directly from our Mexican American pretests respondents. 244 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY - DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ECOLOGY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824 2 We are using the techniques of interviewing and self-report for data gathering. The respondents rank order resource exchanges, because preli- minary results from our own study using the paired comparison indicated some difficulties in Obtaining data from Our sample. Hence, the ranking Of alternatives technique was introduced. It would be interesting to make comparisons of results obtained from two different instruments and two different techniques.for gathering data. My dissertation advisor, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Professor, Department of Family Ecology, initiated me on this research topic and she has been extremely helpful from the very beginning. She and I are excited about the study, and we look forward to letting you know of our progress and findings in our future correspondence. Sincerely yours, 2' .3, r . A .410)? a.a/.11.; V3. {:Qéhu’fl Erlinda N. Salcedo HIGRN STFITE UNIV. MIIIIIIII 2IIIIIII IIIII II II7|IIIIJIIIIIIIISIIIISIIIIIII