FAMILY POWER DISTRIBUTION AND NEED SATISFACTION AS RELATED TO ROLE ENACTMENT FOR FOOD AND SATISFACTION WITH FOOD - ‘ Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEE ANNE SPRADLING VONDE 1974 I I III IIIIIMII III III II "III I I I I ? M551? A R Y I“; Haggai?“ " This is to certify that the thesis entitled FAMILY POWER DISTRIBUTION AND NEED SATISFACTION AS RELATED TO ROLE ENACTMENT FOR FOOD AND SATISFACTION WITH FOOD presented by Dee Anne Spradling Vonde has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _1_’ILLD_._degree in _____1__Famil 36010837 [1’] Widi/wfl Mr 41/ 32¢ ékéz I/ Major professor Date M 0-7639 ABSTRACT FAMILY POWER DISTRIBUTION AND NEED SATISFACTION AS RELATED TO ROLE ENACTMENT FOR FOOD AND SATISFACTION WITH FOOD By Dee Anne Spradling Vonde The purposes of this study were : 1) To secure information related to: perceived power distribution, perceived need satisfaction, perceived role enactment for food, perceived satisfaction with food, perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the market place, and reported food intake within families. 2) To investigate relationships among these variables within families. 3) To contribute to further deve10pment of an ecological systems approach and study of the family and its interaction with its environment. With these purposes in mind instruments were adapted or developed to test the hypotheses which were generated. Data were gathered through personal interview with thirty- seven families from a random sample in Westminster, California. Families were composed of a husband, wife, and teen-ager. The data were analyzed using the following statistical 80 Dee Anne Spradling Vonde procedures: Pearson product moment correlation, r, regression analysis, and Ebel's test for reliability. The findings revealed a relationship between perceived satisfaction with food and perceived need satisfaction. When applying the Pearson product moment technique the relationship was significant at the .01 level for the husband (r = -.44) and for the teen-ager at the .05 level. A level of signifi- cance was not reached for the wife (r -.28). Another statistically significant finding was a relationship between Ithe scores for the congruence of the husband-wife pair and the overall family need satisfaction scores (p = .01). Future research on the family should be conducted using an ecological systems approach which examines the interface between man and his near environment. Methodolo- gical advances are necessary before it is possible to predict the perception of other family members from informa- tion obtained through interviewing only one person. More research is necessary but it seems possible that researchers may soon be able to predict overall need satisfaction based on the interviewees' responses to food Satisfaction questions. Field researchers conducting personal interviews with a random sample should realize that they will probably have low credibility from the standpoint of the general public and might wish to initiate some steps towards establishing credibility in the community before initiating their research. FAMILY POWER DISTRIBUTION AND NEED SATISFACTION AS RELATED TO ROLE ENACTMENT EOR FOOD AND SATISFACTION WITH FOOD By Dee Anne Spradling Vonde A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1974 @ Cepyright by DEE ANNE SPRADLING VONDE 1974 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express her appreciation to: The chairman of her committee, Dr. Margaret Jacobsen Bubolz. for her patience, time and guidance in the execution of this study; to the other members of her committee, Dr. Dena Cederquist, Dr. Randall Harrison, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, and Dr. Carol Shaffer; and to her husband, Thomas, for his critical comments and continued encouragement. The financial contribution from the Jeanette Lee Scholarship fund at Michigan State University was gratefully accepted. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Framework . . Purposes . . . . . . . . . . Assumption . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . Definitions . . . Power . . . . . . Need satisfaction . . . . Socio- -economic status Degree of congruence Family . . . . . . . . . . Role . . . . . Role enactment for food . Perceived satisfaction with food Perceived satisfaction with market in the marketplace . Reported food intake . . . Basic Four . . . . . . . . Other definitions General systems theory System . . . . . . . . . Open system . . . . . . Interface . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . Theoretical Formulations and Need satisfaction theory . Studies on role . . . . Studies on food needs . . III 0 METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O 0 Selection of Sample . . . . Criteria . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . Description of Sample . . . iii interactio on Power. 0 0 O O O O n vi viii Secio-economic Status . . . . . . . . Selection and Development of Instruments Description of Instruments . . . . . . . Perceived power in decision—making . . Perceived need satisfaction . . . . . Perceived role enactment for food Perceived satisfaction with food . . . Perceived satisfaction with marketplace Reported food intake . . . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . Measurement of Variables . . . . . . . . Perceived power in decision-making . Perceived need satisfaction . . . . . Degree of congruence . . . . . . Perceived satisfaction with food . . . Perceived role enactment for food . Perceived satisfaction with interaction in the marketplace . . . . . . . . Reported food intake . . . . . . . . . Description of the Situation . . . . . . Tests of Hypotheses . Hypothesis I . . . . . . . Hypothesis Il . . . . Hypothesis III . . . . . Hypothesis IV . . . . . . . . Hypothesis V . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis VI . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . Perceived power in decision- making and perceived need satisfaction . . . . Degree of congruence and perceived need satisfaction . . . . . . . . . Power in decision- -making for each individual position and socio- economic status . . . . Food satisfaction and need satisfaction . . Role enactment for food and satisfaction with food . . . . . . . . . . . Wife in the market and food at home Reported food intake . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . Implications for Future Research . . iv APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 A. Power Measure Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 B. Tables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 99 C. Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 O‘m-bLNNI-d 10. 11.7 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. .22. 23. LIST OF TABLES Reasons for excluding families Income of family . . Income of husband . : I . . . Income of wife . . . Income of teen-ager . . . Socio- economic status: Holling head w Factor Index of Social Position . . . . . . . . . Method of item scoring on need satisfaction of family members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of item scoring on perceived role enactment for food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of item scoring on perceived Satisfaction, with food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of item scoring for perceived satisfaction with market interaction . . . . . . Method of item scoring for reported food intake r—JOOooo 000.00 S by family members . . . . . . . . . . . . .' Methods used in analysis of data . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation of power in decision-making scores . . . . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived need satisfaction scores . . . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation of degree of congruence scores 0 O I O O O O O O I O O 0 Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived satisfaction with food scores . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived role enactment for food scores . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation of reported food intake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of results for regression analysis of each hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation between perceived power in decision- making and overall need satisfaction and socio-economic status of the family . . . . . Correlations between degree of congruence among family members and perceived need satisfaction for each position . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between perceived satisfaction with food and perceived need satisfaction . . . . . vi 66 67 68 7O 71 72 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Correlation between perceived role in selection, providing and/or planning and serving meals and perceived satisfaction with food . . . . . . . . Correlation between perceived satisfaction with’ which food can be obtained for the family and the perceived satisfaction with food in the home Size of family currently living at home . . . . . . Number of spouses by age . . . . . . . . Sex composition of the families . . . . . . Age patterns of husband and wife . . . . . Age and number of children in family . . . Number of families with children away from home and their marital status . . . . . . . . . Birth order of teen-ager interviewed . . . Year in school of teen-ager . . . . . . . Employment status of wife . . . . . . . Hours worked by husband . . . . . . . . . vii 73 74 99 100 101 101 102 102 '103 103 104 105 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Conceptual framework of variables, and definitions for perceived power distribution, perceived need satisfaction, perceived role enactment for food, perceived satisfaction with food, reported food intake, and perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Identification of systems and sub-systems . . . . . 10 3. Conceptual framework of variables, definitions and measures for perceived power distribution, perceived need satisfaction, perceived role enactment for food, perceived satisfaction with food, reported food intake, and perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This study is an exploratory investigation designed to gain information on both decision-making and need satisfaction within the family. Studies in decision-making have been conducted since the 19505 but an empirically supported theory does not yet exist to explain variations in decision-making or implementation among family members(54). Decision-making is recognized as an essential step towards meeting the needs of family members and requires the management of both economic and non—economic resources (23). Studies suggest that need satisfaction should be researched further to develop and refine instruments which will assess the need satisfaction of each family member (28). Further- more,decisions regarding the use of resources have a potential to influence the perceived need satisfaction of each family member (34). Among the most basic physical needs of all individuals is food. To meet this need, one or more members of the family must interact within a highly sophisticated market exchange system. Families are no longer producers of food; their role is now that of a consumer of food and processor of cans, bottles and other inedible items (37). Food items may be selected which will promote physical growth and well being of all the family members. Food.expenditures utilize a significant amount of the family's money income; that is, economic resources. In addition, non-economic resources are required to meet food needs; one or more individuals must plan and prepare meals, designate locations for serving the food, and then perform some clean-up. Family members at various times may participate in and implement food prepara- tion and service (71). Traditionally, as one of the tasks assigned to her role, the wife has assumed the primary responsibility of implementing decisions necessary to meet this food need (43). Today, however, women compose forty percent of the labor force and thus may contribute both economic and non-economic resources to the family (65). Such a change in the roles of families has yet to be examined, especially as related to decisions required to meet the food needs. Moreover, advances in technology have allowed for the production of a wider variety of products, packages, and advertisements to inform and influence the decisions which must be made by the consumer (24). Finally, time is at a premium for many family members because of activities or work outside the family. In such cases, demands relating to implementing decisions have changed, and in many cases a dinner time for the family unit is practically non-existant (l). Research can help provide answers to questions which are concerned with the decisions made in the home, the satisfaction of individual needs, and the food habits of families in the 19705. Conceptual Framework Numerous conceptual frameworks have been used in family resource management research but few empirically supported theories currently exist (7). Therefore, a conceptual framework is necessary to provide a frame of reference with which to examine the relationships between the variables selected for investigation. It may then assist in the eventual attainment of a testable theory. The conceptual framework could be based on an ecological approach (9). In this study, a partial ecological systems approach provides the perspective and procedure with which to examine and analyze the managerial behavior. There are, however, other frameworks which have been used for several years. They are: the structural-functional approach; the social—exchange framework; and the economic framework (62). Research conducted within each of these frameworks has contributed significantly to the knowledge available today for understanding families (50). The information from these approaches and previous research facilitates a move towards an ecological systems approach. This approach focuses not only on the sub-systems ’lwithin the family, but also on the interfaces between the family and its near environment. Such a syStems approach thus provides a setting in which to examine managerial decisions in both a social and economic exchange context. Furthermore, a systems approach provides a unifying common vocabulary, and allows the explanation of intricate relationships of parts which cannot be treated out of the context of the whole (9). Whether the subject of an investigation consists of a small system, such as a family, or a larger more complex system, such as a community, the ecological framework can provide the setting to explain the interrelationships of the interrelated and interdependent sub-systems (30). An ecological systems approach utilizes concepts derived from general systems theory and cybernetics. In general systems theory a ”system" is "a set or collection of elements or factors wherein certain relationships among the elements exist” (9:4). This key concept is useful in that it helps to link together factors which are necessary to explain an identified phenomena. The "Open system" is defined as ”a system which is in continual transaction with its environment" (9:4). For example, in this study, the interface between the family and the environment is analyzed. This study views the family as an open system and utilizes a partial ecological systems approach within which to examine family resource management. The representative areas selected to analyze the internal structure of the family are: l) perceived power; 2) perceived need satisfaction; 3) perceived role enactment related to food needs; 4) perceived satisfaction with food; and 5) nutritional adequacy. The variable, perceived power in decision-making, provides information on the relationship between the personal resources of family members and their power in decision- making. When decisions are made regarding resource allocation, family members have the potential to attain family goals and to meet individual needs and wants. Various researchers since the 19505 have studied decision-making and the power structure in families (54). A major study of the 19605 was conducted by Blood and Wolfe. They suggest a resource theory which assumes the more resources an individual has, the more power he exerts upon the decisions made in his family. This concept of decision- making is operationalized by examining a behavioral act; power is measured through examining the outcome of the decision-making situation. Data were collected by Blood and Wolfe on family decision-making from only the wife. Researchers tend to question theories generated from information collected from only one family member. These theories regarding power and decision-making are conducted with a lack of conceptual and methodological sophistication. This can be eliminated somewhat, as in this study, by collecting data from other family members on the perceived power distribution within the family (6). The variable, perceived need satisfaction, is also included to provide data on one aspect of the internal family structure. Needs, as viewed by Maslow, arrange themselves in a hierarchy and establish the vital sub-system of the internal family structure. Maslow suggests that minimum satisfaction of the needs at the base of the hierarchy, that is physiological and safety needs, must be met before the next need, in the hierarchy can be satisfied (45). Information in this study will be collected on need satisfaction related to the physiological needs, Ithe safety needs and the companionship and support needs. However, no attempt will be made to place them in a hierarchy. The need for food is viewed as one basic physio- logical need by Maslow (45). Other researchers suggest that the social-psychological environment in which the food is consumed influences the satisfaction associated with this need. Perceived satisfaction with food is therefore included in this study as a variable in an attempt to understand the relationship between the physio-social-psychological satisfaction with food within the family (46). In meeting the need for food family members may assume various roles. The member's perceived role enactment for food and their exchange of resources will be classified as economic, or monetary, and non-economic, or time, energy, and knowledge (71). In this exploratory research, questions are also included asking each person to recall the food and the approximate amount consumed within the last twenty- four hours (59). The variable, perceived role enactment for food, examines the various roles family members may assume in meeting this need. Researchers suggest the division of labor in decision-making is delegated according to sex (43). Blood and Wolfe suggest that the responsibility for meal planning and food expenditures are clearly part of the wife's major role in the household (6). Wilkening and Bharadwaj's studies view the wife as assuming the responsibility for inviting peeple to dinner (70). There are many components of this variable, such as: economic and non-economic resources; time; energy; and knowledge. In meeting the food need, a resource exchange with the environment occurs for most families. The market is the interface in which this interaction occurs. Decisions within the family structure determine the money available for exchange in the market and further influence the form and variety of foods considered for use. Some member of the family must then interact with the market and exchange the family's economic resources for food items. In this study, a micro-system technique is used to evaluate the internal forces within the family which influence purchasing behavior, for example: likes and dislikes; and roles related to food preparation and clean-up. In exploring the influence of the environment on food habits, an ecological systems approach must incorporate a consideration of the information decision sub—system. Television, advertisements and peer group pressure are examples. Included in this sub4system are economic and social-psychological influences from the environment on decisions to be made by consumers as they attempt to meet their need for food. A lack of information is evident in the area of family decision-making and decision-implementing. Further— more, the power structure within which decisions occur in families has yet to be explained. By studying the power in decision-making in families with a teen-ager there is an opportunity to explore the relationship between the identified variables. Since all individuals have a need for food this basic need was selected for further exploration. Individuals in such families have the potential for a contribution to meeting this need with numerous resources, and through different roles. Little information is currently available on the satisfaction each family member has with his particular role related to food or whether such roles vary among families (Figure 1, page 9). To expand the scepe of this study and to implement a partial ecological approach the family's interaction with the food marketplace was explored. As families are no Perceived satisfaction with food erceived eed atisfaction Perceived power distrib Variables Definition Decision- Perceived making satisfaction Decision- Safety needs with meals implementing Companionshi Su d « ‘ I Variables Perceived eported Perceived role ood intake satisfaction enactment with market for food interaction in Mthe marketplaceM Definition Economic asic Perceived . our satisfaction Non econom1c with market interaction Figure 1: Conceptual framework of variables, and definitions for perceived power distribution, perceived need satisfaction, perceived role enactment for food, perceived satisfaction with food, reported food intake, and perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace. longer producers but consumers of food they must exchange some resources in the market to obtain food. Information on whose role it is to make decisions in the marketplace and the satisfaction of the individual family members with that role is unknown at the present time. Study of an interface between the family and its near environment should provide a valuable insight on how the family of today perceives its potential to meet its food need (Figure 2, page 10). 10 Wife Mother :22?“ Interface NVIRONMENT Husband ‘L’ ’ Father FAMILY Figure 2: Identification of systems and sub-systems. Purposes The purposes of this exploratory study were: 1. To secure information related to: perceived power distribution; perceived need satisfaction; perceived role enactment for food; perceived satisfaction with food; perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace; and reported food intake within families. 2. To investigate relationships among these variables, within families. 3. To contribute to further deve10pment of an ecological systems approach to study the family and its interaction with its environment. Assumptions 1. All individuals have basic needs which include food, clothing and shelter. 2. While the roles of members may vary somewhat between families there are certain tasks which are present in all 11 families. 3. Power positions of family members and role enactment are basic aspects of family structure. 4. In the American society some families share some meals together at home. Hypotheses Hypothesis I. The power in decision-making for a family member is positively related to his need satisfaction. Hypothesis II. The degree of congruence between the husband's and wife's responses as to who does and who decides on various activities varies significantly with the perceived need satisfaction of each family position. Hypothesis III. The power in decision-making of each individual family position varies significantly with the socio-economic status of the family. Hypothesis IV. There is a relationship between the perceived satisfaction with food and perceived need satisfac- tion for each family position. Hypothesis V. A family member's perceived role in selecting, providing and/or planning and serving meals is related to his/her perceived satisfaction with food. Hypothesis VI. There is a relationship between the perceived satisfaction with which food can be obtained in the marketplace and the perceived satisfaction with the food in the home. 12 Definitions The theoretical meaning and the empirical meaning are included in defining the selected concepts. The theoretical meaning examines the term as it is used within its theoretical system. The empirical meaning presents the variables used in this study as they were operationalized in observable events. Power An ability within a social relationship to influence or control another person's behavior. Operationally, power in decision-making was measured by the number of decisions a family member made or participated in making which affected another person's behavior. Need satisfaction The fulfillment of anything a person wants with sufficient consistency over time to have become part of his personality; that is, a motivation basic to human behavior. These needs may be considered as sub-goals. Need satisfaction was measured by asking the respondent "Are you satisfied with. . .?" and by his selecting one of these responses: "most of the time;" "sometimes;" "usually not;” or, ”not at all." Questions were included which asked about activities in three areas of needs: l3 physiological; safety; and companionship and support. Socio-economic status The differentiation among families based upon social and economic factors in society. The concept was measured by the Hollingshead, Two Factor Index of Social Position.(flfl. This index is widely used in social science research as it is an easily applicable procedure for estimating the positions which individuals occupy in the status structure of the American society. Two factors are utilized to determine social position: occupation and education. These factors are weighted from a standard table and then mathematically combined to yield a Hollingshead Two Factor Index score of Social Position. The range of scores may then fall within one of five social classes with Class 5 representing the highest social level. Degree of congruence The degree of congruence is the amount or intensity of coinciding or agreeing. Scores indicating the agreement among responses of family members to the items of who does and who decides for the various activities were calculated to measure degree of congruence. Complete agreement was indicated when respondents had given the same response to an item. 14 Family This is defined as: A corporate unit of interacting. and interdependent personalities who have a common theme and goal, a commitment over time, and share resources and living space. In this study, family was defined as: A wife, husband and at least one teen-ager, all living together in a house or apartment (37). Role The definition suggested by Turner was used: "A role is the behavior characteristic of a kind of actor, and the behavior of individuals as interpreted against the roles they are assigned to. As it is a comprehensive way of interacting with one or a set of relevant other roles it cannot be understood apart from that relationship" (64:214). The definition was Operationalized only in terms of specific roles of family members which related to food needs. Role enactment for food This is defined as the behavior of individuals as they interact to meet their need for food. Operationally it was measured by asking the respondent, ”Do you participate in getting the meals. . ." and by his selecting one of these responses: ”always;” "most of the time;" "sometimes;" ”usually not;" or, "never." Questions were included which 15 asked about menu planning, serving food, taking out the garbage, and contributing money. Perceived satisfaction with food This term is defined as the fulfillment of anything a person thinks that he wants to meet his need for food. Perceived satisfaction with food was measured by asking the respondent, ”Are you satisfied with. . ." and by his selecting one of the following responses: "always;" ”most of the time;" "sometimes;" "usually not;" or, "never." Questions were included which collected information on ease of preparation, meals consumed by the family unit, nutritional value, and aesthetic pleasures associated with food service. Perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace This term is the fulfillment of expectations by those persons who enter the market to purchase food to meet their needs. Perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace was operationalized by asking the respondent questions related to the location of the market, the variety of feeds available, the price range of food, and the form in which food was presently being marketed. The individuals were asked to respond, "Could you indicate If your degree of satisfaction with each of the following. . . 16 Are you satisfied, "always," "most of the time,” "sometimes," "usually not," or, ”never." Reported food intake This term is defined as the potential for an individual to bring to mind the foods and beverages that he has consumed in the previous twenty-four hours (59). It is subject to the reSpondent's memory as no probing questions were incorporated. It was Operationalized by asking the respondent, "Could you tell me what you have had to eat in the last twenty-four hours and approximately what amount you consumed of each of these foods." Basic Four The Basic Four consists of four food groups: 1) milk and its products; 2) meats, poultry, fish, eggs and other excellent protein sources; 3) vegetables and fruits; and, 4) cereals and their products. Balanced nutrition is provided by adequate daily consumption of representative foods in each of these groups. Other definitions General systems theory. The study of systems for the purpose of identifying commonalities of systems found in different applications. A science of organizing and organization (68). 17 System. An arbitrarily defined set or collection of (elements or factors wherein certain relationships among the elements exist (26) . Open system. A system which is in continual trans- .action with its environment (9). Interface. A relationship between two living systems ‘that is an abstracted Space relationship greater than linkage. Interface is eSsential to the vitality of the two inter- zlcting open systems (9). from f satisf the vi theori CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE This review of literature is a selected compilation ifrom four areas: power within the family; need satisfaction; ssatisfaction with food roles; and, food needs. Theoretical Formulations and Studies on Power The concept of power accepted for this study shares 1ihe viewpoint of SchOpler (SS) and Hook (36). In Schopler's tiheories, in which the concept of power is considered, power :is viewed as ”a characteristic of a social relationship, :involving at least two persons, where the amount of power is clefined by the events occuring in the relationship" (55:178). In this definition, limiting events to a relationship assists in.establishing parameters related to decision-making, IJut needs to be accompanied by an operational definition of Pubwer to make it complete. The operational definition iaccepted for this study, shared by Hook, and Blood and Wolfe, \fiews power as "the potential ability of one partner to irlfluence the other's behavior manifested in the ability to "Hike decisions affecting the life of the family" (6) (36:18). 18 19 According to Safilios-Rothschild family power is a multidimensional concept that is measured indirectly through behavioral acts in which the degree of one's power is put to the test. Familial power, so defined, can be measured through the outcome of decision-making, the patterns of tension conflict management, or the type of prevailing division of labor. None of these particular behavioral patterns can be identified alone with familial power; it is their total configuration that tends to reflect the prevailing model of power (54:540). Herbst shares this holistic, multidimensional perspective regarding husband-wife relationships (32). His recommendations regarding power are that the researcher examine both the decisions within a certain area of activity in the family and the behavior being decided upon. He then Operationalizes his theory and studies four basic types of power relationships with residents in Australia. His four types of power relationships are: the husband- dominance pattern; the wife-dominance pattern; the autonomic pattern; and the syncratic pattern. This holistic, multidimensional approach with variOus adaptations has served as the basis for many studies which attempt to measure power in the family. The problems which infiltrate almost all studies are incurred when moves are made from theoretical to Operational definitions of power. For example, Safilios-Rothschild suggests that studies within all conceptual frameworks are plagued with a lack of methodological and conceptual sephistication (54). Within this limitation, some of the most widely accepted theories for examining power include the social exchange concept used by Ed: by BIL withir assume In the receit as "th Ship" insepa occurs DEIDg ( leads . Power j balance particf Their tional poker. partne: 20 by Edwards (14) and the resource exchange theory developed by Blood and Wolfe (6) and Herr's (33) exchange value theory. Edwards states familial behavior must be examined within the framework of social exchange. Individuals assume an assortment of roles and various resources as well. In the social framework individuals exchange resburces, and receive something in return. Edwards defines a resource as ”that which an exchanger has to give in a relation— ship" (14:519). He suggests that the resources are inseparable from the giver. As the exchange of resources occurs individuals perceive that equivalent amounts are being exchanged. Blau maintains that unreciprocated exchange leads to the differentiation of power (5). Blood and Wolfe used a resource theory of family power in their Detroit study (6). They theorize that the balance of marital power is determined by the comparative participation of the husband and wife in the external system. Their participation in occupational, educational, organiza- tional, and social activities provides the bases for marital power. They suggest the balance of power lies with the partner who has the greatest resources in the marriage and is viewed as the most competent. Herr criticizes Blood and Wolfe's theory and proposes an exchange value theory which involves the terms of the exchange of resources between husband and wife with the focus on the value placed on these resources outside the marriage. The greater the positive difference between the value to the wife of the resources contributed by 21 her husband and the value to her of the resources which she might obtain through exchanging her own resources outside the existing marriage, the greater the power of the husband and vice versa (33:477). From information available Herr then suggests five bases of power: 1) external social control; 2) the prior internaliza- tion of norms; 3) discrepancy between actual return and return expected under an alternative to the existing marriage or family; 4) relative competence; and, 5) relative involvement (33). In criticism of Herr, Safilios-Rothschild suggests that it would be better viewed as a relative love and need theory. Safilios-Rothschild further views the crucial variable as "The relative degree to which the one spouse loves and needs the other. . ." (54:540). Turk and Bell replicate nine major measures of power and compare them by using each to assess power relations within their sample, in Toronto. One of their key suggestions is that "Findings depend on which family member is used or treated as the key informant. . . Respondents in different positions in the family group respond with their own particular perceptions" (63:221). This is critical as research conducted using a resource exchange theory collected information only from the wife. The question remains as to the validity of the information collected when only one person in the family is interviewed. 22 Need satisfaction theory Resources in families have the potential to be directed towards meeting individual needs. The resources within families are categorized in a number of ways with research focusing on material or non-human resources. Only recently have efforts been directed towards measuring human resources in the family (2). While non-human resources are tangible, readily identified, easily counted, observable entities, human resources are difficult to identify and quantify in measurable terms. In an economic sense, production is the creation of utility and many want-satisfying activities are conducted in the home to meet individual needs. Fitzsimmons identifies need satisfaction as, satisfactions which one individual makes possible for another. . . such things as answering the doorbell and the telephone, care of the sick, and interpreting the meaning of experience. . . most often, perhaps to children-~but sometimes for adults also (18:165). Maslow deve10ped one theoretical framework that is commonly used to conceptualize the full range of man's needs. He states that an individual's basic needs, that is, physiological needs, must be met before he can move towards accomplishingcnflmn needs such as, esteem and self- actualization. Liston states that ”The degree to which the needs of family members are met will determine the character of the human resources on which the family may capitalize. . ." (45:26). By identifying human resources 23 and human needs it is then possible to examine how they are exchanged within the family structure and between the family and its environment. In decision-making, family members have the opportunity to respond in different ways and allocate resources to meet 8 their individual needs. Frequently an individual's response is related to his role. Studies on role Several studies focus on the Parson-Bales role framework which designates the wife as fulfilling the expressive role and the husband the instrumental role (52). In cross-cultural studies, such as those conducted by Zelditch, forty-six societies had a Parsons-Bales role structure, where the wife was the expressive party in the decision-making role (71). Zelditch states that the nuclear family in our society has a particular yet flexible role pattern. It is nuclear but not independent, and its uniqueness lies in its age-sex structure, attitudes, and expression of affection. More flexible than in most societies it may see the father helping With the dishes or setting the table. He is however viewed as the provider and his role at home, in terms of doing dishes, should be viewed as relative to the mother's responsibilities. Roles, specifically as they relate to meeting the need for food, have not been the direct focus of research 24 attempts. One finding of research on roles which is especially applicable to meeting the need for food is the aspect of feeling, identified by Kirkpatrick (41). Kirkpatrick, in speaking of roles as collections of obligations and rights,offers the idea that in the minds of the participants these concepts must be balanced. Harmonization is the result of a balanced degree of role adequacy between the family members. It is not only the performance of the role which must be considered but the feelings associated with the performance. Kirkpatrick states that for women there are three culturally acknbwledged roles: 1) raising the children and tending house; 2) being a companion to her husband and the hostess to guests; 3) a separate person with her own career and income (41). Writers of the 19605 decade suggest that individuals in an urban society are forced to assume more differentiated roles than in a primitive or peasant society. ’Assuming more roles than before can increase the potential for role strain and make it difficult "To view one's total role system in perspective" (22:493). Stating that the total set of role obligations is unique with every individual, it becomes "The individual's problem to make his whole role system manageable." He must "Allocate his energies and skills so as to reduce role strain to bearable prepor- tions" (22:493). Merton suggests that some continuing role interaction is essential if an individual is to maintain a 25 self-image and personality structure. Therefore, role relationships must be viewed as "role sets" which individuals engage in by virtue of one of their positions (47:15). Biddle and Thomas refer to role as: l) a behavioral repertoire characteristic of a person or a position; 2) a set of standards, descriptions, norms, or concepts held (by anyone) for the behaviors of a person or a position; 3) a position (3). Handel suggests that roles within the family are changing and research on a microsocial level is essential. At this level the group of interacting individuals' behavior and activity can be described in terms of the roles they occupy. The interrelationships among the parts of the system within the family can then be viewed with understanding. He further states that roles and relationships are changing within the family (29). More recently, Turner suggests that ”A role is the behavior characteristic of a kind of actor, and the behavior of individuals as interpreted against the roles they are assigned to. As it is a comprehensive way of interacting with one or a set of relevant other roles it cannot be understood apart from that relationship” (64:210). He views roles among family members to be culturally defined and of little subject to change, yet with a tendency for uniqueness they may displace the cultural roles to some degree. He further speaks of the necessity for roles to be held together by ”Reciprocity, consisting of mutual viability and functional effectiveness, and by sentiment and the 26 feeling that the roles are right and gratifying (64:240). Turner states that the process in the development of the role can be delineated as role differentiation; (i.e., the grouping of activities and quite culturally defined) and role alloca— tion which assigns particular individuals to play particular roles. The concept of clustering of roles expands the wife- mother's contribution beyond the kitchen to the responsibi- lities for housekeeping and care of the children. In the process of deve10ping these roles, Turner believes that in a traditional, patriarchal family the father stays out of the kitchen. The mother has a low prestige job carried out in an air of mystery. The task has its own unique jargon and is the role of the wife in the house. But what roles are applicable today in families where the wife is working outside the home and teen-agers are capable of assuming some of the responsiblities, especially directed at meeting needs for food? Studies on food needs A review of the literature reveals that attempts to examine food habits in a unidimensional vacuum proves unrewarding for providing clues to the physio-social- psychological meaning of food to an individual or within a family setting. Distorted conclusions suggest actions which have short-lived or unsuccessful results when introduced to a multifaceted human culture. 27 The idea of studying food habits as a multidimensional concept is stressed by Marguerite Burk (11). In examining food, Burk says that consumption patterns may refer to. patterns of consumption rates for different commodities by a given type of family or to the relationships of rates of consumption to underlying socioeconomic, physiological and psychological phenomena (10) (11). She stresses that an integrated approach, using an open systems model, must include the following: 1. psychological, sociological, anthropological, and economic phenomena related to; 2. the behavior. of individuals, families, and groups as they take consumer roles in; 3. individual and group decision- making or problem solving processes related to buying and to using goods and services and; 4. the economic phenomena of consumption and expenditures which result from; 5. the socioeconomic structure of consumption having these dimensions: a. behavioral, b. economic and technical (quantity, value, and quality), c. temporal (situational--dynamic), d. aggregate (micro-macro) (10). Few, if any, research endeavors within any discipline attempt to study food habits or consumption patterns in the manner Burk suggests. In the area of food decisions, Nelson Foote suggests the need for analyzing consumption patterns through a medium which allows for the analysis of the physiological and socio-phychological influence on decisions related to food (21). He suggests that a relationship exists between an individual's need for power, cultural roles and values. Foote's concepts, as well as Marguerite Burk's (11), are implemented in this (Vonde) research endeavor which is 28 designed specifically to initiate measures for testing satisfaction and need relationships. Inreviewing the literature, it was discovered that most previous research in food needs represents a uni- dimensional approach. Some studies, directly related to technique or various subjects examined in this study, are applicable and are therefore included. More specifically, research reported deals with concepts suggested by: psychologist, Kurt Lewin (43); anthropologist, Dorothy Lee (42); and noted nutritionists. Ideas are also presented on the cultural and economic influences in the United States today which have significant implications for food habits. Psychologist Kurt Lewin suggests that the potential for meeting food needs for a family are channeled through a ”gatekeeper," frequently believed to be the mother. He states that her psychology is influenced by her cognitive structure in answering the question about what food is "Good or fits into meals." He further states that her choice is influenced by her perception of health, cost, status, and taste (43).~ Some attempts at analyzing food patterns within a family setting have been undertaken by the anthrOpologists. Dorothy Lee, for instance, views eating as a very personal experience in which its memory can envoke pain or joy. In a discussion Of the Hopi Indians, she alerts the researcher that this group of peeple does not eat corn because of 29 its meaning associated with their way of life (42). When conditions are such that sufficient essential nutrients are not included in the diet, malnutrition and eventually death can be the result. Tests to determine the levels of hemoglobin, hemotocrit, the total serum proteins, serum albumin levels, and urine sample analysis are some of -the measures frequently incorporated into research studies designed to analyze the nutritional status of children or adults (69). Studies to determine the state of health of individuals require laboratory tests which often involve large amounts of money. It has only been possible in this century to do chemical analysis and measure all of the nutrients present in food available for consumption, and significant discoveries have resulted from the research attempted utilizing these techniques (53). When general information about food intake is the goal in research one of four methods is most frequently selected. The possibilities include estimation by recall, dietary history, the weighted intake and the food record. The recall method is most frequently used for a twenty-four hour to seven day period. The potential for its use in a study increases in preportion to the length of time during which the information is recorded. This research endeavor utilizes the twenty-four hour recall technique (53). When evaluating reported food intake it should be emphasized that availability does not appear to be a factor 30 limiting the attainment of a good diet. Enough food is. available to adequately meet the nutritional needs of the 205 million peeple living in the United States today. However, evidence is accumulating which indicates that not all Americans have a "good diet." The nutritional needs as specified by the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC) are used as the standard when diets are analyzed (48). From 1955-1965 the number of "good diets" had decreased. According to the nation-wide survey conducted by the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA reporting food consumption trends, only 50% of the United States households have diets rated "good;" that is, meet standards for protein, two minerals and four vitamins (l). The rea50ns are unknown. Purchasing power, frequently viewed as income, does have an impact on both the kind and amount of food that is considered for consumption. This alone is not the answer, for in families with an income of over $10,000 only 65% of this group meet the Recommended Dietary Allowances-(20). The amount of money spent for food increases as there is an increase in income. However, the proportion of the income spent for food decreases. According to Engel's law, a relatively low income elasticity of demand exists for food as compared with other goods (15). The preportion of calories derived from starchy foodstuffs (that is, potatoes and cereals) declines as the average per capita 31 Mincome increases (1). It seems as though, "Peeple in this ~ country eat what they like insofar as they can afford it" (8:15). The economists cmur enlighten the researcher with information related to the purchasing power of a given country but no one can adequately answer the question of how food habits can be changed, the consequences of planned change, nor how an increase in purchasing power can challenge the consumer to maximize rather than sacrifice in his decision-making strategy (58). Should income or a food shortage exist information related to food habits is essential for viable adjustments to be initiated. "Food habits are studied so that we may know how well the practice of individuals, as patterned by their culture, assures adanmte nutrition" (20). The NRC recognized that as definitions of health change so may the degree of flexibility in food habits and institutional practices (that is, the number of meals, methods or preparation). The research shows that patterns are changing: more meals are consumed outside the home; the fad diets are continuing to only reduce their participants chances for good health; and more people are overweight. An indepth analysis of consumption patterns of 184,000 low income families was undertaken by the Extension Service's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (66). This Study was conducted by the Marketing Economics Division of 32 the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of . Agriculture.i A national sample of 10,500 showed that family incomes of participants were very low--less than $2,700. With an income of $2,700 more than one-third is spent for food but in the $1,200 income bracket nearly one-half goes for food. Most of the families were urban, members of minority groups and had homemakers with relatively low educational levels. To ascertain the know- ledge of food possessed by the participants they were asked, "What food and drink do you think people should have to keep healthy?" The foods named were then cate- gorized into the Basic Four food groups. The homemakers who named a food in a specific group were assumed to have the knowledge behind the reasons for having a good diet. 'The food consumption practices of homemakers upon entering the program indicated that many families had poor diets which were frequently lacking in milk, fruits and vegetables. After six months of work with an EFNEP aide substantial improvements were recognized in the food knowledge on which consumers could base their decisions. Analysis of the buying practices revealed an increase in the consumption of fruits, vegetables and dairy products. The improvements in the diets were significantly better as the number of visits by the aide increased. Studies such as the above attempt to improve the information available to the consumer who must make decisions in the marketplace (66). 33 'To examine the food habits and nutritional status, reflected by food purchasing practices a group of researchers at the University of Wisconsin analyzed the perceptions and attitudes of a variety of homemakers. W. Jane Fewster deve10ped an instrument to assess the dimensions of the connotative meaning of foods (16). She was interested in (deve10ping a test for "locating" an audience's perceptions and attitudes concerning foods and in testing it with both high and low inCome individuals. The 100 subjects rated seven foods: meat, vegetables, dairy products, steaks, green beans, fresh and powdered milk on a semantic differential scale (that is, high energy/low energy). Of the original 78 scales pretested, 38 were used in the actual study. After tests for analysis of variance and factor analysis 26 of the scales were retained. The low income families found all the foods studied to be less safe and perceived powdered milk as a poorer food which provided. lower food value for the money than whole milk. The low income group seemed to be more interested in talking, reading and hearing about the foods studied than high income subjects (16). Cohen retested the instrument developed by Fewster on 54 subjects with an annual income of $10,000 and above. She used different foods and found the results of her high income participants to be much different from Fewster's high income subjects. Cohen suggests that the difference in the food items included in 34 'the instrument may account for the outcome in her study (12). Firstenberger retested the Fewster instrument with 50 subjects whose annual income was $5,400 or less. A new list of foods were used and results were not similar to the Fewster low income participants (17). In studying consumption patterns over the past decade readers can find reference to the suggested change in food consumption patterns. Leon P. Ullensvang suggests that to understand the changes in food patterns an understanding of the environment is essential. He states that "How, when, and where and the form in which it is prepared, served, and consumed are all influenced by other aspects and events in our lives" (67). Ullensvang further reports that technolo- gical developments are having a tremendous impact. For example, the space programs have resulted in food products in new and different forms which have found their way into the food markets. The number of items consumed as snacks have increased. The traditional meal pattern which found break- fast to include juice, bacon, eggs and toast served to the total family unit has changed as peeple commute to work and frequently leave home before other family members arise or have breakfast. As consumers make their food choices the concept of weight control is influencing their decisions. At the same time, more Italian foods, frequently high in calories, are being consumed and they have become so pepular that they can now be considered a staple in the American diet. 35 From 1955 to 1965 there was a dramatic percentage increase in the consumption of fresh, commercial fruit juices, frozen potatoes, commercially processed soups and dehydrated soups. The cost of some of these items has increased just as rapidly as the consumption (4). A change in the price of an item may result in no change in either purchase, consumption or preference pattern. Economists explain this by stating that this is characteristic when the price change is below the price reaction threshold. The other possibilities include a change in consumption (49). Expenditures for the food items, considered as necessities, may change from time to time but they are recognized to be partly culturally defined. Persons in different positions, with different roles, have different minimum standards of consumption. They share a need for food but the particular choice of foods to meet their needs leaves considerable choice (40). The consumption patterns associated with many products is influenced by cultural differentiations which identify the product. Brands or grades of products may be associated with specific types of people or may find meaning through association with specific events. This differentiation and symbolic meaning derives from the culture and becomes part of a product image. The process of development of a product image may result from personal experience or communication with others. The symbolism attached to a product may find 36 association with the sex, age, social class, prestige, race, or religion of the potential consumer. It seems the responsibility of researchers in the field of food habits "To build up a systematic mass of material which has been collected with impartiality and a fair degree of uniformity" (20:10). Hopefully this explor- atory research will make a necessary contribution to not only the field of human ecology but will be of interest to psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and nuritionists and challenge them to formulate testable hypotheses in their future endeavors which are directly related to the informa- tion gathered here. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Sample selection and characteristics are described in this chapter. Methods for collection of data and statistical analysis are also discussed. Selection of Sample Criteria A representative sample of fifty families was selected from the 1973 Westminster, California, City Directory. The sample selected required families to have these characteristics: - Teen-ager, age l3~l9, attending school but living at home — Wife and husband both living at home - Willingness of the husband, wife and teen-ager to participate - Families considered to be in occupational positions Procedure Families were initially contacted by telephone. In all, 973 families were contacted before interviews with 50 of the families could be completed. Reasons for excluding 37 38 families from the study were: family composition satisfac- tory, but unwilling to participate; no teen; no husband; unable to reach after ten attempts. Of those contacted, 653 families were ineligible due to the family composition. Another 250 families who met the criteria for inclusion in the study declined due to lack of interest (See Table 1). Table 1. Reasons for excluding families. Reasons Number Family composition satisfactory but unwilling 250 No teen 648 No husband 5 Unable to reach after ten attempts 20 Total 923 Description of Sample A variety of descriptive characteristics are identi- fied in this discussion. Out of the fifty families interviewed, data from three were omitted from the statis- tical analysis because of the large quantity of data missing on the questionnaire. The forty-seven remaining families ranged in size from three to twelve members with an average 39 size of 4.2 (Table 26 in appendix). The ages of both the husband and wife ranged from twentyPnine to sixty-seven years. The mean age of the husbands was 45.3 and of the wives, 43.4 (Table 27 in appendix). The sex composition, which indicates the proportion of males to females within the family, revealed that in eighteen of the forty-seven families there were more males than females and in twelve families there were an equal number of males and females (Table 28 in appendix). The data on the age pattern for the husband and wife revealed the husband to be older than the wife by one to four years in twenty of the forty-one families in which the husband responded. In seven families the husband was older than the wife by five or more years. Also in seven, the husband's age was equal to the wife, and in seven others, the wife was older than the husband (Table 29—30 in appendix). The years of marriage for the parents in forty-five families ranged from two to fifty years, with a mean of 20.5 years. The forty—seven families interviewed had between one and twelve children. The teen-agers were almost equally distributed between boys and girls with the average age of fourteen. Besides teen-agers living at home, other children still at home ranged in age from small babies to age twenty- six. Children were living away from home in seventeen. 40 families, and in ten of these families the children away from home were married. In only four families was there an unmarried child away from home (Table 31 in appendix). In twenty-seven of the participating families, the teen-ager who participated in the study was the first born, and in thirteen families the participating teen-ager was the second child born. In the remaining seven families, the teen—ager participating was the third child in four of the families, and the fourth child in three of the families respectively (Table 32 in appendix). The teen-ager's grade in school ranged from seventh to junior college with an almost equal distribution in each grade (Table 33 in appendix). Teen-agers in the forty-seven families were asked if they earned a money income away from home and 29.78 percent responded that they did work. The average number of hours worked per week was 21.86 hours. In the families interviewed, twenty-eight of the wives were not employed outside the home, while twelve of the wives worked outside the home more than thirty-five hours {mufweekg Of the seven remaining wives, some worked in their home at OCCUpations for which they received some money while others worked outside the home on occasion (Table 34 in appendix). The reported. family income of the forty-one families who responded to this question ranged from $7,000 to over $20,000/year. The largest group, 48.8 percent, was 41 contained in the $10,000 to $16,000 range. However, eleven families-~that is, 26.8 percent-~showed incomes in the $16,000 to $20,000 range (Table 2). Total mean family Table 2. Income of family. Amount of income Distribution Frequency Percentage $ 7,000 - $ 9,999 3 7.32 $10,000 — $15,999 20 48.78 $16,000 - $19,999 11 26.83 $20,000 and up 7 17.07 no response 6 Total 47 100. income for this area was $13,675 for the year 1970. The income of the families interviewed compared well with typical income in the area. Considering only the husband, the annual income for thirty-five respondents ranged from $10,000 to $17,000 per year. Mean male income for the area was reported to be $10,300/year (Table 3). Income contributed by wives and children was also significant. In the group studied, fourteen wives were employed outside the home. Six of this group, that is, 42.9 percent, reported earning between $1,000 and $4,000, which was the largest group (Table 4). 42 Table 3. Income of husband. Amount of income Distribution Frequency Percentage $ 4,000 - $ 6,999 l 2.38 $ 7,000 — $ 9,999 6 14.29 $10,000 - $16,999 35 83.33 no response 5 Total 47 100. Table 4. Income of wife Amount of income Distribution Frequency Percentage $1.00 - $ 999 3 21.42 $1,000 - $3,999 6 42.86 $4,000 - $6,999 1 7.14 $7,000 - $9,999 4 28 58 Total 14a 100. aTotal number of wives employed. Of the forty-seven teen-agers interviewed, eleven teen-agers reported outside income. Five reported less than $1,000 per year, but six earned between $1,000 and $4,000, which 43 represented a significant contribution (Table 5). Table 5. Income of teen-ager. Amount of income Distribution Frequency Percentage $1.00 - s 999 5 45.45 $1,000 - $3,999 6 54.55 Total 113 99.99 8Total number of teen-agers employed. §9£ie;EcongmiC Statqs -—.—..-._.- _—-———_.-—-.. The Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position was used to determine the socio-economic status of each family. This index uses occupation and education of the husband to differentiate among families in society (35). In Class II, in which fifteen of the families in this study were located, the husband's occupations were: business managers; proprietors of medium sized businesses; or lesser professionals. In terms of education all the men had completed a degree at a four year college or university. In Class III, in which eleven of the families were placed, the husband was employed as: administrative personnel; in a small independent business; or as a minor professional with Int ROUr work in a wife had deg. 901; WQFM 44 partial college training. In Class IV, the husband was a clerical or sales worker, a technician or the owner of a small business with a high school diploma (Table 6). Table 6. Socio-economic status: Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position Hollingshead Index Distribution Frequency Percentage Class I low 2 4.26 Class II 15 31.91 Class III 11 23.40 Class IV 17 36.17 Class V high 2 4.26 Total 47 100. In twenty-two of the families, the husband worked forty hours a week. In twenty-one of the families, the husband worked between forty-five and fifty hours a week (Table 35 in‘appendix). The Hollingshead Education Scale was applied to the wife. In this case, the wife in only one of the families had graduate or professional training, seven wives held a .degree from a four year institution and eight had partial college training. The largest group of wives, twenty-two, were high school graduates with no advanced training. In eig} scht meas need enac perc food prep C011 marr 9985 WIVe fete Fete 45 eight of the families the wives had not completed high school. One of the wives did not respond to the question. Selection and Development of Instruments The instrument deve10ped by Nancy C. Hook was used to measure the perceived power distribution and perceived need satisfaction (36). Instruments were deve10ped to measure perceived role enactment for food, perceived satisfaction with food, perceived satisfaction with market interaction and reported food intake. The measures deve10ped for this study were pretested on twenty-five individuals recruited through a college class being taught by the researcher and her married friends with children. In the pretest, the questionnaire was distributed to teen-agers, husbands, and wives and then six weeks later the same individuals were retested. The reliability of the measure from this test- retest was r = .94. Description of Instruments Copies of the instrument used in this study may be found in Appendix C. For as wor} Har; iter ans» tasI defi infl A me furt this POWe in d infl 46 Perceived power in decision-making The instrument to measure perceived power was the same . as that used by Nancy Hook (36), which built upon the previous work of Onorato (51), Herbst (32), Johannis (39), and Harzmann (31). The power in decision-making includes 102 items directed at family tasks (Appendix A). Respondents answered as to who does a task and who decides who does the task. In this_study,the only way an individual was defined as having power was through his potential to influence the behavior of another individual or individuals. A member could respond that he did a specific task and furthermore that he decided to perform that task. In this example, the individual would not be viewed as having power over another individual or individuals. His power in decision-making score reflected only his potential to influence the-behavior of another individual in the family. There were a multiplicity of possible combinations when four response categories were used in determining scores of power in decision-making. The weighting was based on the assumption that the persons named above have equal access to power. Perceived need satisfaction The measure used to assess need satisfaction was the same as that adapted by Hook from work done by Hallenbeck, 47 Skipper and Fink (36). Using Maslow's schema of categorizing need, questions were included to measure perceived satis- faction of physiological needs, safety, love and belonging- ness needs. The individuals had the opportunity to respond to each question by answering most of the time, sometimes, usually not, or not at all. To compute the scores, all of the items answered were summed according to the specific weights of items (Table 7). The sum was then divided by a score which was the sum of the weighting factors for the items answered. The maximum score, using this system was 4 (most of the time) with a minimum score of 1 (not at all). Perceived role enactment for food The instrument to measure perceived role enactment for food was deve10ped for this study by expanding upon ideas recommended for research by Marguerite Burk and Nelson Foote. The role enactment measure was divided into two parts. Part I deals with the acquisition and allocation of economic resources to meet an individual's need for food. This section was administered only to those individuals who earned an income away from home. The individual was asked to respond "always," "most of the time," "sometimes," ”usually not," or, "never." Each item had a score ranging from five to one, with one meaning the respondent always contributed. The scores in Section 1 ranged from 12-60 because each question was worth two points. Section 2 48 Table 7. Method of item scoring on need satisfaction of family members. Need Poss1ble Scores 0) E H p 0) +4 .2 o u m c G) 'H E x O -H H +4 H H Q) (U m E a O O In 2 cn- :3 Not at all Physiological needs Satisfaction with meals 4 3 2 Satisfaction with rest and sleep 4 3 Safety needs Satisfaction with clothing 4 3 Satisfaction with housing 4 3 Satisfaction with family's safety and security 4 3 2 MN Companionship and support needs Satisfaction with empathy (understanding of feelings) 4 3 2 Satisfaction with expression of affection spouse teen-ager Satisfaction with sharing of information spouse teen-ager Satisfaction with sharing of confidences spouse teen-ager Sexual satisfaction and satisfaction with self as sex partner 4 3 2 NM mm I—u—a l—‘H O 0 mm I—‘H NN I—IH mm NN I-u-a (continued) HH I—‘H mm mm o o 0101 49 Table 7 (continued). Need Possible Scores <1) E or-I 4..) 0) +4 .22 o H u m : rfi o m IH E z o -H .4 u H r-t (U u o m m E :3 H O O U) 0 2 U3 :3 z Satisfaction with activity sharing spouse .8 .6 .4 .2 parent-teen-ager .8 .6 .4 .2 family .8 .6 .4 .2 friends 8 .6 .4 .2 relatives .8 .6 .4 .2 examined roles such as planning, preparing or serving food; that is, the non-economic contributions. In Section 2, the respondent responded "always," "most of the time," "sometimes," "usually not," or, "never." The possible range of scores was 12-60. The scores of the two sections were combined if the individual worked outside the home. The total score was used to register the amount of participa- tion in role enactment. If the individual did not work outside the home, the score was derived from the participa- tion registered in Section 2. A lower score in either section was suggestive of a higher participation in role enactment for food. The sum of the weighted scores was then divided 50 by the number of items answered to derive a mean score. The method of item scoring of perceived role enactment for food is shown (Table 8). Perceived satisfaction with food The instrument to measure perceived satisfaction with food was developed for this study expanding on ideas that were recommended for research by Marguerite Burk (11). The measure for perceived satisfaction with food was indepen- dent of the measure for total need satisfaction. The perceived satisfaction measure was administered to the husband, wife and the teen-ager. Each individual was asked to respond: always satisfied; satisfied most of the time; sometimes satisfied; usually not satisfied; never satisfied; or does not apply. The range in each item was one to five. The scores ranged from 24 to 120, as 24 items were included in this measure. A lower score indicated more satisfaction with food. The sum of the equally weighted scores was then divided by the number of items to derive a mean score. The method of item scoring for perceived satisfaction with food is shown (Table 9). Perceived satisfaction with marketplace The instrument to measure perceived satisfaction with the marketplace was deve10ped for this study expanding on Ta ble 8. 51 enactment for food. Method of item scoring of perceived role Section I Do you earn an income away from home? Yes 1 No .3. Always Most of the time Some- times Usually not Never My we My we My we My sn My income helps to pay eat away from home? income helps to pay eat at home? income helps to pay use for cooking the income helps to pay ack foods? income helps to pay for the food for the food for the fuel food? for the for the equipment we use in cooking? My income helps to pay for the dishes we buy for use in serving th e food? Se ction II O HHHHHHHHHHHH I: c-r plan the menu participate in the preparation do the outdoor cooking participate in serving the food clean up after the meal make breakfast do the breakfast dishes set the table for the main meal do the dishes after the main meal take care of the garbage and trash make out the shopping list choose the place and I time to eat 52 Table 9. Method of item scoring on perceived satisfaction (with food. Always satisfied Satisfied most of the time Sometimes satisfied Usually not satisfied Never satisfied Does not apply C‘M-fitflNl—I Possible Scores* H} Are you satisfied with . . . . . The frequency with which meat is included in your meals The kind of meat, fish or poultry in your meals The ease of preparation of meals The number of meals which you and your family enjoy together The lack of wasted or leftover food The number of meals which include foods that you like The amount of money spent on food The nutritional value of the meals The appearance of the food The way the food smells The number of meals eaten away from home The conversation at mealtime The tableware, dishes and glasses The covering on the table when meals are served The times when someone other than the family members eat with you The number of ready-prepared TAKE OUT foods eaten by your family (ex. Colonel Sanders) (continued) 53 Tabel 9 (continued). Possible Scores The meals which have food items like those advertised on TV The meals which have foods like these your friends enjoy The frequency with which sandwiches are served The meals in which meat and potatoes are served The meals when there is enough food for everyone to eat The kind and form of desserts served The way the food tastes The location where the food is served ideas recommended for research by Kurt Lewin (43). Lewin suggested that the mother was the "gatekeeper" in terms of the families need for food, as she was the member most } re5ponsible for interacting with the marketplace. Any family member who purchased food in the market was asked to respond to the 22 questions in this measure. The respondents registered their degree of satisfaction by answering: always satisfied; satisfied most of the time; sometimes satisfied; usually not satisfied; never satisfied; or does not apply. The range in each item was 1 to 6. The scores ranged from 22-132. Lower scores indicated more satisfaction. 54 The sum of the equally weighted scores was divided by the number of items to derive a mean score. The method of item scoring for perceived satisfaction with market inter- action is shown (Table 10). Reported food intake Various methods have been used by researchers to collect information on the nutritional needs of family members and the adequacy of their diet. Methods vary in their apprOpriateness with hypotheses stated, cost involved and equipment available for analysis of the data. The recall method was used in this study (53) (59). Each family member was asked to recall what foods and the quantity he consumed in the last twenty-four hours. The reported consumption for each member was then examined and classified in terms of the Basic Four Food Groups. The maximum points possible in any of the four food groups was registered when the intake equaled the requirement for that group. The total possible was fourteen including the previous groups and the potential of two additional servings. The range for the husband and wife was from 0-12, and for the teen-ager from 0-14. The scores were arbitrarily grouped as high, 8-12 for adults, 8-14 for teen—agers; average, 5-7; and low, 0-4. The scores depended on the overall nutritional adequacy of the diet for each family member. The method of item scoring for each group is shown (Table 11). 55 Table 10. Method of item scoring for perceived satisfaction with market interaction. Always satisfied Satisfied most of the time Sometimes satisfied Usually not satisfied Never satisfied Does not apply Do you go to the market to purchase food for your family? Yes ___ No O‘M-hMNH The location and accessability of the market The hours the market is epen The special services of the market such as epen dating or unit pricing The quality of service at the market The quality of the fruit The variety of the fruit The quality of the meat The variety of the meat The form in which the meat is available The quality of the vegetables The variety of the vegetables The quality of the milk and dairy products The variety of dairy products The quality of ready-prepared items like bakery products, potato salad, breasted chicken The variety of ready-prepared items The availability of store brands The availability of advertised brands (continued) 56 Table 10 (continued). The line of snack foods The availability of non-food items The availability of convenience items like TV dinners The availability of specialty foods like dietary foods, health foods, etc. -..__. The cost of food at this store ' in comparison with other I stores . -- ._...- ...4L.-. Table 11. by family members. Method of item scoring for reported food intake Husband and Wife Number possible Basic Four Bood Groups Teen-agers Number possible servings servings Milk 2 4 Meat 2 2 Fruits-Vegetables 4 4 Bread 4 4 Range of scores: High 8-12 8-14 Average 5-7 5-7 0-4 0-4 Low Seven specific variables were identified for analysis in this study. obtain information. the measure for each appear (Figure 3). Each was defined and a measure selected to The variables, their definitions, and 57 .oumaauoxume on» cw :owuomueuzfl uoxums spa: :oHuommmfiumm po>wou anon paw .oxwucfi poem popuomou .poow new: :owpummmwuwm po>fiouuom .poom pom unoEuumco oHop po>Hoonom .cofiuummmfipmm poo: po>w00hom .cowpsnwupmfip hosed po>fiouumm How mousmmoe pew .mcowuwcwmop .moanmfium> mo xuozoEmum Heapmoucou panama -uoxums a“ :ofluompoucw poxpme an“ m newuommmwumm _ po>fioUhom {I m :ofluomuoucfi a «exude cums“ m cowuumwmfipmm w po>floUHom w e _ opoum ” :owuummmfiumm m uexnme w po>flouuom -IIII- m A w opoUm m ououm mosoum . maflxme zumscopm mosoumm cowpummmwpmm dewpummmfipmm -cofimwuop :w Hmcofluwyu: macaw poem pee: mo Meson mo pom ohoum po>flouuomw po>onHom :oflumeuuom w newuaoUHom . . -nm_.ma:-mmmml a. In. . iv . Aw» I --IIL;.:I - .I .mpoo: upommsm a . H mnfizmcowchEou wcfiucoEoHQEw ufisoeouo-:oz_ mflmoa spa: m mpoo: xuowmw _ -cofimfioom. know W cofiuummeumm w mpoo:_ mnwxmsn u uwmmm uflsocoumw po>wo0hom samuwmoHofimxzm _ a 9.. 1 _ In . .- a- I w eoom How 4 oxmucfl peoEuumce poem nuwz cowuumMmflumm , oflusnwuumflp” poem each. cowpqumwumm. poo: Hosea. pouuomom po>fiouuom po>wouuom po>fioopom po>wouhom monHHszmQ -eoflmwpwm_ moneHzHama "m opsmflm wmqm LNHWNOHIANH"’/ mmmDm kXIII/Nd UNV TVHUIAIUNI-’/ 58 Collection of Data Families were initially contacted by telephone. In the conversation it was determined whether the family met the criteria established for the sample. The families had to include a husband, wife and teen-ager all willing to participate. If the family met the criteria, a time for the interview was established. Most of the interviews were conducted in the evening or on weekends. The participating families wanted the interview com- pleted as quickly as possible and demanded the right to answer only these questions which they wanted to respond to. With this in mind, a copy of the interview was handed to each member while the interviewer was available to answer questions. The participating families did not choose to answer all of the questions and thus large amounts of data are missing. Although it was emphasized that the sample was random and the information confidential, it was difficult to gain the cooperation of the selected families in the city of Westminster. After the interviews were completed, thank-you notes were sent to the parti- cipating families. The 50 interviews were conducted over a four month period from February 1 to May 25, 1973. Analysis of Data Data were coded on standard coding forms and key- punched on data processing cards. The use of acetate 59 overlays facilitated the initial transfer of information from the interview forms to the coding sheets. These forms included the column numbers and code responses for the questions. The CDC 6500 computer was used to perform the compu- tations. in each analysis of data. Table 12 shows the methods used to form variables A regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses of interest concerning the relationships between the variables. The corresponding F ratio, degrees of freedom, and probability level are reported for each hypothesis.. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients, r, were used to measure the degree and the direction of the relationships when the hypothesis test was significant (13). The range, mean and standard deviation of the variables are also reported. The Ebel test for reliability was used to compute . the degree of congruence among family members (25). Table 12. Methods used in analysis of data. Intent of analysis Data employed Statistical and computer program 1. Determination of perception of power in decision- making score 2. Determination of perception of need satisfaction scores Who does and who decides items from interview schedules Respondent's per- ception of need satisfaction from interview schedule (continued) Transformation program (38) Transformation program (56) Regression Table 12 (continued). 60 Intent of analysis Data employed Statistical and computer program 3. Determination of degree of con~ gruence among family members 4. Determination of perceived role enactment for food score 5. Determination of perceived satis- faction with food score 6. Determination of nutritional adequacy score 7. Determination of perceived satis- faction with market inter- action score Who does and who decides items from interview schedules Who contributes economic resources Who contributes non-economic resources in the form of time, energy and knowledge How satisfied with kinds of foods served, number of family members present, aesthetics re- lated to foods served, conver: sation Food and amount consumed over last twenty-four hours Who interacts with the market If interaction occurs how do you feel about: accessability, hours, quality and variety of products Ebel's formula for reliability by interclass correlation pro- gram (25) Transformation program (56) Transformation program (56) Transformation program (56) Transformation program (56) CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS The findings include: the measurement of variables, description of the situation, and tests of hypotheses. Measurement of Variables Perceived power in decision-making The instrument, discussed previously, is composed of fifty-one questions related to who does and who decides about specific tasks (Appendix A, page 94 ). 'The familyis viewed as a whole, a unit, and the power of the individuals is examined within the family unit. Many members of differ- ent families did not answer all of the questions. When large quantities of data were missing for an individual in a family the family was excluded from analysis on this variable. From the items, a raw score is determined for each family member, which is combined with a weighting factor to arrive at a power score. These factors and a discussion of the computation are presented in Appendix A, page 94 . The raw scores are shown below as Table 13. Higher scores are indicative of more power. In the 37 61 62 Table 13. Range, mean and standard deviation of power in in decision-making scores. Power in decision-making N* Range Mean S.D. Wife 37 -208 to 208 32.76 49.58 Husband 37 -80 to 149 5.32 70.59 Teen-ager 37 -122 to 41 33.00 41.00 *N=37; that is, 37 cases were used. Only 37 families had complete data and were included for this variable. cases for which data were available the teen and the wife had the highest mean, (M = 33). Perceived need satisfaction The method used in calculating the need satisfaction score is reported in Table 7, page 48. From this calculation, the total possible overall score for each participating family member was four. Two questions relating to sexual satisfaction were eliminated in the teen-agers questionnaire. A higher mean score indicates a higher degree of need satisfaction. The means for each of the family members suggests a high degree of satisfaction. The range, mean and standard deviation are presnted in Table 14. Table 14. Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived need satisfaction scores. S.D. Need satisfaction N Range Mean Overall need satisfaction: Husband 37 2.90 4. 3.75 0.25 Wife 37 2.57 4. 3.69 0.35 Teen 37 2.72 4. 3.54 0.32 Subscores: Physiological Husband 37 2.50 4. 3.72 0.38 Wife. 37 2.50 4. 3.61 0.38 Teen 37 2.50 4. 3.57 0.41 Safety Husband 37 2.66 4. 3.83 0.31 Wife 37 2.66 4. 3.75 0.43 Teen 37 2.33 4. 3.80 0.33 Companionship Husband 37 2.54 4. 3.73 0.35 Wife 37 2.27 4. 3.66 0.44 Teen 37 2.35 4. 3.40 0.47 Degree of congruence Ebel's method of establishing reliability was used to compute scores that indicate the degree of congruence among responses of family members to the fifty-one items of who does and the fifty-one who decides items (25). The formula was further utilized to arrive at an overall family score for degree of congruence, and also to give the degree husband of congruence between pairs within each family: and wife; father and teen-ager; mother and teen-ager. A 64 higher score indicates more congruence among family members. The mean and standard deviation of the degree of congruence scores are given in Table 15. Table 15. Range, mean and standard deviation of degree of congruence scores. Degree of congruence scores N Range Mean S.D. Family score 37 63.1 - 97.1 83.10 8.22 Husband and wife ‘ 37 48.3 - 102.0 78.09 14.59 Father and teen-ager 37 27.4 - 92.0 69.65 16.66 Mother and teen-ager 37 12.4 - 96.6 73.08 16.43 Perceived satisfaction with food The score registering perceived satisfaction with food was computed for each family member by using the procedure shown in Table 8, page 51. A mean score was computed from the responses to the twenty-four items; a lower mean is indicative of a higher degree of perceived satisfaction with food. The means for individual family - members are: 1.85 for the husband, 1.97 for the wife and 1.84 for the teen-ager. The small variation in mean scores of the individual family members is interpreted to indicate little difference in the perceived satisfaction with food. The range, mean and standard deviation are presentedIflabh316). 65 Table 16. Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived satisfaction with food scores. Satisfaction with food N Range Mean S.D. Husband 31 1.00 - 2.65 1.85 .44 Wife 31 1.13 - 3.15 1.97 .45 Teen-ager 31 1.00 - 2.63 1.84 .50 Perceived role enactment for food The role enactment for the food variable, allowing for economic and non-economic participation, was computed for each family member (Table 9, page 52). A lower mean score in this case is indicative of greater involvement in the role enactment for food. The scores range from 2.13 - 4.08, with a mean for the husband of 2.60, for the wife 2.3Sand.f0r the teen-ager 3.74. This indicated the wife to be the most involved in roles related to food (Table 17). Table 17. Range, mean and standard deviation for perceived role enactment for food scores. Role enactment for food N Range Mean S.D. Husband 35 2.13 - 4.08 2.60 .42 Wife 35 2.09 - 3.45 2.35 .66 Teen-ager 35 2.00 - 4.66 3.74 .73 66 Perceived satisfaction with interaction in the marRetplace The computation used in determining the market satisfaction score is reported in Table 10, page 55. This score was computed for the wife only as there are only four cases in which the husband or the teen-ager reported interaction with the marketplace for food. A low mean score indicates a greater degree of perceived satisfaction. The scores range from 1.0 to 2.76, with a mean of 1.85 (Table 18). Table 18. Range, mean and standard deviation of perceived satisfaction with market interaction in the marketplace. Satisfaction with interaction N Range Mean S.D. Wife 46 1.0 - 2.76 1.85 .45 Reported food intake The questionnaire requested each family member to report his intake of food over the past twenty-four hours. The information was tabulated and grouped according to the Basic Four requirements (Table 11, page 56). Arbitrary standards were set based on dietary adequacy and the food intake classified as: low, 0-4; average, 5-7; high for the husband and wife, 8-12; high for the teen-ager, 8-14. 67 The means for the husband and wife were at the tOp of the range for an average dietary intake (Table 19). The teen- ager's mean score was at the base of the high level for food intake. Table 19. Range, mean and standard deviation of reported food intake. Reported food intake N Range Mean S.D. Husband 33 1 - 12 7.52 2.33 Wife 41 2 - 12 7.93 5.02 Teen-ager 28 4 - 14 8.32 _3.74 Description of the Situation In the group studied, all families have at least one meal together as a group each day while five of the families have a minimum of two daily meals together. Although most of the families sit around the table to eat as a group, another frequent meal location is the den or family room while watching television. Members from thirty- one families responded that the seating arrangement was the same at each meal. In three of the families, members usually sit at the same location and in three of the families the individuals choose different seating locations for each" meal. The families were asked to estimate the amount of 68 money spent each week for food. The expenditures in the thirty-seven families ranged from $26.00 - $86.00 per week. The range per person per week is from $5.00 to $20.00; with a mean of $11.56. The families said that they did not keep records of their monetary expenditures for food and were estimating the cost. Gardens are customary in fifteen percent of the families. Special diets are prepared in twenty percent of the families. Tests of Hypotheses Regression analysis was utilized for all of the variables and hypotheses examined. Results are reported (Table 20). Table 20. Summary of results for regression analysis of - each hypothesis. Hypothesis Variables F-ratio DF Probability level I Power and overall need score .7454 9,75.596 .6664 Power and need sub- scores 1.244 27,73.655 .2285 11 Overall congruence and overall need .7693 3,33 .5195 (continued) Table 20 (continued). 69 Hypothesis Variables F-ratio DF Probability level III IV VI Overall congruence and need subscores Congruence of pairs and overall need scores Congruence of pairs and need subscores Power and SES Food satis- faction and overall need Food satis- ‘faction and need sub— scores Role in food prep— aration and food satis- faction Wife in market and food satis- faction 1.1159 2.7019 1.2625 .6520 .7923 .4012 9,27 9,75.60 27,73.66 3,35 9,65,86 27,6l.97 9,70.73 1,33 .3853 .01 .2146 .5871 .0127 .1134 .6243 .5309 70 Hypothesis I. The power in decision-making of an indivi- dual family member is positively related to his need satisfaction. The null hypothesis of no relationship was not rejected (p (.66) (Table 20). This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant correlations between the variables for any of the family members (Table 21). Table 21. Correlations between perceived power in decision- making and overall need satisfaction and socio- economic status of the family. Perceived power in decision-making N Husband Wife Teen-ager Overall need satisfaction 37 -.19 -.05 .00 Socio-economic status of family 37 -.00 -.23 -.02 d.f. = 36; r + .321; p = .05 Hypothesis II. The degree of congruence between the husband's and wife's responses as to who does and who decides on various activities varies significantly with the need satis- faction of each family position. In regression analysis, the null hypothesis of no relationship was not rejected when examiningzi overall congruence and overall need (p (.52); overall congruence and need subscores (p<:.39); congruence of pairs and need subscores (p<1.21). In regression analysis, the null 71 hypothesis of no relationship was rejected when examining the congruence of pairs and overall need scores (p <.01). Overall hypothesis II is not supported. There is not a significant relationship between the degree of congruence scores relating the husband, wife and teen-ager to perceived need satisfaction. The only relationship which is significant at the .05 level is the degree of congruence between the husband and wife and the teen-ager's need satisfaction (r = .34) (Table 22). Table 22. Correlations between degree of congruence among family members and perceived need satisfaction for each position. Degree of congruence Need satisfaction N HWT HW HT WT Husband ' 37 .12 .07 -.12 .04 Wife 37 .22 .20 .03 .24 Teen-ager 37 -.Ol -.34* .08 .25 d.f. = 36; r + .321*; p = .05 Hypothesis III. The power in decision-making of each individual family position varies with the socio-economic status of the family. From the regression analysis, the null hypothesis was not rejected (p <.5871) (Table 20). There are no significant correlations between perceived power in decision-making and socio—economic status of the family (see Table 21). 72 Hypothesis IV. There is a relationship between the per- ceived satisfaction with food and perceived need satisfaction. In regression analysis, the null hypothesis of no relationship was rejected when examining the food satis- faction and overall need satisfaction score. The relation- ship is significant at the .01 level. A significant correlation at the .05 level is realized for the teen-ager (r = -.39), and at the .01 level for the husband (r = -.44). A significant correlation was not established for the wife (r =-z28) (Table 23). Table 23. Correlation between perceived satisfaction with food and perceived need satisfaction. Need satisfaction Food satisfaction N Husband Wife Teen-ager Husband 33 -.44** -.16 -.02 Wife 33 -.40 -.28 -.Ol Teen-ager 33 -.44 -.37 -.39* d.f. = 32; r + .34, r i .44; p = .05* p = .01** Hypothesis V. A family member's perceived role in selecting, providing and/or planning and serving meals is related to his/her perceived satisfaction with food. In regression analysis, the null hypothesis of no .relationship was not rejected when examining the role in 73 meeting the food need and food satisfaction (p< .6243). Examination of the results when applying the correlation method of analysis does not generate significant relation- ships; r = .09 for the husband, r = .24 for the wife, r = .1096 for the teen-ager (Table 24). Since traditionally the wife has almost all responsibility related to food, one would expect that there may be such a relationship. This unexpected result may be with the measuring technique utilized; the measure should perhaps be more definitive in order to ascertain the suspected relationship or to again disprove it (Table 24). Table 24. Correlation between perceived role in selection, providing and/or planning and serving meals and perceived satisfaction with food. Perceived satisfaction with food Perceived satisfaction with role N Husband Wife Teen Husband 35 -.10 .16 .03 Wife 35 .06 .24 .15 Teen-ager 35 .18 .09 .ll d.f. = 33; r = i .33; p = .05 74 Hypothesis VI. There is a relationship between the per- ceived satisfaction with which food can be obtained in the marketplace and the perceived satisfaction with the meals in the home. In regression analysis, the null hypothesis of no relationship was not rejected when examining the satisfaction with market interaction and satisfaction with food (p (.6243). There is no significant relationship between perceived satisfaction with market interaction and the perceived satisfaction with meals in the families in this study when using this measure. In all forty-six families only the wives interact with the marketplace for food; therefore, the score of the wife is the only one used to measure this hypothesis (Table 25). Table 25. Correlation between perceived satisfaction with which food can be obtained for the family and the perceived satisfaction with food in the home. Perceived satisfaction with food N Wife Satisfaction with market interaction 46 .12 d.f. = 45; 4 = i .287; p = .05 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Presented in this chapter is a discussion of the findings related to each hypothesis with information regarding each variable examined. Specific conclusions are drawn from those findings concerning both food satisfaction and overall satisfaction within the family. Limitations of this study and the data gathered are then discussed, along with implications for future research. Discussion of Findings Perceived power in decision-making and perceived need satisfaction Examination of the data gathered in this study con- cerning the relationship between perceived power in decision-making and perceived need satisfaction shows no significant correlations between any of the family members. This somewhat surprising result could mean that relationships between perceived power in decision-making and perceived need satisfaction actually do not exist; more probably, however, it is simply difficult to quantify such emotional 75 76 relationships, particularly when attempting to collect highly personal data from strangers. The respondents generally tended to be extremely reluctant to disclose their satisfaction with the needs stated in the questionnaire, and furthermore did not seem actually to have knowledge of who did specific tasks or who decided who would perform specific tasks. This lack of information on the part of the respondent could have a potentially strong influence upon the statistical data which yielded these results. Moreover, it is difficult to know if the respondents answer the questions in the way that they feel is appropriate or in the way they are actually experiencing the situation. It is further possible that this result indicates a life style in which family members are together so infrequently that they actually do not consciously know what specific tasks are being performed by the other family members or who is making decisions. Additional research is needed to further refine the measures for each of the variables utilized in this study and then implemented by studies using a stratified random sample. Possibly other methods of data collection such as a "job log” approach where families record actual tasks performed could be utilized, and also the SIMFAM teChnique used by Straus possibly has some potential (61). Any approach, however, should be augmented with in depth inter- viewing. 77 Previous research attempts suggest that the multi- dimensional approach which examines decisions in relation I to both behavior and need satisfaction is a credible technique. Moreover, examining decisions and need satis- faction within the family establishes convenient and manageable parameters for research and analysis. Once the measures which examine the power and need satisfaction I of individuals :hi the family are refined, then research can be expanded to include not only the exchange of re- sources, but also the decisions made and implemented by the family as it interacts with its environment. It is the predominent practice of researchers in the behavioral sciences to interview more than one member of the family, as research measures have not yet reached the refinement necessary to allow prediction of perceptions of only one family member. Analyzing the relationship between the variables using responses from only one family member currently perpetuates information which lacks validity. But, in Blood and Wolfe's major study on power they collected data from only one family member. Such an analysis could be meaningful in predicting one person's power if it can be proven valid. If there were strong indications that one could actually determine the power structure in the family with data from only one family member, then data on families in future research efforts could be obtained by soliciting the c00peration of only 78 one family member. .This will greatly simplify the data collection process. In examining perceived need satisfaction, the satis- faction with various needs seems to be quite similar whether one is examining the relationship between various individual needs, overall family needs, or the needs: between various families. In general the family members in this study perceived that their needs were being met (M = 3.6). Large quantities of data are missing from the families interviewed in this study because many individuals were reluctant to verbalize their degree of satisfaction with the specific needs which were analyzed. It is possible that a slight indicator of unmet needs might be a clue to greater dissatisfactions which were not verbalized. This concept merits further study. The method of scoring the degree of needs which were satisfied utilizes weighted mean scores, and is designed to.incorporate as much available data as possible. The challenge with further use of this measure will be to explore various alternative methods for computing such scores and to then interpret the results in light of the technique used. In this regard, the questions in this measure might be examined to make them more meaningful and hepefully less threatening. Refinement seems necessary particularly in regard to the wording of many items and the 79 tepics to which the items refer. Maslow for one suggests that severalneeds should be examined; such as physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs and need for .status. Therefore research in the future should be most meaningful if it examines several needs, rather than focusing only upon one specific need (45). Moreover, Liston suggests that needs can be understood best when examined in terms of roles and decision-making (44). In future research efforts could be set up to explore the relationships between explicitly identified and clearly defined variables which measure needs. Degree of congruence and perceived need satisfaction In this study, the degree of congruence between the husband's and the wife's responsesznsto who does and who decides on various activities is not significantly related to the need satisfaction for each family position. The regres- sion analysis indicates that the degree of congruence between the husband and the wife is strongly related to the teen-ager% perceived overall need satisfaction. This is significant at the .01 level. The correlation coefficient describing the degree of the relationship is significant at the .05 level U‘= -.34). The minus sign results from the coding of the scores on the need satisfaction measure. This can be interpreted to mean that the greater the parents' 80 agreement in the power measure used the greater the need satisfaction registered for the teen-ager. Interestingly, the parent's perception of the teen-ager's need exhibits more congruence than any relationship in which the teen-ager's scoreruusalso incorporated. This could mean that by using these measures it is possible to predict the teen-ager's need satisfaction without questioning him directly about his need satisfaction. A definite need is seen in this regard for further study in degree of congruence and need satisfaction as well as different methods for analyzing the relationship between the questions used in this measure. The mean score for the degree of congruence measure shows the relationship between the husband, the wife and the teen to be fairly high (M = 83.1). Similarly, in the Hook study, a high score is also found for the family. These similarities suggest that the family members inter? viewed have similar perceptions of the family decision- maker and decision-implementer even though the major differences occur in the families studied by Hook where the mother was disabled. While they may or may not have a conscious knowledge of who is making and implementing decisions, the respondents tend to perceive it the same way. A larger sample would be advantageous to get more meaningful results with this measure. The range in the degree of congruence scores is large and the standard 81 deviation registered around 16. These would indicate that more conclusive results may be possible with a larger sample, and utilizing more refined measuring techniques. Power in decision-making for each individual ppsition and socio-economic status There was no relationship discovered between power in decision-making and the socio-economic status of the family. This finding is congruous with the results of Hook's study. Many other researchers, however, suggest that a relationship does exist between the power in decision-making and socio-economic status. Therefore, it would be advisable to continue utilization of this measure in future studies until a definite trend is established. Food satisfaction and need satisfaction The relationship between the measures, while quite exploratory, reveals significant relationships between perceived need satisfaction and perceived food satisfaction for two members of the families interviewed. The null hypothesis was rejected in the statistical analysis as a significant relationship was found between food satisfaction and need satisfaction for the husband and for the teen-ager. In the regression analysis, a probability level of .01 results when the food and need satisfaction measures are examined. The relationship between these two variables 82 is significant at the .05 level for the teen-ager (r = -.37). and at the .01 level for the father (r = -.44)., The reason for the negative r is the result of the coding and should not be interpreted to mean a negative correlation. This correlation shows that when the perceived needs are satis- fied for the husband and the teen-ager there is also per- ceived satisfaction with the food need. Such satisfaction Ffli with food may therefore be a significant component of overall need satisfaction. It is interesting that the [‘1 person--namely the wife-~who is responsible for meeting the food needs of the family is the only family member not registering a significant relationship between need satis- faction and food satisfaction (r = -.28). What is creating this dissatisfaction within the wife? The relationships utilized in this variable should be of special interest to researchers who are using an ecological systems approach and are interested in why peeple consume the quantity and the quality of foods they select. Is there a relationship between food needs which are satisfied at each age and the overall needs which are satisfied throughout life? Is this relationship mostly. evident in young children? If an individual is not satis- fied with some of his overall needs, is it then reflected in poor nutritional habits relating to the selection of food? These questions remain and hopefully will be the focus of future research. 83 ‘This study points out the fact that it is necessary to study the individual in his total environment, examining more than his need for food selected in the right quantity from the Basic Four food groups. This could be of particular interest to a nutritionist interested, for example, in changing the food habits of an individual. Moreover, this study indicates that one approach to further studies of food needs and methods of dietary changes would emphasize the relationship between overall need satisfaction and satisfaction with food. Past studies which attempt to assess a family member's satisfaction with food in a multidimensional perspective are not available; consequently little informa- tion was available with which to build an instrument capable of testing this variable. Considering the findings in this study, it therefore would be worthwhile to further research the measures used to determine food satisfaction. Should future studies produce similar strong relationship between' food satisfaction and need satisfaction, it could be possible to utilize the food satisfaction measure instead of the apparently more threatening need satisfaction measure. Participants in this study were much more responsive in indicating their satisfaction with their food than in answering questions about specific needs, such as sex or companionship. Once again, if an instrument could be refined so that data from one family member could be used 84 to predict the satisfaction of other family members, collection of information on the need satisfaction would be facilitated. Contrary to what some observers have reported, the study revealed that all of these families ate at least one meal a day together.. How is food satisfaction related to sharing meal time? How is it related to what this shared time means to the family? One interesting finding, not specifically stated in the hypothesis, is the relationship between the husband's need satisfaction score and the food satisfaction! scores for the husband (r = -.44), the wife (r ='.39), and the teen-ager (r = -.44). The negative sign is the result of the scoring of the measure and does not indicate a negative correlation. The relationship between the husband's need satisfaction score and his food satisfaction score is significant at the .01 level. The .01 level of significance also is reached in correlating the husband's need satisfac- tion with the teen-agers food satisfaction score. The relationship between the husband's need satisfaction score and the wife's food satisfaction score is significant at the .05 level. This significant correlation is not specifically incorporated into any one of the hypothesis in this study. It can be interpreted to mean that when the husband's perceived overall needs are met the perceived food needs for the husband, the wife, and the teen-ager are also met. It further substantiates the fact that 85 researchers must seriously consider the possibility of predicting relationships on the basis of information from one individual. Role enactment for food and satiSfaction with feed No significant relationships were realized for any of the family members when measuring the relationship between perceived role enactment for food and the satisfaction with food. However, the relationship for the wife was higher than for the husband and teen-ager. The trend of the relationship was as expected. The effort directed at this measurement, however, was quite exploratory in nature, as little information was available for developing such a multidimensional measure which emphasizes an ecological approach. It seems rather surprising that such a relationship did not deve10p from the correlation of an individual's satisfaction with his perceived role, and his perceived satisfaction with meals. At this time it is difficult to predict which measure the problem is associated with; the composition of each measure must be examined carefully. The revelation of the wife to be very involved in the food role supports Lewin's assumptions. Lewin views the wife as the "gate-keeper," the key member of the family responsible for meeting food needs. Zelditch, however, states that such roles are flexible in the American life- style. This flexibility may be reflected in the study here .86 as there is some involvement with food on the part of the ,husband; food needs are not solely the responsibility of the wife. Kirkpatrick and Turner both state that indivi- duals have several roles which they assume; associated with these roles are collections of obligations and rights. They further recommend that the researcher examine the feelings associated with the roles which individuals assume . Wife in the market and food at home When the scores for the wife's perceived satisfaction with market interaction are correlated with her satisfaCtion with food no significant relationship is realized (r = .12). In the regression analysis p = .5309, and the null hypothesis was not rejected. ' The initial plan of this study was to ask each family member about his satisfaction with his interaction in the market. In the questionnaire, however, only the wife responded that she interacted with the market and purchased food for her family. It is important to emphasize that while the data were being collected, the food prices were frequently reported in the news to be increasing rapidly. Furthermore, meat boycott activities were at their peak in the Southern California area. In an epen-ended question concerning the cost of food, the majority of the wives interviewed registered their dissatisfaction with the increasing prices 87 and the frustrations resulting from trying to keep food expenditures down. Reported food intake The food consumption measure indicates wide variations among individuals, but the mean scores show a diet which is average in nutritional requirements. This information was gathered using a recall technique, and is therefore dependent upon the family members' memories at the time of the interview. In future studies, families might be requested to maintain accurate food consumption records for a specific period of time. With this c00peration of the families more accurate projections may be drawn. Pike and Brown suggest that when records exist for a week more conclusions can be drawn from such data. The relationship between adquacy of food intake and satisfaction with food would be another fruitful area to explore. It was not done in this study because of the limitations of the method for assessing adequacy of food intake. However, we could ask: Are individuals or families who have more adequate diets more likely to be satisfied, or is perceived satisfaction with food based more on a social-psychological factor rather than nutritional adequacy? Widely published research reports suggest the quality of diets has deteriorated over the past ten years and that families could eat more nutritional meals. Such reports 88 state that the quality of the diet is related to income. All participating families in this study were of average or above average income. No data are available on their dietary habits ten years age. Limitations of the Study The information collected and analyzed in this study was extremely difficult to obtain. A table of random IV numbers was used to select the names from the City Directory I and every attempt was made to use a city that would be representative of California. The city of Westminster therefore had the potential to provide data which could be used to project wide implications. For the purpose of acquiring the needed data, families. were selected at random and contacted by telephone to see if there was a teen-ager in the home. This procedure was necessitated because the school systems would not provide a list of teen-agers in school; this information was consid- ered confidential. Moreover, many of the families which included a teen-ager were unwilling to participate. One possible reason for this lack of cooperation is that many salesmen in this area contact individuals by phone to solicit wide varieties of products or to request contributions for charitable organizations. Frequently, it was impossible to convince the person that information was all that was desired. Many families did not wish to make any appointments 89 or to commit the time of three family members, and many were unwilling to let any stranger enter their home. The only reason that cooperation of many families was gained was because of all the information in the news about food prices. The researcher in turn emphasized that the c00peration of the family was one way that their view of the increasing food prices could be presented. . Once the cooperation of the families was gained many respondents still questioned the authenticity of the research situation, felt threatened by the questions asked, or agreed to cooperate if they could answer only those questions which they wanted to answer. As stated throughout, large quanti- ties of the requested data are missing. Some respondents did not want to answer certain questions, such as those pertaining to sexual satisfaction and companionship. On the other hand, some indicated they could not answer questions regarding the nature of valid information and power, and about the questions used to measure these variables. The validity of data collected from individuals generally not willing to cooperate fully naturally must be questioned. Another methodological limitation lies in the use of one day dietary recall, utilizing the Basic Four to rate adequacy of the food intake. The Basic Four as an indicator or an adequate diet is valid only when viewed as over a period of time, and when a variety of foods within each 90 group are consumed. The fact that the measure for need satisfaction used for the teen-ager omitted the questions related to sexual satisfaction, constituted another limitation of the study. Major Conclusions There is a significant relationship between perceived satisfaction with food and perceived overall need satisfaction for the husband and the teen-ager. A significant relationship exists between the congruence of the husband-wife pair and the teen-ager's overall perceived need satisfaction. The relationship between the measures for perceived power in decision~making and perceived need satisfaction is not statistically significant. There is not a significant relationship between the power in decision—making for each individual family position and the socio-economic status of the family. There is not a significant relationship between a family member's perceived role in selecting, providing and/or planning and serving meals and an individual's perceived satisfaction with meals. There is not a relationship for the wife between the perceived satisfaction with which food can be obtained in the marketplace and her perceived satisfaction with food at home. 91 Implications for Future Research Continued research on the family is essential if an empirically supported theory of familial behavior is to be developed. Such research however, must be accompanied by improved methodological and conceptual sophistication if a supportable theory with broad implications is to evolve. Research utilizing an ecological approach is highly adaptable in exploring relationships between identifiable variables. Such perspective is a critical factor and is essential if policies are to be established which will enhance the union between man and his environment and ultimately generate a higher quality of life. Families must be recognized as an ecosystem composed of interrelated and interdependent sub- systems. A family viewed in its entirety represents more than the sum of its parts and functions differently than separate individual entities. Past research attempts which used a uni-dimensional approach are extremely important and should not be over- looked.' It is because of the findings in many of these endeavors that it is now possible to move into an ecological ’systems approach. The lack of many significant relationships uncovered in this study should not discourage future attempts. It should, however, present a challenge to researchers to be creative and resourceful in developing measures which will be able to collect accurate information in a non-threatening situation and analyze it within an ecological systems 92 framework. Behavioral research can contribute valuable information but it is challenging to acquire and analyze. In this initial attempt at research within a partial ecological approach it is interesting to see findings which, if repeated, would allow predicting overall need satisfaction on the basis of food satisfaction. It may further be possible to understand more about decision- making and decision-implementing of the parents by examining it in relation to a teen-ager's overall need satisfaction. Such possibilities appear at this time to be unlimited. Although it is now too early to use only one family member's. answers as the measure to predict relationships, this possibility may exist in the near future. The study indicated teen-agers ranked the lowest on need satisfaction. It also revealed that teen-agers need satisfaction was related to congruence of husband wife pair. These raise highly important questions about the relationship between communication in the family, the extent of agreement among family members, general family climate, and the relative satisfaction of the teen—agers. In reference to sampling procedure some implications could be mentioned. If random samples of families continue to be conducted the initial contact with the families should use some communication media other than the telephone. For example, a brief letter on stationery with the university letterhead might be mailed out to all the families selected. 93 The letter could state that research is being conducted on families with teen-agers. The letter could be followed by a phone call in a few days to request the cooperation of the family, assuming it meets the desired criteria.. This step in making the initial contact is extremely important when the researcher is in a different area from where the university is located. While the cooperation of families selected at random may always be more challenging to obtain, the potential for projecting the results to a larger popula- tion makes the task a worthwhile endeavor. In terms of the teaching profession, the findings in this study should challenge instructors to be aware of their own value position, and those of their students. 15 the goal of the interventionist or teacher to help the students clarify their values and needs and allow them to make their own choice? Or is it also, the goal to influence values in the direction of a higher quality of life? APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Power Measure Scoring Method of item scoring of power in decision-making for husband-father. Response of husband-father Weight HF decides, any one, two, or all three-- WM, T, or O(s)--dees or do. + 7 HF decides; HF and any one, two, or all three-- WM, T, O(s)--do. . + 6 HF and any one--WM or T or O(s)--decide; any one, two or all three-~WM, T, O(s)--does or do. + 5 HF and any one--WM or T or O(s)--decide; HF and any two or all three-—WM, T, O(s)--do. + 4 HF and any two-—WM, T, O(s)--decide; any one two, or all three-~WM, T, O(S)--does or do + 3 HF and any two--WM, T, O(s)--decide; HF and WM and T and 0(5) do + 2 HF and WM and T and 0(5) decide; any one, two, or all three--WM, T, O(s)--does or do + 1 HF decides; HF does 0 HF and WM or T or O(s) decide; HF and WM or T, or Ois) do 0 HF and any two-~WM, T, O(s)--decide; HF and any two-~WM, T, O(s)--do 0 HF and WM and T and 0(5) decide; HF and WM and T and 0(5) do I 0 Any one, two or all three—~WM, T, O(s) decide; HF and WM and T and 0(5) do " 1 HF and WM and T and 0(5) decide; HF and any two-- WM, T, O(sI—-do - 2 (continued) 94 95 Method of item scoring of power in decision-making for husband-father (continued). Response of husband-father Weight Any one, two, or all three--WM, T, O(s)--decide; HF and any two--WM, T, O(s)--do - 3 HF and any two or all three--WM, T, O(s)--decide; HF and any one-—WM or T or O(s)--do - 4 Any one, two, or all three--WM, T, O(s) decide; HF and any one--WM, T, O(s)--do - 5 HF and any one, two, or all three--WM, T, O(s) dec1de; HF does - 6 Any one, two or all three--WM, T, O(s)--decide; HF does - 7 Method of item scoring of power in decision-making for wife-mother. Response for wife-mother Weight WM decides; any one, two, or all three-~HF, T, O(s)--does or do + 7 WM decides; WM and any one, two, or all three-- HF, T, O(s)--do + 6 WM and any one--HF, T, O(s)--decide; any one, two, or aII three--HF, T, O(s)--does or do + 5 WM and any one--HF, T, O(s)--decide; WM and any two or all three—-HF, T, O(s)-—do + 4 WM and any two--HF, T, O(s)--decide; any one, two, or all three-~HF, T, O(s)--does or do + 3 WM and any two--HF, T, O(s)--decide; WM and HF and T and 0(5) do + 2 (continued) 96 Method of item scoring of power in decision-making for wife-mother (continued). Response for wife-mother Weight WM and and HF and T and 0(5) decide; any one, two, or all tEree--HF, T, O(sI—-does or do + 1 WM decides, WM does 0 WM and HP or T or (05) decide; WM and HS or T or O(s) do 0 WM and any two-~HF, T, O(s)-—decide; WM and any two-~HF, T, O(s)-—do 0 WM and HF and T and 0(5) decide; WM and HF and T and 0(5) do 0 Any one, two, or all three--HF, T, O(s)--decide; WM and HF and T and O(s)--do - 1 WM and HF and T and 0(5) decide; WM and any two-- HF, T, O(sI--do - 2 Any one, two, or all three--HF, T, O(s)--decide; WM and any two-~HF, T. O(s)--do - 3 WM and any two or all three--HF, T, O(s)--decide; WM and one--HF, T, O(s)--do - 4 Any one, two, or all three-HF, T, O(s)—-decide; WM and any one-~HF or T or O(s)--do - 5 WM and any one, two, or all three--HF, T, 0(5)-- dec1de; WM does - 6 Any one, two, or all three--HF, T, O(s)--decide; WM does - 7 97 Method of item scoring of power in decision-making for teen-ager. Response of teen-ager Weight T decides; any one, two, or all three--HF, WM, .O(s)--does or do + 7 T decides; T and any one, two, or all three-- HF, WM, O(s)—-do + 6 T Lnd any one-~HF or WM or O(s)--decide; any one, two, or all three--HF, WM, O(s)—-does or do + 5 T and any one-~HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T and any two or all three—~HF, WM, O(s)--do + 4 T and any two--HF, WM, O(s)—- decide; any one, two, or aIl three--HF, WM, O9s)--does or do + 3 T and any two-~HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T Lnd HF Lnd WM Lnd O(s) do + 2 T and HF and WM and 0(5) decide; any one, two, or all three--HF, WM, O(s)--does or do + l T decides; T does 0 T and HF or WM or O(s) decide; T and HP or WM or OIs) do 0 T and any two-~HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T Lnd any two--HF, WM, O(s)--do 0 T and HF and WM Lnd O(s) decide; T and HF and WM Lnd O(s I do 0 Any one, two, or all three--HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T and HF and WM and 0(5) do - l T and HF and WM and 0(5) decide; T Lnd any two-- HF, WM, OIs )--do— - 2 Any one, two, or all three-~HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T and any two--HF, WM, O(s)--do - 3 T and any two or all three-~HF, WM, O(s)~-decide; T and any one--HF, WM, O(s)--do - 4 (continued) 98 Method of item scoring of power in decision— —making for teen- -ager (continued). Response of teen-ager Weight 'Any one, two, or all three--HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T and any one-~HF, WM, O(s)--do - 5 T and any one, two, or all three--HF, WM, 0(5)-- decide; T does - 6 Any one, two, or three--HF, WM, O(s)--decide; T does - 7 APPENDIX B I) APPENDIX B Tables Table 26. Size of family currently living at home. Distribution Size of family Frequency Percentage Three 13 27.7 Four 15 31.9 Five 8 17.0 Six 8 17.0 Eight 1 2.1 Ten 1 2.1 Twelve l . 2.1 Total 47 99.9- Average family size, 4.19 99 100 Table 27. Number of spouses by age. Frequency distribution Age of spouses Number of Spouses in years Husband Wife Under 30 l 1 30-34 1 1 35-39 8 11 40-44 8 12 45-49 15 ' 10 51-54 2 4 55 5 2 67 1 1 No response 6 5 Range 29-67 years 29-67 years Mean 45.31 43.40 Standard deviation 7.55 7.36 Total 47 47 101 Table 28. Sex composition of the families. Distribution Sex composition Frequency Percentage More males than females 18 38.31 Fewer males than females 17 36.2 Equal number of males and females 12 25.5 Total 47 100. Table 29. Age patterns of husband and wife. Distribution Age patterns Frequency Percentage Husband older than wife by 1-4 years 20 42.5 Husband older than wife by 5 or more years 7 14.9 Husband equal to wife 7 14.9 Wife older than husband 7 .14.9 *No response 6 12.8 Total 47 100. *There were 6 non-respondents 102 Table 30. Age and number of children in family. Number of families Age and number of children Boys Girls 12 and under None 35 34 One 9 9 Two 2 4 Six 1 0 13 to 17 None 19 23 One 22 19 Two 6 3 Three 0 2 18 to 19 None 41 38 One 5 9 Two 1 0 Table 31. Number of families with children away from home and their marital status. Children and marital status Number of cases Percent No children away from home 30 63.8 Married child or children away from home 10 21.3 Unmarried child or children away from home 4 8.5 More than one away from home married and one or more unmarried 3 6.4 Total 47 100. 103 Table 32. Birth order of teen-ager interviewed. Distribution Birth order Frequency Percentage First 27 57.4 Second 13 27.7 Third 4 ' 8.5 Fourth 3 6.4 Total 47 100. Table 33. Year in school of teen-ager. Distribution Year in school Frequency Percentage Seventh 1 2.1 Eighth 5 10.6 Ninth 9 19.2 Tenth 8 17.0 Eleventh 9 19.2 Twelfth 8 17.0 Junior college 7 14.9 Total 47 100. 104 Table 34. Employment status of wife. Distribution Frequency Percentage Non employed 28 59.6 Employed outside the home: more than 35 hours 12 25.5 20-34 hours/week l 2.1 less than 20 hours/week 3 6.4 Employed at home: more than 35 hours/week 20-34 hours/week l 2.1 less than 20 hours/week Total 47 100. 105 Table 35. Hours worked by husband. Distribution Actual number Frequency Percentage 30 l 2.1 35 1 2.1 40 22 46.8 45 7 14.9 48 4 8.5 50 5 10.6 55 l 2.1 60 1 2.1 Total 47 99.8 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Instruments These are questions about you and your family. Every family is special: there are no right and wrong answers. be are interested in what happens in your family and some of your reactions to what happens. Your answers are strictly confidential. 1. How many people live in this home and benefit from the honcmaking tasks? 2. How old are the children who live in this home? Boys Girls (circle ages of’thosc attefidihg’EEhool . Through high school) 3. Who else lives in this house: (Note relations to the husband and/or wife; sex and activity) 4. Are there members of this family living away from home? Yes No Who __.._.__.... Married Ago —---‘- Where 5. Where were you born? Husband. Wife 6. What is the HIGHEST grade or year of elementary or secondary school you ovary attended? husband wife 7. Have either of you had any additional schooling? husband: yes ___.no length of time wife: Yes __ no __ length of time ' 8. When were you married? 9. Where either of you married previously? Husband: Yes No .length wife: yes ___ no length of previous marriage 10. Your age 11. Type of worE Average hours worked weekly How do you feel about the recent increase in the price of food? What do you feel is the cause of this increase? How are you adjusting to this increase? 106 107 lfiThRVan 1hese are questions about you and your family. Lvery family is special: there are no right and wrong answers. he are interested in what happens in your family and some 0 reactions to what happens. Your answers are strictly confidential. “LALS are an everyday activity for all families. The recent price wars, special diets, and individual likes and dislikes sometimes make meals a problem. Other Other Does Teenage Child Family Than No Not Husband Wife Boy Girl Boy Girl Agu1£_Fallly Ono Anni) Who makes breakfast? Who does the breakfast dishes? Who sets the table for the main meal? Who cooks the main meal? Who clears the tahle after the main meal? Who does the dishes after the main meal? hno takes care of the garbage and trash? Who buys groceries? Who makes out a shopping list? __+_ _ ,___ __ In our society CLOTHING is another concern of the family. Who mends or sews the family's clothes? l Who does the family wash? Who does the family ironing? Who buys father's clothes? Who buys mother's clothes? Who buys teenager's clothes? hho does the dusting? Who does the vacuuming? Who scrubs the floors? Who makes the beds? Who cleans the bedrooms? Who cleans the bathtub? Who cleans the bathroom? Who cleans the walls? Who washes windows inside the house? Who washes windows outside the house? Who selects furniture and other household appliances? Who arranpes furniture inside the house? Who puts up curtains and draperies in the house? Who fixes broken things or makes repairs : I around the house? A Who secs to it that children help with .4..- the housework? _ Who earns money for the family? , ,4 Who plans the savings for the family? . 1_____;__ hho pays the bills? l . . . . 7 ‘ I hno locks up at night. es, . Who cares for the family members when . , they are sick? 1____,_ __T__.___ who takes family members to the doctor's l i , office? _L_ % ‘ 3 hno tells the children and teenagers what I , . time to cone in at night? ..__..___;._..___. 108 Other Other Does Teenage Child Family Than No Not Husband Wife Boy Girl Boy Girl Adult Family One Apply r“ -r- "'1' --- ---'-f----—r---—— r _ ' l C“ Who cares for the children or teenagers when the parents are not at home? Who sees that the children and teenagers get to school on time? Who sees-that the children and teenagers practice good manners? Who gives the children and teenagers advice? Who gets the family up in the morning? Who sees to it that children get washed and dressed in the morning? Today there are many ACTIVITIES that families may do: playing cards and table games; going to hockey games or other sports events; dancing, movies, plays, concerts: taking part in sports such as skiing, swimming, bowling, having family dinners or celebrations on special occasions or holidays, and so forth. \ Who selects the programs on TV? Who goes together on vacations? Who goes together on outings, picnics, and cookouts? Who goes together on Sunday drives or drives to the beach? Who goes together to visit friends? Who invites guests to your home? Who keeps in touch with relatives? Who goes together to visit relatives? This section concerns WHO MAKES THE DECISION that various activities be done. Who usually DECIDES who: Makes breakfast? Does the breakfast dishes? Sets the table for the main meal? Cooks the main meal? . Clears the table after the main meal? Does the dishes after the main meal? Takes care of the garbage and trash? Buys groceries? Makes out a shopping list? Mends or sews the family's clothes? Does the family wash? Does the family ironing? Buys the father's clothes? Buys mother's clothes? Buys teenager's clothes? Does the dusting? Does the vacuuming? Scrubs the floors? Makes the beds? Cleans the bedrooms? Cleans the bathtub? Cleans the bathroom? Wasncs the walls? hashes windows inside the house? -. ”IO-v -—*Q. -d - I‘ "U‘ a- ‘ l .I -~ .. _——_.L.J. .-_T_-_—_-. l i hashes windows outside the house? Selects furniture and other household saplianccs? Arranges furniture inside the house? Puts up curtains and draperies in the house? Fixes broken things or makes repairs around the house? bees to it that children help with the housework? Larns money for the family? Plans the savings for the family? lays the bills? Locks up at night? Cares for family members when they are sick? Takes family members to the doctor's office? Tells the children and teenagers what time to come in at night? Cares for the children and the teen- agers when the parents are not home? Sees that the children and teenagers get to school on time? Sees that the children and teenagers practice good manners? Gives the children and teenagers advice? Gets the family up in the morning? Sees to it that children get washed and dressed in the morning? Selects the programs on TV? Goes together on vacations? Goes together on outings, picnics, and cookouts? Goes together on Sunday drives or drives to the beach? Goes together to visit friends? Invites guests to your home? keeps in touch with relatives? Goes together to visit relatives? 109 Teenage Child Other Other Does Fani 1y Than So not Husband Wife hoy Girl bcy_Gifl 599)} family One Apply __J,_..L _l ”duo-o n..— o... a..- -.-—.. -.—-. é ' ”o- l l l -..- C O- .u_-.-. u 4.-...-“ I \ 1-... __. <.——o-po—oo - y—db This section is about YOUR reactions to what happens in your family. Are you satisfied with your MEALS? most of the time sometimes Are you satisfied with the most of the time sometimes Are you satisfied with your HOUSING? most of the time sometimes usually not CLOTHING in your family? usually not usually not not at not at not at Are you satisfied with the arrangements for the SAFETY and SECURITY of most of the time sometimes usu1lly not Are you satisfied with the REST and SLLLP you get? most of tne time Sometimes usually not ___ not at not at all the family? all all lrc Are Are AFC Are Are Arc . you satisficu nitn tut must 0! the tint 5ou satisfied with the nest of tue time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the mart of tne time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the your mother? Are most of the time you satisfied with the your fa thor? Arc Arc Are Are Are most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time you satisfied with the most of the time 110 ‘HH '!.p5 i I\:\L‘ [i\‘) [5" sozetimes ILLLIRGS are»; family members? usually not not at all Alll(llux expressed uetween you Hfiu your father? sometimes usually not not at all AIIECIION expressed hetween you and your mother? sometimes usually not not at all THOUGHTIULNLSS of your father? sometimes usually not no’ at all IHCUGHIFULNLSS of your mother? * sometimes usually not not at all SHARING OF INFOPWATION between you and your father? sometimes usually not not at all SHARING 0F IHIORHATION between you and your mother? sometimes usually not not at all SHARING OF CONFIUhHCES pertaining to your family between you and sometimes usually not not at all SHARING 0F CONFIHLVChS pertaining to your family between you and all not at sometimes usually not SHARING OI ACTIVITIES with your father? sometimes usually not not at all SHARING OI ACTIVITIES with your mother? sometimes usually not not at all SHARING OF ACTIVITIIS as a family? sometimes usually not not at all SHARING OI ACTIVITIIS with your friends? sometimes usually not not at all SHARING or ACTIVITIIS with your relatives? sometimes usually not not at all Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are Are you satisfied with the Sharlng of Actlvltles as a family? Are Are 111 you satisfied with the Understanding of Feelings among family members ? most oi the time I I sometimes I] usually not I] not at all D you satisfied with the Affection expressed between you and your wife? most of the time I_J sometimes [I usually not I:] not at all I] you satisfied with the Affection expressed between you and your teenager? most of the time I] sometimes I:I usually not I] not at all I:I you satisfied with the Thoughtfulness of your wife? most of the time I] sometimes I] usually not [3 not at all [3 you satisfied with the Thoughtfulness of your teenager ? most of the time D sometimes 1:] usually not [:I not at all I] you satisfied with the Sharlng of Information between you and your wife? most of the time I] sometimes [:I usually not I] not at all C] you satisfied with the Sharing of Information between you and your teenager? most of the time [I sometimes D usually not C] not at all I] you satisfied with the Sharing of Confidence: pertaining to your family between you and your wife? most of the time J_J sometimes I:I usually not [:I not at all I] you satisfied with the Sharing of Confldences pertaining to your family between you and your teenager? most of the time I] sometimes [:I usually not CI not at all I:] you satisfied with the Sexual Part of your marriage? most of the time D sometimes 1:] usually not C] not at all C] you satisfied with yourself as a Sex Partner? most of the time [:I sometimes I] usually not [3 not at all you satisfied with the Sharing of Activities with your wife? most of the time C] sometimes [I usually not [:I not at all Ell] you satisfied wrth the Sharing of Activltles with your teenager? most of the time [I sometimes [J usually not I] not at all C1D most of the time J:I sometimes I3 usually not I] not at all you satisfied wuth the Sharing of Actlvltles with your friends ? most of the time I I sometimes I_I usually not I I not at all I] you satisfied with the Sharing of Actlvltles with your relatives ? most of the time L] sometimes [_J usually not I] not at all I_J 112 Uettino meals for the family involves nreparation, service, clean-up as well as buying and earning the money to pay for the food. Different members of the family may contribute in different ways. How do you participate in netting the meals? ' ' Do you earn an income away from home? Yes No Always Jost of Some- Usually Never the time times not My Ihc°m° “0173 1° nay Tor the food we eat awaymfrom—homcf""” "”"”””"""”" My income helps to nay for the food we eat at home? ." ' My income helps t0 way for the Fuel we use for cooking the fond?'""°"""‘*"" Hy inchuc helps to pay for the snack foods? ""‘°"" " ' " ' """" ”Y income “0105 to pay for the equipment we use in cooking? *" ""“' "' My income helps to pay for the dishes we buy for use in """"""‘ serving the food? ‘ a ....i -' ' --“ ..-...- Alwiy‘sb‘ifofi 'o'f' ' S'oin'e'; the time times not plan the menu ___I..-___.II.-__.J. participate in the preparation do theioutdoor cooking _ . -_J __.-_‘__. partLCipate 1n Serving the food 1 clean up after the meal ' make breakfast do the breakfast dishes set the table for the main meal do the dishes after the main meal take care of the garbage and trash make but the shopping list choose the place and the time to eat out _fi ~HHHHHHHHH- Do you go to the market to purchase food for your family? Yes No Could you indicate your degree of satisfaction with each of the-following items? Satisfied Usually Does Always most of Sometimes not Never not satisfied the time satisfied satisfied satisfied apply The location and accessability of the market The hours the market is open The special services of the market such as open dating or unit pricing The quality of service at the market The quality of the fruit The variety of the fruit The quality of the meat The variety of the meat The form in which the nest is available The quality of the vegetables The variety of the vegetables The quality of the milk and dairy products The variety of dairy products The quality of ready-prepared items like bakery products. potato salad. breasted chicken The variety of ready-prepared items The availability of store brands The availability of advertised brands The line of snack foods The availability of non-food itmes The availability of convenience items like 1\ dinners The availability of specialty foods like dietary foods. health foods, etc. The cost of food at this store in comparison with other stores L ' __l,..._.._ ’ ~ 1:13 This section is about your reactions to your meals. Because of individual likes and dislikes and the cost of food some meals are more satisfying than others. Indicate your satisfaction with each of the items below: Satisfied Usually Does Always most of Sometimes not Never not Are you satisfied with ........... satisfied the time satisfied sa satisfied 1 The frequency with which meat is included in your meals The kind of meat, fish or poultry in your meals The ease of preparation of meals The number of meals which you and your family enjoy together The lack of wasted or leftover food The number of meals which include foods that you like The amount of money spent on food The nutritional value of the meals The appearance of the food The way the food smells The number of meals eaten away from home The conversation at mealtime The tableware, like the dishes and glasses The covering on the table when meals are served The times when someone other than the family members eat with you The number of ready-prepared TAKE OUT foods eaten by your family: ex. Colonel Sanders The meals which have food items like those advertised on TV The meals which have foods like these your friends enjoy The frequency with which sandwiches are served The meals in which meat and potatoes are served The meals when there is enough food for everyone to eat The kind and form of desserts served The way the food tastes The location where the food is served Do you eat your meals together? Yes he Daily frequency where do you sit to eat your meals? _—-' ——_' Does everyone always sit at the same place hhat was your individual income last year, after taxes: a.$0-999. b.) $1,000-3,999. c.) 54,000-6,999. d.) $7,000-9,999. e.) $10,000-16,999. What was the family income last year, after taxes: a.) 50-999. b.) $1,000-3,000. c.) $4,000-b,999. d.) 37,0uO-9,999. e.) $10,0u0-10,999. Approximately how much do you spend for food each week? ...-..____ Do you have to prepare any special diets? Yes 30 if yes:'what J, Do you raise any of your own food? Yes No 1? yes, what Could you tell me what you have had to eat in the last 24 hours and approximately what amount you consumed of eacn of these foods FOODS COXSUIhD NIOUXT CONSUJEU LIST OF REFERENCES 10. 11. LIST OF REFERENCES Adelson, S. F. "Changes in Diets of Households, 1955 to 1965," Journal of Home Economics, 60:6, June, 1968, 443-55. Baker, G. R. "Patterning of Family Resources for Educability: Conceptualization and Measurement in Costa Rican Families." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1970, No. 71-11, 779. Biddle, B. J. and Thomas, E. J. (eds.) Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Bivens, G. E. "Convenience Foods 1955 to 1965," Journal of Home Economics, 61:1, January, 1965, 26-30. Blau, P. M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley, 1964. Blood, R. 0., Jr. and Wolfe, D. M. Husbands and Wives. New York: The Free Press, 1960. Broderick, C. B. "Beyond the Five Conceptual Frameworks: A Decade of Development in Family Theory," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33: February, 1971, 139-160. Brandt, K. Food and Civilization: A Symposium, Eds. S. M. Farber, N. L. Wilson anle. H. L. Wilson. Charles C. Thomas, 1966. Buckley, W. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967, 4, 37. Burk, M. C. "An Integrated Approach to Consumer Behavior," Journal of Home Economics, 59:3, March, 1967, 155-167. Burk, M. C. "Food Economic Behavior in Systems Terms," Journal of Home Economics, 62:5, May, 1970, 319-325. 114 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. .24. 115 Cohen, P. "The Retesting of an Instrument to Assess Dimensions of the Connotative Meaning of Foods for High Income Women." Unpublished masters thesis., University of Wisconsin, 1970. Downie, N. M. and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. 3d ed. New York: *Harper andiRow, T_70‘—_ 9 Edwards, J. "Familial Behavior as Social Exchange," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31 (1969), 518-526. Engel, J. F. (ed.) Consumer Behavior. Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968. Fewster, W. J. "The Development of an Instrument to Assess Dimensions of the Connotative Meaning of Foods." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1960, No. 69-22, 382. Firstenberger, E. "The Retesting of an Instrument to Assess Dimensions on the Connotative Meaning of Foods for Low Income Women." Unpublished masters thesis. University of Wisconsin, 1970. Fitzsimmons, C. The Management of Family Resources. San Francisco: FW. H. Freeman, 1951. Foa, U. G. "Interpersonal and Economic Resources," Science, 171: 1969 (1971), 345-51. Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council. Recommended Dietary Allowances. Washington, D.C. 1968. Foote, N. (ed.) Household Decision-Making. New York: New York University Press. 1961. Goode, W. J. "A Theory of Role Strain," American Sociological Review, 25:4, August, 1960, 483-96. Gross, I. H., Crandall, E. W., and Knoll, M. M. Management for Modern Families. 3d ed. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1973. Guest, L. "Brand Loyalty Revisited: A Twenty-Year Report," Journal of Applied Psychology, 48: 1964, 93-97. A r1 25. 26. 27.’ 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 116 Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Hall, A. D. and Fagen, R. E. "Definition of System,9 Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Ed. Walter Buckley (Aldine Publishing Cempany, 1968) 81-92. Hallenbeck, P. N. "An Analysis of Power Dynamics in Marriage," Journal of Marriage and-the Family, 28, May, 1966; 200-3. Hallenbeck, P. N., Skipper, J. K., Jr. and Fink, S. L. How the Severely Disabled Client Perceives the Problems of Daily Living. VRA Project No. 1584, Final Report. Cleveland, Ohio: Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services, July, 1966. Handel, G. (ed.) The Psychosocial Interior of the Family. Chicago: Aldine’Publishing Co. 1967. Hawley, A. H. Human Ecology. New York: The Ronald Press, 211. Harzmann, R. M. "Decision-making in Homes of Disabled Homemakers." Unpublished master's problem, Department of Home Management and Child Development, Michigan State University, 1964. ' Herbst, P. G. "The Measurement of Family Relationships," Human Relations. 5: 1952, 3-35. Herr, D. M. "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power,” Marriage and Family Living. 25: 1963, 477. Hill, R. "Judgement and Consumership in the Management of Family Resources," Consumer Behavior , Contemporayy Research in Action, Ed. R. J. HolloWay, R. A. Mittelstaedt, and M. Venkatesan. (Houghton- Mifflin Co., Boston, 1971). Hollingshead, A. F. .Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven, Cbnnecticut: 1965 Yale Station, 1957. (Mimeographed) Hook, N. C. "Relative Power Distribution as Related to Need Satisfaction in Families with a Wife- Mother Who Has a Rheumatic Disease," Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University microfilms, 1973. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 117 Hook, N. C. and Paolucci, B. "The Family as an Ecosystem, May, 1970, " Journal of Home Economics, 62:5, 315:8. Invaldson, Gary. Transformation Programs. Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 1972. Johannis, T. B. , Jr. and Rollins, J. M. "Teen-ager Perception of Family Decision-Making," The Coordinator, 7: 1959, 70-4. Katona, G. The Mass Consumption Society, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Kirkpatrick, C. "The Measurement of Ethical Consistency in Marriage," International Journal of Ethics. 46:444-60, July, 1936. in Ralph Turner,Family Interaction, 1970, 200. Lee, D. "Cultural Factors in Dietary Choice," Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 5: 1957, 166-70. Lewin, K. "A Group Test for Determining the Anchorage Points of Committee Liston, M. 1. Process," Food Habits," National Research Council. on Food Habits, 1943. (Mimeographed) "Management in the Family as Social In Conceptual Frameworks: Process of Home Management. Proceedings ofia Home Management Conference, East Lansing, Michigan. June 17-20, 1964. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association. Maslow, A. H. New York: Mead, M. Food Motivation and Personality. 2d ed. ’Harper and Bros., 1970. Habits Research: Problems of the 19605. National Academy of Sciences. National Research‘Council, Publication 1225. Washington, D.C., 1964. Merton, R. K. Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of’Theory and Research. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press of Glencoe, 1957. National Research Council. Report of the Committee on Food Habits. Manual for the Study of Food Habits. Bulletin 111, 1945) Reissued, 1962. Norris, R. T. New Haven: The Theory of Consumer Demand. Yale University Press, 1952 50. 51. 52. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62 118 Nye, I. and Berardo, F. Conceptual_§ramework for the Study of the Family. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Onorato, L. A. "Structures of Family Management in Two Socio-economic Classes," Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Parsons, T. and Bales, R. F. ,Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press, 1955. Pike, R. L. and Brown, M. L. Nutrition, An Integyated Approach. New York: John Wiley, 1967. Safilios-Rothschild, C. "The Study of Family Power Structure: A Review 1960-1969," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32: 539-52. Schopler, J. "Social Power," ed. L. Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 2: 1965, 177-218. Scheifley, V. M. and Schmidt, W. H. ”Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance—Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression," Occasional Paper, No. 22. Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University. October, 1973. Schlater, J. D. "The Management Process and Its Core Concepts," Journal of Home Economics, 59:2, February, 1967, 93-8. Simon, H. A. Models of Man. Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley, 1957. Stare, F. J. and McWilliams, M. Living Nutrition. New York: John Wiley, 1973. Stat System Group, ”PF COUNT” Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University. Straus, M. A. and Tallman, I. "SIMFAM: A Technique for Observational Measurement and Experimentation Study of Families," Familnyroblem Solving, ed. Joan Aldous, et. al. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1971, 381-438. Theodorson, G. "Human Ecology and Human Geography," Readings in Contemporary Sociology, ed. Joseph Roucek, (Patterson, New Jersey, 1961). 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 119 Turk, J. L. and Bell, N. W. "Measuring Power in Families," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34:2 (1972), 215-22. Turner, P. H. Family Interaction. Wiley, 1970, 219. U.S. Department of Agriculture. New York: John Co-operative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics. Women at Work. U.S.D.A., University of California and Orange COunty. February, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Service. Impact of the Expanded Food and Nutrition 1974. Economic Research Education Program on Low-Income Families. An Indepth Analysis. Agricultural Economic Report, No. 220. Washington, D.C., February, 1972. Ullensvang, Leon P. "Food Consumption Patterns in the Seventies," Vital Speeches of the Dgy, 36:8, February 1, 1970, 240-6. Von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1968. 3-17: 30-53. Watson, E. H. and Lowrey. Growth and Development of Children. 5th ed. Chicago: Medical Publishers, 1957. Wildening, E. A. and Bharadwaj Yearbook of’ , L. Aspirations, Work Roles and Decision-Making Patterns of Farm Husbands and WiVes in Wisconsin. Bulletin #266. University of’Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, April, 1966. ResearCH ' Zelditch, M., Jr. "Role Differentiation in the Nuclear Family: A Comparative Study," ed. Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family Socialization and Interaction Process. 1955, 3977452. New York: Free’Press, GQN STRTE UNIV 11111111111111 11111 111111111111111111111111